Trade Rule Discussion (for future seasons)

[Ben E Lou]

With the craziness of free agency, we pretty much have to allow unlimited player trading this season. However, I mentioned early on that I'd love to explore the idea of limited trading of players going forward. I think it would add a lot to the cap management part of the challenge of running a team. Here's my thinking for a starting point:

PICKS: unlimited trading of picks
PLAYERS: No team may trade away or acquire via trade more than 2 players per season.

[gstelmack]

I dunno, even at 2 you can still mitigate cap quite a bit. If you really want to add to the cap management challenge, leave it at 0 players. Only draft pick trades allowed. If you sign a guy to a contract, you keep him or cut him. Otherwise I'm not sure if the rule will have much of an impact.

[Ben E Lou]

I'd be all for that, or for limiting it to only one of each. I'm just trying to generate discussion and figure out what the league's "middle ground" might be on the matter. Benevolent Dictatorship is the key here. ;)

If the overall thinking is for no player trading, I'm all for that, both in terms of "making the cap more challenging," and in terms of "saving the commish work." :)

[RedKingGold]

After this initial season, I wouldn't mind seeing a trade restriction of somesort.

I don't think I'd want an outright ban of trading players, but perhaps limiting it to two players per year per team which can be traded with no limit on draft picks.

[johnnyshaka]

Limiting trading struck me as odd at first but I think I like that idea...sleep in the bed that you made. But, having a little wiggle room for random busts and whatnot would be nice.

[Coffee Warlord]

Definately not in favor of an outright ban on all player trades. Limiting it is fine.

[direct.entropy]

I'm not in favor of limiting player for pick trades... aside from not allowing newly signed FA's to be traded.

It's just that every owner has the same opportunity to trade/trade for players. I don't see an exploit or problem with the system that most leagues currently run.

[Ben E Lou]

It's just that every owner has the same opportunity to trade/trade for players. I don't see an exploit or problem with the system that most leagues currently run.The problem is that the ability to trade players away at a massively higher rate than we'd ever see in real life makes it *far* too easy to manage the salary cap and keep players forever. The "no-franchise" rule is part of an effort to make free agency more interesting in this league. Limited trading would help with the same issue. Unless there's a huge backlash against, there will definitely be *some* limiting of player-for-player trading here.

[MalcPow]

The two player limit seems fair to me. May be best to clarify it though. If I trade a player for another player, do I hit the limit? 1 player traded away + 1 player acquired via trade?

[Ben E Lou]

We can define it however we like. I'm more looking along the lines of "what will keep the most people content." I was *thinking* two players out and two players in per year, but I'd prefer one in and one out per year (or none).

[wade moore]

I like the heavy restrictions. I'd like to see one in one out, but would be fine with two.

[Cringer]

I guess I could go along with a flat 2 player limit. I wish list would be to set a rule that limits trades of guys making over X amount of money while guys under X can be traded all day, but I can see where that would not be a popular option because of the need to keep track of that. I just think trading the 41/41 WR who makes $820,000 for a 3rd or 4td round draft pick isn't really a huge cap space saving move.

This will limit trading of draft picks as well, and I can see positives and negatives for that as well. No team having 4-5 first round picks in one draft is a positive, me not having 4-5 3rd rounders is a negative. :D

[jwolf02]

I think there should be a limit on players out - preferably 1 - but no limit on players in. If someone wants to give away their future for 2 or 3 guys in the offseason by spending picks that's fine with me, but with a 1 out limit it would have to come from 2-3 different teams, etc etc.

[Mr. Olympia]

With the craziness of free agency, we pretty much have to allow unlimited player trading this season.


I really hope you rethink this. I do not think owners should be allowed to immediately trade away a player they just sign. I thought most MP leagues had rules in place to prevent owners from signing players for the sole purpose of trading them hours after signing.

To me this is an owner using this trade craziness to cheat the league's "No Franchise Tag
WR Mitch Chandler, 79/79, 8th year -- STUD at a nerfed position, lock it up. You get him for $6m and can renegotiate to a long term deal, What's not to like?

He signs a player to a one year deal only to turn around and trade him to a team that will resign him to a multiyear deal. Thus getting around the No Franchise Tag for 1 year players.


These owners have made their beds, now they need to lie in it. Everyone in the league was warned not to do this in the strategy thread before the season started, so why reward these owners who end up with too many players at some positions?



Look how the Eagles have backed themselves out of trouble by releasing their players. They are not asking for a handout from the league.

[gstelmack]

Hard to change it now when people thought they could do this (and in fact it was explicitly mentioned) and factored it into their strategies. The time to bring that up would have been last Friday.

[QuikSand]

These owners have made their beds, now they need to lie in it. Everyone in the league was warned not to do this in the strategy thread before the season started, so why reward these owners who end up with too many players at some positions?

I'm quite well aware of what I'm doing with my team, and I signed this player will complete knowledge that I would not be able to tag him in order to keep him past the current season. But to suggest that a sign-and-trade was always understood to be outside the league rules is just absurd.

Specifically, it's simply not true that "Everyone in the league was warned not to do this in the strategy thread before the season started" -- instead everyone was warned that because there's no franchise tag in this league, they would be unable to retain anyone signed to a 1yr contract. That is simply not the same thing as telling teams not to sign one year deals, even if that is what you thought you were hearing.

Make your argument as you please, but spare me the finger pointing about how I need to "lie in it." I'm pretty much on top of what I'm trying to do with my team, thanks just the same.

[stevew]

I don't like being able to sign players to one year above market deals, and then trade them to someone else who can then sign the guy to a long term below market value deal.

In the future. OBviously not this year.

[stevew]

And I favor something like 2 players out, unlimited players coming in. It's one thing to be able to sell off your whole team. It's another if you have a legit injury at some point in the first few weeks of the season, and need to bring in a competent replacement.

[PackerFanatic]

You never know what those silly FA's are going to do, so having the ability to sign-and-trade guys during this first free-for-all is an integral part of the strategy.

[QuikSand]

I don't like being able to sign players to one year above market deals, and then trade them to someone else who can then sign the guy to a long term below market value deal.

In the future. OBviously not this year.

Incidentally, I like a rule like that going forward, and would have been fine had that been stated as our league's rule for this year. It wasn't, so I'm using what I can.

[stevew]

Tri dola-

Trade deadline should be week 12 or 13 in this league. It'd spice up the last half, I mean, nobody is going to be able to trade more than 2 guys anyways.

[Coffee Warlord]

You never know what those silly FA's are going to do, so having the ability to sign-and-trade guys during this first free-for-all is an integral part of the strategy.

Precisely. When we're doing a mad scramble between 32 teams to sign 50+ players, there's no WAY teams arne't going to wind up with some overlap in some areas.

[Ben E Lou]

Incidentally, I like a rule like that going forward, and would have been fine had that been stated as our league's rule for this year. It wasn't, so I'm using what I can.

Yup.


What several have said is the case. It was explicitly stated that for this year, sign and trade was fine. (And with what is going to happen tomorrow with FA2:3, quite likely completely necessary to avoid just complete silliness from happening.) I am in *four* other MP leagues, and none of them choose to enforce that rule, so I'm not sure about the notion that "most" disallow.

For those that didn't realize it, the commish has to click a button to override FOF's rule about signing and trading in the same year. I am in favor of simply enforcing FOF's rule about signing and trading in the same year, but absolutely not this year.

[wade moore]

Hard to change it now when people thought they could do this (and in fact it was explicitly mentioned) and factored it into their strategies. The time to bring that up would have been last Friday.

Greg nailed.

[RipMurdock]

I am against any blanket rule limiting trades. First, a team can rebuild quickly if it's willing to trade draft picks for players. I've rebuilt 2 teams and made them reasonably competitive, one by making 12 trades and the other with 4 trades. That option would be severely limited if every team could trade only one or two players per season. Without trades you would cripple a struggling team trying to improve.

Second, if there's a problem then solve the problem as directly as possible. Don't like the franchise tag? Dump it. I'm fine with that. If you don't like a team that flips a player, then make a rule for that, e.g., every player involved in a trade must have been on the team's roster for 8 games before he is eligible to be traded.

Third, if you want to limit trades, then take it out on the winners like the draft does. Make a rule that the four championship conference teams can make only one trade the next season. That would limit the top four teams but give the struggling teams a chance to improve by trading.

[Subby]

LIE IN YOUR BED AFTER YOU MAKE THEM

LIE IN THEM

[Coffee Warlord]

I hear that Quik wants to lie in your bed, Subby.

[Suicane75]

I dont mind the suggested rules, I do think a 2 or 3 season grace period would be good though.

[Subby]

I hear that Quik wants to lie in your bed, Subby.
He does, but only because he has the hots for my wife.

[Subby]

Do it like renegs in some leagues - only allow a guy to be traded in the last season of his deal.

[Julio Riddols]

And I favor something like 2 players out, unlimited players coming in. It's one thing to be able to sell off your whole team. It's another if you have a legit injury at some point in the first few weeks of the season, and need to bring in a competent replacement.

This sounds perfect to me. This would eliminate fire sales and make trades less prevalent, while also allowing a new owner the opportunity to "turn it around" by adding as much talent as possible while still being able to dump a salary or two if needed.

[RipMurdock]

A limit, like 2 players out, would make it difficult for struggling teams to turn it around. Look at it this way:

Most teams either don't want to trade or don't have players that one strugggling team might want. That boils down to a handful of teams, maybe as few as 5 or 6, that would be willing to trade. Do the math. The maximum number of players who could be traded is only 10 or 12.

How many "struggling" teams are there? If we measure success as making the playoffs, that means we have as many as 20 "struggling" teams chasing players.

In sum, the situation could be as bleak as 20 teams chasing 10 or 12 players. The result of such a scenario is that the struggling teams cannot get enough players, and salary/bonus demands will escalate because the demand for players is greater than the supply. Not such a great result to get if we limit trades.

[wade moore]

Have you been in FOF MP leagues before? I don't mean that as rude, but every league I'm in most teams from top to bottom - regardless of quality - are looking to trade.

[RipMurdock]

Then why limit trades? Trading is good.

The example I wrote about above is reasonable. Many teams are looking to trade, but the matchup of team A's needs with team B will not always work out. Practically speaking, a team's potential trading partner is not 31 but considerably less.

I'm in 4 leagues.

[wade moore]

Then why limit trades? Trading is good.

The example I wrote about above is reasonable. Many teams are looking to trade, but the matchup of team A's needs with team B will not always work out. Practically speaking, a team's potential trading partner is not 31 but considerably less.

I'm in 4 leagues.

Limit trades to give a but of a boost to the FA market. Trading is an easy way to avoid ever getting into cap trouble.

[RipMurdock]

By now everyone knows where I stand on trades. But the concept of limited trading is interesting. And if there's any league that should try it, it's FOWL. So let's do it and find out what it's all about.

[SegRat]

Here is an idea. Now I am sure some will think it is stupid, however it is just an idea. Allow the lower teams, say the bottom 20, to trade (up to 2 players in or out), and the top 12 teams would not be able to trade. Most of the time your top teams are tight against the cap. Let the top teams lie in there bed if you will. Remember this is just a random idea I am throwing out there.

[stevew]

Actually, I was thinking of something like that, too, SegRat. I was thinking something like the 12 playoff teams should lose 10% of the cap, something like that though.

Just sign a scrub to their rosters in FA1 with a bonus=10% of the cap, and then cut him.

Or each year you make the playoffs in a row, you lose 5% of the cap. Maxed out at like 20%.

I dunno, probably a horribly unpopular idea, but it was just something I thought of when I was driving tonight.

[direct.entropy]

Yeah, I don't like the idea of limiting the cap. And let's not get complicated here and just limit each team to one player out and no limit on trades in.

I don't see why we would have to do anymore than this.

[wade moore]

yeah, not a fan of the cap manipulation.

[Ben E Lou]

Definitely want to keep it simple, whatever we do. Number of players traded in or out in a given season can be tracked with a fairly basic script I can write.

The big picture in this is that if trades are limited and there's no franchise tag, it will create longer contracts in free agency that people have to honor, or make cuts. And that will cause more good players to hit free agency, which should allow the lesser teams to have a shot at quick improvement. What happens otherwise is that good teams are able to use trades to get value in return for their good players--much more value than in real life, and enough in the FOF system that it helps keep the system imbalanced. Now make no mistake: those who know FOF well will always have a leg up on those who don't. This is just an attempt to see what free agency might look like with limited ability to work the contract system.

That's the theory, at least.

[Ben E Lou]

Yeah...that was faster than I would have thought, even...


<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="1"><tbody> <tr> <th>cityname</th> <th>playerstraded</th></tr> <tr> <td>Atlanta</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Baltimore</td> <td>6</td></tr> <tr> <td>Buffalo</td> <td>3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Cincinnati</td> <td>4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Denver</td> <td>6</td></tr> <tr> <td>Detroit</td> <td>4</td></tr> <tr> <td>Green Bay</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Jacksonville</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>New York</td> <td>3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Oakland</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>Philadelphia</td> <td>3</td></tr> <tr> <td>Pittsburgh</td> <td>1</td></tr> <tr> <td>San Diego</td> <td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

[jwolf02]

I definately think that whatever we do should apply to all teams, good or bad, rich or poor. I would favor a limited out, unlimited in rule.

[tarcone]

No trades. Make a salary decision and stick to it. Cut bait if you screwed up. Draft and free agency. see if you can build a winner that way.

[Subby]

No trades. Make a salary decision and stick to it. Cut bait if you screwed up. Draft and free agency. see if you can build a winner that way.
I think this is a great way of closing the gulf between the haves and have nots.

Less administrative burden, too.

[Ben E Lou]

I think this is a great way of closing the gulf between the haves and have nots.I like the idea of keeping pick-for-pick trades in....but as I said, I'm open to whatever. I do think there's a lot of benefit (besides admin) to no trading of players. I'm not sure what hte benefit of no pick trading would be, though. Help a brutha out with that one.

[RipMurdock]

Now we're moving from limited trades to no trades. That's too extreme.

[tarcone]

I wouldnt mind trading of picks. Thats always fun.

[Ben E Lou]

Well, considering a number of people have weighed in favoring no player trading, it's not really extreme relative to the owner group. It's just too easy to use trading as a crutch to work around salary cap issues. My experience in MP leagues lately is that the only way a significant number of good players hit free agency in a given year is the result of owner inattentiveness. We don't want that. The goal here is to have 32 people paying attention *and* have a meaningful free agency stage every single season. That won't happen if people can trade away their cap issues, rather than be forced to make cuts or allow players to hit free agency.

[Ben E Lou]

Yes tarcone. I don't see much justification at all for getting rid of pick trading. I'm purely talking about player trading.