Renewing the trade debate

Aw man, he was one of my super sleepers! I thought nobody else knew about him. All he needs to do is bump is average .500 and he's better than Antawn Jamison.

Thanks for all the thoughts on this tricky topic...  We still haven't been able to come up with a fair automated rule to dissuade people from giving up early...  For now, we're just going to have informal reviews of trades (if you see something that pisses you off, forward it to my attention)...  If its too crazy, it might be overturned...  If your whole league goes nuts on the message board, its more likely to get overturned...

We let most go through, cause in the end - we would have a hard time picking which side is better, or why the trade is unfair...  You'll see - it's tough to stay interested in your league if your team is completely broken and losing weekly...  There's not much else to do but start working towards next season...

The key is to sniff out which teams should consider throwing in the towel and start offering your keepers...  The early birds do indeed get the worms.

colonel wrote:

We let most go through, cause in the end - we would have a hard time picking which side is better

I love it when a trade is protested as unfair, and people fight about who get the better of it.

colonel wrote:

The key is to sniff out which teams should consider throwing in the towel and start offering your keepers...

I suppose this makes drafting smart in the late rounds that much more important, to get those super-keepers for ammo.  Of course, I've never been an early bird...

Here's one proposal.

What if each player was assigned a salary based on their performance from the year before last.  Owners would then have to match salaries to a certain extent when proposing/accepting trades.  It would make it tougher for a contender to trade keepers for all-stars without coming to close to preventing it from happening

if needed an additional roster spot could be added to make room for a high paid scrub.  Perhaps an IR

What if there were restrictions on trading keepers from teams that weren't renewed for next year.  It seems that a lot of the concern about stripping a team relates (understandably) to the difficulty in reselling such a team.  But if I were to have paid for the next 10 years, it's really my business if I choose to sell off next year while going for it this year.  Which would make the whole thing more realistic.  Real teams do gamble the future by trading draft picks for veterans who will help now.

I wouldn't say that a team that hadn't renewed couldn't trade, or couldn't trade keepers, just that continuing ownership is a reasonable consideration when looking at a trade.  In Broham cashes in all his keepers for stars in the OR, it's not really a big deal, because he's going to be back next year.

It's basically an extension of the fact that you have to renew in order to make trades in the summer.  Might even lead to trading one year's picks for another somehow.   (Say, at all star time, I could trade LeBron and my 12th rounder next year for Ryan Bowen and someone's first rounder).

i would love to see the picks availible for trade also.  getting at the all star break would be good, and to get the picks you would need to renew maybe at the same time.

osupatrick wrote:

i would love to see the picks availible for trade also.  getting at the all star break would be good, and to get the picks you would need to renew maybe at the same time.

Since first through 4th rounders are based on performance, the exact picks won't be known during the season, but they could still be traded.