keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 First: Under no circumstances would I allow this trade UNLESS the team giving up the draft picks pays NOW for next year. Second: Even though it is not a "secret agreement" this smacks of collusion; i.e. I forfeit my season this year and give you my studs so you can win and next year you forfeit your studs (draft picks 1 thru 4) so I can win. [EDIT TO ADD] And I would suspect that the collusive element is that both owners could be splitting the winnings this year and next. 1st they both are paid up(states so in the post)...2nd you are out of your Frickin mind Clearly in dynasty/keeper leagues a valid strategy is to trade way current value for future value when your team appears to be out of contention. That is not collusive but smart. The real problem here is that LT and Addai can not be kept because of their draft position and as such have no value to a team that is out of contention ... this screams for owners that have these players to trade them for future picks or for lesser players that can be kept. No the thing that makes this trade smell bad is the fact that the team getting LT and Addai is giving up his next year. If you allow this type of strategy what is to prevent two owners from employing this strategy every year? so what if he wants to sacrifice next yr for a shot this year...its HIS MONEY and who says that he cant draft a good team next yr without a pick in the 1st 4 rounds? This year there are a ton of examples of picks that are hurt or busts in the 1st four rounds...now i think he will face an up hill battle but you cant fault him for trying to win a championship....maybe he has never won one and sees this as his best chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I'll reiterate what some of the others have said, the league structure pretty much dictates that strategically speaking the teams towards the bottom of the standings make these types of trades, and the teams at the top of the standings forego future picks in the attempt to pick up studs for this year, knowing full well that they can't keep them beyond this season. I'm in a similar situation in an auction league (Grits is in it) where I have Steve Smith in the final year of his contract. I can either deal him to a team that is in contention right now and get something in return (ideally younger players with upside and with longer contracts), knowing full well that I am not getting full Steve Smith value in standard leagues, as he is a one year boost for a team (unless they decide to franchise him), but that I am positioning myself for a better team for the next couple of years. If I do not move him, I either have to commit a very significant portion of my cap towards franchising him or let him go for nothing. Obviously, the most beneficial solution for me is to try and deal him. Regarding the particular question at hand, I see nothing wrong with the trade as strategically speaking it helps both teams within the confines of the league structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elrond Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 First of all, I would allow the trade as it seems to be well within your league’s rules…. unless you have a clause that allows the Commish to reject trades based on making the league uncompetitive, which this almost certainly will do for the next couple years. Do you want to go down that road though? Mmmm, no, not really. You could try something like this instead. Institute a rule that limits the length of time players can be kept, say the year they were drafted plus 1 or 2 additional years. That way you will always have some top talent available, and some top talent keep-able. Don’t require teams to keep anyone. Set your draft up so teams that don’t keep anyone (or keep less than 3) get to draft until they have 3 players on their roster. Let’s call this the “Supplemental Draft.” Choose the draft order for the supplemental at random. Say this year you had Joseph Addai and a couple other real strong keepers, but you knew that LT2’s contract was up and he would be available. Do you cut Addai and everyone else to get a crack at LT? Do not allow owners to trade picks in the Supplemental Draft. Finally, set a limit on the number of picks a team can trade, and make it one pick for one player deals only. Phew, lots of new rules. Probably will have some “unintended consequences”, but most definitely will eliminate fire sale trades like the one you are dealing with now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Use a salary Cap. We use a very basic salary cap in our league and the mere existence of this cap would not allow this trade simply because the owner getting LT & Addai would probably exceed the cap this year and if not then he certainly would have a problem at the draft next year with 8 picks in rds 1-4. See we assign salaries by the round in which a player is drafted. A 1st rd draft pick makes 2.2 million a year. Each rd after that makes $100,000 less so a 2nd rd player makes 2.1 million. We draft 22 players so the 22nd rd player makes 100,000. So after the draft a teams payroll would be about 25.3 million, give or take based on the salaries of last years keepers. Our cap is 31.4 million. We due blind bidding for waivers and our bids reflect the salaries we will pay the players so a team would only have to increase their payroll by about 3 million before adding LT & Addai would put them over the cap, unless they unloaded some other big salaried players. And then when you look at a guy adding 4 extra picks in rds 1-4 in next year draft you are probably looking at a guy who couldn't get out of the draft without breaking the salary cap. I also agree with being less restrictive in who you are allowed to keep, we also keep three but we have salary tiers and we can keep one player from each tier 100,000 - 700,000 800,000 - 1.6 million 1.7 million and up This allows us to keep some good players while returning a lot of good players to the draft each year. We have a lot of trade activity every year, and draft picks get traded every year but we have never had a trade like the one you described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 First of all, I would allow the trade as it seems to be well within your league’s rules…. unless you have a clause that allows the Commish to reject trades based on making the league uncompetitive, which this almost certainly will do for the next couple years. Do you want to go down that road though? Mmmm, no, not really. You could try something like this instead. Institute a rule that limits the length of time players can be kept, say the year they were drafted plus 1 or 2 additional years. That way you will always have some top talent available, and some top talent keep-able. Don’t require teams to keep anyone. Set your draft up so teams that don’t keep anyone (or keep less than 3) get to draft until they have 3 players on their roster. Let’s call this the “Supplemental Draft.” Choose the draft order for the supplemental at random. Say this year you had Joseph Addai and a couple other real strong keepers, but you knew that LT2’s contract was up and he would be available. Do you cut Addai and everyone else to get a crack at LT? Do not allow owners to trade picks in the Supplemental Draft. Finally, set a limit on the number of picks a team can trade, and make it one pick for one player deals only. Phew, lots of new rules. Probably will have some “unintended consequences”, but most definitely will eliminate fire sale trades like the one you are dealing with now. Lots of great ideas here. As far as this particular trade goes, one of our rules is that I have the ability to veto trades outright if they are blantantly lopsided or collusion. On more questionable trades (such as this one), I reserve the right to put them to a league vote, in which case the trade is allowed and processed unless there is a majority vote to veto. Ultimately, this particular trade looks to be vetoed. But again, the league is only in its second season, so everyone has an understanding that the kinks in the rules are constantly being worked out. I like the one player for one draft pick rule. Although this won't eliminate forms of firesales altogether, it will at least limit the detriment to the league competition year to year. The only problem then is that the Addai/LT owner would just throw in two scrubs to get his two extra draft picks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) Lots of great ideas here. As far as this particular trade goes, one of our rules is that I have the ability to veto trades outright if they are blantantly lopsided or collusion. On more questionable trades (such as this one), I reserve the right to put them to a league vote, in which case the trade is allowed and processed unless there is a majority vote to veto. Ultimately, this particular trade looks to be vetoed. But again, the league is only in its second season, so everyone has an understanding that the kinks in the rules are constantly being worked out. I like the one player for one draft pick rule. Although this won't eliminate forms of firesales altogether, it will at least limit the detriment to the league competition year to year. The only problem then is that the Addai/LT owner would just throw in two scrubs to get his two extra draft picks... you are a commish not a stupid sitter nor do you have a crystal ball....would you have vetoed a trade 3 days after your draft of SAlexander/SSmith/Harrison for MB3/TJ/Moss?....if the league wants the commish to rule on what is an ok trade then maybe the commish should give everyone cheat sheets that he makes up and enforce everyone to draft from it without deviation....there is no reason to veto that trade. Edited October 31, 2007 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 you are a commish not a stupid sitter nor do you have a crystal ball....would you have vetoed a trade 3 days after your draft of SAlexander/SSmith/Harrison for MB3/TJ/Moss?....if the league wants the commish to rule on what is an ok trade then maybe the commish should give everyone cheat sheets that he makes up and enforce everyone to draft from it without deviation....there is no reason to veto that trade. There has to be SOME sort of preventative measure against a trade ruining the season for everyone else in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 There has to be SOME sort of preventative measure against a trade ruining the season for everyone else in the league. nothing they did was against the rules...NOTHING....to veto that trade would essentially be changing the rules....you want to avoid it next yr then make changes for next yr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 nothing they did was against the rules...NOTHING....to veto that trade would essentially be changing the rules....you want to avoid it next yr then make changes for next yr. The rules this year also state that the league has the ability to vote on trades. So the fate of THIS trade is ultimately up to the league. Looking ahead though.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 nothing they did was against the rules...NOTHING....to veto that trade would essentially be changing the rules....you want to avoid it next yr then make changes for next yr. There's a difference between the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. If somebody traded LT and Addai to another team for a fifth-round pick, that would not be technically against the rules, either. But it would be a ridiculous trade that gives a massive middle finger to the competitive nature of the league. As has been mentioned here earlier, either the trade deadline or the keeper rules need to be modified to prevent this sort of garbage. I don't like the concept of vetoing trades, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 There's a difference between the letter of the rules and the spirit of the rules. If somebody traded LT and Addai to another team for a fifth-round pick, that would not be technically against the rules, either. But it would be a ridiculous trade that gives a massive middle finger to the competitive nature of the league. As has been mentioned here earlier, either the trade deadline or the keeper rules need to be modified to prevent this sort of garbage. I don't like the concept of vetoing trades, either. but it wasnt a 5th round pick....giving a 5th rounder would show that someone is a complete and utter dumb ass or there is possible collusion to look for....but what happened was one commodity was traded for another....when you deal in dynasty/keeper leagues there will be times that people will put their eye on the future the same as they may put it on the here and now...but in the end if they are paying their money and not breaking any rules you let them make the trade...if you dont lilke it you try and change it the following year.....if you cant deal with futures trades then keeper/dynasty leagues probably arent for you(you doesnt specifically mean you swerski) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoog Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Three questions: 1 - Are either of the players "protectable" for next season by the receiving team? 2 - What are the draft picks that are being returned in the deal. Obviously, the team getting the picks is not going to be allowed to draft four more players than everyone else. 3 - Is it mandatory that teams designate keepers? And I agree with the payment idea. In my league, all teams involved in trades involving future draft picks must pay, up front, the league fees for the years effected by the trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 Three questions: 1 - Are either of the players "protectable" for next season by the receiving team? 2 - What are the draft picks that are being returned in the deal. Obviously, the team getting the picks is not going to be allowed to draft four more players than everyone else. 3 - Is it mandatory that teams designate keepers? And I agree with the payment idea. In my league, all teams involved in trades involving future draft picks must pay, up front, the league fees for the years effected by the trade. 1) Neither Addai nor LT have any 'keeper' value for next season. 2) The team giving up LT/Addai would give up his last four picks of the drafts. 3) It is not mandatory to designate keepers. And yeah..the payment thing was a must. I can't stand the idea of reducing such a fun, competitive league of friends to just a contest for prize moneys. Matter of fact, this particular trade was accompanied by this message, 'This trade will GUARANTEE you a spot in the playoffs. Think about it, $300 now is worth $300 two years from now.' F that. I just need to think of a fair way to fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 F that. I just need to think of a fair way to fix it. that is not your job as a commish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 that is not your job as a commish My job as commish is not to create and maintain a framework to facilitate fun and competition in the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 First: Under no circumstances would I allow this trade UNLESS the team giving up the draft picks pays NOW for next year. My keeper leagues require 1/2 pmt of next season upon any trades involving future draft picks. So in a $150 entry league, if you want to trade future picks, it'll cost you $75 now to do so, to insure you'll be back or forfiet your $. This is a great point and should be implimented into you league rules by a vote now. Place a poll to amend your rules now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 My job as commish is not to create and maintain a framework to facilitate fun and competition in the league? your job is to enforce the rules not try to decide what is fair and not fair....especially mid season...and to look at things impartially....i dont think you are doing the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What sucks is this kind of trade is exactly what keeper leagues were built to encourage. You have one team out of it now, with two stud players that have no long term value to him. He has the opportunity to parlay those players into a commodity for next season. He is foregoing the now for the later.This is the intent of a keeper league. On the flip side, you have an owner on the verge of winning this season that foregoes some of his future in order to help solidify his position this season. He is forgoing the later for the now. This is the intent of a keeper league. Would you be whining of he sent LT to one owner for say a first and a third and then send Addai to another owner for a first and a third as well? Each of those deals would be perfectly fair IMO. Would you veto either of those? By sending the players to the same owner, in a sense he may be getting less than he could of received by sending them to the same owner for 1st thru 4th round picks. He may well have cost himself an additional first rounder by sending them to the same owner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 My keeper leagues require 1/2 pmt of next season upon any trades involving future draft picks. So in a $150 entry league, if you want to trade future picks, it'll cost you $75 now to do so, to insure you'll be back or forfiet your $. This is a great point and should be implimented into you league rules by a vote now. Place a poll to amend your rules now. they are 100% paid for next yr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 they are 100% paid for next yr In that case, the trade MUST be permitted. If you don't like the rules your league has in place, you'll have to change them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theeohiostate Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) What has me a little concerned is the possiblilty of collusion. They may have agreed to do a 50-50 split this year and next year, giving them a VERY HIGH chance of taking all the money 2 seasons in a row. As commish, you have to be prepared to ask them some questions, which this trade deserves. Judge the responses you get and their history as league mates before accepting or declining the trade. A rule we have in most leagues, is the Commish can veto any trade on grounds like this, BUT, it then goes to a majority league vote. So while the commish may make a bad decision, the league has the opportunity to correct it. Edited October 31, 2007 by theeohiostate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arianimal Posted October 31, 2007 Author Share Posted October 31, 2007 (edited) In that case, the trade MUST be permitted. If you don't like the rules your league has in place, you'll have to change them. Thanks for the input guy. That's the secondary point of this thread. IMO, giving up midway through the season and stockpiling draft picks for next season diminshes the integrity of the league. All that's left now is for the other teams that are actually UNDER .500 start trading away their studs for next year's draft picks. And if you buy into the 'everyone can do it' idea, then those of us that have and want a legitimate chance of winning this year will have next to no chance of winning next year. We'd have given away all our draft picks in return for studs (to compete with the team in this scenario) and will be playing against GMs that have stockpiled 8 draft picks in the first four rounds. I need help picking the appropriate rules to prevent these sorts of 'firesales' in future seasons. Edited October 31, 2007 by Arianimal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 but it wasnt a 5th round pick....giving a 5th rounder would show that someone is a complete and utter dumb ass or there is possible collusion to look for....but what happened was one commodity was traded for another. I wasn't talking about THAT trade in particular, but your general "anything goes, as long as it's within the letter of the rules" argument. It's not that simple because there's always a gray area. How exactly do you "prove" collusion? How does one objectively differentiate cheating from one owner just being incredibly naive/stupid? but in the end if they are paying their money and not breaking any rules you let them make the trade...if you dont lilke it you try and change it the following year.... I agree with that. One cannot change the rules mid-season. .if you cant deal with futures trades then keeper/dynasty leagues probably arent for you(you doesnt specifically mean you swerski) Or, better yet, don't set up a "keeper league" with a rule about not being able to keep your best players. That's what's giving the owners in this league incentive to hold these ridiculous mid-season firesales. Throw out that (retarded, IMO) rule and let the owners run their teams like real NFL GMs: Let them keep their best players over the long term to build a winner. And emphasize intelligent drafting and savvy waiver wire moves, rather than encouraging owners to get into ridiculous bidding wars for multiple top-tier players at the trade deadline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Keg ... I get where you are coming from as I am a very stringent proponent of commissioners staying out of trades. In addition I understand the implicaitons of trades in keeper leagues. The biggest problem I have with the whole thing is that an owner is throwing away an entire season in the future (surely you don't believe a competitive team can be built after sitting out the first four rounds?). Even if the owner pre-pays and returns next year it is almost a given that this particular owner will not be interested and will be uncompetitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Thanks for the input guy. That's the secondary point of this thread. IMO, giving up midway through the season and stockpiling draft picks for next season diminshes the integrity of the league. All that's left now is for the other teams that are actually UNDER .500 start trading away their studs for next year's draft picks. And if you buy into the 'everyone can do it' idea, then those of us that have and want a legitimate chance of winning this year will have next to no chance of winning next year. We'd have given away all our draft picks in return for studs (to compete with the team in this scenario) and will be playing against GMs that have stockpiled 8 draft picks in the first four rounds. I need help picking the appropriate rules to prevent these sorts of 'firesales' in future seasons. not trying to be rude but you may not be cut out for keeper/dynasty leagues then also you are assuming that the guy with the draft pick side of the deal is gonna draft all winners....there is NO guarantee of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.