Cheesy or not? Do you think this trade idea is ok?

[Wallbanger]

I have an idea for a trade In my keeper leaugue

I want to trade an additional player in a trade where the other GM flips me the additional player back at the draft. Why?

I have a potential deal for a 2nd round pick, but guy is not sure. With that pick if I get it, I would be happy to get back a guy from my team I cant protect ( as many as 4 of my own guys i have to drop I would be happy to draft for that 2nd rounder)

So instead of getting the pick, I would get an additional player to keep essentialy and the other GM doesn't give up his pick but instead gets 1 less keeper. This will only work if the other GM doesn't have enough legitimate keepers and in our case he is building, wont compete this year and I am a top contender

What do u guys think? Cheessy? There is no rule to prevent this in my league and I have actually done this before. This time I will announce it before to the league to make sure it doesn't cause a brew ha ha, because if it does I don't want the headache and will hold out for the 2nd rounder. I personally wanted a rule in our league to prevent this something like u cant trade a player back to a team u acquired him from for 12 months or something but the rule proposal was shot down.

Another concern I have is that this loophole gets exploited in a year when teams will clearly tank for mcdavid ie, instead of doing this with one player, someone could take on 3 or players for a competing GM and flip all of them back to him at the draft say for a 1st next year. All is within the rules, just seems a little underhanded or I am worrying about nothing?

By the way if I have given you an idea for trades that u have never considered you are welcome

Thanks in advance for your thoughts

[dooley89]

I don't understand why the other GM would do this?
Doesn't seem like there is any benefit to him unless you are giving him a pick or something.

I am gonna say yes to 'cheesy'.

[Zorro]

To be honest, cheese on anything is a great idea!!

[Wallbanger]

The other GM is getting a very solid keeper, probably will be one of his best players at that position for a long time

I am giving up this solid keeper as I can replace him for next year so the idea is I win the trade for next year he wins in the long nitiallrun

Sorry I didn't mention this initially. There is no way the guy I am sending him would make it out of the top 6 in the draft if he were available

have your thoughts changed now that I have informed you he gets to keep a very very solid keeper to stash another guy on his keeper list and flip back to me

[dooley89]

So you are sending 2 to him so that you can get 1 back?

Why don't you lay it out with player names for us.
I would vote against it if someone tried it, I generally think that if you have to ASK - you already know the answer!

[Dobbernomics]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't agree with the concept. I think a trade is a one-time event and shouldn't come with future conditions such as "trade me back player X at a later date".

And yes, I think you are right to be worries that this potential trade would set a precedent in your league.

[2 for diving]

So you are looking to do a trade - the type that you tried to have a rule set up in the league to prevent, and have concerns about other gm's doing it in your league in the McD year? I agree with chillyh as this starts a slippery slope. I don't agree with this concept either.

[MJFP]

could just wait till next year so your the one doing it in the McD year (evil laugh). If your not breaking any rules, and even announcing it I don't see a problem. I just don't see why the other GM would bother, he could try n use his pick to draft the guy ur dropping.

[petegreg21]

Can we put some names to your original post? I'm super confused, maybe I'm just not reading it properly???

This is how I understand it:
You trade: Player A, Player B, Player C
You receive: Player D, Player E

Other GM keeps Player C, then trades him back to you after the draft in exchange for a 2nd round pick?

[First Round Pick]

It's a different form of collusion in that you're asking for permission before doing it anyway... in the end it's still a bit dirty and from there it can only get worse. At that point the other GM's start to do it, or just get mad and don't want to deal with you going forward, others form alliances and help some of their favourite trading "partners" to the point that it's not a fair fight. It becomes only about who you know and that's it.

I've always believed the work you do to win a league is based on acting like a real GM, trying to make good trades and draft choices that make it fun for everyone. Since we don't get to do this professionally it's the closest thing we have. I don't like to rock that system too much.

I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.

[petegreg21]

It's a different form of collusion in that you're asking for permission before doing it anyway... in the end it's still a bit dirty and from there it can only get worse. At that point the other GM's start to do it, or just get mad and don't want to deal with you going forward, others form alliances and help some of their favourite trading "partners" to the point that it's not a fair fight. It becomes only about who you know and that's it.

I've always believed the work you do to win a league is based on acting like a real GM, trying to make good trades and draft choices that make it fun for everyone. Since we don't get to do this professionally it's the closest thing we have. I don't like to rock that system too much.

I wouldn't do it, but that's just me.

Solid morals. I was definitely thinking the C word but I didnt wanna break it out just yet.

I 100% endorse this post.

[Chuk]

Just so I am understanding this... You trade James Neal, Yandle and Gardiner for Eberle and Schultz and a 2nd. Then on draft day you trade the 2nd back for Gardiner?It is really hard to tell without names. I do not understand what is in it for teh other gm unless you replace Neal with Stamkos?
Am I missing something? You only protect 4?

[Wallbanger]

Sorry for the confusion didn't want to put players in but will detail now so everyone can understand

I trade Barrie and Elliot for 2 scrappers I don't keep and a 6th round pick (keep 13 draft 10) then

at the draft I receive elliot back for a 10th rounder

so why do I do this?

He gets the best of the deal no question but he is rebuilding. He would keep 12 of his guys and Elliot for me. I have too many keepers and Barrie will get me the value I want. Why because I replace barrie with sekera who I couldn't keep if I kept barrie, I have KArlson and OEL in salary CAP league, they are the 2 I am kepping for the long haul hard too keep expensive D in a salry CAP league value is tough to achieve and barrie if he stays the course will get paid

I could get a second round pick for him straight up but I want Elliot back as I will protect Andersen and Allen and I want the stlouis or Anaheim tandem I have all 4 goalies now, so

I value getting Elliot back more than a second round pick for many reasons, and he doesn't have to give up a second for barrie instead

he ditches his 13th keeper who will be scrap, he is rebuilding,
a 6th round pick
and protects Elliot for me instead of

Its a complete steal for him but im ok with it because I am also very happy with it

So does this pass the smell test? Again it does not break any rules and I have asked the 2 commishes to rule on as Im not interested in a headache just want to keep the pool BS free

As I have all 4 Anaheim and st Louis goalies Elliot could be Gibson if I decide to go that route

[MJFP]

I'm even more confused now, write it down like the "recent tansactions" page on your website would after they had both been done.

[petegreg21]

I'm even more confused now, write it down like the "recent tansactions" page on your website would after they had both been done.

Yes, please...