Can a non-trade league work? (1 Viewer)

[brindrod]

Sorry for the lengthy post but I have to fill you in with background info! You can skip to the bold part to get the general gist of my post.

I've been involved in a 12 team redraft league for the past three years where the turnaround in participants is quite low. The GMs' participation is beyond reproach and the Commish is quite flexible in altering the rules of the league when the votes are the majority.

However, there is much disatisfaction because some GMs make the most boneheaded trades that completely changes the balance of power. Last year, in a panic move, a GM traded Lary Johnson to the Tomlinson owner. Need I tell you that the owner of those two stud RBs became an unstoppable juggernaut and won everything? The other GM literally handed him the championship on a silver platter. This season, a couple of other moronic trades were made in which the owner of Lee Evans (who drafted him in the 4th round) traded him for Mark Clayton (Baltimore) and then proceeded to punt his new acquisition on the waiver wire a few days later. In the meantime, the Evans owner is having a field day.

This summer, a close vote went in favour of continuing to allow trades because it was believed that some GMs learnt their lesson in making negligent transactions that devestate the league. We even limited the number of trades (2) that a GM can execute in order to make sure that an incompetent GM would not cause too much damage. Well, it looks like allowing one trade is one too much for some of them.....

Obviously, a motion to bannish trades will be brought back and this time, I suspect that this resolution would pass. Trading is part of the fun factor in a fantasy league but when some GMs are easily fleeced or make idiotic decisions, is it safer for the integrity of the league that it becomes a non-trading one or do you run the risk that hostility, tension and frustration overtake some GMs who have had enough of seeing their hard work go down the toilet because of a few idiots?

 

[GregR_2]

First... I'm not even sure I see the problem with the trades that have gone on in your league.

But that said... if you want to keep trading but have a problem with balance shifting trades, one suggestion is that you install some kind of measure that gives everyone a shot at the players, beyond what they have now.

In one league I play in where interaction amongst the owners is more important than is being cut throat, all trades once accepted are sent out to the league. For 3 days, other teams can make counter-offers on the exact group of players in the trade. If a trading team likes a new offer better than can switch it and a new 3 day review starts.

Another league I play in which is long-term contract, we have a fire sale rule that closer to the trade deadline, teams who are out of contention must announce leaguewide players they are considering trading, before they accept any offers.

As you can see from both of those, we went with a goal to limit the negative effects by at least making sure if the balance does change, it changed because you weren't willing to step in with a better trade. But we didn't stop trading altogether.

Hope that helps.

 

[ctriopelle]

As long as you have a decent waiver wire process, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. You won't get any earth shattering roster shakeups, but it would allow the flexibility to make your team better if you get into trouble. You may want to trim the roster sizes a bit to make sure there is always some quality on the wire though with anything over a 10 person league.

I was in a work league a while back where the participants actually decided not to have a waive wire at all (before the days of online management). With no waiver wire and the accompanying lack of big trades, it made it very difficult to recover from any injury problems. I can live with a minimal amount of trading (and probably even no trading), but lack of a waiver wire makes for a very uninteresting league.

 

[brindrod]

As you can see from both of those, we went with a goal to limit the negative effects by at least making sure if the balance does change, it changed because you weren't willing to step in with a better trade. But we didn't stop trading altogether.Hope that helps.

Thanks for sharing this info! I'll certainly put it up as suggestion as another alternative to banning trades due to idiocy! Best, - Brian

 

[TommyGilmore]

You gotta ask yourself: what is more important, "integrity" or "fun".

People have fun when they know they can make trades to improve their team. They don't have fun when they know their season is over in Week 2.