Trading for FAAB money...

[Hornsby]

We had this come up in our longtime RJ league, there is nothing specifically preventing anyone from acquiring more FAAB, nor is there any rule saying that it's OK to do.

I maintain that FAAB money is simply another commodity like players or picks, the commissioner says otherwise, that FAAB is not a tradable asset. I simply wanted to acquire FAAB for the rest of the season, and found a willing trade partner to swap a minor league pick for some of his unused FAAB.

I know that other leagues routinely deal FAAB money, but if there is nothing written down for or against it, what do you do?

All opinions are welcome...thanks in advance.

[mjl]

I don't have a problem with it. For what it's worth, on the Mastersball forum (http://forum.mastersball.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=7130), Zola and Perry are very much against it. My reading of their objection is that it's too liquid. I am in one league where it's allowed and not abused but this league isn't particularly aggressive and maybe nobody's gone looking for the corner cases yet.

[Andrewski]

This is all true. But, nobody's ever done it before in a large number of RJEL years. And, we just introduced zero bids two (one?) season ago to allow people who had zero FAAB dollars left to still be able to pick up players. If dealing FAAB dollars were allowed, there'd be little need to allow zero bids since there's almost always FAAB dollars left over each season.

I'd vote no.

[The Dane]

I'm in one league that does this and it's no big deal. If they stopped, I wouldn't care. If another league started, I probably wouldn't care either.

[Ken]

I think it needs to be explicitly addressed in the league constitution. It would be a good idea to address it one way or the other in the offseason.

Funny I asked the same type question to my commish this year and I was told its not tradable (what I expected).

[Pauly]

We added faab trading in the league that I commish...but only after a league vote in the offseason and then adding it to the constitution. By league demand (those who were against faab trading), we capped the amount of faab allowed to be moved in a single deal to $10 ($100 yearly budget).

[revo]

As commish of said league, I have no problems with the trading of FAAB dollars -- if the league, or the commissioners had voted for this to be allowed. As FAAB $$ had never been allowed to be traded before, Hornsby took it upon himself to declare today that since it's not mentioned that it cannot be traded, he would allow himself to trade it.

This is a less about the concept of allowing FAAB $$ to be dealt and more about attempting to exploit a "loophole" using reverse logic in the spur of the moment.

Can I make a rule to acquire auction dollars in next year's auction out of the blue, just to benefit myself, because the constitution doesn't say you can't? Auction dollars are a commodity too, no? How about trading for a player to be named later, which is also not specifically in our rules (or anyone's rules)? How about trading a player in RJEL for a player in the RJ Pay for Play football league?

This argument reminds me of that Cheers episode where Cliff Clavin is on Jeopardy and answers "Who are three people who have never been in my kitchen." It was true -- those people had never been in his kitchen! So why did he lose?

[Redbirds Fan]

It doesn't say in your Constitution that you can't trade players for actual money either, does it? Or for whiskey? Or Russian hookers?

Although the Constitution for my long-time league (from which I was forced to resign after talking dirty to a reporter) didn't say anything about it, we did not allow trading for FAAB. We only allowed trading for players or draft picks. We talked about trading for FAAB, but decided it would require a change in our Constitution, which would have to be made in the off-season.

Personally, I would be against it. When and how to spend FAAB dollars is a strategy. You spend early, you lose the benefit of saving your dollars in case somebody desirable becomes available late. Having one more dollar than the field can be critical. Allowing people to trade for this changes the dynamic. Allowing someone to do it in the middle of the season seems unfair. It's almost like letting someone have a few extra dollars in the middle of the auction.

But I'm not taking sides in any real-life league issues. You guys need to sort that out on your own.

[Gregg]

No faab trading in both my only leagues. I like it that way. The use of FAAB is a strategy. To have someone trade a bunch off at the deadline is like or could be like a massive dump trade. The kind that hurts leagues.

[mjl]

One thing that just occurred to me is that it's probably much less problematic in a league like RJEL (mixed, very deep minors) where it's unlikely that a great unowned player is available in FAAB. In a NL-only or a league that doesn't allow minor leaguers, trading for $50 FAAB could be the same as trading for Darvish or Moncada.

[Redbirds Fan]

One thing that just occurred to me is that it's probably much less problematic in a league like RJEL (mixed, very deep minors) where it's unlikely that a great unowned player is available in FAAB. In a NL-only or a league that doesn't allow minor leaguers, trading for $50 FAAB could be the same as trading for Darvish or Moncada.

Okay. So, let's say it is the RJEL or similar league. I'm out of it. You're in the hunt, but need a big hitter and a big pitcher. I trade you a big hitter and $100 FAAB for a studly SP keeper. Then, to make room on my roster, I waive a big pitcher who is the final year of his contract, who* you pick up in the next round of FAAB bidding with your recently enhanced budget. I call it the Scaramucci Gambit.**

*(whom?)

**(Not for nothing, but I have spent a career dealing with people who spent all their time trying to push the rules envelope, so to speak. Some legally, some illegally, some for fun, some for profit, some just to see if they could. There is an art to it, I will admit.)

[mjl]

what's the benefit of that vs just giving me the pitcher? it looks like it just adds variance.

[Ken]

what's the benefit of that vs just giving me the pitcher? it looks like it just adds variance.

It resets the contract

[Ken]

... for my long-time league (from which I was forced to resign after talking dirty to a reporter)...

Fake news!!

[Hornsby]

It resets the contract

In the RJEL, all contracts go with the player, so there is no re-set to the contract. It's always the players highest price, and whatever year the contract is in.

Ed managed to tart up my intent quite a bit...it was simple, I'm out of FAAB money (1 buck left) and I see a few players out there in the next 2 months that are worth bidding on. Nothing more, nothing less. I made a deal where I give my 4th round minor leaguer to a fellow owner for his 5th rounder, and 40 bucks in FAAB. And it's not that it hadn't been "allowed" to be traded before, as Ed said, it's just that it had never been done. So, again, I'm not "making a rule", I'm simply doing something that wasn't explicitly against the rules of our EXTENSIVE constitution...I don't know how you can break a law if it doesn't exist in the 1st place.

That said, the fellow owner and I joked that we knew that it would be struck down because of the conservative nature of the league..."I DON'T LIKE CHANGE!" May as well be the motto of the league.

And we actually dealt with the PTBNL issue years ago, as well as dealing for future assets beyond the next season, so those are moot points.

And it was strictly an asset for asset deal within said league, nothing more, nothing less. So exaggerating about dealing assets in other leagues is somewhat specious as well.