Oh, right:
Yes – even if it were against the rules there’d be no way to stop a gentleman’s agreement in private, and I see no reason why we’d want to stop it except for the sake of simplicity.
Receiver.
Sure, why not, though I can’t imagine there being much of a market for keeper slots.
Some info first:
The list that signed up this season:
Chitwood
Moridwon
Gone Pear Shaped
Culpable Deniability
NOLA Sex Panthers
Mundis Morning Glory
Crabby Hermits
(Munch)
Fourth and Nineteen
Fightin’ Quakers
New York Fanboys
Last year’s starting list:
Mundi Morning Blues
Pentium None
Cedric Benson Busts
Baltimore Weirdos
Varlos’ Zzzzzzz
BoomGoesTheDynamite
Crabby Hermits
Feed My Family
DerierExtraordinaire
Ellis Dee
Fourth and Nineteen
Moridwon
Fightin’ Quakers
Rhinosaurs(neuroman)
furt
My apologies for not being able to tell who everybody is after all these years, my guess is that Varlos is one of the missing two. Rereading the thread reveals this to be true. Some fine detective work there, hermit. Is the last one neuroman?
I agree with Varlos’ interpretation of the keeper rules.
That being said, who wants to talk trade about Randle El?
Already you’re so intimidated by the mighty Weirdos that you want to pretend we don’t exist.
[C.M. Burns]
Excellent!
[/C.M. Burns]
I swear that your name was there when I posted it!
Oh well, that’s what happens when you play too much City of Villains. Reality tends to fade…
Excellent point on #1; trading future picks can indeed be done on the down-low via gentlemen’s agreement, so making it against the rules would be somewhat futile. Also, great point on #3. Since your point that there would be little market for keeper slots sounds accurate to me, what’s the harm? (Note: I’m just offering my thoughts here, not declaring rules.)
As for #2, your vote confuses me. I’ll try to clarify.
To clarify 3), think of the year as being split into two parts when it comes to keeper slots: offseason and inseason. The offseason begins the day after the FF playoffs end, and runs through the last pick of the draft the following season. The inseason begins after the last pick in the draft, and runs to the trade deadline. Questions 2 and 3 only apply to offseason trades. (Your McGahee trade was inseason, right?)
During the offseason, each owner initially has 3 keeper slots to play with. In theory, you can trade some away, or trade to acquire some. If it is done without players attached to the slots, then the result of those trades are self-evident. If, however, you trade away a slot devoted to a specifc player, it is currently a blank spot in our rules as to how it works.
During the inseason, nobody has any active keeper slots. (You only have players on your roster. Some of them may have been kept, and you may or may not want to keep some of them next season, but the concept of keeper slots doesn’t exist during the inseason.) So while the season is going, you could conceivably make 20 trades ending up with a dozen players that various owners kept in the previous draft. In effect, you end up with 12 kept players. But that doesn’t violate the “3 keeper slots” rule because there are no keeper slots during the inseason; when the next draft rolls around, you can only keep 3 of those 12 players.
To my knowledge there has never been any offseason trading in this league, which is why I asked for a rule clarification.
As an example: (Go with the inaccurate valuations; it’s a hypothetical.)
Inseason keeper trade
RedskinsFan & BillsFan both keep 3 players during the draft. A couple days later, RedskinsFan offers the non-kept Willis McGahee (whom he took in the first round) to BillsFan for Clinton Portis, whom BillsFan kept in the 5th. Consistent with the rules of the league to date, this trade now leaves BillsFan with only 2 kept players, while RedskinsFan ends up with 4. (The 3 he kept in the draft, plus Clinton Portis, who was kept by BillsFan.)
Offseason keeper trade
RedskinsFan offers his first round pick to BillsFan for Clinton Portis. To be consistent with how it would work during the inseason, this should cost the giver – BillsFan – one of his 3 keeper slots, while RedskinsFan ends up with a qualified 4: any 3 players he wants to keep, plus Clinton Portis.
There is no particular need to maintain consistency like this, but I’m a fan of consistency in general.
Sending you an email right now…
[ol][li]No. [/li]
Seriously, it is difficult enough to track keeper and draft relationships year-to-year without factoring in a “futures market” of draft slots. If two players really want to go to teh lengths of establishing their own “gentleman’s agreement” and trusting each other to both honor it and still be in the league in whatever year the last exchange comes due . . . well, that is their headache to manage. I cannot see any compelling reason to incorporate it into a fantasy league.
[li]I think the quesiton is misleading. [/li]
You don’t trade a keeper. You trade a player, who brings with him his draft position and eligibility. On the day that the “final keeper lists” are declared, every person’s roster consists of at most 3 players, who must be chosen in the draft position that they carry over (-2) from last year. That player, draft position and all, may be traded for player(s) on another owners roster. That person may also be traded for draft choices in this years draft. Mechanically, this is no different from trading it for the players another owner selects in the agreed upon draft slots. The person trading away draft picks (or players selected in this year’s draft) may certainly end up with more than 3 players on his roster that were “kept” from last year, but that is hardly relevant to the exchange. The status of “keeper” is important only for the moment in time when active roster get reduced to teh 3 (or less) players on each time. At all other times we just have rosters of players.
[li]No.[/li]
The reason keeper slots are limited is to foster competetive balance. The limit is essentially arbitrary, but 3 was the number on which we agreed years ago. It still seems a good number to me. The only reason to have a lmit is to enforce roster turnover year-over-year. Allowing a player to bypass the 3-man limit runs directly counter to the goal of roster turnover.
[/ol]
Mundi, what is your vote for 2)? If, after trading a keeper (like Portis in my hypothetical) before the draft, both owners still get exactly 3 keepers in the draft, then your vote would be “receiver.” I can’t quite figure out by your post if that’s the way you favor, though.
I don’t think the question is misleading, as Portis will cost somebody a keeper slot; the question is simply who does it cost: the guy who ends up drafting him (receiver), or the guy that had him on his roster at the end of the previous season (giver)?
Never mind, now I get what your objection is. If forced into an either or, your vote is receiver, though you object to the conceptual framework.
The problem with it costing the receiver is that every eligible keeper on the roster becomes legitimate trade-bait. Consider Nurse Carmen, to use a straightforward example. If he decided to keep Burleson, Cooley and Roethlisburger, he could still additionally try to trade away Chambers, Faulk and Taylor to other owners pre-draft, while still being able to keep the three guys he wants.
Consider Varlosz. If he decided to keep Keyshaun, McGahee, and Whitten, (assuming pre-draft trades used up one of the reciever’s keeper slots,) doesn’t he have a strong incentive to try and trade away Hasselback pre-draft? Even if he could only manage to get a 12th rounder for Hasselback, that’s more than the nothing he would get from Hasselback without trading him.
Also, your roster. If you opt to keep Brady, Dunn, and Moss, shouldn’t you try to trade away Vinatieri for a late-round pick before the draft in order to get value where there would otherwise be none?
IMO, you can’t trade someone away unless you have rights to him, and you only have rights to 3 players during the offseason. But if pre-draft trades cost the reciever a keeper slot, then we have rights to all eligible players on our roster during the offseason, not just 3.
That’s why I vote to cost the giver a keeper slot.
Maybe we could only allow trading of keepers once they have been declared? Unsure when we have to declare them, but say it’s a week before our draft. We could allow trading of keepers within that week only.
The dealine to declare keepers is the Tuesday before the draft, so almost a week.
I like the idea, but how does it differ from just costing the giver a keeper slot?
Taking it further, perhaps Mundi’s original idea really is the best way to go. All offseason trading is confined to the live draft. The owners must be present to make any trades, and all logistics for the trades are their own responsibility.
Since the keepers will already have been declared, everybody should already have them on their exclude lists, meaning that any poor suckers who get auto-drafted won’t interfere with the trades anyway.
I’m thinking this is the most elegant way to go, so here’s my proposal:
[ul][li]Tuesday before the draft, everyone declares their keepers. No trading of unused keeper slots, as there isn’t any trading until a week later during the draft. These keeper declarations are final and binding, with the following exceptions: After the deadline the keeper gets put on the PUP list, IR, retires, or is given a season-long league suspension. Replacement keepers must be declared at least one hour before the live draft.[/li][li]Trades of draft picks and keepers can be declared during the live draft. Ideally, during the 10 minute window before it starts, but anytime during is fine. Only owners present for the live draft are eligible to be involved in trades. The logistics are the responsibility of the owners involved. (Calling out who the other guy should take, and then making the appropriate swap post-draft.)[/li][li]Everyone is free to plan ahead and strike potential trade agreements at any point. However, until the live draft, no trade agreements are binding, so a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy will be in effect regarding any trade agreements you’ve made.[/li][*]Trading of future draft picks isn’t officially recognized, but there is no reason you can’t agree to one on the down-low. Again, as long as you adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I see no reason why they wouldn’t work. Given the unofficial nature of trading future picks, enforcement of them is on the honor system.[/ul]Thoughts?
My position on 2 was: nobody. The trade, whether before or after keepers are declared, doesn’t cost either player a slot. When keepers are declared, each player may keep 3. So, if I have 4 “keeper worthy” players, and you only have 2, it would perhaps be benificial to both of us to trade one of my players for one of your draft slots before keepers are declared. The same trade after keepers are declared, would have less value to me, since I would then be left with only 2 keepers (plus your extra draft choice). I have no problem with that. It does not violate the principle of roster turnover, while still managing to reward owners who took a risk on “upside value” during the draft.
I also have no problem with the “trade only during the live draft” stricture, which emilinates this option but does make the commissioner’s bookkeeping easier.
One thing that I expect everyone already knows but perhaps bears repeating: if I trade a draft choice for your keeper, I am in effect using 2 draft choices on that player and will need to fill out my roster with a free agent after the draft. That free agent will not enjoy any “keeper status” for the next year.
Your vote is almost for receiver by this description of how you’d like the transactions to go, though technically your vote of “nobody” is more accurate. (If the guy who acquired your extra keeper spends one of his 3 actually keeping him, it would cost him – the reciever – a keeper slot.) You’ve also demonstrated the inconsistency I pointed out, in that if it costs the receiver a keeper slot, then the trade mechanics change if you do it before or after the draft. Also, you’ve demonstrated how costing a receiver the keeper slot allows owners to protect more than 3 players on their roster.
All that said, I really don’t much care about any of my objections, nor do I much care about a little extra bookkeeping. So I’m declaring the rules as follows: (cross-posted to yahoo boards.)
[ul][li]The offseason trade deadline is Monday, August 28th; one week before the draft. The 3 keeper limit does not apply; keeper slots don’t exist until you declare your keepers. Note that this means you can acquire a keeper from one guy and immediately turn around and trade him away to somebody else.[/li]
[li]The following day, Tuesday, August 29th is the deadline to declare keepers. Everyone gets 3, though obviously you can keep fewer if you like. All declarations are binding, except for previously noted caveats. (PUP list, IR, retirement, or season-long league suspension.)[/li]
[li]Trading of future draft picks is up to the owners involved. Be absolutely sure you are aware of when keepers expire; many of the choice keepers in this league are in their final year of eligibility.[/ul][/li]Basically, you can trade anyone on your eligible roster at will until you declare your keepers, after which you can only trade your kept players or draft picks. You can declare your keepers anytime before the deadline, but once you do you lose the rights to everybody on your roster you didn’t keep. And trading during the live draft is fine.
If you want to keep two players who were drafted (or kept) in the same round last year, (let’s say the 6th,) how does that work? Do you have to trade for an extra 4th rounder so you can keep them both?
I would argue, yes, you need to acquire another pick in the same round in order to keep 2 players with the same keeper “value”. A “keeper” carries with him the right to select him at a certain point (round) in the draft. If I only have one 4th round pick, I can only exercise that option for one player taken in the 6th round last year. I would allow an exception to this for players that wish to “pay a premium” and keep a player with a larger offset (3rd round or higher in my example). This would not be possible for a 1st round keeper, of course, so the owner would have to acquire a second 1st round pick somehoe.
Honestly, it won’t matter. Saskatchewan’s quarterback is out-rushing Ricky(of course, he’s also out-rushing his own RB and is coming off of a 1000-yard rushing season)
Agreed on all counts. Barring any impassioned dissent, let’s go with this.
Note that there is no such thing as a 1st round keeper, since long ago it was decided you can only keep players drafted (or kept) in the fourth round or later. (Point #2 in the second post to the thread.)
Good catch. I love a problem that’s already been solved. 
Now if we could only find our 14th owner. At what point should we open the slot up to new applicants?
Soon, because a new owner would probably want to make some trades.
Speaking of trades, here’s a trade announcement for the group:
The New York Fanboys trade my 6th, 7th and 15th round picks to Mundi’s Morning Glory for his 6th, 7th and 15th round picks.
Never, because I am now here.
Sorry I haven’t been on the boards much lately and this thread escaped my purview.
I don’t have time to weigh in on rules debates at the moment, although I seem to recall posting fairly eloquently in the old thread back in april or march about trading picks.