NFFC Message Boards

It has been suggested on anther thread that the NFFC should consider allowing trades between teams next year. The collusion argument aside, I say NO WAY.

The worst thing about local leagues is when a trade you are not involved in decides which team wins your league. Again, collusion aside, trades are almost NEVER in the best interests of both owners. There’s nothing quite like having the #1 team and seeing the #2 guy make a deal that is a borderline steal and he subsequently passes you up.

In a local league you have to always keep your guard up and be ready to counter the deals of the other owners. Here it’s all about our own decisions, the draft, the FA wire and weekly line-ups, I for one love this about the NFFC.

I could write a book about collusion as well, and I guarantee that there would be at least a few groups that would try to a subtle move or two to cheat the system if you opened this thing up for trades. Not to mention the headaches that Greg and Tom would have to deal with.

There is a 0% chance we ever see trading in the NFFC.

[ October 08, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: nnoy ]

NNOY is correct, trading will never happen. besides real collusion, the cry of collusion would be heard above the roar of a 747.

Here are the choices when players are traded:

1. Trade helps both teams. For example, my team in NY6. I have 5 quality WRs and NO quality RBs. A team like Hot Sauce in NY6 that has Alexander, Barber and Dillon could trade for a Harrison, Holt or Moulds and we would both be ahead of the game. The other 12 teams would scream.

2. Trade helps one team. This is the most common situation, usually due to a 2 for 1 trade (2 average for 1 stud) and bad analysis. Again, 12 teams scream.

3. Trade a good guy for a prayer. Here you trade Coles for Artose Pinner, hoping he takes over as the #1. Twelve teams scream.

4. Trade 2 bench sitters. Maurice Morris for Lamont Jordan. twelve teams yawn.

Bottom line, in most cases the rest of the league raises a fuss. If the trade is a good one, the other teams cry. If the trade is a bad one, the other teams cry. Only if the trade is just for the fun of trading does nobody care.

As I posted in another thread, I don't see trading in the main event as an option but I would not be against a side league that had that option especially if it brought new players to the main event.

Give people a variety of options to play FF in the NFFC and the draw may be substantial for the main event as well. The side leagues we have going right now are more for ego than anything else but the GEKKO Invitational has stoked the competitive fires and I'm sure the mid-season leagues will do the same. I wouldn't be against a side league with 12 teams and 20 players to satisfy Vegas Gambler and those who want that option and I'm sure VG probably wouldn't have a problem promoting that event.

I'm not speaking for Tom and Greg by any stretch of the imagination here but they have been very open and accommodating to trying different FF games and options to this point which is why we have the GEKKO Invitational and the mid-season leagues.

For a big money league with many participants, I don't ever see trading. As soon as one questionable trade happens, you will lose a core of your participants.

Shamu.... you still don't get it....

I said a side league, Vegas. Are you having trouble graduating from junior high? I grew up in Baltimore and the education in Maryland used to be pretty good.

Tamu, I'd agree that a side league could work, but chances are it won't. After a few weeks some of the teams would clearly have little chance. If the leader was not liked (won't mention any names) then slightly one-sided trades could be made in the hope of teams in 3rd or 4th overtaking somebody else. It might even be subconscious collusion, but it will happen.

The conversation would go like this: "Are we going to let NNOY run away with this? I really need a WR. How about Terry Glenn for Michael Bennett? Glenn won't help you win, you're too far out and Bennett might be great the last 3 weeks of the season. If I win we'll have dinner at the next draft".

[ October 08, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyPaul ]

True, JP, but what if the trading had parameters such as (1) Can't trade someone on the injury report, and (2) Set up 6 trading blocks, 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15, and 16-18 with trades only being allowed with players in the same block. You could even put a maximum number of players allowed to be traded throughout the course of the season, say 4. This could add a little spice to a side league.

The maximum number of players allowed to trade would be per team.

Trading never works. Every league I've ever played in that has the option for owners to vote on trades ends up in arguments every year. There are ALWAYS people who veto any trade that helps a team in their division. It can be the most even trade you've ever seen, and you'll still see vetos on it. There are also other people who will veto trades because their last trade was vetoed. It goes on and on and on. In this league, we have owners who paid $1,200.00 to play and had a week or 2 without a full starting lineup when they had starters on their bench. Can you imagine the trades that might go through?

How would you feel if Randy Hymes was traded for Priest Holmes because the owner with Holmes also landed Chris Brown and Tiki Barber, and then picked up Leonard Henry in free agent...And wanted Hymes because he's a Baltimore fan and thinks Hymes will get 100 balls. It seems like a fair judgement call since he's got 3 RB's already and if he thinks Randy Hymes will catch 100 balls, it's his perogative. Not collusion. But you would want to kill him because he just gave Holmes for Hymes. Trading never works.

I was the one who suggested trades on the other thread. Some good points were made in the previous post. I guess my trade suggestion was more a wish list for me personally. I had the 14th pick and without the opportunity to draft good-stud RB I drafted stud WRs and got deep in that position.
When you pick your first RB in Round 4 (L. Suggs) it is usually the case that that position will be your weak spot. The opportunity to trade 1 of my 3 stud WRs for a good-stud RB would improve my team as it appears I drafted good WRs late as well and I could afford to let i stud WR go for the right RB.

I am sensitive to the collusion possibility. Yes Tom/Greg would have more work to do as they would have to apply some "formula" to judge the validity of the trade, and I'll even admitt it won't happen in this "high stakes" format.

BUT SOMEONE WAS COMPLAINING THAT THERE WASN'T ANTY QUALITY POSTS LATELY AND i SUGESTED THAT TRADES WOULD CHANGE THAT. NOW JUST LOOK WHAT THE TOPIC OF TRADING HAS DONE TO THE MESSAGE BOARD!

You have to admit I was right about 1 thing!

John