 |
|
|
|
|
|
illuminati
Towel Boy
24 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/23/2003 7:20:43 AM |
 |
 |
Multi-season Trades
|
|
|
|
In order for the Shenanigans Rule to have any power or relevance whatsoever, all trades must be specific. Ambiguous trades are not enforceable, and therefore should not be allowed.
In particular, this issue is raised due to the trade between the Vultures and Bulldogs, where the trade involves "all of next years draft picks." In order to maintain game balance and the integrity of the league, this officially needs clarification in order to allow everyone else to fairly evaluate the trade. From talking to the Vultures, the intent is for them to keep at least 16 players on their roster, thus passing their last half dozen or more picks to the Bulldogs. While this is aggressive, it shouldn't create an imbalance for the league, as the Bulldogs are still limited to 25 players.
However, the problem arises if the Vultures keep less than 16 players - just imagine if only 8 players were kept and then all draft picks were given to the Bulldogs. Clearly, this would be an imbalanced trade and the whole league would suffer for it.
What needs to take place is for trades to involve standard terminology and cite specific rounds of the draft.
So in this example, the Vultures should specify Rounds 17-25. In another trade involving the Biskafas, loose terminology also resulted in owners needing to evaluate a trade based on their "first two picks," when what was really meant was their first two picks AFTER they kept their team. What happens if the Biskafas keep all 25? While this generally would not happen, the possibility for it does exist and thus the other team would get no picks as a result.
I hope that everyone can see the need for using standard terminology with trades, as it gives everyone a clear set of information to evaluate if a trade is balanced, as well as protecting the teams involved in the trade from potential controversy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2003 10:13:35 AM |
|
|
To be specific
|
|
|
|
The trade between the Vultures and the Bulldogs for "all of next years draft picks" gauranteed 6 picks minimum. With the opportunity to aquire Portis the Vultures decided to commit early to keeping all but 6 players after the season which will allow the Bulldogs to aquire 6 draft picks in rounds 20 to 25. These picks were included in our trade as much for the fun of it as anything else, the last 6 rounds of the draft don't usually produce too many starters. The meat of the trade revolved around the players and the quid. The Bulldogs are aware of the roster size limits and so if they are unable to trade some of their picks before next years draft then their last picks will have to go unused. The Vultures are aware that they will have to start the season 6 players short until free agency is open.
What is the rule on offseason trading and when will it open up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2003 11:37:55 AM |
|
|
it still needs to be specific
|
|
|
|
because to leave it up in the air will still allow for the theoretical possibility that the Bulldogs can receive any amount of picks, and that will invoke the Shenanigans Rule. can you guys define it exactly, even if it is a range?
i hope that everyone can see the need for all trades to be exactly specified, even if "conditional" in nature. it's important to the integrity of the league to have all trades be known quantities.
as for offseason trading - how about right after Week 17? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2003 1:21:28 PM |
|
|
Thus taking the conditions out of conditional trades?
|
|
|
|
| I think it should be up to the league members to determine if the conditions of a trade are potentially detrimental to the league and if so then invoke the Shenanigan rule. That's what it's for. Part of the fun of trading is coming up with new and innovative ideas to entice your trading partner. Part of what makes the dynasty league so interesting is that there are so many more trading possibilities than in a non-dynasty league. I want to be able to make conditional trades and though I agree all trades need to be posted in a clear, defined manner (which ours was not, sorry) I see too many conditional possibilites to trades that I would not want to rule out. My trade with Jaime was conditional and I cannot now say that it is not without agreement from Jaime. I can assure you that I will not drop more than 6 players since that would be not very bright of me. In the instance of this conditional trade I would hope that all the other owners can see the folly of my dropping more than 6 players since I would have no way of replacing them prior to free agency. You are asking me to take away the conditional part of this trade which I cannot do without Jaimie's consent nor would I want to since that was part of the fun of making this trade. In the future I will do a better job of defining all the aspects of any trades I make so that all other owners can make knowledgeable judgements but as I trust all the other members of this league to only make trades that they deem in their best interest I would have no problem with conditions to those trades. Sometimes people do stupid things or make dumb mistakes but they don't do them to intentionally weaken their team. The integrity of the league lies within the integrity of all the members and I for one have faith in my brethren. I'm curious if this is being brought up now simply as a point of order or if there have been rumblings about this specific trade? Only that I would be happy to defend it if is under scrutiny. Thank you and good luck to all |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/23/2003 1:45:15 PM |
|
|
oh gosh no
|
|
|
|
this doesn't detract or limit "conditional" trades in any way. I, for one, look forward to engaging in conditional trades and think that they will provide one of the many fun "toys" that dynasty play will provide.
but conditional trades, ala those found in the NFL, are quite specific in their definitions. usually, they involve something like, "if Jim Kleinsasser catches A yards in B time frame, then a Y round draft pick is given; otherwise, a Z draft pick is given."
so, this discussion thread in no way is meant to disrespect y'all's trade, nor is it a result of any sort of "grumbling" in any way - it's only to point out that we as an owners group should have enough information to determine whether or not a trade is unbalanced. and that is not because of any thought of ill will, but only to remove all potential future controversies. in most "renewal" leagues, this isn't as much of an issue as a "dynasty" league requires, just because of the possibility of one bad trade wreaking havok on the entire league for years to come.
that being said, the "conditional" nature of your trade in particular is not so much dependent upon a player's performance, but rather upon the decisions of your club's general manager/director of personnel. perhaps a "specific" can be offered like a number range of A to B draft picks will be given in the 2004 draft. that, at least, will protect everyone from potential disaster, as well as set a precedent that will provide enough information for everyone to fairly evaluate any future trade's balance. |
|
|
|
|
|
