Gimmick Trades

[olafson1393]

Yesterday was the trade deadline in my points only keeper league. The day was slow but it?s the first season for this league so I thought a lot of guys were probably still just feeling things out, and for the most part have already slid into a spot they are comfortable finishing the season with.



A few hours before the deadline, an owner approached me and offered me his Nicklas Backstrom for my second rounder, Chris Tierney and Nick Schmaltz, with the condition that once playoffs are over, I trade him Backstrom back for nothing. Before engaging, I considered the legality of this type of trade in our league constitution. It didn?t violate any rules, and it was doable with the confines of the league. What I didn?t consider was the ethical outcome that the trade could have, or the impact that it could have on the integrity of the league. The price was too steep for me to begin with to acquire Backstrom for only a couple of months, because I?m not confident in my teams playoff abilities this year anyways, but after some negotiations I announced the trade (as commissioner). Several other owners approached me about it, and this morning I released a survey to veto the trades within the confines of the constitution (30% + veto?s a trade). The other owner is pissed that the trade was vetoed and defends himself saying that each of us was getting what we wanted in the deal and that there was no rule against it.



Aside from vetoing, what can a commissioner do to prevent trades like this, or other kinds of gimmicky trades? What other kinds of gimmick trades have you guys had?

[Eskimo Brother]

I have to say, I hate trades like that. It undermines the whole point of everything, and it's completely unethical.
A trade should be made to build your team, not to rent a player who then goes back to the original team when the season is over. If you have to check in the rules to see if a move is viable, then I think you already know that what you're doing is not kosher.
The way to deal with trades like this is to flat out not have collusion like this allowed. I wouldn't want to be in a league where GMs are just trying to skirt around the rules the whole time, and colluding with others to do it. At that point it becomes who is the better lawyer, not who is the better (luckier?) fantasy player.

[lucafen4]

Impose a penalty if a player is traded back after the season for nothing or dirt cheap - forfeit pick(s) etc. Increase their buy in would be another idea if it's a pay league

And change their team name. - public shaming

[Schneider]

Well, you are the commissioner in this case, so it's you that sets out the rules and regulations that the league shall abide by. I would say that it's a creative maneuver on the other owner's part, but at the same time, it's a slippery slope kind of trade in terms of having trade conditions that could have long term ramifications on the league. I think how someone conducts themselves as a member of a league and as the commissioner of the league differs greatly, and that your conduct sets the example for everyone else.

I don't like the trade simply for the potential conversation it opens up that one buddy is helping out the other for his playoffs, regardless if there is any truth to the matter or not. As the commissioner, just say no next time. At the very least, you needed to open up the forum for other owners of the league to voice their opinion.

I have had one "conditional" trade in my lifetime. The stipulation was that the trade was to be put through at the end of the season, rather than at the moment the trade was agreed upon. The manager had to finish last in the league to secure the 1st overall for the trade to go through as well. I was not the commissioner of the league, but we both inquired about the legality of the trade, and requested that the league vote on whether the trade could be allowed to go through. We both voiced our reasons for the trade, and ultimately the trade was put through conditionally.

[SuperMario]

I'll echo others here - hate this kind of trade. Unethical in my mind. What's to stop two friends in the league from splitting the money after stacking one team that's going to the playoffs?

Now, if there was no deal to trade Backstrom back to him in the summer, but it organically happened - that's different. But agreeing to that aspect ahead of time ruins it.

[als_revenge]

If you wanted to win the league, why didn't you insist on getting every single player from the other GM? Helps you stack up for the playoffs, and helps him tank. Then trade the whole team back to him for nothing in the off season. Why stop at one player? I mean, if you are going to cheat and destroy the credibility of your league, why do such a half @ssed job of it?

In your set up, in a McDavid draft year, on day 1 I'd trade my entire team to somebody else on the condition that they trade me back the entire team plus a player to be named later lol

[nickchau2000]

We have a rule in our league for this exact reason (and I admit, I took advantage of it before we put a rule in). All players moved in a trade cannot be re-acquired by the original team until following the next draft.

Now, we haven't really discussed or needed to (because the situation hasn't arisen), where a 3rd team is involved. ie) Team A trades Skater1 to Team B. Team B trades Skater1 to Team C. And Team C wants to trade skater1 to Team A.

So there could still be roundabout loopholes, but it does essentially eliminate that rental type of trade.

[LawMan]

As others have said I don't think trades with future conditions, especially a "trade-back" should be allowed. IMO, the spirit of fantasy hockey is that your team owns a player until you: trade him, drop him or fail to declare him a keeper. When you start to mess with that absolute ownership and get backroom deals happening the league can fall apart fast. Further, the other owners are at a disadvantage (if the trade-back is kept secret) because they don't have the full story in front of them.
Conditional picks for things happening are fine so long as they're spelled out in the trade (although they can create their own problems) but

Further, if there is any type of limit on keepers than the trade could be messing with the alloted keeper limits, which are put in place for good reason (to promote player turnover and some parity).

I will give you full credit for advising your league of the entire deal up-front. I don't like the specific deal or the ability to do it in the future but if the majority of the league was OK with the deal then perhaps it should stand.

Be wary the slippery slope and the guy in last place next year trading his 2(3? 10?) best players for a 1st rounder and all his own players back after the season. Both teams "get what they want" in a such a deal but in a rather unfair manner IMO.

[Mr. Guru]

Although I don't agree with the integrity of this trade but I do think future conditions on trades have their place in fantasy hockey

For example, in my league this year I gave up some players and a pick for Marchand; with a condition that if Marchand gets +80 points that pick turns into a better pick.

[Eskimo Brother]

Although I don't agree with the integrity of this trade but I do think future conditions on trades have their place in fantasy hockey.

For example, in my league this year I gave up some players and a pick for Marchand; with a condition that if Marchand gets +80 points that pick turns into a better pick.

Conditional deals like that, or even deals with a player to be named later, when outlined and executed correctly, can make a league even more interesting. Conditions never feel like you're trying to circumvent something though, so I don't see any problem with them as long as they are properly documented.

[kevinsrangers]

you need to come up with a rule book. dobber has a few examples. I could send you ours(it's very detailed). every year you need to add or subtract rules due to issues that may have come up. maybe not just got as commissioner but as a group. trades like this should never be allowed and shouldn't have to be vetoed. as a commish you should explain that although still within the rules it undermines the league. then a rule needs to be made squashing the idea.
something like saying no futures allowed in trades could help.

[kevinsrangers]

guru's trade would be ok in our league as it stays true to the integrity of the league.
a manger our or league made a deal like this but had a different pick to give away for a few different milestones a player he received got. it really handcuffed him , as he then had to keep all his picks because he didn't know which one he'd be giving up. he wanted to trade all his picks as he was gunning for the win. so you need to be careful when you add futures in a trade. lol.

[Ingolo]

Although I don't agree with the integrity of this trade but I do think future conditions on trades have their place in fantasy hockey

For example, in my league this year I gave up some players and a pick for Marchand; with a condition that if Marchand gets +80 points that pick turns into a better pick.

This is pretty much the only "conditional" type deal I'd be ok with, especially in a keeper or dynasty. Sure, in the NHL GMs can use future considerations as an element of a trade (which to me always says they'll make a favourable deal in the future), but that's a lot harder to manage in fantasy leagues. Who sets the value of the future considerations? And, like others have said a bunch, what's to stop you from tanking under the guise of getting those future considerations?

At the end of the day, the biggest reason we're in our fantasy leagues is to find enjoyment, so moves we make and rules we follow have to be set up along the lines of protecting everyone's enjoyment in your league.

[Moses]

No conditional trades. Black and white law. No grey area. No loop holes.

[olafson1393]

Thanks for all of the constructive feedback so far guys! Please excuse my lack of paragraphing in this reply as my work computer is currently giving me issues typing as soon as I enter onto a new line. I agree with and appreciate practically everything that has been said so far. I definitely should have considered the ethical side of this before allowing it to go through myself. The examples that everyone had given are perfect reasons why this kind of thing shouldn't fly in any league, and how it could be severely abused.