From what I have gathered, here is what I've come to figure out with this situation:
Three people think we should keep the current system where keepers can be traded; four people think we should make it so keeper trades are not allowed midseason; three people think we should allow keepers to be traded midseason but with some type(s) of stipulations; one person simply does not care enough to say anything.
So, in essence, seven of 10 think some kind of change is needed, but only four of 10 think we need to completely abolish midseason keeper trades.
I know a lot of people are passionate about this topic, but we are not going to unanimously agree on an answer for this. Because of that, we need to come up with some middle ground.
It's fairly obvious that some of the past trades involving keepers weren't fair for the current season. However, this is not a one-season league; this is a multi-season league, and that has to be factored in, without a doubt. With that said, though, our keeper contracts are not valued enough. There should be a penalty for trading them - much like a pro team takes a salary cap hit or compensation hit for trading certain players with bad contracts or no-trade clauses. There should be something to make you think twice about trading one of the three guys that you decided to lock up and have more value over other players in the leauge. That, in my mind, is part of the point of a keeper league, as much as just keeping players is.
Keeper trades should be allowed, and remember, since this is such a hot issue now, the league will clearly closely monitor them and have the ability to veto. It will be like a checks and balance system. Everyone now knows that anything even remotely close to being unfair will be vetoed. That's going to now happen whether we make rules or not.
This year will be a very pivotal year as far as trades and keepers go since so many of us will be losing our original keepers after this season. That is going to open up the very real possibility that we could see some deals down the line. In my opinion, Ricky, for example, should be allowed to try and set himself up for the future by trading Pujols if he wants to. In regards to that decreasing competitive balance, remember that if there is a trade like that, he's going to want back top value and someone he can keep for the future. There's nothing wrong with a Pujols for Morneau-and-someone-else type deal in my mind. Obviously, that is just an example.
Taking all comments and suggestions into account, here is my proposal for a new keeper trading system.
Trading keepers will be allowed under these restrictions:
- Each side can only involve at most one keeper and one non-keeper in the deal (so a max four-player trade)
- Both sides will lose a 9th-round draft pick (sixth actual pick) the following year, much like we lose a draft pick for cutting or resigning a keeper in the offseason.
- Keepers should be allowed to be traded in the offseason without restriction, but is it just keepers? Or can you trade anyone on your team? For example, if someone with two expiring contracts wants to trade his other keeper for two players - one keeper and one non-keeper - is that allowed? Or is it strictly keeper-for-keeper swaps?
- If we were to add a monetary value to trading keepers, I recommend that money goes into the following year's pot, not the current year's. And I would recommend it being at least $20 per side.
- I know one of the options discussed has been to make it known when you are putting a keeper on the trading block. I don't like that because, in my opinion at least, it decreases the potential trade value when someone else knows you're looking to trade a star player.
Posts
I personally think 9th round is way too high, I kind of like the idea that you would lose a draft pick plus pay a fee to trade a keeper because it makes you think twice about who you deal, but I think it should be more like a 15th rounder. An actual decent player but not enough to have a huge impact, just enough to make you think twice about who you deal. Taking a scan at last year's draft, Jayson Werth, Jered Weaver, Scott Baker, Jon Danks, and Ted Lilly were among the players taken in the round, so there is some quality there that you are losing if you choose to trade a keeper
ReplyDeleteTaking into account all the points that have been made, if these trades are to continue during the year then there must be adequate deterrents in place...
ReplyDelete- I like the idea of putting the money into next year's pot instead of this year. That way a team that really wants a certain keeper is truly playing for the future by abiding by this.
- I think that a 15th round pick is too low. Maybe 9th round is too high, maybe bump it down to 10th or 11th round instead. Of course quality players and good picks can be found in every round, so I am sure there were a ton of busts taken in the 15th round last year as well. I don't see a team deciding to NOT make a trade b/c they would lose a 15th round pick, in my opinion that is too little.
- I also do not think that there needs to be a strict maximum on the amount of players being circulated (i.e., only 1 keeper + 1 non-keeper being traded). Albert Pujols's value may be worth that of a good hitter + 2 good pitchers in return. Since we can veto if a trade appears ridiculous then I think that is enough of a protection that this set limit is not needed.
Chris
Yea, maybe do 12, that's in the middle of 9 and 15 and would be the 9th guy u would select after ur keeper. I agree with Chris in the sense that a guy like Pujols would be worth more than 2 players in a lot of cases. This is really a judgment cal, so I don't think there should be restrictions here on the amount of players involved in a deal, but of course these deals with multiple pieces involved will be more heavily scrutinized. I do agree with no more than 2 keepers (1 max from each side) being involved in a singular deal.
ReplyDeleteI like the diplomatic Andrew Brett Zuckerman and his ability to find a solution to appeal to all parties. Well done.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of monies for a keeper trade, I'd be in more support of $10 per side and for it to go toward next year's winnings. That is still 20% of your dues vs. 40% or higher and should still be a factor. (I honestly wouldn't mind losing all these roster stipulations and charging $1 per roster move and $5 for trades but I'll save that for next year).
I'm confused how you can trade a non keeper during the off season. When the season ends don't non keepers go back into the pool? Or would this come up if someone had a baller team and could potentially keep more than 3 people? Wouldn't mind clarification here.
I'm all said...
-Cubs after 102!
So no one else has any thoughts??
ReplyDeleteSorry all - on vacation down in Florida - haven't been on much. Nice job with this Andy - not an easy topic.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts;
1) I think that the 9th round pick is too low to lose for trading a keeper. I think it should be something like a 5th rounder with a 11th rounder being added in its place.
2) I don't see how registering someone for trade diminishes the value. The person in the secretive select trade knows the person is trying to move them - by the discussions. If others know, they can make offers as well - thus increasing the value - supply and demand rule in effect.
3) $ 20 per side on the trade is fair and reasonable and should be enough (to make the teams involved think if in fact it is something they should be doing).
4) I still think they should only be traded in the off season - and we should clarify that all rosters (keepers and non keepers) are active in the hands of the owner through December 31.....that allows trades for keepers and non keepers to be in effect.
5) I would also add a STRICT rule if you are going to allow trades for keepers in mid season - that it is not at all allowed for the teams to agree to pick up the $ 20 fee for the other - I could see a team out of contention agreeing to a trade and saying to the team in contention - if you want my superstar then in addition to the deal you have to pay the whole $ 40 fee.
6) If you are going to allow it, I think we should also consider limiting it to one keeper mid season trade per team per season.
- JACK
I'm fine with $20 per keeper trade per side. But I think it's impossible to monitor it. We can say no backdoor deals, but how do we really know? It'd be an honor code-type thing there.
ReplyDeleteRicky, Joe, Ken, Dave, Mike - still waiting. This is the discussion that never ends with the amount of time you guys take to respond to others. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteMy bad, I've been busy. I think trading keeps is still an essential part of this leauge. As from the creation of the leauge trading/selecting keepers is a strategy. As we are coming to a point were alot of contracts are expiring I think it should be intresting how people decide what to do with keepers; trading expiring contracts, lenght of contract ect. Considing that we can no longer trade draft picks we should be able to manager our times however we see fit. Futhermore I have no problem with an monitary fine associate with trading a keepers/ moves as long as they are resoniable. Considering the fee is already going up and with a last place fee a moderate fine should be imposed.
ReplyDeletedave- were you drunk when you wrote this?
ReplyDeleteI just re-read it myself, sadly I was not. It's hard to blog from a outdated smart phone from the hospital.
ReplyDeleteFirst, get off my case im usually all over these topics, yet i gave u my reasoning, so sheesh.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a few posts, I think the money into next years pot would be the best scenario if we added this fee. Also if we were to lose a draft pick, id say something in the 9th/10th round area would be reasonable.
As we all post our ideas and comments, is a fee and loss of draft pick both expected? or we all throwing out ideas to choose which would be the best option?
Also i agree with chris, i first stated it should be a keeper for keeper with at most 1 other involved from each team. However like he stated, someone like albert pujols could warrant a few extra players be involved instead of it being a 2 for 2 trade, so i think we should eliminate that thought.
Ok guys, so it looks like we can find some common ground here. I think the way we can get the most people on board is if we say a 20 dollar fee to go into next year's pot and a loss of an 11th round pick. I don't think it makes sense to limit keeper trades to 1 trade though if we put all these restrictions on it. We don't want to make this a no trade league.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's even been a season where a team has traded more than one keeper, so I don't think any restrictions are necessary on that front, especially with the money and draft picks we're on the verge of enforcing.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with $20 toward the following seas, which seems to be the popular opinion and as far as which round draft pick, I guess we'll wait and see what everyone else thinks before we come to a definite conclusion.
Also, I'm fine on allowing offseason trades. Just still unsure whether that would be keepers only or the entire roster is open until a cutoff date - say Thanksgiving?
ReplyDeleteMy bads,
ReplyDelete- I agree with the set-up proposed by andy for trading keepers in season. I think the draft pick you forfeit is about right and the trades should be limited to about 2 people per side. Without this you allow the ability to completely overpay for someone. I also agree with putting the player on the open market when trading keepers as this can only help to make the atmosphere more competitive and ultimately result in a fairer trade.
-I don't understand how we can trade non-keepers in the offseason as they are no longer really on your team. I think the only way you can do this is if the other team is keeping that player so no other extra players can be involved. Little confused on this issue but for the most part I agree with the proposal by andy
I like the current idea proposed by Andy. Your roster will be open but if you trade a nonkeeper player in the offseason, the other team has to keep him, no exceptions. THis is the only way it would work imo.
ReplyDeleteLeague,
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that we should have to put players that we are trading on the market. People have said this is more fair and enhances the competitive spirit of the league. I disagree.
1.)Isn't it the decision of the manager trying to trade their player to seek out the player they want in return? A manager may only want to trade his keeper for a certain one or two players, obviously this means that not every manager has what the trading manager is looking for.
2.)Similarly, this manager may value certain players differently and this could impact whom he seeks in return.
3.)Third, this manager may not want to trade with certain other managers for competitive reasons (i.e., being in second and not wanting to enhance the first place team).
4.)Everyone preaches how they want to retain strategy in this league, yet by disclosing when you are trying to trade your keeper, this diminishes the strategy. If I disclose that I'm trying to trade Greinke to the league, that may have a snowball effect and set off red flags to other managers competing with me to make a move as well. We can all view the head-to-head statistics in the league and see what teams are winning in what stats. We should also assume that each team is always trying to improve throughout the year. Thus, everyone should be proactive anyway and assume that either managers are watching certain players or looking to get rid of a stat they have in abundance.
5.)Finally, the league does have a trading block function already. This is the exact mechanism that should be used and has been used when we want to make it known to everyone that we are shopping a certain player or looking for certain statistics. If a manager does want to make it known to the league, he can use this, but he shouldn't be constrained to HAVING to use the trading block.
As a closing point, I just don't believe that announcing you want to make a move is how trading should go down. This certainly is not how it works in the pros as secret deals are made all the time. That's where I stand. Feedback?
Chris
Sometime tomorrow I am going to post polls for the following: Which round draft pick, whether a keeper should be made available on the trade block before he is traded, and offseason trades.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the consensus is that everyone agrees on $20 so we will go with that.
Anyone else that wants a say has less than 24 hours to comment on these issues.
Andy
After further consideration, I think in-season keeper trades can work under the following guidelines. I am proposing this list as a summary of the points raised and my opinions on each. I think we should focus any further comments on a single point and debate each individually and reference it by number. I know this is a bit late because we wanted to close this today, but it may be worth more time. We could even just do a simple poll on each numbered issue and call it a day (?). Here’s what I think:
ReplyDelete1. A keeper trade is designated a "keeper trade" if any one of the players involved in the overall trade is a keeper for the season in which the trade is occurring.
2. A keeper trade may involve any number of players on either side. This way, fair trades can involve say the highest-rated keeper for two less valuable keepers or non-keepers for that matter. It allows all players to be involved by not restricting it to keeper-for-keeper.
a. If a team is giving more keepers than it is receiving, that team must designate a new keeper immediately following the trade's completion. The new keeper may be one of the previously non-keeper players received or it may be any of the previously non-keeper players the team already had. Either way, the new keeper must be designated immediately and appropriate contract modifications and/or penalties assessed.
b. If a team is receiving more keepers that it is giving, that team must immediately designate a new set of maximum three keepers. There will certainly be contract modifications and penalties required for doing this since the manager would now have four keeper contracts to deal with and only three are allowed. If you guys don't like this idea, then scratch the last three bullets and we'll make it keeper-for-keeper in every trade (but allow as many non-keepers to be included as desired).
3. Both managers of a keeper trade occurring in one season will lose an 11th round draft pick in the draft for next season.
4. The monetary penalty for both managers involved in any keeper trade is $20 per manager and will be added to the pot for the next season.
5. There is no requirement for placing a keeper on the trading block prior to a keeper trade although I believe it is in the manager's best interest to do so because competitive bidding will most likely yield the best deal. Keep in mind that each proposal from one manager to the other is still always secret and just because you place a player on the trading block, it doesn’t mean that you have to entertain trades from everyone. You can obviously ignore whichever trades you wanted.
6. The power of other managers in the league to veto a keeper trade remains the same as for any other trade.
7. Offseason trades open up a whole new can of worms in the sense that we really have no ground rules for doing this yet. However, I think it's a cool idea...
a. Any offseason trade shall be completed prior to a certain deadline, say December 31st of that season's calendar year, at which point all non-keepers become free agents.
b. Any offseason trade must involve the same number of players on each side because we can't be adding/dropping players in the offseason. However, it doesn’t have to be keeper-for-keeper. For example, if a manager desires to keep a non-keeper player from another team in lieu of one of his current keepers. He can then propose a trade to make that happen. However, this could only occur if a manager is allowed to cancel a keeper contract at any time in order to sign a new keeper contract for a different player. I don't remember if that is allowed--if it's not, then scratch this bullet and make it so that any offseason keeper trade must involve the same number of players and the same number of keepers on each side.
8. A maximum of one in-season keeper trade and one offseason keeper trade is allowed per manager per calendar year.
-Rick
Thanks for the proposal, Rick. Here's some comments on it.
ReplyDelete-The bullet points of #2 are irrelevant because you have to have exactly three keepers on your squad at all times.
-I don't think #8 is necessary because of the draft pick/money restrictions we're adding. Also, no one has even made more than 1 in-season keeper trade before.
-Seems like you're on the same page as most of us with the money, draft pick, offseason trades rules.
-The bullet point of your seventh point can be scratched because you have to lose a draft pick in order to get rid of a keeper contract (or resign). That will be reiterated in the coming days as we begin to declare keepers.
-I don't see a whole lot new that needs to be discussed as a completely new proposal. I think everyone who wants a say has already spoken up, so I'm going to go on with putting the polls up for voting sometime in the next couple hours or so.