Grey Issue, Need some opinions (1 Viewer)

[pinda]

so we have a rule in our IDP dynasty league that it's first come first serve (FCFS) waivers after the rookie draft which is held after the NFL draft. Rosters are limited to 35 players and the only way you can be a part of the FCFS waiver process is if you are either at 35 or below. For example, you have 35 players, and you go into the rookie draft, pick up 6 players in 6 rounds and now you are sitting at 41. In order to be a part of the FCFS, I would have to drop 6 players, get to 35 to be eligible and then drop a player/pick up a player as per the FCFS rules.

So what I did is I asked another owner who was at 35 and had a player to drop to pick up a player for me and I would compensate him by bumping him from a 5th to a 4th in the 2009 draft. The player he picked up for me was Anthony Fasano. So the trade went down Fasano/2009 5th FOR 2009 4th.

I checked with the commish before I did this as I remember another owner doing it a few years back. I was within the rules and the commish ok'd it before I did it.

Just looking for honest opinions on it.

 

[gianmarco]

Don't see anything wrong with it as you are compensating him as part of a trade.

 

[AnonymousBob]

Seems fair enough to me, though it seems you're questioning things...which would imply you don't feel it was okay.

 

[pinda]

Seems fair enough to me, though it seems you're questioning things...which would imply you don't feel it was okay.

no actually i'm ok with it, i think it's definitely something to discuss but would vote against a change on it unless somebody presented something profound and something that wasn't considered before. somebody else in the league brought it up and whenever there's a grey issue, like to see what other FF'ers think

 

[gianmarco]

Seems fair enough to me, though it seems you're questioning things...which would imply you don't feel it was okay.

no actually i'm ok with it, i think it's definitely something to discuss but would vote against a change on it unless somebody presented something profound and something that wasn't considered before. somebody else in the league brought it up and whenever there's a grey issue, like to see what other FF'ers think

Well, I actually thought about this a little more and I'm not as sure. Let me pose 2 questions to you.1. What if there was a player you wanted and you were under the limit but weren't able to get him while another team did who was over the limit by doing what you did? Would you be ok with that?2. This may not be the exact same thing, but it's the same kind of concept of circumventing the rules. Let's say you have a waiver system and you're 3rd in priority. The guy with 1st priority has no intention of picking anyone up. The guy with 2nd priority wants the same guy that you do. Is it right to have the guy with 1st priority pick up the one you want and then you compensate him with a pick? I mean, he's allowed to pick up anyone he wants and then you're allowed to trade, but that's almost collusive and it's a method to circumvent the waiver order just as you circumvented the roster limit. Would you feel any different if that person who did that was your best friend or if it was just another leaguemate that you don't even know but proposed the offer to him to let him get "something for nothing" by getting the player for you?I don't know if it's right or wrong, to be honest, but I think it's gray enough that I probably would say it shouldn't be allowed as I can see it being an issue in the future.At the same time, the reason I would argue that it's ok is that you are actually giving up something to get the player and the other guy didn't just do it for "free". So, you both benefited, which is why I initially thought no problem at all.

 

[jwb]

So let's say he came to you and said "hey, I want to move from a 5th to a 4th.... what would it take?" You look at his roster and say "nobody I want, but, if you pick up Fasano off waivers, we'll talk"

Essentially what you did was the same thing. No biggie.

The reason anyone would have a problem with it is you seemingly figured out a way to (kinda / sorta) circumvent the waiver rule (I'm assuming over 35 is ok with trades.) But you have to trade something for it, so it's really not a direct way around it - you can't do this a lot or you'll run out of ammo. Basically, you upgraded a guy to use his waiver pick.

 

[Holland Freeze]

Rosters are limited to 35 players and the only way you can be a part of the FCFS waiver process is if you are either at 35 or below. For example, you have 35 players, and you go into the rookie draft, pick up 6 players in 6 rounds and now you are sitting at 41. In order to be a part of the FCFS, I would have to drop 6 players, get to 35 to be eligible and then drop a player/pick up a player as per the FCFS rules.

I guess I am unclear. If rosters limits are at 35 do I understand correctly that you have until the beginning of the season to cut 6 players to reach 35?After the draft are uneven trades allowed so a roster can exceed the 41 players allowed prior to when roster have to be scaled back to 35?If Yes to both then no problem.If No to the 2nd question then I think there is an issue.

 

[pinda]

Rosters are limited to 35 players and the only way you can be a part of the FCFS waiver process is if you are either at 35 or below. For example, you have 35 players, and you go into the rookie draft, pick up 6 players in 6 rounds and now you are sitting at 41. In order to be a part of the FCFS, I would have to drop 6 players, get to 35 to be eligible and then drop a player/pick up a player as per the FCFS rules.

I guess I am unclear. If rosters limits are at 35 do I understand correctly that you have until the beginning of the season to cut 6 players to reach 35?After the draft are uneven trades allowed so a roster can exceed the 41 players allowed prior to when roster have to be scaled back to 35?If Yes to both then no problem.If No to the 2nd question then I think there is an issue.

Yes to both. Trades can let you exceed the roster limit as much as you want in the offseason. Only thing is you have to be at 35 by the first week of September or if you want to be a part of the FCFS waiver process.

 

[pinda]

Seems fair enough to me, though it seems you're questioning things...which would imply you don't feel it was okay.

no actually i'm ok with it, i think it's definitely something to discuss but would vote against a change on it unless somebody presented something profound and something that wasn't considered before. somebody else in the league brought it up and whenever there's a grey issue, like to see what other FF'ers think

Well, I actually thought about this a little more and I'm not as sure. Let me pose 2 questions to you.1. What if there was a player you wanted and you were under the limit but weren't able to get him while another team did who was over the limit by doing what you did? Would you be ok with that?2. This may not be the exact same thing, but it's the same kind of concept of circumventing the rules. Let's say you have a waiver system and you're 3rd in priority. The guy with 1st priority has no intention of picking anyone up. The guy with 2nd priority wants the same guy that you do. Is it right to have the guy with 1st priority pick up the one you want and then you compensate him with a pick? I mean, he's allowed to pick up anyone he wants and then you're allowed to trade, but that's almost collusive and it's a method to circumvent the waiver order just as you circumvented the roster limit. Would you feel any different if that person who did that was your best friend or if it was just another leaguemate that you don't even know but proposed the offer to him to let him get "something for nothing" by getting the player for you?I don't know if it's right or wrong, to be honest, but I think it's gray enough that I probably would say it shouldn't be allowed as I can see it being an issue in the future.At the same time, the reason I would argue that it's ok is that you are actually giving up something to get the player and the other guy didn't just do it for "free". So, you both benefited, which is why I initially thought no problem at all.

1. yeah i'd be pretty choked about the first one, but can't do anything about it since Fasano's been on the waiver for a while, he wasn't drafted in the 6 round rookie draft either since vets can be picked there too and nobody picked him in the week since. yes i'd be choked, but i'd agree that the rules were followed2. no problem with that, that's strategy not collusion. it's the same thing as jumping over somebody in an initial draft cause you know the person is targeting your player, have zero problems with that as long as the team trading down or pickup the player is compensated and is making his own team better.

 

[Rockchild]

I don't see anything wrong with the move.

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

It sure makes a lot more since then picking up M. Clayton TB WR whom hadn;t caught a pass in 2 or 3 years off waivers and immediatly tradeing him for a WR 1 10 years running Joey Galloway to his buddy in one of these cheap dynasty leagues formed off these boards. Thats when I said enough is enough and let them have my 75 bucks.

It's only Dynasty leaugue I ever quit! That after about 5 other crazy happenings.

And last cheap league I will ever play in too!

 

[pinda]

It sure makes a lot more since then picking up M. Clayton TB WR whom hadn;t caught a pass in 2 or 3 years off waivers and immediatly tradeing him for a WR 1 10 years running Joey Galloway to his buddy in one of these cheap dynasty leagues formed off these boards. Thats when I said enough is enough and let them have my 75 bucks. It's only Dynasty leaugue I ever quit! That after about 5 other crazy happenings. And last cheap league I will ever play in too!

wow, now that is a bad trade, why would friends even attempt a trade like that??

 

[Patoons]

I don't see anything wrong with the move.

 

[Tanner9919]

so we have a rule in our IDP dynasty league that it's first come first serve (FCFS) waivers after the rookie draft which is held after the NFL draft. Rosters are limited to 35 players and the only way you can be a part of the FCFS waiver process is if you are either at 35 or below. For example, you have 35 players, and you go into the rookie draft, pick up 6 players in 6 rounds and now you are sitting at 41. In order to be a part of the FCFS, I would have to drop 6 players, get to 35 to be eligible and then drop a player/pick up a player as per the FCFS rules.So what I did is I asked another owner who was at 35 and had a player to drop to pick up a player for me and I would compensate him by bumping him from a 5th to a 4th in the 2009 draft. The player he picked up for me was Anthony Fasano. So the trade went down Fasano/2009 5th FOR 2009 4th.I checked with the commish before I did this as I remember another owner doing it a few years back. I was within the rules and the commish ok'd it before I did it. Just looking for honest opinions on it.

we have a rule in a league I'm in where players picked up on waivers cannot be traded for 3 full weeks ( 3 games).they can be dropped, but cannot be traded.Now, a draft scenario like yours is different, but I'm not in favor of allowing guys to pick up players on waivers and immediately trade them..Lets say its week 12, you're in the playoff hunt, as are 4 other teams. You have a worst-to-first waiver wire and you're picking 4th ( best record).The guy at #3 strikes a deal with the guy at #1 to trade a much needed WR for the waiver wire pickup,in other words, the guy who picks first, grabs , say, Justin Fargas ( 2007) and trades him to team #3 for the WR..sounds like a shady deal to me...definitely a grey area..

 

[pinda]

we have a rule in a league I'm in where players picked up on waivers cannot be traded for 3 full weeks ( 3 games).they can be dropped, but cannot be traded.Now, a draft scenario like yours is different, but I'm not in favor of allowing guys to pick up players on waivers and immediately trade them..Lets say its week 12, you're in the playoff hunt, as are 4 other teams. You have a worst-to-first waiver wire and you're picking 4th ( best record).The guy at #3 strikes a deal with the guy at #1 to trade a much needed WR for the waiver wire pickup,in other words, the guy who picks first, grabs , say, Justin Fargas ( 2007) and trades him to team #3 for the WR..sounds like a shady deal to me...definitely a grey area..

just out of curiosity, doesn't your league allow waiver picks to be traded?

 

[FUBAR]

It does seem like you're circumventing the rules, but it's not collusion, so I'm ok with it

What's the intent behind the rule? Probably just to prohibit teams from stockpiling players, without it every team would pick up everyone they think might help them. It doesn't seem to help the weaker teams any more than the strong, although the weaker probably have more cutable players (perhaps not).

FWIW, I don't like the rule, but your trade is fine.

 

[Musesboy]

I don't like it.

You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose.

I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't like it.You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose. I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

Umm, what about trades that make 2 teams better? Isn't that gaining an advantage over owners that didn't trade?

 

[Musesboy]

I don't like it.You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose. I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

Umm, what about trades that make 2 teams better? Isn't that gaining an advantage over owners that didn't trade?

Yes, it can do, but that doesn't break the spirit of the rules.

 

[pinda]

I don't like it.You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose. I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

Umm, what about trades that make 2 teams better? Isn't that gaining an advantage over owners that didn't trade?

Yeah I agree with Gian, that argument is lacking merit. Of course it benefits both teams, that's the only reason 2 people would get involved in a transaction with each other. If it didn't benefit both teams, then you could make a case for collusion no?

 

[Musesboy]

I don't like it.You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose. I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

Umm, what about trades that make 2 teams better? Isn't that gaining an advantage over owners that didn't trade?

Yeah I agree with Gian, that argument is lacking merit. Of course it benefits both teams, that's the only reason 2 people would get involved in a transaction with each other. If it didn't benefit both teams, then you could make a case for collusion no?

You cleared it with the commissioner and the precedent had already been set by another owner. You are not doing anything that hasn't been done before. I do feel that it breaks the spirit of the original rule. I guess the other owners have the same option open to them now that you have done it again. It seems rather pointless to have the rule though.

 

[mike9289]

I don't like it.You are gaining an advantage over the other owners in the league. The guy you traded with is gaining an advantage. The other owners all lose. I would say that it breaks the spirit of the rules.

Umm, what about trades that make 2 teams better? Isn't that gaining an advantage over owners that didn't trade?

Yeah I agree with Gian, that argument is lacking merit. Of course it benefits both teams, that's the only reason 2 people would get involved in a transaction with each other. If it didn't benefit both teams, then you could make a case for collusion no?

Essentially Team A went to Team B and said "pick up Fasano and I will give you a draft pick for him". Team A couldn't claim Fasano unless he released several players to get to the 35 man limit. The problem I see is that Team B got a pick for nothing. In a regular trade each team gets something and gives something. Team B gave nothing. Other guys in this thread have equated this to trading a top waiver claim. That comparison is wrong. A waiver claim has value. When you trade it, you lose the ability to use it on somebody you want. In this case we are talking about FCFS free agent pickups. Team B lost nothing. He gained a draft pick for claiming a player for another team. I don't know what his roster situation was, but I assumed he was at 35 and had to cut a guy to claim Fasano. Then he trades Fasano for a draft pick and is at 34. Then he is allowed to pick up the same guy he dropped for Fasano in the first place. His roster is right back where he started. But now he has an extra draft pick. If its not collusion its real close to crossing that line.

 

[pinda]

Essentially Team A went to Team B and said "pick up Fasano and I will give you a draft pick for him". Team A couldn't claim Fasano unless he released several players to get to the 35 man limit. The problem I see is that Team B got a pick for nothing. In a regular trade each team gets something and gives something. Team B gave nothing. Other guys in this thread have equated this to trading a top waiver claim. That comparison is wrong. A waiver claim has value. When you trade it, you lose the ability to use it on somebody you want. In this case we are talking about FCFS free agent pickups. Team B lost nothing. He gained a draft pick for claiming a player for another team. I don't know what his roster situation was, but I assumed he was at 35 and had to cut a guy to claim Fasano. Then he trades Fasano for a draft pick and is at 34. Then he is allowed to pick up the same guy he dropped for Fasano in the first place. His roster is right back where he started. But now he has an extra draft pick. If its not collusion its real close to crossing that line.

hmmm, good points, but the only thing I would disagree is that when Team A drops said player, he risks that another team could pick him up. Also, the value is on the ability to pick up players in the offseason.

 

[mike9289]

Essentially Team A went to Team B and said "pick up Fasano and I will give you a draft pick for him". Team A couldn't claim Fasano unless he released several players to get to the 35 man limit. The problem I see is that Team B got a pick for nothing. In a regular trade each team gets something and gives something. Team B gave nothing. Other guys in this thread have equated this to trading a top waiver claim. That comparison is wrong. A waiver claim has value. When you trade it, you lose the ability to use it on somebody you want. In this case we are talking about FCFS free agent pickups. Team B lost nothing. He gained a draft pick for claiming a player for another team. I don't know what his roster situation was, but I assumed he was at 35 and had to cut a guy to claim Fasano. Then he trades Fasano for a draft pick and is at 34. Then he is allowed to pick up the same guy he dropped for Fasano in the first place. His roster is right back where he started. But now he has an extra draft pick. If its not collusion its real close to crossing that line.

hmmm, good points, but the only thing I would disagree is that when Team A drops said player, he risks that another team could pick him up. Also, the value is on the ability to pick up players in the offseason.

Team B still has the ability to pick up players in the off season. He's back to where he was before the pick up/trade. You haven't convinced me that he gave up anything for that draft pick. And by the way, how many teams are at 35 players or below? If everybody else has 40 players or so, what are the chances that anybody can claim that player before Team B gets the guy back. The whole process could take only a few minutes.