Fantasy BFFFL-1 - Discussion

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

gg... If I trade off a 2nd round pick, can I still pick to keep Wayne for example?

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

How long do you think Portis has left in him though mate?
Gotta get nearing the end soon.

Umm... The bloke is only 27... Even if he was 29, IMO, he was easily worth a first rounder purely because of what he showed last year...

You just won't get 'equal worth' from the 3nd rounder you got to Portis this year by a long margin.

 

[Wizard]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Umm... The bloke is only 27... Even if he was 29, IMO, he was easily worth a first rounder purely because of what he showed last year...

You just won't get 'equal worth' from the 3nd rounder you got to Portis this year by a long margin.

2nd rounder mate.

I'm happy with the deal.
I'd prefer Reggie if he's fit, 15th rounder or whatever it is for Slaton and a 4th for Rivers the #1 ranked QB in fantays for much of the year.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Not saying you shouldn't, you did the deal

IMO your keepers shoulda been either Portis, Bush, Boldin
Portis, Slaton, Boldin
or all three running backs. Trade one straight up or in a package for a decent WR after the draft if you don't get a decent WR you like in the draft

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

I assume GG you mean here that my own 3rd would be forfeited if I used it to retain a keeper.

As I am likely to keep three of Cassell, Williams, Forte and Moss. Moss being taken in the 3rd would require me giving up my own 3rd rounder to keep him (last pick of round.....not the aforementioned one gained from the Romo trade).

Yes, your own 3rd rounder is forfeited if that's what you end up finishing up with. Those 4 players you decide three on. The "for now" was just in case you end up trading away multiple picks in some kind of attempt to cheat the new rules. Then your acquired 3rd and other acquired picks would be subject to forfeiture for keepers. But it would have to be something extreme/obvious.

Wizard gets: 2nd Rounder + Cassius' 5th Rounder
Cassius gets: Clinton Portis + Wizard's 5th rounder

Pending dspeed's approval.

Same thing happens here as the Brasher trade.
Wizard's acquired 2nd is untouchable "for now". If Wizard keeps a player that will cost him a 2nd, he will lose his own 2nd. Portis' new keeper-value is a 2nd, which Cassius has already "forfeited" by trading it away. And for both Cassius and Wizard, the 5ths involved are NOT untouchable if they happen to keep someone that will cost a 5th.

gg... If I trade off a 2nd round pick, can I still pick to keep Wayne for example?

If you trade off a 2nd, and then want to keep Wayne, Wayne will cost you a 3rd. But Wayne is still valued as costing a 2nd for future drafts as long as you keep him.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

And if you don't have a 3rd, you lose a 4th?

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

If you feel that Wizard did the right thing and that Portis wasnt a worthy keeper then he's done a good deal. 2nd rounder is better than nothing. Of course in the real world Portis might be worth more than that but Wizard had no leverage. Same goes with the Romo trade. Either trade him for best price you can or get nothing.

I'm pretty set now on my keepers:

Antonio Bryant - 16th Round
Tony Romo - 3rd Round
Clinton Portis - 2nd round

Happy days.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

And if you don't have a 3rd, you lose a 4th?

Thats a pretty crappy rule. Whats stoping you from trading your 2nd rounder with someone elses 2nd rounder which then allows you to keep Wayne as a 3rd rounder?

 

[Brasher]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Thats a pretty crappy rule. Whats stoping you from trading your 2nd rounder with someone elses 2nd rounder which then allows you to keep Wayne as a 3rd rounder?

You hit it in one Cassius. The big loophole.

You and I could have traded all out first 4 round picks and then give up 5th and 6th round picks to keep first round selections like Forte.

The only thing that stops this happening is commissioner approving deals.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Thats a pretty crappy rule. Whats stoping you from trading your 2nd rounder with someone elses 2nd rounder which then allows you to keep Wayne as a 3rd rounder?

Thanks Cass

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

If you feel that Wizard did the right thing and that Portis wasnt a worthy keeper then he's done a good deal. 2nd rounder is better than nothing. Of course in the real world Portis might be worth more than that but Wizard had no leverage. Same goes with the Romo trade. Either trade him for best price you can or get nothing.

I'm pretty set now on my keepers:

Antonio Bryant - 16th Round
Tony Romo - 3rd Round
Clinton Portis - 2nd round

Happy days.

How did he not have any leverage? Anyway, not my decision, just commenting. Just thought that with such a high end player, he would think on it a bit longer than a week after the SB

 

[Wizard]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

How did he not have any leverage? Anyway, not my decision, just commenting. Just thought that with such a high end player, he would think on it a bit longer than a week after the SB

Each to there own i guess Paradiso.
I was always going to trade him so i done what i could.
Knowone was going to send me a 1st rounder for him as his value just isnt that high.
Of course i would have preferred a 1st rounder for him, but what do you do. I don't see him staying fit so i done the deal and got rid of him.

 

[Wizard]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Further to what i said. I was in discussion with another member about Portis and the 2nd rounder was as much as he was willing to deal.

Cass had a better 2nd rounder then the other member in question and was willing to swap 5th so its all good.
No turning back now.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

I woulda offered a better deal

 

[exe ex machina]

Thats a pretty crappy rule. Whats stoping you from trading your 2nd rounder with someone elses 2nd rounder which then allows you to keep Wayne as a 3rd rounder?

I already explained this to you, and paradiso. Swapping around picks isnt included.

In your example, if Paradiso swaps 2nds he still forfeits the highest 2nd rounder he has when keeping Wayne. Same as the current rule. The rule about keeping an acquired pick ONLY counts for that 1 pick buying a keeper. Any other picks involved in that trade are not "acquired". Therefore, forfeitable.

And, "for now" means even acquired picks can be forfeited at the LM's discretion, if he looks over the legitimacy of everyone's roster at keeper deadline time, pre-draft. Or where he can make a player that costs a 2nd to keep cost an "acquired" 1st rounder instead if a person has traded away all their 2nds and 3rds, for example, for another 1st rounder.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

BTW gg this is still D's league, I would like to know what he thinks about the situation, being the general off hands LM that he is (That is, unless its clear collusion he will let trades through)

Surely he would agree that you should be able to trade a player for more than one pick...

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Dspeed already gave the ok for this new rule. The new rule was detailed in the page before this one, and is reposted below.

 

[exe ex machina]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

There are new trade rules in place for both leagues that relate to trades made during the off-season.

This rule only applies in off-season trades where you're trading for a player on someone else's roster FOR THE PURPOSE of making that player one of your keepers for the new season.

Currently, if you trade for a player to keep during the off-season, you give up a draft pick to get that player, but also have to forfeit another draft pick from where he was drafted originally to activate the keeping of him.

The new method is---the draft pick you give up to get that player will be deemed as the pick you "forfeit" in keeping him. So you dont lose another draft pick. So now simple pick-for-keeper off-season trades can happen.

The rules of fair play around it are....

1. You cant trade for a player to keep and then trade him to someone else. You either keep him or change your mind and not keep him (ie, you wasted a pick trading for him).

2. Any trades offered still have to go thru the LM/Committee, so no loopholes or collusions will get thru.

3. A manager who trades a player and receives a draft pick, that is considered an "acquired pick". An acquired pick (in a pick-for-keeper trade) doesnt get forfeited when you go to select your own keepers, your original picks do. All other pick-for-pick trades arent considered "acquired" so forfeiture can occur on those. If a pick-for-keeper trade occurs where more than one pick is involved in the trade, only that one pick itself which relates to the new value of the traded player is counted as an "acquired" pick, the others arent and can get forfeited.

4. If a manager does try to exploit some loophole, the LM can make you forfeit any acquired picks or even higher picks when you then select your keepers. Simply, you can be made to forfeit the next closest pick to the player's keeper value rather than the next lowest, if there's a too wide discrepancy.

5. Keeper-for-keeper trades. Considered a straight swap. There's no exemption, same as the old rule, you forfeit the appropriate pick to keep that player.

6. Trades involving 2 keepers and 2 picks are not two separate trades, nor are they a pick-for-keeper trade where the exemption exists. So LM/Committee would assess the value in that trade, determining whether it was a straight swap of two players, and a straight swap of two picks. Which would mean forfeiture still occurs as per normal. No exempt acquired picks. Otherwise, the two picks in that trade could be establishing a new keeper value for the two players, and it might be ok depending on value.

7. Two separate trades between the same two people involving pick-for-keeper trades can be deemed by LM/Committee as a collusion. Trade can be vetoed or picks forfeited where the keepers value is.

....

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

So what in ther example is wrong then?

LdT costs the person a first (The one they traded away), a second pick they traded, and then the two next picks they give up for early keepers. So they lose a first second third and fourth, and get another 5th, to keep 3 high end players.

They get the same amount of picks as anyone else... Why wouldn't the trade be allowed through?
I will get 2 first round picks, MY OWN and the other person's, 2 second round picks, one of which will be forfeited for another player for example. Why would I lose my other second round pick as well as you suggested in post 634 (ie the only SAFE picks)

Dspeed WOULDN'T penalise it because there is no collusion, just a trade. Even if one person gives up more than the other, D will let it through, as he has shown he will before.

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Dspeed already gave the ok for this new rule. The new rule was detailed in the page before this one, and i'll have to repost it again below.

Difference he would let the trade through, even if he through person B was getting r*ped by person A, unless there was obvious collusion, which there is not in that example.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Whats stopping me from trading Maroney, Addai, Eli and Chambers for rounds 5, 6, 7 and 8? I' never gonna keep those players so why wouldnt everyone be doing this? It'd become a bit of a farce wouldnt it?

 

[Paradiso]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

Whats stopping me from trading Maroney, Addai, Eli and Chambers for rounds 5, 6, 7 and 8? I' never gonna keep those players so why wouldnt everyone be doing this? It'd become a bit of a farce wouldnt it?

Because the person who is getting them HAS to keep them... If they have three other players already, they aren't doing themselves any favours by trading for more players they will simply have to cut.

That is a clear cut case of collusion though, where its simply about picks, not taking into consideration players worth.

Addai for example, worth a 3rd and a 6th or something thanks to his prior year. Eli ~5th round... Chambers value is lowered due to injuries and other players stepping up. Maroney is the most injury prone no 1 RB out there.

 

[exe ex machina]

So what in ther example is wrong then?

LdT costs the person a first (The one they traded away), a second pick they traded, and then the two next picks they give up for early keepers. So they lose a first second third and fourth, and get another 5th, to keep 3 high end players.

They get the same amount of picks as anyone else... Why wouldn't the trade be allowed through?
I will get 2 first round picks, MY OWN and the other person's, 2 second round picks, one of which will be forfeited for another player for example. Why would I lose my other second round pick as well as you suggested in post 634 (ie the only SAFE picks)

Dspeed WOULDN'T penalise it because there is no collusion, just a trade. Even if one person gives up more than the other, D will let it through, as he has shown he will before.

The trade MIGHT go thru. Or it might not. Im not Dspeed. But my point is that the "acquired" pick is ONLY the 1st rounder as that establishes LdT's new keeper value. All the other picks will/can be forfeited if you have a player to keep who will cost you a pick in a round. Eg: You got the other person's 2nd as well, right? Stiff shit. That 2nd will be forfeited IF you have a keeper that costs a 2nd to keep. Also, you might not be finished trading in the off-season. So let's say Dspeed okays the trade, and then you go and do some more trades. The point is that right at the end, on keeper-deadline, just before the draft, Dspeed will look over everyone's draft picks and keepers, and if he sees something 'rorted' he can make you forfeit that second 2nd rounder you have when you go to keep someone who costs a 3rd to keep if you've traded away all your 3rd and 4ths or something.

Whats stopping me from trading Maroney, Addai, Eli and Chambers for rounds 5, 6, 7 and 8? I' never gonna keep those players so why wouldnt everyone be doing this? It'd become a bit of a farce wouldnt it?

You're only going to trade a player that someone WANTS as a keeper. This rule is only for during the off-season when people are looking for a keeper. Most people already have their three keepers. And like last year, if you trade for someone you intend to keep, you better be sure of it, because you cant trade that player to someone else. You're stuck with them, or you cut them. Meaning you just gave away a draft pick for nothing if you cut them. Also, you cant just trade Eli Manning for a 7th. LM determines the value. LM will reject a trade where Eli is being traded for a 7th anyway.

 

[Paradiso]

Right now the argument is about suggestions of rorting the system by making what might be perceived as an unfair trade or future unfair trades.

 

[dspeed]

Re: BFFFL #1 - Part 3

ok, so is there any other actual argument taking place apart from that?