Page 3 of 3

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:05 am
by Douglas_Haase
I would agree with your statement if you had received Esther's first pick in this draft, but by getting the first pick of the expansion draft for a player that wasn't protected, you gained value for something you shouldn't have gained, unless you had spent the franchise tag on him.

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:32 pm
by David Yun
I've been mulling over your points, and I clearly misunderstood your initial posting. I was going to ask you to directly identify/point out that "extra value" gained by trading with an expansion team (you had totally lost me with the seemingly arbitrary condition of only trading franchised players). However, I think I finally grasp your point after reconsidering this:

Or viewed another way, the established teams were allowed an extra franchise tag for each player they traded to the expansion teams.

I think you're saying: Effectively, Tom Brady became as valuable as a franchised player, during the very process of being traded.

If I have it right, I want to start off by saying that this isn't invalid. But it is not relevant to our league. Without going into specifics, Esther and/or I might have had reasons to have both Tom Brady plus another player off the board before Steve's first pick. WITH going a little into specifics, I insinuated myself as a broker to essentially set up a three-way trade. The whole point of a trade (ideally) is to improve the involved teams in relative value to those not involved. Where trades go sideways, is due to owners making incorrect value assessments.

I don't see a problem with that. All dynasty assets in our league are fungible, and all options are on the table. All players should have all the tools at their disposal necessary to pursue their own agenda.

Here's an example: James traded his last protection tag away for Joel's first round pick. Now, if we're conventionally arguing value, he should have kept it to protect Jamaal Charles. But, James was down on Charles all season based on his inconsistency. Now, should we have asserted league authority to veto that trade AND force James to apply his franchise tag on Charles? Of course not. James probably is devaluing Charles, but such is his right to pursue value as he determines it. James used the opportunity to claim TWO highly regarded rookies, and the possibility does exist that he (will have) won the deal.

I also scrolled up and saw your comment about my last trade with Dave. At face value, I FULLY AGREE. But the way it went down was that he came to me. He was desperate for running back depth, and opened with Bowe and Smith for Mathews. I told him I wasn't interested in either; the only asset I was desirous of were picks. It wasn't up to league authority to tell Dave, "You're undervaluing your players or picks, and overvaluing your need for RBs and Mathews in particular." At the time, he was trying to improve his team, misguided or not, and he has the right to do so. On my end, how could I turn down a godfather offer, even if I didn't desire Bowe to begin with?

The only thing I'm looking to stomp on is collusion. That's the primary reason why I still disagree with the only veto that has transpired to date. If a trade is made with the participants pursuing what they perceive to be the interests of their team, they shouldn't be babysat.

Having said all that, I'm extremely pleased that you're on board to pursue the interests of the Gridiron Barbarians.

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:45 pm
by Douglas_Haase
First, I couldn't agree with you more about the trade monitoring vs. collusion monitoring. While I lament the trades that resulted in the current status of the team I took over, I can't fault anyone for making the trades that were made... (Well, maybe with the exception of the trade that saw Aaron Rodgers depart this roster.) While the league should NOT monitor the VALUE of trades to demand equity, (players should be allowed to be suckers, if they want/choose) but the fairness of policies is the direct responsibility of the league management. (more on this later)

Secondly, thank you very much for your thoughtful and considered response to my questions. I can truly say that I am heartened by the fact that you have taken the time to discuss this rather than responding with the expected, "That's the way things work here, wait and see." I have been running Fantasy Football leagues since 1993 and I can definitely sympathize with the responsibilities and requirements. So, thank you.

WRT the Franchise Tag being a "fungible" item. I won't argue with that idea, although I don't think I would ever allow it, if it were me, too many problems... You didn't really address the problem:
The current system:
Expansion from 8 teams to 10 teams (with Keepers)
Solution - Allow each of those 8 teams to "Franchise" two players each. Then hold an expansion draft for the new teams to get up to speed.
Intended result - 16 players (max) are protected (2 /team)

Actual result (w/Brady trade) - 17 players protected.

Dee trades a player(Brady) from his roster to Esther in return for her first round "expansion" pick.

As an expansion team, Esther's team is not subject to being plundered during the expansion draft. Dee then Franchise's the players on his team (2), so that before the first pick of the expansion draft is even made, there are 17 players that are unavailable for drafting AND Dee has garnered the first pick of the EXPANSION draft without really giving anything up. (Since he would have lost Brady during the expansion draft anyways).

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 10:13 pm
by David Yun
Doug, that's the way things work here, wait and see. ;)

I think it at this point, we would likely start re-iterating our arguments. We're in a state of both agreement and disagreement. Your point is entirely valid; I just don't think it's a problem, but rather a viable tactic (I didn't want to lose Brady; I sought to ameliorate the impact of losing two additional top players...which, I now understand is what you object to).

At some point, I think it would be cool if we could expand to 12 teams, but we need to make sure the existing core is sustainable. I'm good with tabling this matter to if/when expansion actually approaches again.

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:24 pm
by steve
Kang and I are proposing a trade.
I send Kang: Chris Givens and my 3rd round pick next year
Kang sends me: Bryce Brown

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:50 pm
by David Yun
Post it through our ESPN league system, and it will be understood that it also includes that draft pick.

Re: Transactions (and Expansion Draft)

PostPosted: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:50 am
by David Yun
Alex and I just worked out a trade. I accepted through the site mechanics so no further approval is required from either party.

However, it does need clarification. Like Gonz and Kang's trade just above, it includes draft picks. In addition to Run DMC, Alex also receives my first (1st) and third (3rd) round draft picks for next season.