The silence ends. The arguing continues.

League,

I’m writing this message to respond to the recent posts on David’s firesale. Most of you know that I am a Laissez Faire commissioner. I don’t believe a commissioner imposing restrictions on trades or behavior is beneficial or fun for any league, except to enforce those rules that are stated at the beginning of the league. If you asked me any question before the season began, it should’ve been on my approach to trades. Nevertheless, Josh brings up some challenges to my approach to commissioning, and I don’t want to let me them go unanswered. I want to clearly state that I believe both sides have made convincing arguments (Josh and David, basically). This has been a very hard issue for me to mull over. I'm not completely at ease with it, and I don't think anyone else will be. In my opinion though, it is the best solution.

Let me begin by saying this, I will not hold anyone to only subscribing to that approach right now that only benefits their immediate interests. If you want to make an argument for or against a position, I’d hope that you are self-aware and intelligent enough to hold your personal interest aside, and make an argument for what is or isn’t the actual right thing to do.

In the beginning of this season, this was discussed. I admit that this was not posted anywhere, only for the reason that I honestly , honestly did not see it being this big an issue. I apologize for that. However, I do know that a few people asked me about this exact issue, and I was not vague or unclear. I have always, always said that I would allow trades for future picks. I’m sorry that I didn’t write a post about it. In my defense, there are a plethora of issues that could’ve been written. I didn’t have the time to document every nuance of how every rule. In my mind, the bottom line is, if you think a rule is unfair, or question whether or not it should be in a league, it is your responsibility to ask for clarification before the season starts. I can’t conjure up every situation that could possibly ensue before a season starts.

I’ve tried my best though on the issues that seemed important before the season started. I wrote a post, and directed everyone to read it regarding return yards before the draft started. I responded to a valid complaint from a couple individuals regarding two quarterback play. In the end, we voted on it and changed what I personally wanted, according to the collective preference of the league. Ironically, one of the original debaters of that rule admitted to me that he now prefers the original two quarterback system. Go figure.

So now we’re here, arguing about whether or not players can be traded for picks. My answer is yes, teams can trade away players for future draft picks. There will be no restriction against it. There will, however, be a certain method in which it will be conducted.

First of all, all proposed trades must be put on the blog. After that, they will be given a two-day waiting period, where people can post objections, or counter-trades. This will, in effect, balance the trades so that "MJD can't be given for a 10th round pick", a scenario Josh has referred to about 7,654,892 times. This will not only give every team the option of "getting in" on a trade, but will give each team the visibility necessary to comment and counter-offer.

Secondly, every player that is drafted for a pick must be traded for at the very least, four rounds lower than his current projected status for the rest of the season. So let me explain.

Antonio Gates is expected to get 58.40 points for the rest of the season, making him the 63rd best player overall (in terms of projections) for the rest of the year. He is essentially a seventh round pick right now in a normal league. Since this is a keeper league, you have to adjust for the fact that the first round in next year's draft will really be like the fourth round in a normal draft. Therefore, you adjust Gates' value by three rounds, and make him a fourth round pick. But, my adjustment to this will be to add even one more round. You'd have to give a third rounder at least, making Gates' value to a team jockeying for a playoff spot more expensive, and warding off the "dump trade" (possibly).

Also, players for draft picks will be exactly that. If you offer a pick for a player, you get only a player in return. You sacrifice your pick in that round altogether.

It's not a perfect system. Leon Washington has no projected value for the rest of the season. I'm going to be open to adjusting value in situations such as this, and any debate that ensues on the blog. In the end, like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best I can come up with right now.

I'll speak to the infamous point #1 Josh wrote. My definitions now need to be refined a little to account for these scenarios that never happen in a normal league, but of course could happen in ours with the shrewdness of our members. Trades are allowed only where a deal benefits (of course, it's subjective) a manager's team. Whether that is this year, next year, or whenever, a trade must benefit a team. A team means the players on a person's team, nothing more. Collusion is where a deal is offered that does not benefit a manager's team. In your scenario #1 Josh, the team dumping his players to better the chances of another team beating his best competitor does not actually benefit his team (that's a sentence). It benefits his chances of success, certainly, but not his team. Therefore, I would not allow it.

Lastly, trading has been allowed to continue until November 27.

I don't know if this is everything I wanted to say, but I hope it's at least a good method in someone's eyes. I just want everyone to know that I do regret not clarifying this earlier. I didn't anticipate this kind of debate, but I'm doing my best to manage the situation in a way that is fair, and beneficial.

Peace.