So we have a keeper league where you can keep 4 players (1 QB, 1 WR/TE, 1 RB, and 1 1st/2nd year player) if you give up the draft choice ahead of the round they were picked in (ie if you picked up Trent Richardson in the 2nd round, next year he'll cost you a first)
Ok so we have a player who had decided he won't make the playoffs, and has the following deals pending
Jordy Nelson Bears D 17th round pick for Brandon Bolden 2nd round pick
Lesean McCoy 15th round 16th round for Ryan Williams (on the IR) 2nd round 4th round
Vincent Jackson Willis McGahee 14th round 15thround for Jacob Tamme 2nd rounder 7th rounder
So his strategy is obviously that he's done this year and to load up on picks for a run at next year. Should I allow it, either way people are going to get upset. What would you guys do in this situation?
Absolutely Not. It is not next season, it is the 2012 season. If you allow it, his team will be a bunch of scubs, and whoever plays him going forward will have an automatic win. That is not fair to the owners who will not play him. Why should some owners get a guaranteed win, while others, who care about their team this year, have to battle it out to get a win. Personally, I have never been in favor of trading for draft picks just because of this exact situation. If you allow it, and he drafts smart next year he will be unbeatable. And that is not fair to the other owners. The way I see it, you piss him off, but keep the rest of the league happy when you point out how dominant he will be next year.
I see nothing wrong with it as long as deals are fair. The guy giving up on 2012 has paid his league fee. One requirement I would have is the team trading the 2013 draft picks needs to pay at least half his league fee for 2013. That way it's unlikely he'll walk at the end of this season
That's a tough one. In terms of value, the trades are probably fair, but as commish your role isn't really to determine that. Your role is to look out for collusion, or trades that can potentially sabotage the league. So, your point is well taken. This has the potential to sabotage the rest of the 2012 season. It just depends on how badly you think it will sabotage the league, and if that's enough damage to warrant a veto.
The other side of it is, since every team is keeping 4 players, there won't be much left in the draft for the guy to re-load his team! He probably won't be in much better shape than he is now. So, it's kind of a bone-headed move to begin with. But hey, it's his team, and he can manage it however he wants. Seeing as how it IS a keeper league, you have to be concerned about the future (something other leagues don't have to concern themselves with). So, at the end of the day, he has every right to plan for the future. Sure, he'll probably lose the rest of the games, and his opponents will have an easy win, but so what? Shouldn't he be allowed to manage his team this way if he thinks he'll be better off in 2013? The lesson here is that he probably won't be, because the pool of players in the draft will be dramatically less than what he's likely expecting.
So, no, I wouldn't veto it. It doesn't look like collusion, and it doesn't look like sabotage to me. He's just planning for the future, which is totally reasonable in a Keeper league.
Hags888 wrote:That's a tough one. In terms of value, the trades are probably fair, but as commish your role isn't really to determine that. Your role is to look out for collusion, or trades that can potentially sabotage the league. So, your point is well taken. This has the potential to sabotage the rest of the 2012 season. It just depends on how badly you think it will sabotage the league, and if that's enough damage to warrant a veto.
The other side of it is, since every team is keeping 4 players, there won't be much left in the draft for the guy to re-load his team! He probably won't be in much better shape than he is now. So, it's kind of a bone-headed move to begin with. But hey, it's his team, and he can manage it however he wants. Seeing as how it IS a keeper league, you have to be concerned about the future (something other leagues don't have to concern themselves with). So, at the end of the day, he has every right to plan for the future. Sure, he'll probably lose the rest of the games, and his opponents will have an easy win, but so what? Shouldn't he be allowed to manage his team this way if he thinks he'll be better off in 2013? The lesson here is that he probably won't be, because the pool of players in the draft will be dramatically less than what he's likely expecting.
So, no, I wouldn't veto it. It doesn't look like collusion, and it doesn't look like sabotage to me. He's just planning for the future, which is totally reasonable in a Keeper league.
I agree, let the owners run their teams as they see fit.
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
if you allow future picks to be trading in season, you have to allow this. we have a rule that draft picks can only be traded after keepers are made in the off season and non kept players are dropped. that way you dont have future picks being traded in season, thsu creating teh situation you have described
Unless you have it in writing that you can't trade draft picks, you have to let the trade go through. I would recommend amending your rules for next season to stipulate trades are player for player only, as trading picks can get dicey. You run a real risk of an owner trading their future away, then bailing on the league. Very tough to fill that manager spot when the cupboard is bare.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by mgoose » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:13 pm 
