Should dynasty leagues have trade deadlines? (1 Viewer)

[tdmills]

My league just had an issue with a trade deadline and it spawned a discussion.

Why do dynasty leagues have trade deadlines?

I know redraft leagues have trade deadlines for good reasons. The teams with no chance of the playoffs have no business trading or helping out playoff teams because they have no benefit. But is that the same for dynasty leagues?

I would think it benefits the losing teams in dynasty leagues to not have a trade deadline. How does it hurt the integrity of the league if a playoff team gets stronger? I bet that losing team just gained rookie picks and young players for the deal, which will help them moving forward and hurt the playoff team. In fact, I could see a playoff team with an injury becoming desperate and making trades in favor of the losing teams. They need a spot starter in the championship game, i'm sure they would place a heavy price due to what's at stake.

Is there something i'm missing with dynasty trade deadlines?

 

[teal]

I think that the deadline should be later than that of redraft, but a deadline still makes sense because you don't want teams that didn't make the playoffs "gutting" their teams for picks in an attempt to make a comeback next year and then end up with a totally destroyed team for which you need to find a new owner.

To some extent, people destroying teams in dynasty is a much bigger problem than in redraft because it can be very hard to find new owners to take over those teams and keep the league competitive.

 

[tdmills]

I think that the deadline should be later than that of redraft, but a deadline still makes sense because you don't want teams that didn't make the playoffs "gutting" their teams for picks in an attempt to make a comeback next year and then end up with a totally destroyed team for which you need to find a new owner. To some extent, people destroying teams in dynasty is a much bigger problem than in redraft because it can be very hard to find new owners to take over those teams and keep the league competitive.

The trade deadline has nothing to do with teams being gutted. The only reason i've seen it difficult to replace owners is when they don't have first round picks and the league didn't make them pay 50% of next seasons deposit.

 

[DropKick]

Absolutely! There should be a trade dead line. You can trade again when the season is over.

The current season should run it's natural course. The season is over for teams out of contention. The competitive balance of this season shouldn't be impacted by teams planning for the future.

Compare it to the real NFL if you like; teams that miss the play-offs aren't sending their aging stars to contenders for draft picks.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Can see having the deadline right before the playoffs. Once the playoffs start teams shouldn't be able to change their team dramatically.

 

[tdmills]

Absolutely! There should be a trade dead line. You can trade again when the season is over.

The current season should run it's natural course. The season is over for teams out of contention. The competitive balance of this season shouldn't be impacted by teams planning for the future.

Compare it to the real NFL if you like; teams that miss the play-offs aren't sending their aging stars to contenders for draft picks.

What do you call rebuilding? Dynasty teams all the time trade an aging player(Frank Gore) for young players or draft picks. What's the difference if it happens in week 10 or week 15?

 

[FUBAR]

I have found more trades get done right before the deadline than most of the year. To an extent the deadline actually encourages trading.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Because you build your teams all season (over multiple years) not just a bunch of crazy deals at the last 2 weeks of the year.

PS-Plus some guys make a bunch of win now moves and then quit. If the same people were in the league for the long haul it might be different depending on your preference.

 

[NattyDread]

I think that the deadline should be later than that of redraft, but a deadline still makes sense because you don't want teams that didn't make the playoffs "gutting" their teams for picks in an attempt to make a comeback next year and then end up with a totally destroyed team for which you need to find a new owner. To some extent, people destroying teams in dynasty is a much bigger problem than in redraft because it can be very hard to find new owners to take over those teams and keep the league competitive.

I agree and disagree here. Agree that the deadline should be later than redraft. This allows allows all players to have currency: aging stars to the contenders, and a second big trading window (the other just after the NFL draft) for draft picks. Why curtail trading activity as a general rule? It makes the league more interesting.Another poster suggested that since the NFL doesn't do a bunch of late year mega-deals, then fantasy leagues shouldn't either. But you do see those types of trades in both the NBA and Major League Baseball. It not only makes things interesting, but allows team owners to act more like true GMs.

 

[Tornacl]

My league just had an issue with a trade deadline and it spawned a discussion.Why do dynasty leagues have trade deadlines?I know redraft leagues have trade deadlines for good reasons. The teams with no chance of the playoffs have no business trading or helping out playoff teams because they have no benefit. But is that the same for dynasty leagues?I would think it benefits the losing teams in dynasty leagues to not have a trade deadline. How does it hurt the integrity of the league if a playoff team gets stronger? I bet that losing team just gained rookie picks and young players for the deal, which will help them moving forward and hurt the playoff team. In fact, I could see a playoff team with an injury becoming desperate and making trades in favor of the losing teams. They need a spot starter in the championship game, i'm sure they would place a heavy price due to what's at stake.Is there something i'm missing with dynasty trade deadlines?

I posted this very same question. I am not a fan of trade deadlines in dynasty leagues. Late season deals (when a desperate team is willing to overpay) are one of the fastest ways for a bottom team to improve.

 

[Chazzhawk]

There shouldn't be a deadline, but a 4 week or 5 week no trading rule. If you have 12 teams in your league and 6 make the playoffs there is 3 weeks of playoffs. No trades should occur between the end of week 12 (Wednesday night before week 13 starts) and the end of week 16 or 17 if your league goes to 17. Once the league is over there you shouldn't be allowed to trade until you have paid the next season entry fee

 

[lbouchard]

No trading in my leagues during playoffs. Other than that, fair game.

 

[BespokeJort]

There shouldn't be a deadline, but a 4 week or 5 week no trading rule. If you have 12 teams in your league and 6 make the playoffs there is 3 weeks of playoffs. No trades should occur between the end of week 12 (Wednesday night before week 13 starts) and the end of week 16 or 17 if your league goes to 17. Once the league is over there you shouldn't be allowed to trade until you have paid the next season entry fee

I am on the same page with the details of what you described, but was at how that doesn't constitute a deadline

 

[FUBAR]

There shouldn't be a deadline, but a 4 week or 5 week no trading rule. If you have 12 teams in your league and 6 make the playoffs there is 3 weeks of playoffs. No trades should occur between the end of week 12 (Wednesday night before week 13 starts) and the end of week 16 or 17 if your league goes to 17. Once the league is over there you shouldn't be allowed to trade until you have paid the next season entry fee

agreed, but I wouldn't allow trading until off-season business is dealt with. Any rule changes should be voted on and any new owners should be in place before anyone is allowed to trade.

 

[mrgerty]

Ugh. Hate trade deadlines in general, but especially for dynasty leagues. I'm basically done with one league until next summer since my team is outta the playoffs (Playoffs!?).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

 

[tdmills]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

 

[SSOG]

In big money leagues, I can see the need for a deadline (so someone doesn't just gut their team to make a run and then quit); however, if that's the concern, the deadline needs to be a lot earlier than just during the playoffs. Large sums of money have a corrosive effect on integrity, so I can understand the need for sub-optimal rules- "if men were angels..." and all that.

Outside of that, I am adamantly opposed to trade deadlines in dynasty leagues. As tornacl pointed out, removing deadlines is of great benefit to bottom feeders, and one of the only windows they have to get fair return for their Smiffs and Gores and Jacksons. Removing the deadline also IMPROVES the integrity of the playoffs, because it ensures they aren't decided by one rogue injury. If I'm the Gronk owner, and I'm shallow at TE but stacked at WR, I want a chance to address my new hole by acquiring a Gonzo or an Olsen or a Myers. I don't want my hopes dashed not by an injury, but by its timing, and the unfortunate fact that it occurred after the deadline.

 

[fruity pebbles]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You think it would be ok for a team to say win week 14 and 15 and then make trades for matchups in the championship game or pick up an old stud or two for one game?

 

[tdmills]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You think it would be ok for a team to say win week 14 and 15 and then make trades for matchups in the championship game or pick up an old stud or two for one game?

If the owner giving up an old stud is fairly compensated(most owners in your dynasty leagues should know), then yes. They can get first round picks, young prospects, etc for a guy that doesn't matter to them this year or in rebuilding efforts. It helps everyone.

 

[squistion]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

 

[SSOG]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You think it would be ok for a team to say win week 14 and 15 and then make trades for matchups in the championship game or pick up an old stud or two for one game?

Isn't that what dynasty is? A decision to sacrifice future value in order to increase present odds vs. a decision to sacrifice present odds to increase future value? How is it any different in week 16 than it is in week 13? Unless you have a rule that specifically says only one of the championship teams is allowed to sacrifice the future for the present, how is it unfair or unbalancing? In essence, you have two championship teams bidding on how much they value the present over the future. Unless there are large sums of money or other potentially corrosive influences impacting the negotiations, that seems perfectly reasonable- let each team decide how much acquisitions increase their chances, and how much that increase is worth. And, as noted, it increases competitiveness. Good teams decide to weaken themselves in future years. Bad teams get better-than-usual returns on people who don't fit into their long term plans.

 

[tdmills]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

 

[Mario Kart]

In redraft, the trade deadline should always be just after 50% of the games have been played. If there is a 13 week season, than the trade deadline should be before Week 8 games (7 games have been played). Likewise, for 14 week seasons... trade deadline should be before Week 8.

Dynasty, I can see extending the trade deadline a week or two after that but nothing more. So, before the Week 10 games (after 9 games so just short of 75% of the games) is ideal.

 

[squistion]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

 

[Jello_Biafra]

No trading in my leagues during playoffs. Other than that, fair game.

I've convinced 3 out of my 5 leagues to do the same and it works out great. If you have a trade deadline of say, week 11, there are too many teams still in contention that don't want to trade their aging players away for future considerations. By week 13, our last regular season week, everyone pretty much knows if they're out of it or not. Helps improve the weaker teams, which should be the ultimate goal of a dynasty league that wants to be around for a while.

 

[tdmills]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

 

[squistion]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

 

[tdmills]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

It's not like teams are trading nothing for these players. It comes at a cost in week 10 or week 13 or week 16. Each owner decides if a trade is right for them. If any of the other playoff teams decide not to trade or improve, that's their own choice and they have to live with another team improving.

 

[Mario Kart]

The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

 

[tdmills]

Dumping older players for younger ones or draft picks isn't collusion. So i'm trying to understand what other members issue with a deadline would be?

Collusion is different because that changes the competitive makeup of the entire league, rebuilding isn't. These teams will sacrifice the future for production now...it's a gamble. Even so, when it comes to the playoffs it's mostly luck anyway.

 

[tdmills]

The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

Name calling, nice. My issue has nothing to do with the playoffs. It was a deal completed between two NON-PLAYOFF teams, but nice try. This is a simple debate(the purpose of the SP).If the players value decreases to the point of it not being worth it, the owner has the right to not make the deal. It goes both ways. I would argue, as other members have, that competitive playoff teams may become desperate and mortgage more than a players said value to perhaps win a championship. Hence making you point moot.

 

[Mario Kart]

The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

Name calling, nice. My issue has nothing to do with the playoffs. It was a deal completed between two NON-PLAYOFF teams, but nice try. This is a simple debate(the purpose of the SP).If the players value decreases to the point of it not being worth it, the owner has the right to not make the deal. It goes both ways. I would argue, as other members have, that competitive playoff teams may become desperate and mortgage more than a players said value to perhaps win a championship. Hence making you point moot.

No where in my reply did I call you any names. Reread and repost your apology later. TIA

 

[tdmills]

The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

Name calling, nice. My issue has nothing to do with the playoffs. It was a deal completed between two NON-PLAYOFF teams, but nice try. This is a simple debate(the purpose of the SP).If the players value decreases to the point of it not being worth it, the owner has the right to not make the deal. It goes both ways. I would argue, as other members have, that competitive playoff teams may become desperate and mortgage more than a players said value to perhaps win a championship. Hence making you point moot.

No where in my reply did I call you any names. Reread and repost your apology later. TIA

You need apologies from people on the internet to feel better about yourself? I'll wait for you to read the remaining 6 sentences to have a productive debate. When people stop debating they generally concede they're in the wrong.

 

[Mister CIA]

[*]The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

[*]If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

[*]If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

Whole lotta wrong going on here. If you made the same point a fourth time, perhaps you could have persuaded me otherwise.

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

Confirmation Bias

 

[Dawg Pound 69]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

You nailed it. Since most of us are always trying to tweak rules/settings to minimize the luck factor in FF, eliminating the trade deadline would be a step in the wrong direction. Usually see the team who wins the championship is the owner who makes anticipatory moves based on his roster strengths/weaknesses, as well as player matchups in weeks 14-16. While frequently see a top seed who stands pat (either out of arrogance or because his team has just overachieved in regular season) get eliminated in 1st round.

 

[DexterDew]

Confirmation Bias

+1

 

[FUBAR]

[*]The value of a player decreases closer to the playoffs.

[*]If I know the trade deadline is Week 10, I will have to pay more to lure Player A away from a team because I will be able to use him the final three weeks of the season (to help push me into the playoffs) but to also have for the following years.

[*]If I knew the trade deadline is non existent, I can easily shop around for a few players throwing out the "I only need him for the playoffs" line and not pay as much... thus not helping out those teams trading away Player A and helping their team the following years.

The arguments you are making, tdmills, are coming off as childish and petty. If you wanted Player A before your league's trade deadline, you should have ponied up the steeper price to get him.

Whole lotta wrong going on here. If you made the same point a fourth time, perhaps you could have persuaded me otherwise.

#1 is absolutely true for older players. Take Tony Gonzalez as an example. If a rebuilding team has Gonzo and trades him before week 10, his gaining team gets 8 games from him. If there are 6 playoff seeds and 10 teams are pushing to make the playoffs, 10 teams could get 8 games from Gonzo. If his owner waits until the playoffs are seeded before week 15, there are only 6 teams that could use him for only 3 games and each needs to decide whether the difference between their current TE and Gonzo is significant enough to push them to a championship and whether the price is worth it. For younger players this is much less of an issue but still somewhat exists.

 

[SSOG]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

First, why on earth would anyone want to DISCOURAGE trading? If deadlines have that effect, that's yet another reason why they're bad. Second, even if there were more trades without the deadline, that'd bring the total to... What, 4 trades? Obviously trading in the NFL is not analogous to trading in FF. Nor should it be.

 

[SSOG]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

You nailed it. Since most of us are always trying to tweak rules/settings to minimize the luck factor in FF, eliminating the trade deadline would be a step in the wrong direction. Usually see the team who wins the championship is the owner who makes anticipatory moves based on his roster strengths/weaknesses, as well as player matchups in weeks 14-16. While frequently see a top seed who stands pat (either out of arrogance or because his team has just overachieved in regular season) get eliminated in 1st round.

Explain to me how this eliminates the luck factor. It magnifies the impact of injuries- since when is magnifying injuries a good way to reduce luck?Hypothetical: two teams meet in the championship. Both have top-2 QBs and no depth. Team A suffers an injury, while team B does not. Neither team has depth, remember, so it's hard to argue that team B was better prepared and therefore a better owner who deserves to be rewarded. It's hard to see that as anything other than Team B getting a lucky break and Team A being unable to respond thanks to an asinine trade deadline.

 

[EBF]

I'm inclined to say yes because I think it helps limit the amount of teams tanking late in the season. Teams with no playoff hopes do this all the time and it skews the balance of the league if you aren't the lucky guy waiting with his arms outstretched when someone decides to give up.

 

[Tornacl]

I'm inclined to say yes because I think it helps limit the amount of teams tanking late in the season. Teams with no playoff hopes do this all the time and it skews the balance of the league if you aren't the lucky guy waiting with his arms outstretched when someone decides to give up.

So you believe that if my dynasty team is rebuilding, and I trade away my older players (who are more productive this year) for younger players or draft picks is tanking? I'm sorry, but there is a BIG difference! Tanking is intentionally not playing your best lineup each week. Such as leaving proven studs on the bench, playing players that are injured or on bye, etc.If I trade away players that may perform better this season but are not in my long-term plan, and I get draft picks, younger players, or injured players that aren't performing this year, that is called re-building. I'm sacrificing immediate production for what I hope will be increased long-term production.In a dynasty league, there's nothing that says I have to try to win this year, because my team might not be capable of it. In order to be an honest player, I just have to put my best lineup out each week.

 

[EBF]

I'm inclined to say yes because I think it helps limit the amount of teams tanking late in the season. Teams with no playoff hopes do this all the time and it skews the balance of the league if you aren't the lucky guy waiting with his arms outstretched when someone decides to give up.

So you believe that if my dynasty team is rebuilding, and I trade away my older players (who are more productive this year) for younger players or draft picks is tanking? I'm sorry, but there is a BIG difference! Tanking is intentionally not playing your best lineup each week. Such as leaving proven studs on the bench, playing players that are injured or on bye, etc.

If I trade away players that may perform better this season but are not in my long-term plan, and I get draft picks, younger players, or injured players that aren't performing this year, that is called re-building. I'm sacrificing immediate production for what I hope will be increased long-term production.

In a dynasty league, there's nothing that says I have to try to win this year, because my team might not be capable of it. In order to be an honest player, I just have to put my best lineup out each week.

It's just been my experience that a later trade deadline increases the number of 'whaaaat?' type of trades in my leagues. Things become really polarized when half the teams aren't even trying to win. They flat out just dump talent at insane prices. That's all well and fine if you're the guy who benefits, but to me it cheapens the competition a bit when someone spews their roster to another team. That's why I like things like a total points wild card and an early-ish trade deadline. Provides some incentive for the bad teams not to just ship their players out to the first guy who makes something approaching a fair offer.

 

[Tornacl]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

You nailed it. Since most of us are always trying to tweak rules/settings to minimize the luck factor in FF, eliminating the trade deadline would be a step in the wrong direction. Usually see the team who wins the championship is the owner who makes anticipatory moves based on his roster strengths/weaknesses, as well as player matchups in weeks 14-16. While frequently see a top seed who stands pat (either out of arrogance or because his team has just overachieved in regular season) get eliminated in 1st round.

Explain to me how this eliminates the luck factor. It magnifies the impact of injuries- since when is magnifying injuries a good way to reduce luck?Hypothetical: two teams meet in the championship. Both have top-2 QBs and no depth. Team A suffers an injury, while team B does not. Neither team has depth, remember, so it's hard to argue that team B was better prepared and therefore a better owner who deserves to be rewarded. It's hard to see that as anything other than Team B getting a lucky break and Team A being unable to respond thanks to an asinine trade deadline.

Obviously we're in the minority here, and for the life of me I can't understand it. I'm in 4 dynasty leagues, three of them have deadlines and the fourth doesn't. No one can ever give a real reason for it, other than "this is the way it's always been."

If I'm in a league with no trade deadline, and my likely playoff opponent suddenly gets a significant injury at a position, there's nothing preventing me from contacting my opponent's likely trading partners and trying to "steal" his likely options.

And for the people arguing that the values actually decrease, I think you're crazy. I guess you've never had a key player get injured during the playoffs - lucky you. Let's just give a hypothetical example based on SSOG's top QB example.

For the purpose of the example, Team A has Tom Brady, but because of a rash of injuries isn't going to make the playoffs. Team B has Aaron Rodgers, and is cruising, easily locking up the #1 seed and a week 14 bye. Because of who their starters are, they both have average backups (since they are only bye-week fill-ins).

During Team B's week 14 bye, disaster happens. Aaron Rodgers goes down and is done for the rest of the season. Since there is no trade deadline, Team B contacts Team A and offers Aaron Rodgers for Tom Brady, and Team A accepts the offer. Team A certainly improves for the future, as Rodgers is ranked higher and several years younger. Team B makes the move, because they want to take the shot while they can.

How has this trade "thrown off the competitive balance of the league"? It seems to me that the injury threw off the balance, not the trade. And it seems that in the same situation, a trade deadline is what actually throws off the balance, because it would prevent a team from having a realistic chance to overcome the injury.

And to those that say you have to plan for that, sorry, but you can't plan for injuries. They can happen to anyone at any time. For those in favor of trade deadlines, I hope that something similar to the above scenario happens to YOUR best player, then see how you feel about trade deadlines then.

 

[Tornacl]

I'm inclined to say yes because I think it helps limit the amount of teams tanking late in the season. Teams with no playoff hopes do this all the time and it skews the balance of the league if you aren't the lucky guy waiting with his arms outstretched when someone decides to give up.

So you believe that if my dynasty team is rebuilding, and I trade away my older players (who are more productive this year) for younger players or draft picks is tanking? I'm sorry, but there is a BIG difference! Tanking is intentionally not playing your best lineup each week. Such as leaving proven studs on the bench, playing players that are injured or on bye, etc.

If I trade away players that may perform better this season but are not in my long-term plan, and I get draft picks, younger players, or injured players that aren't performing this year, that is called re-building. I'm sacrificing immediate production for what I hope will be increased long-term production.

In a dynasty league, there's nothing that says I have to try to win this year, because my team might not be capable of it. In order to be an honest player, I just have to put my best lineup out each week.

It's just been my experience that a later trade deadline increases the number of 'whaaaat?' type of trades in my leagues. Things become really polarized when half the teams aren't even trying to win. They flat out just dump talent at insane prices. That's all well and fine if you're the guy who benefits, but to me it cheapens the competition a bit when someone spews their roster to another team. That's why I like things like a total points wild card and an early-ish trade deadline. Provides some incentive for the bad teams not to just ship their players out to the first guy who makes something approaching a fair offer.

No offense, but it sounds like you're playing with a bunch of dynasty novices. If they're giving away talented players and not getting anything in return, it sounds like you've got a problem of having a bad owner - no league rules put in place will make that team competitive. The deadline isn't the problem, it is that the owner doesn't seem to understand how to build a team for the future, nor compete in the present.Tell me if you think this is a bad trade in this context. Team A is one of the best teams in the league and has Gronk as his TE. Team B is in a rebuilding mode and has Graham and Gresham as his TEs. When Gronk got hurt, Team A traded Gronk + 3rd round pick for Graham. Gronk is almost 3 years younger, and has out-produced Graham each of the past two years. Graham is clearly the next best TE.

Would a trade like this throw off the balance of the league? Would it really matter if were made in week 12 or week 14? I just don't see why you'd want to prevent trades from happening.

Good owners aren't going to just give away good players, but they will make opportunistic trades.

 

[squistion]

dynasty leagues should have no trades during playoffs only, IMO

Why? What does it hurt? As another member suggested, it helps the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

If it is such a great idea, why doesn't the NFL do it? After all (to use your words) it would help the rebuilding teams because the contenders are desperate.

You're really comparing the NFL and all it's complexities to Fantasy Football leagues? Billions of dollars vs hundreds of dollars. Owners/GMs/Agents/Players/Coaches vs FF owners. Player contracts vs FF team ownership. Players blending into a team due to scheme/character/intelligence/chemistry vs FF pointsTrades don't happen in the NFL for several reasons outside of a deadline.

They don't happen because there is a deadline and probably for the same reason that most dynasty leagues prohibit it, it could upset the competitive balance of the playoffs.

You're wrong. Please give me a scenario where it upsets the competitive balance of the playoffs?Team A is out of the playoffs. It trades Frank Gore to Team B in playoff contention. What's the difference if it happens in Week 10/13/or 16? You could argue during all points(week10/13/16) that it upsets the competitive balance of the playoff teams. Why hinder the chances of rebuilding teams to improve?

Playoff seeding in most leagues is based on team records generally. Higher seeded teams face lower seeded teams in the playoffs. If the #6 seed who squeaks into the playoffs off a 5-8 record (from winning their division) and picks up Arian Foster or Doug Martin for draft picks from a rebuilding team, then the competitive balance of the playoffs has been upset.And part of the strategy in dynasty leagues is planning for the playoffs and having the depth to cover unexpected injuries. No point in carrying any extra depth on your roster if you can trade for it in Weeks 14-16. This would an advantage to teams that don't plan ahead or gamble that if they have no depth they can always work around a injury by just acquiring a key player with a trade from a rebuiding team.

You nailed it. Since most of us are always trying to tweak rules/settings to minimize the luck factor in FF, eliminating the trade deadline would be a step in the wrong direction. Usually see the team who wins the championship is the owner who makes anticipatory moves based on his roster strengths/weaknesses, as well as player matchups in weeks 14-16. While frequently see a top seed who stands pat (either out of arrogance or because his team has just overachieved in regular season) get eliminated in 1st round.

Explain to me how this eliminates the luck factor. It magnifies the impact of injuries- since when is magnifying injuries a good way to reduce luck?Hypothetical: two teams meet in the championship. Both have top-2 QBs and no depth. Team A suffers an injury, while team B does not. Neither team has depth, remember, so it's hard to argue that team B was better prepared and therefore a better owner who deserves to be rewarded. It's hard to see that as anything other than Team B getting a lucky break and Team A being unable to respond thanks to an asinine trade deadline.

Obviously we're in the minority here, and for the life of me I can't understand it. I'm in 4 dynasty leagues, three of them have deadlines and the fourth doesn't. No one can ever give a real reason for it, other than "this is the way it's always been."

If I'm in a league with no trade deadline, and my likely playoff opponent suddenly gets a significant injury at a position, there's nothing preventing me from contacting my opponent's likely trading partners and trying to "steal" his likely options.

And for the people arguing that the values actually decrease, I think you're crazy. I guess you've never had a key player get injured during the playoffs - lucky you. Let's just give a hypothetical example based on SSOG's top QB example.

For the purpose of the example, Team A has Tom Brady, but because of a rash of injuries isn't going to make the playoffs. Team B has Aaron Rodgers, and is cruising, easily locking up the #1 seed and a week 14 bye. Because of who their starters are, they both have average backups (since they are only bye-week fill-ins).

During Team B's week 14 bye, disaster happens. Aaron Rodgers goes down and is done for the rest of the season. Since there is no trade deadline, Team B contacts Team A and offers Aaron Rodgers for Tom Brady, and Team A accepts the offer. Team A certainly improves for the future, as Rodgers is ranked higher and several years younger. Team B makes the move, because they want to take the shot while they can.

How has this trade "thrown off the competitive balance of the league"? It seems to me that the injury threw off the balance, not the trade. And it seems that in the same situation, a trade deadline is what actually throws off the balance, because it would prevent a team from having a realistic chance to overcome the injury.

And to those that say you have to plan for that, sorry, but you can't plan for injuries. They can happen to anyone at any time. For those in favor of trade deadlines, I hope that something similar to the above scenario happens to YOUR best player, then see how you feel about trade deadlines then.

Yes you can to a certain extent, it is concept called "depth" on your roster. And I have had that scenario happen to MY best player and I was able to work around it because I the foresight to acquire an adequate backup (not as good as my star player obviously, but enough to give me enough points to keep winning in the playoffs).

 

[Tornacl]

Sorry, having depth on your roster is one thing, but there's no depth that equals a stud. There's a big difference between having one of your marginal starters going down and one of your studs going down.

But my reason for supporting no trade deadlines ISN'T to help the team that has the injury, it's to help the team that's near the bottom - which will actually HELP the competitive balance of the league. They are more likely to get top value for a aging or marginal player when the other owner is desperate - and that's more likely to be true late in the season or during the playoffs. If a team that is rebuilding can extract top value from another team and improve by getting younger, adding draft picks, or adding good players for the future, that helps the league.

In my experience, the worst dynasty leagues to be in are the ones that have limited trade activity, because they tend to have a constant big divide between the strong and weak teams, and those teams tend to stay that way. Trying to do a re-build in a league that doesn't trade much is nearly impossible.

In the leagues that have a lot of trades, I believe that the weaker teams have better options to improve. I've seen teams go from the bottom to the top very quickly by making a lot of moves for youth and draft picks, then trading those for more proven players around the draft (when draft picks are at a premium).

 

[kutta]

The real NFL is the ultimate dynasty league. And they have a trade deadline. So that's good enough for me.

 

[SSOG]

Yes you can to a certain extent, it is concept called "depth" on your roster. And I have had that scenario happen to MY best player and I was able to work around it because I the foresight to acquire an adequate backup (not as good as my star player obviously, but enough to give me enough points to keep winning in the playoffs).

It's one thing to say that a team should have depth. It's another thing to assume that depth is optimally distributed. I'm in a dynasty league where my team is absolutely stacked. I've got Peterson and Rice at RB. If either of them go down, I'm starting Charles, instead. I've got Brees at QB. If he goes down, I turn to his primary backup... Who is Ben Roethlisberger. I could acquire more depth, but it'd be idiotic for me to trade useful assets to acquire a third string QB on the off chance that my primary starter might get hurt in the next two weeks. How stupid would it be to trade a quality WR or RB prospect to acquire a player I have no intention of starting at a position where I already have depth? Should I trade Charles for a lesser RB and a QB, sacrificing some RB depth and making my team worse? And if that QB gets hurt, should I sacrifice even more depth to acquire another one? If I have great developmental players, should I trade them for aging assets who have only a 5% chance of seeing my lineup? And how does any of this reduce luck- again, the teams that are rewarded aren't the ones with the best depth, they're the ones with the least injuries, or the ones with injuries at convenient positions (such as RB, for me) instead of inconvenient positions (such as QB, where I'm already down Roeth, or TE, where I had the good sense to back up Gronk with Olsen, but am now down to Pitta or Kendricks as my guys if I get hit with another injury).