Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
I agree that fans would be upset, but I think they'd only be justified in being upset because of the historical practice of trade deadlines. If we were writing on a clean slate, I don't see any reason to have trade deadlines in dynasty leagues.I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.
Sure, but it could just as easily be part of the strategy of the league to carry enough valuable assets to acquire a replacement if necessary.And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
It's not really strategy, though. Let's say I have 8 really good receivers, but 6 of them get injured. Another guy only has 3 receivers, but they all stay healthy. Or, alternately, let's say I have 12 great depth guys at QB, RB, and WR, but I suffer an injury at TE, while another guy only has one quality depth piece, but it just happens to be at TE, where his injury occurred?I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
I completely disagree. If someone doesn't have the strategy skills to roster enough depth, then they should have to live with the consequences and not be able to buy their way out if things go south due to injuries during the playoffs. Injuries are a part of the game and if you are hit with more injuries than you or anyone could have anticipated, then you should play it like the big boys in real world of the NFL (you live with it and work with what you have, or with what can acquire on the waiver wire).It's not really strategy, though. Let's say I have 8 really good receivers, but 6 of them get injured. Another guy only has 3 receivers, but they all stay healthy. Or, alternately, let's say I have 12 great depth guys at QB, RB, and WR, but I suffer an injury at TE, while another guy only has one quality depth piece, but it just happens to be at TE, where his injury occurred?I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
In dynasty, teams in contention should be welcome to try to "buy" a championship. They "buy" an increased chance this year at the cost of a decreased chance next year. That's the fundamental tension of dynasty leagues, and it doesn't change whether the deadline is week 5, week 15, or doesn't exist at all.
I'm really starting to lean towards no deadline in my one dynasty after my experience this year. I lost Julio and Cobb early and now lost Welker and Fitz late. I still made the big game but my WRs are getting bone dry. I have plenty of ammo to make a trade but can't and the WW is pretty bare. So I probably get stomped because injuries finally became too much. I planned ahead as I could, swinging a last minute deal for Welker. But it sucks having the points title by 200+ points and injuries scuttling a great year.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
That actually happened in a league I was in years ago. Team A made a trade during the playoffs, giving two good players for draft picks to Team B, who (as a result) ended up winning the championship. The following spring Team A dropped out of the league and speculation was that a deal was worked out to split the pot if Team B won and/or Team A figured they had nothing to lose since they weren't coming back anyway.The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
No, its fine if thats the kind of league you want. I don't personally like it and I suspect thats the more common view. I think if you were to do this, however, you should have some pretty strong rules on pre-payments for future seasons. I think any dynasty/keeper league would do well to require a team to pay for any future season they trade away draft picks for.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
This.I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
Wow, that escalated quickly.I completely disagree. If someone doesn't have the strategy skills to roster enough depth, then they should have to live with the consequences and not be able to buy their way out if things go south due to injuries during the playoffs. Injuries are a part of the game and if you are hit with more injuries than you or anyone could have anticipated, then you should play it like the big boys in real world of the NFL (you live with it and work with what you have, or with what can acquire on the waiver wire).It's not really strategy, though. Let's say I have 8 really good receivers, but 6 of them get injured. Another guy only has 3 receivers, but they all stay healthy. Or, alternately, let's say I have 12 great depth guys at QB, RB, and WR, but I suffer an injury at TE, while another guy only has one quality depth piece, but it just happens to be at TE, where his injury occurred?I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
In dynasty, teams in contention should be welcome to try to "buy" a championship. They "buy" an increased chance this year at the cost of a decreased chance next year. That's the fundamental tension of dynasty leagues, and it doesn't change whether the deadline is week 5, week 15, or doesn't exist at all.
If this was such a great idea, one might think that the NFL would have adopted it a long ago (perhaps you should consider writing to Goodell about this free enterprise injustice). However, the idea of buying championships in the 11th hour doesn't sit well with fans (viewing it as an issue of overall fairness and not the fairness to be able to do whatever you want at any time just because you own a team).
And if you honesty see no difference in the dynamic between a trade in week 5 that directly or indirectly impacts the entire league versus a trade in week 15 or 16 that specifically impacts the playoff finalists, then there really is no point in discussing this any further.
Crappy owners can ruin any rule. Personally, I believe that waivers should be open during the playoffs, too... but some crappy team that was leaving the league could easily take advantage of that to dump all of his players and screw the league. If I were playing in a league where there was a good chance some of the owners were d-bags, I'd put rules like a trade deadline in place to protect myself as much as possible from them ruining everything. If I was in a league with a bunch of good guys, though, I'd rather not put in a bunch of paternalistic rules designed to protect everyone from themselves.That actually happened in a league I was in years ago. Team A made a trade during the playoffs, giving two good players for draft picks to Team B, who (as a result) ended up winning the championship. The following spring Team A dropped out of the league and speculation was that a deal was worked out to split the pot if Team B won and/or Team A figured they had nothing to lose since they weren't coming back anyway.The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
As you say, this is one of the most basic mechanisms working in every dynasty league. I don't think anyone is saying that it's not, or it's bad, or anything. I just think at a certain point, and that point in my opinion is very close to the beginning of the playoffs, it's better to draw a line in the sand, and force teams to make their now vs. later decisions in the interest of having a transparent, fair playoff tournament. Maybe there's nothing "unfair" about a team making a deal for Peyton Manning on the eve of the championship game, maybe that's not the way to put it, but at some point, I feel like teams should be able to assess their own teams with an idea of the teams they will be competing with this year.To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
Allowing trades like that is a similar equalizing force. Bad teams trade away assets they can never benefit from, and get back assets that they can benefit from. They get better. Good teams acquire some short term help, but in the process, they trade away some of their more valuable long-term assets. They get worse. The net result is more parity, more chances for bad teams to improve, more speed bumps preventing top teams from just running away from the rest of the league.
That's interesting. You're the first person I've seen argue for a trade deadline in the playoffs in order to increase transparency. That's a very, very intriguing argument, and oddly, it's one that I find reasonably compelling.PatsWillWin said:As you say, this is one of the most basic mechanisms working in every dynasty league. I don't think anyone is saying that it's not, or it's bad, or anything. I just think at a certain point, and that point in my opinion is very close to the beginning of the playoffs, it's better to draw a line in the sand, and force teams to make their now vs. later decisions in the interest of having a transparent, fair playoff tournament. Maybe there's nothing "unfair" about a team making a deal for Peyton Manning on the eve of the championship game, maybe that's not the way to put it, but at some point, I feel like teams should be able to assess their own teams with an idea of the teams they will be competing with this year.Adam Harstad said:To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.DropKick said:I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.ghostguy123 said:The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
Allowing trades like that is a similar equalizing force. Bad teams trade away assets they can never benefit from, and get back assets that they can benefit from. They get better. Good teams acquire some short term help, but in the process, they trade away some of their more valuable long-term assets. They get worse. The net result is more parity, more chances for bad teams to improve, more speed bumps preventing top teams from just running away from the rest of the league.
That all said, I think it's pretty clearly a matter of preference. Anyone pounding their fist on the table one way or another is being a little silly. It certainly has nothing to do with what the NFL does.
AKA fairness.That's interesting. You're the first person I've seen argue for a trade deadline in the playoffs in order to increase transparency. That's a very, very intriguing argument, and oddly, it's one that I find reasonably compelling.PatsWillWin said:As you say, this is one of the most basic mechanisms working in every dynasty league. I don't think anyone is saying that it's not, or it's bad, or anything. I just think at a certain point, and that point in my opinion is very close to the beginning of the playoffs, it's better to draw a line in the sand, and force teams to make their now vs. later decisions in the interest of having a transparent, fair playoff tournament. Maybe there's nothing "unfair" about a team making a deal for Peyton Manning on the eve of the championship game, maybe that's not the way to put it, but at some point, I feel like teams should be able to assess their own teams with an idea of the teams they will be competing with this year.Adam Harstad said:To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.DropKick said:I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.ghostguy123 said:The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
Allowing trades like that is a similar equalizing force. Bad teams trade away assets they can never benefit from, and get back assets that they can benefit from. They get better. Good teams acquire some short term help, but in the process, they trade away some of their more valuable long-term assets. They get worse. The net result is more parity, more chances for bad teams to improve, more speed bumps preventing top teams from just running away from the rest of the league.
That all said, I think it's pretty clearly a matter of preference. Anyone pounding their fist on the table one way or another is being a little silly. It certainly has nothing to do with what the NFL does.
I would still prefer leagues with no deadlines at all, but honestly, I buy that transparency is a compelling enough interest to justify a late deadline.
I don't know if this was a joke, but transparency and fairness are not even close to the same thing. Completely and totally separate concepts.AKA fairness.
Very true, but some people have trouble looking past "this year" when the team making the trade to get better NOW is probably helping your chances of beating them in the future.Adam Harstad said:To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.DropKick said:I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.ghostguy123 said:The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
Allowing trades like that is a similar equalizing force. Bad teams trade away assets they can never benefit from, and get back assets that they can benefit from. They get better. Good teams acquire some short term help, but in the process, they trade away some of their more valuable long-term assets. They get worse. The net result is more parity, more chances for bad teams to improve, more speed bumps preventing top teams from just running away from the rest of the league.
I disagree. I don't understand how people are OK with an "unfair trade" at say a Week 12 deadline, just before the playoffs start, but they're not OK with that exact same trade a day or a week or three weeks later.AKA fairness.That's interesting. You're the first person I've seen argue for a trade deadline in the playoffs in order to increase transparency. That's a very, very intriguing argument, and oddly, it's one that I find reasonably compelling.PatsWillWin said:As you say, this is one of the most basic mechanisms working in every dynasty league. I don't think anyone is saying that it's not, or it's bad, or anything. I just think at a certain point, and that point in my opinion is very close to the beginning of the playoffs, it's better to draw a line in the sand, and force teams to make their now vs. later decisions in the interest of having a transparent, fair playoff tournament. Maybe there's nothing "unfair" about a team making a deal for Peyton Manning on the eve of the championship game, maybe that's not the way to put it, but at some point, I feel like teams should be able to assess their own teams with an idea of the teams they will be competing with this year.Adam Harstad said:To give the opposing viewpoint... many of the basic mechanisms of dynasty leagues are designed to be parity-inducing forces. Bad teams get good draft picks, while good teams get bad draft picks, in an effort to push everyone back towards the middle.DropKick said:I could think of many more scenarios than that. How about a league with a fixed number of keepers or salary cap? A team (once eliminated) could make a very lopsided trade that made sense within the salary cap or keeper restrictions even though it made NO SENSE from an "equity" view.ghostguy123 said:The only real argument against not having a deadline is bad trades bye ticked off owners that just don't care and are possibly just bailing on the league after the year, also to prevent collusion.
In theory no deadline would be my preference as long as I know the people in the league well enough and it is a strong league of owners.
For example, suppose I have the Seahawks D but know I won't/can't keep them... should I be able to move them to one of the teams competing in the finals for a higher draft pick? I say "no".
Eliminated teams don't care about the current season and can do some things that wouldn't ordinarily make sense. Let the season play out with it "natural course".
Allowing trades like that is a similar equalizing force. Bad teams trade away assets they can never benefit from, and get back assets that they can benefit from. They get better. Good teams acquire some short term help, but in the process, they trade away some of their more valuable long-term assets. They get worse. The net result is more parity, more chances for bad teams to improve, more speed bumps preventing top teams from just running away from the rest of the league.
That all said, I think it's pretty clearly a matter of preference. Anyone pounding their fist on the table one way or another is being a little silly. It certainly has nothing to do with what the NFL does.
I would still prefer leagues with no deadlines at all, but honestly, I buy that transparency is a compelling enough interest to justify a late deadline.
We have a late trade deadline in our salary cap/contract league. Waivers and FA pick ups are still allowed. Trading resumes after the championship game and waivers/FAs are locked until after our summer FA auction & rookie draft.We have no trade deadline in our Dynasty league. Wondering people's thoughts on having a late deadline, vs. deadline for 'non-competing' teams only, or no trade deadline at all?
thanks,.
Well and good, but would you be so blase if he made a trade for Peyton Manning?To give a personal anecdote... when I started up my oldest dynasty league, I deliberately set it up with no trade deadline. I wanted (and still want) the whole "literally on 365 days a year (and sometimes 366 just for good measure)" aspect of dynasty leagues. The league rumbled on for years with the lack of deadline going almost entirely unnoticed, except for the occasional trade late in the regular season.
Last year, the week before the fantasy superbowl, one of the participants decided he didn't like any of his defensive matchups. It's a deep league with heavy performance scoring for defenses, so there were only 2 or 3 defenses available on the wire, and they all had negative points on the year. The championship game participant decided to trade Titus Young and Andre Brown for the Denver Broncos defense. His opponent, (me), didn't mind in the slightest- it's part of the game, that's the reason I didn't put in a deadline when I started the league.
Denver's defense wound up scoring less than the guy's regular defense, although the difference didn't prove to be the margin of the game. The guy who traded away Denver's defense wound up losing the Toilet Bowl when his backup defense laid an egg, which cost him an extra pick at the end of the first round. All-in-all, though, totally fine, the world didn't come to a screeching halt, except that two owners got really upset that trades were allowed during the playoffs, and raised a huge stink about it. I put it up to a league vote, and the league decided to ban trades during the fantasy playoffs. Ironically, the two owners who were so upset about the fact that there was no trade deadline were the two owners who made the trade in the first place. And it wasn't 20/20 hindsight, either- they were literally complaining about the fact that they were allowed to trade while they were posting the trade.
That's what I never understood. If you don't like something, then don't do it. In the meantime, I'm back in the title game again this year, and I would be 100% fine if my opponent (who has no QBs except for Case Keenum, E.J. Manuel, and Geno Smith) decided to make a trade for a Ryan Fitzpatrick or a Jason Campbell, even though it'd hurt my odds of winning. Hell, if there were no trade deadline, I might even decide that I know he's going to trade for a QB anyway, so I might as well be the one who sells him someone so at least I can make a profit on the deal if he winds up beating me. And if I wanted to, I'd be free to trade for an Andre Johnson or a Roddy White to help me out at receiver, where I've had a couple of injuries. I know the Andre Johnson and Roddy White owners could sure use an extra pick next year. Or I could decide that I like my chances well enough and I don't see the need to mortgage the future for a small improvement in my odds this week. These are interesting strategic decisions. They make the game more complex, and more fun. In my opinion, they should be celebrated rather than discouraged.
No one made such a comparison yet that I've seen.Comparing late season trades in a dynasty to teams in a redraft dropping their team after being eliminated makes me say huh?????
Yes. I mean, it would suck for me, but there's a difference between thinking something sucks for you and having a problem with it. I always hate it when another top team in my league makes a trade that makes him better, regardless of when that trade happens... but I don't begrudge them their right to do it, and I'd hope they wouldn't begrudge me the right to do it, either.Well and good, but would you be so blase if he made a trade for Peyton Manning?To give a personal anecdote... when I started up my oldest dynasty league, I deliberately set it up with no trade deadline. I wanted (and still want) the whole "literally on 365 days a year (and sometimes 366 just for good measure)" aspect of dynasty leagues. The league rumbled on for years with the lack of deadline going almost entirely unnoticed, except for the occasional trade late in the regular season.
Last year, the week before the fantasy superbowl, one of the participants decided he didn't like any of his defensive matchups. It's a deep league with heavy performance scoring for defenses, so there were only 2 or 3 defenses available on the wire, and they all had negative points on the year. The championship game participant decided to trade Titus Young and Andre Brown for the Denver Broncos defense. His opponent, (me), didn't mind in the slightest- it's part of the game, that's the reason I didn't put in a deadline when I started the league.
Denver's defense wound up scoring less than the guy's regular defense, although the difference didn't prove to be the margin of the game. The guy who traded away Denver's defense wound up losing the Toilet Bowl when his backup defense laid an egg, which cost him an extra pick at the end of the first round. All-in-all, though, totally fine, the world didn't come to a screeching halt, except that two owners got really upset that trades were allowed during the playoffs, and raised a huge stink about it. I put it up to a league vote, and the league decided to ban trades during the fantasy playoffs. Ironically, the two owners who were so upset about the fact that there was no trade deadline were the two owners who made the trade in the first place. And it wasn't 20/20 hindsight, either- they were literally complaining about the fact that they were allowed to trade while they were posting the trade.
That's what I never understood. If you don't like something, then don't do it. In the meantime, I'm back in the title game again this year, and I would be 100% fine if my opponent (who has no QBs except for Case Keenum, E.J. Manuel, and Geno Smith) decided to make a trade for a Ryan Fitzpatrick or a Jason Campbell, even though it'd hurt my odds of winning. Hell, if there were no trade deadline, I might even decide that I know he's going to trade for a QB anyway, so I might as well be the one who sells him someone so at least I can make a profit on the deal if he winds up beating me. And if I wanted to, I'd be free to trade for an Andre Johnson or a Roddy White to help me out at receiver, where I've had a couple of injuries. I know the Andre Johnson and Roddy White owners could sure use an extra pick next year. Or I could decide that I like my chances well enough and I don't see the need to mortgage the future for a small improvement in my odds this week. These are interesting strategic decisions. They make the game more complex, and more fun. In my opinion, they should be celebrated rather than discouraged.
We talked about the importance of expectations in the tanking thread, and this is another move that violates expectations for me. I expect teams to not deliberately sabotage the competitive balance of the league, as that owner just did. That move provides no gains for his team, so he cannot credibly argue that he made that move in good faith- clearly he did it for the sole purpose of skewing the competitive balance of a game in which he is not a participant. I'm against all forms of pissing in Wheaties, regardless of league setup.Adam, hypothetical question for you.
You join a new redraft league and win your semi-final to make the championship. Only teams still alive are allowed to add players. One of the just eliminated teams drops his entire roster before waiver request starts. The two super bowl teams can now acquire them in waivers if desired. Once waiver requests open, ability for other teams to drop players is locked out.
How would you personally feel about allowing that in one of your leagues? Apart from opportunities for collusion, what drives your feelings about such a setup?
I'm interested in getting at your thought, in isolation of all other factors, whether changing the competitive balance is a good thing or bad thing.We talked about the importance of expectations in the tanking thread, and this is another move that violates expectations for me. I expect teams to not deliberately sabotage the competitive balance of the league, as that owner just did. That move provides no gains for his team, so he cannot credibly argue that he made that move in good faith- clearly he did it for the sole purpose of skewing the competitive balance of a game in which he is not a participant. I'm against all forms of pissing in Wheaties, regardless of league setup.Adam, hypothetical question for you.
You join a new redraft league and win your semi-final to make the championship. Only teams still alive are allowed to add players. One of the just eliminated teams drops his entire roster before waiver request starts. The two super bowl teams can now acquire them in waivers if desired. Once waiver requests open, ability for other teams to drop players is locked out.
How would you personally feel about allowing that in one of your leagues? Apart from opportunities for collusion, what drives your feelings about such a setup?
Also, I'm interested to see where you're headed with this analogy.
That'd be one crazy rule, and I don't know if I'd join a league with that on the books. Actually, I'd probably join for a season just to see it play out. Might be fun. Who knows.I'm interested in getting at your thought, in isolation of all other factors, whether changing the competitive balance is a good thing or bad thing.We talked about the importance of expectations in the tanking thread, and this is another move that violates expectations for me. I expect teams to not deliberately sabotage the competitive balance of the league, as that owner just did. That move provides no gains for his team, so he cannot credibly argue that he made that move in good faith- clearly he did it for the sole purpose of skewing the competitive balance of a game in which he is not a participant. I'm against all forms of pissing in Wheaties, regardless of league setup.Adam, hypothetical question for you.
You join a new redraft league and win your semi-final to make the championship. Only teams still alive are allowed to add players. One of the just eliminated teams drops his entire roster before waiver request starts. The two super bowl teams can now acquire them in waivers if desired. Once waiver requests open, ability for other teams to drop players is locked out.
How would you personally feel about allowing that in one of your leagues? Apart from opportunities for collusion, what drives your feelings about such a setup?
Also, I'm interested to see where you're headed with this analogy.
Like if we remove the "individual sabotaging" aspect you disliked. Instead it wasn't a lone owner... the league rules dictate that every team's roster be dropped as soon as they are eliminated. Does something bug you about the fact that the competitive balance is being changed in the playoffs by these rules?
It does me. I have a hard time stating concisely why it bothers me. But I definitely don't like it.
Of course there might be something else that is a big enough positive it's worth it. But I wanted to see if you felt at that point in the season, competitive balance should generally be maintained, barring a good enough reason to change it.
I don't think that logic supports the statement.I would agree a later deadline definitely helps the lesser teams.
Many times they won't trade a couple guys (say Gonzo and Reggie WAyne if he was healthy) because in week 8 they are still alive for the playoffs, but then they lose twice, and are mathematically eliminated by week 10 or 11, and are forced to get nothing for guys that would get value in return.
If you are going to get upset if someone else trades for Gonzo, well, then go trade for him yourself. At least help drive the price up so that your main competition gets weaker.
And I would think EVERY other team in the league would like that trade because it would weaken one of the 2 best teams that are playing in the super bowl.
Those lesser teams would still get more for the guys they sell, even if the prices got driven down by other sellers, than they would in the offseason.I don't think that logic supports the statement.I would agree a later deadline definitely helps the lesser teams.
Many times they won't trade a couple guys (say Gonzo and Reggie WAyne if he was healthy) because in week 8 they are still alive for the playoffs, but then they lose twice, and are mathematically eliminated by week 10 or 11, and are forced to get nothing for guys that would get value in return.
If you are going to get upset if someone else trades for Gonzo, well, then go trade for him yourself. At least help drive the price up so that your main competition gets weaker.
And I would think EVERY other team in the league would like that trade because it would weaken one of the 2 best teams that are playing in the super bowl.
Move the deadline back and you go from the worst teams only being eliminated and selling... to now you add additional teams who are better and now can sell as well. If you have it week 8 and only 2 teams are eliminated, you have 2 teams selling to 10 teams at the trade deadline.
Move it back to week 11 and add maybe another 3 eliminated teams. Now you have 5 teams trying to sell to 7 teams. Bargaining power of the truly bad teams is plummeting as teams who previously weren't sellers now have reason to.
Take it to the far end and it's Super Bowl week and you have 10 teams selling and 2 buying.
Yes, having a week 10 deadline helps a bad team more than having a ridiculously early deadline like week 4 where even the bad teams don't know if they will make the playoffs yet.
But once you hit the realistic weeks for it, the later the trade deadline is moved, the more that the better teams are helped. Better teams become sellers which is a huge advantage outright... and the negotiating power of the worst teams is lessened with each new team who becomes a seller.
Only advantage for the bad teams is that there might be more weeks in which to make a trade. But I don't think that wins out over adding more selling teams... especially as those teams have better rosters so probably have more pieces that would be desirable in trades.
Is this really going to happen in the championship game??This runs into the great fallacy of dynasty building- that youre always building for tomorrow. That, of course, flies in the face of the real objective, which is to win championships.
So heres a scenario- Championship game:Team B thinks Team A is the clear favorite. Team A is not so self assured. Team B offers Team A enough key players to ensure victory in exchange for draft picks. Essentially Team B is taking a dive this year to build for next year, which we all agree is hardly uncommon in regular season trading.
Hows that sit with everyone? If the point of the game is to win championships, a championship ought to have some value. If your rules are sullying each individual championship, what does any number of them mean?
Money is one thing, but money is supposed to be the reward for accomplishing the goals of the game (which is why we disallow collusion, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, it just offends our sense fairness in the context of the goals of the game).
Now you can certainly agree to whatever set of values you want in your leagues (an anything goes, no holds barred league sounds interesting actually) but in my opinion, theres something to be said about the integrity of the individual season and its championship. Buying or selling them is unseemly to me in that context.
I agree, buts its more of a scenario to highlight the point.Is this really going to happen in the championship game??This runs into the great fallacy of dynasty building- that youre always building for tomorrow. That, of course, flies in the face of the real objective, which is to win championships.
So heres a scenario- Championship game:Team B thinks Team A is the clear favorite. Team A is not so self assured. Team B offers Team A enough key players to ensure victory in exchange for draft picks. Essentially Team B is taking a dive this year to build for next year, which we all agree is hardly uncommon in regular season trading.
Hows that sit with everyone? If the point of the game is to win championships, a championship ought to have some value. If your rules are sullying each individual championship, what does any number of them mean?
Money is one thing, but money is supposed to be the reward for accomplishing the goals of the game (which is why we disallow collusion, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it, it just offends our sense fairness in the context of the goals of the game).
Now you can certainly agree to whatever set of values you want in your leagues (an anything goes, no holds barred league sounds interesting actually) but in my opinion, theres something to be said about the integrity of the individual season and its championship. Buying or selling them is unseemly to me in that context.
Sure it is possible, but this would have to be very rare. But even if it did, so be it. If the guy wants to essentially give the other guy the title and get better value now, more power to him.
But I just don't see this being remotely common.
I completely disagree. If someone doesn't have the strategy skills to roster enough depth, then they should have to live with the consequences and not be able to buy their way out if things go south due to injuries during the playoffs. Injuries are a part of the game and if you are hit with more injuries than you or anyone could have anticipated, then you should play it like the big boys in real world of the NFL (you live with it and work with what you have, or with what can acquire on the waiver wire).It's not really strategy, though. Let's say I have 8 really good receivers, but 6 of them get injured. Another guy only has 3 receivers, but they all stay healthy. Or, alternately, let's say I have 12 great depth guys at QB, RB, and WR, but I suffer an injury at TE, while another guy only has one quality depth piece, but it just happens to be at TE, where his injury occurred?I think it seems unfair (whether it is or not) which is why the NFL doesn't allow it, a lot of fans would be upset if two weeks before the Super Bowl the team facing their team loses their starting TE and then brings in Tony Gonzalez.Is there any reason not to be OK with this? Why shouldn't contending teams with valuable young trade pieces be able to use them? I think it takes some of the luck out of the game, because late-season injuries won't necessarily cripple a team's championship aspirations.I think you gotta have a deadline unless youre ok w championship devolving into who can bring in the best ringer at the 11th hour. Same reason NFL has one. Yeah you worry about next year... but next years goal is to win a championship which you have your best chance of doing right now.
And many of us view this as part of the strategy of any league, carrying enough depth at positions before the playoffs begin to work around any injury.
In dynasty, teams in contention should be welcome to try to "buy" a championship. They "buy" an increased chance this year at the cost of a decreased chance next year. That's the fundamental tension of dynasty leagues, and it doesn't change whether the deadline is week 5, week 15, or doesn't exist at all.
If this was such a great idea, one might think that the NFL would have adopted it a long ago (perhaps you should consider writing to Goodell about this free enterprise injustice). However, the idea of buying championships in the 11th hour doesn't sit well with fans (viewing it as an issue of overall fairness and not the fairness to be able to do whatever you want at any time just because you own a team).
And if you honesty see no difference in the dynamic between a trade in week 5 that directly or indirectly impacts the entire league versus a trade in week 15 or 16 that specifically impacts the playoff finalists, then there really is no point in discussing this any further.