Big Keeper Trade Dilemma - What's a Commish to do?

[laubman]

I'm commissioner for a 10-team mixed league roto league. We've been using keepers for about three years now and have settled on a formula where every team keeps 3 hitters and 3 pitchers. Last year, we allowed teams to trade players from their previous year's roster in advance of choosing their keepers. Generally, keepers have had to be posted about a week prior to the draft.

This year our draft is this coming Tuesday and teams were asked to post their keeper lists by this past Monday. Two teams didn't. One still hasn't and has been replaced. The other finally posted their list yesterday (Thursday).

On Wednesday, a manager that has been a long-time participant and who had already posted their keeper list advised the board that they were still negotiating trades and that their keeper list was subject to change. The manager's contention was that the keeper lists are merely courtesies and aren't fixed. I, along with another manager, were the only ones to respond - both stating that managers relied on the lists to prepare for the draft and to set auto-pick if appropriate and therefore there had to be a cut-off point. Moreover, teams had had well over a month to conduct trades. I made it clear that the deadline for pre-draft trades had passed.

Today, that manager announced they had completed a trade with the team that only posted their keeper list yesterday. The manager posted his new keeper list and advised that the other manager would be posting a new list also.

I responded and announced that unless the team's renounced the trade by the end of today, both teams would lose their first "non-keeper" draft pick (not sure if Yahoo! will accommodate this) OR they would both lose their draft position (based on last year's finishing positions) and fall to the end of the draft AND would be unable to transact any FA pickups for the first two weeks of the season.

What action is appropriate in these circumstances?

[Montana]

I don't really think it's fair...........considering there was no rule in place, to prevent such moves, when it occured.

In the keeper league I commish........the rule is, trades are allowed up until keepers are announced.......at that point, the remaining players on that team, that weren't kept, become FA's......eligible of the draft, and are no longer the property of the manager, and thus untradeable.

That said.....it doesn't sound like such a set of ground rules were laid down......so I can't see you "punishing" these managers after the fact.

I'd say you let them do it.......(it's really not affecting the competitive balance of the league, or messing things up that much.........you simply state, it's not something you want happening in future season's, and implement a rule similar to what I mentioned above, for all future seasons.


Best of Luck, either way

[Matthias]

Disagree.

Everyone else needs time to prep for the draft, and that includes knowing who else is kept and who else is available. If you set an advance keeper date, then that's the date.

The easiest way to deal with this is to ask, "How can Player B do a trade? He doesn't have any players, keepers or otherwise, to trade. The deadline was Monday. He didn't post any keepers. He doesn't have any." That's how it would work in our league.

To avoid completely blowing up the league, though, I would disallow the trade, force them to keep who they previously had, and force them to keep their old keeper lists. If they don't comply, then take away their top 3 draft picks.

You have to take control of the situation, either way.

[walkoffblast]

I made it clear that the deadline for pre-draft trades had passed.

The key point here is if you made this clear prior to the owner devising his strategy.

Generally, keepers have had to be posted about a week prior to the draft.

Judging by this statement the manager may have a case since it seems your system was hardly set in stone. If you laid down the law after the manager had already committed to his strategy, which was not expressly illegal, then any form of punishment seems over the top. What to do about the trade is a tough call if the manager legitimately believed he had more time to complete a trade than was allowed.

I would try and move forward, maybe a league vote on the trade but most importantly use this to set strict guidelines for the future to prevent such problems. Any punishment is way over the top IMO.

[Torr]

Well my first question would be whether or not the commissioner's word is law? What I mean is, in some leagues the Commish makes the decisions and thats it, and in other leagues it's more of a democracy and the commish is merely an organizational figurehead. If the latter is the case then the whole league needs to chime in and help you with the decision.

Otherwise if you make the rules and you said that the time for pre-draft trades had passed, the teams in question could have talked to you in private about that. But if they just ignored you and made thier own rules, I would simply announce once again that the time for trades has passed, and announce that the keeper trade will not go through. If you don't have the power to veto trades in the league, I would go into thier teams and move everyone back to where they were originally (I'm pretty sure Yahoo let's you edit teams). If it's just a matter of people posting thier keeper list, just deny the trade as breaking the rules and move on.

[Russell James]

I'd be very careful how you handle this situation.

I think coming down hard on these guys is a bit much because they are just trying to trade and the rules don't sound all that clear to me. If you come down too hard be prepared for some backlash.

There are few things worse than a rogue commish that has no bend and is not realistic. If there is any question about whether or not your rules were clear to them I would let the trade stand and then set the rule after the trade went through. If the others agree to it.

There are two things I hate in fantasy sports: Rogue Vetoers and Rogue Commissioners. Be careful you don't become one of those.