7/11/08
If you are reading this column, then you probably take fantasy football
too seriously. That’s not a criticism—just an observation.
There are lots of us who take FF too seriously. Sometimes we take
it so seriously that we cannot discuss it without becoming shrill,
strident, and perhaps a bit violent.
In the years that I have been writing my Q&A
column for FFToday, trading has emerged as the single topic
most likely to spark a shouting and/or wrestling match. Most leagues
approve or veto trades by voting or relying on a commissioner’s
ruling, but there are endless variations on both of these models
(as well as mystifyingly complex alternatives).
Based on my correspondence with hundreds (thousands?) of participants
in all sorts of leagues, it is clear to me that the contentiousness
of trading has more to do with the people involved in a
league than with the structure that governs trading within
that league. Most commissioners who rule on trades do a commendable
job of remaining impartial and objective. Even so, I have heard
from plenty of FFers who would never consider participating in a
league in which a single person could block a proposed trade. I
have also heard from FFers who report that trades approved by a
vote are nightmarish because as soon as one player pulls away from
his competitors, the other members of the league vote down every
trade he attempts to make.
Virtually all readers will agree that collusion is the only reason
to block a trade, but most of us know at least one FFer who cries
“collusion” every time he reviews a trade that he has
not proposed himself. We all have different thresholds of suspicion
when it comes to collusion, so it really does us little good to
tell a commissioner or a voting community that suspicion of collusion
is the only reason to deny a trade. After all, it is just as easy
for any of us to say, “That looks like collusion,” as
it is for any two potential trading partners to say, “We aren’t
colluding!”
The unpredictability of the future makes all claims of collusion
defensible. When people get bent out of shape over other people’s
trades, it is usually because there are two distinct sets of expectations
concerning the players involved. In an NFL world that involves suspensions
for personal conduct, jail time for sponsoring dog fights, and missing
games or portions of games for the birth of children (I have Shaun
Alexander in mind for those who don’t recall), it is impossible
to say which player will be more valuable than another on any given
Sunday. There have been Sundays when I was better off with Keenan
McCardell, David Patten, and Ricky Proehl than I would have been
with Terrell Owens, Steve Smith, and Chad Johnson. We can all trot
out similar examples from our experience, which is precisely why
most of us gravitate towards a laissez-faire attitude on trades.
But however dedicated we may be to laissez-faire principles, most
of us would object to a proposed swap of LaDainian Tomlinson for
Barry Sanders. The traders could point out that we don’t know
that Sanders will stay retired any more than we know that
Tomlinson won’t decide in August that he needs to pull a Charles
V and retire to the monastery at Juste.
“Only time will tell,”
the traders could argue.
And that is just the reason for us to explore conditional trades
in fantasy football. Time invariably does tell. If we are worried
that owner A isn’t giving owner B enough compensation for
a player, then a conditional draft pick enables us to build a sweetener
into the deal if the player does in fact live up to our expectations.
Conditional trades can help avoid collusion
in your league.
Since no one knows right now whether Brett Favre will come out of
retirement for the 2008 season or not, let’s use Favre as
an example. Imagine twelve guys who like to drink together and meet
in Vegas every March to watch the March Madness basketball games
AND have their fantasy football draft. In their 16-round draft,
the guy who picked last (call him Al) took Favre because, as he
put it, “you never know.” Now that everyone has read
Peter King’s article on Favre’s possible return, one
of his league buddies (call him Bert) is proposing a trade of Drew
Brees for Brett Favre.
There’s an awful lot of uncertainty concerning Favre right
now, but if he returns, it’s conceivable that he could end
up on an offense that would make him more productive than Brees.
Bert could therefore offer Brees to Al in exchange for Favre with
the following conditions:
- if Favre remains retired, Bert will get Al’s 3rd-round
pick in exchange for Bert’s 16th-round pick next year;
- if Favre plays for the Packers, Bert gets nothing from Al
next year regardless of how Favre performs;
- if Favre plays for any team other than the Packers and finishes
as a top 8 QB, Bert gets nothing from Al next year;
- if Favre plays for any team other than the Packers and finishes
as the 9th to 16th-ranked QB at the end of the season, Bert
will get Al’s 6th-round pick in exchange for Bert’s
16th-round pick next year;
- if Favre plays for any team other than the Packers and finishes
as the 17th to 32nd-ranked QB at the end of the season, Bert
will get Al’s 5th-round pick in exchange for Bert’s
16th-round pick next year; and
- if Favre plays for any team other than the Packers and somehow
finishes the season ranked 33rd (or lower), then Bert will get
Al’s 4th-round pick in exchange for Bert’s 16th-round
pick next year.
Some FFers would have no objections to a conditional offer such
as this, but many would object for various reasons. Non-keeper
leagues in particular might be reluctant to allow conditional
trades--since the folks involved in the trade might not be around
the following year.
Imagine that Bert leaves the league with Al owing him a 6th-round
pick. Does the new owner who inherits Bert’s slot get the
pick? Even worse, imagine that Al leaves the league owing Bert
a 3rd-round pick. How easy will it be to recruit a new person
to join the league? “You’ll need to write me a $100
check, be at the draft next Saturday night, and be a good sport
about the fact that you don’t have a pick in the third round,
ok?”
The potential headaches involved with conditional picks could
easily outweigh the fact that such picks do indeed allow time
to tell. If your league has had any experience with conditional
trades, I would like to hear
from you. If you have strong opinions (and hypothetical examples
to support those opinions) concerning conditional trades, I would
like to hear from you. My hope is to collect enough responses
by September for a column that thoroughly examines conditional
trades near the beginning of the season.
|
