I'm curious as to whether two owners have ever pulled off a "player to be named later" deal in a prog. I've never seen it done or even attempted, and I'm not saying I would do it (it seems a bit shady to me).

Anyway, here's an example of what I mean:

Owner A has a playoff-bound team this season, but next season he's rebuilding. Owner B's team sucks this season, but next season he's going to be competitive.

Owner A has a pitcher who's good this season AND next season.

Owner B has a batter who's good this season, BUT is washed up next season.

Owner B wants to send his batter to Owner A this season (let's say at the all-star break), in return for Owner A's pitcher at the conclusion of this season.

Anyone ever see a trade like this go down in a prog?

I can't think of a specific example, but I feel like I've seen it done before. Really all it would depend on is the rules of the prog and if they specifically prevent such deals

In a way, I suppose it's similar to trading a player mid-season for a draft pick. But for some reason it seems kind of shifty. I think people would object if a trade like the one in my example above were ever made in a prog league.

I'd veto it. It does seem shady. I've seen them proposed before and saw one attempted to get through, but that got vetoed by the league, and saw one go through during the off-season that was similar and nobody realized what the deal was exactly until the next off-season and the whole league flipped out and saw several owners leave. Even with good intentions, these kind of deals just seem shady.

(1) - Most progressive leagues ban trades that are not complete.. No optional draft picks, no PTBNL's, etc.

(2) - I'd veto any trade like that I saw, and I'd encourage other owners to do the same.

I don't have any problem with a trade like that. With that being said, I am pretty sure I am in the minority.

Quote: Originally posted by crazystengel on 5/20/2010
In a way, I suppose it's similar to trading a player mid-season for a draft pick. But for some reason it seems kind of shifty. I think people would object if a trade like the one in my example above were ever made in a prog league.

Now that I think about it, it's actually quite different from a draft pick deal. Because the draft pick isn't in the league yet; whereas the "player to be named later" is in effect being loaned by one owner to another for a portion of a season.

I'll automatically veto a rent-a-player deal. They aren't necessarily shady, imo. As a commissioner I don't recognize a deal as a deal until all picks and players have been exchanged. If that's not possible, and it isn't in a rent-a-player deal, it's not allowed.

btw - A deal like cs described in the top post is ALWAYS going to upset some owners. If you're in a prog and putting together a deal like that, even if the rules don't prohibit the move, you should check it out with the league commissioner before going ahead.

I would veto that. I have done it where I got a good pitcher for this season and next but did not need him for the next season so I offered him 1st chance to reacquire him. The difference is that I gave away players and picks when the trade happened and I got another pick back after the season to send the player back.

whats funny is when two trade are proposed as a pair making a blockbuster and one passes muster and one gets vetoed