Trade abuse?? What to do?

[rprp2015]

I've been in the same one-year league with a bunch of buddies for the past 2/3 years, so we thought it would be fun to try a basic keeper this year. The rules are pretty simple, owners can keep 2 players, but will lose that corresponding draft pick in the upcoming draft (e.g., I drafted Crosby in round 1 and if I elect to keep him, I lose my first round pick in the draft).

I also allowed draft pick trades. Unfortunately, a couple trades went down today that I think abuse the rules. I'm not sure whether to allow them, put it to a league vote, or just outright veto. I'm interested in hearing what the Dobber community thinks since I'm new to keeper leagues.

Trade 1:

2nd Place Team		Out of Playoffs
Nick Foligno Dion Phaneuf Devan Dubnyk 2015 Draft Picks Round 9 Round 12	q	Sean Monahan Kevin Klein Jhonas Enroth 2015 Draft Picks Round 2 Round 4

Trade 2: The owner made this deal in direct response to the above trade, first crying about it and then deciding "if you can't beat them, join them"

Out of Playoffs		3rd Place Team
Brock Nelson Marco Scandella Jeff Skinner 2015 Draft Picks Round 2 Round 6		Patrick Kane Scott Hartnell Keith Yandle 2015 Draft Picks Round 13 Round 14

Normally, I'm against vetoing deals in the absence of clear collusion, but I'm tempted to put the ax to all trades involving draft picks. In fact, I'd like to suspend the above 4 teams from making any trades for the rest of the year. (If I want to channel my inner Gary Bettman, I should penalize them draft picks, too lol). I'd appreciate any thoughts/advice.

[newfcollins]

First off, you can't put a penalty of not allowing the teams to make trades the rest of the year. That's completely unfair.

In the first trade, what was the second draft pick? It just says "Round" without a number.

Truthfully, I have no issues with either trade. The first trade, the guy gave up top picks next year to win now. I do deals like that all the time in my NFL pool (keep three).

In the second deal, the guy out of the playoffs got Patrick Kane. If that's a keeper for him, and it's an upgrade, it's not that bad a deal (although I don't like the other guy getting a second rounder).

Overall though, I don't think either trade is bad.

But if you give a penalty of them not allowed to make any trades, you'll have a mutiny.

[rprp2015]

First off, you can't put a penalty of not allowing the teams to make trades the rest of the year. That's completely unfair.

In the first trade, what was the second draft pick? It just says "Round" without a number.

Truthfully, I have no issues with either trade. The first trade, the guy gave up top picks next year to win now. I do deals like that all the time in my NFL pool (keep three).

In the second deal, the guy out of the playoffs got Patrick Kane. If that's a keeper for him, and it's an upgrade, it's not that bad a deal (although I don't like the other guy getting a second rounder).

Overall though, I don't think either trade is bad.

But if you give a penalty of them not allowed to make any trades, you'll have a mutiny.

Thanks for the input! I mixed up the two teams for trade 2, it has been corrected.

I agree with you that banning trades is drafic, meant it more tongue-and-cheek. I just don't like collusion/abuse/etc. and draft pick trades are uncharted territory for me as a comish. I want to be fair. Again, if these types of trades are indicative of a normal keeper league, I'm all for them.

I just think it smells fishy, stacking your team this year by trading picks. Especially since the owner's trading the 'good' players haven't been trying and may leave the league next year.

[newfcollins]

I'm not in a hockey pool with this few keepers, but as I mentioned, they happen all the time in my football pool. For example, this year I traded my first, third and Geno Smith for a sixth, ninth and Matthew Stafford.

Basically, the teams that are really bad this year will be awesome next year since they will have a few high picks plus two great keepers.

[audiopile]

Maybe these kinds of trades are happening as a by-product of your keeper rule that takes away the corresponding draft pick? Looks like your league has found a loophole
Not sure you can do much this year, maybe revisit the rules for next season.

[Atomic Wedgy]

What are the rules regarding veto and/or the commish approving trades?

[fantasyhockeygeek]

Those are solid win-win trades. The teams that are out of it this year end up with a HUGE depth advantage next year. The teams that are serious about pushing for a title this year essentially trade in their legit shot at next year, because in a league with so few keepers, early-round depth matters a ton. This is classic keeper league stuff, nothing fishy going on here.

One of the best strategies in any keeper league is to punt one season to have a better shot at another one. This is simply that.

For the teams that are out of it this year, this is a way for them to get picks. That's all they're after. There's nothing wrong with that! Good trades are not about even exchange of player value... they're about making your team better when you want it to be better.

The teams that traded their good players this year now have an extra player on their team in the 10-20 range (assuming it's a 10-team league) next year. That's making something (a better shot next year) from nothing (their shot at this year).

I honestly can't see how anyone would have a problem with these trades.

[kevinsrangers]

Trade raping is worse than tanking. My biggest pet peave. it seems if you can't beat em you have to join em.
other wise you'll sit by and watch teams get fleeced and your real competition will gain, gain, gain.
I'd be really interested in what other leagues do. Great thread.
realistically those trades are bad but not terrible. Imo.

[rprp2015]

What are the rules regarding veto and/or the commish approving trades?

We have a league vote

Those are solid win-win trades. The teams that are out of it this year end up with a HUGE depth advantage next year. The teams that are serious about pushing for a title this year essentially trade in their legit shot at next year, because in a league with so few keepers, early-round depth matters a ton. This is classic keeper league stuff, nothing fishy going on here.

One of the best strategies in any keeper league is to punt one season to have a better shot at another one. This is simply that.

For the teams that are out of it this year, this is a way for them to get picks. That's all they're after. There's nothing wrong with that! Good trades are not about even exchange of player value... they're about making your team better when you want it to be better.

The teams that traded their good players this year now have an extra player on their team in the 10-20 range (assuming it's a 10-team league) next year. That's making something (a better shot next year) from nothing (their shot at this year).

I honestly can't see how anyone would have a problem with these trades.

it's a 14-team league. my main concern is maintaining fairness, as long as trades seem reasonable/devoid of collusion, i'm happy. the teams trading for picks still have decent chances of making the playoffs, i just don't want to see a league where half of the teams punt. this is exactly why i decided to post, to get the input of others who understand keeper strategy more than i do.

Trade raping is worse than tanking. My biggest pet peave. it seems if you can't beat em you have to join em.
other wise you'll sit by and watch teams get fleeced and your real competition will gain, gain, gain.
I'd be really interested in what other leagues do. Great thread.
realistically those trades are bad but not terrible. Imo.

i couldn't agree more. i think there's going to be an arm's race now. i'm currently in 1st place, but i'm still hesitant to give up picks, want to be competitive next year. in a league with only two keepers, there is less of a need to "rebuild" imo.

[Thunder]

[QUOTE=rprp2015;1434079
i couldn't agree more. i think there's going to be an arm's race now. i'm currently in 1st place, but i'm still hesitant to give up picks, want to be competitive next year. in a league with only two keepers, there is less of a need to "rebuild" imo.[/QUOTE]


So... Basically you're not sure you have the stomach to do what your opponents are doing and you want people to tell you it's okay to change the rules 2/3 of the way into the season instead?

Rule changes should occur during the off season.

[Axeman33]

The first trade was a good trade in my eyes.

The second one was a bit tougher to stomach maybe because I am not overly high on Skinner and Nelson has certainly lost a lot of his lustre.

You say you have a league vote in regards to veto's, so let the majority rule, if thats the way your league rules setup. If the rules allow these deals to go through than there is little you can do about it.

[fantasyhockeygeek]

It's a keeper league. Not every team will gun for the title every year. That's fine.

I would much rather be a bottom feeder one year and win the next than come in second or third two years in a row. That's a personal preference that each GM will have, and I think it makes for a very unhealthy league if you don't let them exercise that choice.

[newfcollins]

You can go for it and still be competitive next season if you can draft well. Two years ago, I was an expansion team in my football pool, went for it and came fourth. Cost me a bunch of picks to upgrade those three keepers and make a move. This past season, I did the same, and came second, and only lost because my players didn't show up for the Monday night game (I had an eight-point lead going into that game).

So the guys who are going for it, don't count them out for next season just because they don't have their top few picks. It's harder to do in hockey, but still doable.

Basically, just let the owners run their teams the way they see fit. If you don't want to make those kinds of trades, you don't have to. But you shouldn't stop others from doing the same.

Also, has any one else in the league complained about this? One thing I notice is that you are concerned, but you're in first. So you have a vested interest in not letting these teams catch up to you. If you were in ninth spot, would you feel the same?

[LawMan]

These trades are perfectly rational and are a direct result of your keeper rules. My league has very similar rules, and they lead to boom/bust cycles.

Back to your trades. Trade #1 contains no keepers IMO, its a straight upgrade this year as Foligno > Monahan, Phaneuf (likely) > Klein, Dubnyk >>> Enroth.

However an extra 2nd and 4th rounder is absolutely huge in what is 90% a 1-year league. That's likely at least 1 and possibly 2 extra 70 point players.

The 2nd deal is very much the same, team winning gets a BIG upgrade, team missing playoffs gets BIG picks. Kane may be a keeper or he may not be, depends how everything shakes out.

In sum this is a case of "Don't hate the player hate the game (rules)". The 4 managers involved in these deals all made great plays for their teams. The rules are very unique and crafty managers will realize that they can change player values dramatically. You absolutely have no ground to veto these deals. It will likely take a few years for managers to understand the intricacies how these rules affect player value and how to maximize it. If after review you don't like what the rules do to the league you can take a proposed new rule to the league for vote. However, at this point any changes will likely not be able to take effect until the 2016/17 season.

[rprp2015]

So... Basically you're not sure you have the stomach to do what your opponents are doing and you want people to tell you it's okay to change the rules 2/3 of the way into the season instead?

Rule changes should occur during the off season.

Not at all, I'm not looking for validation. I had no problem with the first deal, but it wasn't until the second one happened that I began to get concerned. It's the first year of the league and these are new waters (sorry to keep repeating myself). And I do agree with you re: rule changes during the off season.

I appreciate all of the input, it has provided much needed levity and perspective. Perhaps I overreacted at first (channeling my inner-David Stern). I was still thinking with a one-year league perspective.

Before next year's draft I'm going to propose increasing the number of keepers to 4 for the following season (e.g., 2 keepers for 2015-16; then 4 keepers for 2016-17).