need advice with league problem (1 Viewer)

[faux_bear]

I'm in a 12 team league. It's a one keeper league in which you can keep one player, but it costs you a draft pick 3 rounds higher than where he was drafted the previous season.

We've hit a major problem in our league where several owners are upset over how certain trades have been handled.

A week ago, one owner whose season was in the tank traded Adrian Peterson to a contender for a 1st round pick in NEXT YEAR'S draft. No other players were involved in the trade. Many owners went up in arms and objected to the trade because they argued that it was unfair for the league since it was lopsided in favor of one owner this year, and the owner next year.

8 out of 10 owners objected to the trade and it was vetoed.

Now this week one owner whose season is also in the tank traded Frank Gore and Terrell Owens for Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Mason, and a 3rd round pick in next year's draft.

This trade was not vetoed by the league and was allowed to go through. The owners who were inolved in the Peterson trade are upset that this trade was allowed to go through while theirs was not.

The issue is how do you guys handle the trading of future draft picks in leagues like this one that can best be described as "yearly leagues". Do you allow the trading of future picks, do you outright disallow them, or do you take it on a case by case basis?

I should say that there were no rules in place to deal with trades like this, and deals like this HAVE occurred in the past, though none more recent than 2004, and none as extremely lopsided as the Peterson deal.

 

[Killerclown]

the AP trades sounds like a typical keeper trade helps the team in contention this year and rebuilding team next year. So it's not lopsided in my opinion.

I really think that trading of draft picks should be established before trades are made with draft picks.

 

[Road Warriors]

I'm in a 12 team league. It's a one keeper league in which you can keep one player, but it costs you a draft pick 3 rounds higher than where he was drafted the previous season.We've hit a major problem in our league where several owners are upset over how certain trades have been handled.A week ago, one owner whose season was in the tank traded Adrian Peterson to a contender for a 1st round pick in NEXT YEAR'S draft. No other players were involved in the trade. Many owners went up in arms and objected to the trade because they argued that it was unfair for the league since it was lopsided in favor of one owner this year, and the owner next year.8 out of 10 owners objected to the trade and it was vetoed.Now this week one owner whose season is also in the tank traded Frank Gore and Terrell Owens for Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Mason, and a 3rd round pick in next year's draft.This trade was not vetoed by the league and was allowed to go through. The owners who were inolved in the Peterson trade are upset that this trade was allowed to go through while theirs was not.The issue is how do you guys handle the trading of future draft picks in leagues like this one that can best be described as "yearly leagues". Do you allow the trading of future picks, do you outright disallow them, or do you take it on a case by case basis?I should say that there were no rules in place to deal with trades like this, and deals like this HAVE occurred in the past, though none more recent than 2004, and none as extremely lopsided as the Peterson deal.

My keep 2 with similar rules ( 2 rounds earlier instaed of 3 ) does allow future draft pick trades. We haven't had a deal like what you describe, but I can tell you it would pass. We don't have a league vote for veto'ing trades, so that issue goes away. As Commish, all I try to do is be certain each owner in a trade is trying to improve their team, either for right now or for the future. The deal you describe very easily hits that mark.

 

[faux_bear]

the AP trades sounds like a typical keeper trade helps the team in contention this year and rebuilding team next year. So it's not lopsided in my opinion. I really think that trading of draft picks should be established before trades are made with draft picks.

except that Peterson can not/will not be kept. I mentioned that this is a 1-keeper league to show that there is some continuity from year to year, but for the most part this is a yearly league. some owners do bow out of the league from time to time and new guys come in.

 

[AcerFC]

Any time you allow future picks to be traded, trades like these are possible. It should not matter if AP will be kept or not. They guy is willing to take the risk for a title this year. I don't see the problem with either trade. The problem is that the league can veto it. Don't want to get into the whole collusion thing but I believe in that.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think any league that has voting on trades is a bad idea. the trade never looks good from the bystanders. if a trade is absolutely absurd the commish could step in for the good of the league, but it really should be ADP for Sproles type of trade.

We also play in money leagues so if you trade a future pick you need to pay that year in advance.

 

[Ninersfan]

I'm in a 12 team league. It's a one keeper league in which you can keep one player, but it costs you a draft pick 3 rounds higher than where he was drafted the previous season.We've hit a major problem in our league where several owners are upset over how certain trades have been handled.A week ago, one owner whose season was in the tank traded Adrian Peterson to a contender for a 1st round pick in NEXT YEAR'S draft. No other players were involved in the trade. Many owners went up in arms and objected to the trade because they argued that it was unfair for the league since it was lopsided in favor of one owner this year, and the owner next year.8 out of 10 owners objected to the trade and it was vetoed.Now this week one owner whose season is also in the tank traded Frank Gore and Terrell Owens for Brandon Jacobs, Derrick Mason, and a 3rd round pick in next year's draft.This trade was not vetoed by the league and was allowed to go through. The owners who were inolved in the Peterson trade are upset that this trade was allowed to go through while theirs was not.The issue is how do you guys handle the trading of future draft picks in leagues like this one that can best be described as "yearly leagues". Do you allow the trading of future picks, do you outright disallow them, or do you take it on a case by case basis?I should say that there were no rules in place to deal with trades like this, and deals like this HAVE occurred in the past, though none more recent than 2004, and none as extremely lopsided as the Peterson deal.

When you have keeper or dynasty leagues you are going to eventually have these kinds of deals. In fact, once a team is out of the running it's probably a smart move to try and get some value for guys, especially those they can't keep. We have a keep 5 league that uses the KN-3 (draft round -3) rule that you do. We added the following rules and they seem to have done a good job:1) Each team can only have 1 pick in the first two rounds (FYI we are changing this to the first three rounds this year). Teams can swap places in thoise rounds but you can't trade for an additional pick nor can you trade away your pick in those rounds.2) Our trade deadline is the week 10 games. This has limited the 'year-end' dumping of teams once they don't make the playoffs.3) Teams that trade away draft picks for next year have to prepay the entry fee. If it is a 3rd, 4th or 5th it's 100% of the fee. Any other picks it's 50%. this is to try and limit a team trading away a bunch of picks then not coming back.4) Finally, our owners can vote to veto trades but you have to have 9 of 12 to do so. Our owners have complained about a lot of deals but nothing has been vetoed (nor should it be IMO except for true collusion)Example: QB are a premium in our league since you can flex a 2nd QB. Last year a team basically traded LT (non-keeper) for J. Campbell (keep for a 13th this year). Over half the league hit the roof, especially since the Campbell owner was already the league's dominate team. At that time it looked like the LT owner was giving him away from nothing. Ahh but fastforward. Going into tonights game he is the #14 Qb in our league and a possible keeper for the next 3-4 years. The best advice I can offer is to get everyone together and think about what types of deals can/will occur. If most folks are ready to veto them then personally I would say your league shouldn't allow trading draft picks at all. Something else to think about. In our league there are lots of preseason deals involved players and draft picks as teams with more than 5 keepers try to get some value for their excess. We like it since it rewards good drafters while also allowing weeker teams the ability to make their team better.Good Luck!!!

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Unless its a true dynasty where you are keeping at least 10+ players year to year, I wouldn't allow trading of future picks.

What would prevent the same two guys that did the ADP deal to throw in Steve Smith for a 2nd, and Gates for a 3rd? They are fair deals on their own merit, but one team has a HUGE advantage this year, and the other gets a HUGE advantage the next. They'd give themselves a great shot at winning it every other year.

That huge advantage goes away when the picks are rookies or players not in the top 125.

 

[Islander]

Unless its a true dynasty where you are keeping at least 10+ players year to year, I wouldn't allow trading of future picks. What would prevent the same two guys that did the ADP deal to throw in Steve Smith for a 2nd, and Gates for a 3rd? They are fair deals on their own merit, but one team has a HUGE advantage this year, and the other gets a HUGE advantage the next. They'd give themselves a great shot at winning it every other year. That huge advantage goes away when the picks are rookies or players not in the top 125.

I disagree. Two teams give themselves a great shot at winning? That's what trades are about. Others should do it as well. If you are a contender you have a choice to make: try to win this year or keep your powder dry for next year. Similar dilemma for teams who are struggling a bit. Rebuilt or keep trying.This kind of thing helps parity. If your team is doing poorly, at least you can still do something about next year by managing your team properly. Otherwise there is just no interest in the league for the current season anymore. Teams in the hunt that don't like those trades complain just because they are not willing to make a similar trade themselves.

 

[Jersey35]

The ADP trade should never have been veto'ed. League votes, frankly, should not be allowed on trades.

Trades should only be veto'ed to prevent cheating and collusion, but league owners are incapable of voting anything but their own self interest.

Remove this part of your league rules and give veto power only to the the commissioner.

 

[BuckeyeArt]

I think you just need a trade deadline. Maybe have an early deadline on draft picks (before anyone would clearly be out of the playoff race) and a later one on trades involving only players.

The only problem that can occur in your league is when a player who cannot be kept gets traded for a draft pick. Maybe that's the only trade type that needs an early deadline.

 

[RC94]

One way this is handled in some leagues that I am in is to require that any team trading away a future draft pick must pay a non-refundable deposit towards next year's fee (half of next year's fee or all of next year's fee - whatever you want to set it as). That prevents someone from going for it all this year by leveraging next year and then leaving the league with a team that is at a major disadvantage. If he is willing to pay for next year and continue to run his team even though he has set it back by trading away draft picks, that should be fine with everyone. It's a trade-off, which trades often are, but if the owner is willing to take the bad with the good then it should be allowed. If the owner drops out then he loses the money so the new owner gets a big discount for being willing to take over a disadvantaged team.

 

[Pickle Rody]

I see no inherent problem with either trade, vetoed or not.

The Peterson trade lookes fine, as does the next.....who are you to say Peterson wouldn't get kept? You are not that owner, are you? There should be no veto clauses in any league........period.

Your league needs to establish some consistent trade rules, for everyone's self-perceived sanity.

JMO.