What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rule question/interpretation (1 Viewer)

R

roarlions

Footballguy
I think most, if not all, dynasty leagues have a rule requiring owners who trade future 1st round draft picks to pay some portion of their league fee for the following year.

In one of my leagues, the rule states that trading a future 1st round draft pick requires payment of 1/2 the league fee for the next season. Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me. But an owner who acquired multiple 1st round draft picks from other teams is arguing that the rule shouldn't apply to him trading the picks he acquired from the other teams since those teams have already paid 1/2 of their league fee when they traded the picks to him. He thinks it should only apply to each team's original draft pick and since he hasn't traded his original pick he shouldn't have to pay 1/2 of the league fee for 2021. Doesn't make sense to me but it looks like it will be put up for league vote.

Interested in hearing opinions about this situation.

 
My interpretation is that a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, doesn't matter where it came from. The payments made by other teams discourage them from bailing on the league, but they have no influence on the current owner bailing. He's trading a 1st round pick (actually multiple 1st rounders in this situation) and could just as easily bail even though his original pick has not been dealt.

I anticipate a league vote will not agree with my view so the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically state that it only applies to the owner's original pick, but as currently written that isn't what it states.

 
Dr. Dan said:
So if he trades 3 first rounders, does he pay 150% of the dues for next year? see your flawed logic?

What if that exact 1st rounder is traded 25 times in a 12 team league? Then there is a surplus. 

He still has his own first rounder, which is exactly what the rule is intended for- trading your own 1st and bailing. If he bails he still has his original 1st rounder and it will be fine to find someone to take over his team
Click to expand...
Sure, I see the poor wording of the current rule and no one is being forced to pay for each 1st rounder that they trade, only for the 1st trade they make involving a 1st rounder. I have no problem with the rule being rewritten after a league vote, just trying to deal with the rule as currently written. 

 
Agree with others that it should only apply to your own first round, but I'd likely take it a step further and really say it should only come into play if the trade leaves you without a first round pick. Say this guy has 3 1sts right now - who cares what 1st he trades away, as long as he still has at least one in that year he really shouldn't need to pay.

 
roarlions said:
My interpretation is that a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, doesn't matter where it came from. The payments made by other teams discourage them from bailing on the league, but they have no influence on the current owner bailing. He's trading a 1st round pick (actually multiple 1st rounders in this situation) and could just as easily bail even though his original pick has not been dealt.

I anticipate a league vote will not agree with my view so the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically state that it only applies to the owner's original pick, but as currently written that isn't what it states.
Click to expand...
I guess you can take the opinion using semantics. I think everyone here knew the spirit of the rule. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
He is correct.   The rule is there so people dont trade their future and then bail.  He isnt dealing his own pick.  

He should be allowed to deal other people's picks.  Seems obvious.
Click to expand...
I'd take it one step further - if he keeps ANY of those firsts he's in compliance. 

roarlions said:
My interpretation is that a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, doesn't matter where it came from. The payments made by other teams discourage them from bailing on the league, but they have no influence on the current owner bailing. He's trading a 1st round pick (actually multiple 1st rounders in this situation) and could just as easily bail even though his original pick has not been dealt.

I anticipate a league vote will not agree with my view so the rule will likely be rewritten to specifically state that it only applies to the owner's original pick, but as currently written that isn't what it states.
Click to expand...
That's not all it does, and it's not even the most important.  It ensures that if they do bail, it's a lot easier to find a replacement to take over if they have left the team in a bad spot because the new owner can get a free roll for the year.  THAT is the intent of the rule.

 
It's pretty obvious the purpose of the rule is to insure an owner doesn't gut their roster by trading away a significant future value (often making finding a replacement owner extremely difficult) without having a future investment in maintaining ownership.  Once that 50% has been paid on any 1st round pick this has been accomplished.  So no, he should not have to pay on any pick other than his own - and in addition, he's not the one you were originally worried about when you created the rule.

 
acarey50 said:
Agree with others that it should only apply to your own first round, but I'd likely take it a step further and really say it should only come into play if the trade leaves you without a first round pick. Say this guy has 3 1sts right now - who cares what 1st he trades away, as long as he still has at least one in that year he really shouldn't need to pay.
Click to expand...
This is actually why this rule is dumb in the first place - what if he trades all three of them but gets Barkely and McCaffrey out of it?   Is the fact he now has no 1sts even relevant given his return?  Is that making it more likely he'll leave the leave?  Is that making it harder to find an owner to take over?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
roarlions said:
My interpretation is that a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, doesn't matter where it came from. The payments made by other teams discourage them from bailing on the league, but they have no influence on the current owner bailing. He's trading a 1st round pick (actually multiple 1st rounders in this situation) and could just as easily bail even though his original pick has not been dealt.
Click to expand...
Everyone is telling you you’re wrong, because you are. You are being too literal instead of looking at the intent of the rule.

 
acarey50 said:
Agree with others that it should only apply to your own first round, but I'd likely take it a step further and really say it should only come into play if the trade leaves you without a first round pick. Say this guy has 3 1sts right now - who cares what 1st he trades away, as long as he still has at least one in that year he really shouldn't need to pay.
Click to expand...
Hypothetical - I absolutely go all in this year with vets and each of them falls off a cliff.  I bail. The guy who wins the league and I swapped next years first preseason.  So any one taking over my abandoned team is starting with a barren roster, pick 12 instead of pick 1, and has to pay the full tab.

 
I honestly never would have imagined an owner being required to pay $$ for trading another owner’s pick that they acquired in a previous trade.   I‘ve never seen this before.  

 
Kevrunner said:
I honestly never would have imagined an owner being required to pay $$ for trading another owner’s pick that they acquired in a previous trade.   I‘ve never seen this before.  
Click to expand...
I had to do that this year.  It is my favorite league so I had no issue, but I raised the same question about why I needed to pay my dues for next year when I in fact still had my first for next year and it wasn't my first involved in the trade.  I only raised the question, but had paid the league dues for the next year.

 
Hankmoody said:
This is actually why this rule is dumb in the first place - what if he trades all three of them but gets Barkely and McCaffrey out of it?   Is the fact he now has no 1sts even relevant given his return?  Is that making it more likely he'll leave the leave?  Is that making it harder to find an owner to take over?
Click to expand...
I get your point, but it's far more common to see someone trade their first for a player like Mark Ingram, then bail. If they got CMC they probably stay.

 
The rule we have in place is that you must have a full yearly fee in reserve at all times.  That way you can do what you want in the way of trades and don't make another instance where the commish has to collect fees.  It's kind of like renting an apartment.  You have to pay an up front deposit in case you thrash the place.   Then if you leave the franchise in disrepair you lose your deposit and the next guy gets a year for free.

 
Nitpicking the rulebook needlessly imo. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t 1-11 in favor of not charging him a deposit. A lot of voting on rule changes and polls for no reason. 

 
Gally said:
The rule we have in place is that you must have a full yearly fee in reserve at all times.  That way you can do what you want in the way of trades and don't make another instance where the commish has to collect fees.  It's kind of like renting an apartment.  You have to pay an up front deposit in case you thrash the place.   Then if you leave the franchise in disrepair you lose your deposit and the next guy gets a year for free.
Click to expand...
I like this idea.  The next guy gets in for free, more or less.  I was going to suggest to OP that refunds are in order for people who continue in the league despite trading their #1.

 
daveR said:
I like this idea.  The next guy gets in for free, more or less.  I was going to suggest to OP that refunds are in order for people who continue in the league despite trading their #1.
Click to expand...
Refunds? That money would be for the current year’s fee. They were paying ahead in case they left the league.

 
Thanks to those who replied with constructive criticism and discussion of what their leagues do. Much appreciated.

I'm not the original commish of the league and didn't write the rule. I took over as commish a few years ago when the original quit the league. So I'm not just another owner in the league trying to stick it to another owner, I have to enforce the rules. I'm not trying to be a #####, I really do not understand why a rule that applies to trading a future 1st round pick only applies to an owner's original pick, not to other 1st round picks he may have acquired. As I said earlier, to me a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, regardless of where it came from. Sorry for questioning the reasoning behind a rule that everyone seems so set on.

Based on some of the comments, it seems to me like a better rule would be that an owner only needs to pay 1/2 of their fee for the future season once they have traded the last future 1st round pick they have. My initial reaction to changing the rule was to change it to specify that it only applied to trading the owner's original pick, but now I think it would be better to propose the rule that I just suggested. Thoughts?

 
Dr. Octopus said:
Refunds? That money would be for the current year’s fee. They were paying ahead in case they left the league.
Click to expand...
Actually in our situation you could get a refund if you left the team in good order.  This deposit is in case you trade everything away and then leave.  Luckily for us we have good owners and are all friends so we don't anticipate anybody leaving but just in case someone mortgages the future and then leaves we could decide to keep the deposit to make the incoming team free for that year.

We have had people leave over  the 15 years we have been in existence and so far everyone got their deposit back.

 
roarlions said:
Thanks to those who replied with constructive criticism and discussion of what their leagues do. Much appreciated.

I'm not the original commish of the league and didn't write the rule. I took over as commish a few years ago when the original quit the league. So I'm not just another owner in the league trying to stick it to another owner, I have to enforce the rules. I'm not trying to be a #####, I really do not understand why a rule that applies to trading a future 1st round pick only applies to an owner's original pick, not to other 1st round picks he may have acquired. As I said earlier, to me a 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, regardless of where it came from. Sorry for questioning the reasoning behind a rule that everyone seems so set on.

Based on some of the comments, it seems to me like a better rule would be that an owner only needs to pay 1/2 of their fee for the future season once they have traded the last future 1st round pick they have. My initial reaction to changing the rule was to change it to specify that it only applied to trading the owner's original pick, but now I think it would be better to propose the rule that I just suggested. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I would just go with a deposit of the full amount of the franchise fee.  It's already crappy trying to collect fees (we charge $5 for every free agent ibtained) over the course of the year.  Make it easy and the same for everyone.  Everyone outs in a deposit.  It is on account.  No need to worry about specific trades.  No need to have a vague rule.  Everyone pays a deposit.  Situation over.

 
Why do people always make things more complicated than they have to be?  Simple, if you trade your pick, then 1/2 fees are due.  If you trade someone else's pick and a fee has already been paid, then you don't pay a fee again.  jeesh.

 
Gally said:
Actually in our situation you could get a refund if you left the team in good order.  This deposit is in case you trade everything away and then leave.  Luckily for us we have good owners and are all friends so we don't anticipate anybody leaving but just in case someone mortgages the future and then leaves we could decide to keep the deposit to make the incoming team free for that year.

We have had people leave over  the 15 years we have been in existence and so far everyone got their deposit back.
Click to expand...
He said refunds for people that continue in the league.

 
Dr. Dan said:
While I would agree with this rule and have asked for it to be I interpreted that way in my own leagues, I dont support that. 

Consider this scenario- I am in a rebuild

 I trade my 1st rounder with the eventual champ for a young player and his 1st. I finish last, he finishes 1st. 

So now I have a team worthy of 1.01 but I hold 1.12 and I bail, making this team really hard to find a replacement for. 

that is why it should apply to your own first. Hopefully that makes sense to you. 
Click to expand...
I wrote this exact thing. 

 
ghostguy123 said:
How much is the league fee?
Click to expand...
$40.

Thanks for the suggestions. I like the idea of everyone paying in advance so you never have to deal with collecting fees for specific trades. I think that will be the alternative I put for vote in addition to changing the current rule to specifically state that it is a trade of the owner's original pick that triggers the need to pay half the league fee.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RC94
FBG Mock Draft
14 15 16
Replies
797
Views
20K
rockaction
rockaction
LawFitz
2024 Comp Picks Awarded - Usual Suspects Hoard the Awards
Replies
9
Views
351
massraider
massraider
dschuler
Worst NFL trades and draft capital management. If the 2024 Carolina pick is #1, is this the worst trade of all-time?
Replies
41
Views
1K
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top