Trading procedures (1 Viewer)

[houndirish]

Does anyone allow/prohibit "poison pills" in your league trades? I recently had two owners put together a complex trade that had conditional trades/penalties that were linked to their original deal. For example, if one guy was receiving Tom Brady in the trade, he wasn't allowed to trade him to another team/division in the league without incurring some sort of penalty (had to give up a higher value pick, or got fined fictional league currency).

I have a concern over allowing these sorts of deals as I feel as though it promotes a certain level of collusion. I don't have an issue with conditional picks being included in a trade based on the performance of the players swapped but limiting the movement of players once a deal is complete has a certain stink to it. Am I off base here? Anyone have experience with this sort of thing in their league. Any bad repurcussions or am I overthinking this?

 

[cstu]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the terms are made public and it's not a "bye swap" trade.

 

[Keith R]

If the commish is able to follow and track all such "poison pills", I would have no trouble with it being part of the league rules. However, IMO, it must be clear in the rules that such things are allowed before such a trade can be made.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

what bull####. trading a player, and then controlling his fate while on another team is the definition of collusion. Its just collusion that the league knows about.

 

[Raider Nation]

A long time ago, a guy in my league had wood for Carl Pickens. He must have made an offer for him every day for two weeks. Finally, I gave in and traded him, but only on the condition that he wouldn't play him against me the next time we met. He agreed, and it was done.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

A long time ago, a guy in my league had wood for Carl Pickens. He must have made an offer for him every day for two weeks. Finally, I gave in and traded him, but only on the condition that he wouldn't play him against me the next time we met. He agreed, and it was done.

well u cheated then...

 

[Raider Nation]

A long time ago, a guy in my league had wood for Carl Pickens. He must have made an offer for him every day for two weeks. Finally, I gave in and traded him, but only on the condition that he wouldn't play him against me the next time we met. He agreed, and it was done.

well u cheated then...

Yeah, you know... or not.

 

[dwashington]

speaking as a commissioner, its not about allowing or disallowing them, it's all about recognizing them.

if you ignore it and make no effort to resolve breach of poison pill disputes, then it doesn't exist.

owners gamble at your own risk.

 

[AnonymousBob]

what bull####. trading a player, and then controlling his fate while on another team is the definition of collusion. Its just collusion that the league knows about.

Seriously.It'd be like the Packers putting a poison pill in a contract with Tampa if they tried re-trading Favre to the Vikings.Or the Vikings making an offer to Hutchinson.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

what bull####. trading a player, and then controlling his fate while on another team is the definition of collusion. Its just collusion that the league knows about.

Seriously.It'd be like the Packers putting a poison pill in a contract with Tampa if they tried re-trading Favre to the Vikings.Or the Vikings making an offer to Hutchinson.

that only applies if you play in a salary cap league. if u play in leagues where all the jabrones trade theiur players to their friends for certain matchups/weeks. Ok you get colston when I play my divison, and we'll swap back after that!

 

[AnonymousBob]

what bull####. trading a player, and then controlling his fate while on another team is the definition of collusion. Its just collusion that the league knows about.

Seriously.It'd be like the Packers putting a poison pill in a contract with Tampa if they tried re-trading Favre to the Vikings.Or the Vikings making an offer to Hutchinson.

that only applies if you play in a salary cap league. if u play in leagues where all the jabrones trade theiur players to their friends for certain matchups/weeks. Ok you get colston when I play my divison, and we'll swap back after that!

That situation is not quite what the OP was referring to.

 

[thayman]

It's come up in my main league.....we felt it involved way too much work tracking and making sure all rules are enforced.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Same thing happened just last week in my league.

Team A traded Chester Taylor to Team B. If Taylor ends up on Team C (the Peterson owner, and Team A's primary rival) via any means at any time during the 2008 season, then Team B has to give Team A a couple of additional high draft picks.

If I were the commish of this league I probably wouldn't allow it, just because I wouldn't want to deal with the work of keeping up with all these various clauses. But I definitely trust the commish of this league to not let things slip through the cracks. So I have no problem with it whatsoever.

EDIT TO ADD: the tricky part isn't necessarily just remembering about the penalty if Taylor is traded to Team C, it's keeping track of the "collateral." E.g. if the poison pill was Team B's 2009 first round pick, for instance, then Team B probably shouldn't be allowed to trade its 2009 first round pick, as that's potentially part of the Taylor deal.

 

[GregR_2]

I hadn't considered this as it's never come up in any of my leagues.

Going to have to think about it. I definitely don't like the thought of allowing it. The wording of our rules would pretty much allow it right now so long as it is a "clearly defined condition", and as long as the condition is submitted along with the trade at the time it was made.

An example of a conditional trade we had a few years back was a Priest Holmes trade that if he retired before the next season, the pick given up would revert from a 6th to an 11th. I think that's a good example of conditional trading, the team taking on the risk gets it mitigated somewhat if the player turns out to not be worth anything. Well, ok, it would have been good if he'd gone with "Not played the following season" instead of "retired", but in concept it was good.

 

[habsfan]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't really see the work involved with "keeping up with" these trades. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the party being wronged to address it with the commissioner. In other words, "you'll recall the terms of the trade, this is how they violated it and this was the agreed compensation". In this situation you are really just validating the circumstances and potentially enforcing the consequences.

I also don't see the direct link between this and collusion. To me it is a means to mitigate some of the risks that keep trades from going through so ultimately it promotes more deals and liquidity in your league.

 

[T Bell]

I don't have a problem with it as long as the terms are made public and it's not a "bye swap" trade.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

what bull####. trading a player, and then controlling his fate while on another team is the definition of collusion. Its just collusion that the league knows about.

Seriously.It'd be like the Packers putting a poison pill in a contract with Tampa if they tried re-trading Favre to the Vikings.Or the Vikings making an offer to Hutchinson.

that only applies if you play in a salary cap league. if u play in leagues where all the jabrones trade theiur players to their friends for certain matchups/weeks. Ok you get colston when I play my divison, and we'll swap back after that!

That situation is not quite what the OP was referring to.

Not much different. I'll trade to you Pickens, but you can't use him against me (ostensibly b/c my 1-3 wrs are good enough to deal pickens) amounts to a defacto way for me to start pickens (who I can't as 4th receiver) against my opponents (b/c i ship him to another squad)

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Same thing happened just last week in my league. Team A traded Chester Taylor to Team B. If Taylor ends up on Team C (the Peterson owner, and Team A's primary rival) via any means at any time during the 2008 season, then Team B has to give Team A a couple of additional high draft picks.If I were the commish of this league I probably wouldn't allow it, just because I wouldn't want to deal with the work of keeping up with all these various clauses. But I definitely trust the commish of this league to not let things slip through the cracks. So I have no problem with it whatsoever.EDIT TO ADD: the tricky part isn't necessarily just remembering about the penalty if Taylor is traded to Team C, it's keeping track of the "collateral." E.g. if the poison pill was Team B's 2009 first round pick, for instance, then Team B probably shouldn't be allowed to trade its 2009 first round pick, as that's potentially part of the Taylor deal.

Now that scenario I don't mind as much, as it doesn't restrict the use of c taylor vs the original owner. That's the aspect that makes it collusory IMO.

 

[T Bell]

Same thing happened just last week in my league. Team A traded Chester Taylor to Team B. If Taylor ends up on Team C (the Peterson owner, and Team A's primary rival) via any means at any time during the 2008 season, then Team B has to give Team A a couple of additional high draft picks.If I were the commish of this league I probably wouldn't allow it, just because I wouldn't want to deal with the work of keeping up with all these various clauses. But I definitely trust the commish of this league to not let things slip through the cracks. So I have no problem with it whatsoever.EDIT TO ADD: the tricky part isn't necessarily just remembering about the penalty if Taylor is traded to Team C, it's keeping track of the "collateral." E.g. if the poison pill was Team B's 2009 first round pick, for instance, then Team B probably shouldn't be allowed to trade its 2009 first round pick, as that's potentially part of the Taylor deal.

Now that scenario I don't mind as much, as it doesn't restrict the use of c taylor vs the original owner. That's the aspect that makes it collusory IMO.

The burden on the commish is easily addressed - the parties have to publicly post all of the terms they want enforced, preferably on the team message board, and then the party benefitting from a certain term has the obligation to protest to the commish if/when it's violated, as in the case of additional draft picks being traded away by the other team instead of being held as a penalty. This is the only way it can work.

 

[DoubleG]

Another common "check" for us is, "Would this be allowed in the real NFL?" - since poison pills are, as long as the terms were made public, it would be acceptable.

Players going back and forth between 2 teams multiple times a year is not - nor is "he can't play against me when I play you" as these are not a realistic contract/negotiating options in the NFL.

 

[GregR_2]

Same thing happened just last week in my league. Team A traded Chester Taylor to Team B. If Taylor ends up on Team C (the Peterson owner, and Team A's primary rival) via any means at any time during the 2008 season, then Team B has to give Team A a couple of additional high draft picks.If I were the commish of this league I probably wouldn't allow it, just because I wouldn't want to deal with the work of keeping up with all these various clauses. But I definitely trust the commish of this league to not let things slip through the cracks. So I have no problem with it whatsoever.EDIT TO ADD: the tricky part isn't necessarily just remembering about the penalty if Taylor is traded to Team C, it's keeping track of the "collateral." E.g. if the poison pill was Team B's 2009 first round pick, for instance, then Team B probably shouldn't be allowed to trade its 2009 first round pick, as that's potentially part of the Taylor deal.

Now that scenario I don't mind as much, as it doesn't restrict the use of c taylor vs the original owner. That's the aspect that makes it collusory IMO.

The burden on the commish is easily addressed - the parties have to publicly post all of the terms they want enforced, preferably on the team message board, and then the party benefitting from a certain term has the obligation to protest to the commish if/when it's violated, as in the case of additional draft picks being traded away by the other team instead of being held as a penalty. This is the only way it can work.

It is is easier to say it's easy to address than it is to deal with the real situations that can arise though.For example. Doug and I trade and we have a trade clause that on some conditions I have to give my 2nd round pick next year. I later trade my 2nd rounder to you for Witten. I start Witten for 2 weeks. Two weeks later someone points out to Doug that I don't have my 2nd, a fact he missed when the trade first happened, and he protests. What does a commissioner do now? Do you just return the 2nd to me and Witten to the your team? Do you change my lineup to remove Witten from my scores, and insert the guy I had been starting (who may not be the guy I'd have started if I didn't have Witten)? Do you edit your lineup to put Witten back in for you? What if I cut my original starter already and someone else picked him up and used him? I'm not saying you couldn't come up with a ruling to deal with the above situation, I'm saying it isn't necessarily always easy to overcome these things after the fact. Sometimes there is no answer that is fair to everyone. The best way to deal with such a situation is to do your utmost to avoid it happening in the first place.That doesn't necessarily mean that conditional trades shouldn't be allowed because of the downside. But I think it is good that Doug is pointing out that is the kind of issue you have to be cognizant of if you're going to allow these kind of trades, so you can take the steps to limit it turning into a problem.

 

[fasteddie_21]

Same thing happened just last week in my league. Team A traded Chester Taylor to Team B. If Taylor ends up on Team C (the Peterson owner, and Team A's primary rival) via any means at any time during the 2008 season, then Team B has to give Team A a couple of additional high draft picks.If I were the commish of this league I probably wouldn't allow it, just because I wouldn't want to deal with the work of keeping up with all these various clauses. But I definitely trust the commish of this league to not let things slip through the cracks. So I have no problem with it whatsoever.EDIT TO ADD: the tricky part isn't necessarily just remembering about the penalty if Taylor is traded to Team C, it's keeping track of the "collateral." E.g. if the poison pill was Team B's 2009 first round pick, for instance, then Team B probably shouldn't be allowed to trade its 2009 first round pick, as that's potentially part of the Taylor deal.

Now that scenario I don't mind as much, as it doesn't restrict the use of c taylor vs the original owner. That's the aspect that makes it collusory IMO.

The burden on the commish is easily addressed - the parties have to publicly post all of the terms they want enforced, preferably on the team message board, and then the party benefitting from a certain term has the obligation to protest to the commish if/when it's violated, as in the case of additional draft picks being traded away by the other team instead of being held as a penalty. This is the only way it can work.

It is is easier to say it's easy to address than it is to deal with the real situations that can arise though.For example. Doug and I trade and we have a trade clause that on some conditions I have to give my 2nd round pick next year. I later trade my 2nd rounder to you for Witten. I start Witten for 2 weeks. Two weeks later someone points out to Doug that I don't have my 2nd, a fact he missed when the trade first happened, and he protests. What does a commissioner do now? Do you just return the 2nd to me and Witten to the your team? Do you change my lineup to remove Witten from my scores, and insert the guy I had been starting (who may not be the guy I'd have started if I didn't have Witten)? Do you edit your lineup to put Witten back in for you? What if I cut my original starter already and someone else picked him up and used him? I'm not saying you couldn't come up with a ruling to deal with the above situation, I'm saying it isn't necessarily always easy to overcome these things after the fact. Sometimes there is no answer that is fair to everyone. The best way to deal with such a situation is to do your utmost to avoid it happening in the first place.That doesn't necessarily mean that conditional trades shouldn't be allowed because of the downside. But I think it is good that Doug is pointing out that is the kind of issue you have to be cognizant of if you're going to allow these kind of trades, so you can take the steps to limit it turning into a problem.

In the above scenario, it's the Commish's fault for not being on top of the situation when the trade for Witten occured. IMO, if the league/commish allow for 'poison pills' then it's their job to stay on top of them. I'm not sure what I'd rule if it did slip by, but imo, I'm really ok with the idea of poison pills as long as the conditions are clearly stated at the time of the trade.

 

[twr]

a trade should never be put through without the comm's approval. so the above case should never happen, unless he overlooks the "pill"

 

[Doug Drinen]

I'd be against this if you want a lot of activity in your league.Now you have players that won't be trade (or have less of a chance of being traded). It certainly doesn't promote league activity, I'd say it hinders it.

I disagree. In my Chester Taylor example, the original Taylor owner simply wouldn't have traded Chester at all if the poison pill hadn't been allowed. In our league...Poison pill allowed = lots of discussions involving Taylor, and one trade involving TaylorPoison pill not allowed = no discussion and no trades. Original owner simply states that he's not on the market.It's almost a logical impossibility that placing less restrictions on what kinds of trades are allowed (i.e. allowing poison pill clauses) could lead to less trading.

 

[bostonfred]

For example. Doug and I trade and we have a trade clause that on some conditions I have to give my 2nd round pick next year. I later trade my 2nd rounder to you for Witten. I start Witten for 2 weeks. Two weeks later someone points out to Doug that I don't have my 2nd, a fact he missed when the trade first happened, and he protests. What does a commissioner do now? Do you just return the 2nd to me and Witten to the your team? Do you change my lineup to remove Witten from my scores, and insert the guy I had been starting (who may not be the guy I'd have started if I didn't have Witten)? Do you edit your lineup to put Witten back in for you? What if I cut my original starter already and someone else picked him up and used him?

The answer to that quesiton is that you owe both of them a second round pick. If you are unable to provide your second round pick, you may replace it with something of equal or greater value. You may give him your first round pick, you may trade for a pick that was earlier than your second round pick would have been, or you may trade something to Doug in return for the rights to your since departed second. You still owe both of them a second round pick of equal or greater value than the one you would naturally have. Both of the trade partners holding rights to "your second" have the ability to trade that asset back to you in a way that will release you of your obligation, and they may set a market such that one of them is willing to release his rights for a player like Plaxico, while the other would only accept a pick. Now you can decide which offer you prefer. In the event that no compromise is reached and you end up giving up two picks, one earlier and one later, then you cannot choose which team receives the "better" pick. The commissioner should use a random method to determine which team gets the "better" pick, just like an unbreakable tie for draft order in the NFL uses a coinflip. Note also that the two parties holding "your second" should be able to trade the rights to it if they want, and the new party owning "your second" would take over all rights described above. In other words, there should be no restriction on trade value for either team to whom you traded the rights to your second.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Does anyone allow/prohibit "poison pills" in your league trades? I recently had two owners put together a complex trade that had conditional trades/penalties that were linked to their original deal. For example, if one guy was receiving Tom Brady in the trade, he wasn't allowed to trade him to another team/division in the league without incurring some sort of penalty (had to give up a higher value pick, or got fined fictional league currency). I have a concern over allowing these sorts of deals as I feel as though it promotes a certain level of collusion. I don't have an issue with conditional picks being included in a trade based on the performance of the players swapped but limiting the movement of players once a deal is complete has a certain stink to it. Am I off base here? Anyone have experience with this sort of thing in their league. Any bad repurcussions or am I overthinking this?

No conditional trades allowed

 

[BaBastage]

I've got to throw my hat in the "I don't like this" column for a couple of reasons, most already mentioned in this thread:

1) Too many of these could become administrative spaghetti for the commish. At bare minimum, you'd better have a clause that says "if no parties contest a week's results by the start of the next weeks' games, the results are final.", otherwise I could see a chain reaction several weeks later.

2) What about disclosure? Who's responsibility is it to make sure a third owner receiving a conditional player (from a prior owner's agreement) understands everything? Even though these things are in writing, I can see problems.

3) What happens to resolve a paradox? (When two or more trades have been made that have clauses that contradict each other.) What if that paradox went unnoticed until after results were final? (see #1)

4) Any type of "I'll trade you so-and-so agreements, but you can't then use him when you play me, or allow him to go to owner Z" agreements are pure collusion, plain and simple.

Like the OP, I'd probably consider a few very specific examples, like a future pick value based on performance (If Payer X gets more than Y points, then I get a 4th round pick next year.) but that'd be about it.

At the end of the day, every league is different, these are just my opinions. If your league is cool with it, and it's all above-board, then I won't say you shouldn't do it.

 

[houndirish]

Thanks for the feedback fella's. We decided against the poison pills which actually didn't meet with much objection from either owner. Apparently they saw my concern over the posisble collusion too.

We already previously allowed conditional trades so that aspect wasn't a concern.