Commish made this rule proposal

[mike9289]

Looking for some feedback. Anybody ever play with this rule?

In a 10 team AL keeper league over the years we have had the usual dump trade disputes like any other keeper league. Things have come to a boil this year and the commish has proposed this rule:

No players traded during the year can be kept the following year.
This essentially eliminates dump trades. the commish believes teams should be able to manufacture keepers thru the auction and FAAB. We are able to FAAB minors.

Anybody ever hear of anything like this?

A lot of us don't like it but maybe its just because we all hate change.

As a compromise I offered this proposal:

Only players on the 25 man roster of an team at the time of the trade can be kept. My idea was to eliminate the trading of studs for guys in AA or on the season long DL. For example, a trade of King Felix for Victor Martinez happened this year. But that doesn't seem to be enough for the commish.

What does the pen think of this whole situation?

[wannabegriffey]

Felix (present) for Martinez (future). What is wrong with this dump deal exactly ?

[hombre]

In my 21st year in my main money league- 10-team, NL only- we instituted that rule about 6-7 years ago, and are much happier as a league as a result.

[mike9289]

In my 21st year in my main money league- 10-team, NL only- we instituted that rule about 6-7 years ago, and are much happier as a league as a result.

Were there any consequences that you didn't anticipate?

Were the bottom teams still able to get keepers?

Did the rule create a situation where the same teams kept winning?

Was there a reduction in the amount of trades made?

Thanks

[swampdragon]

I don't like it - It will eliminate the controversy by insuring that no one actually makes any trades.

Why not just make is NOT a keeper league?

[frae]

I don't like it - It will eliminate the controversy by insuring that no one actually makes any trades.

Why not just make is NOT a keeper league?

Yeah if the league really hates dump trades you might as well go redraft. I would be absolutely miserable in a keeper league where I can't rebuild. If you screw up the auction there are usually only a handful of guys you get cheap in faab that can be keepers. I don't like it personally. Last year I was out of it in my AL Only league and traded Tex for Trout. It is working out pretty good for me this year.

[mike9289]

Yeah if the league really hates dump trades you might as well go redraft. I would be absolutely miserable in a keeper league where I can't rebuild. If you screw up the auction there are usually only a handful of guys you get cheap in faab that can be keepers. I don't like it personally. Last year I was out of it in my AL Only league and traded Tex for Trout. It is working out pretty good for me this year.

Those of us who oppose this proposal think the same way as you. I was looking for someone who actually tried this. Maybe all of us are mistaken if somebody's league has proved that it has worked.

[TranaGreg]

I don't like it. Rebuilding is a core part of roto/fantasy leagues. If the issue is unfair dump trades, find another way to manage these. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[DJBeasties]

Use approvals instead of objections to pass trades.

[dslaw]

We have a rule somewhat close to yours but we are able to trade prospects. Our rule is if you trade a keeper for prospects the deal must be a 2 for 2 (or 3 for 3, whatever) and the keepers/prospects must be equal. So if I trade Tex for Trout I must get a keeper back from the other guy and also include a prospect to the other guy so it becomes Tex/prospect for Trout/keeper. It isn't hard for me to find a crappy prospect on my team riding my bench to include but the guy dealing Trout also has to give up a keeper which maybe is easy if he has a crappy keeper or maybe not so easy if his keepers aren't too bad. So if he has to deal a decent keeper I have to put in another prospect who isn't too bad to even the deal. Then it is a 3 for 2 so he has to add in another prospect to make it 3 for 3.

It has really cut down on trading and made the league less fun in my opinion. Too many other guys in the league like to draft and make weekly lineup changes so they don't mind it. The rule is brought up for revision every other year and is always kept the same. Some great guys that I never see since I moved so this is a way to stay in touch but I hate the rule.

[hombre]

Were there any consequences that you didn't anticipate?

Were the bottom teams still able to get keepers?

Did the rule create a situation where the same teams kept winning?

Was there a reduction in the amount of trades made?

Thanks

The rule proposal admittedly is not going to work very well in leagues with large keeper lists, extended contracts and the like. Then the objections that "w/out dump trades I can't rebuild" are very valid.

Our league limits keepers to 3 per team (20-man active rosters). We like this as a good compromise between a complete redraft league (no keepers), and the kinds of leagues we often hear about with 8,10, 12-man keeper lists.

We think this is a good number- it still rewards you for a couple of astute picks @ the Draft, and/or good waiver-wire pickups. But mainly, it means everyone has a decent chance at the Draft table. I know a lot of people play in these leagues with huge freeze/keeper lists- but frankly I just don't understand it. Just personal taste, I guess. But for us, the Draft is the #1 greatest event of the year, by far- and I can't imagine anything worse than walking into a draft knowing that Team A and Team B are completely stacked with 10 great keepers, and everyone else is playing for 3rd place. To us, that would just be a huge bummer.

Anyways- to answer your Q's more directly-
(1) there really have been no unanticipated consequences, at least to date
(2) no, it didn't create an environment where the same teams keep winning. Ours is a pretty competitive league, most owners have been doing this 15+ yrs- there are no weak hands, so most years the standings look quite different.
(3) yes, there are probably a few less trades- but the only trades that don't happen now are the blockbuster "dump" deals, and those were the ones which caused huge strife and almost ended the league on more than one occasion.
(4) yes, people more often than not can still find 3 keepers. I won't list them all, but each year there are always a ton of Wade Mileys, Justin Ruggianos, Michael Fiers etc etc who come out of nowhere and end up as keepers.

[Lucky]

I have studied this issue for nearly 20 years, and I can promise that this rule is the only way to eliminate the problem of dump trading. Of course, if dump trading is not a problem for your league, then you don't need it.

One my league was hurt badly by dump trades, but instead of passing this rule we went to a redraft league. It's still fun, but I like having a roster in the off-season and the ability to trade year round. Of course, off-season trades don't have the same issues as dump trades.

Salary caps, asterisk rules, etc. can help, but there are always ways to get around them. Requiring approval of the other owners of all trades is socialism.

One of my leagues (a really good one) has a salary cap, but it is a dumb one. It applies to every player on your roster, even the ones you purchased with your free agent budget. So you start at $260, plus $49 from your reserve draft, so you have $309 before you spend a penny. The cap is $100. If you spent $100 on a free agent the first week, you'd already be over the cap.

My idea on that is either count only the active roster, or count the entire roster except for your free agent purchases. But, if you trade a free agent purchase to another team, he counts against their cap.

Full disclosure...I was at $400 well before the league trade deadline, so I didn't have much room to work, while the guys around me were able to improve. My fault, for sure, but made a little more difficult by the rule.

[mike9289]

I have studied this issue for nearly 20 years, and I can promise that this rule is the only way to eliminate the problem of dump trading. Of course, if dump trading is not a problem for your league, then you don't need it.

One my league was hurt badly by dump trades, but instead of passing this rule we went to a redraft league. It's still fun, but I like having a roster in the off-season and the ability to trade year round. Of course, off-season trades don't have the same issues as dump trades.

Salary caps, asterisk rules, etc. can help, but there are always ways to get around them. Requiring approval of the other owners of all trades is socialism.

One of my leagues (a really good one) has a salary cap, but it is a dumb one. It applies to every player on your roster, even the ones you purchased with your free agent budget. So you start at $260, plus $49 from your reserve draft, so you have $309 before you spend a penny. The cap is $100. If you spent $100 on a free agent the first week, you'd already be over the cap.

My idea on that is either count only the active roster, or count the entire roster except for your free agent purchases. But, if you trade a free agent purchase to another team, he counts against their cap.

Full disclosure...I was at $400 well before the league trade deadline, so I didn't have much room to work, while the guys around me were able to improve. My fault, for sure, but made a little more difficult by the rule.

Lucky,
Your league preferred a redraft rather than trying this rule out?

[The Dane]

One of my leagues (a really good one) has a salary cap, but it is a dumb one. It applies to every player on your roster, even the ones you purchased with your free agent budget. So you start at $260, plus $49 from your reserve draft, so you have $309 before you spend a penny. The cap is $100. If you spent $100 on a free agent the first week, you'd already be over the cap.

Yeah, RJEL does this. I can't stand it. If you have a cap to curb dump trades but you can easily be over that cap without trading at all, then it is not working as intended.

[AbPow]

Ah, the holy grail of Fantasy Baseball rule-making: How to regulate dump trades without banning them.

My longtime league has had issues with this as well, and this year we hit upon a solution that seems to be making everyone happy (or at least leading to a minimum of controversy). The problem isn't really dump trades per se, it's the "back up the truck and dump it all" deal where a lazy or inattentive owner - usually without prior notice to the league of his intent to dump - takes the first offer he gets and gives away 3 or 4 high-priced studs.

So our solution to this problem was to institute a team-to-team salary cap for trades, in which one team could not acquire more than $30 in salary from another. It's forced dumpers to split up their packages and be otherwise creative while avoiding the "everything must go" deal. The only grumbling we've had all season is when a dumper traded away a $17 Cliff Lee in a deal, but a lot of the usual bad will and hurt feelings have been avoided.