Gimmick Trades

[SuperMario]

Agreed. I run a league and am booting up a second in the fall, and conditional picks is just a can of worms not opening at all - this thread shows why.

[Mr. Guru]

I wish fantrax had an option that lets you 'freeze' assets.

[SuperMario]

I wish fantrax had an option that lets you 'freeze' assets.

Oh man that would be so perfect...

[kevinsrangers]

the picks should be frozen. you can't trade something you don't outright own. this is how our league is run.

[olafson1393]

Totally agree with Moses. You are the commissioner of a new league. I would actually ask to have you removed as commissioner and I would not want to be in a league where this type of deal is allowed.

As commissioner you must be beyond reproach. Your league will not last long if integrity is not maintained.

Thanks a little extreme, don't you think? I think it was a good lesson for us all, we closed a loophole in the constitution. Totally understand now and in hindsight, would not have let it fly, of course, but to crucify me after one flop, I feel like that's a little trigger happy.

[Moses]

Totally agree with Moses. You are the commissioner of a new league. I would actually ask to have you removed as commissioner and I would not want to be in a league where this type of deal is allowed.

As commissioner you must be beyond reproach. Your league will not last long if integrity is not maintained.

I feel the same way Blackaces. I would not want to be in a league where this was allowed.

If I was in a Dynasty/Keeper league where the Commissioner made a trade like that for the playoffs I would finish out the season and move on. I don't understand how you can possible argue that this trade," "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", is anything but collusion.

[olafson1393]

I feel the same way Blackaces. I would not want to be in a league where this was allowed.

If I was in a Dynasty/Keeper league where the Commissioner made a trade like that for the playoffs I would finish out the season and move on. I don't understand how you can possible argue that this trade," "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", is anything but collusion.

Understandable. If I had simply moved on myself and done nothing to mitigate the wrong doing. I did though, and in fact made clear to the league that it was an error in judgement for allowing the trade in the first place.

The trade was never intended as "collusion" from the get go, from my perspective. I failed to consider the ethical ramifications of the structure, and simply considered whether or not we were both giving up something of value - obviously wrong, and not enough as commissioner, though I thought I did a pretty good job in immediately correcting the error

[chuckcouples]

the picks should be frozen. you can't trade something you don't outright own. this is how our league is run.

While this makes sense, I am pretty sure this is not true in the NHL. There was one trade near this year's deadlines (I can't remember which one nor do I have the time to search for it) where one of the teams had a conditional pick in the trade that they do not actually own. I think it was a conditional 2nd round pick in a year that they do not own a 2nd. What would happen if the condition is met is that the team would need to acquire the missing asset before the draft.

I apologize for being so vague in this but I am sure someone will search for it and find it.

[Moses]

Understandable. If I had simply moved on myself and done nothing to mitigate the wrong doing. I did though, and in fact made clear to the league that it was an error in judgement for allowing the trade in the first place.

The trade was never intended as "collusion" from the get go, from my perspective. I failed to consider the ethical ramifications of the structure, and simply considered whether or not we were both giving up something of value - obviously wrong, and not enough as commissioner, though I thought I did a pretty good job in immediately correcting the error

I agree - you we're upfront about your actions and that speaks volumes. Thumbs up.

[blackaces]

Thanks a little extreme, don't you think? I think it was a good lesson for us all, we closed a loophole in the constitution. Totally understand now and in hindsight, would not have let it fly, of course, but to crucify me after one flop, I feel like that's a little trigger happy.

But you say you went ahead after Negotiations wit the other owner and you said you were unsure about accepting the trade because it might not be enough to help you significantly in the playoffs.

Two questions for you-
1. If it had been a more significant return for you, say Patrick Kane or Mcdavid or even Kane plus Mcdavid, would you have proceeded with the veto process?
2. At what point did you realize that the trade might be unethical and/or harm league integrity

Anyway I'm glad it was a positive learning experience and your league has closed the loophole.

[brett_c_b]

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.

I love conditional deals because I'm a bit of schemer and always thinking of the angles, no different than how I manage my staff at work. I try find creative solutions to get what I want. Sometimes I suggest deals the other teams think are too complicated, but I think those are the most fun.

The last deal I completed was before this season I was close to landing Werenski when the other guy started getting cold feet. He had injury concerns about the player he was getting back. So I offered "health insurance" on that player in the form of a conditional pick based on games played. Later when it looked like that could end up costing me a 1st or 2nd round pick I reacquired the pick in another deal. As it stands today that pick is looking like it would have ended up being my 3rd round pick.

Also in terms of killing leagues, this league has been running for 26 years.So conditional trades exist here and haven't killed it. Some have ended up lopsided, but generally because someone made a bad deal, not because of collusion. I took over a tire fire of a team and it's taken 4 years of shrewd trades and drafting to be a contender (keep 27, had basically no players of value when I took over my team, and no in season pickups. So draft is the only time other than trades to add players). I'm in 3rd taking a run at 2nd after being in the basement every other season.

[Mr. Guru]

Pretty sure my league has made a condition that included games played as well. More than once.

It's fine and dandy when it all works out but when a GM trades a pick that was in the condition is when shit hits the fan. This happened in my league once and the GM was force to get that pick back. Of course he paid an arm and a leg for it.

There should be a condition on the condition that if you trade the pick in the condition I will get your first round pick in the new set of draft picks that come out every summer. That is perfect. I'm definitely proposing that in my next conditional trade.

*if a GM doesn't own the picks in the condition by draft day the other GM woll receive his 1st round pick the new year of draft picks.

But what happens if that conditional pick is more valuable than a first rounder in x years? Or what happens if BOTH gms trade the pick?

Conditional trades are the worst because there's definitely no gray area. But that's what makes them fun. Anything to promote trading while keeping the integrity of the league is alright in my books. This is our 9th season. Minor hiccups with conditional trades. They always work out. And if they don't it's an event that we can talk about for 5+ years.

"remember when so and so paid up the ass to get his 3rd back in that conditional trade? "

"haha yeah. What an idiot"

[brett_c_b]

At one point I traded my 3rd round pick thinking the conditional pick I was giving up was my 1st or 2nd. When I realized there was still a chance that trade would end up being my 3rd that I traded away I was going to happily give up my 2nd round because it was my screw up. Then I got the pick back trading a player I'm not keeping who never makes my lineup.

[als_revenge]

Thanks a little extreme, don't you think? I think it was a good lesson for us all, we closed a loophole in the constitution. Totally understand now and in hindsight, would not have let it fly, of course, but to crucify me after one flop, I feel like that's a little trigger happy.

I think most of the "extreme" reactions are from veteran fantasy managers...generally, people who have been around the block don't have time for green/newby type commissioners. It would not surprise me at all if less experienced fantasy managers were much more forgiving while you (and they) are learning the ropes.

In terms of conditions trades, one league I'm in used to have them....but it got banned after someone tried to pull a....I'll trade you x,y now for this pick, then you trade them back for a better pick in the offseason. (It was a playoff team trying to load up from a non-playoff team). Clearly collusion.

It's too bad because I had done a number of legit conditional trades in the past. One thing that has not been mentioned: I always structured my conditional trades so that the condition was attached to the pick.

Example: I trade away player X and obtain player Y. If player Y gets 80 points, my 2nd round pick goes to the other GM.

I forget the exactly language I used, but it was made clear that it's my 2nd round pick that moves REGARDLESS if I own the pick or not. That means if I trade the pick away, whoever obtains it is aware of the trade condition that is attached to it, and realizes that they could lose that pick. While this lowers the value of my 2nd round pick, it doesn't force me to hold on to it all year or handcuff me in any way.

And true story: in the McDavid draft year, I had two first round picks. I traded the lower one away, but with a trade condition on it that if that lower pick won the lottery, I could re-obtain that pick for my other 1st rounder. The lower pick got traded around a few times. And sure enough, that lower pick won the McDavid lottery, and I then executed the trade condition to get McDavid.

While it's not everyone's cup of tea, I like conditional trades because - when done properly - it facilitates trades that otherwise would not happen. There is NO way I'd trade a first round pick in a McDavid draft year. The one I traded away had a very small chance of winning the lottery, but I wouldn't have moved it. But using a conditional trade, I was comfortable dealing it away. And everyone who acquired that pick subsequently was aware that if it won the lottery, I had the right to switch 1st rounders with them...

[STONE.]

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

Except for the conditional trades that are done without being explicitly declared. We had this in our league a few years ago where our commish dealt his goalie to another for the playoffs, on the condition he got him back.

This is a tough issue to write rules for. But it sucks. And as commish, I think you've got to be the most honorable and not set this kind of precedent (which I think you did by requesting the veto and making it clear). At least now, everyone knows the rule.