Making weird, stock market-esque trades (1 Viewer)

[Jercules]

Just wondering if anyone besides me has ever tried to jazz up the trading in their league by simulating tactics like short sales, futures, options, etc. For example;

I have Alexander, he has LT. We can't agree on another guy for me to toss in to make an even trade, so instead we agree to swap the guys, only he gets Alexander immediately whereas I have to wait 3 weeks (or 4, or 5, or whatever we negotiate).

Another example; I get, say, Brandon Jacobs from him in exchange for the right, in a few weeks, for him to swap, say, Marion Barber for Julius Jones (he's giving up Jacobs for the guarantee, down the road, of having the Cowboys starting RB). It's essentially a put/call for anyone familiar with finance; Jacobs is the face value, Barber is the strike price, and Jones is the stock price.

I could go on, but I'm thinking of trying to do some of this stuff in my league and so far reactions have been mixed. Some people seem to think making exotic trades like this constitutes collusion (which I think is BS, because they're still honest trades). Other people don't like the idea that somebody could make deals like this and build a total juggernaut for a given amount of time (like in my first example above; for some amount of time, one guy is getting LT and Alexander without losing any players at all). It could get out of hand, that much I'll admit.

So if you're a league commissioner, would you allow stuff like this (seeing as how it would have to be you enforcing these trades, so that the guy actually does give up LT when the time comes)? I like the idea of putting some strategy back into it, just looking for some opinions.

 

[benbadman]

I think that's a terrible idea.

The pro sports really don't do this, unless you consider when baseball teams trade a player for consideration/prospects to be named later.

 

[Challenge Everything]

This is a dumb idea. Terrible!!

 

[FUBAR]

I think that's a terrible idea.

The pro sports really don't do this, unless you consider when baseball teams trade a player for consideration/prospects to be named later.

Yep.I like it.

 

[Captain Hook]

Many years ago I had a similar idea in a baseball league; trading away a top SB guy for another team's closer and then a month later we would trade back thus each picking up some ground in those categories.

But like the trades you mention that have future agreements or considerations, they really should not be allowed - and are not in any leagues that I play in today.

 

[dickey moe]

I could see this working. Why not mix it up?

 

[stevegamer]

The rent-a-palyer deals don't work. Why?

The team who has to play the tandem of SA & LT gets screwed.

If you can find an entire league of guys who to do this it might work.

Of course, one could make deals to acquire studs for year one playoffs, and deal the guy back at the end of off-season for junk. After you win, you trade the players where they need to go & quit the league.

Someone else can buy you penny stock at that point.

 

[Giggity]

It's like a guy trying to spice up a blow job by wearing pantyhose. Don't out think the room, just sit back and enjoy.

 

[Jercules]

What if you state it immediately, X player now for Y player in 3 weeks? That's not really the same as "future considerations."

 

[Challenge Everything]

What if you state it immediately, X player now for Y player in 3 weeks? That's not really the same as "future considerations."

 

[Nookular Power]

This is a dumb idea. Terrible!!

Care to elaborate? You've posted twice saying you think it's a dumb idea, but never with a reason. Can you help us out?I like the idea, actually. I could see it as a logical extension of trading draft picks or injured players (in dynasty/keeper leagues). If you're trading currently productive players for future considerations, you weaken your momentary prospects for future gains. Your trading partner gets a momentary boost, but pays in the future.Taking the 1st example again -- sure, if I draw the guy who's got both LT and SA for 3 weeks (or however long), I'm pissed, but only because I'm probably going to lose. That guy is going on a nice little streak to start the year, but he takes a hit once the deal is done -- after those 3 weeks, he's probably giving up a bit more than even money for the right to have both for the start of the year. That said, the OP is taking a big risk -- while likely getting good value once the trade is complete, he's got neither LT nor SA for 3 weeks, and risks putting himself in a big hole. Should he rebound, he's in good shape for the play-offs...but does he make it? Adds some intrigue, I think. In the end, I don't know that the competitive balance of a league is really at stake. It just opens more creative avenues for trades.There are ways such a system could be abused (renting dynasty players for the play-offs, etc.), but a smart comish/league will react quickly enough to make an appropriate rules change to allow for the practice in good faith.

 

[Challenge Everything]

This is a dumb idea. Terrible!!

Care to elaborate? You've posted twice saying you think it's a dumb idea, but never with a reason. Can you help us out?I like the idea, actually. I could see it as a logical extension of trading draft picks or injured players (in dynasty/keeper leagues). If you're trading currently productive players for future considerations, you weaken your momentary prospects for future gains. Your trading partner gets a momentary boost, but pays in the future.Taking the 1st example again -- sure, if I draw the guy who's got both LT and SA for 3 weeks (or however long), I'm pissed, but only because I'm probably going to lose. That guy is going on a nice little streak to start the year, but he takes a hit once the deal is done -- after those 3 weeks, he's probably giving up a bit more than even money for the right to have both for the start of the year. That said, the OP is taking a big risk -- while likely getting good value once the trade is complete, he's got neither LT nor SA for 3 weeks, and risks putting himself in a big hole. Should he rebound, he's in good shape for the play-offs...but does he make it? Adds some intrigue, I think. In the end, I don't know that the competitive balance of a league is really at stake. It just opens more creative avenues for trades.There are ways such a system could be abused (renting dynasty players for the play-offs, etc.), but a smart comish/league will react quickly enough to make an appropriate rules change to allow for the practice in good faith.

A trade is a trade... immediately.Renting players should be forbidden and not even thought of as legit.This technique is a form of collusion... you scratch my back, I scratch yours.Any league I am in if this would happen I would either leave it right away or ask the people involve be kicked out.This is borrowing players... not good for the integrity of the league.Again, stupid idea.

 

[CalBear]

I think the objection of "it's collusion in my league" is not really a valid one. Obviously, if one were trying to build a league like this, it would be within the bounds of the rules.

The question is, would this kind of trading make a league more fun?

I'd expect you'd have to have a league full of option-trading geeks for them to think this is more fun than having a team that models a real NFL team. But for certain kinds of populations, it might work.

 

[None_More_Black]

My main league has real money fa blind auctions every week. Every player starts the year with 75 dollars of real money. We can trade cap space. Helps out evening trades sometimes. I can trade say Alexander and $5 of cap space for LTII. My cap goes to 70 and your goes up to 80. You can't flat out buy players.

 

[Nookular Power]

This is a dumb idea. Terrible!!

Care to elaborate? You've posted twice saying you think it's a dumb idea, but never with a reason. Can you help us out?I like the idea, actually. I could see it as a logical extension of trading draft picks or injured players (in dynasty/keeper leagues). If you're trading currently productive players for future considerations, you weaken your momentary prospects for future gains. Your trading partner gets a momentary boost, but pays in the future.Taking the 1st example again -- sure, if I draw the guy who's got both LT and SA for 3 weeks (or however long), I'm pissed, but only because I'm probably going to lose. That guy is going on a nice little streak to start the year, but he takes a hit once the deal is done -- after those 3 weeks, he's probably giving up a bit more than even money for the right to have both for the start of the year. That said, the OP is taking a big risk -- while likely getting good value once the trade is complete, he's got neither LT nor SA for 3 weeks, and risks putting himself in a big hole. Should he rebound, he's in good shape for the play-offs...but does he make it? Adds some intrigue, I think. In the end, I don't know that the competitive balance of a league is really at stake. It just opens more creative avenues for trades.There are ways such a system could be abused (renting dynasty players for the play-offs, etc.), but a smart comish/league will react quickly enough to make an appropriate rules change to allow for the practice in good faith.

A trade is a trade... immediately.Renting players should be forbidden and not even thought of as legit.This technique is a form of collusion... you scratch my back, I scratch yours.Any league I am in if this would happen I would either leave it right away or ask the people involve be kicked out.This is borrowing players... not good for the integrity of the league.Again, stupid idea.

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

 

[radballs]

I could see something like this working. But, the rules will have to be really inclusive and cover every possible scenario. I see nothing wrong with incorporating the time aspect into trades and think it could be very interesting.

That said, trying to determine (either as commish if you have veto power or as another league member who has trade voting rights) collusion would be incredibly more difficult than normal leagues. But, if it's a league of guys who really know what they're doing and have some kind of feel for the time value component of a trade, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[Challenge Everything]

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

ALL trades are not a form of collusion. There really is no explaining that needs to be done about this so called trading technique as to its illegality.Trade person A for person B means those players trade hands at that time. If players do not change teams right away one team is renting the players. I have Tomlinson you have Manning... I give you Tomlinson knowing I will get Manning 3 weeks later. The net effect is you have Tomlinson and Manning for 3 weeks while I have neither for 3 weeks only to finally even out the trade 3 weeks later. The one guy goes 3-0 and I go 0-3... who would make a trade like that? Again, no explanations are needed as to how dumb this idea is. Similar trading philosophies have been discussed here in the past with the same sentiments I am expressing here.

 

[FUBAR]

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

ALL trades are not a form of collusion. There really is no explaining that needs to be done about this so called trading technique as to its illegality.Trade person A for person B means those players trade hands at that time. If players do not change teams right away one team is renting the players. I have Tomlinson you have Manning... I give you Tomlinson knowing I will get Manning 3 weeks later. The net effect is you have Tomlinson and Manning for 3 weeks while I have neither for 3 weeks only to finally even out the trade 3 weeks later. The one guy goes 3-0 and I go 0-3... who would make a trade like that? Again, no explanations are needed as to how dumb this idea is. Similar trading philosophies have been discussed here in the past with the same sentiments I am expressing here.

I'd give Manning now to get LT in week 4 and have him for the rest of his career.You'd win the first 3 games, but I like my odds after that. How is something illegal if it's following the rules?

 

[Challenge Everything]

I'd give Manning now to get LT in week 4 and have him for the rest of his career.You'd win the first 3 games, but I like my odds after that. How is something illegal if it's following the rules?

The borrowing/renting of players is illegal.

 

[radballs]

I'd give Manning now to get LT in week 4 and have him for the rest of his career.You'd win the first 3 games, but I like my odds after that. How is something illegal if it's following the rules?

The borrowing/renting of players is illegal.

Not to 12 owners who may all agree to accept that as one of the rules.And your response is ironic given your user name.

 

[CalBear]

I'd give Manning now to get LT in week 4 and have him for the rest of his career.You'd win the first 3 games, but I like my odds after that. How is something illegal if it's following the rules?

The borrowing/renting of players is illegal.

Not if it's allowed in the rules.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

11) There is a class of issues which depending on your league may or may not be considered acceptable behavior/sportsmanship. Be specific as to if they will be allowed or not. They include:

Starting a player on bye week
Tanking a game (such as to get a better playoff matchup. In some leagues situations can arise where an owner may have a better chance at making the playoffs himself by losing which changes division and wildcard tiebreaks to ones he can win.)
Making trades that result in worsening your team in order to stock another team who plays a rival you want/need to lose.

Firesales (in keeper/dynasty leagues)
Using waivers to make a trade after the trade deadline.

"Loaning" players. (i.e. "I'll trade you my backup defense, but you have to give it back after your bye week.").
Two-part trades. ("You give me LT this week and I'll give you LJ next week," or, "Here's a 3 player for 3 player trade, but I don't want to give you my RB until next week. Let's trade the other 2 for 2 now and agree to swap the remaining players next week")-- The biggest problem here isn't whether you allow them or don't. It's that some owners may think they are fine while others consider them questionable at best or cheating at worst. The conflict is worse when both sides have a different expectation of whether it is allowed. Be explicit if you allow it, and what the consequences are for doing it if not allowed. Put it out there so your owners have to accept they chose to play in a league that allows/doesn't allow it, and that you resolved the situation exactly as the rules indicated you should.

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

 

[radballs]

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

11) There is a class of issues which depending on your league may or may not be considered acceptable behavior/sportsmanship. Be specific as to if they will be allowed or not. They include:

Starting a player on bye week
Tanking a game (such as to get a better playoff matchup. In some leagues situations can arise where an owner may have a better chance at making the playoffs himself by losing which changes division and wildcard tiebreaks to ones he can win.)
Making trades that result in worsening your team in order to stock another team who plays a rival you want/need to lose.

Firesales (in keeper/dynasty leagues)
Using waivers to make a trade after the trade deadline.

"Loaning" players. (i.e. "I'll trade you my backup defense, but you have to give it back after your bye week.").
Two-part trades. ("You give me LT this week and I'll give you LJ next week," or, "Here's a 3 player for 3 player trade, but I don't want to give you my RB until next week. Let's trade the other 2 for 2 now and agree to swap the remaining players next week")-- The biggest problem here isn't whether you allow them or don't. It's that some owners may think they are fine while others consider them questionable at best or cheating at worst. The conflict is worse when both sides have a different expectation of whether it is allowed. Be explicit if you allow it, and what the consequences are for doing it if not allowed. Put it out there so your owners have to accept they chose to play in a league that allows/doesn't allow it, and that you resolved the situation exactly as the rules indicated you should.

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

I don't care what's said or where it's pinned. Any 12 dudes that get together and agree upon a set of rules could potentially start a league that allows this kind of activity.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.

ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

ALL trades are not a form of collusion. There really is no explaining that needs to be done about this so called trading technique as to its illegality.Trade person A for person B means those players trade hands at that time. If players do not change teams right away one team is renting the players.

I have Tomlinson you have Manning... I give you Tomlinson knowing I will get Manning 3 weeks later. The net effect is you have Tomlinson and Manning for 3 weeks while I have neither for 3 weeks only to finally even out the trade 3 weeks later. The one guy goes 3-0 and I go 0-3... who would make a trade like that?

Again, no explanations are needed as to how dumb this idea is. Similar trading philosophies have been discussed here in the past with the same sentiments I am expressing here.

I love trying to mix it up too, but I see this as the problem. The person going 3-0 isn't getting his wins against you (smart owners will make sure of this). You are affecting the other teams that this stud-filled roster gets to play in those 3 weeks. Why should a third party have to suffer when 2 owner's make a trade? The converse is that the 0-3 team is a pushover for 3 different teams. I know if I was the guy facing LT/SA I would be pissed. If it's not a head-to-head league, this just may work.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I could see this working. Why not mix it up?

 

[FUBAR]

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

11) There is a class of issues which depending on your league may or may not be considered acceptable behavior/sportsmanship. Be specific as to if they will be allowed or not. They include:

Starting a player on bye week
Tanking a game (such as to get a better playoff matchup. In some leagues situations can arise where an owner may have a better chance at making the playoffs himself by losing which changes division and wildcard tiebreaks to ones he can win.)
Making trades that result in worsening your team in order to stock another team who plays a rival you want/need to lose.

Firesales (in keeper/dynasty leagues)
Using waivers to make a trade after the trade deadline.

"Loaning" players. (i.e. "I'll trade you my backup defense, but you have to give it back after your bye week.").
Two-part trades. ("You give me LT this week and I'll give you LJ next week," or, "Here's a 3 player for 3 player trade, but I don't want to give you my RB until next week. Let's trade the other 2 for 2 now and agree to swap the remaining players next week")-- The biggest problem here isn't whether you allow them or don't. It's that some owners may think they are fine while others consider them questionable at best or cheating at worst. The conflict is worse when both sides have a different expectation of whether it is allowed. Be explicit if you allow it, and what the consequences are for doing it if not allowed. Put it out there so your owners have to accept they chose to play in a league that allows/doesn't allow it, and that you resolved the situation exactly as the rules indicated you should.

Pinned thread at the top of the Pool.

nice post.

 

[Mike]

Very interesting idea but I agree with CalBear this would likely need to be a league of option trading geeks to fly. I wouldn't be interested myself just because I'm sure it would create many complaints, arguing, headaches, etc.

 

[Nookular Power]

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

ALL trades are not a form of collusion. There really is no explaining that needs to be done about this so called trading technique as to its illegality.Trade person A for person B means those players trade hands at that time. If players do not change teams right away one team is renting the players. I have Tomlinson you have Manning... I give you Tomlinson knowing I will get Manning 3 weeks later. The net effect is you have Tomlinson and Manning for 3 weeks while I have neither for 3 weeks only to finally even out the trade 3 weeks later. The one guy goes 3-0 and I go 0-3... who would make a trade like that? Again, no explanations are needed as to how dumb this idea is. Similar trading philosophies have been discussed here in the past with the same sentiments I am expressing here.

You still haven't explained how this idea is bad while trading draft picks is not. You have Manning, I have multiple first round picks in 2008. I give you those picks for Manning. I have Manning for the season, you lose a lot more this season...BUT you re-coup/re-stock next year in the draft. Is this bad? Is this "renting" Manning? When every dynasty league (and the NFL...and every professional sports league...) allows such a thing?I see no difference. I think the assumption in the original post, and in your example above, is that some additional compensation is offered for the delay in receiving a player. What that compensation is, you have to decide in a way that's fair, just like in any other trade. Taking your example, the assumption would be that I would give you something extra for getting Manning 3 weeks later -- you've put yourself in an 0-3 hole, taking the chance that what you get in return will put you in the play-offs, where you'll be in even better position to do well.

 

[Londo]

Under the right circumstances, I could see this working. However, I believe it would be like herding cats to try and make those circumstances come to fruition.

Effectively, under these rules, you could partner up with one or more teams and put together one monster team, then split the winnings (how would you write the rules to prevent this?)

More qualitatively, how would you like to be the guy who gets to hypothetically play against LT 4 times in a year because of a trade like this? This could happen in a dynasty or redraft league as well, of course, but it is much less likely.

My point is that it could happen if you had a group of guys who wanted to broker their way through a season, without stretching the grey areas of the rules to the point that the league loses its integrity. In my experience however, the type of owner who would get a kick out of this league is exactly the type of owner who likes to stretch the grey areas of the rules.

I would love to watch it from a distance one season.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

Just wondering if anyone besides me has ever tried to jazz up the trading in their league by simulating tactics like short sales, futures, options, etc. For example;I have Alexander, he has LT. We can't agree on another guy for me to toss in to make an even trade, so instead we agree to swap the guys, only he gets Alexander immediately whereas I have to wait 3 weeks (or 4, or 5, or whatever we negotiate).Another example; I get, say, Brandon Jacobs from him in exchange for the right, in a few weeks, for him to swap, say, Marion Barber for Julius Jones (he's giving up Jacobs for the guarantee, down the road, of having the Cowboys starting RB). It's essentially a put/call for anyone familiar with finance; Jacobs is the face value, Barber is the strike price, and Jones is the stock price.I could go on, but I'm thinking of trying to do some of this stuff in my league and so far reactions have been mixed. Some people seem to think making exotic trades like this constitutes collusion (which I think is BS, because they're still honest trades). Other people don't like the idea that somebody could make deals like this and build a total juggernaut for a given amount of time (like in my first example above; for some amount of time, one guy is getting LT and Alexander without losing any players at all). It could get out of hand, that much I'll admit.So if you're a league commissioner, would you allow stuff like this (seeing as how it would have to be you enforcing these trades, so that the guy actually does give up LT when the time comes)? I like the idea of putting some strategy back into it, just looking for some opinions.

Bad Idea! How would you feel as a team owner if you were a bubble team coming down the stretch and someone pulled off a trade like that to ensure them a playoff spot. I can see a lot of problems and pissed off people in your future if you let this happen.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

What do you think of trading draft picks in dynasty leagues? One guy gets the goods now, the other gets his goods later. Explain to me how this is any different than what the OP has proposed.ALL trades are a form of collusion. The point of making a trade is so both parties can improve themselves. BAD collusion is when one party makes himself worse so that another party gets better. In the proposals given by the OP, I don't see how this is ever the case.

ALL trades are not a form of collusion. There really is no explaining that needs to be done about this so called trading technique as to its illegality.Trade person A for person B means those players trade hands at that time. If players do not change teams right away one team is renting the players. I have Tomlinson you have Manning... I give you Tomlinson knowing I will get Manning 3 weeks later. The net effect is you have Tomlinson and Manning for 3 weeks while I have neither for 3 weeks only to finally even out the trade 3 weeks later. The one guy goes 3-0 and I go 0-3... who would make a trade like that? Again, no explanations are needed as to how dumb this idea is. Similar trading philosophies have been discussed here in the past with the same sentiments I am expressing here.

You still haven't explained how this idea is bad while trading draft picks is not. You have Manning, I have multiple first round picks in 2008. I give you those picks for Manning. I have Manning for the season, you lose a lot more this season...BUT you re-coup/re-stock next year in the draft. Is this bad? Is this "renting" Manning? When every dynasty league (and the NFL...and every professional sports league...) allows such a thing?I see no difference. I think the assumption in the original post, and in your example above, is that some additional compensation is offered for the delay in receiving a player. What that compensation is, you have to decide in a way that's fair, just like in any other trade. Taking your example, the assumption would be that I would give you something extra for getting Manning 3 weeks later -- you've put yourself in an 0-3 hole, taking the chance that what you get in return will put you in the play-offs, where you'll be in even better position to do well.

I understand where your coming from, but I view this type of trade as renting a player for x amount of weeks. which is different then lets say I'll give you SA and a 4th rd pick next year for LT. Trading draft picks is totally different in my opinion. In deep keepers or dynasty league sometimes its hard to make trades and building through the draft is how you get the next LT, SA, etc. I drafted LT and if I wouldn't have traded players for draft picks I wouldn't have enjoyed his service, while the guy who got the player immediatly missed out on one of the best players ever.

 

[lions327]

Just wondering if anyone besides me has ever tried to jazz up the trading in their league by simulating tactics like short sales, futures, options, etc. For example;I have Alexander, he has LT. We can't agree on another guy for me to toss in to make an even trade, so instead we agree to swap the guys, only he gets Alexander immediately whereas I have to wait 3 weeks (or 4, or 5, or whatever we negotiate).Another example; I get, say, Brandon Jacobs from him in exchange for the right, in a few weeks, for him to swap, say, Marion Barber for Julius Jones (he's giving up Jacobs for the guarantee, down the road, of having the Cowboys starting RB). It's essentially a put/call for anyone familiar with finance; Jacobs is the face value, Barber is the strike price, and Jones is the stock price.I could go on, but I'm thinking of trying to do some of this stuff in my league and so far reactions have been mixed. Some people seem to think making exotic trades like this constitutes collusion (which I think is BS, because they're still honest trades). Other people don't like the idea that somebody could make deals like this and build a total juggernaut for a given amount of time (like in my first example above; for some amount of time, one guy is getting LT and Alexander without losing any players at all). It could get out of hand, that much I'll admit.So if you're a league commissioner, would you allow stuff like this (seeing as how it would have to be you enforcing these trades, so that the guy actually does give up LT when the time comes)? I like the idea of putting some strategy back into it, just looking for some opinions.

Bad Idea! How would you feel as a team owner if you were a bubble team coming down the stretch and someone pulled off a trade like that to ensure them a playoff spot. I can see a lot of problems and pissed off people in your future if you let this happen.

That about sums up my opinion. Not only that, but teams would dump players to get draft position. I just don't see anything good. But that's just me. I would never play with rules like that.

 

[popeye]

Whether it is good or not is subject to interpretation. It would be a stretch, however, to say that this mimics the NFL. If your idea of fantasy football is be in a league that mimics the NFL, this is bad idea. If the owners are open to something 'a little more out there' ( ), then enjoy.

 

[Arm Chair Express]

Just wondering if anyone besides me has ever tried to jazz up the trading in their league by simulating tactics like short sales, futures, options, etc. For example;I have Alexander, he has LT. We can't agree on another guy for me to toss in to make an even trade, so instead we agree to swap the guys, only he gets Alexander immediately whereas I have to wait 3 weeks (or 4, or 5, or whatever we negotiate).Another example; I get, say, Brandon Jacobs from him in exchange for the right, in a few weeks, for him to swap, say, Marion Barber for Julius Jones (he's giving up Jacobs for the guarantee, down the road, of having the Cowboys starting RB). It's essentially a put/call for anyone familiar with finance; Jacobs is the face value, Barber is the strike price, and Jones is the stock price.I could go on, but I'm thinking of trying to do some of this stuff in my league and so far reactions have been mixed. Some people seem to think making exotic trades like this constitutes collusion (which I think is BS, because they're still honest trades). Other people don't like the idea that somebody could make deals like this and build a total juggernaut for a given amount of time (like in my first example above; for some amount of time, one guy is getting LT and Alexander without losing any players at all). It could get out of hand, that much I'll admit.So if you're a league commissioner, would you allow stuff like this (seeing as how it would have to be you enforcing these trades, so that the guy actually does give up LT when the time comes)? I like the idea of putting some strategy back into it, just looking for some opinions.

Bad Idea! How would you feel as a team owner if you were a bubble team coming down the stretch and someone pulled off a trade like that to ensure them a playoff spot. I can see a lot of problems and pissed off people in your future if you let this happen.

That about sums up my opinion. Not only that, but teams would dump players to get draft position. I just don't see anything good. But that's just me. I would never play with rules like that.

I'm not oppossed to trading draft picks as I think that is totally fine, I'm opposed to the renting of players. In the posters example the team getting SA and LT for a few weeks hasn't given up anything to make this a trade. LT > SA and nobody here would make that trade straight up, so a trade like that just throws the league off balance for a few weeks. Both teams should be giving up something in every trade or its just borrowing players. I also don't have a problem with future considerations if the considerations are layed out prior to the trade going down. What I mean by that is draft picks given up based on certain performance goals. Like if your worried about trading for a qb like Culpepper and the owner is holding you up for him, so you offer him a deal based on td passes or passing yards like I'll give you a 2nd rd pick if he has 20+ td passed and a 4th if he doesn't. Something to that effect. Either way boom or bust the team getting the player is giving up something.Not to mention in deep keepers or dynasty leagues most teams aren't going to fire sale players for draft picks, because it would take them too long to rebuild with rookies and waiver wire leftovers.

 

[Jercules]

I'm not oppossed to trading draft picks as I think that is totally fine, I'm opposed to the renting of players.

Trading draft picks is renting players! You give a guy a player for his draft pick next year, he just rented that player!

 

[Lash]

it's crazy some of the ideas ive read in here

we have a baseball rule that you CANT trade back players to the team you got them from until the following season

this is to disallow the rentaplayer tradeback

also, you cant allow one owner to team up with SA/LT against three opponents until the trade vests itself

only thing we even REMOTELY consider is conditional draft picks: liek the NBA does ...

i'll give you my next future first rounder that isn't a top 3 pick or something like that