What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trade Deadlines in Dynasty? (1 Viewer)

Black

Footballguy
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,.

 
We have no trade deadline in our salary/contract league. Everyone is keeping an eye on next season, so not a problem.

Haven't played redraft in years, but I wouldn't play in one that had a deadline any later than week 12. (assuming playoffs start week 14)

 
I played in a dynasty and had no deadline

I am in a redraft league and the deadline is the Tuesday after week 10

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In our dynasty we shut it down the Wednesday before week 14. It reopens immediately after the playoffs are over.

If I had my way it would be the Wednesday before week 13 so teams need to make up their minds before the bubble playoff slots are finalized, but the way we have it now hasn't led to any last minute shenanigans.

 
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.
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.
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 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.

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 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.
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.

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.
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.
 
Our deadline is Thanksgiving day. We have had talks about moving it forward by a week or two. We also lock the waiver wire / free agent pool during playoff weeks.

1. Owners have time to decide if they are all in or looking toward next year. Lots of last minute deals Thanksgiving Day.

2. Thanksgiving day is easy for everyone to remember.

3. Locking the waiver wire is awesome - prevents teams from picking up a player off the wire in the playoffs - teams have to think ahead about handcuffs or picking up next years sleepers.

Would stink for a team to pickup McCown off the wire to beat you after 13 weeks of hard work. Or picking up Asiata and his 3 TD's to defeat you last week.

 
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.
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 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.

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?

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We used to not have one, but implemented one last year, really bit my team this year. Having maxed out my contracts and only qbs were RG3 / Arod.

Our trade deadline is after week 12's monday night game, and for some reason WW pickups end then too. So what you bring into the playoffs is what you got. Some owners liked that idea, as part of the "strategy" of building depth or some BS like that. I'll argue against it again this off season.

 
I like having a trade deadline of maybe a week or two before the playoffs in a dynasty league. I don't think it's "wrong" to allow trading in the playoffs, but it kinda feels like it is. Everyone is free, obviously, to completely sell out for "this" year during the season and up to the trade deadline, but at some point, I think you should have to finalize a team and play it out. I think it'd dumb that WW's get shut down though.

 
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.
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 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.

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?

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 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).

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.
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'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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
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.

Anyway, its clearly a very different style of play. Id compare it baseball, where you can buy a championship and be guaranteed to be god awful for a few years, and football with the salary cap etc, where every team is expected to field a decent team each year and can go from bottom to top.

Personally i'm just not a fan of buying your team at the last minute- and i do think there is a real difference between trading pre-playoffs where your prospects are basically the same as most of the league, and doing so in the championship week trying to improve on your (nominally) 50/50 odds. In my dynasty league, i'd easily trade all of my '14 draft picks today for a half way decent, older WR for this week. But i dont think thats good for the league. My opinion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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 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.

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.
This.

I would have a big problem with an eliminated team holding a fire sale in the interest of building for the future at the expense of THIS YEAR's COMPETITION.

You can make all the dynasty trades you like once the season is over.

 
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.
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.

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".

 
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.
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 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.

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?

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 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).

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.
Wow, that escalated quickly.

NFL analogies are always going to be flawed when dealing with fantasy football, and "just because the NFL does it" is never a good enough reason to do something in fantasy leagues, in my opinion. I don't care whether the NFL has a trade deadline or not, it doesn't change my opinion on whether dynasty leagues should have one. Would you want to play in a dynasty league that traded as infrequently as the NFL? I wouldn't. As a result, I favor rules that make trades easier, more convenient, and more frequent than they are in the NFL.

If you feel there's no point in discussing this further, then that's your prerogative. Message boards are nice because you can discuss something as much as you want, and then when you feel like it's no longer productive, you can stop. What I said, however, was that the fundamental tension in dynasty leagues is between winning now and winning later, and that tension exists at all points during the season. I don't really understand why that's a controversial statement. It seems like one of the basic truths of dynasty leagues, to me.

 
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.
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.
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.

 
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.

 
Our salary cap dynasty league has a week 12 deadline, after which time, no players may leave your roster.

We give teams 1 "Reserve Player" (RP) slot on their roster which can be used at any time of the season (even after the deadline). If a team places a player into their RP Slot, that player is not eligible to play for the rest of the season and is guaranteed a contract with raise for the next season.

This gives teams a little flexibility to pick up an emerging player, or fill a void with a day-to-day player, but helps to prevent the "fire sale" that some of the other posters have talked about.

 
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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.

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.

 
PatsWillWin said:
Adam Harstad said:
DropKick said:
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PatsWillWin said:
Adam Harstad said:
DropKick said:
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
AKA fairness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Adam Harstad said:
DropKick said:
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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.

Not to mention, at some point, they will want or need to do the same thing to win a title also.

 
PatsWillWin said:
Adam Harstad said:
DropKick said:
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.
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.

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".
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
AKA fairness.
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.

Eliminating the trade deadline would definitely be a big advantage for the non-playoff teams. Which would increase parity. Which is a good thing, IMO.

If you're a non-playoff team sitting there holding Tony Gonzalez because you couldn't get anything decent in return for him before a Week 12 deadline, that sucks. But then what if right before the title game in Week 16, one of the teams in the title game loses Jordan Cameron to a surprise concussion, and his other two TEs are Gronkowski and Dwayne Allen? And there's no one other than Gary Barnidge on the waiver wire, so, what, it's his fault all his guys got hurt and he doesn't have enough roster spots to carry five TEs?

Why shouldn't that team be allowed to trade for Gonzo? He's going to have to give up something of value, like a future draft pick or a younger player. And that will benefit the non-playoff team more than Gonzo, who does them no good now since they're out and he will be retiring likely after the season. That non-playoff team would have a ton of leverage now. They could drive the price up on the desperate owner in the title game. And if he was smart, he'd also go to that guy's opponent in the title game and start a bidding war. Who knows? Maybe he could turn Gonzo into a second-rounder or some flier with upside. That would be a great thing for that non-playoff team owner.

And the rest of the league would also see that the owner in the title game is desperate, and they could try to sell high on some vet too.

There's no question in my mind that that wouldn't be "unfair" for a guy to get Gonzo the day before the title game. He still had to give up something of value to get him, and everyone in the league had a chance to be the one to make a deal instead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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,.
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.

 
No trade deadline for any of my dynasty leagues. It's the best time for a rebuilding team to get value.

If you trade a draft pick, then you have to pay that years fee in advance.

Trades without draft pick go through regular commissioners review to check for sanity.

Never had a problem.

 
We have a deadline in my dynasty leagues but I kind of like the idea of no deadline. It may help some of the weaker teams get competitive quicker if the best teams might overpay a little to try to land the championship.

 
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.

 
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.
Well and good, but would you be so blase if he made a trade for Peyton Manning?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?

 
Comparing late season trades in a dynasty to teams in a redraft dropping their team after being eliminated makes me say huh?????

 
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.
Well and good, but would you be so blase if he made a trade for Peyton Manning?
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.

In our scoring system, Denver's defense outscored the guy's usual defense by about 12 PPG last year. Factoring in matchups, at the time, I figured it was about an 18 point swing. I'd probably figure Peyton to represent a 24-30 point swing for my opponent this week, which is a bigger number... but then, Peyton would cost much more than Titus Young and Andre Brown. And if I really wanted to get into an arms race with him, as I said, I could make an offer for Andre Johnson. Starting Andre in place of my WR3 would probably be at least a 12 point swing for me.

If I were the Peyton owner and one of the championship teams approached me for him, I would let the other championship team know and see if they were willing to bid against each other for him. If the Peyton owner gave me a chance to bid on him, and I passed (or got outbid), then that means the other guy was willing to sacrifice more future value to get this week's Peyton Bump, and so he bought it fair and square.

Like I said, having no trade deadline makes for a lot of really interesting strategic dilemmas. In my mind, that's a good thing.

 
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?
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.

Also, I'm interested to see where you're headed with this analogy.

 
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?
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.

Also, I'm interested to see where you're headed with this analogy.
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.

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.

 
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?
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.

Also, I'm interested to see where you're headed with this analogy.
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.

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.
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 don't have a problem with competitive balance being changed. I strongly believe that owners should be free to improve their teams, and naturally, every time an owner improves his team it's going to change the balance. I hate it when my competitors get better, but on the whole, I believe that the ability to improve one's team is A Good Thing(tm).

Also, as I've said before, the teams hurt the most by a trade deadline are the worst franchises in the league, who miss out on a prime opportunity to get good value for players who they'll never again benefit from. And I view giving the worst teams a chance to improve as also being A Good Thing(tm).

Edit to add: I really did like the "transparency" argument PatsWillWin made. I do see the appeal of reaching a certain point where you know who you have, and you know who they have to outscore, and all that's left is the waiting. I can see why it would be upsetting to get all mentally prepared for one matchup, only to wake up Sunday morning and see that the other guy just pulled off an 11th-hour blockbuster. Like I said, I actually LIKE those 11th-hour blockbusters, because they add so many extra layers of intrigue and permutations of strategy. But I totally see why others wouldn't, and I do think that sort of transparency and anticipation could constitute a compelling enough interest to warrant a trade deadline.

Of course, the desire for transparency could also inspire some creative solutions, too. Maybe make a rule that all trades need to be submitted by Monday. If your opponent makes a trade, you get a one-day extension so you have a chance to answer if you choose. You could even make it so that if you answer, your opponent gets another day to answer back, facilitating some epic arms races. Or make a rule that anyone who trades in a week cannot participate in waivers, so the opponent gets his pick of players off the street to answer. I feel like there has to be some good way to give some degree of transparency while also leaving open the avenue for bad teams to unload old players when their value is as high as it'll ever again be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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.
I don't think that logic supports the statement.

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.

 
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 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.
I don't think that logic supports the statement.

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.
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 see what you are saying, but not sure that you would have 6 teams all selling, at least not selling guys the top 2-4 teams would want. Very possible 3-4 of those lesser teams don't have guys they view as worthless to them for the following year anyway, so they won't be selling even if eliminated.

However, I can see running into the issue where a team sells a guy, and then that team turns around in the offseason and trades the guy for the same as he traded to get him, making him a free rental.

 
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.
Is this really going to happen in the championship game??

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.

 
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.
Is this really going to happen in the championship game??

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 agree, buts its more of a scenario to highlight the point.

 
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.
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 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.

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?

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 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).

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.
:goodposting:

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top