N.E.R.F.L.

Rule Proposal: Off Season Trading January 12, 2012

The DC Nukes Have Proposed the following rule:

Proposed Rule (to replace VIII – D):

Beginning after the 2012 season (exempting this off-season), trades between teams may only occur where each team involved in the trade loses a single player and gains a single player.  Each team involved in the trade must declare the player received in the trade as that team’s keeper for the following year with the following exceptions to apply after the NERFL trade has been accepted by the owners:

A)  The player received retires from the NFL
B)  The player received is placed on the IR for the next season
C)  The player received is released or traded by his NFL team

If one of these exemptions occur before the last day to declare a keeper, the NERFL team may change its keeper to another player on its team.

Here is my thought.  Right now, it doesnt make any sense to have trades between teams in the off-season unless the teams invovled in the trade intend to acquire a single player for a keeper.  It doesn’t make sense for teams to trade more than one player for a single player in return, since the gaining team can’t do anything with “extra” players.  The one counter to this is, “well, I should be able to decide who my keeper is upon the last day.”  But, I see this rule as a way to prevent collusion, even if it is completely unintentional.  If a two teams trade players and one team uses its player gained as a keeper and the other decides not too, even if it was a strong consideration at the time of the trade, they are still unintentionally helping another team without receiving any valid compensation.

For a concrete example, I have Victor Cruz and Greg Jennings both on my team for $1.  But, I also have Ray Rice, which is a strong contender for my keeper this year (again).  If I trade either Victor or Greg to another team and then decide to keep Rice and drop all players including the one(s) I would have received, it would give the team receiving the WR a possible advantage for a few years to come.

Now, I know we have never had a problem in this league with any type of collusion or anything like that.  I am not worried about it in the least bit.  But, I do see an oppportunity to help tighten the rule as we go forward since it is one that doesn’t make a lot of sense as it stands now.

I intend that this rule would work for trades involving more than two teams (three-way, four-way trades).  I would hope the exceptions would also help cover situations where a person is not screwed by external forces upon their player.

Thanks!

Nukes