I have a question for the league, and I would love to see as many opinions on this as possible:
Should trade negotiations be implicitly allowed during the no-trade period?
"Negotiations" should be defined for such a question...negotiations in this instance would constitute saying something to the regards of "
I like Player X, who would you want in return?" or even getting to an agreement of "
I will trade you Player X in return for Player Y + ______".
To start things off I will give my opinion...I don't believe it is fair to the spirit of the no-trade period because it gives an unfair advantage to the owners in negotiation. The advantage I feel that is given is that of a longer negotiation window that not all owners have the same explicit rights. In other words, if two owners are engaged in negotiations I don't consider it fair to the other 10 owners, who are seemingly unaware such negotiations are allowed to occur.
In professional sports these types of conversations are called collusion, to the best of my understanding of the term.
But, that is just MY opinion of such negotiations, and I would like to know what others think.
Is it fair if (as an example) I negotiate a trade for Adrian Peterson before every other owner KNOWS they are allowed to make the same types of negotiations for that player? Would it then be fair if my trade for Peterson is announced immediately after the trade period opens, making it impossible for other owners to begin their own negotiations for Peterson within the time frame of the trade period?
So, please share your opinions, I'm interested to hear what others think (especially if you disagree with me
).
I agree that an arrangement during the no-trade period is unfair, but it is very hard to contain those agreements.
If player A contacts player B for an trade offer, there is no way to prevent it.
How do you think this should be verified?
How should it be punished?
I have no answer to above questions...
I agree with Uwe, there is no possibility to prevent private conversation between two owners and I think, this is not unfair. Everyone can ask an another for a trade, you just can't fullfill it in the no-trade-period.
That inability to prevent it is exactly why it's a gray area in REAL sports, so I have no idea how to do so in fantasy sports. I also have little or no idea how to punish/regulate said situations.
However, the point is not to regulate the negotiations, but rather to explicitly mark them as illegal or legal so that every owner is bound by their own morals if they make such agreements. You cannot enforce an honor code, but typically such an explicit restriction WILL be honored by the majority of owners.
There is no way to stop someone from doing such a negotiation, and I think attempting to stifle conversations about trades/players of interest is overboard, but I do think such situations should be specified as to being legal or illegal within the SPIRIT of the no-trade period.
Negotiations are not illegal, the sense behind the rule is to not allow owners to trade (and maybe help others) in the last season period or during the playoffs. To make plans for the next season is allowed and also negotiations about future trades.
Hi Chris,
I already told you my opinion. I don't see a problem with that. You cannot control it and every law you can't control is a gray area.
In addition, trade talks are the most fascinating things in fantasy. Why should we exclude this part for a couple of month.
And if the Adrian Peterson owner is stupid enough to promise his player to someone before checking other owners what they would offer, its on him.
I don't have a problem with trade talks in the no-trade period.
By the way. Where in the rule is it marked when the no-trade period ends. Is it with the end of the season on dec. 27th?
schingeldi schrieb:Hi Chris,
I already told you my opinion. I don't see a problem with that. You cannot control it and every law you can't control is a gray area.
In addition, trade talks are the most fascinating things in fantasy. Why should we exclude this part for a couple of month.
And if the Adrian Peterson owner is stupid enough to promise his player to someone before checking other owners what they would offer, its on him.
I don't have a problem with trade talks in the no-trade period.
By the way. Where in the rule is it marked when the no-trade period ends. Is it with the end of the season on dec. 27th?
You must talk about the owner of Adrian Peterson (CHI)... In the next 3 to 5 years I am not planning to trade him ;-)
I can see Chris' point here, that a trade that is negotiated during the non-trade period is a bit unfair to the other owners.
But since we cannot control it and the impcat is not as high I would say we should allow it.
Sorry for writing in German Chris, it`s faster for me :-)
Erstmal sollten die Regeln und die Trade Deadline abgestimmt werden:
Auszug ais den Regeln hier im Forum:
§ 6 TEAMMANAGEMENT
5. Trades
Trades sind generell erlaubt, dürfen jedoch nicht während der Playoffs durchgeführt werden.
Verboten sind einseitige Trades, die offensichtlich ein Team stark bevorzugen würden (z.B. ein Team in den Playoffs). Verdächtige Trades müssen den Commishs gemeldet werden.
Ein Spieler, der im Rahmen eines Trades das eigene Team verlassen hat, darf in der selben Saison nicht zurückgetradet werden.
Auszug aus den Regeln in der Engine:
§ 6 TEAMMANAGEMENT
5. Trades
Trades sind generell erlaubt, dürfen jedoch nur während der Regular Season stattfinden.
Verboten sind einseitige Trades, die offensichtlich ein Team stark bevorzugen würden (z.B. ein Team in den Playoffs). Verdächtige Trades müssen den Commishs gemeldet werden.
Ein Spieler, der im Rahmen eines Trades das eigene Team verlassen hat, darf in der selben Saison nicht zurückgetradet werden.
Trade Deadline in der Engine:
No trades can be made after the trade deadline of 11:59 pm et 11/18/09.
Das ist noch vor dem Ende der Regular Season.
Was gilt denn aktuell?
No problem, I use my trusty friend Google Translate to take care of the details
I see what you're saying about the discrepancy...was the deadline the 18th (as the engines says) or the league playoffs (as the rules state)?
As for the legality, as I said in my previous post it's not about making it illegal, but rather making it KNOWN if it's legal or illegal by explicitly mentioning it in the rules. Since the commissioner feels it should be legal because it doesn't break the rule of trades, that's RATHER official to me. My preference of course is to see it in writing, just so there is no question about such gray areas in the future.
So, who wants to send me some players or picks??
Another thought regarding this topic (trades)...we have a "trade block" section on the engine, but do you think it would be wise to have an "untouchable" list somewhere on the forum so owners can make it known publicly that I shouldn't bother them about Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, etc?
ok, we can start a new thread "untouchable players" for each season.
Zu der Regel: Im Prinzip steht ja bei beiden das gleiche drin, aber Du hast Recht, unsere Deadline stand schon vor den Playoffs, das war aber gewollt, damit Teams mit keiner Aussicht auf Playoffs anderen Teams, die wahrscheinlich in die Playoffs kommen werden, durch Trades "helfen" können. Wir werden die Regel für diese Saison so lassen (eine Änderung zu diesem Zeitpunkt ist nicht sinnvoll), aber werden das in der kommenden Saison besonders beachten.
Gruß!