suspect trade practice in keeper league? (1 Viewer)

[greenheads]

keep only 3 keeper league

some owners have more than three good keepers

even though this is not specifically prohibited in our rules

some owners in this situation prior to our draft, trade (dump) their "extra" keeper to a very bad team or someone in the other conference and receive a lesser value player in return just to prevent that good player from being in the pool of available players in the draft. And they have no intention of keeping that lesser player they got in the trade.

Has anybody done this in your keeper leagues? Have a rule against this? Since we don't have a rule against this, is this just smart strategy or still pretty sleazy?

Any ideas?

 

[Wadsworth]

All trades and moves an owners makes should be with the idea of bettering their team. Most leagues I play in have a rule somewhat similar to this in various different wordings but the idea is the same. A fantasy football elastic clause if you will. I've never run into this situation before but I understand the idea behind it.

What would I do? I'd wait for GregR to chime in on this thread and do whatever he says.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

I don't see the problem with this. They're still losing those players and talent is being spread throughout the league.

It could even bite them in the butt since those bad teams they are giving good keepers too also have high draft picks.

 

[greenheads]

I don't see the problem with this. They're still losing those players and talent is being spread throughout the league.It could even bite them in the butt since those bad teams they are giving good keepers too also have high draft picks.

Good point. But talent isn't really being spread throughout the league b/c without the trade the extra keeper would be avail to anybody in the draft. Plus they guy that got the good keeper has the worst team in the league and only made the playoffs once in 5 years by pure luck.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Personally, I think it is BS. A trade needs to directly help both teams.

I'm in a keep 3 league where we can trade those extra keepers for draft picks. It is common, in fact.

 

[runner06]

Since it's not against the rules, it shouldn't be prevented this season.

However, it's something that definitely should be addressed in the offseason. The only players that should be allowed to be traded are declared keepers.

 

[GoBills02]

Team should have to give up a draft pick when obtaining a keeper. That way, both teams are giving up something.

 

[Kruppe]

This is pretty blatant but if you do not have a rule against it you have to expect someone to take advantage.

 

[Titans_fan]

My personal opinion is if a player is on your roster, he's fair game to be traded. I personally wouldn't part with a potentially good keeper for essentially nothing, I'd request a decent draft pick. Then again, it may be wise to send a good player to a perennially poor drafter to lessen the potential impact of said player.

Back on point, if it's not against any stated rules, kinda hard to undo an agreed upon trade. Might be wise to put a no-trade period in unless draft picks are involved?

Hope this is resolved amicably.

 

[runner06]

Team should have to give up a draft pick when obtaining a keeper. That way, both teams are giving up something.

I don't like this because it allows teams to benefit from last season with players they aren't keeping.

 

[FUBAR]

Since it's not against the rules, it shouldn't be prevented this season.However, it's something that definitely should be addressed in the offseason. The only players that should be allowed to be traded are declared keepers.

I wouldn't go that far, a player for a pick is perfectly legit.

 

[FUBAR]

Team should have to give up a draft pick when obtaining a keeper. That way, both teams are giving up something.

I don't like this because it allows teams to benefit from last season with players they aren't keeping.

It allows a team to benefit from good drafting the year before.

 

[Pictus Cat]

The trade does not benefit the team losing the keeper.

It is an illegal trade.

Shady.

 

[r3t2]

all trades within the rules should be valid. if a guy thinks he is bettering his chances of winning the league it does not matter if it improves his team. its not ABOUT his team, its about his chance to win the championship. strategy goes in many directions.

 

[the rover]

don't allow trades between the end of the season and the time all players except keepers are dropped. There is no reason that teams should be trading players that won't be on their roster on the day of the draft, but getting benefit from it as if they were.

 

[Philo]

We allow trades for draft slots, but for "nothing at all" it'd be kind of shady.

I'm in a "Must Keep 3" league (so it doesn't actually cost you draft picks each year, just start the draft at 4.01 with 36 players taken) and this year a team with 4 good players traded the 4th (Marion Barber) to move up 4 positions in the draft. OK by us.

 

[Wadsworth]

There was some talk about trading players not kept in this thread a while back. Take a look at the poll.

 

[SelenaCat]

Obviously it may be too late for this year, but in our league, we require you to keep any players you trade for in the offseason. This would pretty much eliminate these sort of trades, which are borderline collusive.

 

[agalvanized]

We allow 3 keepers in my league. The cost is -2 rounds from the round you got the player, an 8th round pick last year costs a 6th rounder this year. Free agents and players drafted after the 10th round are treated as 10th rounders for keeper value.

I freeze the roster after our championship season. We delare keepers a week before the draft, if somebody wants trade a player, the owner must first pay the keeper cost for that player (retain his rights) in order to trade him.

 

[kurtrudder]

I don't see what is wrong with this situation.

The team with too many keepers is trading him away but still getting a player in return that is more likely to be help him win now. To be honest he should be trading him for draft picks because if that player makes it back into the draft pool....then the original owner has a shot at picking him up next season too.

As long as its not a blatant fire sale then trading away someone before the keeper/trade deadline is just normal practice. Both teams are getting something they want. The value of players in keeper leagues is fluid throughout the season and steadily decreases when you get closer to that trade deadline but ideally you find that owner who could use another keeper and you get something in return you can use to win now or use next year.

 

[Nitty Ninjas]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.

Nitty

 

[the rover]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

 

[Wadsworth]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

 

[the rover]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

please provide any reasoning that a team should be able to get value for players that they cannot roster at the time of the draft. this severely punishes teams that have only 3 legitimate keepers.

 

[Wadsworth]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

please provide any reasoning that a team should be able to get value for players that they cannot roster at the time of the draft. this severely punishes teams that have only 3 legitimate keepers.

I can see both sides of the issue. But to answer the question, the reasoning would be that this is a game that a bunch of people invented over many year for fun. So if people are having fun playing with any which set of of rules they agree upon, then more power to them. There really isn't any argument that counters, "I've been in a 12 man league for 7 years now with these rules and it's worked out great for us so far." Other than that it's all opinion. I personally won't play in any league where owners can vote to veto a trade. I don't find that fun. Other people love that option. There's really no reasoning I can give that trumps you playing in a league that likes it's rules. But that doesn't mean that those rules are "right" or any better than anyone else's rules.

 

[Pictus Cat]

all trades within the rules should be valid. if a guy thinks he is bettering his chances of winning the league it does not matter if it improves his team. its not ABOUT his team, its about his chance to win the championship. strategy goes in many directions.

Shady. Here is Yahoo's rules on sportmanship.

Even though fantasy games are meant to be a competitive experience for all involved, it's important to us that our users not lose sight of the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship.

To this end, each fantasy team owner agrees that, by joining the game, they will abide by the following regulations:

1.All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league.

2.No owner may drop or "dump" players from their team for any reason other than improving their own team and/or its standing within the league.

3.No owner will engage in any action that may be deemed to be collusive (two or more owners agreeing to make moves that benefit one team, but not the other).

4.No owner will make any roster moves (including waiver claims, trade proposals, etc.) whose sole purpose is to hamper the play of other owners.

5.No owner will take any action whose purpose is, in any way, to interfere with fair play in a league.

While Yahoo! will not remove teams from leagues after they have drafted, failure to follow any of the items listed above may result in the limitation or removal of playing privileges for the offending participant(s). These restrictions may include:

1.The suspension of specific game privileges (trading, message board posting, etc.) for the remainder of the season.

2.The suspension of ALL playing privileges for the remainder of the season.

3.The complete deactivation and removal of the corresponding Yahoo! account(s).

4.Any other action that Yahoo!, at its sole discretion, feels is necessary to restore fair play to the league.

It is the responsibility of team owners to monitor activity within their leagues. If, as an owner, you notice any suspicious or collusive activity in your league, please notify us at once so that we may investigate and take the appropriate action –- if any is deemed necessary -- against the offending team(s) and/or account(s).

While everyone may not agree on it, there is a reason Yahoo has it.The integrity, fair play, and fun of the game.

 

[eagles2007]

this is a terrible hole in your rules. if you trade a player for another player in the offseason, both teams should have to protect the acquired players heading into the new season - barring major injury. this is awful for the competitive structure of the league.

 

[the rover]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

please provide any reasoning that a team should be able to get value for players that they cannot roster at the time of the draft. this severely punishes teams that have only 3 legitimate keepers.

I can see both sides of the issue. But to answer the question, the reasoning would be that this is a game that a bunch of people invented over many year for fun. So if people are having fun playing with any which set of of rules they agree upon, then more power to them. There really isn't any argument that counters, "I've been in a 12 man league for 7 years now with these rules and it's worked out great for us so far." Other than that it's all opinion. I personally won't play in any league where owners can vote to veto a trade. I don't find that fun. Other people love that option. There's really no reasoning I can give that trumps you playing in a league that likes it's rules. But that doesn't mean that those rules are "right" or any better than anyone else's rules.

no, really. how is it fair that some teams can start out with 3 keepers plus additional draft picks, while other teams don't? this isn't a matter of opinion. the rules are either fundamentally fair or they aren't. the fact that teams don't have to keep players, and can pick earlier if they wish, is an example of a rule that some leagues may like and some leagues may not, but it doesn't create a competitive imbalance. allowing a team to benefit from players that they can't roster is just a bad rule.

 

[Wadsworth]

no, really. how is it fair that some teams can start out with 3 keepers plus additional draft picks, while other teams don't? this isn't a matter of opinion. the rules are either fundamentally fair or they aren't. the fact that teams don't have to keep players, and can pick earlier if they wish, is an example of a rule that some leagues may like and some leagues may not, but it doesn't create a competitive imbalance. allowing a team to benefit from players that they can't roster is just a bad rule.

I understand that you think it's a bad rule. But like I said, when this came up before 88% of over 90 voters on this site said their keeper league had a format that allowed trading of plays not likely to be kept. LINK As far as what's fair I think tons of fairly normal fantasy football things aren't fair. I don't think it's fair that teams with the worst record pick first on waiver wires. I don't think the defending champion picking last the following year is fair. I don't think random draft order or randomized divisions is fair. I don't think Head to Head is fair. I don't think stupid trades are fair. I have never seen a fair fantasy football league in my life. We all just decide which unfair rules we can stomach and produce the most fun.

 

[Tigerbot Hesh]

Obviously it may be too late for this year, but in our league, we require you to keep any players you trade for in the offseason. This would pretty much eliminate these sort of trades, which are borderline collusive.

Are the teams doing this in the offseason? If they are, you should a league rule that no transactions can take place after the playoffs and keepers must be declared/cuts made before the trade window can open back up.That would require the guys dumping players to do so during the regular season or playoffs, depending on if you have a trade deadline established or not. They could still jettison those extra guys, but then they're also paying a price for it if they go inot the playoffs minus some of their excess talent.

 

[tonka]

don't allow trades between the end of the season and the time all players except keepers are dropped.

This is exactly what my league does. It prevents this kind of trade from happening.

 

[GregR_2]

All trades and moves an owners makes should be with the idea of bettering their team. Most leagues I play in have a rule somewhat similar to this in various different wordings but the idea is the same. A fantasy football elastic clause if you will. I've never run into this situation before but I understand the idea behind it. What would I do? I'd wait for GregR to chime in on this thread and do whatever he says.

Heh, thanks for the vote of confidence. Though I think you already answered it great already.I think the expectation that transactions be done with the goal of improving one's own team is something that any reasonable person understands to the point that the lack of a written rule shouldn't stop the commish from enforcing it. There may be a lot of things that rules should spell out, but at the same time some things are so basic to a game that they should be understood. Restricting actions that the owner himself doesn't believe help his own roster should be one of them. If it were me, I'd go to the owner who traded away the player and ask for his justification of how he thought the trade would improve his team. If he tells me along the lines that he thought it should be legal since it didn't hurt his roster, I'd disallow the trade and just straighten him out that helping other teams for no improvement of his own still violates the spirit of individual competition.If he tells me some story that I believe to be a lie, unreasonable and made up, about how he thought said scrub player was more likely to end up being keeper worthy, that would confirm for me that he understood what he was doing was wrong and I'd probably give him a warning about such future actions. If he came up with an explanation that a reasonable FF owner actually could believe, that the player he obtained is more likely to be keeper worthy than the one he traded, I'd allow the trade. But it has to be something a reasonable person could believe, even if I don't agree with it.And for the future I would include a specific wording to avoid this kind of thing. Any transaction by a team must be done with the belief it causes a likely improvement of the team's roster and gametime performance(s). I don't think it should be necessary to include such things, but if you have the specific rule then it shuts down the arguments immediately.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The trade does not benefit the team losing the keeper.It is an illegal trade.Shady.

I have no idea what some of you are talking about? The team who has 5 good players trades one or 2 of them to a team that has 1 good player and the team with 5 good players gets a draft pick they wouldn't have had and the weaker team upgrades their keepers for a draft pick. the draft pick should be of lesser value than the player they received because they also lose the player they are not able to keep.This is common and nothing is wrong with thisNOTE: I MIS-READ THE OP AND THIS IS COLLUSION. I TOOK IT AS A DRAFT PICK WENT BACK TO THE TEAM WITH EXTRA KEEPERS.

 

[CravenM]

Our 12 team keeper league would overturn this trade 10-0; it's quintessential collusion.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Personally, I think it is BS. A trade needs to directly help both teams.I'm in a keep 3 league where we can trade those extra keepers for draft picks. It is common, in fact.

How can you judge this? Can you see how two players involved in a trade are going to perform for the rest of the season? I think the move the OP talked about is crap (although I wouldn't veto it, I might not ask that owner back) but there is no way to enforce the above "rule".

 

[j3r3m3y]

The trade does not benefit the team losing the keeper.It is an illegal trade.Shady.

I have no idea what some of you are talking about? The team who has 5 good players trades one or 2 of them to a team that has 1 good player and the team with 5 good players gets a draft pick they wouldn't have had and the weaker team upgrades their keepers for a draft pick. the draft pick should be of lesser value than the player they received because they also lose the player they are not able to keep.This is common and nothing is wrong with this

The OP didn't mention the "good" team getting draft picks.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The trade does not benefit the team losing the keeper.It is an illegal trade.Shady.

I have no idea what some of you are talking about? The team who has 5 good players trades one or 2 of them to a team that has 1 good player and the team with 5 good players gets a draft pick they wouldn't have had and the weaker team upgrades their keepers for a draft pick. the draft pick should be of lesser value than the player they received because they also lose the player they are not able to keep.This is common and nothing is wrong with this

The OP didn't mention the "good" team getting draft picks.

I retract my statements I haver made. I read this as getting draft pick back and not a player they wouldn't use. This is helping out another player. What should happen is the lesser player gives them a nominal draft pick and then I would have no issue

 

[Philo]

all trades within the rules should be valid. if a guy thinks he is bettering his chances of winning the league it does not matter if it improves his team. its not ABOUT his team, its about his chance to win the championship. strategy goes in many directions.

Shady. Here is Yahoo's rules on sportmanship.

Even though fantasy games are meant to be a competitive experience for all involved, it's important to us that our users not lose sight of the rules of fair play and good sportsmanship.

To this end, each fantasy team owner agrees that, by joining the game, they will abide by the following regulations:

1.All league-related transactions will be executed with the intent of improving the owner's team and/or its standing within the league.

Well, that's it right there, isn't it?The guy is trading away a worthwhile keeper not to impove his team, but his standing within the league... he's trading it away to a non-division opponent, right? Therefore making sure his division is weaker compared to his team, and improving his standing within the league.

By the letter of that law, fair deal.

 

[j3r3m3y]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

please provide any reasoning that a team should be able to get value for players that they cannot roster at the time of the draft. this severely punishes teams that have only 3 legitimate keepers.

And not allowing them to do so punishes the better owners.

 

[the rover]

In our 3-man keeper league, we do not allow trades after week 10, and we turn trading back on once keepers are declared, usually in late July. This has worked well for use the last 9 years or so.Nitty

This makes the most sense. Getting value for players you can't keep is stupid. I haven't played in a league that allows trades until after keepers are declared and the rest of the players returned to the pool.

Whatever works for the league your are in best. But according the poll from a few months ago almost 90% of keeper leagues allow trades of players that are not kept. That's pretty overwhelming. I'm starting to like the keep 0,1,2,3 type format. So if your team blows throw them all back in and start drafting in the first round. If you want to keep 3 guys, it's not a problem, but you don't start drafting until the 4th round. It allows good team to have some holdover while not crippling the bad teams. It also seriously limits any trade value for players that are likely to be kept by stacked teams.

please provide any reasoning that a team should be able to get value for players that they cannot roster at the time of the draft. this severely punishes teams that have only 3 legitimate keepers.

And not allowing them to do so punishes the better owners.

And why do better owners need a bigger advantage? Again, we're talking about whether the rules promote fairness. If you want an imbalanced league that preys on the same weak teams every year, this is a great rule.

 

[j3r3m3y]

And why do better owners need a bigger advantage? Again, we're talking about whether the rules promote fairness. If you want an imbalanced league that preys on the same weak teams every year, this is a great rule.

They don't need one, but how is it "fair" to punish them for being better?To each his own but we decided a long time ago that making sure the "weak" teams get help at the expense of the strong teams does nothing to encourage weak owners to get better. In our league (comprised of friends and co-workers) you sink or swim. Over the past decade I have seen a number of owners improve greatly. We no longer have any "weak" owners as far as I can tell. The competition in our league is pretty stiff. On more than one occasion teams have gone from dead last to the championship game in one season.This isn't the boy scouts, t-ball, or rec soccer. We play to win.

 

[kurtrudder]

In my keeper league, we have a trade deadline around Week 12 but after the league championship game we recommence trading. The keeper deadline is about a month after the NFL Superbowl so our rules actually enable and encourage team owners to trade players who cannot be kept, trading for draft picks or coming up with trades that improve their keepers.

As has been pointed out, the OP seems to be a clear collusion case where the team with the surplus keepers got little or nothing in return.....but some clearer details would have been helpful...even knowing who the players were as these things are always subjective.

Trading for draft picks in this context rewards the good teams, sharp owners who have collected players who would be keepers on other teams. If that team is savvy enough to get some compensation for those players then good on him. I don't see a need to limit teams in the manner some have suggested here.