Why do dynasty leagues have trade deadlines? (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

So, in a redraft league, the reason for a trade deadline is obvious. However, it seems many dynasty leagues have one as well and I really don't understand it.

To begin with, it's a dynasty. It's supposed to be a constant, year-round league, not just during the football season. It's not like a redraft league where the bottom teams are just going to "give up"

But more importantly, right around this time as teams are fighting for playoff spots and are being eliminated is the IDEAL time to trade, not the time to limit it. These teams that were clinging to last chance efforts to squeak in but missed out no longer have use for guys like K. Faulk, B. Engram, or maybe even guys like D. Driver or T. Jones. They couldn't move them earlier as it may have possibly cost them a legit chance to make the playoffs but now they can and should. Likewise, teams that made the playoffs could use guys like this and oftentimes would be willing to give up younger talent to add that final piece. IMO, there is no better time to trade than this time of year and my guess is without deadlines the most # of trades would occur around this time. This is also the time when next year's draft picks are most clear.

Instead, if you limit trading, the older guys that have short-term value (Faulk, Engram, etc.) will lose that value next year. Few would pay that amount at the start of the year and a team starting fresh shouldn't be giving up those guys for virtually nothing. Thus, the teams that need the help the most (missed the playoffs) are being penalized as they now have to hold onto guys that don't play into their future just because they decided to try to make a final push.

So, I ask, what is the reason for imposing a deadline and limiting trading at this opportune time? Is there an advantage to doing this? Or is this done just because it's the way it's usually been done?

 

[jwb]

I don't see it either - in Dynasty, I feel you should be able to trade right up until week 14. As you said, right now is an ideal week to trade.

Some leagues do this, though, which is good.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't see it either - in Dynasty, I feel you should be able to trade right up until week 14. As you said, right now is an ideal week to trade.Some leagues do this, though, which is good.

Why stop at week 14? Why not just allow it through? Is there a problem with teams in the Super Bowl making a move to improve? Why force teams to have to "rush" to make deals the moment they miss the playoffs? We all know that some owners don't respond quickly at all yet there's always that furious rush to get a deal done before the deadline. Removing the deadline completely allows for this without the "rush".

 

[gianmarco]

Additional reasons:

1. Gives teams out of the playoffs something to look at and do. Great time to reevaluate rosters and make a move that benefits them while dumping useless players

2. Allows playoff teams to make a somewhat lateral move to get a better matchup. At the same time, they might give up a little value to do so, thus benefiting the weaker non-playoff teams.

 

[ADP]

Additional reasons:1. Gives teams out of the playoffs something to look at and do. Great time to reevaluate rosters and make a move that benefits them while dumping useless players2. Allows playoff teams to make a somewhat lateral move to get a better matchup. At the same time, they might give up a little value to do so, thus benefiting the weaker non-playoff teams.

Have to consider each leagues renewal process. Alot of leagues require you to renew once your season has ended. By having a trade deadline and ending UFA bids, you keep teams still in the playoffs from having an unfair advantage.That said, if league requires renewals after entire season is complete then only reason to have a deadline would be to mimick the real NFL. Which for most dynasty leagues, that is the goal.

 

[jwb]

I'm fully converted. Trades all year, please.

 

[Black]

The NFL has a trade deadline.

I think teams making the playoffs can work out what they want to do by week 10 or so for trading.

After that, it seems like you will have more problems with guys just offloading players and other teams mortgaging the future, generally upsetting the balance of the league.

Plus, that means more "is this collusion" threads here in the shark pool.

 

[gianmarco]

The NFL has a trade deadline.I think teams making the playoffs can work out what they want to do by week 10 or so for trading. After that, it seems like you will have more problems with guys just offloading players and other teams mortgaging the future, generally upsetting the balance of the league.Plus, that means more "is this collusion" threads here in the shark pool.

Well, let's discuss some of this.1. So what if the NFL has a trade deadline? I know we try to think it's better to mimic everything the NFL does but we don't. Most leagues don't have salary caps or salaries. Most leagues don't field punters. Most leagues don't have 32 teams. Just because the NFL has a trade deadline shouldn't be a major reason to have one in your dynasty league unless you're really trying to mimic it as closely as possible. Then I understand.2. Why do teams making the playoffs have to work out what they want to do by week 10? This is what I don't understand. Is it bc it's just the way it's always been? Why can't a team that has worked 10 weeks to get where they are work a few more weeks and close the deal? Someone said to me "but what if the team that's going to play in the Super Bowl made a trade to get Balt defense?" and my answer is "why not?". Why is improving your team in week 15 any worse than improving it in weeks 1-10? That's what a good owner SHOULD do. 3. Why would a team out of it offload players? It's a dynasty. Dumping players for nothing doesn't help their cause in the future at all. I think the exact opposite would happen. A non-playoff team who has Warrick Dunn can actually get SOMETHING for him instead of nothing for him next year. That's a good thing.4. How does it upset the balance of the league? As I stated above, if a non-playoff team is able to get a guy like A. Bradshaw for W. Dunn from a playoff team, that is a GOOD thing for the balance of the league. That would be a very reasonable trade for a team that has Bradshaw on their roster and would like to plug Dunn in for a good matchup to give them a better shot to win. Win/win trade. Next year, try trading Dunn for Bradshaw when everyone's records are 0-0. What kind of a trade would you envision a non-playoff team making that would HURT him and make the balance even more skewed?

 

[Foosball God]

So step back for a minute and think. Why is it that you think the NFL has a trade deadline? Wouldn't your logic apply even more to the real world than it does to fantasy football?

 

[comfortably numb]

We basically stop week 12, and start back up as soon as our bowl is over.

If there is no deadline, would you really be comfortable with this scenario?

Your team is the best team all year long, you in the bowl.

Your opponent has ADP, which tore an MCL in practice 3 days before the bowl making him done for the year and lets say Plaxico in this year's case.

Would you be OK with him dealing ADP for Tjones, LT and Brandon Marshall 2 days before your bowl?

He basically is a different team that got him into the playoffs.

I understand many teams do this anyway before their deadline, but when that is done, their is still a level of uncertainty and high risk, where as with no deadline you can essentially trade ALL your depth the day of the bowl, just to win that 1 game with minimal risk.

Just seems like with no deadline it does not reward teams for building depth and preparing their teams for the playoffs.

 

[Ozymandias]

The primary reason we have a trade deadline is to eliminate the temptation for collusion. Teams which are eliminated from the playoffs would be tempted to make trades for "a player to be named later", or for future draft considerations. I have no problem with teams who are both trying to improve themselves; I have a problem with teams deliberately making themselves worse (because they are out of the playoffs), in exchange for future considerations. It doesn't feel just and equitable, so we don't allow it. End of story.

 

[renesauz]

I believe trades should be made/allowed until late in the season, but not all the way through the post-season.

In fact, rosters should be locked for non-playoff teams once the regular season ends until the season is over.

Scenario: Team C (out of playoffs) cuts Warrick Dunn to pick up a rookie RB he suspects might break out next year.

Team B (the #4 seed) picks him up since he has a juicy playoff matchup and is better then his normal RB2.

How is this fair to team A who earned the higher seed?

There comes a point in every season where trades inadvertantly cause short-term imbalance. It's not collusion, but it isn't completely healthy for the league either.

Where that point begins (or more accurately, becomes too imbalanced/uncomfortable to be allowed to continue) will vary from league to league based on the style/competitiveness of the league, but that point most assuredly does exist.

For me, I prefer one week before the playoffs as a trade deadline, locked non-playoff rosters, and playoff waiver moves for injury replacements only. I think the non-playoff teams can live with three short weeks of not being able to tinker with their toy.

 

[GROMS]

This is good stuff.

I was thinking about this last night. I guess I always thought we had a trade deadline in our fantasy league to keep owners that are out of the SB race from tanking. But now I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. If you're out of it, why shouldn't you try and stack your team with picks for next year?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So step back for a minute and think. Why is it that you think the NFL has a trade deadline? Wouldn't your logic apply even more to the real world than it does to fantasy football?

Bingo. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc are all basically "dynasty" leagues, and they all have trade deadlines. A dynasty fantasy football league is no different.If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.With the trade deadline a few weeks earlier, you still have people trying to shift veterans for younger prospects. But, at that point, while teams can often tell they're probably not going to make the playoffs, very few teams are actually mathematically eliminated. This means that while they'll still probably move their vets for cheap, they're not going to just give them away for absolutely nothing. Last year we had a 2-7 team roll off 4 straight wins to end the year and make the playoffs, and this year a 3-6 team did the same thing. That little shred of hope that "hey, there's still an outside shot at me making the playoffs" keeps them from giving away players so utterly cheaply that it looks like borderline collusion.Because otherwise, what's the point in having a great team when every mediocre team can just load up on free talent at the last possible minute?

 

[renesauz]

So step back for a minute and think. Why is it that you think the NFL has a trade deadline? Wouldn't your logic apply even more to the real world than it does to fantasy football?

Bingo. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc are all basically "dynasty" leagues, and they all have trade deadlines. A dynasty fantasy football league is no different.If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.With the trade deadline a few weeks earlier, you still have people trying to shift veterans for younger prospects. But, at that point, while teams can often tell they're probably not going to make the playoffs, very few teams are actually mathematically eliminated. This means that while they'll still probably move their vets for cheap, they're not going to just give them away for absolutely nothing. Last year we had a 2-7 team roll off 4 straight wins to end the year and make the playoffs, and this year a 3-6 team did the same thing. That little shred of hope that "hey, there's still an outside shot at me making the playoffs" keeps them from giving away players so utterly cheaply that it looks like borderline collusion.Because otherwise, what's the point in having a great team when every mediocre team can just load up on free talent at the last possible minute?

 

[Sinrj]

Good thread.

I also disagree. By week 15 you will have only 4 potential buyers for 8+ sellers. This would likely drive the price down or create very lopsided trade imo.

 

[FUBAR]

Bagel - the 2nd part of your post is outstanding.

If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.With the trade deadline a few weeks earlier, you still have people trying to shift veterans for younger prospects. But, at that point, while teams can often tell they're probably not going to make the playoffs, very few teams are actually mathematically eliminated. This means that while they'll still probably move their vets for cheap, they're not going to just give them away for absolutely nothing. Last year we had a 2-7 team roll off 4 straight wins to end the year and make the playoffs, and this year a 3-6 team did the same thing. That little shred of hope that "hey, there's still an outside shot at me making the playoffs" keeps them from giving away players so utterly cheaply that it looks like borderline collusion.Because otherwise, what's the point in having a great team when every mediocre team can just load up on free talent at the last possible minute?

So step back for a minute and think. Why is it that you think the NFL has a trade deadline? Wouldn't your logic apply even more to the real world than it does to fantasy football?

Bingo. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc are all basically "dynasty" leagues, and they all have trade deadlines. A dynasty fantasy football league is no different.

Dynasty FF leagues are a LOT different from the real thing. FF doesn't have to deal with chemistry. Your QB doesn't care who your WRs are, your RB doesn't care who your OL are if you even have them. There are no locker room issues to deal with. In short, the reasons teams wouldn't make trades later in the season have no bearing in FF. Why do you think we hardly ever see a major deal during the season in the NFL and off-season deals aren't common either?Tiki was very cheap before the deadline in a few of my leagues because we knew he wasn't coming back. I've seen a proposal (it didn't get passed) where any trade after week 12 would go through the league for approval. Basically, let's say Tiki were traded for a 3rd round pick. Any team would have the chance to offer a better pick and take the trade instead. Players for players would be much more subjective, but would be left to either owner to accept - for example, let's say LT were to be traded for Mendenhall. You would see two "trade waiver" processes - one for LT, the other for Mendenhall, owners could bid higher - so an owner could offer McFadden for LT and another owner may offer Westbrook for Mendenhall. Either owner could then back out of the original deal and take the new one, and the process would begin again, this time with 4 players. You can see where the idea was shot down, but the idea has some merit when it involves just players for picks.

 

[gianmarco]

We basically stop week 12, and start back up as soon as our bowl is over.If there is no deadline, would you really be comfortable with this scenario?Your team is the best team all year long, you in the bowl.Your opponent has ADP, which tore an MCL in practice 3 days before the bowl making him done for the year and lets say Plaxico in this year's case.Would you be OK with him dealing ADP for Tjones, LT and Brandon Marshall 2 days before your bowl?He basically is a different team that got him into the playoffs.I understand many teams do this anyway before their deadline, but when that is done, their is still a level of uncertainty and high risk, where as with no deadline you can essentially trade ALL your depth the day of the bowl, just to win that 1 game with minimal risk.Just seems like with no deadline it does not reward teams for building depth and preparing their teams for the playoffs.

I absolutely would be ok with him deadling ADP 2 days before the bowl. For several reasons.1. Why is it unfair to me that he's trying to improve his team? To me, it's irrelevant if he's improving it in week 2 or week 12 or 2 days before the Super Bowl. That's what we do as owners. What's unfair is the fact he had ADP all year and suffered a catastrophic loss due to bad luck and has no way to fix it. That one injury likely costs him his SB and there's nothing he can do about it. I'm probably in the minority here, but him making that trade doesn't upset me at all. Same way a similar trade done in week 10 by my likely playoff opponent wouldn't. I mean, at that point, it's also a different team than the one that got him to the playoffs.2. He is mortgaging a ton of the future for one win. That's a big decision to make. Now, a non-playoff team got better. This current playoff team is hurting himself for the future. In the end, that's a GOOD swing for the dynasty league overall (assuming you don't like to see the same teams at the top and the same teams at the bottom). That scenario you proposed is absolutely one I could see happening and I don't think every owner would do that. I don't even think most owners would do that.3. Why do we have to reward teams for building depth? I know that's a big concept, but to me, depth is more important during the season. Come playoff time, most good owners consolidate depth to beef up their starters as they should. I don't see why holding depth during Super Bowl week in the off chance of a big injury at that time should be rewarded. On the other hand, these owners were rewarded by making it that far because of the moves they made with their team all year. Allowing them to fix a late unfortunate injury just seems more important to me. I'd rather the 2 teams that got there because of their players and their coaching be at full strength, even if it requires a late move.

 

[Topes]

Good thread.I also disagree. By week 15 you will have only 4 potential buyers for 8+ sellers. This would likely drive the price down or create very lopsided trade imo.

Markets shmarkets.You seem to be suggesting that a buyer's market is created because there are only four teams looking to add players and eight teams looking to deal them. However, only the buyers are motivated.It am what it are. Fantasy football trades are the furthest thing from a free market there is, with everybody couching his true intentions and the value of each and every player in question. That's why we play the game.

 

[gianmarco]

I believe trades should be made/allowed until late in the season, but not all the way through the post-season.

In fact, rosters should be locked for non-playoff teams once the regular season ends until the season is over.

Scenario: Team C (out of playoffs) cuts Warrick Dunn to pick up a rookie RB he suspects might break out next year.

Team B (the #4 seed) picks him up since he has a juicy playoff matchup and is better then his normal RB2.

How is this fair to team A who earned the higher seed?

There comes a point in every season where trades inadvertantly cause short-term imbalance. It's not collusion, but it isn't completely healthy for the league either.

Where that point begins (or more accurately, becomes too imbalanced/uncomfortable to be allowed to continue) will vary from league to league based on the style/competitiveness of the league, but that point most assuredly does exist.

For me, I prefer one week before the playoffs as a trade deadline, locked non-playoff rosters, and playoff waiver moves for injury replacements only. I think the non-playoff teams can live with three short weeks of not being able to tinker with their toy.

Why is that unfair? How is that different than a team having a late season matchup with his division rival and making a trade to improve his chances that week and knocking him our lowering his seed? It's not. It's a competition from the start of the year to the end. The concept of "how is that fair for a top seed?" just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it unfair for an opponent to improve? Right now it doesn't seem right bc most every dynasty league has that deadline. But if no deadline existed and BOTH teams were free to make deals to improve their teams, how is it unfair for the higher seed bc the lower seed actually does that?

 

[gianmarco]

If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.

Great scenario. Let's discuss it.1. A team is out of the playoffs. Let's assume they are mathematically eliminated before the trade deadline. Answer this question please. Would Tiki Barber not be allowed to be moved for DeDe Dorsey? Barber has no value for that eliminated team so he's getting something. With your post above, it would see that would upset the balance of the league, but why wouldn't it do the same if it were done in week 10 or 11 if the team was already out? 2. Why should the owner out of the playoffs have to eat Barber and get 0 value for him because now he's stuck with him? This is a non-playoff team that now just got worst. And because of the deadline, if he were in the running to squeak in and failed, now he's not only a non-playoff team but he's a non-playoff team that lost a top RB and got NOTHING for it. I don't see how that's good for the league.3. In the above scenario, do you think Barber would go for Dorsey? Think about it for a second. Both playoff teams (or 4 playoff teams) should see that this team is now out of the playoffs and has Barber rotting there. They should also know that they aren't the only ones seeing this. You really think DeDe Dorsey gets Barber? You don't think the Barber owner would shop Barber to the owners and essentially be able to drive the price up because of the demand. It is very likely that he gets something considerably better than Dorsey. Now, the team that gave that up weakened themselves for the future at the expense of now. I don't see what's wrong with that. He essentially "wanted Barber more" than the other playoff teams and paid for him. It will help him now, hurt him later. And the Barber owner now gets something of value. If YOU were a playoff team and knew that the Barber owner was shopping him in this situation, would you not offer something more valuable than DeDe Dorsey?

 

[quickhands]

So, in a redraft league, the reason for a trade deadline is obvious. However, it seems many dynasty leagues have one as well and I really don't understand it.To begin with, it's a dynasty. It's supposed to be a constant, year-round league, not just during the football season. It's not like a redraft league where the bottom teams are just going to "give up"But more importantly, right around this time as teams are fighting for playoff spots and are being eliminated is the IDEAL time to trade, not the time to limit it. These teams that were clinging to last chance efforts to squeak in but missed out no longer have use for guys like K. Faulk, B. Engram, or maybe even guys like D. Driver or T. Jones. They couldn't move them earlier as it may have possibly cost them a legit chance to make the playoffs but now they can and should. Likewise, teams that made the playoffs could use guys like this and oftentimes would be willing to give up younger talent to add that final piece. IMO, there is no better time to trade than this time of year and my guess is without deadlines the most # of trades would occur around this time. This is also the time when next year's draft picks are most clear.Instead, if you limit trading, the older guys that have short-term value (Faulk, Engram, etc.) will lose that value next year. Few would pay that amount at the start of the year and a team starting fresh shouldn't be giving up those guys for virtually nothing. Thus, the teams that need the help the most (missed the playoffs) are being penalized as they now have to hold onto guys that don't play into their future just because they decided to try to make a final push.So, I ask, what is the reason for imposing a deadline and limiting trading at this opportune time? Is there an advantage to doing this? Or is this done just because it's the way it's usually been done?

does the NFL have trade deadlines?

 

[renesauz]

Good thread.I also disagree. By week 15 you will have only 4 potential buyers for 8+ sellers. This would likely drive the price down or create very lopsided trade imo.

Markets shmarkets.You seem to be suggesting that a buyer's market is created because there are only four teams looking to add players and eight teams looking to deal them. However, only the buyers are motivated.It am what it are. Fantasy football trades are the furthest thing from a free market there is, with everybody couching his true intentions and the value of each and every player in question. That's why we play the game.

I think what he's getting at is that the market shifts and changes for a few weeks in a way that's imbalanced and unfair to the top teams that put themselves at the top. The Tiki Barber example was a very good one. When the market becomes unusually biased in a particular direction, sometimes its better to simply freeze the market for a short time. Once the playoffs have begun, the market is ridiculously biased because most teams have nothing to play for except the future, while a few teams have the ultimate prize almost in grasp. Don't get me wrong....the trades aren't necesarrily bad or unfair for the teams involved...but they can be devastating to the playoff balance and fairness of the league in general. I certainy understand and appreciate the argument against a deadline, but I simpy can't agree. I do concede that early trade deadlines are unnecessarily restrictive. Anything before the final week or two (of the regular season) is too soon, IMO. Anything after the regular season is too late.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

as stated before:

1) higher likelyhood of collusion

2) completely upsets the "dynasty" concept of the fantasy format as drastic radical roster changes could occur where a couple of owners could go deep into playoffs or win with players that were added last minute

In addition to trades, that is why there is a waiver wire deadline set as well in most leagues (no further waiver pickups after regular season). As an owner (and league roster size rules) you need to have enough depth on your roster going into playoffs to cover injuries and suspensions and such.

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

 

[gianmarco]

The primary reason we have a trade deadline is to eliminate the temptation for collusion. Teams which are eliminated from the playoffs would be tempted to make trades for "a player to be named later", or for future draft considerations. I have no problem with teams who are both trying to improve themselves; I have a problem with teams deliberately making themselves worse (because they are out of the playoffs), in exchange for future considerations. It doesn't feel just and equitable, so we don't allow it. End of story.

This is really the main reason I can see for not allowing it. And it's a very valid concern. However, if I'm in a league that I think collusion is a possibility, I'm likely not staying there long. This proposal is not for every league, IMO. But, for stable, non-big $$ leagues with good owners, allowing trading year round would be a good thing, not a bad thing, IMHO. Judging from the responses here I know I'm in the minority in that opinion. I just don't subscribe to the idea that it's "unfair" for a playoff team when another improves. That idea doesn't make sense during the season (i.e. not being fair because my division competitor made a good trade for himself) and similarly doesn't make sense because he does the same thing later in the season.If the reason that some think is because there would be lopsided trades, I also disagree because I think you'd see much more even trades or lopsided in favor of the non-playoff teams if anything. That's GOOD for the balance of the league, not bad.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

I would totally support trades being allowed by teams that did not make the playoffs or by teams that have been eliminated from the playoffs. That keeps them involved and interested but doesn't upset anyone or anything.

If a playoff contender couldn't get a trade done in the last week or 2 before the deadline...that was their inability to finalize a trade. I was one of them that couldn't get a deal done. We just have to deal with it and stop whining.

 

[gianmarco]

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

Wow. Nobody wants that scenario to occur? I think it's a MUCH BIGGER shame for the guy to have made it that far with his DYNASTY team and not be able to compete because his teams decided to rest their players. Not allowing him to make a move to at least compete would be a travesty, IMO. The fact that he was able to pick up guys from the WW and pick the RIGHT guys and still win is a testament to his coaching skills and should be rewarded as they were with a win. I can't even begin to fathom how that is bad. Much better than just handing a free Super Bowl victory to the other guy since his opponent can't field a solid roster and has no means with which to do anything about it.

 

[renesauz]

I believe trades should be made/allowed until late in the season, but not all the way through the post-season.

In fact, rosters should be locked for non-playoff teams once the regular season ends until the season is over.

Scenario: Team C (out of playoffs) cuts Warrick Dunn to pick up a rookie RB he suspects might break out next year.

Team B (the #4 seed) picks him up since he has a juicy playoff matchup and is better then his normal RB2.

How is this fair to team A who earned the higher seed?

There comes a point in every season where trades inadvertantly cause short-term imbalance. It's not collusion, but it isn't completely healthy for the league either.

Where that point begins (or more accurately, becomes too imbalanced/uncomfortable to be allowed to continue) will vary from league to league based on the style/competitiveness of the league, but that point most assuredly does exist.

For me, I prefer one week before the playoffs as a trade deadline, locked non-playoff rosters, and playoff waiver moves for injury replacements only. I think the non-playoff teams can live with three short weeks of not being able to tinker with their toy.

Why is that unfair? How is that different than a team having a late season matchup with his division rival and making a trade to improve his chances that week and knocking him our lowering his seed? It's not. It's a competition from the start of the year to the end. The concept of "how is that fair for a top seed?" just doesn't make sense to me. Why is it unfair for an opponent to improve? Right now it doesn't seem right bc most every dynasty league has that deadline. But if no deadline existed and BOTH teams were free to make deals to improve their teams, how is it unfair for the higher seed bc the lower seed actually does that?

Because those earlier season trades are made at normal market conditions, not artificial conditions set up simply because a team is eliminated for the year. It's not unfair for an opponent to improve....but it is unfair for him to improve with a trade that only a few weeks earlier would have been clear collusion. Please understand that I'm not arguing against late season trades in general, but last minute and post-season trades (especially post-season). I made a huge deal myself this year which dramaticly improved my RB2 slot, but cost me my first round pick and a stud QB (my backup, but a top 5 QB). I'm simply saying that there comes a point where an unusual market (where only a few have anything to play for that year) creates an unusual tradeing environment that can be unfair to the other competitors. This is EXACTLY why all pro sports leagues have a trade deadline.

Now...in most cases, fire sales can and will happen, but at least when they do more buyers and less sellers exist and the market is still reasonably close to normal.

 

[renesauz]

The primary reason we have a trade deadline is to eliminate the temptation for collusion. Teams which are eliminated from the playoffs would be tempted to make trades for "a player to be named later", or for future draft considerations. I have no problem with teams who are both trying to improve themselves; I have a problem with teams deliberately making themselves worse (because they are out of the playoffs), in exchange for future considerations. It doesn't feel just and equitable, so we don't allow it. End of story.

This is really the main reason I can see for not allowing it. And it's a very valid concern. However, if I'm in a league that I think collusion is a possibility, I'm likely not staying there long. This proposal is not for every league, IMO. But, for stable, non-big $$ leagues with good owners, allowing trading year round would be a good thing, not a bad thing, IMHO. Judging from the responses here I know I'm in the minority in that opinion. I just don't subscribe to the idea that it's "unfair" for a playoff team when another improves. That idea doesn't make sense during the season (i.e. not being fair because my division competitor made a good trade for himself) and similarly doesn't make sense because he does the same thing later in the season.If the reason that some think is because there would be lopsided trades, I also disagree because I think you'd see much more even trades or lopsided in favor of the non-playoff teams if anything. That's GOOD for the balance of the league, not bad.

The problem is that you can get the same results without the trade being actually collusion. The competitive balance can still get upset, even without cheating.We aren't that far apart I think. I advocate a week 12 or 13 trade deadline. You could even just stipulate no trades between eliminated and playoff teams, and continue to allow them otherwise.

 

[Sinrj]

Good thread.

I also disagree. By week 15 you will have only 4 potential buyers for 8+ sellers. This would likely drive the price down or create very lopsided trade imo.

Markets shmarkets.You seem to be suggesting that a buyer's market is created because there are only four teams looking to add players and eight teams looking to deal them. However, only the buyers are motivated.

It am what it are. Fantasy football trades are the furthest thing from a free market there is, with everybody couching his true intentions and the value of each and every player in question. That's why we play the game.

Why would sellers not be motivated? They know their season is over. They likely already know their rookie draft pick slot.

 

[renesauz]

If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.

Great scenario. Let's discuss it.1. A team is out of the playoffs. Let's assume they are mathematically eliminated before the trade deadline. Answer this question please. Would Tiki Barber not be allowed to be moved for DeDe Dorsey? Barber has no value for that eliminated team so he's getting something. With your post above, it would see that would upset the balance of the league, but why wouldn't it do the same if it were done in week 10 or 11 if the team was already out? 2. Why should the owner out of the playoffs have to eat Barber and get 0 value for him because now he's stuck with him? This is a non-playoff team that now just got worst. And because of the deadline, if he were in the running to squeak in and failed, now he's not only a non-playoff team but he's a non-playoff team that lost a top RB and got NOTHING for it. I don't see how that's good for the league.3. In the above scenario, do you think Barber would go for Dorsey? Think about it for a second. Both playoff teams (or 4 playoff teams) should see that this team is now out of the playoffs and has Barber rotting there. They should also know that they aren't the only ones seeing this. You really think DeDe Dorsey gets Barber? You don't think the Barber owner would shop Barber to the owners and essentially be able to drive the price up because of the demand. It is very likely that he gets something considerably better than Dorsey. Now, the team that gave that up weakened themselves for the future at the expense of now. I don't see what's wrong with that. He essentially "wanted Barber more" than the other playoff teams and paid for him. It will help him now, hurt him later. And the Barber owner now gets something of value. If YOU were a playoff team and knew that the Barber owner was shopping him in this situation, would you not offer something more valuable than DeDe Dorsey?

So, another owner (who may not need Barber), has to choose between letting his opponent pick up Barber dirt cheap, or parting with something of significant value himself to block the move, even if he has no need of Barber himself? If you really think about that a bit...you'll realize that the unusual market has still created a trade that A: wouldn't normally exist, and B: Upsets the playoff power balance unfairly.

 

[gianmarco]

Because those earlier season trades are made at normal market conditions, not artificial conditions set up simply because a team is eliminated for the year. It's not unfair for an opponent to improve....but it is unfair for him to improve with a trade that only a few weeks earlier would have been clear collusion.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think those late trades would be so skewed as to be viewed as "clear collusion". Not even close. As I stated above a few times, I think they would be far more skewed toward the selling, non-playoff team than the other way around. I also don't view the market conditions as "artificial". I see them as ideal and more setup to allow win/win trades. Win for the playoff team getting the piece he needs and win for the non-playoff team selling off things he will get far less value for and improving his team for the future.

 

[comfortably numb]

We basically stop week 12, and start back up as soon as our bowl is over.

If there is no deadline, would you really be comfortable with this scenario?

Your team is the best team all year long, you in the bowl.

Your opponent has ADP, which tore an MCL in practice 3 days before the bowl making him done for the year and lets say Plaxico in this year's case.

Would you be OK with him dealing ADP for Tjones, LT and Brandon Marshall 2 days before your bowl?

He basically is a different team that got him into the playoffs.

I understand many teams do this anyway before their deadline, but when that is done, their is still a level of uncertainty and high risk, where as with no deadline you can essentially trade ALL your depth the day of the bowl, just to win that 1 game with minimal risk.

Just seems like with no deadline it does not reward teams for building depth and preparing their teams for the playoffs.

I absolutely would be ok with him deadling ADP 2 days before the bowl. For several reasons.1. Why is it unfair to me that he's trying to improve his team? To me, it's irrelevant if he's improving it in week 2 or week 12 or 2 days before the Super Bowl. That's what we do as owners. What's unfair is the fact he had ADP all year and suffered a catastrophic loss due to bad luck and has no way to fix it. That one injury likely costs him his SB and there's nothing he can do about it. I'm probably in the minority here, but him making that trade doesn't upset me at all. Same way a similar trade done in week 10 by my likely playoff opponent wouldn't. I mean, at that point, it's also a different team than the one that got him to the playoffs.

2. He is mortgaging a ton of the future for one win. That's a big decision to make. Now, a non-playoff team got better. This current playoff team is hurting himself for the future. In the end, that's a GOOD swing for the dynasty league overall (assuming you don't like to see the same teams at the top and the same teams at the bottom). That scenario you proposed is absolutely one I could see happening and I don't think every owner would do that. I don't even think most owners would do that.

3. Why do we have to reward teams for building depth? I know that's a big concept, but to me, depth is more important during the season. Come playoff time, most good owners consolidate depth to beef up their starters as they should. I don't see why holding depth during Super Bowl week in the off chance of a big injury at that time should be rewarded. On the other hand, these owners were rewarded by making it that far because of the moves they made with their team all year. Allowing them to fix a late unfortunate injury just seems more important to me. I'd rather the 2 teams that got there because of their players and their coaching be at full strength, even if it requires a late move.

I feel the answer to your statement in #1 that I bolded, is answered in your paragraph in number 3 that address building depth.I'm not saying your suggestion is wrong, just not one I would like.

I mean a team who loses in week 15 can sell off all his older players that will lose value in 09, to one of the teams that made it into the bowl game.

I mean in 1990 when the Giants won the Superbowl, it would have been like the Giants trading for Montana the day after they beat them in the NFCC game.

Montana was 34 at the time and that turned out to be his last full year in SF.

 

[belljr]

Trading in the playoffs, to me would basically allow teams to "rent" players. Say a team is eliminated and had ADP. So what's to stop a current playoff team from getting peterson for some prospect and after the season trading him back to the eliminated team WHERE the eliminated team is offered some compensation for the "rental".

Technically this would be "legal"

 

[eric rymer]

really good postings so far. For years in my dynasty league, I've thought the trade deadline was too early and needed some tweaking. All this input will help.

 

[gianmarco]

Trading in the playoffs, to me would basically allow teams to "rent" players. Say a team is eliminated and had ADP. So what's to stop a current playoff team from getting peterson for some prospect and after the season trading him back to the eliminated team WHERE the eliminated team is offered some compensation for the "rental". Technically this would be "legal"

Because that's collusion and wouldn't fly, even if it's "technically legal". A league with good owners would never do this or allow this. As I said above, if you're worried about this kind of stuff with ur current owners, then removing the trade deadline isn't a good idea.The only reason a team would rent ADP like that is because he's getting a cut of the winnings and that's clearly cheating.

 

[renesauz]

Gianmarco....look at it this way.

It's not the fairness of the trades in question as it relates to the trading teams...but to the other teams.

If I'm heading into my fantasy SB, with $500 up for grabs, I'm willing to sell my whole draft and all my quality depth for that one stud to put me over the top. It's a bad deal, but it isn't collussion. I'd be selling out my future because the the prize money alone pays for the next couple years and THEN SOME. The guy I'm selling to has nothing to play for this year, but he is an instant contender for next year because the reality is that he got far more then fair market value for his guy. In a very real way, I just bought this years championship...and he just bought next years.

But how is this remotely fair to my SB opponent? Assume he made all his moves before the season ended. He led the league start to finish and finished first in points, while perpetually picking last on the WW? He could never match my depth because he was always picking behind me, but he consistantly outscored me throughout the year. With no depth to trade, he can't match my trade. Since he has no hole to fill, even if he could match my offer, he gains far less because he doesn't need the player. He woudn't be buying the title...but paying to keep me from buying it!

While this example is certainly extreme...I would indeed make such a sale were it allowed....and so would many others. Fair for me and my trade partner....ridiculously unfair to my SB opponent. But I would only make such a drastic move for the SB itself. I wouldn't want to mortgage the next 2-3 seasons in order to fight the entire playoffs. I think most would agree.

Trade deadlines should be as late as possible for all of the very good reasons you've suggested....but a late deadline should exist to prevent the scenario I just presented. To me, the ideal deadline is whenever waivers close prior to the last regular season matchups of the year. Under no circumstances should playoff teams be allowed to trade with non playoff teams during the actual post-season.

 

[Buckna]

I've thought about this a lot as well and the "buying the Super Bowl" reason that was just mentioned is probably one of the better arguments against allowing late trading that I can think of.

As you head into the playoffs there is no guarantee that you will make it to the Super Bowl so you are less likely to make trades that will hurt you longterm for some short term success (or at least most owners consider that.) Once you know you are in the Super Bowl there is a monetary incentive to mortgage your future as winning just one title can easily pay for the next bunch of years.

Although I think this can be fixed by changing your payouts in a dynasty. Personally I believe there should be a smaller overall payout for a dynasty Super Bowl winner anyway. Funds should be more split between division winners, total points or weekly point scores and teams that advance in the playoffs. That way more teams are rewarded and have an interest in competing. If you have one or two powerhouse teams in a dynasty they can dominate that league for a number of years. Great for that owner but a serious detriment to the sustainability of the league as the owners with poorer teams get fed up with waiting or constantly losing.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

Wow. Nobody wants that scenario to occur? I think it's a MUCH BIGGER shame for the guy to have made it that far with his DYNASTY team and not be able to compete because his teams decided to rest their players. Not allowing him to make a move to at least compete would be a travesty, IMO. The fact that he was able to pick up guys from the WW and pick the RIGHT guys and still win is a testament to his coaching skills and should be rewarded as they were with a win. I can't even begin to fathom how that is bad. Much better than just handing a free Super Bowl victory to the other guy since his opponent can't field a solid roster and has no means with which to do anything about it.

The guy who won had plenty of depth on his roster at each position to field a starting lineup. It was just that he picked up players for 1 week who could play better than his dynasty roster that he built over years and during the course of the season. Those 3-4 scab/fill in guys he picked up (Pierre Thomas as one of them) to win the Superbowl, he later had to cut in the offseason to make room for next year rookie picks. So we rewarded the guy that made a couple waiver transactions in 10 minutes leading up to the Superbowl...players that weren't on his roster all year and were cut after the Superbowl. How is that a good thing to crown a dynasty league champion based on that? I give the owner kudos as he worked within the rules and did great job scouting out the best players to field but it just isn't the goals of what makes a dynasty fantasy league enjoyable and work well.

 

[FUBAR]

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

Wow. Nobody wants that scenario to occur? I think it's a MUCH BIGGER shame for the guy to have made it that far with his DYNASTY team and not be able to compete because his teams decided to rest their players. Not allowing him to make a move to at least compete would be a travesty, IMO. The fact that he was able to pick up guys from the WW and pick the RIGHT guys and still win is a testament to his coaching skills and should be rewarded as they were with a win. I can't even begin to fathom how that is bad. Much better than just handing a free Super Bowl victory to the other guy since his opponent can't field a solid roster and has no means with which to do anything about it.

The guy who won had plenty of depth on his roster at each position to field a starting lineup. It was just that he picked up players for 1 week who could play better than his dynasty roster that he built over years and during the course of the season. Those 3-4 scab/fill in guys he picked up (Pierre Thomas as one of them) to win the Superbowl, he later had to cut in the offseason to make room for next year rookie picks. So we rewarded the guy that made a couple waiver transactions in 10 minutes leading up to the Superbowl...players that weren't on his roster all year and were cut after the Superbowl. How is that a good thing to crown a dynasty league champion based on that? I give the owner kudos as he worked within the rules and did great job scouting out the best players to field but it just isn't the goals of what makes a dynasty fantasy league enjoyable and work well.

It isn't the goals of a league to identify talent and field the best players?I'd lose the week 17 SB, but he did better than anyone else did, not only by finding those players, but by getting to the SB to begin with.

 

[gianmarco]

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

Wow. Nobody wants that scenario to occur? I think it's a MUCH BIGGER shame for the guy to have made it that far with his DYNASTY team and not be able to compete because his teams decided to rest their players. Not allowing him to make a move to at least compete would be a travesty, IMO. The fact that he was able to pick up guys from the WW and pick the RIGHT guys and still win is a testament to his coaching skills and should be rewarded as they were with a win. I can't even begin to fathom how that is bad. Much better than just handing a free Super Bowl victory to the other guy since his opponent can't field a solid roster and has no means with which to do anything about it.

The guy who won had plenty of depth on his roster at each position to field a starting lineup. It was just that he picked up players for 1 week who could play better than his dynasty roster that he built over years and during the course of the season. Those 3-4 scab/fill in guys he picked up (Pierre Thomas as one of them) to win the Superbowl, he later had to cut in the offseason to make room for next year rookie picks. So we rewarded the guy that made a couple waiver transactions in 10 minutes leading up to the Superbowl...players that weren't on his roster all year and were cut after the Superbowl. How is that a good thing to crown a dynasty league champion based on that? I give the owner kudos as he worked within the rules and did great job scouting out the best players to field but it just isn't the goals of what makes a dynasty fantasy league enjoyable and work well.

As I stated, I'd much rather the above where a guy picks up a few players off the WW and STILL wins (you realize that isn't easy) vs. the guy who has some of his key starters that allowed him to put together a good year and get to the Super Bowl be benched and not be able to do anything about it. We just differ on that and that's fine. It may not be YOUR goal of what makes a dynasty fantasy league enjoyable but it is mine.

 

[gianmarco]

Last year we made 2 mistakes in our dynasty league and we corrected them this season. We held our Superbowl on week 17. Also we allowed waiver pickups throughout playoffs. Needless to say the guy who won the Superbowl in our dynasty league last year had 3-4 of his starting players in the Superbowl game that he picked up off the waiver wire that final week and won (primarily because several of his dynasty studs were being rested in week 17). So the dynasty champ won with scab players virtually. Nobody wants that scenario to occur.

Wow. Nobody wants that scenario to occur? I think it's a MUCH BIGGER shame for the guy to have made it that far with his DYNASTY team and not be able to compete because his teams decided to rest their players. Not allowing him to make a move to at least compete would be a travesty, IMO. The fact that he was able to pick up guys from the WW and pick the RIGHT guys and still win is a testament to his coaching skills and should be rewarded as they were with a win. I can't even begin to fathom how that is bad. Much better than just handing a free Super Bowl victory to the other guy since his opponent can't field a solid roster and has no means with which to do anything about it.

The guy who won had plenty of depth on his roster at each position to field a starting lineup. It was just that he picked up players for 1 week who could play better than his dynasty roster that he built over years and during the course of the season. Those 3-4 scab/fill in guys he picked up (Pierre Thomas as one of them) to win the Superbowl, he later had to cut in the offseason to make room for next year rookie picks. So we rewarded the guy that made a couple waiver transactions in 10 minutes leading up to the Superbowl...players that weren't on his roster all year and were cut after the Superbowl. How is that a good thing to crown a dynasty league champion based on that? I give the owner kudos as he worked within the rules and did great job scouting out the best players to field but it just isn't the goals of what makes a dynasty fantasy league enjoyable and work well.

It isn't the goals of a league to identify talent and field the best players?I'd lose the week 17 SB, but he did better than anyone else did, not only by finding those players, but by getting to the SB to begin with.

Exactly.

 

[gianmarco]

Gianmarco....look at it this way.

It's not the fairness of the trades in question as it relates to the trading teams...but to the other teams.

If I'm heading into my fantasy SB, with $500 up for grabs, I'm willing to sell my whole draft and all my quality depth for that one stud to put me over the top. It's a bad deal, but it isn't collussion. I'd be selling out my future because the the prize money alone pays for the next couple years and THEN SOME. The guy I'm selling to has nothing to play for this year, but he is an instant contender for next year because the reality is that he got far more then fair market value for his guy. In a very real way, I just bought this years championship...and he just bought next years.

But how is this remotely fair to my SB opponent? Assume he made all his moves before the season ended. He led the league start to finish and finished first in points, while perpetually picking last on the WW? He could never match my depth because he was always picking behind me, but he consistantly outscored me throughout the year. With no depth to trade, he can't match my trade. Since he has no hole to fill, even if he could match my offer, he gains far less because he doesn't need the player. He woudn't be buying the title...but paying to keep me from buying it!

While this example is certainly extreme...I would indeed make such a sale were it allowed....and so would many others. Fair for me and my trade partner....ridiculously unfair to my SB opponent. But I would only make such a drastic move for the SB itself. I wouldn't want to mortgage the next 2-3 seasons in order to fight the entire playoffs. I think most would agree.

Trade deadlines should be as late as possible for all of the very good reasons you've suggested....but a late deadline should exist to prevent the scenario I just presented. To me, the ideal deadline is whenever waivers close prior to the last regular season matchups of the year. Under no circumstances should playoff teams be allowed to trade with non playoff teams during the actual post-season.

This is a good post. I definitely see your viewpoint on it and can see that being the case. I think your one example is probably a little far-fetched but possible nonetheless.I guess the question becomes, is selling one's future to win a Super Bowl really bad? Obviously, for a big money league, then I can see the argument. For smaller $ but competitive leagues where the winning owner isn't gonna bail after he wins one title, I don't see it as a problem. Completely selling out your team for that one shot to win (which isn't guaranteed anyway) is not an easy decision and I don't think is as automatic as you think. Studs can disappoint and then not only does he not win but now he has compromised his future.

The other thing to consider is this. Although the timing of it is obviously dissimilar, how is that different from a team that drafts older studs in the startup draft in the hopes of taking the title the 1st year and paying for the rest of his years? Granted, things could go wrong throughout the year and nothing is guaranteed and much more risk involved, but the point of drafting that way is with the clear intention of winning the 1st year and selling out the future. Completely viable philosophy.

I think in the end, unless a deal is for a true difference maker that is so much better than a team's current starters (who are good enough to get him where he is now anyway), no deal can "buy" a victory. This is not to mention that most true difference makers aren't 35 years old. If a team is willing to sell off a bunch of components for a guy like TO or Warner in order to "buy a championship", let him. Those guys could easily bomb and then his team is now worse for it in the end. As I said, it's not a given every owner would do that for the big prize money in the end since there are no guarantees, even for just 1 week.

 

[renesauz]

Gianmarco....look at it this way.

It's not the fairness of the trades in question as it relates to the trading teams...but to the other teams.

If I'm heading into my fantasy SB, with $500 up for grabs, I'm willing to sell my whole draft and all my quality depth for that one stud to put me over the top. It's a bad deal, but it isn't collussion. I'd be selling out my future because the the prize money alone pays for the next couple years and THEN SOME. The guy I'm selling to has nothing to play for this year, but he is an instant contender for next year because the reality is that he got far more then fair market value for his guy. In a very real way, I just bought this years championship...and he just bought next years.

But how is this remotely fair to my SB opponent? Assume he made all his moves before the season ended. He led the league start to finish and finished first in points, while perpetually picking last on the WW? He could never match my depth because he was always picking behind me, but he consistantly outscored me throughout the year. With no depth to trade, he can't match my trade. Since he has no hole to fill, even if he could match my offer, he gains far less because he doesn't need the player. He woudn't be buying the title...but paying to keep me from buying it!

While this example is certainly extreme...I would indeed make such a sale were it allowed....and so would many others. Fair for me and my trade partner....ridiculously unfair to my SB opponent. But I would only make such a drastic move for the SB itself. I wouldn't want to mortgage the next 2-3 seasons in order to fight the entire playoffs. I think most would agree.

Trade deadlines should be as late as possible for all of the very good reasons you've suggested....but a late deadline should exist to prevent the scenario I just presented. To me, the ideal deadline is whenever waivers close prior to the last regular season matchups of the year. Under no circumstances should playoff teams be allowed to trade with non playoff teams during the actual post-season.

This is a good post. I definitely see your viewpoint on it and can see that being the case. I think your one example is probably a little far-fetched but possible nonetheless.I guess the question becomes, is selling one's future to win a Super Bowl really bad? Obviously, for a big money league, then I can see the argument. For smaller $ but competitive leagues where the winning owner isn't gonna bail after he wins one title, I don't see it as a problem. Completely selling out your team for that one shot to win (which isn't guaranteed anyway) is not an easy decision and I don't think is as automatic as you think. Studs can disappoint and then not only does he not win but now he has compromised his future.

The other thing to consider is this. Although the timing of it is obviously dissimilar, how is that different from a team that drafts older studs in the startup draft in the hopes of taking the title the 1st year and paying for the rest of his years? Granted, things could go wrong throughout the year and nothing is guaranteed and much more risk involved, but the point of drafting that way is with the clear intention of winning the 1st year and selling out the future. Completely viable philosophy.

I think in the end, unless a deal is for a true difference maker that is so much better than a team's current starters (who are good enough to get him where he is now anyway), no deal can "buy" a victory. This is not to mention that most true difference makers aren't 35 years old. If a team is willing to sell off a bunch of components for a guy like TO or Warner in order to "buy a championship", let him. Those guys could easily bomb and then his team is now worse for it in the end. As I said, it's not a given every owner would do that for the big prize money in the end since there are no guarantees, even for just 1 week.

Really, it's about the circumstances changing the market. Come SB week...I don't really care who's on my bench, and I'm not really thinking about next year. Just a few weeks earlier, I still care who's on my bench, because could still lose a starter. Guys sell bench players all of the time right before the playoffs trying to improve their starting lineups, but they don't mortgage their entire future for it, because the risk of injury still exists. The further into the playoffs you go, the more wierd the trade market becomes. For this reason, I think a deadline must exist. Meanwhile, the value of those bench players to the rest of the league (those out) hasn't changed. It can lead to lopsided trades which are not in the best interest of the league as a whole.I really do understand and appreciate your argument. I have no problem with letting playoff teams trade between themselves, and non-playoff teams trade between themselves during the playoffs. (Although obviously playoff teams would rarely trade)

In really big money leagues, an earlier deadline makes a lot of sense. In smaller money and friendlier leagues (where the bragging rights mean as much as the money), a later deadline. For most of us in the typical $50-$200 internet leagues...that sweet spot seems to be right as the regular season expires. Some firesales can still be had the way you envision, but the worst case scenarios like I envision are still avoided.

 

[renesauz]

I think in the end, unless a deal is for a true difference maker that is so much better than a team's current starters (who are good enough to get him where he is now anyway), no deal can "buy" a victory. This is not to mention that most true difference makers aren't 35 years old. If a team is willing to sell off a bunch of components for a guy like TO or Warner in order to "buy a championship", let him.

Most teams have SOME weakness. Unless the league is very shallow, or has been ridiulously dominant, there is some spot on the team with significant room for improvement. I took a total points title and top seed in my dynasty league with a platoon of Hightower and Kevin Faulk at RB2. (I traded at the deadline for Slaton, but that's not the point)

 

[gianmarco]

I think in the end, unless a deal is for a true difference maker that is so much better than a team's current starters (who are good enough to get him where he is now anyway), no deal can "buy" a victory. This is not to mention that most true difference makers aren't 35 years old. If a team is willing to sell off a bunch of components for a guy like TO or Warner in order to "buy a championship", let him.

Most teams have SOME weakness. Unless the league is very shallow, or has been ridiulously dominant, there is some spot on the team with significant room for improvement. I took a total points title and top seed in my dynasty league with a platoon of Hightower and Kevin Faulk at RB2. (I traded at the deadline for Slaton, but that's not the point)

Out of curiosity, what was the deal?

 

[Buckna]

I guess there could also be an issue of trading players to certain playoff teams in order to influence the outcome.

Say team A sees that team B has a bunch of studs with really easy matchups in week 16, he may try to trade something to team B's opponent in week 15 to keep him out of the superbowl. Although this seems quite risky I guess.

 

[Phurfur]

Why does every major sport have deadlines?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

So step back for a minute and think. Why is it that you think the NFL has a trade deadline? Wouldn't your logic apply even more to the real world than it does to fantasy football?

Bingo. The NFL, NBA, MLB, etc are all basically "dynasty" leagues, and they all have trade deadlines. A dynasty fantasy football league is no different.If you allowed owners to trade right now, the guys on their last legs would just be too cheap to the point that it would upset the balance of power. We'd see studs who aren't coming back next year being moved for guys like DeDe Dorsey because really, why not? Imagine how much Tiki Barber would've upset the balance of a league if he were allowed to be traded in week 14 during the year where he said he wasn't coming back next year but was still a total stud, and was on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs.With the trade deadline a few weeks earlier, you still have people trying to shift veterans for younger prospects. But, at that point, while teams can often tell they're probably not going to make the playoffs, very few teams are actually mathematically eliminated. This means that while they'll still probably move their vets for cheap, they're not going to just give them away for absolutely nothing. Last year we had a 2-7 team roll off 4 straight wins to end the year and make the playoffs, and this year a 3-6 team did the same thing. That little shred of hope that "hey, there's still an outside shot at me making the playoffs" keeps them from giving away players so utterly cheaply that it looks like borderline collusion.Because otherwise, what's the point in having a great team when every mediocre team can just load up on free talent at the last possible minute?

Just what stud (one that is producing at a high enough level to upset the balance of the playoffs) do you definitively know isn't coming back next year? Tiki was a rare case. Most players retire after they declined.

 

[Buckna]

I definitely think non-playoff teams and eliminated teams should be allowed to trade with each other during the post-season. Lots of players break out late or fade out, teams should be allowed to trade during that time period to take advantages in the swings in player values that can happen the last few weeks of the season.

Probably wouldn't happen very often, but the option to trade should be there. It'd be better than "well, I'm out of the playoffs, no need to login or to think about anything until March when FA opens up."