Your views on the legality of (1 Viewer)

[number 9]

Situation: Team A swaps with Team B 2009 1st round picks prior to the 2007 season.

This would be done if both teams feel that they will finish with a better record in the 2008 season and in turn get a higher draft pick than they would have gotten. First I'll just see what you guys feel the rule should be on this and then add my opinion later I guess.

 

[phthalatemagic]

That particular trade seems strange, is it just like some sort of a side bet they are doing?

 

[Slinger]

I've done this twice before, except it was a year in advance. Trading pics 2 years in advance should never be allowed, but as of right now there's absolutely no reason why this trade should be illegal.

 

[-OZ-]

I've done this twice before, except it was a year in advance. Trading pics 2 years in advance should never be allowed, but as of right now there's absolutely no reason why this trade should be illegal.

As long as the teams have paid for that year, or it's otherwise allowed in the rules, I don't see a problem with trading as many years out as the teams want to. This is assuming of course, that it's a pay league.

 

[fsufan]

I've done this twice before, except it was a year in advance. Trading pics 2 years in advance should never be allowed, but as of right now there's absolutely no reason why this trade should be illegal.

i commish 2 dynasty leagues and we do not allow trading pick 2 or more year in advance. I also play in 2 other dynasty leagues that allow trading picks 3 years in advance. You would be shocked how some overvalue trading a pick 2 or 3 years in advance.

 

[Brewzers]

I think it is a strange trade. I don't like it. However, if there aren't any rules forbidding trades two years out, I don't see why it should not be allowed.

 

[number 9]

I've done this twice before, except it was a year in advance. Trading pics 2 years in advance should never be allowed, but as of right now there's absolutely no reason why this trade should be illegal.

As long as the teams have paid for that year, or it's otherwise allowed in the rules, I don't see a problem with trading as many years out as the teams want to. This is assuming of course, that it's a pay league.

It is a pay league, and we can't go back and take away a trade, but we are thinking about ammending our rule book to make that type of trade illegal in the future. Keep the opinions coming.

 

[number 9]

I think it is a strange trade. I don't like it. However, if there aren't any rules forbidding trades two years out, I don't see why it should not be allowed.

Can you explain why you don't like it?

 

[lions327]

I don't see anything wrong with an owner having enough confidence in his team to swap firsts with another owner. This assumes it is within the rules.

I don't get the problem with this.

 

[squistion]

I don't see anything wrong with an owner having enough confidence in his team to swap firsts with another owner. This assumes it is within the rules. I don't get the problem with this.

I don't either - I can't see the point in making this trade, but I can't find anything sinister in it either.Who can say what the values of these picks will be? Why should it not be allowed?

 

[Couch Potato]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.

As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.

This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think it is a strange trade. I don't like it. However, if there aren't any rules forbidding trades two years out, I don't see why it should not be allowed.

Can you explain why you don't like it?

The only reason I could argue against it is that it completely circumvents the purpose of the rookie draft. The rookie draft is supposed to help the worst teams get better. Normally you can trade and speculate one thing is worth more than another, but in this case it is 100% guaranteed that the worst team gets the worst end of the deal.

 

[Brewzers]

I think it is a strange trade. I don't like it. However, if there aren't any rules forbidding trades two years out, I don't see why it should not be allowed.

Can you explain why you don't like it?

Money. I'm assuming the teams have not paid for 2009 yet. I wouldn't like trades happening beyond what teams' have paid for.

 

[Sinrman]

If money is involved, I would definitely make sure they have paid through that particular year. Though it wouldn't totally screw over a new owner if one needed to be brought in (as you are just swapping picks and not losing a 1st rounder), it still can hurt them...

As for allowing this? Well, it's not the end of the world, but I would set something for future picks. I've never been a fan of trading picks more than one year in the future. 2008 picks? Sure, no problem. But 2009+? Ick, it can get messy...

 

[number 9]

I guess I explained the situation kind of poorly. I am not focusing on the fact that the trade is two years away, this would work for a trade that was one year away, too. And its not that the teams havnt paid. The part of this that I am asking about is the swap of two unknown picks in the same round...a straight up gamble of "my team will be better than yours". I'd like to hear some more original ideas before I explain my position.

 

[Dirty Weasel]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

 

[zed2283]

I don't see anything wrong with an owner having enough confidence in his team to swap firsts with another owner. This assumes it is within the rules. I don't get the problem with this.

I completely agree with this post. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the trade and I have no idea where the negative response is coming from.Edited to include that teams should be able to trade as far out as they want.

 

[zed2283]

I guess I explained the situation kind of poorly. I am not focusing on the fact that the trade is two years away, this would work for a trade that was one year away, too. And its not that the teams havnt paid. The part of this that I am asking about is the swap of two unknown picks in the same round...a straight up gamble of "my team will be better than yours". I'd like to hear some more original ideas before I explain my position.

I really don't see the problem with thinking your team is better than the other team and that making the trade will improve your draft position. It's just that both teams obviously feel the same way.

 

[stevegamer]

I think it's fine, as long as trading that far in advance is legal, and there's no worry about money issues.

As many others have said, it will actually make sure you've got 2 teams that have an established disinterest in finishing poorly.

 

[stevegamer]

I guess I explained the situation kind of poorly. I am not focusing on the fact that the trade is two years away, this would work for a trade that was one year away, too. And its not that the teams havnt paid. The part of this that I am asking about is the swap of two unknown picks in the same round...a straight up gamble of "my team will be better than yours". I'd like to hear some more original ideas before I explain my position.

I understand not liking the gamble nature of it, but since all trades of players & picks are essentially gambles on future performance, I'm not sure I see a significant difference.Both guys can back up why their team will do better in the deal - they will have the better record.

A trade of 2 current players would be based on the players' future performance.

A trade of picks & players for picks & players would be based on the teams' & the players' future performance.

I see no significant difference.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

Is your second couch not innerweb friendly?

 

[phthalatemagic]

Those supporting the "it eliminates tanking" argument. Shouldn't the lack of tanking be implied?

 

[stevegamer]

Those supporting the "it eliminates tanking" argument. Shouldn't the lack of tanking be implied?

Yes, but it's just one more reason to not dislike it. It's not so much eliminating tanking as making sure people ar bing more competitive.I don't see a good reason to disallow it, especially considering it's not the money or timeframe angles from the OP's perspective, so I guess it's time for

 

[radballs]

I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever. What's the original poster's problem with it?

 

[Buckna]

I'm okay with it as long as those teams pony up the league fees for those future seasons. You should always have a rule where teams trading future picks commit some portion if not all of that future seasons league fees.

For example, I am in a league right now where a team made very questionable trades last year for the short term and long term. The owner in question even admitted to making trade proposal's while drunk. There were votes to overturn the trades but they failed. We now have 1 team that is loaded and sitting on the #1 pick this year and likely the #1 pick next year. Of course, the owner in question who made these trades bailed on the league when they went south on him.

Trading away future picks is fine, used wisely, they can help build a great team. But there should be some repercussions and committment in this anonymous internet age (especially in $ leagues.)

 

[lions327]

I have read all of the posts, and other than rules or payment issues, I fail to see anything wrong with this.

 

[Bri]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.

Good post, I think it's just in theory though. Anyone that tanks wouldn't care really, minor annoyance. He's probably giving up a handful of guys to get a handful of early picks. 1 isn't a show stopper.

This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

Did you use the FBG gum or the FBG patch? I was trying to quit at least in the morning so when I walked past this boat shop in Tennessee and this guy was like "Hey guy, I've got what you need" I dug into my pocket to see if I could afford it. I couldn't but I agreed to get some cartoon head tattooed on my forehead so he gave me a discount. I shelled out the little money I had for these herbal stop posting capsules/remedies he was selling, but they didn't work. I try to be more responsible and hit cspan and cnn.com, but I just can't quit this habit.How am I supposed to get this tattoo off now? I'd like to go back to that boat shop and give that guy "what for", but I know that if I go there I'll just buy more. As my grandpa would say "that's quite a racket he's got going on there." CPotato, don't walk past that boat shop when you're trying to quit....just don't.

 

[Christo]

I have read all of the posts, and other than rules or payment issues, I fail to see anything wrong with this.

Okay, let's look at it another way. What's right/good about it?

 

[lions327]

I have read all of the posts, and other than rules or payment issues, I fail to see anything wrong with this.

Okay, let's look at it another way. What's right/good about it?

The right and/or good is:An owner believing in his managing skills...combined with an objective look at his roster and the other owners rosters, taking a look at the current and long term value of the players he has. If he comes to the conclusion that he will have a better team in the future years that are in question, then it is smart making a trade that, in his opinion, bumps him higher in the draft.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.

I agree with the spud.

 

[Slinger]

I have read all of the posts, and other than rules or payment issues, I fail to see anything wrong with this.

Okay, let's look at it another way. What's right/good about it?

The right and/or good is:An owner believing in his managing skills...combined with an objective look at his roster and the other owners rosters, taking a look at the current and long term value of the players he has.

If he comes to the conclusion that he will have a better team in the future years that are in question, then it is smart making a trade that, in his opinion, bumps him higher in the draft.

Exactly. It's nothing more than 2 owners saying I'm going to have a better season than you and I'll put my #1 down as proof.

 

[jurb26]

What in the world is wrong with this trade? So long as the teams involved are paid up to the season this trade impacts this is a perfectly fine deal. If you make a rule to negate this trade, my guess is you are also looking for 2 more league members. Every league is different and if the majority does not like it then so be it. Personally I can't find a single detail about this trade that warrants it being overturned or it being unfair.

 

[Doug Drinen]

I have read all of the posts, and other than rules or payment issues, I fail to see anything wrong with this.

Okay, let's look at it another way. What's right/good about it?

Same thing that's right/good about any other trade: both parties feel they are making their team better.I'm with jurb and lions and the rest of the people who can't understand why in the world this would raise an eyebrow.

 

[DWidmar]

The only real concern in questioning any trade is figuring out if it is collusion. On the surface here, it does not appear to be collusion and if the league rules don't say anything about it, then it should be allowed.

Now a question I have, if team A was a MUCH better team than team B, then could it be collusion as team B is possibly trying to help team A get even better?

Whenever you allow a trade like this you have to be ready to accept all possible outcomes. You cant allow two teams to do it when it appears they have equal teams then disallow two other teams to do it when it looks like they are far apaprt in terms of talent.

 

[jurb26]

The only real concern in questioning any trade is figuring out if it is collusion. On the surface here, it does not appear to be collusion and if the league rules don't say anything about it, then it should be allowed. Now a question I have, if team A was a MUCH better team than team B, then could it be collusion as team B is possibly trying to help team A get even better?Whenever you allow a trade like this you have to be ready to accept all possible outcomes. You cant allow two teams to do it when it appears they have equal teams then disallow two other teams to do it when it looks like they are far apaprt in terms of talent.

Who are you or anyone else to tell somebody (before the season) how good their team is? People have different opinions/values about players. Right, wrong or indifferent I don't see how anyone can justify earmarking teams so much before the season. This is 2 season out mind you.If this was half way through the season and we had factual based results (W/L records). I totally understand this argument. At this moment in time however, I just don't buy it.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Future picks should only be allowed one year out. Somebody could easily trade two years of picks away, and then bail, leaving a team in trouble for a couple of years. Very hard to fill a spot when the team doesn't have any picks for two years. And yes, that trade is pretty screwy.

 

[jurb26]

Future picks should only be allowed one year out. Somebody could easily trade two years of picks away, and then bail, leaving a team in trouble for a couple of years. Very hard to fill a spot when the team doesn't have any picks for two years. And yes, that trade is pretty screwy.

It's not hard to find a replacement if the next 2 years are free.

 

[DWidmar]

The only real concern in questioning any trade is figuring out if it is collusion. On the surface here, it does not appear to be collusion and if the league rules don't say anything about it, then it should be allowed. Now a question I have, if team A was a MUCH better team than team B, then could it be collusion as team B is possibly trying to help team A get even better?Whenever you allow a trade like this you have to be ready to accept all possible outcomes. You cant allow two teams to do it when it appears they have equal teams then disallow two other teams to do it when it looks like they are far apaprt in terms of talent.

Who are you or anyone else to tell somebody (before the season) how good their team is? People have different opinions/values about players. Right, wrong or indifferent I don't see how anyone can justify earmarking teams so much before the season. This is 2 season out mind you.If this was half way through the season and we had factual based results (W/L records). I totally understand this argument. At this moment in time however, I just don't buy it.

I am not saying it is collusion I was merely asking a question about wether it could be or not. I don't know how competitive your leagues are and maybe you have very even teams. In my league I can look at a couple of teams and it is apparent based on their roster that they are not going to be a good team. I am certainly not a prognosticator and I understand your point about values / perceptions / opinions and actually having to play it on the field. Sometimes the player talent and depth on a team are very far apart and it is just obvious. Because of some changes to our league, we have some teams that cant even fill the minimum starting requirements. I guess what I am saying is that it could be perceive as collusion by some owners if they perceived the teams as being far apart in talent and depth and player value. I know that doesn't mean it is but it is the perceptions within a league that can ruin a league. I have seen several poll / posts on here where somebody says "look at this terrible trade" and while I may not think it is a terrible trade, if several owners in his / her league do than that will cause problems within that league. If this trade took place in my league between a certain couple of teams, other owners would have a fit. But maybe thats just my league. As far as being 2 seasons out that does add some different elements to the equation but I was going off what the original starter of the thread said later in the post that he wasnt concerned about which year this was but more concerned about the type of trade itself.

 

[radballs]

Still waiting on the original poster's opinion on this.

 

[bostonfred]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

Wait a minute. Why does it mean that? You're assuming that both owners are completely moral and unwilling to collude. But imagine if two of us got together and said, OK, I'll trade you my first for your first. And the deal is, if I'm out of the playoffs, I will tank for you. If you're out of the playoffs, you tank for me. If we both make the playoffs, fine, we play it straight up. But if not, one of us always gets to add a top pick to a former year playoff contender. After a few years, the two of you would have more than your fair share of championships, and if you agreed in advance to chop the prize money, you'd make out better on the deal than two random owners in a league of equally skilled and fortunate players.

 

[lions327]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

Wait a minute. Why does it mean that? You're assuming that both owners are completely moral and unwilling to collude. But imagine if two of us got together and said, OK, I'll trade you my first for your first. And the deal is, if I'm out of the playoffs, I will tank for you. If you're out of the playoffs, you tank for me. If we both make the playoffs, fine, we play it straight up. But if not, one of us always gets to add a top pick to a former year playoff contender. After a few years, the two of you would have more than your fair share of championships, and if you agreed in advance to chop the prize money, you'd make out better on the deal than two random owners in a league of equally skilled and fortunate players.

If those kind of owners are in a league, it's time to find another league.

 

[DWidmar]

Still waiting on the original poster's opinion on this.

We definately need to see where this is going.

 

[bostonfred]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

Wait a minute. Why does it mean that? You're assuming that both owners are completely moral and unwilling to collude. But imagine if two of us got together and said, OK, I'll trade you my first for your first. And the deal is, if I'm out of the playoffs, I will tank for you. If you're out of the playoffs, you tank for me. If we both make the playoffs, fine, we play it straight up. But if not, one of us always gets to add a top pick to a former year playoff contender. After a few years, the two of you would have more than your fair share of championships, and if you agreed in advance to chop the prize money, you'd make out better on the deal than two random owners in a league of equally skilled and fortunate players.

If those kind of owners are in a league, it's time to find another league.

Of course. But the question is whether it should be allowed. If there's a possible loophole, it makes sense to close it. So I would ask, what's the benefit to allowing these kinds of trades? Would it ever happen in the NFL?

 

[ffguru56]

I'm involved in a dynasty league and we aren't allowed to trade next year's picks until after our draft for that year has been complete.

I don't agree with the trade on the basis of it being beyong next year's draft. You can't predict what your team will do in 2 years or more. Your team typically won't change drastically in one year and you can make a good prediction as to how far your team will go...giving a reason to swap next year's first round picks. However, beyond that is merely a crapshoot and thus shouldn't be allowed to swap first round picks.

Look at the scenario that you swap picks and the team that wins the superbowl ends up with a top-end pick...defeating the whole purpose of the way drafts go (assuming that's how you guys do yours).

I'm against it 100%. If it were next year's picks (and after that current year's draft) then I would say it's a valid trade, otherwise it shouldn't be allowed....it will ruin your league if trades like that become common.

 

[Couch Potato]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

Wait a minute. Why does it mean that? You're assuming that both owners are completely moral and unwilling to collude. But imagine if two of us got together and said, OK, I'll trade you my first for your first. And the deal is, if I'm out of the playoffs, I will tank for you. If you're out of the playoffs, you tank for me. If we both make the playoffs, fine, we play it straight up. But if not, one of us always gets to add a top pick to a former year playoff contender. After a few years, the two of you would have more than your fair share of championships, and if you agreed in advance to chop the prize money, you'd make out better on the deal than two random owners in a league of equally skilled and fortunate players.

This scenario is pretty far fetched. 1. It would require two parties to agree to collude for a long period of time so that the tanked seasons could even out and both parties benefit, and for this tanking pattern not to be stopped by the league and the parties tossed out once it became evident. It would be extremely risky and foolish to even approach someone with such a proposition. I know if someone ever proposed such a thing to me, the Commish would be contacted immediately and the guy would be out of the league in a big hurry.2. It would require trusting that the other party would actually tank as agreed, no sure thing with someone who is obviously known to be unscrupulous already for even entering into such a tanking deal.3. A person with a tanking mentality wouldn't enter into a dangerous pick trade tanking scheme when the same benefit could be obtained simply by keeping his own pick and tanking for himself if his season went bad rather than for someone else. The benefit would be immediate rather than waiting for some year when the other guy has a bad season and having to hope he'd do his part in the scheme.

 

[Couch Potato]

I don't agree with the trade on the basis of it being beyong next year's draft. You can't predict what your team will do in 2 years or more. Your team typically won't change drastically in one year and you can make a good prediction as to how far your team will go...giving a reason to swap next year's first round picks. However, beyond that is merely a crapshoot and thus shouldn't be allowed to swap first round picks.

You don't seem to believe much in the skill factor in fantasy football. In dynasty leagues, gaps between good and bad teams often widen rather than narrow over time due to owner skill. It's far from a crapshoot.

 

[Ned]

I've done this twice before, except it was a year in advance. Trading pics 2 years in advance should never be allowed, but as of right now there's absolutely no reason why this trade should be illegal.

As long as the teams have paid for that year, or it's otherwise allowed in the rules, I don't see a problem with trading as many years out as the teams want to. This is assuming of course, that it's a pay league.

It is a pay league, and we can't go back and take away a trade, but we are thinking about ammending our rule book to make that type of trade illegal in the future. Keep the opinions coming.

why make it illegal? let the 2 gamble if they want.

 

[fsufan]

Future picks should only be allowed one year out. Somebody could easily trade two years of picks away, and then bail, leaving a team in trouble for a couple of years. Very hard to fill a spot when the team doesn't have any picks for two years. And yes, that trade is pretty screwy.

i agree, I play in 2 dynasty leagues that allow trading picks 3 years out. I have traded away my first round picks(both leagues) in 07,08 and 09 for players to help me win now. I am not planning on quitting the leagues anytime soon.

 

[ffguru56]

I don't agree with the trade on the basis of it being beyong next year's draft. You can't predict what your team will do in 2 years or more. Your team typically won't change drastically in one year and you can make a good prediction as to how far your team will go...giving a reason to swap next year's first round picks. However, beyond that is merely a crapshoot and thus shouldn't be allowed to swap first round picks.

You don't seem to believe much in the skill factor in fantasy football. In dynasty leagues, gaps between good and bad teams often widen rather than narrow over time due to owner skill. It's far from a crapshoot.

Of course there is skill involved with fantasy football....balancing the dynamics of your team requires many different strategies. However, along with this skill there's also much luck. My intention of that statement was based on my scenario in a 10 team league. I was a favorite to win the the league last year and because of unfortunate circumstances I was nearly a .500 team. The point is that your record doesn't always do your team's value justice. It can go either way.

Therefore, yes trading away first round picks 2, 3 or more years away does in fact make it a crapshoot as to where your team will be.

 

[bostonfred]

I do one or two trades like this every year in dynasty if I can find someone to take it on. I have two of them going for the 2007 season including one with Pasquino where we swapped both 2008 1st and 2nd rounders in a startup dynasty league. Yeah, it's essentially a "mine is bigger than yours" side bet, but there's a side benefit to the league as well. It eliminates the possibility of either of the two teams tanking if their season goes belly up, since doing so would only help the trading partner.As far as a deal being for a 2009 rather than a 2008 pick is concerned, that's a separate issue and each league must determine how (or if) they want to deal with 2-year-out pick trades in general. But assuming 2-year-out pick trades are allowed at all, swapping an undetermined 1st for another undetermined 1st only makes teams more determined, not less determined, to be competitive, and that's a good thing.This was my 1st post in 33 days... that must be some sort of record, huh?

The potato hit the nail on the head. A trade like this means both owners expect to have a better record, and that means they will not tank a bad season. Trades like this should not be condemned... they should be encouraged. One caveat - both teams MUST pay in advance for the seasons they swap picks in.

Wait a minute. Why does it mean that? You're assuming that both owners are completely moral and unwilling to collude. But imagine if two of us got together and said, OK, I'll trade you my first for your first. And the deal is, if I'm out of the playoffs, I will tank for you. If you're out of the playoffs, you tank for me. If we both make the playoffs, fine, we play it straight up. But if not, one of us always gets to add a top pick to a former year playoff contender. After a few years, the two of you would have more than your fair share of championships, and if you agreed in advance to chop the prize money, you'd make out better on the deal than two random owners in a league of equally skilled and fortunate players.

This scenario is pretty far fetched. 1. It would require two parties to agree to collude for a long period of time so that the tanked seasons could even out and both parties benefit, and for this tanking pattern not to be stopped by the league and the parties tossed out once it became evident. It would be extremely risky and foolish to even approach someone with such a proposition. I know if someone ever proposed such a thing to me, the Commish would be contacted immediately and the guy would be out of the league in a big hurry.2. It would require trusting that the other party would actually tank as agreed, no sure thing with someone who is obviously known to be unscrupulous already for even entering into such a tanking deal.3. A person with a tanking mentality wouldn't enter into a dangerous pick trade tanking scheme when the same benefit could be obtained simply by keeping his own pick and tanking for himself if his season went bad rather than for someone else. The benefit would be immediate rather than waiting for some year when the other guy has a bad season and having to hope he'd do his part in the scheme.

1. You said you've been swapping picks for years. Nobody's kicked you out. Maybe you and your trading partner have never tanked, but who's to say what constitutes tanking? The idea that trading keeps you from tanking is one thing, but wouldn't it be even easier to lose interest in the league if you couldn't even benefit from your losing season? And who could blame you if you were already having a terrible season? 2. If you agreed up front to chop your prize money, there's nothing that dangerous about it. If it's a league of long time friends, that's one thing. But collusion happens, and this just leaves an opening for someone to collude. 3. Again, if you agreed up front to chop the prize money, it's far more beneficial to make this trade. You're putting the better draft pick onto the better team. And it's better than making shady trades, because how could anyone accuse you of cheating? You aren't helping your own team by losing interest at the end of the year. It's a well concealed way to help make one team a powerhouse at the expense of another.