Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
That's the part I don't understand. If it doesn't affect the outcome of the game, and it hurts your team, it seems unethical to intentionally hurt your team. You're saying he "owes" the other team the better waiver priority more than he "owes" his own team a chance to be competitive. That doesn't make any sense to me. How is an owner being ethical by purposely hurting his own team while gaining nothing? Fantasy owners aren't computers, programmed to be short-sighted. It would be like a computer coach keeping their quarterback in the game in the fourth quarter of a blowout loss. Any human would see that, with the game out of hand, you don't want to risk an injury for no reason. You have nothing to gain and can only hurt your team. Don't they owe it to the game to field the best team possible? To the fans in the stands?He's intentionally fielding a lesser team to improve his waiver priority. Intentionally fielding a lesser team, for whatever reason, is unethical. It doesn't matter whether or not he paid because his actions are affecting other teams (i.e. the team that fielded a legit lineup and now will have a lower priority). The only reason he has this option is because he has players going on Monday night.
Sure they do-- if they're trying to win. But if the game is out of hand and cannot be won, they have to be smart and think about the rest of the season. I think forcing a fantasy owner to not consider the rest of the year when the game cannot be won is tying one hand behind their back.
If we were talking about throwing a game, totally different story. If we were talking about a close margin where he might prefer to get the better priority rather than risk winning, different story. But he can't win. He has Finley and he can't win. It's truly a lost cause. What is gained by losing by fewer points?