Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Can't Trade" Clauses

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    "Can't Trade" Clauses

    Now that it looks like the whole "No Crawford to the Yankees" thing has been shown to be a misunderstanding of the contract language, can we take out the Yankee-Red Sox element and discuss the concept?

    It strikes me that if in one of my fantasy leagues I agreed to trade Carl Crawford to Team X with the side agreement that at no time could they trade him to Team Y and the rest of the league found out we'd be having a rather large and heated discussion about just what constitutes collusion.

    Thoughts? If it is collusion for the purposes of fantasy (is it?), then is it legit at the MLB level? Is it bad/good/neutral for the game? Would it limit competition?
    "There is involved in this struggle the question whether your children and my children shall enjoy the privileges we have enjoyed. I say this in order to impress upon you, if you are not already so impressed, that no small matter should divert us from our great purpose. "

    Abraham Lincoln, from his Address to the Ohio One Hundred Sixty Fourth Volunteer Infantry
    Tags: None
  • #2
    As if the Red Sox and yankees would ever make a damn trade

    In your scenario, I don't see anything being illegal there but if the new team turns around and trades the player to the undesirable team anyhow, I'm not going to get involved as a customer.

    Comment

    • #3
      Obviously I think it is a terrible precedent to set, regardless of the teams involved. The Red Sox are free to never make a trade with the Yankees and vice versa and they pretty much never do or will, and that is fine. But for the Red Sox to tell the Angels they can't trade someone to the Yankees, that is not fine, that is collusion. Once a transaction is complete, the pieces should belong to their new teams with no strings attached. One team should not be able to dictate how another team handles their resources. If the Red Sox trade Crawford to the Angels and the Yanks then offer CC, Gardner, and Montero for Crawford, the Angels shouldn't have to say, "Sorry, the Red Sox won't let us."
      Some people say winning isn't everything. I say those people never won anything.

      Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.

      The last thing I want to do is hurt you...but it's still on the list.

      Some people are like Slinkies, they are not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

      "...relentless inevitability of Yankee glory." - The Onion

      Comment

      • #4
        Originally posted by Moonlight J View Post
        As if the Red Sox and yankees would ever make a damn trade

        In your scenario, I don't see anything being illegal there but if the new team turns around and trades the player to the undesirable team anyhow, I'm not going to get involved as a customer.
        The Yankees are Undesirable?
        If I whisper my wicked marching orders into the ether with no regard to where or how they may bear fruit, I am blameless should a broken spirit carry those orders out upon the innocent, for it was not my hand that took the action merely my lips which let slip their darkest wish. ~Daniel Devereaux 2011

        Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
        Martin Luther King, Jr.

        Comment

        • #5
          It seems the easier route would be to include a clause that the salary doubles if traded to New York. I don't know the law but it seems the "you can't trade him to the Yankees" shouldn't be enforceable.

          Comment

          • #6
            The Packers did something like this when they traded to Favre to the Jets:

            Schefter also reports that the Packers took great pains to ensure Favre would not be traded to the Vikings -- or any other NFC North team -- by inserting a "poison pill" in the deal. If Favre were to be traded to any team in the Packers' division, the Jets would have to surrender three first-round picks to Green Bay. The trade also includes provisions preventing a trade to another team if that new team were to trade him to the NFC North.
            NFL.com | Official Site of the National Football League
            http://www.nfl.com/news/story?confirm=true&id=09000d5d809ccdb9&template=with-video
            The official source for NFL news, video highlights, fantasy football, game-day coverage, schedules, stats, scores and more.

            Comment

            • #7
              why is this no-trade clause such a big deal, when every star player has a no-trade clause of his own put into his contract? It seems like a pretty novel idea to me (had it actually happened) -- Crawford wanted to play for the Sox to get the money he wanted and to be a contender, and in return, the Sox eliminate the Yankees from ever acquiring him. Clearly the Sox think pretty highly of his talents.

              In the business world, these sorts of deals happen all the time with top talent -- they're called non-compete clauses.

              Comment

              • #8
                No way would I allow that kind of clause in a league. And it shouldn't be allowed in real life, to be honest.

                Comment

                • #9
                  I've always felt that any "understandings" in a fantasy trade were against league policy and therefore unenforcable. Whether they are still made privately I cannot tell but I would consider most to be collusive.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    My main league bans any "future considerations" from being part of a trade, and this kind of thing would certainly fall under that.
                    Originally posted by Kevin Seitzer
                    We pinch ran for Altuve specifically to screw over Mith's fantasy team.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Originally posted by revo View Post
                      In the business world, these sorts of deals happen all the time with top talent -- they're called non-compete clauses.
                      Yeah, let's eliminate all competition in sports.

                      ETA: Player no-trade clauses are all about leverage and controlling their own destiny, they are not an effort to influence the level of competition.
                      Last edited by TopChuckie; 02-01-2011, 02:27 PM.
                      Some people say winning isn't everything. I say those people never won anything.

                      Quitters never win, winners never quit, but those who never win AND never quit are idiots.

                      The last thing I want to do is hurt you...but it's still on the list.

                      Some people are like Slinkies, they are not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

                      "...relentless inevitability of Yankee glory." - The Onion

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X