Question on keepers

[Derek Bodner]

Then there's absolutely no point in not completely redrafting.

if you're going to punish me for making sound moves, not benefitting from draft position, then there's no point in preparing for the future.  It's going to completely screw over people like me who traded depth this year to improve keeper status.   One of the reasons I made the trade is because I knew (at that time) that while I could only declare kidd one more year, I now had TMac who I could keep for 2.  That's not fair.  And, frankly, it's completely going too far to protecting those stuck.

Might as well re-draft.  Doing this rule would pretty much be re-drafting.  Except rounds 3 and 4 would be used as keepers, and rounds 1-2 would be done in rounds 3 and 4.  It would still be highly dependant on draft position.

This doesn't fix anything.  Frankly, I'm not going to approve this change.  And I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of a keeper league that institutes a change like this.

[Derek Bodner]

Also, think of it this way.

since we started keepers, LeBron's been traded.  Dirk's been traded.  McGrady's been traded.  Kidd was traded (and at the time he was a stud keeper, this was pre-injury).  Probably more that I haven't thought of.  Stud keepers DO get moved.  They will get moved through a natural process.  People with stud keepers will not automatically trade them for a stud keeper, trading them for depth (if offered the right deal) will increase their chance at a championship.

This would be a severe overreaction to a problem that isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.  Frankly, I think it would borderline ruin the league.

[Guest_Randy]

But this kind of loophole won't work, IMO, because if you allow that loophole to continue, top players will NEVER go back into the draft.  Why?  It's better to get SOMETHING for a player than let him go back into the draft so you trade him for a couple of stars and then you can trade those stars for another stud fantasy player who is going to go back into the draft.  Who gets killed in that situation?  The people who drafted at the bottom and STILL don't have a stud fantasy player.  I'm not saying that the draft doesn't have anything for a person to draft but those players who have KG, TD, Dirk, etc. have a HUGE advantage over the rest of the GM's.  IMO, a players contract expires no matter how many times they have been traded -- just like it would in the NBA.  Allowing people to trade a FNBA stud to get around the "loophole" will keep the top at the top and the bottom right there at the bottom.  And while you may feel that's fair -- I'd suggest it's because you have KG on your squad -- ask some of those who don't have one of the top studs how they feel about the "loophole."  

[Derek Bodner]

Randy, in another leauge I'm in (fantasy keepers, 12 teams, 12 players per team, same setup), I had Sheed and Jamison as my keepers heading into the season.  There are no rules on how long you can retain a keeper.  I had the worst keeper set in the league.

I'm in 3rd place.  I drafted Amare (with the intention of hoping he'd become a C, thus raising his value) and traded for Arenas.  I made a draft coup of getting Boozer.  This notion that you can't win without a top 3 keeper is ridiculous.  I'm in the exact opposite position in that league, going from arguably the best keeper situation in this league to the worst in that league.  And I'd NEVER support this kind of amendment in that league either.

In the 2 offseasons I've been a part of that keeper league (with no rule on keeper trades), I've seen the following traded:
kobe, brand, duncan, dirk, lebron, marion, jermaine o'neal (twice), peja, ray allen, kirilenko (3 times), Iverson, and many more.

This notion that it's impossible to get top flight players without drafting them is RIDICULOUS.  I've shown it to be twice myself in less than a year.

Why, in my position in this league, would I oppose this?  Not because of KG.  Because of Kidd and TMac.  Last year, acquiring Kidd cost me the playoffs.  That's the spoils of acquiring one of the top players.  This year, there's no doubt in my mind that I would have a better record to this point if I hadn't made the TMac trade.  None.  I don't want to find out I made these sacrifices for nothing.  That's unfair.

When I originally heard of this proposal, I thought it was to prevent you from using your own stud keeper to acquire another stud keeper.  Thus, I thought it was you can't keep someone you use your keeper to get.  In essence, transferring over your keeper's eligibility to the person you used your keeper to acquire.  I still think even this is a mistake, but let me show you why there is no loophole by not having their past keeper status as the determination.

In my proposal, let's take your example.  Let's say I trade KG for 3 lesser players.   Then trade those 3 players to get another top flight player.  I can't do that.  Why?  Because since I acquired those 3 players with KG, KG's eligibility transfers over to those 3 players.  When I then use one of those 3 players, their eligibility is then transferred to the player I acquired.  The eligibility is still intact.

However, when I use Redd (who still had 3 seasons of eligibility) and Hinrich (still had 3 seasons of eligibility) to get TMac, I should retain Redd's and Hinrich's eligibility, and the person who traded me TMac would get Hinrich and Redd with TMac's eligibity, because he's the one profitting from the draft position and stud keeper

Your proposed system of transferring eligibilty DOESN'T CLOSE LOOPHOES, IN FACT IT CREATES THEM AND HURTS PEOPLE IT'S NOT INTENDED TO HURT.  READ MY ABOVE SCENARIOS AGAIN AND YOU'LL SEE THE OWNER OF A MCGRADY IS THE ONE ABUSING THEM BECAUSe HE CAN TRADE THEM FOR PEOPLE WITH 3 YEARS OF ELIGIBILITY.

--------------------------------------------------------------

For the final record, I think these eligibility additions are WRONG.  I think the top keepers can be traded, and all of these proposals are severe overreactions to a problem that I think I have proven isn't there.  But a player retaining his eligibility, IMO, I have just shown to be more wrong.

[Lurker]

Derek...you state that you have 3 potential "keepers".  KG, Kidd & TMac.  One of these 3 have to go back into the draft this year as you can only declare two keepers (assume Kidd).  Under the proposed rules then both KG & TMac would enter the draft next year....however since the rules weren't finalized before your trade for TMac the proposal was to give you an extra year (2 off seasons) to use him.  IMO this is very fair (and basically what you had in mind when you made the trade).  All the other "keepers" that were traded were done so BEFORE they were declared keepers.

However you shouldn't be able to trade KG for Duncan next season and then gain Duncan services for 2 more off seasons.  And Joe use KG for 3 years.  If the rules allow that then rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

The 3 year "contract" rule does allow managers to plan...as Joe has already stated that he would.  It also allows those at the bottom a chance to gain the superstars...although that is no guarantee of success as you argued over the summer.  

With rookies and retirements the top players will rotate around the league.  See Wade & Okafor as replacements in this coming year for people who were keepers last year.  My guess is that along with Kidd & Nash (per Joe) there will be at least 3-4 other old "keepers hitting the draft.  That means that there will be a turnover of close to 25% of the total keepers.  And a couple years down the line we won't have as many superstar free agents all hitting the draft at the same time.

EDIT:  Randy is the only other manager in this position.  He traded for Odom who was a keeper last year.  IMO he should also be grandfathered if he decides to use Odom as a keeper.

[Derek Bodner]

Lurker, read my post above on why "contracts" don't work.

On my interpretation (you trade one of your prior keepers, transfer that keepers eligibility over to the people you acquire).

I trade:
KG (1 more offseason left)

for:
Okafor (2 more left)
Iverson (2 more left)

Result:
I receive:
Okafor (1 more season left, transferred from KG)
Iverson (1 more season left, transferred from KG).

I then conversely do the following:
Trade:
Iverson (1 season left)
Okafor (1 season left)

Receive:
Duncan (1 season left, transferred from Iverson and Brand's eligibility, which was transferred from Duncan).

THERE ISN'T A LOOPHOLE!

However, if I go by your guys proposed system
Trade:
KG (1 offseason left)
for:
Iverson (2 offseasons left, wasn't a keeper last year)
Okafor (2 offseasons left, wasn't in the league last year)

Result:
Iverson (2 offseasons left)
Okafor (2 offseasons left)
THERE IS A LOOPHOLE!

Simply having a "contract" system DOESN'T WORK!

[Joe Vancil]

Wow.  I had no idea that I was causing this much confusion.

When any player goes through the draft, that player has 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

When Skander drafted McGrady last season, McGrady had 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

Skander used one of those off-seasons.  McGrady would have 1 off-season left.

Contrast that with Dwyane Wade.  Wade went through the draft last year.  At the end of the season, he had 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.  He wasn't kept, and went through the draft.  Since he went through the draft, he has two off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

Let's take me with Duncan.  I drafted him last year, used one of his off-seasons of eligibility.  Let's say I keep him at the end of this season.  He would NOT be eligible to be kept at the end of next year.  I *MIGHT* be able to pawn him off on someone - but they wouldn't be able to keep him.  The person I could pawn him off on is a person who'd be playing for THAT SEASON.  If I were playing for THAT SEASON, I'd obviously keep him.  And if I were competing for that season, I might try to acquire him.  But NO ONE would trade a top-level player for Duncan for one season if they knew they were rebuilding.  In other words, last year, Duncan was extremely valuable, this year, he less valuable, and next year, he's of limited value.

Otherwise, I simply trade Duncan for Garnett next off-season, Garnett for Nowitzki two seasons later, Nowitzki for Amare two seasons after that.

If you have 3 keeper-type players - GOOD.  Choose which two you keep.  Currently, any player you pick up this year, you'll have for this season plus next if you keep him.  HOWEVER, next year, that won't be the case.  If a player is kept - by ANY MANAGER - both last season and this season, then next season that player will go through the draft.  Those who have rebuilt will have strong cores and strong teams...and those of us who've lost our key players will have to suffer through a season with lesser players, and pick up our "keeper" players in the next draft - when the teams deep from the previous year's rebuilding are only able to keep two of their studs...leaving the rest for the bottom-feeders.  They'll keep their Duncans and Nowitzkis, who've just gone through the draft, and have 2 off-seasons of eligibility because of that.

The question becomes "How serious are you about winning THIS year?"  Let's say that all of a sudden, next year, DaBods team tanks.  He's got Garnett.  He could trade Garnett for a stud keeper with 2-years of eligibility - say Jihad dropped Yao Ming at the end of this year and Randy drafted him.  Randy couldn't keep Garnett at the end of the year, but getting Garnett would be the push his team needs for the championship - so he offers Dabods Yao for Garnett.  As a result, DaBods gets Yao who has two years of eligibility, he keeps his other stud, and has a chance to pick up a third stud - possibly even Garnett - in the draft.  He's got three players, 2 of which - he'll have in the next two seasons - Yao for the next two, and Garnett for the next 3.

That forces us to make difficult choices.  Take my situation.  If I keep my best two players - Duncan and Nash - this off-season, then next season, I've got to give both of them up to the draft, and keep 2 other players on my team.  Or I can try to rebuild by dropping Nash this season, keeping Duncan and Rashard Lewis, who I'll keep for the next two off-seasons, and hopefully get my other new keeper next year, when I'm forced to let Duncan go.  Or I can try to trade Duncan and more for someone like Wade and try to stay atop the league for a longer period.  

In other words, the following players currently have 1 more off-season of keeper eligibility, no matter who has them:

Ray Allen
Carmelo Anthony
Elton Brand
Kobe Bryant
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Pau Gasol
Al Harrington
LeBron James
Jason Kidd
Andre Kirilenko
Tracy McGrady
Shawn Marion
Yao Ming
Steve Nash
Dirk Nowitzki
Lamar Odom
Jermaine O'Neal
Shaquille O'Neal
Paul Pierce
Predrag Stojakovic
Amare Stoudemire
Ben Wallace
Rasheed Wallace

Any one else has 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.  If any of the above players are kept this coming off-season, they go back in the draft the following year.  Any other player kept will have one off-season of eligibily.  ANY player not kept this coming off-season - a player who goes through the draft - will have two seasons of eligibility.

**An exception I would support**
2 keepers so far have been involved in trades.  In fairness to the managers who traded for these players, I would be willing to extend a "grandfather" clause, thus removing their names from the above list.  Those 2 players are Tracy McGrady, who went from Skander to Dabods, and Lamar Odom, who went from BBF to Randy.  They would have the normal 2 off-seasons of eligibility, as if they had been drafted for the first time this seasons.


 

[Derek Bodner]

When any player goes through the draft, that player has 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

When Skander drafted McGrady last season, McGrady had 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

Joe, read my post above to show why this doesn't work.

I use that propsal, trade KG for Iverson and Okafor.  Iverson and Okafor would then have 2 seasons of keeper eligibility left, because they were just drafted this year.

Yet, by the time this season's up, Iverson has been the best fantasy point to date, and Okafor is a top 5 center.

I have just used my stud keeper to get 2 stud players.

THAT IS THE LOOPHOLE YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.  IT DOESN'T WORK.  MY PROPOSAL DOES.

[Guest_Randy]

I, personally, like Joe's rule.  And I just don't agree with you dbods -- I think what will happen, if you continue to allow keepers to be traded (and therefore change their "contract"), is that managers will get tired of going against GM's who have players like KG, TD, etc.  Face it, those guys are HUGE in FGM, FG%, FTA, Reb, Blks, and sometimes assists.  Look at how many categories that these guys rule all by themselves.  You have to throw 2 to 3 guys at these guys just to cancel them out (and you can only play 6 people at a time -- which is one of the reasons why I believe that too ought to be expanded).  

Personally, these moves don't help me -- and I doubt that I am going to get a player like TD or KG -- however, managing to pull off a trade in our current league (for a top player) has been quite fruitless, IMO.

[WayOutWest]

However, if I go by your guys proposed system
Trade:
KG (1 offseason left)
for:
Iverson (2 offseasons left, wasn't a keeper last year)
Okafor (2 offseasons left, wasn't in the league last year)

Result:
Iverson (2 offseasons left)
Okafor (2 offseasons left)
THERE IS A LOOPHOLE!

Simply having a "contract" system DOESN'T WORK!

Why is that a loophole?

You trade one superstar with one year left for two lesser players with two years left.  Both sides have to give up something to get something.

With the other scenario what is the incentive to trade KG if you only get one year from the two inferior players?  Makes no sense at all.

[Guest_Randy]

When any player goes through the draft, that player has 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

When Skander drafted McGrady last season, McGrady had 2 off-seasons of keeper eligibility.

Joe, read my post above to show why this doesn't work.

I use that propsal, trade KG for Iverson and Okafor.  Iverson and Okafor would then have 2 seasons of keeper eligibility left, because they were just drafted this year.

Yet, by the time this season's up, Iverson has been the best fantasy point to date, and Okafor is a top 5 center.

I have just used my stud keeper to get 2 stud players.

THAT IS THE LOOPHOLE YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT.  IT DOESN'T WORK.  MY PROPOSAL DOES.

Dbods, I'm actually okay with that -- you make that trade and you have your two new keepers -- for two years.  I'm okay with that -- I would disagree that Okafor is all that great of a center -- he will give you great rebounding numbers but not in the category of KG or TD -- and his points won't be as great either.  

I think this rule does a better job of negating the top fantasy studs, IMO.  

[Derek Bodner]

What is the incentive to trade FOR KG if he's just going to be in the draft after this year anyway.

The incentive to trade KG would be to get someone to give you more value to acquire a stud keeper, thus increasing your chance at winning a championship and their chance of doing good in future years.  Would they do this knowing KG is going to be back in the draft?

OF COURSE NOT!

Another example.

Let's say after this year, I use my last year of eligibility on KG.  This kid comes into the league (we'll keep him anonymous), and puts up MJ type rookie stats.  It's obvious this kid's gonna be all-world fantasy.  I trade KG for the anonymous player (adding another good player to entice them), and now have this kid for another 3 more years.

I've just traded my stud fantasy player for another stud fantasy player, thus ensuring me having top quality fantasy players.  You haven't stopped anything.  It is a loophole.  You still have the same problem, the rich stay richer.

I will reiterate.  Traded (in just one offseason in the league):
Dirk
LeBron
McGrady
Kidd

(Dirk, LeBron and McGrady are most definitely 3 of the top 5 or 6 fantasy players, and Kidd was top 10 when he was acquired).

In another league (2 years)
Kobe
Brand
Duncan
Dirk
LeBron
Marion
Jermaine O'neal
Peja
Ray Allen
Kirilenko
Iverson


This problem is NOT as big as people are making it out to be.  If there's going to be this amount of paranoia, better to start fresh every 3 or so years, because there will be ways to abuse it, for the rich to stay richer, especially in the system you're proposing.

[Derek Bodner]

I would disagree that Okafor is all that great of a center

You're missing the point and getting caught up with players rather than theory.

The point is, you can still trade a stud keeper for a stud keeper.   It's not stopping that.

Read my variation of the proposal and find out why it's better.

IMO it closes that loophole that I've shown exists, and prevents the closing of a completely legitimate trade.

Just look at my trade this year.
The person who traded me McGrady can now use Redd for 3 years.  He's used McGrady to make himself better and doesn't have to worry about eligibility expiring.  Imagine if this was done in the last year of McGrady's eligibility and it becomes worse.

Now, look at it from my perspective (and I'm not just talking about me, because frankly no trade of before this rule should be affected by it.  but for future trades).

I use my good drafting of THIS YEAR, not my keepers from before and not lucky draft position, but good drafting to get valuable commodities.  I use these commodities to get a top flight keeper.  Something you all are arguing isn't possible.  But I use my drafting to get this keeper.  But...if we were transferring over remaining years of eligibility, why would I make this deal?  I wouldn't.  It stunts the trading of keepers.

Again, read my variation of the proposal.

[Lurker]

So Derek what is the answer to the following questions under the existing rules:

If ziggy trades Dirk straight up for Amare (both keepers last off season) today how much eligibilty does each player have left before re-entering the draft?

If the trade happens in the first week of next season (after two off seasons) what is the answer?

If I trade Okafor (non keeper last season) straight up for Brand (keeper last season) how much eligibility is left for each player?

[Derek Bodner]

Right now there are no rules on transferring eligibility.  That's the entire point of the thread.