What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How To Encourage More League Trading? (1 Viewer)

H

hammerd

Footballguy
I've been involved in the same 10-team league for the last 8 years, and it seems as though there are several owners who would like to see more trading between owners going on. Usually, the waiver wire is the method of choice for changing players during the season.

To me, the reason why more trading doesn't take place is that it's always the same one or 2 owners who offer the most ridiculous, one-sided offers, and invariably it turns the other owners off. Everyone ends up turning to the waiver wire instead.

The one alternative that's been put to a vote is to add 2 more teams to the league to dilute the power of the waiver and create more parity. I, for one, think that the same one or 2 owners are the ones pushing for the change, including the commish, and that they will still offer ridiculous trade offers after it's all said and done.

Just curious, has anyone else's league come across this problem, and are there other ways, other than adding teams to the league, that could encourage more trading?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Increase the bench space. If there aren't guys on waivers to be had easily, people who want to improve will have to trade.

2. The more public that trading is, the more that teams will want to be involved, if only to stop foes from improving by beating them to the punch. You can build on this fact of human nature by making your trades more public. I have 2 leagues where after a trade is accepted, other teams not in the trade can make counter-offers for 3 days for the players and picks either side has in the trade. If either trading team accepts, the orig trade is voided and a new 3 day period starts on the new one. We actually did it because avoiding strife between coworkers and fraternity brothers was more important than being cutthroat, but it also tends to increase the amount of interaction going on as teams will start talking more. Also, some owners who aren't sharks almost fear trading because they worry about getting ridiculed. This can help them by exposing the trade to offers that will bring it up to market value if it wasn't already there.

The biggest objection you'll get is from people who say "why should I do the work to find a player worth acquiring only to have someone step in". Which has a point, though it's also true if it's a good trade for both sides then likely there won't be a better offer. But anyway, this is a good way of avoiding having to have veto votes for unfair trades, and also increases interaction from what I've seen... but it doesn't work as well in a shark league where owners already do know what market value is, and shop players around before accepting something.

 
GregR said:
Franknbeans said:
What I don't get is why are trades so important? I mean you drafted players for a reason.
Click to expand...
For my leagues, we're there for interaction, not money, so we want to see trading happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it depends upon the overall "goal" of the league.In a highly competitive league, there is a serious issue with GregR's draft rules -- trades run the risk of not clearing before the next weekend's games. With 3-day periods tacking on like that ... seems like it can conceivably take 6-9 days or longer for a trade to go through.

 
Less Flex positions - who needs to make a trade when you can start anywhere between 3 and 6 WRs and 2 and 5 RBs like one of my leagues??

 
Sweet Love said:
Less Flex positions - who needs to make a trade when you can start anywhere between 3 and 6 WRs and 2 and 5 RBs like one of my leagues??
Click to expand...
We have no flex positions in my league. We start 1QB/2RB/3 WR-TE COMBO/1K/1DST.I, for one, see no need to encourage trading if most of the owners aren't into it. I like the idea of increasing the bench space, though. Would adding 2 more teams necessarily ENCOURAGE trading?
 
Diluting your league further probably wont encourage trading. What it will probably encourage is apathy and owners quitting on you. When a team perceives that he is out of the running, he will quit. If the league is highly diluted and someone has a key player go down with injury, he will quit. If the only way to improve your team in that situation is by trade, then everyone will know that and not offer fair value. The team with the injury will get raped in the process.

Dont get me wrong. I'm not against trading. Good trades sometimes happen, but they are rare. Usually trades are very one sided and simply serve to upset the balance of the league.

 
GregR said:
1. Increase the bench space. If there aren't guys on waivers to be had easily, people who want to improve will have to trade.

2. The more public that trading is, the more that teams will want to be involved, if only to stop foes from improving by beating them to the punch. You can build on this fact of human nature by making your trades more public. I have 2 leagues where after a trade is accepted, other teams not in the trade can make counter-offers for 3 days for the players and picks either side has in the trade. If either trading team accepts, the orig trade is voided and a new 3 day period starts on the new one. We actually did it because avoiding strife between coworkers and fraternity brothers was more important than being cutthroat, but it also tends to increase the amount of interaction going on as teams will start talking more. Also, some owners who aren't sharks almost fear trading because they worry about getting ridiculed. This can help them by exposing the trade to offers that will bring it up to market value if it wasn't already there.

The biggest objection you'll get is from people who say "why should I do the work to find a player worth acquiring only to have someone step in". Which has a point, though it's also true if it's a good trade for both sides then likely there won't be a better offer. But anyway, this is a good way of avoiding having to have veto votes for unfair trades, and also increases interaction from what I've seen... but it doesn't work as well in a shark league where owners already do know what market value is, and shop players around before accepting something.
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. Thanks! :yes:
 
Jedeye said:
When a team perceives that he is out of the running, he will quit. If the league is highly diluted and someone has a key player go down with injury, he will quit.
Click to expand...
if the league has been together 10 years... i would hope there is enough rivalry going on to prevent thatif not... it's a lame league
 
nightshift said:
GregR said:
1. Increase the bench space. If there aren't guys on waivers to be had easily, people who want to improve will have to trade.

2. The more public that trading is, the more that teams will want to be involved, if only to stop foes from improving by beating them to the punch. You can build on this fact of human nature by making your trades more public. I have 2 leagues where after a trade is accepted, other teams not in the trade can make counter-offers for 3 days for the players and picks either side has in the trade. If either trading team accepts, the orig trade is voided and a new 3 day period starts on the new one. We actually did it because avoiding strife between coworkers and fraternity brothers was more important than being cutthroat, but it also tends to increase the amount of interaction going on as teams will start talking more. Also, some owners who aren't sharks almost fear trading because they worry about getting ridiculed. This can help them by exposing the trade to offers that will bring it up to market value if it wasn't already there.

The biggest objection you'll get is from people who say "why should I do the work to find a player worth acquiring only to have someone step in". Which has a point, though it's also true if it's a good trade for both sides then likely there won't be a better offer. But anyway, this is a good way of avoiding having to have veto votes for unfair trades, and also increases interaction from what I've seen... but it doesn't work as well in a shark league where owners already do know what market value is, and shop players around before accepting something.
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. Thanks! :yes:
Click to expand...
my sentiments exactly. :banned:

 
I think the lack of trading happens in a lot of leagues and is happening a lot more. If the objective is to increase trade activity/interaction you could increase roster size and eliminate all waiver wire pick ups or severely restrict them. Allow only 1 or 2 per year to replace a player that has officially gone on IR? This kills waiver wire activity but would probably cause owners to trade to fill holes.

 
Sweet Love said:
Less Flex positions - who needs to make a trade when you can start anywhere between 3 and 6 WRs and 2 and 5 RBs like one of my leagues??
Click to expand...
I think the opposit is true. The more ways an owner can construct a winner, the more likely a trade can happen because owners have options. Also, look to your scoring and starting rules. If RBs are too valuable, they won't be moved.I second the addition of bench space. That has helped our league have more trades.
 
David Yudkin said:
Throw in a free tank of gas with each trade?
Click to expand...
Man, I want you in my league. Tank of gas would go a long ways to get me trading and probably cover the cost of my league fees..... And I just drive a Chrysler Sebring. Imaging the folks with the Expeditions and Escalades!
 
For those looking for a real answer . . .

Limit the amount of waiver wire pickups per team to say 3 per team per season. Once they're gone, they're gone. If you have an injury, have a guy on bye, want to change the positional make up of your team, etc. you'll have to trade to do it. And given the hope of landing a surprise starter off of waivers, teams will probably only use two of their waiver claims and will sit on the other.

 
David Yudkin said:
For those looking for a real answer . . .Limit the amount of waiver wire pickups per team to say 3 per team per season. Once they're gone, they're gone. If you have an injury, have a guy on bye, want to change the positional make up of your team, etc. you'll have to trade to do it. And given the hope of landing a surprise starter off of waivers, teams will probably only use two of their waiver claims and will sit on the other.
Click to expand...
I played in a league like this once (ww was limited to 5 for the season), and it was one of the most boring leagues I'v ever been in. Everyone holds onto their transactions for fear of not having any if an injury occurs. And if you do use them all up, then everyone else in the league knows that the only way you can change is through trades, so the wont offer you fair value. Oh, your #1 RB went down? Well how about I give you my 4th RB for your #1 WR?
 
I play a NL only fantasy baseball league, with deep rosters, and Fantasy football. 80% of all trades are always crazy and off the wall, regardless of league size. The key is getting a league full of active owners, that you actually trust a little bit. There is always the jackball that you know he is trying to screw you no matter what and will not make a fair trade.

If you draft good, trades should not be necessary unless you get hit hard with injuries. I remeber one owner last year that had Culpepper, Deuce and 3 or 4 other starters that all got injured.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lions327 said:
The biggest reason might be the fact that it is a 10 team league, and therefore fewer weaknesses.
Click to expand...
bingo.......if you are in a ten team league and dont have talent, if everyone doesnt have talent, then there is a problem with owner quality to begin with.
 
nightshift said:
GregR said:
1. Increase the bench space. If there aren't guys on waivers to be had easily, people who want to improve will have to trade.

2. The more public that trading is, the more that teams will want to be involved, if only to stop foes from improving by beating them to the punch. You can build on this fact of human nature by making your trades more public. I have 2 leagues where after a trade is accepted, other teams not in the trade can make counter-offers for 3 days for the players and picks either side has in the trade. If either trading team accepts, the orig trade is voided and a new 3 day period starts on the new one. We actually did it because avoiding strife between coworkers and fraternity brothers was more important than being cutthroat, but it also tends to increase the amount of interaction going on as teams will start talking more. Also, some owners who aren't sharks almost fear trading because they worry about getting ridiculed. This can help them by exposing the trade to offers that will bring it up to market value if it wasn't already there.

The biggest objection you'll get is from people who say "why should I do the work to find a player worth acquiring only to have someone step in". Which has a point, though it's also true if it's a good trade for both sides then likely there won't be a better offer. But anyway, this is a good way of avoiding having to have veto votes for unfair trades, and also increases interaction from what I've seen... but it doesn't work as well in a shark league where owners already do know what market value is, and shop players around before accepting something.
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. Thanks! :yes:
Click to expand...
:no: There are several reasons why:

1) The trading process could go indefinately. If I need to make trade for a WR, because mine got hurt, I want to be able to trade in a few days - this could easily lead to stall tactics by other teams (especially the one your playing heads up with that week)

2) It exposes possible sleepers to others in the league who might not have otherwise be paying attention. (i.e. "Why would he trade A + B for X + Y??? Let me check the stats...") Why should I (or other sharp owners) do a lot of research to find a guy we like only to have someone else steal him.

3) It takes away from the gamesmanship. Teams don't have to try to beat what they think is another teams offer, they just have to wait and see what the trade is, then try to beat it. Incidentally, that gamesmanship (and "behind closed doors") is what makes NFL trades interesting too. It doesn't allow me to say, "Well, I don't know...I've got some offers for him already..."

 
tdog said:
Sweet Love said:
Less Flex positions - who needs to make a trade when you can start anywhere between 3 and 6 WRs and 2 and 5 RBs like one of my leagues??
Click to expand...
I think the opposit is true. The more ways an owner can construct a winner, the more likely a trade can happen because owners have options. Also, look to your scoring and starting rules. If RBs are too valuable, they won't be moved.I second the addition of bench space. That has helped our league have more trades.
Click to expand...
I guess I can see that, but as you said, there are more ways to construct a winner with a lot of flex positions, so someone that have 4 top 15 WRs and crummy RBs is more likely to hold those WRs because they can start all four compared to only starting two or three and keeping valuable points on the bench.
 
Limit waivers, but not to a specific number where people hoard them. Our league only allows one waiver move pr week. Use it or lose it. Then you can't stockpile players and just add/drop for K/D/TE on bye. You might have to trade for a wavier pickup if you don't plan for byes. We typically have about 40-50 trades a year. Most are small trades such as for Kicker or Defenses to cover byes, but it does get folks used to the idea.

 
DoubleG said:
:no:

There are several reasons why:

1) The trading process could go indefinately. If I need to make trade for a WR, because mine got hurt, I want to be able to trade in a few days - this could easily lead to stall tactics by other teams (especially the one your playing heads up with that week)
Click to expand...
It could but it doesn't. It's rare that counter-offers are accepted (though they frequently get made). If you're making a trade that is worthwhile to both teams, they aren't going to stall, they are going to want to put it through. In short, could be a problem isn't an issue when in practice it isn't.
2) It exposes possible sleepers to others in the league who might not have otherwise be paying attention. (i.e. "Why would he trade A + B for X + Y??? Let me check the stats...") Why should I (or other sharp owners) do a lot of research to find a guy we like only to have someone else steal him.

3) It takes away from the gamesmanship. Teams don't have to try to beat what they think is another teams offer, they just have to wait and see what the trade is, then try to beat it. Incidentally, that gamesmanship (and "behind closed doors") is what makes NFL trades interesting too. It doesn't allow me to say, "Well, I don't know...I've got some offers for him already..."
Click to expand...
Not saying anything I didn't already point out. I indicated a shark league won't like it, leagues that care more about fostering interaction, which this thread-starter seems to care about, it can have benefits. Just because it doesn't fit your shark league doesn't mean there aren't worthwhile aspects to it for other leagues that aren't like yours.
 
Psychology Kev said:
David Yudkin said:
Psychology Kev said:
Franknbeans said:
What I don't get is why are trades so important? I mean you drafted players for a reason.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
And how many NFL teams make trades during the season?
Click to expand...
It happens but rarely. Is this comment pro-no trades or pro-for trades? :confused:
Click to expand...
More of a comment to show that "real" football does not have many trades so in some ways "fantasy" football follows suit.I'm all for trading, but most of the time the redraft offers I get are laughable. Someone will offer me Jerramy Stevens and Ron Dayne for LT. Or David Carr, Travis Taylor, and Corey Dillon for Peyton Manning and Anquan Boldin. If there are guys I want to go after, many times people will say no based on the fact that if I want them they must have more value than normal or I wouldn't want them (which many times is true).Part of the problem is that when people spot a weakness and a surplus on the same team, they think that they can get away with murder. One year I had a stockpile of RBs that all were golden. I had so many top RB that I couldn't play Clinton Portis but was weak at WR. I started inquiries into trades and people were like . . . Clinton Portis and who else for Hines Ward. Sorry, I'll keep Portis and hope my WRs do better or get healthy before I start having to start packaging higher value players to get a weaker one. I finally was able to make a straight up deal Portis for Chad Jackson and somehow the deal got nixed when people said it wasn't a fair trade and voted ait down.I also think that if you are playing with the same group of owners you can get a reputation of fleecing people and that may put an end to your trading opportunities. In 2004, I convinced another owner that Owens had a hot start but would slowly fade and Gonzalez was really on the decline (after a very slow start). So I gave up Chris Brown and Lavernanues Coles for Owens and Gonzalez (who had monster years) and I have not been able to make a trade with that any of owners since (nor do I expect to be able to).
 
This may have little impact, but we impose a penalty for sucking.

If you finish last, you have to buy the league software next season, which is $79.

More than anything, it keeps all teams involved for the entire season.

Indirectly however, most teams in the league trade quite a bit, even the poor teams as they are looking to not finish last.

 
It first comes down to owners, either they like it or they don't. In my one dynasty league there are two of us who like to trade like mad. It is half the fun of the league for us. Last off season I traded with 8 of the other 11 teams in the league. By the middle of the season there were only a handful of players on my 16 man roster that had been on my team at the end of the previous season. Of course, trading is easier in dynasty leagues because you can barter picks for next year. If you really want to trade I suggest joining a dynasty league.

 
PRS Guy said:
This may have little impact, but we impose a penalty for sucking.If you finish last, you have to buy the league software next season, which is $79.More than anything, it keeps all teams involved for the entire season.Indirectly however, most teams in the league trade quite a bit, even the poor teams as they are looking to not finish last.
Click to expand...
A little off topic, but we do the same. $25 penalty for last place. But it cost $5 per move, no matter if off of waivers or trade, so it will encourage a couple extra moves out of the bottom tier teams around week 10-12.
 
One other point, in dynasty you can trade a veteran to a team making a playoff push and get future prospects in return. In a redraft once you are all but out of it there is little point in trying to work a trade to help someone else win.

 
The best ways to artifically forge trading are already mentioned:

1. Waiver wire fees: Make them crazy high. Most guys go there for the bye week, so you don't want the bum of week being picked up, you want to see trades in this scenario.

2. Go to keeper/dynasty format. When you are constantly in a "one year plan", you're trying to win each year. But if you can sell out your future and trade draft picks from the coming years, and the guy with a crappy roster but one stud, you'll see a lot more trades going down.

 
NY/NJMUFFDIVER said:
The best ways to artifically forge trading are already mentioned:1. Waiver wire fees: Make them crazy high. Most guys go there for the bye week, so you don't want the bum of week being picked up, you want to see trades in this scenario. 2. Go to keeper/dynasty format. When you are constantly in a "one year plan", you're trying to win each year. But if you can sell out your future and trade draft picks from the coming years, and the guy with a crappy roster but one stud, you'll see a lot more trades going down.
Click to expand...
:hijacked: Completely off topic, but great avatar. Are you hitting any of their concerts this year? I've got tickets for 3 shows. It won't be the same without Layne, but it's better than nothing.
 
One of my friends plays in a league that has three "trade parties" during the season. You get fined if you don't attend at least two of them. Nothing says "trade" like a bunch of alcohol.

 
NY/NJMUFFDIVER said:
2. Go to keeper/dynasty format. When you are constantly in a "one year plan", you're trying to win each year. But if you can sell out your future and trade draft picks from the coming years, and the guy with a crappy roster but one stud, you'll see a lot more trades going down.
Click to expand...
:goodposting: It also adds a new dynamic to trades - whose better: Warrick Dunn or Willie Parker? A debate for redraft, but try to get a WP dynasty owner to cough him up for 31 year old Dunn. And in a dynasty league you can trade hurt young guys to teams who don't need them now if you're trying to make a playoff push. As you mentioned, future draft picks also add to the options. My first league was a dynasty league - I'll play in auction leagues and redraft leagues, but they're no where near as fun or interesting in terms of trading.
 
NY/NJMUFFDIVER said:
2. Go to keeper/dynasty format. When you are constantly in a "one year plan", you're trying to win each year. But if you can sell out your future and trade draft picks from the coming years, and the guy with a crappy roster but one stud, you'll see a lot more trades going down.
Click to expand...
We ARE in a keeper league (get to keep one player). By the way, I actually don't care whether we trade or not in our league. The only solution being offered by the commish is to add 2 more teams to our 10-team league, the theory being that owners won't be able to pick up as many quality free agents on waiver, and thereby owners will be more compelled to trade. I don't agree with the premise. I have to admit, I have a vested interest to keep the league at 10 teams. I don't have a clear-cut keeper, except for maybe Westbrook (PPR league), and since I had the 3rd-best record last year, I would have 2 new owners who would pick a keeper before me. The 2 best teams from last year have LT and LJ,so I'm worried about potentially getting the 12th best RB in the keeper round. This is why I object to the addition of 2 new teams as the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
  • Poll Poll
Allow trading future draft picks?
Replies
13
Views
923
Jppaul
J
Hot Sauce Guy
  • Locked
Value Swings if Tush Push is Banned
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Gatorman
How many rookie RBs will you be buying in redraft this year?
Replies
16
Views
571
joey
joey

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top