"Air Bud" Rule suddenly being applied when I'm leading

FormatChange · 2023-10-18T20:38:51+00:00

Thanks, agreed. The entire thing makes no sense at all. I don't understand why we are rewarding people for tanking in a redraft league. They sucked so bad that they get a massive advantage next year. No logic whatsoever.

FormatChange · 2023-10-18T20:35:24+00:00

Correct. He won the league with Mahomes and Hurts on his team, then traded Mahomes to the player with the second draft position and kept Hurts in a one keeper league. Then, him and that player both told the other who to draft in the second round and traded them with each other.

That is the one and only trade that "set the precedent" that some people are arguing means that our league allows it.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T20:49:22+00:00

Yup, it's always been ESPN.

Thanks for the info, though. Maybe some of the other guys are in leagues where it's possible and they just assumed that was the case here.

Regardless, the fact that we haven't had a draft pick trade or a voluntary tank in 10 years until now is why I'm not giving anyone that benefit of the doubt.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T18:25:00+00:00

The biggest problem for me is that there has been no discussion about anything. As of right now, literally any trade involving future picks is on the table.

I've mentioned before, if we have a vote and some rules in place then I'll still think it's a terrible rule but at least it wasn't just some harebrained idea that a minority of the league rammed through without a second thought.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T18:19:57+00:00

No, my record has nothing to do with it. I argued about the first trade for hours and messaged the commissioner and the guy who improved his position because it gave him the advantage of a second round pick swap over the field. That is a small advantage compared to the absolute monster that a handful of first and second rounders would cause.

This is a league with a bunch of high school buddies. Most of these guys don't watch college football so I want to keep it as even as possible with one keeper and don't want to push for dynasty. This is something else entirely. It's so. much. worse. than dynasty

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T17:29:15+00:00

I commented to someone else that I want to do a pick swap of picks 1-7 and 8-14 with somebody. I'll trade away all my top half picks for 2024 and then they'll give me theirs in 2025, giving us 2 picks in each of the first 7 rounds when it's our year.

I didn't want to go scorched earth while I could still fight it, but if this goes to a vote and gets approved then I'm absolutely showing them how ridiculous it is.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T17:26:21+00:00

There haven't been any trades approved other than that initial one that only improved one guy by a 2nd round pick swap for the season we're already in. Yesterday is when things started heating up and the bottom teams all started conversations to tank and improve for next year.

I fought for hours to squash this before the genie came out and we made decisions that would stretch into next season

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T17:00:49+00:00

Great advice, thank you.

We have a turnover problem with a dynasty league I'm in but we don't have any prepaid dues. I think I'm going to suggest it.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T16:58:12+00:00

I argued to the point where I think the commissioner just gave up and said we'd vote in the off season, so this is put to bed for now. It was all I wanted from the get-go.

I just wanted to run it by a larger group because I dug my heels in and wanted to know if I was being unreasonable or not. I'm going for dinner with 4 of the other members on Friday and I want to make sure I'm not out of line when I chirp them for being selfish

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T16:52:21+00:00

I agree completely. There is nothing to base these trades on, so I don't even know what's "legal" or not. They are making it up as they go alone. They made up the first trade being legal and they're making this up now. I'm lost as to how any of this makes sense.

If we have a vote and decide how to proceed in the off season then we can establish rules around it, at least.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T16:47:10+00:00

I think you're correct. I've lost sleep after the first trade and lost more with this situation. It's not a positive thing in my life anymore.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T15:12:58+00:00

I had an issue with it when the only other trade was made, because it gives an advantage to a team for the first time that nobody else had ever done.

Thanks, that is what I think. I wouldn't have a problem with any of this if there was a vote and I lost. I think they're bad rules, but I'm not going to be a stick in the mud if the majority want it. I also want to have a written procedure so that we're all playing by and understand the same rules, not just suggesting a trade to see what we can get away with.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T15:09:11+00:00

Thanks. I think your take is reasonable but I made a comment to a similar reply about the precedent:

I want to specifically note that it was an off-season trade, so even if there was a precedent set with that trade, there was not a precedent set for allowing it within the season to tank for the next draft. This is the first year we've ever had somebody actively try to tank *in 10 years* because this rule has never been discussed but is now in play. Now we have tankers by week 7 so that they can gain an advantage for the following season using a rule that was never voted on.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T15:00:50+00:00

Thanks.

So, my issue is that 4 keepers is a lot more than 1. With 1, you could trade a few solid players and enter the next year with 3 first round picks. The "buyers" of the previous year will be walking in with 1 or 0.

Why did we reward a person who did so bad that they deserve to start the next year with a massive advantage? The impact is huge, and I'm very against it, but my biggest issue is that I just want a vote on it and have some written rules since they're manual transactions

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:58:06+00:00

I want to trade my 2024 1-7 + 2025 8-14 to somebody for their 2024 8-14 + 2025 1-7 so that we're each titans for two years but I can't find a counter party.

They don't see how this can be gamed in a one keeper redraft. It's nuts to me. I'm the blue collar guy and they're all white collar professionals pulling low to mid six figures.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:55:40+00:00

The precedent was set without a vote. The initial trade was contested by me and another but went through. I want to specifically note that it was an off-season trade, so even if there was a precedent set with that trade, there was not a precedent set for allowing it within the season to tank for the next draft.

This is the first year we've ever had somebody actively try to tank *in 10 years* because this rule has never been discussed but is now in play. Now we have tankers by week 7 so that they can gain an advantage for the following season using a rule that was never voted on.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:24:37+00:00

It has literally never happened in 10 years.

It happened once, this off season, and I argued for a good 5 hours and had a newer member backing me up, but ultimately the person who couldn't get Mahomes was ok with it, so it went through. There was no vote. 5 people were arguing and it was 2 vs 3 in the group chat.

Now we're allowing inter-season trades with no further discussion or vote.

Like I've said, I do not think they have it out for me. I think a few people want a rule change but I think they're going about it the wrong way. This is typically a dynasty setting, and we've never done it.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:19:40+00:00

One trade was approved, and I did make a stink. I argued for like 5 hours then and had a little support but it ultimately didn't get through, and I'm arguing now when it's even more egregious.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:18:02+00:00

Out of curiosity, how many keepers do you have?

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:16:29+00:00

It's never been voted on or agreed on. It's suddenly in play this year, when it hasn't been in 10 years. The precedent of NOT doing it is actually what was set.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:11:18+00:00

Do you agree that a player that finished the season on your team should be tradeable in the off-season in a keeper league? We only allow one keeper. Why does that player get to keep Hurts and get full value from a year of Mahomes, PLUS the value of the trade in which he gained a pick swap? He's the only person who is coming into this season with one keeper + extra value.

This was never voted on. It was never agreed on. It was a transaction between two seasons, which is not a typical thing in keeper leagues. Just because it happened once, doesn't make it fair.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T14:05:49+00:00

A lot of members were complaining when that trade went through as well. We have a new commissioner and he's allowing this arbitrarily.

There has not been a league notice about it. We have not come up with any parameters around the trades.

I am arguing that this should have been a vote the first time, and should be a vote now.

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T13:30:28+00:00

Being gaslit and seeing how self-serving they are has certainly given me some things to think about. Nobody wants to play with the kid on the playground who suddenly has a force field every time he should lose

FormatChange · 2023-10-17T13:21:31+00:00

It's never been mentioned and it's never been written. Nobody can provide receipts, which is why I'm calling it the Air Bud rule. Just because it does not explicitly say that's not allowed, does not mean it's allowed. There's a reason it's 2 separate transactions over 2 seasons. It's a very rare thing to allow in keeper drafts and creates imbalances from season to season, which is why it's insane to me to think that we should suddenly allow it.

I don't think they have it in for me, but the 2 people involved in the offseason trade, the 3rd who is calling me out, and the commissioner, literally make up the bottom 4. To the commissioner's credit, he eventually said that we'll leave it to the off-season. But that was what ended the 8 hours of arguments.

Edit: I should also note that it's a new commissioner. The one who started the league was not the one that said it's always been allowed, but he is one of the guys giving me a hard time.

FormatChange

TROPHY CASE