Fantasy BFFFL-1 - Discussion

[Wizard]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

It may sound that way but its beating the system Brasher.

The system stinks and needs to be changed.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Sounds like collaberation to me Sven!

you never get any trades done without collaborating, the trade has be agreeable to both sides and within the rules of BFFFL. I think the proposed trade would be legal, so all you have to do after that is agree the fine details.

Last year a number of people used trade position upgrades to sweeten trade deals.

eg this year I might keep Calvin Johnson (Round 5). My position in round 5 is 3 (67 overall). Wizard is in position 14 in round 5 (78 overall) so to sweeten the deal we swap positions in round 5, Wiz moves up to 67 overall and I use pick 78 to retain Johnson. As far as I know there's nothing illegal about it, Wiz gets a 9 position upgrade in round 5 so there's definiite upside for him, whereas I minimise my losses by keeping Johnson with the traded 5th round pick.

It doesn't always work that way, for example if I keep Michael Turner in round 8, I have a low position in that round (even rounds pick 14), therefore there is little benefit in trading my position in round 8.

That's what the draft and trading is all about, maximising your position in the draft and offering opportunities to others to do liekwise.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Ok I found it!

PROPOSAL-1

Owners can trade their draft picks for players they want to keep, for the value of the NEW value only. The older value becomes obsolete.

If Bowe was drafted in the 8th round 2007, but is now worth a 2nd rounder, then an owner would give me his 2nd rounder, I would have now two 2nd rounders, and the owner who just got Bowe only loses the 2nd round he gave me because that's his new value. As that owner is keeping Bowe, then he already lost his 2nd to keep Bowe. He shouldn't be forced to ALSO lose his 8th round. The new value should override the old.

The same should happen where a player loses value. If an owner wants to trade for someone who was drafted in the 1st round 2007, but due to injury, suspension, etc, is now worth a 7th rounder, that new owner is trading away (losing) his 7th rounder. He shouldn't be forced to ALSO lose his 1st rounder. The new value should override the old.

PROPOSAL-2 (simple trade example)
(not recommended, ghey).


PROPOSAL-2 (complex trade example)
(not recommended, ghey).

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

you never get any trades done without collaborating

What Brasher means is COLLUSION. Which is not allowed. Which is what you proposed is.

 

[Brasher]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

sorry guys...sacrcasm is lost in the printed word....carry on!

 

[Brasher]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

What Brasher means is COLLUSION. Which is not allowed. Which is what you proposed is.

Thanks GG, my mind is just about fried....definitely just backing it into the Christmas break at the moment.

 

[exe ex machina]

Thanks GG, my mind is just about fried....definitely just backing it into the Christmas break at the moment.

It's cool. Everyone is about fried of late due to one thing or another. I hate Xmas so much.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

What Brasher means is COLLUSION. Which is not allowed. Which is what you proposed is.

Now I'm really confused

Collusion is an agreement, usually secretive, which occurs between two or more persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically involving fraud or gaining an unfair advantage. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties.

Are you saying that people who traded picks in a round where they had keepers (ie trading down in that round) were gaining an unfair advantage?

As far as I know you have to use a pick in a round to retain a keeper, it doesn't have to be your original pick, it just has to be a pick. Even more, if you don't have a valid pick in that round, don't you lose your pick in the next round.

If you can't trade picks, we might as well get rid of trading picks completely, because who is going to decide if a pick is unfair or not.

Soemone might want to trade all or most of their picks for a certain player (eg the Herschel Walker trade in the NFL)

Minnesota Vikings Received:
RB Herschel Walker
Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1990
San Diego's 5th round pick - 1990
Dallas's 10th round pick - 1990
Dallas's 3rd round pick - 1991
[edit] Dallas Cowboys Received:
LB Jesse Solomon
LB David Howard
CB Issiac Holt
RB Darrin Nelson
DE Alex Stewart
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 6th round pick in 1990
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1991
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1991
Minnesota's 2nd round pick in 1992
Minnesota's 3rd round pick in 1992
Minnesota's 1st round pick in 1993

noone accused anyone of any collusion in that trade - but you could argue that the Cowboys received an unfair advantage as a result of the trade.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Collusion in the sense of Fantasy football rules as outlined by Dspeed a few times.

Things like "hey mate, I will trade you Warner and McClain this week for Fitzgerald, just for this week, and then we will trade them back to each other."

In the sense of a draft, the only collusion i see from your proposal, and correct me if im wrong, but the way i read this..."so what's wrong with trading Portis and your 2nd rounder for the other person's 2nd rounder and then agreeing the other [real] terms of the trade?"....seems like a situation where you have two separate trades going on, one in secret or not done as part of one trade.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Collusion in the sense of Fantasy football rules as outlined by Dspeed a few times.

Things like "hey mate, I will trade you Warner and McClain this week for Fitzgerald, just for this week, and then we will trade them back to each other."

In the sense of a draft, the only collusion i see from your proposal, and correct me if im wrong, but the way i read this..."so what's wrong with trading Portis and your 2nd rounder for the other person's 2nd rounder and then agreeing the other [real] terms of the trade?"....seems like a situation where you have two separate trades going on, one in secret or not done as part of one trade.

all aspects of the trade have to be declared, so there's nothing secretive about it. All I was pointing out was the first part of the trade keeps the balance as far as 2nd round for 2nd round and then there's a part of the trade that refers to the movement of the player from one list to another.

In the Portis example Wizard doesn't want to keep Portis who is a 2nd round keeper Portis and the 2nd round draft picks of the two people involved are traded so that Wizard ends up with a 2nd round pick, and the other party ends up with a 2nd round pick to keep him. In additional other trades are made to provide compensation to Wizard for having the foresight to draft Portis in the first place.

I didn't mean to imply that part of the trade was secretive, and I've explained it to the best of my ability above.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

What youre explaining there is exactly how my 2008 Proposal #1 would work. Clean, simple trade.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

What youre explaining there is exactly how my 2008 Proposal #1 would work. Clean, simple trade.

I'm not so sure, how do you work out what the player is worth now? and what if what one party works out is different to what another person thinks?

Does some independant person have to determine what a player is now worth?

using Portis (2nd round keeper pick) as an example: some may argue he's first round material whereas others might think 2nd round.

and Earnest Graham (1st round keeper pick) currently on injured reserve. If a trade was going to go through at the end of the season how would you determine his current value, his knee surgery may be unsuccessful and therefore he has no value at all, all the way to still being a first rounder.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use their drafted value? ie Portis is a 2nd round draft pick and therefore needs at least a 2nd round pick to get him, because a 2nd round pick comes with him when he's traded (to use as a keeper).

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

No one needs to work out what a player is worth. Just whatever the person willing to trade for him THINKS he is worth. And both parties are ok with the trade and the deemed value of that player, and/or other draft picks thrown in.

If you want to trade Graham, then you would wait till the new pre-season where there was some news or thing that made him more valuable. While if you trade him right now, you would get a little less value.

This is just like real football where the TIMING of your trades makes a difference.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

No one needs to work out what a player is worth. Just whatever the person willing to trade for him THINKS he is worth. And both parties are ok with the trade and the deemed value of that player, and/or other draft picks thrown in.

If you want to trade Graham, then you would wait till the new pre-season where there was some news or thing that made him more valuable. While if you trade him right now, you would get a little less value.

This is just like real football where the TIMING of your trades makes a difference.

phew! all that took a bit longer than I first thought! time for some serious drinking, I've got a headache.....

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

The problem is the current rules means Wizard trades Portis to me, for a 2nd rounder, I would still have to lose my 3rd rounder in the act of keeping him.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

The problem is the current rules means Wizard trades Portis to me, for a 2nd rounder, I would still have to lose my 3rd rounder in the act of keeping him.

That's where you have to insist that the current owner of the player has to send the draft pick to keep the player over with the deal. And then it becomes really complicated for players who are no longer worth their original draft position.....

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

That's where you have to insist that the current owner of the player has to send the draft pick to keep the player over with the deal. And then it becomes really complicated for players who are no longer worth their original draft position.....

The current trade rules still dont work tho.
The whole point of Wizard having Portis on his roster is that he commands trade value. Wizard, for being a good drafter and manager, deserves to be able to wheel and deal himself some value picks.
But there's no point him swapping his higher placed 2nd round pick for my lower placed 2nd round pick! Which is what that deal would amount to.

GG gets: Portis and a higher 2nd round pick (which he then forfeits).
Wizard gets: lower 2nd round pick. And made no EXTRA pick from it all.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

The current trade rules still dont work tho.
The whole point of Wizard having Portis on his roster is that he commands trade value. Wizard, for being a good drafter and manager, deserves to be able to wheel and deal himself some value picks.
But there's no point him swapping his higher placed 2nd round pick for my lower placed 2nd round pick! Which is what that deal would amount to.

GG gets: Portis and a higher 2nd round pick (which he then forfeits).
Wizard gets: lower 2nd round pick. And made no EXTRA pick from it all.

which is why I suggested you would include a swap of 2nd round picks and something else to sweeten the deal.....

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

^ And like i explained before, the only way the current trade rules allow for trading is where to make a simple trade you end up having to include 8 other trades in the process just to try to get some fairness in it that both can agree to.

Like our Russell trade. In the end it was Russell + 8 picks for 8 picks. JUST TO TRY to get some sort of balance.

When it would've been much easier for you and me to agree (at the time) that Russell to me was worth, say, a 7th rounder, so I give you my 7th outright end of story.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

OK - I'll come clean.

This is what I offered to Wizard for Portis

Swap 2nd round picks
Wizard trades Portis and his new 2nd round, and his 3rd round and 5th round pick to Sven
Sven trades Wizard his new 2nd round pick, his 3rd round and 5th round pick.

Under that scenario Wizard keeps his original 2nd round pick and upgrades his picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds.

Portis goes to Sven, with a lower 2nd round pick (used to keep Portis) and a lower 3rd and 5th round pick (I think it's 9 spots lower for rounds 3 and 5).

Whether or not people think that is fair or not I don't know. Wiz said he was interested but needed to check his keepers to see if there were any clashes in rounds 3 and 5 (which makes trading those a mute point)

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

^ And like i explained before, the only way the current trade rules allow for trading is where to make a simple trade you end up having to include 8 other trades in the process just to try to get some fairness in it that both can agree to.

Like our Russell trade. In the end it was Russell + 8 picks for 8 picks. JUST TO TRY to get some sort of balance.

When it would've been much easier for you and me to agree (at the time) that Russell to me was worth, say, a 7th rounder, so I give you my 7th outright end of story.

but there would be no fun in that....

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

OK - I'll come clean.

This is what I offered to Wizard for Portis

Swap 2nd round picks
Wizard trades Portis and his new 2nd round, and his 3rd round and 5th round pick to Sven
Sven trades Wizard his new 2nd round pick, his 3rd round and 5th round pick.

Under that scenario Wizard keeps his original 2nd round pick and upgrades his picks in the 3rd and 5th rounds.

Portis goes to Sven, with a lower 2nd round pick (used to keep Portis) and a lower 3rd and 5th round pick (I think it's 9 spots lower for rounds 3 and 5).

Whether or not people think that is fair or not I don't know. Wiz said he was interested but needed to check his keepers to see if there were any clashes in rounds 3 and 5 (which makes trading those a mute point)

See what I mean! The current trade rules make something so simple so complex and a pain in the ass.

I mean, a trade for Portis doesnt have to be just pick-for-player. People can wheel and deal more into a trade if they want. But the bottom line is, IF a trade were just about a pick-for-player, you couldnt do it unless you wrote in 10 reams of legal paperwork including 8 other pick-for-pick trades.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Also, because it's a snake-draft, then you'll find that Wizard (who finished higher than you) has the better 2nd round pick. So it just makes it so much more complicated for Wizard as well. Who ends up GIVING UP his higher 2nd rounder all on account of trying to get some value out of a gun player he would rather trade to someone than just throw back into the FA pool AND still keeping his higher 2nd rounder.

The rules make trading pointless....and too complicated and taxing even when they go ahead.

 

[Sammy D]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Here's my squad:

Rnd 1 - Peyton Manning
Rnd 3 - Edgerrin James
Rnd 3 - Jason Witten
Rnd 4 - Greg Jennings
Rnd 5 - Braylon Edwards
Rnd 6 - Hines Ward
Rnd 7 - Ray Rice
Rnd 9 - Trent Edwards
Rnd 10 - Cardinals DST
Rnd 13 - Shaun Suisham
Rnd 14 - Tim Hightower
Rnd 15 - Bills DST
Rnd 16 - Ryan Grant
Und - Antwaan Randel El
Und - Joe Nedney
Und - Robert Royal

Nothing set in stone but probably leaning towards taking Grant, Hightower and Jennings/Witten as my keepers.

 

[Sven]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Also, because it's a snake-draft, then you'll find that Wizard (who finished higher than you) has the better 2nd round pick. So it just makes it so much more complicated for Wizard as well. Who ends up GIVING UP his higher 2nd rounder all on account of trying to get some value out of a gun player he would rather trade to someone than just throw back into the FA pool AND still keeping his higher 2nd rounder.

The rules make trading pointless....and too complicated and taxing even when they go ahead.

yep, its probably simpler to chuck Portis into the FA pool and I'll take him with pick #3!