Anyone ever do a 'must-trade' league? How could that work? (1 Viewer)

[Bernman2]

In my past leagues, I've been one of the more active traders. Maybe NOT the best trader, but I'd consider on the whole, each season I have improved my teams from beginning of season to end with the trades I've made.

Anyway, I was in this league where I couldn't get anyone to even consider trading... of course, unless I made a really lopsided offer in their favor.

I've always tried to brainstorm a league where you were required to do at least one or say, two trades in a season. But I can't think of how to implement it.

Has anyone done it, and please explain how you'd compel owners to trade?

 

[Sweet Love]

You could certainly do something where people have to trade a player by a specific week and then another by the deadline. I get your point in that it increases trading by default, but be ready for pushback, as people do not like to be told how to manage their teams. You also will run into people swapping kickers (for example), so it likely will not have the boon of "big deals" you are expecting.

 

[steveski]

How about a league where you can only start a player on your roster 8 times. That sounds fun....wouldn't be fun to manage though.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

 

[Freelove]

I think FF'ers in general are way too invested in the idea of trading at all costs. As if the hobby can only be fun if you make sure you don't get too invested in any one player.

It's a video game mentality. If I'm not pushing the action button at all times, nothing is happening.

 

[ebsteelers]

How about a league where you can only start a player on your roster 8 times. That sounds fun....wouldn't be fun to manage though.

its not quite the same but myffpc runs that terminator league where you start with so many guys and have to cut a player each week.

I dont think you could do that in a league that is already started. But in a brand new dynasty league.. I could see something where you must trade a minimum of 3 times over the course of the season?

As mentioned though, your might see a lot of kicker swapping and bench fodder.

Good idea in theory, tough to implement though

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

So you could have started off 0-2 and be down your two best players by Week 3?

 

[steveski]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

Wouldn't there be just 1 or 2 good teams after the first few weeks of the season? If you win 3 games in a row to start the season, you now are unbeatable because you have McCoy, Charles, Calvin and Graham as your starters.

 

[Sweet Love]

I think FF'ers in general are way too invested in the idea of trading at all costs. As if the hobby can only be fun if you make sure you don't get too invested in any one player.

It's a video game mentality. If I'm not pushing the action button at all times, nothing is happening.

Well put. I only trade players if I think it is to my advantage...sounds elementary, but it is practiced less than you would think. Oh, and I could care less whether it is a "good deal for the other guy". What do I care if he gets better???

 

[William Munny]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

That is AWFUL

 

[Winning IS Everything]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

That is AWFUL

I agree, and that is why I did not play in it. The ones that did play in it thought it was cool. Yes, a couple of teams were real tough after a few weeks.... I am not sure, but I think the real good teams even if they won had to make a trade which would mean eventually they were trading away good players as well. I am not certain of that though.

 

[ebsteelers]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

doesnt seem like the rich get richer type deal?

seems like it could make the league uncompetitive if thinks fall the right way

edit: didnt refresh before I saw everyone else respond.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

It's not as difficult as you might imagine - just put a hard cap on the number of WW transactions each owner can make per season.

My biggest $$$ redraft league does just this - unlimited trades, but a max of 8 add/drops per owner ... for the entire season. With decent-sized rosters (ours is a 12-teamer with 9 starters / 9 bench / 2 IR, so up to 240 names rostered), owners have no choice but to trade more frequently if they want to get better. It's been my favorite league for years largely because of this rule and the activity it drives.

 

[httv14]

Are there any leagues out there that do a snake draft after every week, with the order determined by standings?

 

[fakepunt]

Just shooting from the hip, this idea might be fun...

Each week, you are forced to pick 1 player from your team to count as double points. The other team does the same.

The catch: The player chosen from the losing team is traded to the winning team at the end of the week...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

That is AWFUL

I agree, and that is why I did not play in it. The ones that did play in it thought it was cool. Yes, a couple of teams were real tough after a few weeks.... I am not sure, but I think the real good teams even if they won had to make a trade which would mean eventually they were trading away good players as well. I am not certain of that though.

Seems like the opposite would be the way to go. The loser gets to pick from the winner's team. That way things stay eternally balanced.

 

[Doug B]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish.

This would be more interesting if trades only involved players that didn't start the FF game (and weren't on byes). Constant churn of benches. Then you'd also have the hilarity of those few times every season where a scrub was traded away in Wk 1 or 2, and then turned into a stud for someone else.

 

[SelenaCat]

Arbitrary "you must trade" rules won't work well (gee, will you trade me kickers to get it over with?) and will be bitterly hated by many. Some players really enjoy in-season haggling, but there's a significant number of players who prefer improving their teams through the draft/auction/whatever instead. Just because you think a rule would make the game more fun, doesn't mean it would make it more fun for everyone involved.

Essentially, if you want to encourage trading, you need to throttle back on waiver wires. Larger rosters (reducing the waiver pool), limited number of waiver moves and/or having a free agent budget, or even doing without waivers at all. For what it's worth, my no waivers, 40+ dynasty league has about twice the number of trades each year than either our keeper or redraft leagues, despite being almost entirely the same owners.

Also, one of the difficulties in most trades in finding something that both player feel is equitable. Having future rookie picks or cap money helps make it easier to come up with even trades since sometimes you can't really get a good trade for studs without that extra balancing factor.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Arbitrary "you must trade" rules won't work well (gee, will you trade me kickers to get it over with?) and will be bitterly hated by many. Some players really enjoy in-season haggling, but there's a significant number of players who prefer improving their teams through the draft/auction/whatever instead. Just because you think a rule would make the game more fun, doesn't mean it would make it more fun for everyone involved.

I think...I THINK this league he's proposing would be optional to join and would not force those people that dislike trading into it.

I don't think it would be that hard to find 11 other owners that love trading and would jump at the chance to join a league that heavily encouraged or even forced trading if a creative way to do it could be settled on.

 

[Bernman2]

Arbitrary "you must trade" rules won't work well (gee, will you trade me kickers to get it over with?) and will be bitterly hated by many. Some players really enjoy in-season haggling, but there's a significant number of players who prefer improving their teams through the draft/auction/whatever instead. Just because you think a rule would make the game more fun, doesn't mean it would make it more fun for everyone involved.

I think...I THINK this league he's proposing would be optional to join and would not force those people that dislike trading into it.

I don't think it would be that hard to find 11 other owners that love trading and would jump at the chance to join a league that heavily encouraged or even forced trading if a creative way to do it could be settled on.

Correct. This is what I meant. Starting a league with that intention, not changing an existing one. I had found that in regular leagues, it was the most fun and interesting talking to and trading with folks who would at least consider trades. Even if I wasn't involved in the trade, it was interesting and fun talking with the folks thinking about a trade.

Either way, I really like this discussion and definitely some good ideas (and some odd ones). Great contributions in such a short time! Man - we must all be jonesing for some football!

 

[unckeyherb]

Just shooting from the hip, this idea might be fun...

Each week, you are forced to pick 1 player from your team to count as double points. The other team does the same.

The catch: The player chosen from the losing team is traded to the winning team at the end of the week...

On the surface I think this is a pretty cool idea. Leave the risk up to the owner, and could make for some big point swings for the adventurous managers.

 

[FUBAR]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

I think I'd enjoy this in a redraft but in a dynasty that would suck if you start out with a few bad breaks.

Lose enough games and all your best players in year 1, get the 1.01

But then, because you have little else of value, you lose week one of season two and lose Watkins.

Rinse, repeat.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

Last year we had a league where you played a team and if you won, the winner could trade any player from their team to the loser for any player that the winner wanted and was enforced by the league commish. I was not involved in the league, but others in my main league were. They all loved it.

I think I'd enjoy this in a redraft but in a dynasty that would suck if you start out with a few bad breaks.

Lose enough games and all your best players in year 1, get the 1.01

But then, because you have little else of value, you lose week one of season two and lose Watkins.

Rinse, repeat.

Yeah I should have prefaced that this league was a redraft, not keeper or dynasty.......

 

[biju]

Just shooting from the hip, this idea might be fun...

Each week, you are forced to pick 1 player from your team to count as double points. The other team does the same.

The catch: The player chosen from the losing team is traded to the winning team at the end of the week...

This would actually be more interesting (IMO) if you had to choose the player on the opposing team who would score double points. Then you're looking for the best starting player who is going to have the worst week in hopes of acquiring them. If you don't like the odds, pick the weakest starter?

 

[Casting Couch]

It's not as difficult as you might imagine - just put a hard cap on the number of WW transactions each owner can make per season.

My biggest $$$ redraft league does just this - unlimited trades, but a max of 8 add/drops per owner ... for the entire season. With decent-sized rosters (ours is a 12-teamer with 9 starters / 9 bench / 2 IR, so up to 240 names rostered), owners have no choice but to trade more frequently if they want to get better. It's been my favorite league for years largely because of this rule and the activity it drives.

This concept makes the most sense without radically changing the dynamics of standard FF leagues.

 

[bengalbuck]

In my past leagues, I've been one of the more active traders. Maybe NOT the best trader, but I'd consider on the whole, each season I have improved my teams from beginning of season to end with the trades I've made.

Anyway, I was in this league where I couldn't get anyone to even consider trading... of course, unless I made a really lopsided offer in their favor.

I've always tried to brainstorm a league where you were required to do at least one or say, two trades in a season. But I can't think of how to implement it.

Has anyone done it, and please explain how you'd compel owners to trade?

I am in 2 leagues that only allow you to have a guy on your roster for 3 seasons. After the 3rd season, you have to trade him by June 1st or he goes into the supplemental draft. (We also have small taxi squads for 1st and 2nd year players. If a guy is on the taxi squad all year, it doesn't count as 1 of his 3 years.)

No good players end up in the supplemental draft though obviously as you just trade guys as opposed to losing them. Once they are traded to a new team, their 3 year clock restarts for that owner.

Most of the owners are pretty active and turn their roster over pretty regularly. I'm moderately active, but tend to hang onto guys I like for a while. So this offseason, I had Cam Newton, Lesean McCoy, AJ Green, Brandon Marshall and Jimmy Graham all as must trades. I ended up trading all 5 of them in 1 weekend.

This format absolutely forces you to make trades. But it's not anything too crazy as 3 years is a pretty long time to own a guy.

Here is a link to 1 of the leagues:

http://football16.myfantasyleague.com/2014/options?L=26928&O=07

As you can see, there is a column for "years remaining" for every player. Guys with 1 year remaining have to be traded by June 1 next summer. Guys with 0 years remaining would have had to be traded by tonight, but all the year 0 guys (like the ones I listed above) were all traded months ago.

 

[Willie Mays Hayes]

If you want to encourage trading, simply turn off free agency / waiver wire and don't allow teams to carry deep benches where they can simply stockpile backups. Beyond the initial draft the only way you can address roster holes is by trading. It's the only way to go since WW pickups is easy mode fantasy football.

 

[msudaisy26]

Best league I was ever in was a survivor and draft master combo. The only difference was you drafted a lineup every week (much like Fanduel), but you could only use a player once all year. No kickers. It was so much fun and everyone enjoyed it and everyone was active until the very end.

There were weekly cash prizes, cash for the person that had the highest total at each position for the year, so basically you were label a quarterback guru or whatever.

 

[JetMaxx]

Kickers

 

[Bamac]

In my past leagues, I've been one of the more active traders. Maybe NOT the best trader, but I'd consider on the whole, each season I have improved my teams from beginning of season to end with the trades I've made.

Anyway, I was in this league where I couldn't get anyone to even consider trading... of course, unless I made a really lopsided offer in their favor.

I've always tried to brainstorm a league where you were required to do at least one or say, two trades in a season. But I can't think of how to implement it.

Has anyone done it, and please explain how you'd compel owners to trade?

I am in 2 leagues that only allow you to have a guy on your roster for 3 seasons. After the 3rd season, you have to trade him by June 1st or he goes into the supplemental draft. (We also have small taxi squads for 1st and 2nd year players. If a guy is on the taxi squad all year, it doesn't count as 1 of his 3 years.)

No good players end up in the supplemental draft though obviously as you just trade guys as opposed to losing them. Once they are traded to a new team, their 3 year clock restarts for that owner.

Most of the owners are pretty active and turn their roster over pretty regularly. I'm moderately active, but tend to hang onto guys I like for a while. So this offseason, I had Cam Newton, Lesean McCoy, AJ Green, Brandon Marshall and Jimmy Graham all as must trades. I ended up trading all 5 of them in 1 weekend.

This format absolutely forces you to make trades. But it's not anything too crazy as 3 years is a pretty long time to own a guy.

Here is a link to 1 of the leagues:

http://football16.myfantasyleague.com/2014/options?L=26928&O=07

As you can see, there is a column for "years remaining" for every player. Guys with 1 year remaining have to be traded by June 1 next summer. Guys with 0 years remaining would have had to be traded by tonight, but all the year 0 guys (like the ones I listed above) were all traded months ago.

This is the best way to create a "must trade" league, IMO.

 

[ebsteelers]

I think I'd rather be in a no trades at all league.

The more I try to trade with people the more I prefer the myffpc league style of no trades.

between guys not responding to offers, rejecting them with no response, saying they like the trade but rejecting them, or only wanting to trade if the deal is a huge win in their favor it gets more annoying everytime I try and trade