How does your "only" league handle trades to the "other" league?

[kawaise]

Our local AL-only, 5x5, $260 auction cap, 23-man (no bench), once weekly transactions (except for mid-week activations), keeper league is pretty much old school. With a few rule changes to suit our needs and experiences, we've operated "by the book" (Rotisserie League Baseball) since our inception almost 20 years ago. We used to lose players from our roster immediately when they were traded to the NL. A few years ago, in an attempt to pacify some in the league that wanted to change the rule, our league now allows teams to roster players traded to the NL for up to three transaction periods.

We are once again discussing this rule. The "old guard" stands by the original rule: we are an AL-only league. The "free thinkers" are now pushing to allow to keep players once they've been traded to the NL for the rest of the season, but lose them (regardless of their contract) at the end of the season. Finally, there are some who are trying to take the middle ground (arguing to push the three week transaction period to replace such players to 4 to 6 weeks).

The league has well-defined rules (a 15 page, 7,510 word constitution) and a stable base of owners. This subject won't fracture the group of owners, but the discussion on this subject has brought out definite differences in opinion.

Recognizing the extensive depth of playing experience on this site, not to mention the vast array of personalities, I immediately thought to ask this forum:

How does your "only" league handle trades to the "other" league?

As always, your input is greatly appreciated.

[Judge Jude]

we are a bit of a hybrid

everyone starts with 50 FAAB, and you can only add FAAB $ of the amount you paid for the guy you lose ($5 if you had picked up a FA and then lose him). and the only FAAB players are NL arrivals, so often it's months before any action.

I'm not crazy about this, but the owners love the high stakes involved (in a league where the top prize is not going to change anyone's lifestyle). This year I lost Tulo and a 2-weeks-earlier-trade-add Revere and landed the top spot, and got Cespedes as consolation in FAAB. the guy who lost Carlos Gomez - he got nothing back.

I'd say there are many reasonable approaches, although you'll always have zealots insisting there is only one way. your compromise is just as valid as "tough ditties" or "keep stats til end of season" or our approach or others. really good question, and just put it out to your league and see what they like. as I noted, as Commish our approach would not be my first choice, but it works for these guys and there's no inherent harm done.

[harmon]

We have a compensation method that can sometimes get pretty hairy. In a basic deal like the Chris Johnson to the Indians trade, the AL owner of the higher salary of Bourn or Swisher would get Johnson at the same salary. If he passes then the other owner would get the same opportunity. We've had many issues with this system and might be looking to change it up.

Would love to hear other thoughts on this topic.

[kawaise]

We have a compensation method that can sometimes get pretty hairy. In a basic deal like the Chris Johnson to the Indians trade, the AL owner of the higher salary of Bourn or Swisher would get Johnson at the same salary. If he passes then the other owner would get the same opportunity. We've had many issues with this system and might be looking to change it up.

Would love to hear other thoughts on this topic.

What do you do with bargain players who are traded to the "other" league when no other owners have players traded?

You mentioned that owners get players at the same salary. Am I to assume that these players will have the same contract, too?

I don't suppose there's much compensation when an established big leaguer is traded for prospects.

[hacko]

We keep it simple :::
We keep our players who get traded over to NL until the end of the season . Then we lose them.

We also freeze the players who come over from the NL. We don't do FAAB.

Off season you just lose them.

[Daver]

We keep stats accumulated once they go to the other league. Additionally, these players can no longer be traded internally within our league once they go to the other league, and they are lost to their Roto team come the end of the year.

Our league is founded on the Waggoner/Okrent rule book as well, but we are now in our 27th year (only 3 original members left) and as time passed and everyone saw how hard it is to win really, the implications of losing a $40 bat for example, was just too impactful to justify clinging to the original rules written on the napkin in the restaurant that evening. We therefore decided to opt for altering that rule in favor of maintaining the stats.

We adopted the original Fenokee IP requirement of 900 innings as well, but have since modified that to be 1100. All this to say, change is OK I think.

Daver

[Judge Jude]

the original Rotisserie IP requirement was zero, btw. about 5 years in, they did add a 900 IP requirement. it's irrelevant in 5x5 leagues, really.

[swampdragon]

We do an interesting thing
gone is gone - no more stats - no more player once he is traded
but
we allowed you to FAAB any player during the season regardless of his current status - other league - minors - cuban - little

so the potential of losing a player to the other league was considered but balanced by the idea of speculating on a player coming over and grabbing him cheaply before anyone else

[luckyheel]

Our league allows the owner to continue accumulating stats for the traded player for as long as the owner keeps him on his roster. At the end of the season (or shall I say after the following season keeper declaration) the player cannot be kept. We only do this in the event the player comes back to the original league in the off-season. If he does, as long as the original owner maintained him on his roster, he would be keepable at the same salary he was during the previous season.

The player coming into the league is up for FAAB bidding as any normal FA would be. We do not limit trading of the player leaving the league; however, if the player is dropped, he is NOT available in the FA pool of the league he left.

[Pauly]

we keep it simple. Any player traded to the other league becomes and expiring player. He gets stats til the end of the year. The player can be traded, but if the player is ever dropped, he cannot be claimed off waivers.

To me this is the most democratic of all the rules. It's amazing how punitive fantasy leagues can be about things beyond an owner's control.

[whalewang]

We have a compensation method that can sometimes get pretty hairy. In a basic deal like the Chris Johnson to the Indians trade, the AL owner of the higher salary of Bourn or Swisher would get Johnson at the same salary. If he passes then the other owner would get the same opportunity. We've had many issues with this system and might be looking to change it up.

What do you do with bargain players who are traded to the "other" league when no other owners have players traded?

You mentioned that owners get players at the same salary. Am I to assume that these players will have the same contract, too?

I don't suppose there's much compensation when an established big leaguer is traded for prospects.

We're a 20+ year old NL-only keeper league. We have a similar process, and yes it can get a little messy but it continues to work. If my player gets traded to the other league then I get all the other players coming back in the trade with a $10 salary (because we have a team salary cap) for all the incoming players. At the end of the year, all the players that came over to our league during year are released and put back into the draft.
Where it gets sticky is when multiple owners have different players involved. We force the owners to work out who get what and if they can't agree then it goes to the commish to assign (although the owners always come to an agreement).

[harmon]

Quote Originally Posted by kawaise View Post
What do you do with bargain players who are traded to the "other" league when no other owners have players traded?

You mentioned that owners get players at the same salary. Am I to assume that these players will have the same contract, too?

I don't suppose there's much compensation when an established big leaguer is traded for prospects.

We're a 20+ year old NL-only keeper league. We have a similar process, and yes it can get a little messy but it continues to work. If my player gets traded to the other league then I get all the other players coming back in the trade with a $10 salary (because we have a team salary cap) for all the incoming players. At the end of the year, all the players that came over to our league during year are released and put back into the draft.
Where it gets sticky is when multiple owners have different players involved. We force the owners to work out who get what and if they can't agree then it goes to the commish to assign (although the owners always come to an agreement).

Kawaise, if no owner has claim to a traded-in player he becomes a FA.

Players claimed assume the same salary but become signers for the following year or are lost at the end of the year if the traded away player was in his last year of his contract.

When a MLB player is traded for a prospect(s) the owner gets the prospect or his choice of prospects that were in the deal.

It adds intrigue especially during the deadline period and is meant to soften the blow from losing a player to the other league. Sometimes however, the compensation might be very inadequate and other times can be a windfall. It can also be difficult to interpret if there are multiple players, multiple teams, players flipping again right after the trade, etc.

There's a purist thought held by some that other league stats should not be applied in an only league which goes against the approach of holding the traded-in player for the rest of the season. I personally don't have a problem with that as long as it's not onerous on the commissioner.

I like the FAAB idea with anyone losing a player getting a bump in their FAAB budget. And... with everyone being able to bid on all FA every week, so there is a semblence of fair market value.

[kawaise]

Our league gives owners a bump in FAAB equal to the salary of the player lost to the NL. That, however, is the only compensation but it really doesn't help. Our league rules mandate if you bid more than $10 in FAAB you have to roster that player the next season. The MLB trading deadline can be a feeding frenzy of waiver claims, but you can only claim ONE player off of waivers per week. One owner in our league lost Cespedes AND Reyes this year. His FAAB increased $46, however he wasn't anywhere close to being the high bidder on players coming over from the NL.

[harmon]

Our league gives owners a bump in FAAB equal to the salary of the player lost to the NL. That, however, is the only compensation but it really doesn't help. Our league rules mandate if you bid more than $10 in FAAB you have to roster that player the next season. The MLB trading deadline can be a feeding frenzy of waiver claims, but you can only claim ONE player off of waivers per week. One owner in our league lost Cespedes AND Reyes this year. His FAAB increased $46, however he wasn't anywhere close to being the high bidder on players coming over from the NL.

Those kinds of restrictions often seem to cause more problems than they are worth. I think we are definitely moving towards a "free trade" philosophy that lets the market work itself out.

[The Dane]

we keep it simple. Any player traded to the other league becomes and expiring player. He gets stats til the end of the year. The player can be traded, but if the player is ever dropped, he cannot be claimed off waivers.

To me this is the most democratic of all the rules. It's amazing how punitive fantasy leagues can be about things beyond an owner's control.

Completely agree. Not all of my leagues handle it this way, but it's the best way.

Honestly, SOL leagues where owners lose the player are just too easy to win, in my opinion. It places a greater degree of roster integrity on luck, like fantasy football. We can make educated guesses, but really don't know who will be traded to the other league and who won't, so there isn't a way to draft against it. So, if you are in a heated race with another owner and he loses two players to the other league and gets nothing, or only some additional FAAB so he can grab Ehire Adrianza or Mark Rzepczynski to restock, then your victory did not come because you were better. It came because some silly luck just handed you a title.

I know luck is just part of the game, especially around surprise injuries, but those effect everyone equally, and there is often so many of them that no one totally avoids injuries. But when only a small handful of players get lost to the other league, that unevenly effects some owners over others.

If you reduce the role of luck in your league, you increase the role of skill and preparation it takes to win your league.

Just my two cents.