200/60 Keeper League- Year 4

[kaviksdad]

[quote:8087ced04c="Rally Sally"]After heated negotiations, a trade has been made. Rally Sally will be sending Dan Haren to The Danger for the duration of this $200 mil season.

In exchange, Rally Sally will receive a player of the Danger's choice following the conclusion of the 2010 MLB season, or our $60 mil season (whichever happens last). He must choose between Chad Billingsley and Clayton Kershaw.

The Danger to confirm.[/quote:8087ced04c]

Interesting. This might be the first "player to be named later" deal I've seen in one of these leagues. But I've got questions and I think Terry needs to review it. First, is this a "rental" of Haren or trade? If its a rental, can we do that? Second, even if this is a rental, Danger's roster is at 49 so he'll have to drop a player to get legal, and neither one of the drops can be Billingsley or Kershaw.

Finally, how come I don't have Haren? He would have made a great top of the rotation ace for the SnowLeopards. :(

[Rally Sally]

I'm definitely creative when making trades. :) Here's my position on your questions:

1. The "renting" of players. The precedent for this type of deal was made last year, with my deadline pick-up of Jerry Hairston Jr. from Rant. There wasn't any dissent then, so I didn't see a problem with another deal.

2. Roster size. This issue hasn't really been resolved. The official rules only specify the roster size before the free agent draft. Way back on page 7 ( those were the days) this exchange occurred:

KD:[quote:5076ec1cfe]Rally Sally wrote:
Rally Sally trades Miguel Tejada, Dallas Braden, Anthony Reyes, and Armando Benitez to The Danger for Juan Cruz.

The Danger to confirm.

Interesting trade, but doesn't Dangerman have to drop 3 players now so he can still use his next draft pick? Confused [/quote:5076ec1cfe]

RS:[quote:5076ec1cfe]I didn't think the rules specified a maximum roster size in-season, only that rosters are set at 40 for the off-season. I guess it's Terry's call, though. [/quote:5076ec1cfe]

Notice that I also traded away Dallas Braden, who just threw a perfecto. *facepalm* We do need the get a commish ruling on the matter.

3. KD not getting Haren. I've still got Aardsma and Dejesus! :)

[nythawk129921]

[quote:6c70d2c64e="Rally Sally"]I'm definitely creative when making trades. :) Here's my position on your questions:

1. The "renting" of players. The precedent for this type of deal was made last year, with my deadline pick-up of Jerry Hairston Jr. from Rant. There wasn't any dissent then, so I didn't see a problem with another deal.

2. Roster size. This issue hasn't really been resolved. The official rules only specify the roster size before the free agent draft. Way back on page 7 ( those were the days) this exchange occurred:

KD:[quote:6c70d2c64e]Rally Sally wrote:
Rally Sally trades Miguel Tejada, Dallas Braden, Anthony Reyes, and Armando Benitez to The Danger for Juan Cruz.

The Danger to confirm.

Interesting trade, but d,oesn't Dangerman have to drop 3 players now so he can still use his next draft pick? Confused [/quote:6c70d2c64e]

RS:[quote:6c70d2c64e]I didn't think the rules specified a maximum roster size in-season, only that rosters are set at 40 for the off-season. I guess it's Terry's call, though. [/quote:6c70d2c64e]

Notice that I also traded away Dallas Braden, who just threw a perfecto. *facepalm* We do need the get a commish ruling on the matter.

3. KD not getting Haren. I've still got Aardsma and Dejesus! :)[/quote:6c70d2c64e]


I personally am not a fan of renting of players.Where does in the interest of fair play come into play?For example what would deter someone like RiojaDave,for example, from trading Pujols at the trade deadline for the "remainder" of the 200 million season for a solid player for next season and still have Pujols next season as well? This sort of practice would give unfair advantages to the teams that are looking to win their division unfairly.Also what would keep the 2 parties from making other "loans" in the future as a sort of "payback"for helping out in previous seasons?This sort of practice would open the door for unfair dealings in all upcoming leagues and would allow some managers to take a shortcut to winning instead of doing their due dilligence when it comes to drafting and trading.This is just my opinion and if renting players is allowed then I for one will have to play by these rules and take advantage of the loophole that this would create because I personally feel that I have put myself in a very good position to win the championship in this league this season.

[Terry101]

I'll look over the last posts and the issue of "renting" and max roster size, etc. I'll post later today.

[tcochran]

When soccer players are rented out, nobody complains, but that's only because no other teams in the original league are harmed by the deal.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with one trade being made now and then another trade being made later -- as long as fair value is received by each side in each of the trades.

[nythawk129921]

[quote:32f8ab13db="tcochran"]When soccer players are rented out, nobody complains, but that's only because no other teams in the original league are harmed by the deal.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with one trade being made now and then another trade being made later -- as long as fair value is received by each side in each of the trades.[/quote:32f8ab13db]

well if I was playing strat soccer I would probably have a problem with that :wink: :)

Now as far as trades are concerned I agree,but we arent talking trades as much as we are talking about renting players.
How about this hypothetical scenario.I trade Jason Heyward to team A who is out of the playoffs by say game 70 and receive A Joe Mauer or Albert Pujols for the remainder of the season only.That would be a fair deal for the 2 teams involved but what about the rest of the teams in the league?It is 1 thing to trade a star card to a contender for young prospects(which happens quite a lot in keeper leagues)but it is a whole other entity when the star player is rented out only for the remainder of the season and then returned to the original owner after the season is completed.
If these kind of trades were consummated in a reg auto league we would all be hollering collusion.Would I be able to trade a .50 player for a 10 million player without there being an outcry in these regular leagues?
Again to me this would just allow for an unfair playing field for the rest of the league if we all started to join in this practice on a regular basis

[bbasebrawl]

It is a very creative way of handling your roster that Rally Sally came up with, but I have to agree with Hawk on this one. It does not seem to me that this is in keeping with the spirit of the game. How many major league teams rent out players for a season ?? I may be wrong but I can't thing of any team doing that of late.. I know there is nothing in the rules to address this issue, but I would be in favor of adding something to eliminate future renting of players in the future. Just my two cents.

[kaviksdad]

When the first of these unlimited salary multi-year keepers were set up our idea was to mimic a MLB general manager and run a franchise as if we were true baseball executives (trust me - I was there!). We wanted to start out with 12 "expansion" teams and then take it from there. So we have prospect drafts, free agent drafts, a commish, etc. - just like real baseball. And in all the leagues I'm in (and run) we try to stay within the spirit of MLB.

While I applaud Rally Sally for coming up with a creative way to make a deal, I too feel that this deal could start us down that "slippery slope" towards hard feelings, mistrust and cries of collusion. I am not saying that there is anything shady about the deal - and value wise a Haren/Kershaw deal seems a fair and balanced trade. And if it turns out to be a Haren/Billingsley deal that also seems to be fine. I actually like the concept of a "player to be named later" deal where an owner is given a choice of players but doesn't have to decide immediately. That is a type of deal done in MLB all the time.

My only concern is the "rental" aspect of the deal. If this deal is truly a rental of Haren, with him being returned to Rally Sally at the end of the season and also getting either Kershaw or Billingsley - then I'm in favor of the commish voiding it in the best interests of the league.

If this is strictly a Haren for player to be named deal, where Haren stays with Danger after this year - then I have no problem with it.

[The Danger]

I'm very glad that we can all talk about this issue in a civilized manner. Kudos to all...

1. I do believe a precedent was set with the trade Rally Sally and Rant made concerning Jerry Hairston Jr. and nobody had any issue. I do not think this trade should be penalized if another trade just like it went over fine and nobody has spoken up about outlawing this until now. (This is above all the most important point regarding this deal and the main reason this deal should not be overturned.)

2. I do believe this is a fair practice, as any two owners should be allowed to make deals as they seem fit regardless of how fair the other owners think it is. I know that in leagues like Yahoo!, managers have the opportunity to veto a trade if enough managers don't like it, but this rule has never existed or even been inquired about before. I'd like to think that we are all competent and should be allowed to make whatever transactions we want.

3. It is not as if one manager is getting something for nothing. Both managers are being compensated in the deal, just at different times during the scope of the keeper league.

4. We all have the same opportunity to make deals like this with one another. No single manager is getting an unequal opportunity or advantage to make deals like this. This means that the playing field remains fair in relation to this issue, and all managers still have the same opportunity and ability to compete for players in these types of deals.

5. I think the ability to make deals like this actually increases competition and will keep managers interested in what happens throughout the entire season regardless if they are in first place or not. If a bottom dwelling team can still have an impact in the outcome of a league by making the sort of deal nythawk hypothetically drew up in one of his posts and maybe even get a prospect player to help them in the future and make them actually want to continue to compete, then great. Just think how cool it could be if two high flying teams near the end of a season are both competing to rent a star from a lower flying team... This really ups the competition! And it could also result in the low flying team to really being able to improve itself for the future. I'm all for this.

6. There is always going to be the whiff of collusion or mistrust because many of us know each other well and deal with each other often. I can only hope that we all want to win and compete for a long time and that we will act accordingly. We cannot guarantee that everything will always seem fair between us, but that's just part of the game. I do not think we need to try to stifle creative transactions like this just because we think an unpleasant atmosphere might result.

7. We may be able to vote on a rule change going forward, but I do not think we can enforce a change for trades that have already happened, nor should we, as no professional league does this or has done this regarding deals like this.

These are some of my main points. But #'s 1 and 7 are the most logically sound and important points overall, in my opinion. Thanks for your time.

[Terry101]

Roster clarifications and trading clarifications.


[b:d218462af3]The clarification on roster size is the way the rule will read henceforth regardless of how it has worked in the past. [/b:d218462af3]

All teams will begin the season with 40 players and get 8 picks in the free agent draft unless the manager trades his picks. The total player pool (before the 2 player non-carded draft) will be 480 (40x12) and 96 ( 8 free-agent rounds). [b:d218462af3]There is no maximum roster size. [/b:d218462af3] Nor is there a minimum. A player could have 50, but that means another player MUST therefore have less than 48. If a manager trades his 1st an 2nd round free agent picks for example, he DOES NOT get an extra 9th and 10th round to "get to 48."

Now, since there are 26 picks in the 2 round non-carded player draft (Each team gets 2 (24 total) and 2 teams get awarded an extra pick for winning the current 200 mil league and last year's 60 mil league winner (in this case- The Danger) the total number of players in our league is:
576 at the beginning of the season and 602 at the end of the season. Not more.

The 602 can be distributed by varying roster sizes from a theoretical 42 (if someone traded all of their free agent picks) to any number over that.

Now to address the trading rules.

I have read all the posts and have considered the intentions and pros and cons of the rental issue. I believe that the cons outweigh the pros even considering The Danger's well-thought out points.

It is true that there has been a precedent set.

It is also true that the intentions on the Haren rental for Kershaw or Billingsley were not collusion based.

However, the potential (as pointed out by a few managers) for bad feelings and the possibility in the future for crazy rental situations- outweigh precedent and the freedom to "rent players."

The Danger, however has a valid point in that to veto a trade based on a previous precedent and the obvious good intentions of the two managers would set a bad precedent in itself.

[b:d218462af3]So, here is the ruling:[/b:d218462af3]

The trade will stand. Danger gets Dan Haren for 2010; Rally Sally gets either Billingsley or Kershaw for next year. However we all feel about it, (The Danger intimates that we are all grown-ups and that we should all be able to make deals that we see fit) we need to let this one stand.

[b:d218462af3]In the future, for reasons listed on the posts, for the comaraderie of our league, and because the intention to rent players seems to be something that is not done in the online Strat leagues, we will not go forward with any similar trades.[/b:d218462af3]

I hope the trading teams can appreciate the general feeling and sense of the ruling and I hope others can appreciate the intent of the trading teams.