This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's collusion and would be disallowed in any format. There's no reason you can't trade future picks in redraft leagues, as long as you have some kind of measures in place to ensure an owner doesn't trade away future picks and then leaves the league. The simplest and most effective solution, imo, is to require next year's fees be paid ahead of time if you're trading away picks.
I don't understand this. If anything this sounds more like an argument against basing next year's draft order on this year's standings, or something. But just because it's a redraft doesn't mean there's no continuity. My local redraft league has had the same owners for years, and trades frequently involve future picks. It's never been an issue.'Dr. Octopus said:
The only continuity is that the same people start fresh each year. By definition there is no continuity in a redraft.
In my main redraft league the litmus test is when a player makes a trade he has to be attempting to make his team better. In a dynasty league that trade can either be short term or long term better. In a redraft league there is no future... that is the definition of a redraft.
this. not sure why everyone hate on it. whether or not you keep players should be irrelevant.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
agreed. most redrafts are that way b/c the owners like the draft too much. but no reason you should allow for teams to build for the future/make runs this year with creative trades.'Ignoratio Elenchi said:
I think that gets at the heart of it. In a redraft you could trade every last worthwhile player from your roster with no downside beyond this year. In a dynasty that would be a losing strategy. A truly decimated dynasty roster could take years before rookies were producing at fantasy starter worthy levels. Plus redraft picks with every player available are worth more than rookie or keeper picks where the player pool is limited, so more can be gained by employing that kind of strategy.One can say, "But our owners won't do that". And hopefully everyone plays in leagues with great owners who wouldn't. But reading the threads here shows there are a lot of people who will do anything that will give them an edge unless it is expressly forbidden in the rules. So when people don't want to see that happen, the safest way to avoid it is to not allow future year picks to be traded in a redraft.'da_budman said:
Sorry this makes no sense at all.By definition, you're tanking if you're trading a current player for a future draft pick. You're willfully hurting your chances of winning now, in exchange for a better chance of winning later. I can't imagine how the situation could be viewed any other way.I just don't see how it would be OK to trade one guy for a first-round pick next year, but not OK to trade a second guy, then a third guy, etc. If the first trade is legit, then the rest are too. The order they occur should be completely irrelevant.The heart of the issue is this: the teams in a redraft are divvying up a finite talent pool -- this year's NFL players. It is unfair to the remaining teams if two of the teams are entitled to an uneven share of that talent... one team gets more this year, and the other gets more next year. Everybody else is at a disadvantage in both years. The extreme examples laid out earlier illustrate this, but any trade of this nature is the same thing, only on a smaller scale.
