Trading: Pushing the boundries...

[BoBtheMule]

Last season in a very competitive league a new type of trade happened as we neared the trade deadline.

A borderline playoff team decided he didn't have enough to contend and sold off some of his keepers... guys like Wainwright or Hanley for prospects but there was also a secondary agreement that he'd then pay a draft pick to get those keepers back. He essentially rented out his stars. He didn't favor one team or another... he actually did this four times, with four different teams. That said, some teams didn't know it was going on and even now still don't. Should be noted that the commissioner took part in these type of deals and didn't think it was that big of a deal... but he benefited from it.

Thoughts on this, should it be stopped or is it natural market forces? They are taking the risk that the other party will reneg so should it be buyer beware?

This league also has an odd situation where this league has a keeper deadline and then the draft is 2-3 week later. Trading is still allowed during that gap so teams can swap keepers or swap keepers for a package of picks. Because of this peculiar situation another possible scenario could happen where Team A could send a couple of quality keepers to a team (B) that doesn't have a full compliment of good keepers for a draft pick with the agreement that Team B send the keepers back for a package of prospects and better picks.

This league makes a lot of trades but are these two things too much? How would you prevent this, if it needs to be?

[Kimbos Beard]

Interesting. Can you give us an example of the type of players and picks that are being swapped both in the original deal and then in the deal going back.

It sounds a little underhanded but If its fair value going back and forth with the picks and the players I think I would be okay with it.

What I would say is that it should definitely be disclosed at the time of the initial trade, that way it can be factored into whether a trade should be vetoed or not.

[BoBtheMule]

Interesting. Can you give us an example of the type of players and picks that are being swapped both in the original deal and then in the deal going back.

It sounds a little underhanded but If its fair value going back and forth with the picks and the players I think I would be okay with it.

In the first, trade deadline deals, here are a couple of examples
Team A sent Travis D'Arnaud/Rhymer Liriano for Ian Kennedy/Ichiro... Ian Kennedy was then returned to Team B in exchance for a 4th Rd pick (16 team league, 12 majors keepers, 8 minors keepers)

Team C then sent Dante Bichette Jr./Aaron Sanchez/Erik Bedard for Team B's Wainwright... Wainwright was then returned to Team B for a 9th round pick.

Again... this was all agreed to before hand. Not two separate trades.

In the second scenario, the deadline/draft gap, the idea would be to send something like this:
Team A sends Niese/Papelbon to Team D for a 3rd Round pick, then during the gap Team D would send back both players for Justin Nicolino and a 1st Round pick.

For reference, getting a 2nd rounder for Papelbon would be real solid and prospects are obviously a big deal in this league. Hope that's enough info.

Bob

[fast dogs]

Trading draft picks for better keepers has been 1 of the best things our keeper leagues has ever done. But we only allow it during the offseason after draft position has been established.
I can't say the rental trades are a good thing, especially if at the time the return draft picks aren't mentioned in the trade.If your league is going to continue doing this everything has to be spelled out in the rules and all trades need to be disclosed at the time. I also don't think these kinds of trades during the playoff push are a good thing for the league. I think this will cause more problems and hard feelings then it will do good. A league vote & discussion needs to be forthcoming and I'd certainly vote & argue against it

[bigmck]

You can stop the "Rental Trades" by putting in a rule that says a player can not return to the same team for one year.

[MaudDib]

Well first off, if the entire trade isn't spelled out when it happens, then it is pretty weaselly. The trade might not be unfair but by not informing everyone, it makes it feel like they are trying to hide something.

As for the trades, I don't like it. Problem is I am not sure there is a good way to cancel the deals. Going forward, you probably need to start getting some kind of constitution in place. I am in a number of leagues with each having some kind of by-laws (although I don't think any of them cover this kind of thing). I also don't particularly like putting restrictions on what players can be traded to who. It adds a lot of work to the commish.

Fantasy baseball should be fun and I don't think this is adding to the enjoyment for the league as a whole. But that is just me and if the league thinks otherwise, then you do what the majority wants. Right now I think all the owners need to know that this is happening and then let everyone put there thoughts into what should happen going forward.

Hopefully this helps. Stuff like this can be very frustrating to go through. Hopefully this doesn't create a lot of bad feelings and doesn't hurt the league. I have seen it happen but more often things get worked out. This is usually how constitutions get started up.

[dfa]

It definitely feels a little underhanded, or at the very least like an attempt to game the system. Of course, both parties seems to going into the truncation eyes wide open, so it is difficult to raise an issue. I would however think it is worth revising the league's constitution.

[converge241]

You can stop the "Rental Trades" by putting in a rule that says a player can not return to the same team for one year.

This

I think that's the only real issue, blowing up teams to rebuild is fine even if things are slanted. I once had a team in 6th/7th place (we pay up to 5 spots most years) just pull the ripcord early feeling he couldn't make it over the hump. Long term it worked out for him. Many of course had the reaction that trades that occurred were collusion , too slanted etc but many times that's just sour grapes that they didn't get those rental players for a title run - and in saying rental I mean like shedding future for now not true rental where they give back, just maybe not in that new owner's long term future plans

[BoBtheMule]

does anyone have a problem with the second scenario where keepers are traded back to Team A after the keeper deadline but before the draft?

Bob

[RedTiger]

either make a rule banning trades involving draft picks (or uneven numbered) trades or don't. If there's no rule against it or mandating an exact number of keepers, it looks ok. I would prefer a league in which that type of trade is not allowed though