The ethics of dumping mutiple non keeper players (1 Viewer)

[culdeus]

How do you feel about this:

Keeper league (5 keepers) straight draft based on previous OOF

Player A:

Has retiring, indicted, or injured players that were keepers on his team for several years. Without them his set of 5 keepers would have at most 2 of the top 50 players and the other 3 would be somewhere in the 80-100 range. Probably his extra three keepers would go in the 2nd-4th supplemental rounds.

Player B:

Has a slew of 30-70 ranked guys clogging up the roster that he'll likely cut away because he's got studs or rookies from last year that would be highly prized.

Player A: trades his top RB for Player B top RB and a slew of Player B's extras (3+) and Player A at some time would cut this list down prior to camp.

For argument's sake the stud rbs in question are no more than 4 rankings away in any of the FBG staff rankings. But all of them rank Player A higher than Player B's RB.

How do you feel about this? Is this a case of skirting the keeper system by allowing one player to not have to suffer the penalty of a not so deep team? It's clear that this trade makes both teams "better", but at what cost is that allowable? Should the entire league not be able to have the ability to draft these guys from B that he would not protect?

 

[ILoveMyLions]

How do you feel about this:

Keeper league (5 keepers) straight draft based on previous OOF

Player A:

Has retiring, indicted, or injured players that were keepers on his team for several years. Without them his set of 5 keepers would have at most 2 of the top 50 players and the other 3 would be somewhere in the 80-100 range. Probably his extra three keepers would go in the 2nd-4th supplemental rounds.

Player B:

Has a slew of 30-70 ranked guys clogging up the roster that he'll likely cut away because he's got studs or rookies from last year that would be highly prized.

Player A: trades his top RB for Player B top RB and a slew of Player B's extras (3+) and Player A at some time would cut this list down prior to camp.

For argument's sake the stud rbs in question are no more than 4 rankings away in any of the FBG staff rankings. But all of them rank Player A higher than Player B's RB.

How do you feel about this? Is this a case of skirting the keeper system by allowing one player to not have to suffer the penalty of a not so deep team? It's clear that this trade makes both teams "better", but at what cost is that allowable? Should the entire league not be able to have the ability to draft these guys from B that he would not protect?

See above bolded section...why would a trade that makes both teams better be in question?

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Seems like smart management by both owners to me. These types of deals are standard practice in every keeper league that I have been in, as is trading extra keeper-worthy players for draft picks. Not sure how this is even a question.

 

[GregR_2]

This is exactly what is supposed to go on in a keeper league. Increased interaction between owners = good thing. And when the trades result in a slight increase for the owner who was the "Have" and a much bigger increase for the guy who was the "Have Not" and helps bring him back closer to the rest of the league, you helped the competitiveness of the league overall more than you hurt it.

What's the downside. This kind of thing is why you have a keeper league.

 

[culdeus]

Seems like smart management by both owners to me. These types of deals are standard practice in every keeper league that I have been in, as is trading extra keeper-worthy players for draft picks. Not sure how this is even a question.

That's not really how I see it. It looks to me like you have one trade RB7 + low draft pick for RB 11 + high draft pick Which in principle is fine.And then one other owner just tosses in a bunch of filler because "hey I don't need them and you're my buddy"

 

[Nookular Power]

I don't see a problem. Team A has traded quality for quantity, Team B vice versa -- both trading from a strength to a weakness. Team A suffers a bit, in that he's probably lost his top guy in favor of depth. Team B, on the other hand, was in danger of being excessively penalized for nothing more than compiling a really good team. That he's allowed to use his depth to upgrade his roster heading into the next year strikes me as more than fair.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Sounds like a good trade for both teams involved. We have a similarly formatted keeper league, and that kind of stuff happens quite a bit. It rewards the owners willing to seek out trades.

 

[supermark_28]

Is either owner involved in the deal a board member?

If not,you should post the deal. I agree w/ the sentiment that it's a supply and demand issue.

And if the owner has the "supply" why shouldnt he be able to get an upgrade at keepers or picks?

Been in keeper leagues for 10 years and this is how I have always seen them work.

 

[culdeus]

Is either owner involved in the deal a board member?If not,you should post the deal. I agree w/ the sentiment that it's a supply and demand issue.And if the owner has the "supply" why shouldnt he be able to get an upgrade at keepers or picks?Been in keeper leagues for 10 years and this is how I have always seen them work.

I'd rather not do that and risk getting this thread kicked to AC. It's interesting to see this is a fairly common practice. In the now 6 years of our league this is probably the first time something like this has happened.

 

[supermark_28]

Is either owner involved in the deal a board member?If not,you should post the deal. I agree w/ the sentiment that it's a supply and demand issue.And if the owner has the "supply" why shouldnt he be able to get an upgrade at keepers or picks?Been in keeper leagues for 10 years and this is how I have always seen them work.

I'd rather not do that and risk getting this thread kicked to AC. It's interesting to see this is a fairly common practice. In the now 6 years of our league this is probably the first time something like this has happened.

I forgot to ask,is there anything in the league rules against trades like these?Because if your saying this is the first time this has happened,it definitely wont be the last.

 

[Moniker]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

 

[culdeus]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

That seems a little extreme in the past when people had excess keepers players would get "present value". Effectively the team with quantity would get roughly the draft pick that his player would go for rounded down to the nearest pick. So good players would stockpile 3rd, 4th rounders and take haymakers at rookies and things like that while drafting normally with their regular picks. It's usually turned out that these marginal keepers never really helped nearly as much as getting younger would have so the practice has dried up somewhat.

 

[Moniker]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If it's a 5 keeper league as the op posted, then each team should be able to use their 5 keepers, not their whole roster.

 

[stevegamer]

If you don't like this style of dealyou've got 3 options:

1. Don't play keeper leagues. I'm trying to think of a keeper league I've been in where a deal involving keepers hasn't been made like this - and I can't.

2. Try and get the league to ban the practice. of off-season deals - or ban trades altogether, if you really simply don't like things being uneven.

3. Sack up and deal with the fact this is an okay type of deal in the vast majority of keeper leagues.

 

[Warhogs]

I feel it is really tough to comment without seeing names. We don't know if the Rb from Team A is LT and a drop of 5 slots is huge or if it's Westbrook and the drop off is not so much.

It seems reasonable as presented but I think it is really tough to judge this in the way it has been presented.

 

[JimboJim]

How do you feel about this:Keeper league (5 keepers) straight draft based on previous OOFPlayer A:Has retiring, indicted, or injured players that were keepers on his team for several years. Without them his set of 5 keepers would have at most 2 of the top 50 players and the other 3 would be somewhere in the 80-100 range. Probably his extra three keepers would go in the 2nd-4th supplemental rounds.Player B: Has a slew of 30-70 ranked guys clogging up the roster that he'll likely cut away because he's got studs or rookies from last year that would be highly prized.Player A: trades his top RB for Player B top RB and a slew of Player B's extras (3+) and Player A at some time would cut this list down prior to camp. For argument's sake the stud rbs in question are no more than 4 rankings away in any of the FBG staff rankings. But all of them rank Player A higher than Player B's RB. How do you feel about this? Is this a case of skirting the keeper system by allowing one player to not have to suffer the penalty of a not so deep team? It's clear that this trade makes both teams "better", but at what cost is that allowable? Should the entire league not be able to have the ability to draft these guys from B that he would not protect?

I commish a 3-man keeper league where each player that is kept costs a pick, dependant on where that player was last drafted.We see this kind of stuff all the time; Chad Johnson was moved three times in our league this off-season due to his high price (2nd). The first trade of Johnson was CJ/Portis for Housh and a 1st. The team that got CJ/Portis only had LT as a legitimate keeper and the guy who got Housh back had a fairly stocked roster.Unless the trade is ridiculous, I think you'd be hard pressed to call it unethical.Think about it this way as I've done this a few times; by player B not dropping those guys back into the pool, he's hurting himself just as much as you. In his opinion, getting player A's RB over his own was a better deal than increasing the taelnt pool.I can't hang onto DeAngela Williams this season and have gotten a few mid-round offers for him, but I'd rather let him drop back into the draft so that there's a deeper RB pool for when my first comes around.

 

[j3r3m3y]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If it's a 5 keeper league as the op posted, then each team should be able to use their 5 keepers, not their whole roster.

That would kill off-season trading in my league. We announce keepers the day before the draft, up until then you can trade your entire roster. This allows teams with more than 3 solid players (keep 3 league) to get a small advantage as a reward for building a good team. I traded Benson for a 5th round pick to someone who needed one more keeper. Sure, keeping Benson would have been nice but at least I got something for him.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If it's a 5 keeper league as the op posted, then each team should be able to use their 5 keepers, not their whole roster.

Why? Not trying to argue, but I truly don't see how that is a benefit. Until the keeper cutdown, those players should be property of the owning franchise, to be used/traded/kept as the owner sees fit. I don't understand how disallowing offseason transactions makes a league more enjoyable.

 

[Battles]

Let's just say the following is the trade.....HYPOTHETICALLY.

Alexander, Shaun SEA RB

Year 2007 Draft Pick 4.02

for

Johnson, Rudi CIN RB

Turner, Michael SDC RB

Driver, Donald GBP WR

Ward, Hines PIT WR

Year 2007 Draft Pick 5.08

Does that change any responses?

 

[Moniker]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If it's a 5 keeper league as the op posted, then each team should be able to use their 5 keepers, not their whole roster.

Why? Not trying to argue, but I truly don't see how that is a benefit. Until the keeper cutdown, those players should be property of the owning franchise, to be used/traded/kept as the owner sees fit. I don't understand how disallowing offseason transactions makes a league more enjoyable.

lol, not arguing either. Disallowing offseason trades doesn't make a league more enjoyable, it protects against the owner who knows he's not sticking around the next year from trading away his team before protected lists and money for the next year are in. The 2007 Fantasy Season started the second that last season ended. How many people making trades during the "offseason" have already paid for their 2007 season?

 

[coolnerd]

Understanding fair value for trades is not just a simple exercise in Player A traded this stuff and Player B traded this stuff. The rosters, and league rules have a great deal of influence on how a player is valued.

The fact that Player B can't keep the players lowers their value for him. While under redraft or dynasty rules, this trade makes little sense, Player B essentially is adding guys, who under this league set-up are throw-ins i.e. have little to no value.

 

[culdeus]

Let's just say the following is the trade.....HYPOTHETICALLY. Alexander, Shaun SEA RBYear 2007 Draft Pick 4.02forJohnson, Rudi CIN RBTurner, Michael SDC RBDriver, Donald GBP WRWard, Hines PIT WRYear 2007 Draft Pick 5.08Does that change any responses?

this is the commish of the league btw.

 

[coolnerd]

Let's just say the following is the trade.....HYPOTHETICALLY. Alexander, Shaun SEA RBYear 2007 Draft Pick 4.02forJohnson, Rudi CIN RBTurner, Michael SDC RBDriver, Donald GBP WRWard, Hines PIT WRYear 2007 Draft Pick 5.08Does that change any responses?

I find it interesting that he has assembled a squad good enough to either trade or drop Driver and Ward both. I could with the names included see why there are people not happy with the trade, but if the guy thinks that Alexander is the guy from a couple of years back and Johnson is just solid the why makes sense. Personally, I would be more upset that I had not paid enough attention to team Bs roster than make any attempt to block the trade.

 

[pinequick]

Seems like smart management by both owners to me. These types of deals are standard practice in every keeper league that I have been in, as is trading extra keeper-worthy players for draft picks. Not sure how this is even a question.

That's not really how I see it. It looks to me like you have one trade RB7 + low draft pick for RB 11 + high draft pick Which in principle is fine.

And then one other owner just tosses in a bunch of filler because "hey I don't need them and you're my buddy"

Not really anything that you can do, except to call out the first owner and tell him that he's a ####### since he could have gotten more trade value (better draft picks) on the open market.ETA: filtered word = synonym for "stupid ######"

ETA2: Oh #######it!! He's a "stupid donkey"!!!! You get the idea...

 

[GregR_2]

Let's just say the following is the trade.....HYPOTHETICALLY.

Alexander, Shaun SEA RB

Year 2007 Draft Pick 4.02

for

Johnson, Rudi CIN RB

Turner, Michael SDC RB

Driver, Donald GBP WR

Ward, Hines PIT WR

Year 2007 Draft Pick 5.08

Does that change any responses?

The thread is about if trading players so other teams can keep them is ethical. It has nothing to do with the degree of balance of the trade. So no, it shouldn't change any responses.

 

[Warhogs]

I'm not sure why team B would trade all that for SA unless he is trying to help the other team out.

My view is that the trade is unethical if this owner is making this trade to help out a friend and it is a trade he would not make if it was with a different owner in the league. In my opinion a deal favoring one side to help a buddy that would not be made with another owner in the league is unethical.

I don't know the circumstances but this does look suspicious.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If it's a 5 keeper league as the op posted, then each team should be able to use their 5 keepers, not their whole roster.

Why? Not trying to argue, but I truly don't see how that is a benefit. Until the keeper cutdown, those players should be property of the owning franchise, to be used/traded/kept as the owner sees fit. I don't understand how disallowing offseason transactions makes a league more enjoyable.

lol, not arguing either. Disallowing offseason trades doesn't make a league more enjoyable, it protects against the owner who knows he's not sticking around the next year from trading away his team before protected lists and money for the next year are in. The 2007 Fantasy Season started the second that last season ended. How many people making trades during the "offseason" have already paid for their 2007 season?

Ahhh... makes sense now. Didn't put it together as owner turnover hasn't been an issue for either of my keeper leagues.

 

[TDavi118]

Well, I'm in a 12 team keep 12 league and an owner in this league has 25 players on his roster right now. Since he has a few good "droppers" that will be going into the pool, I'm offering a couple of '08 picks for them. And since our deadline for dropping down to 12 in our league is August 19, I'm in a hurry to get these decent players before they go into the player pool. If he makes a trade with me, he will be getting something rather than nothing for his projected droppers. So, thus, helping both teams, so I don't think there is anything wrong with this trading situation in any keeper league.

 

[T Man]

Rosters should be frozen as of the last game of last year and no trades should happen until both teams put in their 5 man keeper lists, cut the remaining players on their team and pay for this year.

Just curious, why would you want that kind of rule? Half of the benefit of being in a keeper league is the "no offseason" aspect and year round trading.

If the remaining owners have a problem with a RB-A (who is only a little better then RB-B) being traded for RB-B and a bunch of other keepers, then the rule should be changed to effect what the league wants BUT ONLY AFTER this year. THe trade is fine under the present rules.If the managers don't like this one for multiple players in the offseason, then they can adopt a rule for future seasons:1. freeze the rosters as of the last day of the season; OR2. even during the offseason, all roster limits are in effect (maximum and minimums) OR3. make a rule that all traded players must be rosteredBut I see nothing wrong with the trade as made since it makes both teams better.