What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The elephant in the room for dynasty leagues... (1 Viewer)

EBF

EBF

Footballguy
...is that for all the time and energy people spend on analysis, a lot of what determines a team's success is how well they exploit the bad owners in the league. I get loads of brainless lopsided offers in my leagues during the busy FF seasons. As annoying as they can be, I don't hold it against the proposers since the strategy is effective. If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.

The problem I see in my leagues is where you get a small group of weak owners who are like FF sieves. When they manage to get their hands on a great player, it's only a matter of time until they make a dumb trade and pawn the asset off for a bunch of scrap metal. Other owners exploit them repeatedly and it becomes like a race to see who can hoodwink the donator before he can spew his latest gem. Over time a small minority of teams become stacked by repeatedly swindling the perennial losers, who function like a charity for the rest of the league.

As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will. I'm sure some people get a thrill out of it, but for me it also feels a little dirty when you know you're just robbing another owner blind because he doesn't know what he's doing. You can't take trades out of the game because that would just make things too rigid and boring, so how do you deal with this problem? The rookie pick system is designed to provide a crutch for losing owners, but it doesn't really work because they'll just waste whatever new value they acquire. You can try to limit your leagues to only contain good owners who won't make horrendous trades, but I play in some tough leagues and every one of them has soft spots. It's inevitable.

I don't know if this is a legitimate "problem" or more of just a "feature." Thinking about it did just give me an interesting idea though. In European soccer, teams who finish at the bottom of the standings are usually relegated to a minor league. So if the Devil Rays had the worst record in MLB this season, they would be sent down to AAA. And they could only get back into the major leagues if they finished near the top in AAA the next year. In this way incompetent teams are punished.

It might be fun to implement a relegation system in FF, either within an individual league (i.e. have enough low finishes and you're out) or within a pyramid of leagues (i.e. there's a "Pro" league, an AAA league, a AA league, and so on).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF said:
As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will.
Click to expand...
No, you actually do have the choice, to participate in the predation or not. The fact that everyone else is doing it is a poor justification for any behavior.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
EBF said:
As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will.
Click to expand...
No, you still actually do have that choice, not to participate. The fact that everyone else is doing it is a poor justification for any behavior.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether you want to be ethical or whether you want to win. If you know there's a weak link in your league and you refuse to exploit him on moral grounds, you're ultimately jeopardizing your own chances of winning because other owners will certainly take advantage of the weak link to their own benefit. Over time they'll accrue a lot of value from this and eventually they'll be able to field teams that you can't compete with using your "good guy" strategy.

It's the same reason why there are cheaters and psychopaths in nature. Their methods might be reprehensible, but if their strategies are successful then it doesn't really matter. They will reap rewards and spread into future generations. The standings don't care about ethics. Only about who amasses the team that scores the most points. A cutthroat owner with a "by any means necessary" approach will outcompete an owner of equivalent ability who refuses to take advantage of certain opportunities on moral/ethical grounds. So essentially you have no choice if you want to practice ideal team management.

 
EBF said:
squistion said:
EBF said:
As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will.
Click to expand...
No, you still actually do have that choice, not to participate. The fact that everyone else is doing it is a poor justification for any behavior.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether you want to be ethical or whether you want to win. If you know there's a weak link in your league and you refuse to exploit him on moral grounds, you're ultimately jeopardizing your own chances of winning because other owners will certainly take advantage of the weak link to their own benefit. Over time they'll accrue a lot of value from this and eventually they'll be able to field teams that you can't compete with using your "good guy" strategy.

It's the same reason why there are cheaters and psychopaths in nature. Their methods might be reprehensible, but if their strategies are successful then it doesn't really matter. They will reap rewards and spread into future generations. The standings don't care about ethics. Only about who amasses the team that scores the most points. A cutthroat owner with a "by any means necessary" approach will outcompete an owner of equivalent ability who refuses to take advantage of certain opportunities on moral/ethical grounds. So essentially you have no choice if you want to practice ideal team management.
Click to expand...
I'll take ethics. Thanks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigmund Bloom said:
Zealots does exactly what you describe and has been going for a decade
Click to expand...
That's interesting. It has been several years since I participated in a Zealots league. I don't remember a relegation feature.

I'm intrigued by the idea of starting a four league pyramid where results are aggregated within leagues over time periods of 3-4 years and the teams with the best/worst results during that time frame are moved up/down accordingly. That illustrates one of the aspects of dynasty FF that I dislike though. It's a fairly slow moving game. Like a single table poker tournament played out over the course of years. A team could quite easily abandon the league within the 3-4 year window, which would complicate the process considerably. I don't think you can use a 1 year window because it forces a short-sighted win-now approach and is more prone to variance. I guess it might be more ideal than having 3-4 perennial donators who spew value in a constant upward stream though.

 
I think everything EBF is saying is absolutely true and it has been a problem in every dynasty league I have been in. I don't like it at all, I don't like the unethical nature of predatory traders, and I don't like falling behind the predator if I don't partake at some level.

I have straight up told some owners that if they are going to trade a stud or a high draft pick, they need to shop it around first. In the league I commish, I have told new novice owners that the predators are absolutely going to try and rip them off, please feel free to ask my opinion on offers and I'll give them my honest take.

It is frustrating because I cannot stoop to their level. I can try to "win" a trade, but I won't send obviously BS offers hoping to get over on somebody, I won't try to convince somebody of some absurd notion, and I won't even accept offers that are drastically in my favor (at least not from a bad or new owner... if a good vet owner wants to overpay, fine).

 
If the "prey" or bad owner isn't learning you have to kick them. Most of the time they will quit the league anyways but if they don't learn you have to kick them.

It's one thing to be a new owner an getting crushed on a few bad trades but if said owner isn't learning to at least go to the rest of the league and see what else is being offered or to figure out how to use the endless resources available to evaluate trades and players then it's time for them to go. Bringing in a replacement owner can be tough be it's better then the balance of the league hanging on an owner or two, who indirectly, are basically deciding who's going to have the strongest team.

I'm not condoning these owners who take advantage of the weaker members in anyway though. It ruins leagues and it's gross. It also puts the commish in a tough spot too. Unless it is the commissioner, in which case it's probably time for me to leave the league.

 
EBF said:
Sigmund Bloom said:
Zealots does exactly what you describe and has been going for a decade
Click to expand...
That's interesting. It has been several years since I participated in a Zealots league. I don't remember a relegation feature.

I'm intrigued by the idea of starting a four league pyramid where results are aggregated within leagues over time periods of 3-4 years and the teams with the best/worst results during that time frame are moved up/down accordingly. That illustrates one of the aspects of dynasty FF that I dislike though. It's a fairly slow moving game. Like a single table poker tournament played out over the course of years. A team could quite easily abandon the league within the 3-4 year window, which would complicate the process considerably. I don't think you can use a 1 year window because it forces a short-sighted win-now approach and is more prone to variance. I guess it might be more ideal than having 3-4 perennial donators who spew value in a constant upward stream though.
Click to expand...
oh wait, i was mixing up zealots with no mercy. no mercy does relegation. sorry

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks said:
Why would you not want fish in your league?
Click to expand...
It's not that I ultimately care much either way, but it shifts the competition from "who can evaluate talent and value the best" to "who can rip off the spewy owners most effectively."

 
EBF said:
ShaHBucks said:
Why would you not want fish in your league?
Click to expand...
It's not that I ultimately care much either way, but it shifts the competition from "who can evaluate talent and value the best" to "who can rip off the spewy owners most effectively."
Click to expand...
Everyone doesn't seriously persuit FF like we do. I don't think it's unethical to exploit an edge when majority play just for entertainment puposes anyway. Sharks pretend like they're swimming with the fishes. I'll sleep at night. Even the average-good owners have flaws in their game. I've seen great teams not make the playoffs because an owner doesn't know how to set an optimal lineup. I've seen good owners overvalue their players or rookie picks. There are owners who never use never use the WW. I can go on and on. Those guys have leaks too. You can, but you usually don't get a stacked team by JUST exploiting bad owners in trades. There is a lot more to it than that. You can have a ton of equity in the leagues pot right out of the start-up draft for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure this is an elephant in the room. May a large dog. Regardless, I'll propose a solution: once any trade is completed, it doesn't process for 24 hours. This isn't a veto period, but an opportunity for other owners to make better offers (to either side). If the trade is really theft, someone should be able to convince the victim to take a better deal.

Of course, 24 hours is too long to wait during a rookie draft, so you may have to cut the processing time to 2 hours during drafts.

 
Bamac said:
I'm not sure this is an elephant in the room. May a large dog. Regardless, I'll propose a solution: once any trade is completed, it doesn't process for 24 hours. This isn't a veto period, but an opportunity for other owners to make better offers (to either side). If the trade is really theft, someone should be able to convince the victim to take a better deal.

Of course, 24 hours is too long to wait during a rookie draft, so you may have to cut the processing time to 2 hours during drafts.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, though tough to administer.

And who's to say if the guppy owner will recognize a better deal when he sees one?

 
interesting post. i'm in a rather competitive dynasty league and this definitely has had an impact over the years. Whether it's unethical is a fine line i think. When does a good deal cross the line?

I've never really done this personally but i have friends who have and have definitely helped their teams and probably led to championships.

I don't think a post-trade rule is practical. Some type of pre-trade rule where you give league opportunity to beat offer could possibly work to some degree.

 
It's pretty prevalent in a free league I'm in, there it's less of a problem.

In leagues where you're committing hundreds of dollars though you can't always afford to take the high road. Just need to hope those owners leave.

 
identikit said:
Bamac said:
I'm not sure this is an elephant in the room. May a large dog. Regardless, I'll propose a solution: once any trade is completed, it doesn't process for 24 hours. This isn't a veto period, but an opportunity for other owners to make better offers (to either side). If the trade is really theft, someone should be able to convince the victim to take a better deal.

Of course, 24 hours is too long to wait during a rookie draft, so you may have to cut the processing time to 2 hours during drafts.
Click to expand...
Interesting idea, though tough to administer.

And who's to say if the guppy owner will recognize a better deal when he sees one?
Click to expand...
Not that tough. MFL allows you to set a commissioner review period. Just adapt that. And once people see how the rule works, owners will stop trying to take advantage of the poor owners.

The main problem in my mind is that the 24-hour rule may chill "good" trading, as owners will be less likely to invest the time and thought for a trade when they may get poached after the deal is done. And, of course, there's the objection that EBF already noted: reasonably lopsided trades are part of the game, and we shouldn't be doing anything to stop them.

 
There's really no solution for this, but it sure is a lot more fun to play in a league with all strong owners.

IMO one of the biggest advantages of developmental leagues and a worst-to-first WW is that it allows even the worst teams to be rebuilt once you get rid of a bad owner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Been my experience as well.

 
A couple of things a commish can do

1) Suggest/implement some rule that players are subject to some form of evaluation during the fantasy off-season just like they are evaluating whether to stay in the league. I have this in my leagues, but it is more based on a player being a personality misfit than not being very good at FF, but if the standards are objective enough I think it could work.

2) Actually reject bad trades. Most commishes let players run their teams, largely to a fault. I couple of years back, a 4/5 person group of family members basically over a 4 or so year period never get any better(well one did). there was an trade involvijng a mid round draft pick and a kicker for two starting level IDPs and I rejected it. There had been worse trades, but I was tired of seeing these things come through the league. In the drama of the owners getting pissed, I found out that multiple years in the league that one of them did not know one of the players was a top 10 If not top 5 players at his position and had been for the length of time. Most of our leagues are not better with nice well meaning people who set their lines and pa on time, but never truly try to get better.

What a league can do

1) IF a team(s) are going to be bad, just beat that owner into submission. It might lead to a short-term problem of finding someone to take over that dog of a tea, but a guy that is always 2-11 with no assets or ability to keep them is not good either.

2) More positive: actually use the message board for fantasy football discussion of value, roster construction, links to FF sites. In other words, help the lesser player learn some of things that the better players have. I know in a couple of leagues post draft, there used to be some version of "explain your draft" although I think none of them do it any more. Again this is exposure to thought about FF which is rarely a bad thing for an owner.

 
identikit said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Been my experience as well.
Click to expand...
The is my experience as well. This isn't an elephant in the room. It's standard operating procedure in any league, no matter how "good, qualified or expert" the members are. Bad trades happen all the time. Sometimes trades that people thought were bad weren't so bad at all.
 
EBF said:
squistion said:
EBF said:
As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will.
Click to expand...
No, you still actually do have that choice, not to participate. The fact that everyone else is doing it is a poor justification for any behavior.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether you want to be ethical or whether you want to win. If you know there's a weak link in your league and you refuse to exploit him on moral grounds, you're ultimately jeopardizing your own chances of winning because other owners will certainly take advantage of the weak link to their own benefit. Over time they'll accrue a lot of value from this and eventually they'll be able to field teams that you can't compete with using your "good guy" strategy.

It's the same reason why there are cheaters and psychopaths in nature. Their methods might be reprehensible, but if their strategies are successful then it doesn't really matter. They will reap rewards and spread into future generations. The standings don't care about ethics. Only about who amasses the team that scores the most points. A cutthroat owner with a "by any means necessary" approach will outcompete an owner of equivalent ability who refuses to take advantage of certain opportunities on moral/ethical grounds. So essentially you have no choice if you want to practice ideal team management.
Click to expand...
Had just this situation last offseason in a longtime complicated dynasty league where a good redraft/3 keeper owner took over a pretty bad team--pretty soon he made a very bad trade offer to me involving some of his better players, draft picks and the currency we use. I had a choice and even though I knew someone else was probably going to exploit him, for league balance and integrity reasons, I used the offer as an opportunity to help him understand asset valuation in our league and give him some pointers on avoiding mistakes. He sort of thanked me and then got hoodwinked by the one owner who always seems to be exploiting the weaker owners (the new owner ended up giving the equivalent of like 7 first round rookie draft picks for Larry Fitzgerald) and surprisingly, to me, a league founder I never thought would do something like that. I shamed them both hard in the league forum and made sure the new guy knew he had been ripped off and that it upset league balance for everyone else. The league founder tried to argue to me that it was just a valuation difference of opinion, which happens, but it was just too big for that to fly. When I asked him whether he gave the new owner any advice on asset valuation or league rules, he clammed up quick.

It was nothing that was bad enough to require voiding the deals, but it was certainly enough so the new guy will be a shell of a team probably winning around 4 games a year for at least 2-3 years, while the other two teams who duped him essentially vaulted into the top 2-4 teams for the next 2-3 years. It messed up league balance and really ticked me off but I am glad I tried to help the new guy and didnt rip him off and at least one of those who did now regret it. Public league shaming and exposure of this type of stuff is the only way to try to curb it--if your league mates have any shame, that is.

 
EBF said:
ShaHBucks said:
Why would you not want fish in your league?
Click to expand...
It's not that I ultimately care much either way, but it shifts the competition from "who can evaluate talent and value the best" to "who can rip off the spewy owners most effectively."
Click to expand...
I have no qualms making deals with owners who think they know what they are doing, but do not. Same thing happens to a much lesser extent in the NFL, or in business. Jerry Jones thinks he's a GM, but he isn't. Al Davis made mistakes near the end of his career. Same with business deals. If an owner wants a bad deal (for whatever reason), why should I say "No, this is a bad deal for you".

This isn't about ethics or morality (usually). People usually have a reason why they want a deal, and as long as it does not involve purposely hurting the league, then it should be allowed.

Plus, how often do we get purportedly "bad" deals wrong, and one player exceeds his perceived value? This happens enough so that we who think we know what we are doing should pull back and stop being so arrogant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Off the top of my head, the only way I can think of to limit the behavior EBF describes is to put an annual cap on the number of trade offers each owner can make. Not accepted trades - in my experience leagues are better and fairer when there's greater player liquidity and roster churn - but trade offers.

If nothing else, this would certainly limit the "fishing expedition" aspect of trading, as owners would not want to waste their "quota" throwing out offers that are extremely unlikely to be accepted. I'm sure it wouldn't solve the underlying exploitation problem by itself, but it might be a good first step.

Anyone ever been in a league that tried this? How did it work, and what if any unplanned consequences resulted?

 
identikit said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Been my experience as well.
Click to expand...
Can't help but agree, some of the offers I've had are terrible.

Almost to the point I start to wonder if they think I'm an idiot...

 
Donsmith753 said:
identikit said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Been my experience as well.
Click to expand...
Can't help but agree, some of the offers I've had are terrible.

Almost to the point I start to wonder if they think I'm an idiot...
Click to expand...
Precisely.

You don't get "better" than the vast majority of FF owners out there by being better at the drafting phase in this day and age, since the time when there were well kept secrets ended with the ascension of the Internet and FBG type sites.

You don't get "better" than the top half or so of them by being better at in-season management. When every transaction is just a race to the high speed internet connection, or a matter of who's got the best intel in terms of who the long-term replacement is -- nobody has an advantage over anybody else with google.

The only way you get "better," year-in, year-out, than the VAST majority of FF owners is by being the guy willing to do the ugly grunt work of putting together deal after deal after deal where you 100% KNOW you come out ahead, until people make those deals with you. Everybody wants to be the sales star, but the guy who pulls in the big commissions is the guy who can make those cold calls time and time again and convince grandma to part with that Social Security check. Is that guy a schmuck, and deserving of ridicule? Sure. But he gets the Mercedes, and coffee is for closers.

You'd like online leagues of all star FF players to be simply full of deep thinkers who love football and have keener insights into it than the average guy at Buffalo Wild Wings. But the truth is, the guy at BWW has a FBG sub too, and Rotoworld is his homepage. The only way to be a star at this game is to play the numbers game as often or as well as it takes to make sure you come out ahead.

I don't want to make cold calls or be the league schmuck, either. :shrug: But if you offer fair trades, you're treading water. Here's another fifth place participant trophy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately you can't protect an owner from himself. If he's that bad, or simply doesn't have a clue, it's the obligation of the other owners to watch each trade he makes very closely. If necessary, and however difficult, that owner can be asked to leave if he continues to make questionable moves.

But what gets me is that some of these "obviously 1-sided trades" sometimes turn out the exact opposite when reexamined a few years later.

 
EBF said:
It might be fun to implement a relegation system in FF, either within an individual league (i.e. have enough low finishes and you're out) or within a pyramid of leagues (i.e. there's a "Pro" league, an AAA league, a AA league, and so on).
Click to expand...
I think this idea could work for re-draft, but for dynasty it requires some tinkering. It's a very interesting idea. It gives out of contention owners a reason for setting good lineups, and also ridding of bad owners is definitely desirable. But the new owner taking over the bottom feeder team will likely face relegation again, being that his team sucks. It seems like this rule would cause some difficulty in getting decent new owners for the long-term. A stipulation would need implemented that the new owner has 2-3 years to get his team to respectable status.

 
Freelove said:
Donsmith753 said:
identikit said:
Ramblin Wreck said:
EBF said:
If you send out 100 lopsided offers, one or two of them will be accepted. I've been on both sides as both the perpetrator and the victim.
Click to expand...
I know I'm picking out just a small part of your overall post but just wanted to say the funny part of this is my leagues organized by top guys here with supposedly only the best owners around are the ones where I get 100 fishing trip BS offers every single week. And those owners get angry when you call them out on their BS probably because they are so used to finding a couple of schmucks in their other leagues that accept their garbage.

If there is a league out there with 100% good owners that only engage in serious trade talks not designed to rip someone off I've never seen it.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

Been my experience as well.
Click to expand...
Can't help but agree, some of the offers I've had are terrible.Almost to the point I start to wonder if they think I'm an idiot...
Click to expand...
Precisely.

You don't get "better" than the vast majority of FF owners out there by being better at the drafting phase in this day and age, since the time when there were well kept secrets ended with the ascension of the Internet and FBG type sites.

You don't get "better" than the top half or so of them by being better at in-season management. When every transaction is just a race to the high speed internet connection, or a matter of who's got the best intel in terms of who the long-term replacement is -- nobody has an advantage over anybody else with google.

The only way you get "better," year-in, year-out, than the VAST majority of FF owners is by being the guy willing to do the ugly grunt work of putting together deal after deal after deal where you 100% KNOW you come out ahead, until people make those deals with you. Everybody wants to be the sales star, but the guy who pulls in the big commissions is the guy who can make those cold calls time and time again and convince grandma to part with that Social Security check. Is that guy a schmuck, and deserving of ridicule? Sure. But he gets the Mercedes, and coffee is for closers.

You'd like online leagues of all star FF players to be simply full of deep thinkers who love football and have keener insights into it than the average guy at Buffalo Wild Wings. But the truth is, the guy at BWW has a FBG sub too, and Rotoworld is his homepage. The only way to be a star at this game is to play the numbers game as often or as well as it takes to make sure you come out ahead.

I don't want to make cold calls or be the league schmuck, either. :shrug: But if you offer fair trades, you're treading water. Here's another fifth place participant trophy.
Click to expand...
I think bad trades and ripping off the same owner over and over again are get mixed up. The problem isn't bad trades it's picking in the weaker owners.

Freelove, I made nine hundred and seventy thousand dollars last year, how much did you make?

 
I've also been on both sides of this coin(I was the guy getting owned and everyone loved trading with in my first dynasty league). These days I try to find the 1 or 2 owners that I find easier to get good value out of in each league and I constantly send them offers.

Relegation wouldn't fly with me. I could have a stacked dynasty team in a lower league with potential to earn some nice $$$, and my reward would be to swap teams with someone who finished last? While that owner's punishment would be to take over my contending team?

It's a fun theory but IMO you'd be hard-pressed to find and then keep those owners in the league.

 
Borden said:
If the "prey" or bad owner isn't learning you have to kick them. Most of the time they will quit the league anyways but if they don't learn you have to kick them.

It's one thing to be a new owner an getting crushed on a few bad trades but if said owner isn't learning to at least go to the rest of the league and see what else is being offered or to figure out how to use the endless resources available to evaluate trades and players then it's time for them to go. Bringing in a replacement owner can be tough be it's better then the balance of the league hanging on an owner or two, who indirectly, are basically deciding who's going to have the strongest team.

I'm not condoning these owners who take advantage of the weaker members in anyway though. It ruins leagues and it's gross. It also puts the commish in a tough spot too. Unless it is the commissioner, in which case it's probably time for me to leave the league.
Click to expand...
But the damage one bad owner can do with just a couple of trades might take several seasons to rectify. We had this happen in our league and a new owner made a series of very bad trades that vaulted a couple of predators to the top.

Our league requires commish approval of a trade but basically it is approved no matter what--the only real rule is that if future picks are involved the owner of those picks must have paid in advance for that year's dues.

 
EBF said:
squistion said:
EBF said:
As an owner, you have no choice but to participate in the predation because if you don't do it then someone else will.
Click to expand...
No, you still actually do have that choice, not to participate. The fact that everyone else is doing it is a poor justification for any behavior.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether you want to be ethical or whether you want to win. If you know there's a weak link in your league and you refuse to exploit him on moral grounds, you're ultimately jeopardizing your own chances of winning because other owners will certainly take advantage of the weak link to their own benefit. Over time they'll accrue a lot of value from this and eventually they'll be able to field teams that you can't compete with using your "good guy" strategy.

It's the same reason why there are cheaters and psychopaths in nature. Their methods might be reprehensible, but if their strategies are successful then it doesn't really matter. They will reap rewards and spread into future generations. The standings don't care about ethics. Only about who amasses the team that scores the most points. A cutthroat owner with a "by any means necessary" approach will outcompete an owner of equivalent ability who refuses to take advantage of certain opportunities on moral/ethical grounds. So essentially you have no choice if you want to practice ideal team management.
Click to expand...
Since when did it become unethical to be better than other people in your league?

 
Tool said:
interesting post. i'm in a rather competitive dynasty league and this definitely has had an impact over the years. Whether it's unethical is a fine line i think. When does a good deal cross the line?

I've never really done this personally but i have friends who have and have definitely helped their teams and probably led to championships.

I don't think a post-trade rule is practical. Some type of pre-trade rule where you give league opportunity to beat offer could possibly work to some degree.
Click to expand...
This is what the bad owners NEVER do.

They should be emailing everyone else asking if they can beat the offer they are going to take.

 
I have experienced this same dilemma. In fact, when I sense blood in the water, I have been known to send legitimate offers to the would-be victim if for no other reason than to establish a value for their picks/players.

 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Off the top of my head, the only way I can think of to limit the behavior EBF describes is to put an annual cap on the number of trade offers each owner can make. Not accepted trades - in my experience leagues are better and fairer when there's greater player liquidity and roster churn - but trade offers.

If nothing else, this would certainly limit the "fishing expedition" aspect of trading, as owners would not want to waste their "quota" throwing out offers that are extremely unlikely to be accepted. I'm sure it wouldn't solve the underlying exploitation problem by itself, but it might be a good first step.

Anyone ever been in a league that tried this? How did it work, and what if any unplanned consequences resulted?
Click to expand...
not sure that could work. When I do trades I just email the offer first anyway

 
az_prof said:
Borden said:
If the "prey" or bad owner isn't learning you have to kick them. Most of the time they will quit the league anyways but if they don't learn you have to kick them.

It's one thing to be a new owner an getting crushed on a few bad trades but if said owner isn't learning to at least go to the rest of the league and see what else is being offered or to figure out how to use the endless resources available to evaluate trades and players then it's time for them to go. Bringing in a replacement owner can be tough be it's better then the balance of the league hanging on an owner or two, who indirectly, are basically deciding who's going to have the strongest team.

I'm not condoning these owners who take advantage of the weaker members in anyway though. It ruins leagues and it's gross. It also puts the commish in a tough spot too. Unless it is the commissioner, in which case it's probably time for me to leave the league.
Click to expand...
But the damage one bad owner can do with just a couple of trades might take several seasons to rectify. We had this happen in our league and a new owner made a series of very bad trades that vaulted a couple of predators to the top.

Our league requires commish approval of a trade but basically it is approved no matter what--the only real rule is that if future picks are involved the owner of those picks must have paid in advance for that year's dues.
Click to expand...
Similar thing is happening in my league. We have one owner that loves to trade and usually loses by a good margin in each trade. As a defense I made what I thought to be a equitable trade with him to get his future first round pick because I figure it could be the 1.01 if he keeps making these lopsided deals. I never thought of my self as a predator (since my team is still average at best) but maybe I am.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
buck naked said:
EBF said:
ShaHBucks said:
Why would you not want fish in your league?
Click to expand...
It's not that I ultimately care much either way, but it shifts the competition from "who can evaluate talent and value the best" to "who can rip off the spewy owners most effectively."
Click to expand...
I have no qualms making deals with owners who think they know what they are doing, but do not. Same thing happens to a much lesser extent in the NFL, or in business. Jerry Jones thinks he's a GM, but he isn't. Al Davis made mistakes near the end of his career. Same with business deals. If an owner wants a bad deal (for whatever reason), why should I say "No, this is a bad deal for you".

This isn't about ethics or morality (usually). People usually have a reason why they want a deal, and as long as it does not involve purposely hurting the league, then it should be allowed.

Plus, how often do we get purportedly "bad" deals wrong, and one player exceeds his perceived value? This happens enough so that we who think we know what we are doing should pull back and stop being so arrogant.
Click to expand...
You have to assume the other guy is thinking rationally as well. I remember a rebuild (a horrible team in a 16 team 46 man IDP league w bonuses) that I join for fun where I made moves that would hopefully benefit me in 2-3 years. One of the first trades I made was giving up Sproles, Gordon, Tate for Nick Foles and some throw-ins (I was crucified in the shark pool when I post this trade too, rightfully so because I should have got more "value"). This was two years ago. The comish didn't process the trade until he asked me was it a mistake. I had to explain to him that Sproles won't be relevant when/if my team is respectable in 2-3 years, Tate is vastly overrated because he scored a game winning TD that really shouldn't have counted, Gordon is a head case, and if Foles is as good as I think this will be a steal in a format that award bonuses. Like I said, I took advantage of leaks that other owners had. If I had a comish who didn't allow those moves to happen I would have quit the league by now. We don't need someone to act like the government does. Let free markets reign and everything will correct itself eventually since everyone is being competitive. Some just have better skill than others. Over the long-term it's unavoidable via trades, FA, rookie drafts ect...
 
Todd Andrews said:
. The league founder tried to argue to me that it was just a valuation difference of opinion, which happens, but it was just too big for that to fly. When I asked him whether he gave the new owner any advice on asset valuation or league rules, he clammed up quick.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this point at all. In all of my years of FF and across all my leagues, I have never heard or seen this done before. I've joined leagues that have already started, created leagues, been in them from inception, you name it. This has never once happened. Why is it the commish's job to give a crash course on how the league works and provide a coaching season to new entrants? That person should certainly answer questions if they are asked and within reason. The commish is obligated to provide the league rules, scoring and any other pertinent information but not obligated to spell it out and quiz a guy. Hopefully the commish did enough homework on who they are allowing I to the league to prevent lazy owners. Still, it's impossible to be 100% effective in who you have in any league. The obligation of understanding things about the league is up to the individual owner and entrant. You read the rules, research the scoring, do homework on rosters and previous drafts. The onus is on the participants by and large.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A huge part of this also depends what kind of league you are doing, who is in the league, and what the stakes are.

One thing though, for the people saying "look how many trades we THINK are lopsided but end up working out the other way".............I think that is irrelevant, and you know it. You know darn well if someone is constantly making poor market value trades it is impossible for them to be a good team.

So right now if someone trades Adrian Peterson for a 5th round rookie pick, and AP sucks forever from this point on and that 5th rounder he takes becomes a stud, that means the trade was ok????? Absolutely not.

As was stated in the OP though, I definitely agree that if you don't take advantage of some bad owners along the way, your chances of winning will be dramatically less because others certainly will. It is inevitable. If I am in a $1,000 online dynasty league with owners I don't personally know, guess what, screw the "nice guy" routine. If some poor owners offers up "calvin on the block for a mid 1st", I will be offering up that mid 1st as soon as my fingers touch a computer.

Is that "unethical"?? No. I don't think so. I have done it many times, and will do it many more times.

However, I definitely understand that this makes the league much less enjoyable for almost everyone in it, but that is not MY fault.

 
Yeah in 1 dynasty I commish someone has totally ruined their team and the dude told me he's a lifer. And it's his favorite team/league. M not gonna kick him out because he will pay his league dues, however anyone he gets of any value its pretty much a rush to send the guy offers and try n rip him off. What ya gonna do?

 
Donnybrook said:
Similar thing is happening in my league. We have one owner that loves to trade and usually loses by a good margin in each trade. As a defense I made what I thought to be a equitable trade with him to get his future first round pick because I figure it could be the 1.01 if he keeps making these lopsided deals. I never thought of my self as a predator (since my team is still average at best) but maybe I am.
Click to expand...
Isn't the point of making a trade to make your team better?

At least in the FFPC there is some form of trade reversal if there is an awful deal. I like that they do that. There are still many bad deals, but none that stand out as league shattering horrific deals like Julio for a future 2nd.

There are also owners that go about it differently. Some owners will ONLY make a trade if it is hugely in their favor, and only send offers that are lopsided, and they end up making 1-2 deals a year.

Then there are owners who will make 100 trades and get a "slight" edge on most or all of them, parlaying that into a very good end result for themselves.

But for the people who said they have never seen a league with all good owners..................neither have I. I would enjoy a 12 team league with all excellent owners. But if I am in a league with three idiots, I am not going to just sit around and lose every year while 2-3 other teams build dynastys.

 
Great thread.

I think we'll all been there at one point where weak/disinterested/ill-informed owners have the ability to ruin top-level competition. Even if you have a strong league their is always a weak link or two.

Its tough if you play with good guys/girls where you don't want to make draconian rules that ruin the 'fun' aspect of fantasy football.

Still bad teams kill competition. They make bad trades, they run their teams into the ground and inflate the records of other teams so I try to help behind the scene in my league.

If I find myself with a surplus at a certain position that could help out one of those teams I make a point to seek out those bad teams first to propose lopsided one-sided dealks in the favor of those teams in order to try and help them out.

I get back mid-level dynasty rookie picks in the future and that gives me options. I can package those picks with my own to move-up or make a package of mid-level picks with older veteran players and propose a trade with a more 'competative' team in my league who might have a need of a vet player at a certain position and where I might need an older veteran player at a different position they have to us both in playoff runs.

I think you can massage the gorrilla in the room and see it as a challege of taking fantasy strategy to the chess level instead of only making checker moves.

Look at it as an opportunity rather than a problem that you have to hit over the head with a hammer.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Donnybrook said:
Similar thing is happening in my league. We have one owner that loves to trade and usually loses by a good margin in each trade. As a defense I made what I thought to be a equitable trade with him to get his future first round pick because I figure it could be the 1.01 if he keeps making these lopsided deals. I never thought of my self as a predator (since my team is still average at best) but maybe I am.
Click to expand...
Isn't the point of making a trade to make your team better?

At least in the FFPC there is some form of trade reversal if there is an awful deal. I like that they do that. There are still many bad deals, but none that stand out as league shattering horrific deals like Julio for a future 2nd.

There are also owners that go about it differently. Some owners will ONLY make a trade if it is hugely in their favor, and only send offers that are lopsided, and they end up making 1-2 deals a year.

Then there are owners who will make 100 trades and get a "slight" edge on most or all of them, parlaying that into a very good end result for themselves.

But for the people who said they have never seen a league with all good owners..................neither have I. I would enjoy a 12 team league with all excellent owners. But if I am in a league with three idiots, I am not going to just sit around and lose every year while 2-3 other teams build dynastys.
Click to expand...
Maybe there is a method to this owners madness but at this point I just don't see it. He will trade for a player and then a week later turn around and trade that same player away. Sometimes I think he is trading out of sheer boredom with no real purpose. The funny part is the initial deal he sends out his so lopsided in his favor it is comical. Shrewd teams are taking advantage that this guy just wants to deal and end up renegotiating to get more out of him. I guess we have to see how this plays out but until then I can't avoid doing a deal with him and expect to win my league.
 
Bracie Smathers said:
Great thread.

I think we'll all been there at one point where weak/disinterested/ill-informed owners have the ability to ruin top-level competition. Even if you have a strong league their is always a weak link or two.

Its tough if you play with good guys/girls where you don't want to make draconian rules that ruin the 'fun' aspect of fantasy football.

Still bad teams kill competition. They make bad trades, they run their teams into the ground and inflate the records of other teams so I try to help behind the scene in my league.

If I find myself with a surplus at a certain position that could help out one of those teams I make a point to seek out those bad teams first to propose lopsided one-sided dealks in the favor of those teams in order to try and help them out.

I get back mid-level dynasty rookie picks in the future and that gives me options. I can package those picks with my own to move-up or make a package of mid-level picks with older veteran players and propose a trade with a more 'competative' team in my league who might have a need of a vet player at a certain position and where I might need an older veteran player at a different position they have to us both in playoff runs.

I think you can massage the gorrilla in the room and see it as a challege of taking fantasy strategy to the chess level instead of only making checker moves.

Look at it as an opportunity rather than a problem that you have to hit over the head with a hammer.
Click to expand...
C'Mon man. You aren't proposing trades to hurt your team and help the bad teams. You're dumping what you consider your dead weight for lottery tickets with the hope to use those lottery tickets to get better lottery tickets. That's fine and fair but you're managing your team.

How many stacked owners in a dynasty league are looking to take an older veteran player and your mid range pick for something valuable? No one. Seriously try to trade P. Manning, Drew Brees, Andre Johnson, Roddy White, Larry Fitzgerald, Vincent Jackson, Adrian Peterson, or Matt Forte in a dynasty league. Very rarely will anyone pay their value for them. I even see owners complaining that J. Charles is too old now. Everyone wants the young whether they are a 11 game winning owner or a 2 game winning owner.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

joey
UFL spring football (XFL and USFL merge)
2
Replies
57
Views
1K
Instinctive
Instinctive
RGIII will lead the way
Where should Caleb Williams go in 1 QB leagues?
Replies
39
Views
1K
beef
beef
@
King’s Classic for Kids
Replies
0
Views
142
@GregoryLKellogg
@

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top