Conditional Draft Pick Trading

[FiremanEd]

Downfalls outweigh the reward IMO. It takes one mistake by an owner and it’s a headache, when in reality you can easily complete trades without these extra components adding complexity. I enjoy trade conversations, but am not overly interested in adding another variable into them and then having to monitor the availability of my pick(s) involved in these, or other owners who more often than not are less detailed than I am. I can happily settle for offers to and from and avoid the extra headaches.

If you have the right group of people and you outline all the requirements accordingly, then by all means I can see it working out and being an interesting tweak. It’s just not something I’d personally want to add to my portfolio.

[Ruggenater]

Nothing wrong if it's in the rules. Never allowed in the leagues I ran or played in because it's too much work for the Commish.

Herding the Cats is hard enough for the Commish is my take. Owners should just make a deal with compensation or not IMO.

If I had to do it then compensation would be strictly NFL performance based on the NFL regular season and conditional picks would only be for the better. IE a 2nd would turn into a 1st if Beasley hit 1000 yards receiving. It must be simple.

Picks going the other way would raise collusion concerns.

The last constraint seems unnecessary to me. Couldn’t you just always phrase it so the pick improves based on X instead of dropping based on Y?

So if someone offered a trade of a 1st for Beasley that downgrades to a 2nd if he doesn’t hit 1000 yards receiving, it’d break your rule, but it’s exactly the same as an offer of a 2nd that improved to a 1st if he does hit the yard threshold.

[jcc6fd]

Downfalls outweigh the reward IMO. It takes one mistake by an owner and it’s a headache, when in reality you can easily complete trades without these extra components adding complexity. I enjoy trade conversations, but am not overly interested in adding another variable into them and then having to monitor the availability of my pick(s) involved in these, or other owners who more often than not are less detailed than I am. I can happily settle for offers to and from and avoid the extra headaches.

If you have the right group of people and you outline all the requirements accordingly, then by all means I can see it working out and being an interesting tweak. It’s just not something I’d personally want to add to my portfolio.

I agree. Two years ago in my main league I was in charge of manually tracking conditional trades as our platform had no way to do this (pick swaps, upgrades in picks, additional picks, etc.). I don’t know what initially started this as conditions added to pick trades didn’t come about until year 3 or so of the league but two owners began adding conditions to inconsequential late round picks on almost every trade. Eventually conditions overlapped and it became a nightmare. We switched platforms from ESPN to Sleeper, which also doesn’t have conditional trading options, but because pick trades could be done in the system our commish wisely put an end to conditional pick trading.

Like Ed said, you’d need to have very committed conscientious league mates to make this work.

[ThunderTung]

Downfalls outweigh the reward IMO. It takes one mistake by an owner and it’s a headache, when in reality you can easily complete trades without these extra components adding complexity. I enjoy trade conversations, but am not overly interested in adding another variable into them and then having to monitor the availability of my pick(s) involved in these, or other owners who more often than not are less detailed than I am. I can happily settle for offers to and from and avoid the extra headaches.

If you have the right group of people and you outline all the requirements accordingly, then by all means I can see it working out and being an interesting tweak. It’s just not something I’d personally want to add to my portfolio.

I agree. Two years ago in my main league I was in charge of manually tracking conditional trades as our platform had no way to do this (pick swaps, upgrades in picks, additional picks, etc.). I don’t know what initially started this as conditions added to pick trades didn’t come about until year 3 or so of the league but two owners began adding conditions to inconsequential late round picks on almost every trade. Eventually conditions overlapped and it became a nightmare. We switched platforms from ESPN to Sleeper, which also doesn’t have conditional trading options, but because pick trades could be done in the system our commish wisely put an end to conditional pick trading.

Like Ed said, you’d need to have very committed conscientious league mates to make this work.

I think you guys are overthinking it, its not difficult to keep track of at all. The key is just finding a system that's easy to use. conditions are something that shouldn't take up more than an hours worth of time in a season.

I will say, if your just using the site to complete your trades than it obviously becomes more difficult to track. But we post our trades in our group chat, and don't even use the site to track picks (we draft manually)

If you don't like the idea of conditions, that's fine. But to reason it because its too much work is just wrong imo

[briank]

If it's allowed and rules for it are completely spelled out in the bylaws then it's fine.

If it's not specified or poorly worded it shouldn't be utilized.

It's a tricky setting to do right, but I'm sure there are leagues out there that do it successfully.

I think this is the right answer. Having said that, I do not and would not allow it in my leagues because MFL doesn't have a system for it and I'm not keeping track of it. being a commissioner is hard enough.

[FiremanEd]

I didn’t say it’s too much work, though I do think that adding it as a variable to any trade negotiation is unnecessary given trades can be completed easily and in volume without adding them into the equation. My prior comment was that in my opinion they are a risk that outweigh the benefit. Tracking isn’t an issue, but one owner or league oversight becomes one to unravel (ie. Conditional pick X gets traded and not noticed for weeks).They are 100% doable, so long as there is monitoring and quality owners. It’s just not something that I would be looking to add to my league portfolio.

[Ice]

Nothing wrong if it's in the rules. Never allowed in the leagues I ran or played in because it's too much work for the Commish.

Herding the Cats is hard enough for the Commish is my take. Owners should just make a deal with compensation or not IMO.

If I had to do it then compensation would be strictly NFL performance based on the NFL regular season and conditional picks would only be for the better. IE a 2nd would turn into a 1st if Beasley hit 1000 yards receiving. It must be simple.

Picks going the other way would raise collusion concerns.

The last constraint seems unnecessary to me. Couldn’t you just always phrase it so the pick improves based on X instead of dropping based on Y?

So if someone offered a trade of a 1st for Beasley that downgrades to a 2nd if he doesn’t hit 1000 yards receiving, it’d break your rule, but it’s exactly the same as an offer of a 2nd that improved to a 1st if he does hit the yard threshold.

Like I said, I would not have this type of trade as an option in the first place. BTW you would now be forcing 2 picks from being traded in your scenario. Is that really a good idea?

I get it sounds fun but in fantasy football it will limit trading and any mistake would in fact result in even more work.

Anyone that wants to do it is certainly welcome. No issues in the concept provided the the rules are clear.

I don't recall ever seeing a NFL trade where the compensation was lowered after the trade. In the NFL they start with lowest acceptable then they can move based on performance.

[KCLep20]

It's rare and I agree that it's something that could get out of hand rather quickly to track. I have traded before and stated that the 1st is protected against being the 1.01, and if the pick becomes 1.01 they then get xyz pick instead. Again, that's tracked within the trade commentary and it's up to each owner to manage and make sure it's followed properly.

[jgoodie24]

I think the OP hit it the nail on the head with the 3 types of conditional trades. My league has used all three and I have not had difficulty tracking them as commish. We've used a public spreadsheet to track trades and conditions from the beginning and we do a manual draft on a spreadsheet so that probably makes it easier.

That said, I set limits early on about how far out picks could be traded (2 drafts into the future) and requirements that the language be clear so I can process the conditions without much effort. I can also see how a very active league or one with a large appetite for conditionals could get out of hand. Looking through our trade history, I think my league has had a grand total of about 50 trades in 7 years so it's not like a lot of moves are being made for me to track.

Not sure if it helps at all but here are examples of the text on conditional trades from years past in my league:

"Conditional pick is a 2020 4th round that becomes a 3rd round if Hyde finishes ranked as a top 30 RB in 2019. Pick becomes a 2nd round if Hyde finishes as a top 15 RB in 2019. Rankings based on total fantasy points."

"Conditional pick is A's 2019 1st if conditions are not met for it to go to M (see trade on line 23 above). If the pick does go to M, then A will send his 2019 2nd and Dede Westbrook to K.

[honcho55]

Huh, interesting.

I’d have expected this forum to be dang near unanimously opposed to this. Woulda been wrong!

I’ve only had one league where these have happened, and I’d say it was kind of a toss up. Fun vs extra work. I don’t feel like I need to explain that further.

If the commish is up to it, and rules are clear and everything is disclosed, have at it.

[jcc6fd]

Downfalls outweigh the reward IMO. It takes one mistake by an owner and it’s a headache, when in reality you can easily complete trades without these extra components adding complexity. I enjoy trade conversations, but am not overly interested in adding another variable into them and then having to monitor the availability of my pick(s) involved in these, or other owners who more often than not are less detailed than I am. I can happily settle for offers to and from and avoid the extra headaches.

If you have the right group of people and you outline all the requirements accordingly, then by all means I can see it working out and being an interesting tweak. It’s just not something I’d personally want to add to my portfolio.

I agree. Two years ago in my main league I was in charge of manually tracking conditional trades as our platform had no way to do this (pick swaps, upgrades in picks, additional picks, etc.). I don’t know what initially started this as conditions added to pick trades didn’t come about until year 3 or so of the league but two owners began adding conditions to inconsequential late round picks on almost every trade. Eventually conditions overlapped and it became a nightmare. We switched platforms from ESPN to Sleeper, which also doesn’t have conditional trading options, but because pick trades could be done in the system our commish wisely put an end to conditional pick trading.

Like Ed said, you’d need to have very committed conscientious league mates to make this work.

I think you guys are overthinking it, its not difficult to keep track of at all. The key is just finding a system that's easy to use. conditions are something that shouldn't take up more than an hours worth of time in a season.

I will say, if your just using the site to complete your trades than it obviously becomes more difficult to track. But we post our trades in our group chat, and don't even use the site to track picks (we draft manually)

If you don't like the idea of conditions, that's fine. But to reason it because its too much work is just wrong imo

I guess I’m lazy or stupid or both. It probably took a couple of hours to work through all of our conditional trades and I didn’t like doing it. Not even a crazy volume but when you have an owner who has acquired 4 3rds and then trades them each at different times with conditions like player B will get the worst of the 3rds I own, you have to map out the timing of each trade and interpret the condition such that each owner is getting what they expect.

For the record this is a friends league and I fully trusted all the owners.

I guess I’d suggest having clear rules on what types of conditions are allowed and how they are tracked and traded subsequently, i.e how and can a pick that was part of an earlier conditional trade is handled.

[M-Dub]

I’m not opposed to it in principle, but it would require way more time and effort than I’m willing to dedicate as a commish, and I consider myself a pretty dedicated commish. If MFL implemented a way to “tag” specific picks/players with a note that would pop up when processing trades, then I’d be open to the idea. As it stands, it’s just a can of worms I have no interest in opening.

[FiremanEd]

One question I would have is whether those in favor feel that it actually drives more trades. I’d argue it doesn’t, both due to the fact that trades can undoubtedly cover the value of the conditions being added with other value of a similar risk, and due to the incremental haggling it could drive into a discussion that’s unnecessary. If I know my assets I can make an offer, accept or decline and it is final. With conditions, it’s open ended, and suddenly all sorts of other variables are added unnecessarily.

Is the concept cool? Yes, in theory it is. I just don’t know if it actually adds value to a league instead of potentially over complicating it. (My opinion of course. I acknowledge the uniqueness of it and that many would feel it is a value add, similar to the real NFL. Many non-IDP players may say the same about IDP!)

[ThunderTung]

One question I would have is whether those in favor feel that it actually drives more trades. I’d argue it doesn’t, both due to the fact that trades can undoubtedly cover the value of the conditions being added with other value of a similar risk, and due to the incremental haggling it could drive into a discussion that’s unnecessary. If I know my assets I can make an offer, accept or decline and it is final. With conditions, it’s open ended, and suddenly all sorts of other variables are added unnecessarily.

Is the concept cool? Yes, in theory it is. I just don’t know if it actually adds value to a league instead of potentially over complicating it. (My opinion of course. I acknowledge the uniqueness of it and that many would feel it is a value add, similar to the real NFL. Many non-IDP players may say the same about IDP!)

I would say that I don't think it drives the raw number of trades up, however I do think it makes more owners willing to trade. There are always owners that are skeptical when it comes to trades, with conditions those owners would be more willing to make a move

[FiremanEd]

One question I would have is whether those in favor feel that it actually drives more trades. I’d argue it doesn’t, both due to the fact that trades can undoubtedly cover the value of the conditions being added with other value of a similar risk, and due to the incremental haggling it could drive into a discussion that’s unnecessary. If I know my assets I can make an offer, accept or decline and it is final. With conditions, it’s open ended, and suddenly all sorts of other variables are added unnecessarily.

Is the concept cool? Yes, in theory it is. I just don’t know if it actually adds value to a league instead of potentially over complicating it. (My opinion of course. I acknowledge the uniqueness of it and that many would feel it is a value add, similar to the real NFL. Many non-IDP players may say the same about IDP!)

I would say that I don't think it drives the raw number of trades up, however I do think it makes more owners willing to trade. There are always owners that are skeptical when it comes to trades, with conditions those owners would be more willing to make a move

Interesting. I hadn’t considered that, so good comment. I imagine they’ll still be limited traders regardless, but an extra chance to hedge I suppose.