Keeper League Trade Controversy (1 Viewer)

[FF Wiseguy]

I recently completed a trade in my 3-year keeper league which I run, and wanted to get some insight on whether or not I was in the right. We do an auction keeper league, where owners can keep players for up to three years. Depending on how many years they keep the player for the pay an extra $5 on top of the auction price. For the sake of the this discussion, I will use the one year price for all players (auction price + $5).

I made the following trade (price in parentheses is the cost to keep the player for just next year)

I am PURE

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)

PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)

PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)

PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)

Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)

Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)

Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)

Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

Several members of the league protested the trade (Our trade system is commissioner vote only), saying that it was too lopsided to be allowed. They also accused me of taking advantage of an eliminated team by trading my keepers for their top players. I did not argue this fact, as that was exactly which I was doing, which I don't think is unethical.

My argument was that based on potential keeper value, this trade was at least close enough to be defensible in this type of format. After much debate, I agreed to give Fitz back for Hillman, which I honestly felt like I didn't need to do.

I agreed with them that I was the clear winner in the trade, but that it was defensible based on the potential keepers I was sending.

Furthermore, there were two trades accepted in week 6 that I feel were at least close to my trades.

Team Johnsen traded James Jones ($10)

Team Johnsen traded Brandon Bolden ($10)

Team Bring it Worldwide traded Antonio Gates ($23)

Team Bring it Worldwide traded Cam Newton ($35)

Truffle Shufflers traded Andrew Luck ($12)

Team Bring it Worldwide traded Steve Johnson ($21)

Team Bring it Worldwide traded Antonio Brown ($23)

Team Bring it Worldwide traded Darren Sproles($38)

After speaking with the owner, who was the one giving up the huge value in both trades, he said that he felt like his team didn't really have a realistic shot, so he wanted to jump on Luck (and James Jones) while he could. I chose note to veto the trades, as he clearly exercised some sort of logic, although I disagreed with it. No other owners protested, so in my mind, a precedent was set that these types of trades would be allowed so owners who are "eliminated" can set themselves up for next year.

Am I way off here in thinking that my trade is no different then the other two? Is there anything unethical with getting trades in your favor from eliminated teams?

 

[mquinnjr]

I don't have a problem with this.

Unless your league rules state that you can't be over the salary cap limit during the current season, any of these trades are good to go.

Looks like with the league structure, you will need to determine if you will be in it to win it in the current year or positioning yourself for future seasons pretty quickly, or the other owners that are making runs will snake you in trades with the weaker teams and you will be way behind the curve.

I am in a league like this, but it's draft picks that tend to get traded vs. players, so it's even worse as you can sell out on the prior season and the upcoming season for the current season. But you know what? There is nothing more that I LOVE than to make my WW moves all season and take a team out that has sold out three seasons into one in their target "Dream Team" year. NOTHING feels better than that win, it's why we do the research and participate in the hobby.

 

[lod01]

You fix this by setting the trade deadline earlier so that no one is eliminated by the deadline, except maybe a really bad team and they probably have no one worth poaching.

Your side is lopsided with no other info about the rest of the rosters.

 

[Hurl Bruce]

Keeper leagues are played for both the present and the future. Both teams benefited in this trade. One just benefited in the present and the other for the future.

How are people in these keeper leagues and not understand this?

 

[mquinnjr]

Keeper leagues are played for both the present and the future. Both teams benefited in this trade. One just benefited in the present and the other for the future.How are people in these keeper leagues and not understand this?

They're just bitter if playing for the current season, as someone is about to potentially rail on the league the rest of the season. But, as you said, trades are good since it's exactly present value for future value.

 

[massraider]

I play in two long term keeper leagues. We give up corresponding draft pick,and can keep five.

Every single year, there are trades made the would be lopsided in a redraft, and make perfect sense in leagues where players carry different price tags, through auction salaries, draft picks, etc.

I hope for your sake that your leaguemates just don't realize this, and need it explained to them.

Because the alternative is that they are just unhappy a competitor is improving themselves, and are some whiny little twerps that will pull this crap in the future, and protest every trade that they feel may make another team better.

I've played in leagues with these guys, and they rarely change. They pretty much suck for the duration of their time in the league.

 

[massraider]

You fix this by setting the trade deadline earlier so that no one is eliminated by the deadline, except maybe a really bad team and they probably have no one worth poaching.Your side is lopsided with no other info about the rest of the rosters.

Disagree 100%.Look at the salary he is taking on. Torrey Smith at $23 is worth more than Fitzy at $42. CJ at that price is definitely not a keeper.

 

[pantagrapher]

This is the whole point of keeper leagues, especially auction ones. If you're out, you have a chance to strengthen your team with value players for next season's draft; if you're in you go for it, knowing you can't keep the guys you acquire. No problem whatsoever here.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

You fix this by setting the trade deadline earlier so that no one is eliminated by the deadline, except maybe a really bad team and they probably have no one worth poaching.Your side is lopsided with no other info about the rest of the rosters.

Disagree 100%.Look at the salary he is taking on. Torrey Smith at $23 is worth more than Fitzy at $42. CJ at that price is definitely not a keeper.

Unless the cap is $1000. He never said how much the cap was. I do agree that the guys in the league do not understand how auction keepers work. And from my experience, they probably never will.

 

[SWC]

if he traded with you to get some keepers and you want to try and win this year then it is a good trade and anyone who says otherwise is a meatloaf that tastes bad and is made out of gross stuff like rat guts and so on i will never figure out why other team owners get mad at people that make trades the bottom line is that you should be out there trying to make trades not over by the punchbowl crying about how the pretty girl is dancing with the guy that asked her to dance what a bunch of wusses cripes brohan my advice is to quit this league and start up another one next year without all the big babies who cried and tried to veto the trade like my main man red said get busy tradingor get busy losing brohans take that to teh bank

 

[GregR]

I find it's very hard to evaluate the trade. To do so you need to know things like what salaries are like in the league, how available players are in the vet auction (or rookie draft if that is used), etc. I have a league with a lot of similar features and I don't think someone who hasn't been in the league could evaluate our trades very well. Sometimes there are studs I would outright drop if on my team because of their salary, while a modest FF player might be a great value because of his salary.

Ok, so that said, here's a general idea for you. When putting my league's rules together I pondered over this type of issue and how to best avoid any strife. What I did was put in the firesale rule. Any team considering making trade(s) that may be deemed a firesale must first inform the entire league that his players are available for such.

It's stated there is no exact definition of what is a firesale, but the rules state that factors like the team being out of playoff contention, trading older studs for younger players with potential or draft picks, and the number of such trades will be the main factors used to judge. And also point out the team doing the firesale does nothing but improve his trading position by possibly drumming up more trade partners which can raise what he gets in trade, so there is no reason not to follow the rule and announce it to the league before agreeing to any trades.

It hadn't really been an issue, but this year we had a last place owner decide to rebuild and he was literally dumping anyone he would for the best rookie draft picks he could get. Many of them were on face value bad trades, but they were the best he could get so therefore market value, and he probably traded with a half dozen different teams. In short, no one in the league has any room to complain about the trades because they all knew the players were available and had a chance to get in and offer a better deal if any were steals.

From the rules standpoint I'm pretty happy with how it played out. Not sure he made a wise choice with all of his trades, but we haven't seen any strife in the league over how it went down.

 

[mquinnjr]

if he traded with you to get some keepers and you want to try and win this year then it is a good trade and anyone who says otherwise is a meatloaf that tastes bad and is made out of gross stuff like rat guts and so on i will never figure out why other team owners get mad at people that make trades the bottom line is that you should be out there trying to make trades not over by the punchbowl crying about how the pretty girl is dancing with the guy that asked her to dance what a bunch of wusses cripes brohan my advice is to quit this league and start up another one next year without all the big babies who cried and tried to veto the trade like my main man red said get busy tradingor get busy losing brohans take that to teh bank

They get bitter about their 2012 chances and hit Veto/complain. I've played with people like this, and it's revolting. Without turning this thread upside down, yeah don't give them the latitude to complain, or bounce for the 2013 season into another league as these trades are good.

 

[oso diablo]

in my experience, these sort of dump trades in keeper leagues have a corrosive effect on league cohesion. In other words, they threaten the league's stability and very existence. it's just human nature.

so it depends on whether this is a group of owners you want to keep around, and the potential ease of replacing them.

 

[donkshow]

Ugh, this seems like the classic case of jealousy of other owners for not jumping on this type of deal first.

 

[bryhamm]

Keeper leagues are played for both the present and the future. Both teams benefited in this trade. One just benefited in the present and the other for the future.How are people in these keeper leagues and not understand this?

ding, ding, dingI do this every year ... regardless of which side I am on. Years ago I traded away Peyton Manning for TJ Housh straight up. It was Manning's 3rd year and I couldn't keep him. The guy with Housh had him cheap and it was his first year. Helped both of us ... him for the playoff push and me for the next couple of years.

 

[Quibbler]

If your league doesn't like this sort of trade, they should make traded players ineligible to be keepers. Letting traded players retain their keeper values is designed to encourage trades like this.

 

[RUSF18]

I'm in a similar auction keeper league and I'm surprised you haven't had this issue before. This is our 3rd year - towards the end of the first season, we were having similar issues, not necessarily people tanking/colluding but just seeing way too much "get whatever you can for a player no one would want to keep". We instituted an in-season cap for the following year (25% above our auction budget) and it made everything much smoother. You can still try to acquire those high priced vets, but you can't stack your team with them.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Thanks, a lot of good points here. I put together a very thorough explanation, and feel justified in how I acted, but wanted to get some confirmation, as feedback on how to improve the league while allowing this. I think the firesale idea is an interesting idea, but from my understand, the owner I traded with had been making offers for CJ2K for weeks with no takers.

The auction salary cap is $200, and there is a max of three keepers.

Most of the counterarguments were knocks against Richardson, Hillman, and Smith and their potential future values. I continued to argue that no one knows for sure how situations will change and how player's will be valued come next season, but didn't get very far. I made a lot of the same points here, but didn't seem to get very far.

I am the LM, so I will probably keep the league going next year, although I think most owners will be unwilling trade partners going forward. We'll see. One or two owners won't be coming back, but I shouldn't have a problem replacing them. One of them can keep RG3 for $14 and ALF for $10. So if anyone wants to take over a keeper league team with a pretty good head start, let me know!

 

[dollarbill13]

Just to clarify, all the players involved in all trades are keepable for next year (assuming so since they all have dollar values)? Either way, there's nothing wrong with this trade. I question Zeeb's knowledge, though, as it would seem that by being aggressive in shopping each of the guys, he could force all the playoff teams to get in a bidding war and hopefully better prospects in the process.

Assuming the OP doesn't keep any of the acquired players, PURE could definitely be in on those guys in next years' auction.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I'm in a similar auction keeper league and I'm surprised you haven't had this issue before. This is our 3rd year - towards the end of the first season, we were having similar issues, not necessarily people tanking/colluding but just seeing way too much "get whatever you can for a player no one would want to keep". We instituted an in-season cap for the following year (25% above our auction budget) and it made everything much smoother. You can still try to acquire those high priced vets, but you can't stack your team with them.

This is intriguing. Can you explain further? So if you're original auction budget was $200, you couldn't have a roster during the season whose values were over $240 combined? Doesn't that restrict normal trades though? If someone drafted RG3 for $10, they could have a hard time trading for someone like Megatron who may have been drafted for $50.Also, couldn't a team just drop higher priced players they didn't plan on keeping to make room for the superstars they did want? Or is this more for preventing a team getting stacked for one season only?

 

[FF Wiseguy]

Just to clarify, all the players involved in all trades are keepable for next year (assuming so since they all have dollar values)? Either way, there's nothing wrong with this trade. I question Zeeb's knowledge, though, as it would seem that by being aggressive in shopping each of the guys, he could force all the playoff teams to get in a bidding war and hopefully better prospects in the process. Assuming the OP doesn't keep any of the acquired players, PURE could definitely be in on those guys in next years' auction.

This is the first year of the league, so all are eligible to be kept. Zeeb was sending out offers for CJ2K, but did not post anything. I had AP for $36, so I put out a post telling people he was for sale. I was basically asking for the world in return, since based on how much the top 3 RBs went for this year, it could be at least a $25 savings. I settled for Lynch, Marshall and Keller from the last place team (originally went for Brady, Lynch, and Marshall), and the league was upset about that trade as well. I shouldn't say the whole league, mostly 3-4 owners, including the two who benefitted from the trades mentioned in the original post.

 

[dollarbill13]

Sounds like most of the people in the league are playing in their first keeper league...

 

[The Dude]

I will argue from the other side - because there is a potential legitimate counter point. It's impossible to evaluate any "fairness" within these types of deals. Forgetting about roster constraints, would you have given up those 4 players for just Stafford? Stafford and Johnson? I am guessing you would have taken less than you received and still made the deal.That's where I see an issue with these types of trades - but if you do not restrict them in any way, then people have no grounds to complain.

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

 

[Mario Kart]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

 

[massraider]

How many can you keep?

 

[DropKick]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

Exactly... When are your salary caps actually in effect? Just during the draft?If so, you have rules that encourage these "fire sales"... While they are not against the rules or "unethical", I think it makes for a crappy season if it all gets decided by teams throwing in the towel and playing for next season. Good drafting, waiver management, etc. gets superseded by someone taking pennies on the dollar. It's selfish and unsporting.

 

[TakiToki]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

Exactly... When are your salary caps actually in effect? Just during the draft?If so, you have rules that encourage these "fire sales"... While they are not against the rules or "unethical", I think it makes for a crappy season if it all gets decided by teams throwing in the towel and playing for next season. Good drafting, waiver management, etc. gets superseded by someone taking pennies on the dollar. It's selfish and unsporting.

It comes down to personal preferences as to how much future implications impact the current season. There's nothing "selfish" or "unsporting" about one way or the other. Everyone had equal access to these players and value should be calibrated accordingly. The rules should be crafted to promote the behavior that the league wants to see. Right and wrong aren't a part of it.

 

[elbowrm]

We put in a toilet bowl for next year's draft slots. Has helped to keep all teams somewhat competitive, but these trades still go on.

 

[Bamac]

The auction salary cap is $200, and there is a max of three keepers.

This is the only thing that gives me pause. The other guy (originally) got four players, and it's not clear that he will be keeping even three of them. That makes the trade look even more lopsided.

 

[RUSF18]

I'm in a similar auction keeper league and I'm surprised you haven't had this issue before. This is our 3rd year - towards the end of the first season, we were having similar issues, not necessarily people tanking/colluding but just seeing way too much "get whatever you can for a player no one would want to keep". We instituted an in-season cap for the following year (25% above our auction budget) and it made everything much smoother. You can still try to acquire those high priced vets, but you can't stack your team with them.

This is intriguing. Can you explain further? So if you're original auction budget was $200, you couldn't have a roster during the season whose values were over $240 combined? Doesn't that restrict normal trades though? If someone drafted RG3 for $10, they could have a hard time trading for someone like Megatron who may have been drafted for $50.

It could restrict trading, but again, we haven't had a problem since instituting it. Plenty of top guys have been dealt in multi-player trades. You just might find yourself including some extra salary to make it compliant with the cap.

Also, couldn't a team just drop higher priced players they didn't plan on keeping to make room for the superstars they did want? Or is this more for preventing a team getting stacked for one season only?

The latter. And if they want to drop higher priced players that are on their bench to acquire a stud, that's their choice and that's fine.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I will argue from the other side - because there is a potential legitimate counter point. It's impossible to evaluate any "fairness" within these types of deals. Forgetting about roster constraints, would you have given up those 4 players for just Stafford? Stafford and Johnson? I am guessing you would have taken less than you received and still made the deal.That's where I see an issue with these types of trades - but if you do not restrict them in any way, then people have no grounds to complain.

I would not have given up the four players just for Stafford, probably would have for Stafford and Johnson based on talent. But I figured I had the leverage in the deal so I used it to my advantage. My last offer to him was Leshoure, T. Smith, and Richardson for CJ2K, Stafford, and S. Smith. He then countered with the same trade, but sending me Fitz for Hillman, so I took the deal.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)

PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)

PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)

PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)

Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)

Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)

Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)

Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

There is no in-season salary cap. I wasn't even aware of the concept, but is something I'm interested in trying in future years.

The auction salary cap is $200, and there is a max of three keepers.

This is the only thing that gives me pause. The other guy (originally) got four players, and it's not clear that he will be keeping even three of them. That makes the trade look even more lopsided.

Since none of the keepers are sure things, I wanted to give him as many options as possible. They were basically 4 lottery tickets, and hopefully 2-3 of them would hit.

 

[The Dude]

I will argue from the other side - because there is a potential legitimate counter point. It's impossible to evaluate any "fairness" within these types of deals. Forgetting about roster constraints, would you have given up those 4 players for just Stafford? Stafford and Johnson? I am guessing you would have taken less than you received and still made the deal.That's where I see an issue with these types of trades - but if you do not restrict them in any way, then people have no grounds to complain.

I would not have given up the four players just for Stafford, probably would have for Stafford and Johnson based on talent. But I figured I had the leverage in the deal so I used it to my advantage. My last offer to him was Leshoure, T. Smith, and Richardson for CJ2K, Stafford, and S. Smith. He then countered with the same trade, but sending me Fitz for Hillman, so I took the deal.

But that's where the problem is - you would have made the deal for less. The fact that the party you were dealing with had no interest in how much he gave up was an issue.

 

[Quibbler]

As a sidenote, in one of my leagues where we wanted to somewhat discourage this sort of trade, but not completely forbid it, we made the normal trade deadline in week 12, but the keeper-eligible trade deadline in week 8. In other words, from week 9 till 12 you can still make trades, but none of the players involved are eligible to be keepers.

 

[AcerFC]

Sounds like the guys in your league dont really understand the words keeper league

 

[FF Wiseguy]

I will argue from the other side - because there is a potential legitimate counter point. It's impossible to evaluate any "fairness" within these types of deals. Forgetting about roster constraints, would you have given up those 4 players for just Stafford? Stafford and Johnson? I am guessing you would have taken less than you received and still made the deal.That's where I see an issue with these types of trades - but if you do not restrict them in any way, then people have no grounds to complain.

I would not have given up the four players just for Stafford, probably would have for Stafford and Johnson based on talent. But I figured I had the leverage in the deal so I used it to my advantage. My last offer to him was Leshoure, T. Smith, and Richardson for CJ2K, Stafford, and S. Smith. He then countered with the same trade, but sending me Fitz for Hillman, so I took the deal.

But that's where the problem is - you would have made the deal for less. The fact that the party you were dealing with had no interest in how much he gave up was an issue.

Not sure if I agree with this. As long as the trade is still justifiable, can't I try and get as much as I want? In a redraft league, I would also try and get as much value as possible. The only reason I can see to purposely take less value is to keep from upsetting the league. And I think that's unfair to me.But one mitigating factor is that I am the commissioner of this league, and trades are done by commissioner veto only. So maybe I have a responsibility to make sure any trade I do will be seen as acceptable?

 

[FF Wiseguy]

As a sidenote, in one of my leagues where we wanted to somewhat discourage this sort of trade, but not completely forbid it, we made the normal trade deadline in week 12, but the keeper-eligible trade deadline in week 8. In other words, from week 9 till 12 you can still make trades, but none of the players involved are eligible to be keepers.

That's actually a really great idea. Think I will try and incorporate this for next year.

 

[The Dude]

I will argue from the other side - because there is a potential legitimate counter point. It's impossible to evaluate any "fairness" within these types of deals. Forgetting about roster constraints, would you have given up those 4 players for just Stafford? Stafford and Johnson? I am guessing you would have taken less than you received and still made the deal.That's where I see an issue with these types of trades - but if you do not restrict them in any way, then people have no grounds to complain.

I would not have given up the four players just for Stafford, probably would have for Stafford and Johnson based on talent. But I figured I had the leverage in the deal so I used it to my advantage. My last offer to him was Leshoure, T. Smith, and Richardson for CJ2K, Stafford, and S. Smith. He then countered with the same trade, but sending me Fitz for Hillman, so I took the deal.

But that's where the problem is - you would have made the deal for less. The fact that the party you were dealing with had no interest in how much he gave up was an issue.

Not sure if I agree with this. As long as the trade is still justifiable, can't I try and get as much as I want? In a redraft league, I would also try and get as much value as possible. The only reason I can see to purposely take less value is to keep from upsetting the league. And I think that's unfair to me.But one mitigating factor is that I am the commissioner of this league, and trades are done by commissioner veto only. So maybe I have a responsibility to make sure any trade I do will be seen as acceptable?

Simply put - once you have one party that is not negotiating to protect the equity of the trade, you have problems. And I understand he is trading for 2013 returns. You are arguing you got as much as you could - which I understand. But the integrity of his negotiations is in question.

 

[The Dude]

Also, a bad trade is bad mojojo for everyone in your league. the only one that bemefits is the one that got the better side of the deal. all others lost - even the guy you traded with cause he could have gotten more. and that's not good for a league

 

[Hoosier16]

I don't see how people can't see a problem with this. It's clearly within the rules, but it's not going to make for a very fun finish each year.

 

[pantagrapher]

I don't see how people can't see a problem with this. It's clearly within the rules, but it's not going to make for a very fun finish each year.

I think having the top teams field even better squads for the playoffs makes for more fun, not less. Why shouldn't the teams that are out of the hunt be able to get players they can actually use next season? This is one of the main pillars of keeper strategy.

 

[mquinnjr]

I don't see how people can't see a problem with this. It's clearly within the rules, but it's not going to make for a very fun finish each year.

I think having the top teams field even better squads for the playoffs makes for more fun, not less. Why shouldn't the teams that are out of the hunt be able to get players they can actually use next season? This is one of the main pillars of keeper strategy.

There is absolutely no more fun or validating feeling than that of beating a team that has sold out for the current season via trades for name brand players with your team that you hand crafted all season long.

 

[Mene]

One thing that sticks out to me is the guy is giving up young studs for speculative keepers. CJ, Stafford, and Fitz still presumably have multiple years each of high end fantasy production. I get in an unlimited dynasty where you might start wanting to sell off CJ or Fitz for the next big thing, but only keeping 3, I have to believe the yearly keeper turnover has to make those 3 still appealing players.

None of the three backs he is getting back project as full time workhorses, and TSmith certainly doesn't project to be near Fitz over the next couple years. It just seems like the guy is giving up better keeper options, making the deal completely befuddling.

I am opposed to veto's 99% of the time, but I cannot get my head around the thinking on this deal. I actually run a long time limited keeper league myself, and I would have a hard time allowing this deal to go down, let alone be involved in it.

 

[Bamac]

One thing that (I think) has been overlooked: if you, as commissioner, have veto power over others' trades, another designated league member should have veto power over yours. Let someone without the appearance of partiality make these calls.

 

[FF Wiseguy]

One thing that (I think) has been overlooked: if you, as commissioner, have veto power over others' trades, another designated league member should have veto power over yours. Let someone without the appearance of partiality make these calls.

I was thinking about that. Or making it so my trades are up for league votes.

 

[PAO]

I recently completed a trade in my 3-year keeper league which I run, and wanted to get some insight on whether or not I was in the right. We do an auction keeper league, where owners can keep players for up to three years. Depending on how many years they keep the player for the pay an extra $5 on top of the auction price. For the sake of the this discussion, I will use the one year price for all players (auction price + $5).I made the following trade (price in parentheses is the cost to keep the player for just next year)I am PUREPURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

This trade is absolute garbage if you can only keep 3 players. There is no way in hell Zeeb shouldn't be getting a pretty significant upside player (use Spiller as an example since he's the flavour of the day) other type of player with at a really cheap keeper value (example $8) in exchange for 4 very strong players.What are the enitre rosters for these teams? The only player PURE is giving up that represents any decent value for next year is Torrey Smith at $23.I'm in a 3 player keeper auction league with $200 cap 15% increase (min $5) for keepers. We have teams that have firesales when they're out of the play-off race but it's not for horse#### like this. Last year Foster (62) and Brees (45) was traded for Fred Jackson (5)and Cam Newton (2). Last week Megatron (61) traded for Dez Bryant (28) another trade was Ridley (25), Steve Smith (18) and Mathews (26) for Spiller (8) and Colston (12).

 

[Ray_T]

I recently completed a trade in my 3-year keeper league which I run, and wanted to get some insight on whether or not I was in the right. We do an auction keeper league, where owners can keep players for up to three years. Depending on how many years they keep the player for the pay an extra $5 on top of the auction price. For the sake of the this discussion, I will use the one year price for all players (auction price + $5).I made the following trade (price in parentheses is the cost to keep the player for just next year)I am PUREPURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)Several members of the league protested the trade (Our trade system is commissioner vote only), saying that it was too lopsided to be allowed. They also accused me of taking advantage of an eliminated team by trading my keepers for their top players. I did not argue this fact, as that was exactly which I was doing, which I don't think is unethical.My argument was that based on potential keeper value, this trade was at least close enough to be defensible in this type of format. After much debate, I agreed to give Fitz back for Hillman, which I honestly felt like I didn't need to do. I agreed with them that I was the clear winner in the trade, but that it was defensible based on the potential keepers I was sending. Furthermore, there were two trades accepted in week 6 that I feel were at least close to my trades. Team Johnsen traded James Jones ($10)Team Johnsen traded Brandon Bolden ($10)Team Bring it Worldwide traded Antonio Gates ($23)Team Bring it Worldwide traded Cam Newton ($35)Truffle Shufflers traded Andrew Luck ($12)Team Bring it Worldwide traded Steve Johnson ($21)Team Bring it Worldwide traded Antonio Brown ($23)Team Bring it Worldwide traded Darren Sproles($38)After speaking with the owner, who was the one giving up the huge value in both trades, he said that he felt like his team didn't really have a realistic shot, so he wanted to jump on Luck (and James Jones) while he could. I chose note to veto the trades, as he clearly exercised some sort of logic, although I disagreed with it. No other owners protested, so in my mind, a precedent was set that these types of trades would be allowed so owners who are "eliminated" can set themselves up for next year.Am I way off here in thinking that my trade is no different then the other two? Is there anything unethical with getting trades in your favor from eliminated teams?

Well, in general, it is accepted that any trade should be reasonably fair and does not involve collusion.Now Fair is a loaded statement because you can trade present value for future value and vice versa.so long as the deal makes sense from the perspective of both owners, and it doesnt look like the fix is in, then there should be no complaints.I think your problem is that your deal was an 8 player deal and its easier for an 8 player deal like this to look bad than it is for a 4, 5, or 6 player deal. I do look at the deal and in some respects it does make some sense, but I also look and think he could have got more for what he was unloading. That's where your issue lies. I dont think there is any question, you pushed the envelope a little farther than the previous trades. I'm not sure what to say. I'm just glad I'm not ruling on this trade.

 

[daveR]

if he traded with you to get some keepers and you want to try and win this year then it is a good trade and anyone who says otherwise is a meatloaf that tastes bad and is made out of gross stuff like rat guts and so on i will never figure out why other team owners get mad at people that make trades the bottom line is that you should be out there trying to make trades not over by the punchbowl crying about how the pretty girl is dancing with the guy that asked her to dance what a bunch of wusses cripes brohan my advice is to quit this league and start up another one next year without all the big babies who cried and tried to veto the trade like my main man red said get busy tradingor get busy losing brohans take that to teh bank

Gabby Johnson is right!

 

[Mario Kart]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

There is no in-season salary cap. I wasn't even aware of the concept, but is something I'm interested in trying in future years.

This is the problem.

 

[DropKick]

PURE traded Mikel Leshoure ($12)

PURE traded Torrey Smith ($23)

PURE traded Daryl Richardson ($10)

PURE traded Ronnie Hillman ($10)

Zeeb traded Matthew Stafford ($44)

Zeeb traded Chris Johnson ($59)

Zeeb traded Steve Smith ($21)

Zeeb traded Larry Fitzgerald ($42)

How can you take on $111 and not be over the cap?

Exactly... When are your salary caps actually in effect? Just during the draft?If so, you have rules that encourage these "fire sales"... While they are not against the rules or "unethical", I think it makes for a crappy season if it all gets decided by teams throwing in the towel and playing for next season. Good drafting, waiver management, etc. gets superseded by someone taking pennies on the dollar. It's selfish and unsporting.

It comes down to personal preferences as to how much future implications impact the current season. There's nothing "selfish" or "unsporting" about one way or the other. Everyone had equal access to these players and value should be calibrated accordingly. The rules should be crafted to promote the behavior that the league wants to see. Right and wrong aren't a part of it.

Some people just don't understand right and wrong. A good league has a trade deadline that places a limit on this stuff. But, when you have rules like limited keepers, teams can make very one sided but self serving deals that help themselves next season - while throwing a monkey wrench into the current competitive balance. People talk about the "integrity" of the league and this is the heart of it.I've never played in an auction format - but if you can take on any players (regardless of salary) at the end of a season, then what is the point?