This will be the biggest issue to iron out. I am not going to put up a poll until we get some discussion and figure out what exactly we want to vote on.
I know several people expressed disappointment at how hard it was to make a trade last year because of the restrictions. Others like it and think it places a value on keepers.
Also, some have expressed interest in making offseason keeper trades.
The current rules we have in place after the jump.
If you trade a keeper in-season, you: lose an 8th-round (11th overall) draft pick; must pay a $20 fee to go into the next year's pot.
Time's yours, fellas. Discuss, please.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Ok I'll kick this off. Last year I was a proponent of the current keeper trading rules that we have now, and now I am doing a 180. I agree and think that the current rules basically makes trading keepers impossible. While a keeper league should have a certain valuation of keeper players to it, the current rules are unworkable.
ReplyDeleteMy initial suggestion, and one I believe Jack raised last year, is that we allow for off-season keeper trades as a rule and without consequence. This would a.) allow keepers to be traded freely without penalty of losing a pick or paying, and b.) maintain integrity in that keepers wouldn't be traded last second before the trading deadline as a means to enhance one team to the others detriment. I believe this is a fair way to allow managers to move expiring contracts if they wish. I think that simply whenever a trade has been accepted between two managers, Andy send out an email and create poll for everyone to either Veto or Allow the trade. Since this is being done in the offseason, I would also propose that we allow draft picks to be involved in the equation. I know in the past there has been an abuse of trading draft picks (I'm guilty of it) and that it led to uproar. However, I think that the offseason element is sufficient to avoid the inequities that resulted during the season. The draft pick element is just a suggestion and remember we can always veto trades that are perceived as being lopsided.
As far as in-season trading of keepers, I think that the monetary penalty should be gotten rid of. I also think that the 8th round pick is too high. If we keep some sort of penalty to trading keepers, I think the pick should be lowered to maybe the 14th overall draft pick. While some may say what is the point, there is no deterrent to losing such a late pick, there certainly are players that are drafted around that time that turn out to be impact players so losing a pick still will make managers think twice. That being said, I also would not be opposed to completely getting rid of any penalty when trading draft picks, if that were the will of the league. It seems silly to propose that when faced with a keeper trade we just simply apply heightened scrutiny of the trade and really think about it, because that is something that should be done with regard to all trades that occur.
With all that being said, I still think it should remain that only keepers can be traded for keepers. I think that element should remain.
Thoughts?
Chris
Can you please re-summarize this a bit? Very hard to read, and if I can't understand it, I know someone like Mike has no shot...
ReplyDeleteYou're proposing the only penalty for trading keepers to be a 14th rounder as well as allowing draft picks to be traded again?
OK:
ReplyDeleteOff-season trades of keepers:
- Allow these to occur
- Allow draft picks to be incorporated into these
Mid-season trades of keepers:
- 11th round pick is too steep a price, bump it down to 14th round pick IF WE DECIDE TO HAVE A PENALTY AT ALL. My point was that we may decide that losing any pick is not a good idea and just abandon it.
- I was not advocating for mid-season trades to allow draft picks be involved in the equation b/c it seems less fair while in the midst of the season.
Maintain that if a keeper is traded, another one must come in return at the least.
Hope this is clearer and more concise.
I highly disagree with having no penalties at all. Things got out of hand when it was that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, my 2 cents is that we should have just the loss of a draft pick, not a $20 fee, for trading keepers.
ReplyDeleteI say drop the $20 and make the pick the 14th round. I think 11th is too high and would still give managers pause when trading keepers.
ReplyDeleteGuys;
ReplyDeleteI am on vacation, sorry for the delayed reply. Here are my thoughts;
1) No question in my mind there needs to be in-season restrictions. What happened prior to the restrictions being adopted was not at all good for competition and allowed people who drafted/managed poorly to give up freely and without consequence. In addition - there was no open/fair dealing as I can tell you for certain not one of the teams that firesaled even offered me a trade - but yet trades were flying all over the place. The $ 20 fee - which gets added to the prize pool seems fair to me, along with the loss of a draft pick. Lessening these should come with at least one of the following two considerations;
a) Keepers that are being traded need to be registereed and bids are accepted from all teams.
b) A super majority (perhaps 2/3rds) is needed to pass a trade involving such firesales.
2) As to the other point about trading in the offseason without consequence, I agree with the first part but still think there should be some restrictions. These would include;
a) Only keeper for keeper.
b) Draft pick forfeit (perhaps 11th round or so).
c) Fee - $ 5 or $ 10.
Remember, a keeper league is based upon your decision to sign certain players for certain periods of time. These are critical decisions and one which (sorry to say) you should live with or there should be some pain if you want to unwind the decision. There are exemptions for critical injuries, and other changes in circumstances.
- JACK
Haha Andy, nice shot at me, had a good laugh. Almost gave up on reading the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with some of the proposed restrictions.
Offseason keeper trades:
I think this should be allowed, and with the loss of a draft pick(which we will decide from 11-14). Id say 11, it is high, but like Jack said we made decision to sign this player, so must face some noise.
Midseason Keeper trades:
I like Jacks idea of having to register that player for all to see. And if we were to use a fee for the trade, I think it makes more sense to use this fee midseason, rather then offseason. If not both obviously. With no draft pick lost.
Draft pick stay at 11th rd. No monetary fee. Also agree with jacks proposal to register player for all to see.
ReplyDeleteYou signed these guys for a reason it's a risk we all have to take. That is why we should have consequences. I am probably screwing myself over for this season by saying that.
I don't think there should be any restrictions. I think the fun in a keeper league is rebuilding for future years if necessary. In the off season obviously keeper for keeper but during the season I don't think there should be any trade restrictions. We all have the power to veto trades, that should be enough.
ReplyDeleteHardly any action happens in this league as it is and all the restrictions on pickups, trades, etc. make it worse. I vote for removing all keeper trading stipulations.
It seems like there are a few people who like the idea of registering players for all to know/see before you want to trade. Can someone please explain to me a little bit more what the advantages or reasons for doing this is? Right now I'm not seeing it.
ReplyDeleteShea we had the ability to veto the first 3 years, too, and things clearly got out of hand with the keeper trades. Myself included.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add to that, that I also agree with Shea in that last year the league was a bit boring because of the lack of trades. Everyone was scared off from the huge restrictions. That's why I think we should just have the loss of a draft pick and not a fee.
ReplyDeleteThis is a $50 league, not a high-staked league where it costs money to make transactions. Asking people to pay basically half of the buy-in and also lose a draft pick assures that there will be no keeper trades, and I don't think that's quite the point we were trying to hit last year when we made the changes.
We experienced with it, and in my mind, it didn't quite work as we had hoped.
I think the loss of a draft pick is still enough of a deterrent to make people think twice. I know it would for me. And I think the 11th rounder is just fine. As has been stated, there needs to be some penalty for trading away one of your contracts. I just think it doesn't need to be as harsh as we experienced with last year.
I don't think there should be any restrictions regarding trading of keepers. If someone's team stinks, and they need to unload a keeper to prepare for the future, I don't think they should be penalized for that.
ReplyDeleteIf a team finishes in the bottom of the pack, how is it fair that they should be stripped of a draft pick - one that could be used to draft a potential keeper that would help their team in the coming seasons - when they are trying to better their team for the future?
We have the power to veto. If it is that big of a concern, make the veto criteria a commissioner decision and then create a poll so everyone in the league can vote on the trade, then once that is complete, the commish can accept or deny it.
I don't know everyone in this league, but if everyone has respect for the league and themselves, they won't just give away players. And if they do, perhaps their place in this league should be reevaluated. Not to mention there was what, a whole ONE trade this season?
With all that said - and I haven't briefed myself on the extent of the keeper trading rules, so forgive me if this is a given - if you do decide to trade a keeper, then you should have to take back a keeper. So if Team A has two keepers expiring and one signed for 2 more years and he wants to trade his 2 year keeper to Team B for an expiring, I see nothing wrong with that. Clearly, with the league voting, the trade would have to be fair to go through. What's wrong with that?
First, Hal, to answer your question on the last part - yes, you can only trade keeper for keepers.
ReplyDeleteSecond, here's the problem most have with the draft pick part:
We've done that before, and while yes, it provided excitement (and at times, headache) whenever a trade was made involving draft picks, it ultimately caused problems.
If Team A was 11-3 and fighting for a division title, while Team B was 4-10 and clearly out of any playoff position, there was no reason really for Team B not to try to unload his players for draft picks. So then any teams in contention with Team A basically saw it as unfair that one of the better teams in the league was gaining top talent without giving away anything back.
And, the quick response to that is "That's what happens - reloading teams trade for draft picks and contending teams have to give them up to make a run at the title that season." And, yes, I agree, however this isn't a professional league with 30 teams. Also, we have been down that route before, and it was a mess. It led to fighting, arguments, and a lot of pissed off managers. Vetoing did not work out because who's to judge what's fair and what's not when draft picks are involved. The draft picks basically cancel out any chance of saying it's a lopsided trade. (I am as guilty of this as anyone, for what it's worth)
That led to last year's offseason implementation of restrictions, which many feel were too strong.
Our best bet here is to compromise. Otherwise, it will go to a vote, as in the past. And at that point, it's up for grabs.
My suggestion still is this (and please note that our veto system currently requires 3/4 of the league to agree the trade is fair in order for it to pass):
-Keeper for keeper trades allowed in-season cost both managers an 11th round draft pick but no money fee. Just as if you were to be penalized for making a keeper resign/cut in the offseason, you should be penalized for this.
-Offseason keeper trades allowed up until draft day, with a 16th round draft pick as the penalty. A lighter penalty since it's offseason.
-Draft picks can never be traded for players, in-season or offseason.
-I don't really care one way or the other about the "registering" players issue. We can vote on that and the majority will win.
Again, everyone please take into consideration that there are 12 members of this league (although, it often seems less than that, eh? Dave? Adam? Ricky? Ken? - any thoughts?) and everyone probably wants something different.
For those of you in favor of the very strict penalties, let's remember that the league was quite dull last year.
For those of you in favor of the very lenient rules, let's remember that the league was abused in year's past and led to some tension.
So, let's try and compromise.
All;
ReplyDeleteAlot to digest here. I will answer a few questions raised my way, directly or indirectly, based upon my position.
1) The "registering" issue. This puts it on everyone's radar screen and bids can be made by everyone. Remember these players are generally the very best in the league and were by and large not able to be drafted by most of us and as such most of us were never able to get them. The abuses before the curbs were put in were very detrimental to competitiveness and as Andy said caused significant friction. I was the one that was perhaps the most offended by it, as keepers were flying around being traded - I was in the hunt and not being offered these players, and some very good ones that I could have used were traded around me (such as one of my favorite's A ROD). This process will also allow owners to be made aware of the other offers, after the fact, so to have full information before deciding if they want to vote to veto the trade.
2) As to the firesales helping teams for the next season, while it is only a very limited population - I think it has been proven that all it did was hurt competition in the current season as most of the teams that firesaled and dumped players and gave up - remained not competitive the next season.
3) I am all for a compromise, but I strongly feel that we need to not get loose on the rules for keeper trading - especially in season. These are keepers, owners made a decision to sign them and KEEP them. Giving up and firesaleing (and allowing people to unwind decisions they made for 3 keeper positions out of 24 or so total positions) is something that cuts against the core of a keeper league.
Fantasy sports is about your decisions in the draft (and keeper players in a keeper league) and your ability to manage around injuries, slumps, etc. through the free agency pool and development of your bench. Trading is very limited in fantasy sports - and rightfully so. I am in many leagues and there are very few trades in all of them.
Hal raised two very good ideas that I think are worthy of consideration. That is expansion of the DL Slots, and expansion of Bench slots. I for one like and am in favor of both of these.
Good job commish and all in promoting honest discourse in these matters.
Winning in this league should be decided by the manager who drafted best, made good keeper picks, and who managed his team the best all season long. Not by who can swing the best deal with which of his friends or those that he spoke with more often. Like it or not, some of us don't communicate with each other reguarly (or at all) and as such the field is not level in trading in this league - as was proven before with the firesales from two seasons ago.
- JACK
PS - Lets not lose sight of the fact that these Keepers are the elite and were not able to be passed on by us before by and large. Normal trading of all but the 36 keepers is open and catch as catch can. It is the firesaling of these 36 best players that rubs me wrong and caused issues that season.
I realize most of you won't read this, that's fine, writing this beat listening to my family law professor.
ReplyDeleteA lot of points have been made over the past few days regarding trading keepers. Good summary by Brett. Right now it seems like some people are against having any penalty attach to trading keepers while others think that there should be heightened penalties, although not as steep as what we had last year. While I currently sit in the middle of these two positions, I would like to at least raise and advocate for a couple points:
1.) There should be NO penalty for trading keepers in the off-season
I certainly do understand the rationale set forth that in-season there is a greater potential for abuse as some teams have fallen out of contention while others are gearing up. I also understand the rationale that we decided to KEEP these players and must live with these consequences. Yet while these rationales do hold weight for in-season trades, I believe they are absent from the much different and more equal off-season setting we all find ourselves in at this time of the year.
In the off-season, like it or not guys, we all are on equal footings. None of us are calling it quits on the season yet and re-tooling for next year, we are all starting from scratch at this time. This point alone should be enough to alleviate the fears of a fire sale trade. Since we do not have any other position players to attach in these trades (i.e., we only have our 3 keepers at this time), there exists a lot less potential for abuse. Moreover, there is the fear that Manager A will keep player X for 3 years, get disgruntled after year 1 and try and trade him to Manager B who has player Y with a 1 year deal. While this is certainly a plausible and realistic scenario, what is the harm in it? It is not as if Manager B is forced to accept the trade offer. At the time the trade is offered, Manager B will look into player X, see how many years are left and then make a determination whether to keep trade for him or not, and in my opinion, that is his right. I absolutely agree that at this point Manager A would decide that he no longer wants to keep player X, but so what? If he announces to the rest of the league (per what you guys are talking about in 'registering' keepers), then why not allow him to see if there is a manager willing to take on his contract. Every year in professional sports there are trades at the deadline where an expiring contract is given to another team, what should stop such trades here that are extremely limited in nature, do not involve one team already abandoning ship, and is STILL SUBJECT to a league wide vote/veto. All of this I think should be allowed and moreover should be penalty free since it avoids the concerns that have been expressed.
More after the jump!
2.) We should allow draft picks to be included in trades in the off-season
ReplyDeleteI'll preface this by saying that I realize it is very unpopular already with many managers, but I think it gives a more realistic and added effect to working out trades and really may allow for actual trading in the off-season to take place. Like previously stated above, we all enter the off-season with just 3 players on our team, this, while avoiding potential abuse, could also stymie potential trades from happening. It is my thought that allowing draft picks to be included opens the door for keeper A (who is normally a 1st round pick in any Yahoo league) to being traded for keeper B (who is usually a 3rd round pick in any Yahoo league) from actually happening. While the point has been made that the keepers are the "36 best players," it is no secret that there will be players out there on draft day that are better than some team's keepers. Some teams enter the offseason with, bluntly put, shittier keepers. That happens sometimes due to things not panning out or players getting injured. So say that team wants to get a tier 1 keeper from another team and is willing to give up a draft pick or two for it, in my opinion that is acceptable. I do think there should be a limit on it though in that you can't just trade player X + 2 draft picks for player Y. The second team in the equation would need to give draft picks back too, although not from the same round.
While it's my belief that people will immediately think of the worst case scenario that could happen from draft picks being exchanged, and the possibility of those who talk to each other more colluding, in reality I don't think this would happen. To embrace that as reality would mean that a team was calling it quits before he even drafted his team, which I don't think anyone in the league would do. What is more realistic from this, is that managers will look at last year's draft results, combine that with mock draft results and try and figure where certain players are falling and what would be a reasonable trade.
I realize this is extremely subjective and one person's idea of a trade involving draft picks being fair might be wholly inconsistent with another's, but I think to really facilitate off-season trading, this is essential. And as always, keep in mind, these trades would be subject to the league veto/vote.
For those who read, if any, please take these considerations into account and/or comment. Thanks.
Chris
My final comments then I'm ready for voting:
ReplyDeleteKeepers - trade in/off season available
Teams must always have 3 keepers with a 2/1 ratio
You can trade draft picks in the off season ONLY
No penalties for Keeper trading
I'd vote against extra DL/Bench spots but don't feel too strongly about the DL addition
4 moves per week...heh heh heh
Justin Morneau is still concussed...what a puss
Good, informative thoughts, Shea. Thanks for letting us get inside that head of yours to find out what you really think.
ReplyDeleteWell I've voiced my reasoning already...and instead of another novella like Chris clear and consise seemed more appropriate. At least I have given my opinion so I'd refrain from using sarcasm toward a manager who is actively participating.
ReplyDeleteThere goes civil - sarcasm and snips aren't productive tools towards honest discourse. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteI am not in favor of trading keepers in the offsesson without draft pick loss and fee (in each instance reduced from regular season) unless registration is required. I am not in favor of draft pick trading being part of it. The rules we currently have for in season keeper trading should stand without change in my opinion.
Otherwise let's call this the maybe we will keep 'em Keeper league (minor sarcasm, but when in Rome.....).
-Jack
One further point, Chris raises some interesting points, but the one for the off season that I disagree with is the concept that in the off season we are all on equal footing and "starting from scratch".
ReplyDeleteThe "starting from scratch" is in my view absolutely not true. We each made decisions to sign people to a one, two, or three year contract. Thus we, by definition, go into each season with the remnants of our past keeper decisions...and thus are not all "starting from scratch". Again, to unwind these past decisions should come with a price - for otherwise its nothing more than a free option.
- JACK
OK to quickly respond to the point raised above.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that we can not all be on equal footing because my keepers do not equal Andy's, don't equal Jack's and so on. My point was that we were all on equal footing in that we only had 3 players on our roster at the time, we all are in the same place in the standings and we all are at this point still looking to make the playoffs. THAT is what provides the equal footing, the talent discrepancy between teams will inevitably exist but should not be a prohibition to trading these players and trying to close that discrepancy where managers see fit.
Respectively, I believe we are all starting from scratch at this point. We only have 3 players, need to fill lots of gaps and are all still free at this point to pursue any of the various strategies to build our teams around (i.e., focus on hitting, focus on pitching, focus on a strong bullpen, focus on power bats). None of us are committed at this point to head in one direction over the other nor are we giving up on this season yet. Keep in mind that there WILL be a price for trading keepers, if I have a keeper I don't like as much, coming off a poor year and I want to trade him to another team with a keeper who came off a great year ... it WILL cost me in terms of what I must give up along with my keeper. If I am willing to pay that price, then that should be my decision to live with. Clearly managers won't put themselves in a position where they rip themselves off, and if that did arise, that would get shot down swiftly.
Chris
Since it appears to be the same 5 or so people discussing, in the interest of moving things on, I am keeping this discussion open until Thursday night. At that point, I will create and open up the polls. We will vote and then move on to our next pieces of business.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, this is one of the more disappointing moments I've experienced as league commish. It does not seem we have 12 managers interested in bettering the league and actively participating in discussion and giving their much-wanted opinions.
This will make me think twice about spending time on power rankings and blog posts come March and April.
I thank you to those who have taken the time out of your busy schedules to give your opinions and add to the discussion.
Andy- don't be sad.
ReplyDeleteI do read the boards often, even though I only commented once on this post. I still stand by what I originally said. However, I do not think we need to bid or register players. I would also be open to adding one more dl or bench spot not both.
So to sum it up:
Draft pick stay at 11th rd. No monetary fee.
add one dl or bench spot. not both.