10 team H2H keeper league going into our 3rd season. We keep 8 players and draft position doesn't matter, so keep your best 8.
There are 2 teams in the league (one is mine) that have excess strong keepers. One for example plans on not keeping 2 of Posey, Stanton, Fielder or Kemp. Because he is not keeping two of them he wants to trade them away for draft picks, which is allowed in our league.
My question though is whether it is fair to veto a trade where the draft pick is not comparable to the player being given. For example if he trades Prince Fielder away for a 7th round pick, should I veto the trade? Yes both owners are helped by the trade, but the value differential is huge and it seems to hurt the league in my opinion.
It makes sense for the Fielder owner to do the trade because then he gets something for Fielder instead of just throwing him back, and the person getting Fielder gets a steal of a deal as well, but it doesn't seem fair to me.
If both owners are helped by the trade, their is no problem. No trade is ever exactly even. I have always thought that Vetos should be held for a trade that is very uneven. Not Veto a trade just because you would not make it. A Veto should be very very rare. Not something that is considered on every trade.
In a vacuum, Prince Fielder for a 7th round pick would scream "VETO!!" to me, but with the way your league is set up, I think it's acceptable. If Fielder isn't even a top six keeper on someone's team, it's very hard to argue that he's worth more than a 7th round pick. If the managers in your league cry foul about that, then I don't think it's a problem with the trade itself, but rather with the keeper rules of the league. If you can keep any 8 players, it's not that difficult to build a powerhouse team, which seems to have happened for a couple guys in your league. Unfortunately, that makes the league a lot less fun for the managers who barely stand a chance before they even get to the draft. You might want to consider restricting the number of players that can be kept from the first 4 or 5 rounds, or have draft round penalties or salary increases (if it's an auction) for keeping players year-to-year. Something like that should level the playing field and prevent trades like that one from even being viable.
You may want to consider revising your trading rules and keepers. We have a trade deadline the first of September. Rosters are locked at that point. I would think that you would allow the 8 keepers and the rest have to go back into the pool - that allows teams who did poorly a chance to add a better player. In my league, if you want to trade a player - it needs to happen prior to the trade deadline or the owner keeps the player and offers them once all keepers are announced.
thats pretty much the point of trading draft picks, isn't it? This helps teams with weaker rosters get a better starting position; and gives the team that has the wisdom to acquire the best players the year before to get at least something for them. This is especially helpful for teams that have lost owners and aren't coming back, new owners get to make deals for better players, "their players". Now trading of players for draft picks is always going to be a buyers market, the team trading away the players doesn't get full value but does get something. As long as the owner trading away good players is dealing with everyone in the league and making them the same offer its all good.Normally you'd see an owner keeping Fielder and trading Stanton or Posey, but he might just get a round or 2 later pick instead of the first. No matter how big the league or how good the managers that play in it, there are always going to be some teams with a few more keeper worthy players and a few teams needing top 80 players. We generally get about 10 of these deals done each offseason, its a give and take of wants and needs. It is unusual for someone of Fielders caliber to be offered, but in small leagues thats going to happen more often. These types of trades will probably become more common as the years progress and more managers get a feel for how to work the system. I think the guy giving up Fielder is giving up too much here, but he's going to have to drop talent back into the pool and at least will get a top 90 player back.Once more owners get into the supply and demand part of the draft pick trading, it should even out for everyone and make for a more competitive league in the end
by Fantasy Sports Genie » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:42 pm
I don't think there necessarily has to be a problem with what you're describing in theory, but something sounds fishy.
As a long-standing keeper league commish, I don't tend to veto a trade unless: - I think it was made unethically i.e. a team made the trade for some reason other than to better their own cause - It is so horrifically unbalanced that I fear it really jeopardizes the integrity of the league. I think I've only done that once ever
In this case the thing that seems iffy isn't that a team is trading a player they aren't going to protect for a 7th round pick. It is that it suggests that all the other teams in the league wouldn't give up a 6th round pick, assuming that they could protect 8 players better than Fielder and still get a better player than him in the 6th round of the draft. That seems terribly hard to believe. In a 2 team league, the two teams would protect 16 players, then draft 12 more before getting to the 7th round. So it is pretty easy to make the case this trade is nonsensical in a 2 team league. If you were even an 8 team league, for example, the same scenario makes no sense. A disinterested third party decided that after 64 players were protected, and another 40 players were drafted in the first 5 rounds, they still would rather have their 6th round pick than Fielder. That's just bananas. When a trade gets protested in my league, the first thing I do is ask both teams to explain their rationale in making the trade. I'd be fascinated to hear why the guy trading away Prince thought he couldn't do better than this. And any time I'm resigned to allowing an unbalanced trade, I remind teams to shop around and make sure they're doing the best they could. This almost can't be true in this case.
The format of your league makes this relatively simple math. A few years after starting to do keepers, my league quickly decided that a straight "you protect X guys" rule was overly simplistic. Once you start associating costs with protecting guys, be it forfeited draft picks, increasing salaries, etc. etc., then it gets really weird. It is easy enough to say that of course Prince Fielder is one of the best 100+ players in the game, and thus worth more than a 7th round pick. Suppose you get to protect 20 years of service and Prince Fielder costs 5 of them. Now how valuable is he? What if he costs 7? etc. etc.
I have read through all of the posts and I really appreciate insight.
First let me explain better the team not keeping Prince. His keepers right now are Kemp, M-Cab, Longoria, Han-Ram, Votto, Lester, J. Upton, Posey.
Of those guys can you really say throwing back Prince is a bad move? This is a 10 team league in it's third season, his team and my team have the best keepers by a HUGE margin. The one guy who maybe you could say swap with Prince would be Posey, but he likes the young talent there.
As far as how our league is currently set up, it is messed up because teams like his and mine have no competition. We got our teams this way by making good trades, all very fair as well, but it worked out.
There really is no way to change our current league set-up to make keeping all of the best talent be penalized. I would like to make the league more fair, but since we started on an even playing field, at the time it seemed right.
So the league freezes 80 players, there are always going to be some teams with more than 8 top 80 players and some teams with less than 80. When is a team with more than 8 ever going to get an equal value, the best they can do for their top 80 player is someones first round player pick 81-90? So they'll never get full value, the best they can do is get partial value which is better than nothing I see trades playing out like this: I'll give you my 4th rounder for Stanton 3rd rounder for Posey 1st rounder for Fielder or Kemp, take your choice None of these deals are "fair" or equal value, but the owner of the logjam of keepers must try to figure out which deal is best for him. Maybe he's concerned about Fielders size or whatever, but he has to decide which way to go to get the best return for his team. In 10 years we've never had a Fielder for a 9th round pick swap, but similiar. Obviously you'd have a tough time matching this offer tho you could have competed with the other 2. Once the league gets into it, you'll have a good time competing for draft picks with your extra keepers
In my 12-team "keep 3" league, extra keepers usually get traded for round 7-9 picks (#121 - 144), and that feels about right to us. You wind up getting an extra pick around the time you're really starting to eye guys with a higher risk:reward ratio, so it's like getting an extra crap shoot for your team. Or you grab an extra closer. If you have to give up much higher a pick, it's just not worth it vs. keeping a marginal player.
7th Round in your league is at about the low end of our spectrum. The only thing I'd say in this case is "you should have held out for 6th or 5th", but not a veto.