Update: *Read my most recent comment, the one after Ricky's*
First, some housecleaning. We will move the trade deadline up. The vote is currently 6-2 as I type this, and six votes is a majority. It will probably be moved up two or three weeks, but we will decide on that at a later date.
Now, back to the issue at hand. This is a biggie, and probably the one that has caused the most controversy in the past. Because of that, I'm going to do it a little differently. I will not make a poll to vote on until Saturday or Sunday so we can get some chatter going on this one.
This has caused some issues in the past, and a few of us feel strongly on both sides, so I will give some time to discuss before we vote on it.
The issue is whether we should be allowed to trade keepers during the season. If you remember, the four big trades last year involved keepers (Fielder, Lincecum, A-Rod, Reyes) and each time stirred up some big controversy.
The fact that the trade deadline is pushed up may help this issue out. However, we can still discuss. Remember, our current system says that when trading keepers you must trade one to get back one.
Why we should:
-That makes the keeper league fun
-It requires strategy
-It makes trading interesting, especially when you have to take contracts into effect
-Keepers are fair game to be traded like any other player
-Managers may give up otherwise, if they're long out of it with nothing to pay attention to
-People out of contention should be able to firesale, like the majors, to improve for the future.
Why we shouldn't:
-Unbalanced trades are made
-Competitive balance is lost for the current season, making it unfair on teams in contention
-It isn't fair to managers who drafted well and managed well to watch competitors get stronger via a firesale trade
-This isn't the majors and people out of contention shouldn't be able to firesale to improve for the future
-It's a way to avoid a bad contract by finding a way to unload him.
Now, instead of just reading this, please comment if you have any ideas as to how to improve this aspect of the league. If you think it's fine as it, please let us know why.
Again, I am keeping this open for a couple days before we vote on it.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Since I can't stiff and can only make 2 moves a week I'd like to at least trade keepers in a KEEPER league during the limited amount of time I have to do so. Didn't know this was becoming the MTL No Fun Keeper League!
ReplyDeleteI think we should be able to trade keepers because without being able to do so you kill a lot of the strategy involved in a keeper league. The thing that sets the keeper league apart is that you have the chance affect the future of your team and thus you need to be able to put yourself in a position to make a run in the current year (by trading the keeper for depth) or to plan for the next year (by getting that keeper). Taking out this factor takes the fun out of having a team that stays with you from year to year and how to manage your future. I also think its too early to tell how these trades affected the teams (especially the one getting the keeper). If that team makes a run this year then I think it makes the trade legitimate and its the managers decision to plan ahead. However, I think fairer trades could have been made last year but that is on the manager's for not realizing how to get equal value in the trade. As long as you can veto anything too ridiculous, you should be able to trade keepers.
ReplyDeleteI dont think we should eliminate the trades of keepers. i second a lot of the points kent made, and i do understand the negative side of trading keepers. However the moving up of the trade deadline i believe should eliminate many of these keeper trades, as most of us should be in contention of atleast a wild card at that point, unless ur waldr. Maybe there is a system we can make in the future of writing something why ur keeper trade is fair, instead of everyone vetoing for the sake of the veto. Tough subject, but i am for the trading of keepers. bye bye lester hello lincecum!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm also in the boat of not eliminating keeper trades, but I do wish there were a way to make it so teams aren't firesaling because I do think the competitive balance is an issue. We have 12 teams, not 30, so it's hard to compare it to pro leagues.
ReplyDeleteI feel very strongly that a keeper should not be traded during the season. This caused a significant imbalance and unfair posture in the league - even if it was simply visual based only.
ReplyDeleteAllowing someone to "give up" and trade keepers during the season - rewards someone longer term who either did not draft well, or had bad luck - either way, it harms people who did draft well and/or had good luck - by strengthening teams in the hunt chasing teams that drafted well.
I can tell you first hand - all of the keepers that were traded last year - not ONE was offered to me. Is that fair - selective shopping around to people that you see or socialize with more? Yes, it is a first hand personal account - but its real and it happened.
I drafted smartly - had a fantastic team, and was not even offered any of the marquee names being bantered about. Others are likely in the same category.
If you allow keepers to be traded, firesales to happen, and teams to give up - there should be some rules (this is not my preferred, my preferred is you are stuck with a keeper for the season, and you can trade keepers after the year - say from the end of the World Series until New Years Day).
Rules I suggest if we allow keepers to be traded during the season should include;
- Monetary fee to be added to the prize pool (perhaps $ 10 per keeper).
- Forfiture of a draft pick (perhaps 5th or 6th round).
- Vacation of the same amount of "keepers" you trade for next season - if you trade away a keeper maybe you only keep 2 the next season.
- A keeper for trade must be "registered" and offered for trade - allowing all teams to offer for them -and a trade for a "keeper" should be subject to a super majority approval in order to pass (i.e. only 4 vetos could derail the trade).
This is a serious issue which threatens open and fair competition - and which has proven to be completely selective.
- JACK
To reiterate - I am saying allow keepers to be traded, but AFTER the season - this will allow people to "trade" thier keepers in a fair fashion - not to hurt the competition for the current season.
ReplyDeleteAs for "no fun" - it is not fun to draft well - much better than others, and watch others give up - get stronger for the following season - and others have a better chance to catch you from benefiting from these selective firesales. Kind of like getting screwed coming and going!
But you have to had drafted well in the first place to know that feeling.
- JACK
To add a final point, the teams that "unfairly improved" last year and led to an imbalance in the league did not make it to the second round in the playoffs. The keeper trades were overhyped and did not play a major role last year...much to everyone's dismay. The only one was Bob's ripoff over Dave...which did not occur near the deadline and was just a poor managing decision...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the teams did not get real far is incidental to the issue frankly. They got much closer than they should have. In addition, they helped themselves longer term - as did teams that "gave up".
ReplyDeleteTo watch a team trying to catch me get help - on a selective basis - and then make it easier for them to catch me is not fun nor fair.
If you want to trade your keepers - trade them after the season is over - and then don't throw the balance of competition out of whack. It is not the rest of the league's problem that some teams drafted poorly.
- JACK
Jack's arguments have me leaning toward his side on this. However, I do still think keepers should be traded.
ReplyDeleteSome possible solutions I've been trying to come up with (and I'll post as I think up more):
-The idea that trading a keeper is going to cost you money that goes into the pool ($20?)
-You can only trade keepers for keepers, so other players can not be allowed in the deal. This would take away much of the firesale part of it but still allow for trading keepers. Of course, there is still problems with it as you will note with my point below.
-Trading after the season is over is a great idea. No one has brought up the Reyes for Holliday trade made because it was between the two worst teams. But if the sixth place team had traded Reyes for Holliday, there would have been outrage. Trading after the season serves the purpose of this type of trade where one team is trying to get a new keeeper and another is trying to clear a contract for someone else.
Again, I'll keep adding solutions. Is there any other feedback out there besides the few that have chimed in on this? Can we get some more opinions here, please.
Yea, although it sounds hypocritical since I partook in this last year, I agree with Jack. The only reason I got involved is because I had to respond to what else was going on in the league. I was fighting for the last spot and watching some of my competition improve and thus took 3 players from Shea's team and unfortunately missed out on the playoffs. I'll admit that if the other teams weren't talking about and actively making those deals then there is no way I would have made a deal as well. I think after the season is the best way for a team that has, for all intensive purposes "given up", to improve their team going forward. If a team that has "given up" makes one of these deals mid-year, then they have even LESS incentive to continue to monitor their team and set their lineups. Moreover, as I said when one team does it, they all do it, it is a snowball effect. This is not the majors where there are financial considerations, every player signed to yearly contracts, many more teams and divisions. I think it was a lousy trend that we started last year and will only continue to hurt this league.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I also agree that the fact that it didn't work out for teams is a moot point. So what. That doesn't mean necessarily that the logic is fatally flawed. All it means is that those weren't the right combinations of players to trade for or those players didn't perform as well. If we were to continue to trade keepers as we did last year, and it turns out that all the teams that benefited went deep in the playoffs and one eventually won, would we bring this up for debate next year and say "See doing that does unfairly hurt the league." That would seem stupid and is an issue that we can halt before it even happens.
My vote, ban trading them during the year, allow after the year is over.
Chris
Although i do like the idea of trading keepers, im starting to agree with jack and others on this topic. I was interested in the extra money in the pot idea for keeper trades, but it may still come out unfair as someone can pay 20 dollars for a robbery and win the league. So my final vote is that we should ban keeper trades during the season unless its keeper for keeper with no others involved. and then after the season we can all go nuts and do whatever we'd like.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on my keeper-for-keeper only idea:
ReplyDeleteI'll use me as an example since I know my keeper situation. Say I'm in ninth place going nowhere. I want to trade Howard and get back someone I can keep for the next couple years. I trade Howard to, say, Shea for Morneau. Two similar players, one is better, but the better player has a bad contract. This, in my mind, is fair and the type of reason that could be used for a keeper-for-keeper only trade.
Now, if we get a trade like a Reyes for Holliday, it only takes four votes to veto, so the managers can take it into their own hands if they feel something isn't fair and within the ideology of trading keepers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhyd u remove your comment Joe?
ReplyDeleteSo what you all are saying is have 2 moves a week, move the deadline up to limit trades, and on top of that eliminate trading away the top 15% of players in a KEEPER league?
ReplyDeleteSo this league would basically come down to the draft and setting your lineup? Your hands would be tied up everywhere else.
If you don't like a trade, veto it. If it's that unfair 3/11 remaining people will probably share your opinion since this has become such a hot topic. If you missed out on teams looking for a keeper vs. teams wishing to make the playoffs then take initiative and make offers yourself.
The whole fun of a keeper league is winning now but also planning for the future. I agreed with the ban of trading draft picks...that got ridiculous. But not trading the best players really limits the fun in this league...which is why I hope we all are doing this?
Is this a majority vote?
Still waiting for Bob, Ricky, Dave, Joe, Adam to chime in...
ReplyDeleteWould the commissioner please IM, text or if need be call these managers. This is clearly the hottest topic we have encountered so far and need all voices heard before we vote.
ReplyDeleteTwo moves a week ( or 3 or 4) has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with this topic. That is like comparing Health Care and the Wars.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am not proposing not allowing keepers to be traded (as stated by Shea in his post from yesterday) - but a ban on trading them DURING THE SEASON! In my view, trading them after the season is perfectly fine - fair - and reasonable.
My concern is that trading them during the season - as happened last year - simply is too unfair to the teams in competition that did in fact draft well, manage thier teams well - and then watch others get strengthened that season to catch them, and as an added screwing - watch the teams that "gave up" - drafted poorly - managed poorly - get themselves strengthened for the next season or two.
Again, it is a matter of simple fairness to the then currently competitive teams, to not worry about secretive/selective dealing or that top 15% of the league - which could definitely throw the competition out of whack.
- JACK
I vote to NOT allow keeper trades during the season for the same reasons mentioned above. But, I am in favor of the ability to trade keepers between seasons.
ReplyDeleteIf for some reason the league decides to allow keeper trades in-season, there should at least be a penalty (as some have suggested)--e.g. monetary fee, loss of draft pick(s), decrease in number of moves allowed, decrease in contract years remaining on one of that manager's other keepers, the keeper trade must occur before a much earlier "keeper trade deadline," etc.
I am against it, but if it passes, those are my suggestions.
-Ricky
So far, I have the following:
ReplyDeleteFor keeper trades midseason: Shea, Ken
Against keeper trades midseason: Jack, Chris, Ricky
For keeper trades midseason with stipulations limiting what's allowed: Andy, Mike
Unaccounted for: Joe, Bob, Dave, Adam
If you four don't speak up and let us know where you stand so we can move forward, I'm taking away your right to vote on this issue and marking it down as you don't care enough to discuss and debate it with us.
You have until Saturday to comment.
Sorry guys, I've been really busy at work lately, this is my busy season. Anyways, I vote that we still allow keeper trades, but I like the idea that it costs money to trade a keeper. I think this will really make people think about whether they want to trade their guy or not and it makes them think about how long they want to sign a guy for. I also think you should be allowed to dump a keeper for players to help your team for the stretch run but I propose that if you considering trading a keeper, you put him out on the open market. Like last year, I had no idea A-Rod was on the block, would I have gone after him if I did? Maybe not, but I know a lot of other teams would have jumped at the opportunity to get him, and maybe Chris would have gotten a better deal. I agree with Jack in the sense that you only trade with people you know, so maybe this would give other teams an opportunity to make trades. I don't know what else we could do to make more trades happen, but I don't think we should limit the ability to actually trade keepers midseason.
ReplyDeleteJust as a follow up so far... $ for a keeper trade is the DUMBEST idea that has been suggested yet. Unless we make it the season buy in I don't see it being much of a deterrent to those borderline trades. Everyone at this point is basically working, so what is an extra $20 or $30 in order to win the leage? Second, there is nooooo reason for putting a keeper on the open market for each team to have a shot. That makes no sense. Clearly a team should not have to offer his player to every team in the league. What point does that serve? If you value a person's player, then offer a trade yourself. Since this league does not involve the sort of money/year considerations the pros do then you could have made an offer for any player at any time. There absolutely is the strategy element of shopping a player to select teams in order to get one up on ur opponents, there is no reason that we should have to put a keeper on the market. Overall I have not yet seen one offer besides Andy's of a keeper for keeper that would make me think that these sorts of trades should happen...
ReplyDeleteAs of right now that is where I stand and I haven't read a compelling argument to say otherwise.
Chris
Joe asked me to post for him saying he votes no trading keepers.
ReplyDeleteI think there should be a penalty for trading keepers, thats why I think the fee thing makes sense. It seems like other people agree with the fee thing, so I don't think Jack's idea was dumb. It makes you think twice before trading a keeper that you initially chose to keep for however long. As for the open market thing, I guess I really don't care about that, but I do see a trend of people only trading with people that they know, but I guess there are two sides to that.
ReplyDeleteA fee for trading a keeper would be levied on both teams trading, so if at $ 20, it would be $ 40 for the trade ($ 20 for the team that "gave up" and $ 20 for the team that is in the hunt). I agree with Chris it is not much of a deterrent for the team in contention, but to the team that gave up, its an additional "loss" and might give them pause to think - why should I throw $ 20 or $ 30 away more than I already did, when I could trade the keeper after the season anyway.
ReplyDeleteBottom line, the strings are fallbacks - I vote no trading them until after the season.
- JACK
My bad, I guess my post didn't go through. I am for trading Keepers. I don't see a reason why not. It is an essential part of this league.
ReplyDeleteI will have a new blog post tonight or tomorrow morning in attempt to start wrapping this up
ReplyDelete