Your views on the legality of (1 Viewer)

[Couch Potato]

Bostonfred, I have always had a great deal of respect for your wisdom and disagreement on this issue won't change that. I think we will continue to disagree here though.

I'm seeing examples from you and the OP which aren't really comparable. The results in these examples are based on random luck (such as a coin flip) or are unrelated to FF skill (a round of golf).

But wouldn't a better example be the following: Owner A trades Player X and his 2008 2nd rounder to Owner B for his 2008 1st rounder. This kind of trade goes through all the time in leagues that allow trading of picks. But those picks could be #13 and #12, or they could be #24 and #1, or anywhere in between. How is it any less 'gambling' than the swap of future 1sts? We don't automatically disallow this trade, we look at the bigger picture.

Could this deal be overturned? If a league has 'unfair trade' rules, sure, if it can be established given all known facts at the time that the picks are more likely to be #24 and #1 and the player involved is minor. It could also be overturned if the picks are more likely to be #13 and #12 and the player is Tomlinson. But if the deal appears even enough at the time of the trade to not be grossly unfair (or whatever threshold and tests a particular league has in place), it is allowed. But we don't disallow the trade simply because they are future picks, even though we don't know where the picks will be slotted. To me, this example is a better comparison than golf or flipping a coin to determine all draft slots.

What about scenario 2 of my post 78, would you allow that in your league, because that is dealing with fantasy football.

Here is that scenario:

2. Owners of Teams A and B place a bet on a head to head matchup during the season. Wager is winner gets loser's starting running back, loser gets winner's backup kicker.

If the league has rules disallowing grossly unbalanced deals (and I think all leagues should), I think this would certainly qualify. We would know at the time of the deal the relative values of each team's starting RB and backup PK, and it should be overturned. Being based on ff doesn't make it a comparable example to the issue we're discussing, but it does allow me to re-emphasize that already-established rules should govern whether a deal for future 1sts is unfair rather than having a specific rule denying all such trades.

 

[jurb26]

1. Owners of Teams A and B place a bet on a round of golf. Wager is winner gets loser's first, loser gets winners second.2. Owners of Teams A and B place a bet on a head to head matchup during the season. Wager is winner gets loser's starting running back, loser gets winner's backup kicker.3. Owners of Teams A and B place a bet on who had the better win/loss record in the regular season. Wager is winner and loser swap first round picks for the next ten years if losers pick is higher than winners in that years draft.

You've asked us to comment on these so I will:1. This isn't even fantasy football related. Scratch it.2. The players being exchanged would have real time value... we would know that RB1 is x amount more valuable than K2. Not even close to a strong example. This example is nothing more than you trying to cover up 2 teams trading 1st round picks when we know the value of those picks. For example, it's half way through the season, I'm 0-7 and I trade my first to a team that is 5-2. Hardly comparable.3. 10 years? Come on you can't really be serious.

 

[Couch Potato]

I'm just curious how you would feel about this "trade":

Teams A and B put a bet on their head to head matchup. The wager is winner gets losers 1st and loser gets winners 2nd.

Would you allow this, because i think this falls into all categories which make the original trade legal and fair in your arguements.

I would argue that one head-to-head matchup is much less reflective of skill than a season's worth of games. Is there luck involved in both cases? Sure, but much more in the former case.Where is the line drawn? I don't know. You, Bostonfred, and others have philosophical differences with jurb, Ned, and me. I think this has turned out to be a very interesting conversation, and I will say you guys have made me take a harder look at the whole issue. I haven't changed my mind though.

Side point #1 -- jurb, the word is 'lose' not 'loose.'

Side point #2 -- those arguing not specifically against a future #1 traded for another future #1 because it is a side bet, but are arguing that picks are awarded to bolster weaker teams and such a deal shouldn't be allowed because trading it widens the gap, need to be prepared to add a whole bunch of rules designed to protect owners who don't know what they are doing. Don't allow them to trade draft picks at all. I hold the #1 overall in a league right now because last year a guy wanted Ryan Moats. That's sad, but the only real way to protect the balance through picks is to not allow owners to trade therm at all (or at least the top half of the draft).

 

[az_prof]

I'm just curious how you would feel about this "trade":

Teams A and B put a bet on their head to head matchup. The wager is winner gets losers 1st and loser gets winners 2nd.

Would you allow this, because i think this falls into all categories which make the original trade legal and fair in your arguements.

I would argue that one head-to-head matchup is much less reflective of skill than a season's worth of games. Is there luck involved in both cases? Sure, but much more in the former case.Where is the line drawn? I don't know. You, Bostonfred, and others have philosophical differences with jurb, Ned, and me. I think this has turned out to be a very interesting conversation, and I will say you guys have made me take a harder look at the whole issue. I haven't changed my mind though.

Side point #1 -- jurb, the word is 'lose' not 'loose.'

Side point #2 -- those arguing not specifically against a future #1 traded for another future #1 because it is a side bet, but are arguing that picks are awarded to bolster weaker teams and such a deal shouldn't be allowed because trading it widens the gap, need to be prepared to add a whole bunch of rules designed to protect owners who don't know what they are doing. Don't allow them to trade draft picks at all. I hold the #1 overall in a league right now because last year a guy wanted Ryan Moats. That's sad, but the only real way to protect the balance through picks is to not allow owners to trade therm at all (or at least the top half of the draft).

Couch Potato, you are comparing apples and oranges. It is NOT the same thing to say that a rule that is designed to help out the worse teams and manage league balance means that owners should not be allowed to trade picks at all. The PURPOSE of allowing trades is to give owners the opportunity to improve their teams, a freedom which should be allowed as much as possible (short of collusion). That does not mean that we get rid of the performance based drafting format. There will always be stronger and weaker teams. But why allow an action that will by definition make this gap greater when it really is nothing more than a side bet? This trade will affect other owners as well. As one of the stronger teams will get stronger to the disadvantage of the other 11 teams.

It isn't in the spirit of fantasy football.

I come back to my point: would NFL teams allow this? Why not? Then why should we?

 

[jurb26]

ide point #2 -- those arguing not specifically against a future #1 traded for another future #1 because it is a side bet, but are arguing that picks are awarded to bolster weaker teams and such a deal shouldn't be allowed because trading it widens the gap, need to be prepared to add a whole bunch of rules designed to protect owners who don't know what they are doing. Don't allow them to trade draft picks at all. I hold the #1 overall in a league right now because last year a guy wanted Ryan Moats. That's sad, but the only real way to protect the balance through picks is to not allow owners to trade therm at all (or at least the top half of the draft).

I have to agree that this debate has made me think of trades in a whole new way. Like you, CP, I have not changed my view on it though. I doubt that anyone else has either. I would simply say that if you plan on vetoing a trade such as this, be prepared to have to veto several other types of trades as well. I'm sure every league is going to have individuals such as CP, Ned and myself in them. I just can't see how this trade is any more or less risky than several of the others that are already allowed in fantasy football.

 

[jurb26]

I come back to my point: would NFL teams allow this? Why not? Then why should we?

Where have you seen or heard that the NFL would not allow this?Not that it matters to a fantasy argument, just curious.

 

[Couch Potato]

Couch Potato, you are comparing apples and oranges. It is NOT the same thing to say that a rule that is designed to help out the worse teams and manage league balance means that owners should not be allowed to trade picks at all. The PURPOSE of allowing trades is to give owners the opportunity to improve their teams, a freedom which should be allowed as much as possible (short of collusion). That does not mean that we get rid of the performance based drafting format. There will always be stronger and weaker teams. But why allow an action that will by definition make this gap greater when it really is nothing more than a side bet? This trade will affect other owners as well. As one of the stronger teams will get stronger to the disadvantage of the other 11 teams. It isn't in the spirit of fantasy football.I come back to my point: would NFL teams allow this? Why not? Then why should we?

First, I agree that instituting some rules, like the rookie draft order, for the maintenance of balance is a good thing. Second, again, if the argument against this sort of deal is that it is a side bet outside of rather than competition within the league, I understand that argument. We have a philosophical difference as to whether it should be OK because I believe it's still dependent on the skills and performance within the league, but if I were in a league where the majority didn't want such deals and voted for a trade restriction I would lose no sleep over it and be satisfied to go along with the majority.But my point is... using the argument that the better team gets the better pick through the 1st-for-1st trade, and therefore it's not good for the league, my reply is 'so what?' I'm not actually in favor of keeping owners from trading picks, I'm just saying that if the purpose of restricting this type of trade is to protect the league from imbalance, go further because a lot more needs to be done than this. In my dynasty leagues I'd say that at least half the top-6 picks most years are not owned by the teams who 'earned' them, and if you look back at what they got for the picks in the trade, you just shake your head. So, go ahead and protect the competitive balance of the league by forcing these guys to draft Reggie Bush or Adrian Peterson rather than let them trade away these picks for Ryan Moats. Either that or keep trade unrestricted, let the fit survive, and let the weak move on and be replaced by smarter incoming owners.

 

[kevinray]

I just don't see how trading a player for a future draft pick is any different then a future draft pick for future draft pick trade. The situation is where two teams trade a WR for a 1st rounder, and lets assume each agrees about the WR's future potential, but they disagree about how good the other teams draft pick will be. One team thinks his wilily veterans will bring him a title and the WR will be worth more to him then the 12th . The other guy thinks that the other team is old and terrible and he'll get the #1 if he makes the deal which is way more valuable to him then the WR. Both guys make an estimation of the draft pick value, and they come to the conclusion the trade is good for their respective teams.

How is that any less like gambling then two guys evaluating the future of each others teams and coming to the conclusion that the other teams draft pick will be more valuable then what he's giving up. Honestly. One deal has a player whose been evaluated as worth so much and an unknown commodity that has been evaluated as worth so much, and the other just involves two unknown evaluated commodities. I know that the very nature of a draft pick swap will bring about a situation where the worst team gets a lower pick then a better team, but I think it’s more unlikely then likely that a trade involving a first round pick is going to be viewed as even. CP made this point earlier, trades with future draft picks always have the potential to be very lopsided, but that shouldn't restrict any team’s ability to trade them.

We have a bet right now that T. Bell will out score Henry in FF points this year. It’s a bet, a lot of luck is involved because if one guy gets injured then the other guys screwed. But if the guy that took Bell in the bet had Henry on his team he'd make a trade with the Bell owner because he knows the extra FP will help his team. In one situation it’s a bet the other its a normal trade. Don't focus to much on that point because its not my main question, just a statement.

 

[snorlax]

The problem with your examples Bruce is that any of those trades could potentially work out in favor of either side or possibly even both sides, even those that seem grossly unbalanced at first. The original proposed trade, however, will always benefit the better team. Nobody has yet posted a commonly accepted trade idea that will always benefit the better team other than perhaps the swap of future firsts.

In regards to the issue of whether a trade such as this is good for the league as a whole longterm, there are two primary factors which will affect a leagues longevity: competitive balance and individual owner interest. A league can have rotating champions and a high turnover rate for playoff teams, but if owners don't have a desire to visit the league site, communicate with other owners, and discuss trades, then the league may fall apart as people decide to devote their time elsewhere.

On the other hand, if trades like this are allowed, they may increase chatter as on the message board and private discussions between owners, both directly and indirectly increasing other trade talks. Of course these trades will be a double-edged sword for the league: while they will increase activity and interaction, they also may cause more friction between owners that could lead to ugly arguments. In addition, trades like this may cause teams on the decline to decline even faster and take longer to recover, which probably drags down the league as a whole.

In the end, I think whether you want to allow trades like these depends on the kind of league you are trying to run. If you are trying to run a friendly league with high parity, perhaps you want to outlaw these trades or at least monitor them very closely. If you want a high-risk, high-reward league with a lot of smack talk, then these types of trades might even be encouraged. In either case, it's definitely necessary to monitor the individual trades of this type carefully before they lead down a slippery slope to some of the absurd examples provided in this thread.

 

[bostonfred]

The problem with your examples Bruce is that any of those trades could potentially work out in favor of either side or possibly even both sides, even those that seem grossly unbalanced at first. The original proposed trade, however, will always benefit the better team. Nobody has yet posted a commonly accepted trade idea that will always benefit the better team other than perhaps the swap of future firsts.

In regards to the issue of whether a trade such as this is good for the league as a whole longterm, there are two primary factors which will affect a leagues longevity: competitive balance and individual owner interest. A league can have rotating champions and a high turnover rate for playoff teams, but if owners don't have a desire to visit the league site, communicate with other owners, and discuss trades, then the league may fall apart as people decide to devote their time elsewhere.

On the other hand, if trades like this are allowed, they may increase chatter as on the message board and private discussions between owners, both directly and indirectly increasing other trade talks. Of course these trades will be a double-edged sword for the league: while they will increase activity and interaction, they also may cause more friction between owners that could lead to ugly arguments. In addition, trades like this may cause teams on the decline to decline even faster and take longer to recover, which probably drags down the league as a whole.

In the end, I think whether you want to allow trades like these depends on the kind of league you are trying to run. If you are trying to run a friendly league with high parity, perhaps you want to outlaw these trades or at least monitor them very closely. If you want a high-risk, high-reward league with a lot of smack talk, then these types of trades might even be encouraged. In either case, it's definitely necessary to monitor the individual trades of this type carefully before they lead down a slippery slope to some of the absurd examples provided in this thread.

Well said, Joe. I agree with pretty much everything in here.