Last Week’s Question: Should commissioners
turn a blind eye to tradebacks?
Phil’s question about tradebacks received more feedback than
I can possibly squeeze into one column. Those who wrote in almost
unanimously decried tradebacks as a form of collusion. However,
there was one reader (Eric) who attempted to defend the practice:
So the reason you think tradebacks is bad is
because of collusion? I view collusion to be when two owners conspire
to make one team better at the detriment of their own team. Tradebacks
is simply two owners showing foresight to help their own team. They
do this by helping another team out as well. That's the definition
of a trade. So I don't see how tradebacks are a bad thing.
I'm in a league where getting people to trade is usually hard, so
if someone had the initiative and foresight to pull this off - good
for them!
For those who define collusion as a process
whereby one team is ALWAYS AND ONLY strengthened at the expense
of its trading partner, Eric’s argument may seem compelling.
However, I heard from several folks who dismiss this argument
because they see collusion as any activity that gives certain
teams an unfair advantage over other teams in the same league.
Derek does a good job of condensing the argument against tradebacks
made by numerous commissioners:
Part of the rules that everyone agrees to at
the beginning of the season is roster makeup and bench size. In
my league everyone has a 7-man bench. When a “tradeback”
occurs, this rule is indirectly violated. Instead of 2 teams with
their own 7-man benches, you have 2 teams sharing a 14-man bench.
There is a significant competitive advantage for these two teams,
primarily due to a player pool twice the size of every other owner
which they can use to compensate for positional disadvantages and
multiple waiver priorities. . . . I do not think tradebacks are
fair.
Mark echoed Derek’s sentiments:
I had a pair of brothers who were trading players
back and forth. As commish, I said no more tradebacks [because b]eing
able to use another team's bench as a part of your bench is unfair
to the rest of the league. Everyone else in the league agreed. The
brothers did not and are no longer in the league.
Maybe one of the brothers was named Eric. In any case, for Craig,
tradebacks simply don’t pass the smell test:
[Attorneys must] practice law in such a manner
as to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Whether or not the attorney,
or his or her client, is doing anything improper, the question is
both deeper and simpler than that: Does the action (or in this case
the transaction) pass the smell test. If not, the action or transaction
isn’t permitted. I think the same applies to tradebacks. Every
team owner knows (or believes) collusion has occurred in order to
dig one or both of those team owners out of a rut at the expense
of the remaining owners in the league. Tradebacks, as outlined in
the Week 8 Q&A, should not be permitted.
Think: would it be allowed, or would it occur in the NFL? No? Why?
Because the NFL would want to avoid the appearance of impropriety
just as we do in our league.
Instead of focusing on the many ways in which readers argued that
tradebacks are wrong, I think the most helpful thing for me to do
is to share the steps commissioners have taken in various leagues
to combat this form of bad sportsmanship (whether we categorize
it as collusion or not). Craig continued his note by quoting a rule
from his league:
No tradebacks, i.e., Player X for Player Y without
a minimum of 4 weeks passing since the original trade, or in the
alternative, no tradebacks unless the trade is a small part of a
bigger package deal.
For example, I trade you my wide receiver (Calvin Johnson) for your
running back (Eddy Lacy); three weeks later my top two receivers
go down with injuries while at the same time my depth at running
back and tight end has unexpectedly improved (think Giovanni Bernard
and Eric Ebron), so I offer you Ebron, Lacy, & Dez Bryant for
C Johnson, Austin Seferian-Jenkins, & Ameer Abdullah.
Dan’s league has a similar rule and perhaps a better name
(“loaner trade”) for the phenomenon:
Loaner trades are not allowed. The definition
of a loaner trade is where two teams swap players, generally to
fill a bye week need, and then swap the players back once the need
has been met. This has the result of allowing teams to avoid having
to drop players to find bye week replacements. Therefore, no player
may be traded from one team to another and back again between the
two teams without four football weeks passing. As an example, if
a trade is made during Week 5, the player[s involved] cannot be
traded back until Week 9 has completed. This will mean that four
weeks (Week 6, Week7, Week 8, and Week 9) have passed.
So basically, if anyone wanted to collude and then claim a change
of heart they would have to survive without their players for 5
weeks (the week of the trade plus 4 additional weeks). Apparently,
this has been enough of a deterrent as we have not seen a trade
like this attempted since we adopted the rule above about 8 years
ago.
The idea of permitting players to be traded back to their original
owners after several weeks came up over and over again, as in this
response from Brigsy:
Traded players are not eligible to return to
their original teams for a period of five weeks after the initial
trade.
We absolutely see exchanging players for a week or two as collusion
and instituted rules (on which we vote) to preclude this.
If you think a short-term ban is insufficient, consider a rule adopted
by George’s league:
If you trade a player off of your team, you
cannot reacquire that player through trade from any other team in
the league for the duration of the season. You may pick up that
player in free agency, but you cannot trade for him in any part
of a deal - even if different players or a number of players are
involved.
This has successfully ended colluding in our league (which became
a problem just from a few owners) and the wording "any other
team" prevents 3 or more teams from finding a loophole to collude
together. Also, we felt it was fair that if a player was dropped
and everyone had a chance to pick him up, then the original owner
could add him again.
For those who like simplicity, it’s hard to improve on a formulation
that came from Eric’s league (a different Eric than the one
quoted at the beginning of this section):
2 teams cannot conduct trades including any
player(s) that were previously involved in a trade between those
teams.
This eliminates any grey area where the commish has to make a judgment
call. I've been commish of our league for the last 5 years and I've
systematically proposed rules that remove subjective calls in favor
of black-and-white rules.
If tradebacks are a problem in your league, you might want to consider
implementing a new rule modeled on any of these responses, as they
all appear to be working as intended. As usual, my thanks go out
to everyone who wrote in. I’m sorry I don’t have the
space to engage all of the responses I received in greater detail.
This Week’s
Question: Does your league have unique procedures, penalties or
prizes?
One of the more enjoyable topics we revisit from time to time in
this column is the downright goofiness of certain league traditions.
A reader named Jason, who thought it might be time for another such
discussion, sent me a note explaining some of the things that make
his league wacky and unique, such as this wrinkle:
We have a very competitive and active 12-player
PPR league comprised of 30- and 40-somethings. Catered live draft,
dedicated forum, hilarious 3-foot trophy of a Greek god with a nerf
football duct taped to his hand, etc.
The winner of the league has been granted the power to create a
new 'rule' for the following season. (Approved at the draft
via vote.)
We’ll take a look at some weirdness from Jason’s league
next week, but I hope to
hear from other leagues with odd procedures, penalties, and
prizes as well—especially from readers who haven’t contributed
answers to questions such as this one in past seasons.
Survivor Pool Picks - Week 9 (Courtesy
of Matthew Schiff)
Trap Game: Cleveland at Cincinnati
Can you hear that sound? It’s the racket from one of the original
battles of the AFC Central . . . I mean North. I’m talking
about the battle of Ohio . . . Kosar vs. Esiason . . . the dawg
pound vs. the big cats. Admittedly, in 2015, this matchup has lost
some of its luster, but there’s too much fight in these Browns
for them to roll over the way they did in Johnny Manziel’s
debut as a starter. Don’t get me wrong. I have tons of respect
and admiration for Andy Dalton and his crew. But this game gives
me pause for 3 reasons: 1) the Cleveland defense is better than
most people think; 2) Manziel has a chip on his shoulder, and his
presence makes the Cleveland offense less predictable for the Bengals
than anything their film study will have prepared them for; and
3) Andy Dalton looked almost as bad as Manziel the last time he
played against the Browns on a Thursday night. If these QBs end
up competing in the suckage department, this game could come down
to a funky bounce. Find a better alternative.
Image by Tilt Creative (Ty Schiff)
#3: Denver over Indianapolis (4-4, Cin,
Phi, AZ, ATL, KC, SEA, SD, NE)
Everyone knows about the back story of Peyton returning to his
old home, where the torch has long since been passed to Andrew
Luck. Luck has struggled this year behind a shaky offensive line
and has taken responsibility for the offense’s inability
to move the ball. Manning hasn’t had to assume that kind
of responsibility for Denver’s offensive woes because the
defense has been winning games for him, but he plainly misses
Julius Thomas as a red zone target. Enter Vernon Davis, the former
49er tight end who seems to be exactly the sort of big, sure-handed
target to whom Manning can turn for scores once Demaryius Thomas
and Emanuel Sanders have gotten the ball downfield. We would love
to pick the home team for sentimental reasons, but Denver’s
#1 defense and last-minute TE acquisition make the Broncos seem
like more than the Colts can handle, no matter how many offensive
coordinators they fire between now and kickoff.
#2: Atlanta over San Francisco (7-1, GB,
Balt, NE, SEA, NYG, MIN, AZ, STL)
If benchings happened in a vacuum, then the decision to sit Colin
Kaepernick would probably make sense to anyone who has witnessed
the decline of his productivity. Unfortunately, the decision to
bench Kaepernick doesn’t simply mean that he won’t
play; it means that someone else will. That someone else is Blaine
Gabbert, who, at his best, isn’t as good as Kaepernick at
his worst. You might think that with such a dearth of talent at
QB, the 49ers would lean on their running game, but it’s
been hospitalized. Carlos Hyde (foot), Reggie Bush (knee), and
Mike Davis (hand) are all unavailable, so San Francisco rushed
out to sign Pierre Thomas before anyone could tell him that he
would be taking handoffs from Gabbert. With an offense in as much
disarray as the 49ers are, even a mediocre opponent should win
this battle, let alone a Falcons team that is 4th in overall scoring.
If you haven’t used Atlanta, this is the week.
#1: New Orleans over Tennessee (6-2 NE, Mia,
SEA, AZ, Atl, GB, STL, KC)
At the midpoint of the NFL season, it’s always interesting
to reflect on the paths taken by teams that have defied our expectations.
In Week 1, Marcus Mariota looked like an automatic Hall of Fame
candidate with four touchdowns in his first NFL game, while Drew
Brees and the Saints were blown away by Arizona. Since then, the
Titans have not won a single game, and the Saints are 4-3, right
back in the middle of the NFC wild card hunt. Mike Mularkey takes
over as Tennessee’s head coach this week and will install
a run-first mentality, if only to give his beleaguered defense
some rest. But a run-first mentality requires a capable running
back, and we’ve seen nothing from Antonio Andrews to suggest
that he can realistically step into that role. (64 yards vs. a
Houston defense that made Miami’s Lamar Miller look like
Jim Brown? Seriously?) New Orleans is clicking on offense and
is almost unstoppable right now. There is no reason to think that
the Titans will be anything more than kindling to a Saints team
that is on fire.
Mike Davis has been writing about fantasy football since 1999--and
playing video games even longer than that. His latest novel (concerning
a gamer who gets trapped inside Nethack after eating too many shrooms)
can be found here.
