This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Does your fantasy league also employ capologists because your salary structures are so complex? Do you use fantasy long snappers? Fantasy punters? 53 man rosters, game-day inactives? Does the NFL award points for yards gained? Or would you agree that "but the NFL does it!" is not enough justification, on its own, to put the rule in for fantasy, too.
All your points, such as that you're trading something of value, are irrelevant. You just don't recognize the impact on competitive integrity.Your season is over. Your team is done. You shouldn't be able tho throw your players back into the mix just so you can "turn a trick" that positions yourself for next season. It's greed on your part and a disservice to the teams still playing.
Worst post ever...
The "real" NFL isn't fantasy football. Trades pretty much only happen in the NFL during the draft and occasionally during pre-season, so I guess those are the only times that we should do that. The real NFL doesn't have a waiver wire either - it has players that are in the league, and those who aren't. So we should get rid of waivers too.The NFL doesn't award points because you gained a few yards, caught a pass, threw an interception, fumbled, got a sack or interception, or kicked a field goal from a longer distance. Points aren't awarded for throwing TDs, only for actually scoring them. Let's just make it so you only award points for ACTUAL points scored.Come to think of it, real NFL teams all play on the same field at the same time, too. So instead of drafting players from different teams, why don't we just pick one team and then if they we, we win. If they lose, we lose.This will be much more like the NFL. The fact is that the NFL doesn't trade players during the system, because of the complications of the salary cap, complexities of offenses and terminology, and other factors that obviously don't matter in fantasy football. NFL football and fantasy football are totally different, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Maybe if you win your league, a real NFL team will ask you to be their next GM.
Play re-draft then, because that's what you're talking about.
That's a problem of having bad owners, not bad rules.
This isn't necessarily true... but Tony G. is a great example. Suppose I have Gonzalez and (for sake of discussion) MAKE the play-offs but lose to you in the semi-finals. The other team playing in the championship loses Graham to injury that same week. The guy didn't carry another TE and the waiver wire is thin. A possibly retiring Gonzo just went from worthless to an attractive chip.
Having a 5-6 week trade deadline at the end of the season doesn't turn a dynasty league into a redraft. I hope this helps because I am sorely concerned about reading comprehension these days.
Second worst post ever. OK... maybe it's a tie.The "real" NFL isn't fantasy football. Trades pretty much only happen in the NFL during the draft and occasionally during pre-season, so I guess those are the only times that we should do that. The real NFL doesn't have a waiver wire either - it has players that are in the league, and those who aren't. So we should get rid of waivers too.The NFL doesn't award points because you gained a few yards, caught a pass, threw an interception, fumbled, got a sack or interception, or kicked a field goal from a longer distance. Points aren't awarded for throwing TDs, only for actually scoring them. Let's just make it so you only award points for ACTUAL points scored.Come to think of it, real NFL teams all play on the same field at the same time, too. So instead of drafting players from different teams, why don't we just pick one team and then if they we, we win. If they lose, we lose.This will be much more like the NFL. The fact is that the NFL doesn't trade players during the system, because of the complications of the salary cap, complexities of offenses and terminology, and other factors that obviously don't matter in fantasy football. NFL football and fantasy football are totally different, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Maybe if you win your league, a real NFL team will ask you to be their next GM.
Pretty close, he certainly is giving SSOG a run for his money.Second worst post ever. OK... maybe it's a tie.The "real" NFL isn't fantasy football. Trades pretty much only happen in the NFL during the draft and occasionally during pre-season, so I guess those are the only times that we should do that. The real NFL doesn't have a waiver wire either - it has players that are in the league, and those who aren't. So we should get rid of waivers too.The NFL doesn't award points because you gained a few yards, caught a pass, threw an interception, fumbled, got a sack or interception, or kicked a field goal from a longer distance. Points aren't awarded for throwing TDs, only for actually scoring them. Let's just make it so you only award points for ACTUAL points scored.Come to think of it, real NFL teams all play on the same field at the same time, too. So instead of drafting players from different teams, why don't we just pick one team and then if they we, we win. If they lose, we lose.This will be much more like the NFL. The fact is that the NFL doesn't trade players during the system, because of the complications of the salary cap, complexities of offenses and terminology, and other factors that obviously don't matter in fantasy football. NFL football and fantasy football are totally different, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Maybe if you win your league, a real NFL team will ask you to be their next GM.
Are you done patting yourself on the back? I think the point was meant about teams that lacked depth, but I'll sleep better tonight knowing that you have your bases covered.
It's used in the context of an example, that's his intent. You're intent is to belittle posters "worst post ever" "second worst post ever" etc.
I agree with everything said in this post. Nicely put.
Who can tell what the hell his intent was? He quoted me but removed the context of what I was responding to and then went into some incoherent rant about his team in relation to the assumption of optimal distribution of depth (or something like that).
I can tell what my intent was. Tdmills figured it out, too, so it couldn't have been that opaque. Sorry for stripping your post of "context", but this entire thread is context, and I didn't feel like continuing to nest quotes 12 deep when anyone who wanted to read the original context could just read any of the 12 posts in the string you had been responding to. Do you feel like I unfairly characterized any of your points, or committed any other offenses that would have been ameliorated by the addition of context?Apparently you had a little trouble understanding my post ("incoherent" was the word you used), so I'll boil it down for you. Let's say you have an amazing team- top 5 QB, two top 10 RBs, three top 20 WRs, and a top 5 TE. Let's say you also have awesome depth at all positions- a second top 10 QB, a top 20 RB, a top 30 WR, and a top 10 TE. Now, let's say your suffer an injury at QB. Through no fault of your own, you no longer have awesome depth at that position, do you? Through no fault of your own, you are now SHALLOW at that position. Without the possibility of trades to rectify this situation, you will continue through the playoffs SHALLOW at that position- not because you didn't have the foresight to prepare, but because you had the misfortune of suffering an injury. If you suffer a second injury at that position, your entire season is sunk, not because you didn't have depth, but because you were unlucky and the trade deadline left you with no recourse.
Injuries are a part of the game, deal with it. The teams have an equal opportunity to handle their team during the season. If a team trades their depth for starters and one of them gets injured, plan better next time. That is what the waiver wire is for. You're not entitled to the championship. You're not entitled to not be plagued by an injury. It happens. Your example is just another "woe is me" example that can happen, and probably has happened, to all of us at one time or another. My pocket Aces also get busted once in a while. Oh well.
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.
"Woe is me." You're not entitled to anything. Injuries are a part of the game.
I guess I shouldn't expect you to understand sarcasm.Pretty close, he certainly is giving SSOG a run for his money.Second worst post ever. OK... maybe it's a tie.The "real" NFL isn't fantasy football. Trades pretty much only happen in the NFL during the draft and occasionally during pre-season, so I guess those are the only times that we should do that. The real NFL doesn't have a waiver wire either - it has players that are in the league, and those who aren't. So we should get rid of waivers too.The NFL doesn't award points because you gained a few yards, caught a pass, threw an interception, fumbled, got a sack or interception, or kicked a field goal from a longer distance. Points aren't awarded for throwing TDs, only for actually scoring them. Let's just make it so you only award points for ACTUAL points scored.Come to think of it, real NFL teams all play on the same field at the same time, too. So instead of drafting players from different teams, why don't we just pick one team and then if they we, we win. If they lose, we lose.This will be much more like the NFL. The fact is that the NFL doesn't trade players during the system, because of the complications of the salary cap, complexities of offenses and terminology, and other factors that obviously don't matter in fantasy football. NFL football and fantasy football are totally different, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. Maybe if you win your league, a real NFL team will ask you to be their next GM.
I guess I just like everyone to have the same opportunity to "deal with it" no matter when the injury happens. I don't see some big difference between having an injury happening in week 11 as opposed to week 13, so why should the owners not have the same opportunities to overcome them? Like I said earlier, I like not having a trade deadline more for the teams at the bottom than the ones at the top, because I feel it gives them opportunities to extract more from desperate owners, which should make their teams more competitive.Injuries are a part of the game, deal with it. The teams have an equal opportunity to handle their team during the season. If a team trades their depth for starters and one of them gets injured, plan better next time. That is what the waiver wire is for. You're not entitled to the championship. You're not entitled to not be plagued by an injury. It happens. Your example is just another "woe is me" example that can happen, and probably has happened, to all of us at one time or another. My pocket Aces also get busted once in a while. Oh well.
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.
It's as if I'm on a planet, and you're not.
You make it sound like a mutually exclusive choice: "compete now or build for the future". In actuality, you already decided to "compete now"... but you failed and your season is done. Now you want the best of both worlds by "building for the future" without regard to how that affects the current season. That ship sailed with the trade deadline.It is drivel... as is whining about injuries. You can always fall back on your depth or the waiver wire. I played a championship game last year with Kahlil Bell at RB. He did just fine.I'm not sure I should say this again but... no one is stopping you from managing your team. You can deal before the trade deadline or after the season. Yes, there is a "magic" timeline as there is in the NFL and other sports. We don't need posts telling us how fantasy differs from the NFL. How about asking yourself "why does the NFL have a trade deadline"? Why do sports at the professional and amateur level have rules about a players play-off eligibility? In MLB, you have to be on the roster as of August 31st. Perhaps they want a "true" champion rather than a team of ringers.ETA: I posted this earlier but it got lost in the flak... ... but Tony G. is a great example. Suppose I have Gonzalez and (for sake of discussion) MAKE the play-offs but lose to you in the semi-finals. The other team playing in the championship loses Graham to injury that same week. The guy didn't carry another TE and the waiver wire is thin. A possibly retiring Gonzo just went from worthless to an attractive chip.You are playing against this team. How do you feel about me sending him Gonzo? How do you feel if he is also my brother?
So, in other words, you're being greedy without regard to the other teams still playing.
A question that has been raised before in this thread, but never answered directly by the proponents of the no trade deadline. Instead we get insightful responses like "Does your league also have cheerleaders like the NFL?" as if that somehow closes the book on the discussion.
Then why have rosters at all? Just play Fanduel style and take all the injury/health "luck" out of it.I don't like dynasty leagues generally. I played in one league for 5 or so years that was a Keep-6 and it was terrible. We had Tomlinson, Priest Holmes, Torry Holt, and 3 other top-50 guys. It's too easy to ruin a league with too many keepers.That said, the reason you have a trade deadline is to temper trades. The closer you get to the fantasy championship, the more certainty there is in outcomes. At the extreme example, someone would be very willing to do an unbalanced trade an hour before the championship starts because they know it will affect the outcome and their chance at winning. And on the other side, their trading partner will be more than happy to give up value-now to get value-later since they're completely eliminated from contention. And once you get to that, then the league becomes less about who drafts and prepares better and who is more willing to sell out future seasons to win this season. You don't need guys who are going to bail to make that happen. You just need someone who decides that they're fine with taking their lumps for 2 rebuilding years to win this year. And for me, that's not what fantasy sports are about. I'd rather play in leagues that everyone goes into the year playing to win for that year.
Considering the number and nature of collusion threads we already see, can you imagine the potential controversy and heart burn with trades during FF playoffs?
If you don't like dynasty leagues, then why are you even posting about trade deadlines in DYNASTY LEAGUES? If you think that having too many keepers ruins a league, then of course you wouldn't be a fan of keeping your entire roster from year to year - which is exactly what a dynasty league is. Stick to re-draft. But stop trying to make dynasty leagues into re-draft. They are totally different, and they take a different mind-set and different rules.I can see why you wouldn't like playing dynasty leagues if you tried to make all of the rules the same as a re-draft league. And personally, I hate keeper leagues where you only keep a small number of players - either keep them all or don't keep any. But it sounds like your problem is with dynasty leagues in general, not with whether or not they have a trade deadline. So your opinion on the matter isn't worth much.
Then why allow trades at all? High stakes leagues don't, they just say that injuries are part of the game year round (as opposed to your position, which is that injuries are only part of the game after the trade deadline).
Do people even know what collusion is? Making mutually beneficial trades isn't collusion, it's trading. Trading present value once eliminated isn't collusion, it's rebuilding. Trading future value for present value isn't collusion, it's making a run. These are not bugs, they are features. You keep talking about "buying" championships. The cost of increasing your chances at a title this year is that it reduces your chances next year. Each team only has the capital they've built on their roster, and they can spend it how they choose, but every decision has costs. Rookies have a low probability of becoming useful? Maybe in the back half of the first round, sure, but the front half of the first is one of the safest investments you can make. Just ask the Richardson, Martin, Luck, and Griffin owners. Owners leaving the league is a legit concern. If you're playing with strangers, or for big money, that's a major reason to implement a deadline. That's why high stakes leagues disallow all trading entirely- because it's a right they simply can't trust their members with. Trades are a good thing, but they can be abused, so how much of them you allow depends entirely on the quality of the people in your league. As I keep saying, if men were angels, no government would be necessary. But if you're in a stable league, especially with people you know, removing the trade deadline is not some major cause for concern. And if you are concerned with people selling out for a title and then ditching, there are better ways to prevent it- such as collecting dues for several years in advance.
I have no problem with it. I don't care if he's your brother, or some guy who killed your mother- if the trade is legit, then it doesn't matter who the two parties are, and if the trade is collusive then it doesn't matter who the two parties are. For context- I'm in a league where two of the other owners are married. They trade with each other more than anyone else, mostly because it's easier to talk trade when you see each other 8 hours a day. I have no problem with it- both of them are doing their best to better their team. As long as the trade is legit, I'm cool with it, especially because I know, even if your brother increased his chances of beating me this season, he decreased his chances of beating me in all future seasons. That's how trades work- at least, the legit, non-collusive variety. Now, if I approached you about Gonzo, and you shot me down and took a much smaller offer from your brother, I'd have a problem, but it wouldn't be because of the lack of deadline, it'd be because you and your brother were colluding. Collusive trades can happen at any time, and are always bad when they do. If you're really concerned about stopping collusion, though, just eliminate trades entirely. Problem solved.
Umm... That's dynasty. The whole point is to sync your roster up so all your players peak at the same time, and trough at the same time. Aging teams trade for more aging players to make a run. Young teams trade for more young players to build for the future. You get FBGs writing dynasty strategy articles advocating not even attempting to win in year 1, and instead focusing on year 2. Looking at the rankings, you get guys like Pasquino whose rankings closely resemble his redraft rankings, because he's always advocating trading for aging players and making a run. You get guys like Waldman who are always advocating stockpiling youth and talent. This is dynasty football! If you don't like it- if you'd rather play in a league where every team is devoting all their resources and energy to winning every year- then stick to redraft. Don't come into a format and complain about features of that format that are intrinsic to the format.
He just said that he doesn't even like dynasty leagues, but still I'm sure he's had great experience with them, after all, he once played in a keeper league.
A specious argument. The high stakes leagues I am familiar with are all redraft, not dynasty leagues. I am sure that there are probably some high stakes dynasty leagues out there, but I would imagine that most of them allow trades and have trade deadlines rather than a no trade policy.
So, in other words, you don't have any idea of what you're talking about, but still you know what's right?
Please provide a link to any of the high stakes dynasty leagues you are familiar with (we can define high stakes as over $1000 yearly entry fee, although that figure may be low) TIA. I am sure that some exist, but I just don't see them advertised as the redraft leagues are.
The key point I'm getting at is that trades are a good thing which may on occasion need to be scaled back because owners can not be trusted with them. The problem then becomes trustworthy owners, not trades per se. As long as everyone is above-the-board, there's no reason for a trade deadline.
Your reading comprehension is nil. He has the right not to like dynasty leagues but he also recognized the main issues with not having a trade deadline: "the league becomes less about who drafts and prepares better and who is more willing to sell out future seasons to win this season".
The issue is not really about being above-the-board, it is a matter of fairness and the idea of buying a championship at the last minute rather than planning ahead with your roster before the trade deadline (that "strategy" thing) which seems again to touch on the point that Dropkick raised which the "no trade deadline" people have never directly responded to (outside of answering the question with a question):
[QUOTE='SSOG]I have no problem with it. I don't care if he's your brother, or some guy who killed your mother- if the trade is legit, then it doesn't matter who the two parties are, and if the trade is collusive then it doesn't matter who the two parties are. For context- I'm in a league where two of the other owners are married. They trade with each other more than anyone else, mostly because it's easier to talk trade when you see each other 8 hours a day. I have no problem with it- both of them are doing their best to better their team. As long as the trade is legit, I'm cool with it, especially because I know, even if your brother increased his chances of beating me this season, he decreased his chances of beating me in all future seasons. That's how trades work- at least, the legit, non-collusive variety. Now, if I approached you about Gonzo, and you shot me down and took a much smaller offer from your brother, I'd have a problem, but it wouldn't be because of the lack of deadline, it'd be because you and your brother were colluding. Collusive trades can happen at any time, and are always bad when they do. If you're really concerned about stopping collusion, though, just eliminate trades entirely. Problem solved.
I only see one of your stated "cons" as a legit con.'Riffraff said:Pros of no trade deadline: Individual owners prosper.
Championships can be bought
Bad teams can rake in the draft picks or young hopefuls.
Sparks excitement for the team with little to hope for.
Cons of no trade deadline:
The league as a whole suffers. - Neither a pro or a con as this is completely an opinion
It borders on collusion. The deal would not have been made in the first few weeks, so why is the lopsided trade "fair" now? - Many trades occur during the year that may not have a few weeks backs, collusion isn't necessarily involved.
Making certain teams better at Championship time. Only 1 owner wants a team to be able to buy trade to a championship: The guys buying trading. - Anyone in contention has an interest in improving their team through trades.
Borderline teams can be prevented from making the final play-off spot(s) due to a weak team basically giving their opponent(s) a free win. - This happens if you have trading at all.
Bad teams can remain bad because of the low probability of rookies ever being useful. Sometimes you need to save them from themselves for the better good of the league. - see above.@ "save them from themselves", thanks big brother
Owners have a higher probability of departing the league if their team sold out and missed. - Again, see above although the risk might be less with earlier deadlines. Of course, the team could win and the owner could still leave.
Owners had roughly 11-12 weeks to make a deal. There was plenty of time to make a trade already. - How much time is enough?
The deadline encourages "last minute" trades for all teams. - True
As a Commish, I see more cons than pros.
It's called a caveat, chief. I'm saying the reasons why I feel trade deadlines serve an important purpose while disclaiming where I'm personally coming from in my viewpoint.On the one hand, you're talking about the importance of planning years down the road to get your entire roster to sync up. And then on the other, you're talking about the necessity and unfairness of being unable to adjust to events that happen on a weekly/immediate basis. As I said above, I want to reward the planning. What I don't want to reward is the willingness to suck and be completely uncompetitive. In all keeper leagues of all types, you have this tension. But I think one way that you protect that balance is by restricting trades to a timeframe where there is still a little uncertainty in the present season to counterbalance the uncertainty of future ones.ETA: Some of the above wasn't strictly fair and more directed at other people. But I do believe that even in a dynasty format, you still want to maintain a tension between win-now versus win-later and a league where someone begins the season completely tanking with no thought of winning is a failure of that league. And a league where the key to success is willingness to become the shmuck who gets beat up on for the next few seasons is also a league failure. Obviously you're going to have some people give up on the season and others who position themselves better in any given season so you do have a win-now versus win-later trade. But again, it's the uncertainty of outcomes ("Will I make the playoffs?" "Will I get out of the first round of the playoffs?") that keep this value-trading within the bounds of reasonable. And that's why you institute trade deadlines.'SSOG said:
Give me a break, whose reading comprehension is nil? He said that he doesn't like dynasty leagues because he once was in a 6-player keeper league - that isn't even a dynasty league! Why should anyone value the opinion of someone who admittedly has ZERO experience relevant to the topic? There is a big difference between keeper leagues and dynasty leagues - something that neither of the two of you appear to understand. Why don't you go back to elementary school and learn to read what he wrote. Until then, shouldn't your mom limit your computer time or something?'DropKick said:Your reading comprehension is nil. He has the right not to like dynasty leagues but he also recognized the main issues with not having a trade deadline: "the league becomes less about who drafts and prepares better and who is more willing to sell out future seasons to win this season".'Tornacl said:'DropKick said:'Matthias said:
Hmmm...interesting logic...unless one currently plays or has played in a dynasty league, then they can't have a valid opinion on the subject. OK...By the way, I have played in a 6-keeper since 2003 and while there is obviously more of a redraft mindset, many of the owners have a dynasty strategy mentality (which is to say looking beyond the current year). That league also has a Week 10 trading deadline - for the reasons of potential collusion, roster dumping and upsetting the competitive balance of the league (sound familiar?). I guess my point is that I don't think that you can just cavilierly dismiss what someone has to say based solely on their degree of dynasty experience (or lack thereof). Yes, I respect the opinion more of someone who is a long term dynasty participant (such as myself) but sometimes an outside observer can actually have a legitimate view of a situation.
You know, just like I don't have to actually play in a dynasty league to imagine for myself what it's like, I don't have to actually have met you to know that you're a total ####.ETA: Can't believe #### is censored.
You keep using the word "buying". That's apt- "buying" makes it explicit that you are incurring a cost. To increase your chance of winning a championship this year, the cost you pay is decreasing your chances of winning a championship next year. Teams have limited assets, and if they want to sacrifice future assets to secure present assets, I'm 100% okay with that. Again, the key words here are "buy" and "sacrifice". And none of this guarantees a championship- it very marginally increases chances of winning, and very marginally decreases chances of winning in the future.. I don't get why it's okay to buy a championship in week 13, but not week 15.
And you and the other "no trade deadline" supporters keep avoiding an answer to the above bolded question. I think the reasons for having a trade ending date in dynasty leagues have been well articulated here by DropKick, Matthias and others - if you really don't "get it" by this point, there is nothing more I can add to the points already raised in this discussion.
