[DYNASTY] Firesales (1 Viewer)

[EBF]

There's a bit of a debate raging about what constitutes tanking (intentionally losing games, throwing off the league's competitive balance) in one of my dynasty leagues. Here's a scenario for you:The trade deadline is rapidly approaching and Team A has been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. Team A is a weak team with very few quality players. Team A only has one starting RB and the league requires that you start at least two. Team A does not think that his starting RB has more than one or two good years left. Team B offers Team A multiple first round rookie picks in return for Team A's lone starting RB. This deal weakens Team A's lineup, but gives him multiple high picks to work with. How would you categorize Team A's actions?

 

[CalBear]

There's a bit of a debate raging about what constitutes tanking (intentionally losing games, throwing off the league's competitive balance) in one of my dynasty leagues. Here's a scenario for you:

The trade deadline is rapidly approaching and Team A has been mathematically eliminated from playoff contention. Team A is a weak team with very few quality players. Team A only has one starting RB and the league requires that you start at least two. Team A does not think that his starting RB has more than one or two good years left. Team B offers Team A multiple first round rookie picks in return for Team A's lone starting RB. This deal weakens Team A's lineup, but gives him multiple high picks to work with. How would you categorize Team A's actions?

In a dynasty league, that seems totally legit.

 

[-OZ-]

He's out of the playoffs.Build for next year.In a couple leagues where I've been eliminated, I'm all about selling off my "career-year" guys for picks to the highest bidder. No ethical problems IMO, but it should be an open bidding, not just "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine later"

 

[B Maverick]

its called a fire sale. And now he can rebuild with his multiple picks.tanking is not starting your best lienup in order to lose. Also trading away your players for less then their value.

 

[ExtraPoint]

This is easy.The guy is getting multiple first round draft picks for an old running back!!! He's getting the best end of a trade and people accuse him of tanking Tanking is when you dont put your best players in the lineup for a given week. The only other way to tank in a dynasty league is to give up studs because you are quitting the league or no longer care about your team both present and future. This owner has done nothing to indicate tanking. He's building a better team which indicates good ownership. Its the crybabies that might ruin the league, not this guy.

 

[Tick]

I only really care if someone is intentionally starting a lineup that isn't the strongest from their roster.Fire sales are one of the only ways for a bad team to improve - they have to cash in what they've got for draft potential.

 

[Keepers]

I only really care if someone is intentionally starting a lineup that isn't the strongest from their roster.

Yes, this is the only thing that should be considered tanking.

 

[nightshift]

I only really care if someone is intentionally starting a lineup that isn't the strongest from their roster.

Yes, this is the only thing that should be considered tanking.

Okay, if your fire sale your team this week, next week you are starting a lineup that isn't the strongest from your roster. Correct?

 

[Keepers]

Okay, if your fire sale your team this week, next week you are starting a lineup that isn't the strongest from your roster. Correct?

Since the players are no longer on your roster how could you be starting them?

 

[ssnakeinc]

We have had this discussion in our league, and there is even a rule that covers it making it all right. The rule is kinda inverse to the question, but it addresses the same idea. The rule states that you don't have to start a player in a position if you don't have one availible. ie if you are carrying 1 TE and he gets hurt and is out that week you don't have to drop someone off your team to pick someone of the WW or make a trade in order to field a TE.

 

[Family Matters]

Not sure how team B is able to offer multiple 1st round picks unless they cover several years but I like the play by team A. Makes perfect sense.If someone is having a problem with this it's probably that team B improved themselves and made a better team to oppose them in the playoffs. Someone is not being biased towards the betterment of the league but rather their own self prevervation.

 

[illusionist]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this. It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank. There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

 

[Spike]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this. It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.

This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank. There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

I think this is an AWFUL rule.

 

[jcjets]

Thats what a dynasty league is all about. Every year you should expect some team that is having a bad season to trade good older players away to teams in contention for future picks or younger guys.Try not to be biased, especially if your competeing with the guy that made the trade, and pretend to own the losing team. What would you do in his place?The bengals traded Dillon to the previos SB Champion Patroits for a second round draft pick. Did the teams in the AFC East like that? NO, but it made the Bengals better in their quest to make the playoffs.Same goes for Fantasy football.

 

[SammyJankis]

I am in dynasty league that just finished its 15th year. Trades like this are commonplace.Making a trade that benefits your team long term, but hurts you in the short term is most certainlly not tanking. Tanking is willfully trying to lose game. Things like submitting less than your best lineup is tanking. Submitting a lineup with injured/players on a bye is tanking. "Forgetting" to submit a lineup on purpose is tanking. Picking up the worst kicker/D on purpose is tanking.But having a fire sale is most definately not. Should you ever have a disaster of a season, a fire sale is something that can prop your team up for a long time.Case in point: The dynasty league that I play in has 16 teams. While my team hasn't won any titles, its a good squad. The 2003 season was a disaster for me. I had some injuries, but more than anything, it just seemed like I ended up playing the highest scoring team every week. It happens. I ended up trading three hot players to contending teams with holes, all for first round draft picks in 04 and 05. In the end, I parlayed Brad Johnson, Stephen Davis and Keenan McCardell into Kevin Jones, Eric Moulds, Reggie Williams and the #2 pick in the 05 draft. Did I tank? Of course not. I continued to submit my best lineup every week and actively tried to win. In fact, I beat the team that would win that year's super bowl the last week of the season, which hurt my draft position. McCardell was the only starter of the three, but that besides the point. I sacrficed the short term (not much of a sacrifice as I only made the deals after I had been mathamatically eliminated) for long term gain. Each of the teams I traded with was well aware that trade prices at the deadline were a seller's market, but each team was a player away from contending and got help in an area they needed it.Dynasty is all about balancing long term gain vs. short term gain. Often one must be sacrificed for the other. When you're on the selling end of the fire sale, you torpedo your chances for the current season in exchange for better days a year or two down the road. When you're on the buying end of the fire sale, you knowingly overpay to fill a hole in your lineup, but you put yourself in a position to win it all this year. And that's why we play, right? To win titles.

 

[beef]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this.  It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.

This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank.  There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

I think this is an AWFUL rule.

I do to.

 

[Drugrunner]

Fire Sale! Everything must go!It's what a good Dynasty Owner does.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

this is why trade deadlines should be early in the season before any team could possibly be eliminated from contention.....the goal...even in dynasty leagues...should be to win the championship...each year...allowing trades like this, late in the season, does disrupt the competitive balance for the teams still in contention.....it just does...you can't argue that....that in the long run is not good for the league.....last minute aqusitions of impact players should not be allowed in a league....it doesn't happen in the NFL....an early trade deadline solves this problem.....teams and potential trades should be looking at the value of their players before they are eliminated from playoff contention....not afterwardsedit to add: once the season is over.....it's all good...do what you want....

 

[Zaphod]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this. It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.

This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank. There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

I have to say, this is one rule that really has me scratching my head.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Thats what a dynasty league is all about. Every year you should expect some team that is having a bad season to trade good older players away to teams in contention for future picks or younger guys.

Try not to be biased, especially if your competeing with the guy that made the trade, and pretend to own the losing team. What would you do in his place?

The bengals traded Dillon to the previos SB Champion Patroits for a second round draft pick. Did the teams in the AFC East like that? NO, but it made the Bengals better in their quest to make the playoffs.

Same goes for Fantasy football.

the trade was in the offseason....not when the Pats were in the playoffs and trying to win a Super Bowl

 

[WhoDat]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this. It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank. There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

In all my years this has to be the worst rule I have ever seen. The bad teams' market for players and terms and conditions for doing business are dictated by the league's better teams. This rule perpetuates mediocrity among the bad teams, while applying a never ending amount of leverage to the top half of the league.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I am in dynasty league that just finished its 15th year. Trades like this are commonplace.

Making a trade that benefits your team long term, but hurts you in the short term is most certainlly not tanking. Tanking is willfully trying to lose game. Things like submitting less than your best lineup is tanking. Submitting a lineup with injured/players on a bye is tanking. "Forgetting" to submit a lineup on purpose is tanking. Picking up the worst kicker/D on purpose is tanking.

But having a fire sale is most definately not. Should you ever have a disaster of a season, a fire sale is something that can prop your team up for a long time.

Case in point: The dynasty league that I play in has 16 teams. While my team hasn't won any titles, its a good squad. The 2003 season was a disaster for me. I had some injuries, but more than anything, it just seemed like I ended up playing the highest scoring team every week. It happens.

I ended up trading three hot players to contending teams with holes, all for first round draft picks in 04 and 05. In the end, I parlayed Brad Johnson, Stephen Davis and Keenan McCardell into Kevin Jones, Eric Moulds, Reggie Williams and the #2 pick in the 05 draft.

Did I tank? Of course not. I continued to submit my best lineup every week and actively tried to win. In fact, I beat the team that would win that year's super bowl the last week of the season, which hurt my draft position. McCardell was the only starter of the three, but that besides the point. I sacrficed the short term (not much of a sacrifice as I only made the deals after I had been mathamatically eliminated) for long term gain. Each of the teams I traded with was well aware that trade prices at the deadline were a seller's market, but each team was a player away from contending and got help in an area they needed it.

Dynasty is all about balancing long term gain vs. short term gain. Often one must be sacrificed for the other. When you're on the selling end of the fire sale, you torpedo your chances for the current season in exchange for better days a year or two down the road. When you're on the buying end of the fire sale, you knowingly overpay to fill a hole in your lineup, but you put yourself in a position to win it all this year. And that's why we play, right? To win titles.

the fact that you admit you did not make the trade until you were out of contention...thus not much of a sacrifice in your own words.....means that you you made a trade that you normally wouldn't....the only reason you made the trade is because you were out of contention....personally you may have been helping your team in the future....but the afffect that trades like these have on the rest of the league for the rest of that year is major....1. your team is weaker for the rest of your matchups that year....tlitling the balance of the league...meaning teams that play you after the trade are at an advantage as opposed to the teams that played you before the trade....the fact that you were already out of contention means you weren't doing too good to begin with....but you yourself said you "just seemed to play the team with the high score each week"...

2. late season trades involving impact players on one end and future considerations on the other....now give the team on the non fire sale end an unfair/unrealistic (unrealistic in that it never happens in the NFL) advantage by adding an impact player for the playoffs....

I realize all teams could make an offer and so some will say that makes it ok...I just think an early trade deadline gets rid of these problems...

by fire saleing your team...you are tanking your current season....you can call it what you want but it is tanking the current season...and disrupting the competitve balance of the league....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

In our league we have a rule that doesn't allow this. It basicly says that once you are eliminated from playoff contention that you cannot trade except with someone else who has been eliminated.

This has been the most fair way of dealing with owner who want to tank. There is plenty of time to prepare for next season after the season ends.

In all my years this has to be the worst rule I have ever seen. The bad teams' market for players and terms and conditions for doing business are dictated by the league's better teams. This rule perpetuates mediocrity among the bad teams, while applying a never ending amount of leverage to the top half of the league.

it may be a bad rule....but it helps prevent the problem of teams taking advantage of a team out of contention and aquiring an impact player at a time of year when trades shouldn't be allowed anyway....

 

[GregR_2]

From the 53-5 vote results, I think it's pretty obvious that amongst hardcore FF folks (which you pretty much have to be to be on the boards in the off-season), it's clearly not viewed as tanking.It's part and parcel of being in a dynasty league, where long term management of your club is equal in importance with short term success.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

From the 53-5 vote results, I think it's pretty obvious that amongst hardcore FF folks (which you pretty much have to be to be on the boards in the off-season), it's clearly not viewed as tanking.

It's part and parcel of being in a dynasty league, where long term management of your club is equal in importance with short term success.

the fact that these trades are made after a team is eliminated from contention and that they are admittedly not much of a sacrifice...since I'm out already....is in fact "tanking the rest of that season"....you can call it what you want....but it's tanking THAT season....I agree that it may be a good strategy...I would probably do it myself if the rules allowed it....but it is TANKING the rest of that season and disrupting the competitive balance of the league....that's why the trade deadline should be before anybody could be eliminated....

or else essentially it comes down to which of the contenders can go and find the best sale at the end of the season...

 

[SammyJankis]

the fact that you admit you did not make the trade until you were out of contention...thus not much of a sacrifice in your own words.....means that you you made a trade that you normally wouldn't....the only reason you made the trade is because you were out of contention....

Truth be told, I didn't really hurt myself too much with these deals. McCardell was the only starter I gave up. I was starting McNabb over Brad Johnson and Ricky Williams and Jamal Lewis over Stephen Davis. Even McCardell was a boarder-line starter for me.But you're right, if I was not out of contention, I would not have made the deals. I gave up depth which would have killed me had an injury occured. I also lost the luxury to sub a backup in to my lineup if they had a favorable matchup.

personally you may have been helping your team in the future....but the afffect that trades like these have on the rest of the league for the rest of that year is major....

1. your team is weaker for the rest of your matchups that year....tlitling the balance of the league...meaning teams that play you after the trade are at an advantage as opposed to the teams that played you before the trade....the fact that you were already out of contention means you weren't doing too good to begin with....but you yourself said you "just seemed to play the team with the high score each week"...

As I mentioned upthread, dynasty is all about balancing short term vs. long term gain. Did I make my team weaker this season by trading these players? You bet. But the thing is, the majority of trades in a dynasty league, regardless of the timing leave one team better off in the short term. Any "player for draft picks" trade that goes down in-season, helps the team receiving the player(s) and hurts the team giving player(s) in the short term by definition. In the short term, if I trade a player for a draft pick, I am receiving nothing in return this season. The "teams that play you after the trade are at an advantage as opposed to the teams that played you before the trade" argument would apply for any "player for picks" deal that occurs in season. So it doesn't really matter when you make the trade deadline, this will always hold true. But as the poll results indicate, most dynasty owners are aware that short term gain is sacraficed for long term gain and vice versa. If my starting QB goes down for the season, and another team, perhaps out of contention, perhaps with a QB surplus, offers a QB for one of my future draft choices. That is a deal both he and I are going to want to make.

2. late season trades involving impact players on one end and future considerations on the other....now give the team on the non fire sale end an unfair/unrealistic (unrealistic in that it never happens in the NFL) advantage by adding an impact player for the playoffs....

Its uncommon in the NFL (but not unheard of, think McCardell last year) because the learning curve of moving from one team to another is pretty steep. If you're QB goes down in the NFL mid-season, trading for another one isn't useful as that QB won't have learned the offense until after the season. In FF, there are no such problems. If Payton Manning is traded from the Eastside Rollers to the Newport Nighthawks of the MEFL, chances are that the learning curve won't set his production back too much.

 

[jurb26]

Very good arguements for both sides here. My vote goes to not tanking mainly because if it is not stated in the rules, a player has to look out for his teams best interest. If that means that his team is out of contention and now his best interest is to start planning for the future, so be it. Yeah it does off set the balance of the league, but unless stated in the rules he is doing what is currently best for his team outside of loosing games on purpose for the #1 pick (which would be tanking).I think that all leagues should have a trade deadline to avoid such messes to be honest. A dead line that ends at least a few weeks before the playoffs are to start. I would prefer 3 weeks prior myself. This would put the deadline at around week 10 for most leagues. Enough time to know what direction your team is currently heading but also enough time for other owners to take in any big deals that may go down.

 

[GregR_2]

From the 53-5 vote results, I think it's pretty obvious that amongst hardcore FF folks (which you pretty much have to be to be on the boards in the off-season), it's clearly not viewed as tanking.

It's part and parcel of being in a dynasty league, where long term management of your club is equal in importance with short term success.

the fact that these trades are made after a team is eliminated from contention and that they are admittedly not much of a sacrifice...since I'm out already....is in fact "tanking the rest of that season"....you can call it what you want....but it's tanking THAT season....

No, tanking means trying to lose games. Accepting a lessened chance to win some games for a greater chances to win even more games isn't the same as "trying to lose". He isn't trying to lose any games, so he can't be tanking.What he's done is seen greater value in the long-term gain, so chosen to go that route. Tanking would be trying to lose his games so he picks earlier in the draft the following year.

 

[LHUCKS]

From the 53-5 vote results, I think it's pretty obvious that amongst hardcore FF folks (which you pretty much have to be to be on the boards in the off-season), it's clearly not viewed as tanking.

It's part and parcel of being in a dynasty league, where long term management of your club is equal in importance with short term success.

the fact that these trades are made after a team is eliminated from contention and that they are admittedly not much of a sacrifice...since I'm out already....is in fact "tanking the rest of that season"....you can call it what you want....but it's tanking THAT season....

No, tanking means trying to lose games. Accepting a lessened chance to win some games for a greater chances to win even more games isn't the same as "trying to lose". He isn't trying to lose any games, so he can't be tanking.What he's done is seen greater value in the long-term gain, so chosen to go that route. Tanking would be trying to lose his games so he picks earlier in the draft the following year.

GregR you crack me up...I swear anytime there is a thread on ethics you're right in the middle of it.

 

[GregR_2]

GregR you crack me up...I swear anytime there is a thread on ethics you're right in the middle of it.

I do indeed love ethics discussions.

Edit to add: And you know, I think the leagues I commish are the better for it. By proactively discussing this kind of stuff in them, we've avoided a lot of the headaches that I see other leagues go through. Take this kind of topic. I'm starting up a big salary cap dynasty league this coming year, and this kind of topic (firesales and other differences between this and redraft or low # of keeper leagues) is getting discussed with the owners before the league ever starts.

 

[LHUCKS]

GregR you crack me up...I swear anytime there is a thread on ethics you're right in the middle of it.

I do indeed love ethics discussions.

I hereby appoint GregR "Czar of FBG Ethics"

 

[GregR_2]

GregR you crack me up...I swear anytime there is a thread on ethics you're right in the middle of it.

I do indeed love ethics discussions.

I hereby appoint GregR "Czar of FBG Ethics"

:rotflmao: Czar huh? Do I get one of those cool Russian cossack hats?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

so now it's not called "tanking" it's called....."Accepting a lessened chance to win some games"......not sure I see the difference and this does affect the outcome of a league...how can that mentality possibly be good for a league under any circumstances...the best interest of the league must be first and foremost....my leagues have a trade deadline of week 6....enough time to access your stregth and weaknesses....but everybody is still in it....even if they are 0-5....and this post is the exact reason that early deadline is in place.....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

last point...well not reallyas I said earlier....I would probably do the same thing if the rules allowed it....it is really more of a concern over the league rules then it is an ethical question....the timing is the key....so if you have an early trade deadline you take away that problem from the owners....trades should be made under the pretense of a level playing field...a trade involving "future draft picks" between a team in contention and a team who is out of it and really doesn't care anymore and who really isn't sacrificing anything since their season is over...is not exactly level ground...I am more opposed to the late trade deadline as I am to the strategy...it is actually a good strategy...but it is a good strategy that is bad for the league...have an early trade deadline during the season and then once the season is over....anything is fair game...

 

[GregR_2]

so now it's not called "tanking" it's called.....

"Accepting a lessened chance to win some games"......

not sure I see the difference and this does affect the outcome of a league...

how can that mentality possibly be good for a league under any circumstances...the best interest of the league must be first and foremost....

my leagues have a trade deadline of week 6....enough time to access your stregth and weaknesses....but everybody is still in it....even if they are 0-5....and this post is the exact reason that early deadline is in place.....

Brand new dynasty league, do you draft a top flight, old veteran like a Priest Holmes, who you figure may only have 1 top RB year left and then won't help your team at all, or do you draft a younger back who won't reach Priest's level ever, but will be a very solid contributer for the next 5-8 years? By the definition of tanking you're using, if you choose the latter than you're tanking this season because you accepted the lessened chance to win this year's games for the greater chance of success over the next 8 years.I'm saying that the 'firesale' is no different than the above decision, or any decision you make in a dynasty league, really.

But I agree with you that if you don't like the concept of firesales happening, use an early trade deadline. I think every league should have that anyway to help discourage collusion, regardless of how they feel about firesales.

 

[GregR_2]

last point...we'll not really

as I said earlier....I would probably do the same thing if the rules allowed it....it is really more of a concern over the league rules then it is an ethical question....

the timing is the key....so if you have an early trade deadline you take away that problem from the owners....

trades should be made under the pretense of a level playing field...a trade involving "future draft picks" between a team in contention and a team who is out of it and really doesn't care anymore and who really isn't sacrificing anything since their season is over...is not exactly level ground...

I am more opposed to the late trade deadline as I am to the strategy...it is actually a good strategy...

but it is a good strategy that is bad for the league...

have an early trade deadline during the season and then once the season is over....anything is fair game...

I'll agree with you here, again, that it comes down to the trade deadline.One other thing worth mentioning, in a topic like this it seems like most everyone always focuses on the "leveling of the playing field" or the "competitiveness" of the league as only being about what happens in the current season. While that playing field may seem to be less level because of a firesale, over the longer term the playing field has become more level. Teams that weren't good enough to make the playoffs are going to see more improvement in the near future, while the teams that are in the playoff hunt that traded stuff away are going to take a hit and get drawn back towards the median.

It's a difference of perspective of course, on which you're going to focus on. I just think a dynasty league's focus should be as much on the long term as it is on the current season.

 

[SammyJankis]

so now it's not called "tanking" it's called.....

"Accepting a lessened chance to win some games"......

not sure I see the difference and this does affect the outcome of a league...

how can that mentality possibly be good for a league under any circumstances...the best interest of the league must be first and foremost....

my leagues have a trade deadline of week 6....enough time to access your stregth and weaknesses....but everybody is still in it....even if they are 0-5....and this post is the exact reason that early deadline is in place.....

That league doesn't sound like too much fun. To illustate, I'd like to present a scene from a short play I've been working on entitled, "My starting QB just went down in week 7":Owner 1: I don't have a starting QB anymore.

Owner 2: I have four starting QBs!, but a lot of my players are old, and I don't have any draft choices for next year.

Owner 1: Hey, I have several choices next year, seems like swapping one of those picks for a QB would be a win-win situation

Rest of league (in chorus): No firesales!

Owners 1 and 2: This isn't a fire sale! He has a surplus and I have a need!

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

Owner 1: How is forcing me to play without a QB in "the best interest in the league"?

Owner 2: How is not letting me build for the future in "the best interest in the league"?

(Pregnant pause by rest of league)

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

(Curtain)

 

[nightshift]

It's a difference of perspective of course, on which you're going to focus on. I just think a dynasty league's focus should be as much on the long term as it is on the current season.

The problem with long term is simply you don't know the future. What you are doing is affecting current outcomes by gambling on future picks. You have no idea what the results of the trade will produce in the future but you do know what the results are to your current team's competitiveness and the league's season outcomes.Your actions are intentional. You know that by making this trade this team's chances being able to win have diminshed greatly. Net result? You intentionally made your team lose games for the chance of improving next year. However, what you are trying to do is justify tanking the rest of your season for possible improvement next year.Tanking is intentionally losing games. What 70+ of you are saying that in a dynasty format it is okay to tank games or a season for the possibility of improving next year's squad.

 

[WhoDat]

it may be a bad rule....but it helps prevent the problem of teams taking advantage of a team out of contention and aquiring an impact player at a time of year when trades shouldn't be allowed anyway....

Great overall discussion.Wouldn't what you have stated here be covered and governed by the league's trade deadline? Honest question. As with any actual professional sport, it is very common that the haves do a fair amount of business with the have nots the weeks immediately prior to the deadline. The bad teams sell of their most marketable assets, developed players, and plan for the future, undeveloped talent or draft picks. The bad teams can maximize the value of their only commodities at that time. (Time defined as the moment a good team realizes it can win now and the trade deadeline is within one week, while the bad team realizes it needs to look ahead and has one week to act.) The good teams do everything necessary to win now, while mortgaging their future and operate under terms and conditions set forth by the weaker teams in most instances. It is a natural series of checks and balances and the type of transaction that drives a dynasty league. This rule blocks the conduit between the two sides at the most opportune time for the two to do business.The easiest way to allow for this type of commerce to exist and to eliminate a so called "firesale" scenario would have to be to institute a very early trade deadline.As the rule is stated, though, that is not addressed. As it is written, that rule would make it very hard for a bad team to rebound.

 

[EBF]

The problem with long term is simply you don't know the future. What you are doing is affecting current outcomes by gambling on future picks. You have no idea what the results of the trade will produce in the future but you do know what the results are to your current team's competitiveness and the league's season outcomes.

This is just flat out wrong. Did people who traded for Priest last year and in 2003 know that he was going to get hurt and give them nothing down the stretch? A veteran acquired through trade can bust just as easily as a rookie. The bottom line is that rookie picks have an expected value. It's like Texas hold 'em. You're not going to win every time you get dealt AA, but you have a nice expected value. Likewise, pick 1.01 in a rookie draft has a good expected value. Sure, you won't always make a good pick, but you have a pretty good statistical chance at helping your team when you hold 1.01.

Your actions are intentional. You know that by making this trade this team's chances being able to win have diminshed greatly. Net result? You intentionally made your team lose games for the chance of improving next year.

What if you think the deal greatly helps your team in the long run? If someone offered you all twelve first round rookie picks in next year's draft in return for your best player would you not take the deal? By your logic accepting such a trade would be considered tanking. My opinion is that teams who aren't title contenders need to make the trades necessary to become title contenders. If that means moving a veteran for picks then that's what it means.

 

[jurb26]

last point...we'll not really

as I said earlier....I would probably do the same thing if the rules allowed it....it is really more of a concern over the league rules then it is an ethical question....

the timing is the key....so if you have an early trade deadline you take away that problem from the owners....

trades should be made under the pretense of a level playing field...a trade involving "future draft picks" between a team in contention and a team who is out of it and really doesn't care anymore and who really isn't sacrificing anything since their season is over...is not exactly level ground...

I am more opposed to the late trade deadline as I am to the strategy...it is actually a good strategy...

but it is a good strategy that is bad for the league...

have an early trade deadline during the season and then once the season is over....anything is fair game...

I'll agree with you here, again, that it comes down to the trade deadline.One other thing worth mentioning, in a topic like this it seems like most everyone always focuses on the "leveling of the playing field" or the "competitiveness" of the league as only being about what happens in the current season. While that playing field may seem to be less level because of a firesale, over the longer term the playing field has become more level. Teams that weren't good enough to make the playoffs are going to see more improvement in the near future, while the teams that are in the playoff hunt that traded stuff away are going to take a hit and get drawn back towards the median.

It's a difference of perspective of course, on which you're going to focus on. I just think a dynasty league's focus should be as much on the long term as it is on the current season.

There is one glaring fact that really makes all of the people voting that it was OK and thus opposing Stinkin Ref though. The fact that the real NFL does not allow such things to happen in real life. You didn't see SF or Oak dumping their top vet players as the playoffs came near for picks did you. Of course not, this would be considered TANKING the current NFL season and UNETHICAL. Of course there a cap implications to consider in the real NFL as well, but teams could manage around those just as they do in the offseason if need be. This is a major hurdle for anyone (myself included) voting that it is OK to do.

I happen to agree with Stinkin Ref in the ethics portion of this debate, though I still voted it to be OK. I voted that way though becuase it needs to be covered in the rules, redardless of how you view it ethically.

 

[nightshift]

The problem with long term is simply you don't know the future. What you are doing is affecting current outcomes by gambling on future picks. You have no idea what the results of the trade will produce in the future but you do know what the results are to your current team's competitiveness and the league's season outcomes.

This is just flat out wrong. Did people who traded for Priest last year and in 2003 know that he was going to get hurt and give them nothing down the stretch? A veteran acquired through trade can bust just as easily as a rookie. The bottom line is that rookie picks have an expected value. It's like Texas hold 'em. You're not going to win every time you get dealt AA, but you have a nice expected value. Likewise, pick 1.01 in a rookie draft has a good expected value. Sure, you won't always make a good pick, but you have a pretty good statistical chance at helping your team when you hold 1.01.

Your actions are intentional. You know that by making this trade this team's chances being able to win have diminshed greatly. Net result? You intentionally made your team lose games for the chance of improving next year.

What if you think the deal greatly helps your team in the long run? If someone offered you all twelve first round rookie picks in next year's draft in return for your best player would you not take the deal? By your logic accepting such a trade would be considered tanking. My opinion is that teams who aren't title contenders need to make the trades necessary to become title contenders. If that means moving a veteran for picks then that's what it means.

Personally justified tanking is still tanking.

 

[jurb26]

so now it's not called "tanking" it's called.....

"Accepting a lessened chance to win some games"......

not sure I see the difference and this does affect the outcome of a league...

how can that mentality possibly be good for a league under any circumstances...the best interest of the league must be first and foremost....

my leagues have a trade deadline of week 6....enough time to access your stregth and weaknesses....but everybody is still in it....even if they are 0-5....and this post is the exact reason that early deadline is in place.....

That league doesn't sound like too much fun. To illustate, I'd like to present a scene from a short play I've been working on entitled, "My starting QB just went down in week 7":Owner 1: I don't have a starting QB anymore.

Owner 2: I have four starting QBs!, but a lot of my players are old, and I don't have any draft choices for next year.

Owner 1: Hey, I have several choices next year, seems like swapping one of those picks for a QB would be a win-win situation

Rest of league (in chorus): No firesales!

Owners 1 and 2: This isn't a fire sale! He has a surplus and I have a need!

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

Owner 1: How is forcing me to play without a QB in "the best interest in the league"?

Owner 2: How is not letting me build for the future in "the best interest in the league"?

(Pregnant pause by rest of league)

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

(Curtain)

While entertaining, this is not even close to the same thing being discussed. Injuries cause an immediate need and hole in any teams roster. One would be flood contol for the current season while the other would be throwing in the towel. There is a BIG difference here.

 

[EBF]

The problem with long term is simply you don't know the future. What you are doing is affecting current outcomes by gambling on future picks. You have no idea what the results of the trade will produce in the future but you do know what the results are to your current team's competitiveness and the league's season outcomes.

This is just flat out wrong. Did people who traded for Priest last year and in 2003 know that he was going to get hurt and give them nothing down the stretch? A veteran acquired through trade can bust just as easily as a rookie. The bottom line is that rookie picks have an expected value. It's like Texas hold 'em. You're not going to win every time you get dealt AA, but you have a nice expected value. Likewise, pick 1.01 in a rookie draft has a good expected value. Sure, you won't always make a good pick, but you have a pretty good statistical chance at helping your team when you hold 1.01.

Your actions are intentional. You know that by making this trade this team's chances being able to win have diminshed greatly. Net result? You intentionally made your team lose games for the chance of improving next year.

What if you think the deal greatly helps your team in the long run? If someone offered you all twelve first round rookie picks in next year's draft in return for your best player would you not take the deal? By your logic accepting such a trade would be considered tanking. My opinion is that teams who aren't title contenders need to make the trades necessary to become title contenders. If that means moving a veteran for picks then that's what it means.

Personally justified tanking is still tanking.

That's a weak cop out.

 

[DrJ]

Not tanking at all, this is in fact one of the most important skills in a dynasty league. Say I have a poor team that has Curtis Martin, Tiki Barber, or someone like this. I can try and unload these guys in the offseason but odds are most GM's are taking the wait and see approach and won't give you a ton of value for aging vets like these. They're going to wait and see how that young prospect they've got fares this season before investing a ton in a short term option. A lot of times the only time you can get real value for these types of guys is when the season kicks off and guys finally accept that they will need that piece. If you're expecting rebuilding teams to get rid of all of their aging talent in the offseason rather than in season - you're probably forcing them to take less than they can get for these guys.

 

[SammyJankis]

so now it's not called "tanking" it's called.....

"Accepting a lessened chance to win some games"......

not sure I see the difference and this does affect the outcome of a league...

how can that mentality possibly be good for a league under any circumstances...the best interest of the league must be first and foremost....

my leagues have a trade deadline of week 6....enough time to access your stregth and weaknesses....but everybody is still in it....even if they are 0-5....and this post is the exact reason that early deadline is in place.....

That league doesn't sound like too much fun. To illustate, I'd like to present a scene from a short play I've been working on entitled, "My starting QB just went down in week 7":Owner 1: I don't have a starting QB anymore.

Owner 2: I have four starting QBs!, but a lot of my players are old, and I don't have any draft choices for next year.

Owner 1: Hey, I have several choices next year, seems like swapping one of those picks for a QB would be a win-win situation

Rest of league (in chorus): No firesales!

Owners 1 and 2: This isn't a fire sale! He has a surplus and I have a need!

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

Owner 1: How is forcing me to play without a QB in "the best interest in the league"?

Owner 2: How is not letting me build for the future in "the best interest in the league"?

(Pregnant pause by rest of league)

Rest of league (in chorus): The best interest of the league must be first and foremost!

(Curtain)

While entertaining, this is not even close to the same thing being discussed. Injuries cause an immediate need and hole in any teams roster. One would be flood contol for the current season while the other would be throwing in the towel. There is a BIG difference here.

I don't know that the rules in Stinking Refs league make such a distinction. He said they have a week 6 trading deadline. That would suggest to me any kind of trade, not just ones of the "fire sale" variety. How would you make such a distinction anyway, "Can't trade a starter"? "Can't trade a top 10 player at his position"?An early trade deadline eliminates all trades after the deadline. Even if you are against the idea of a "fire sale", it is decidely not in "the best interest of the league".

 

[nightshift]

The problem with long term is simply you don't know the future. What you are doing is affecting current outcomes by gambling on future picks. You have no idea what the results of the trade will produce in the future but you do know what the results are to your current team's competitiveness and the league's season outcomes.

This is just flat out wrong. Did people who traded for Priest last year and in 2003 know that he was going to get hurt and give them nothing down the stretch? A veteran acquired through trade can bust just as easily as a rookie. The bottom line is that rookie picks have an expected value. It's like Texas hold 'em. You're not going to win every time you get dealt AA, but you have a nice expected value. Likewise, pick 1.01 in a rookie draft has a good expected value. Sure, you won't always make a good pick, but you have a pretty good statistical chance at helping your team when you hold 1.01.

Your actions are intentional. You know that by making this trade this team's chances being able to win have diminshed greatly. Net result? You intentionally made your team lose games for the chance of improving next year.

What if you think the deal greatly helps your team in the long run? If someone offered you all twelve first round rookie picks in next year's draft in return for your best player would you not take the deal? By your logic accepting such a trade would be considered tanking. My opinion is that teams who aren't title contenders need to make the trades necessary to become title contenders. If that means moving a veteran for picks then that's what it means.

Personally justified tanking is still tanking.

That's a weak cop out.

Not weak at all. You can say it's okay "til the cows come home" and with most of these guys, they have bought into this philosophy. But the truth of that matter is IF you take an intentional action that causes you team to lose games during an active season and you know that losing is going to happen before you commit that action, that is tanking.Knowingly causing your team to lose a game or season is tanking. What I hear is that it's acceptable behavior ( & a great strategy) to do this. Hence, you are saying that the act of tanking is acceptable and viable in this situation. But you don't like the sound of it and so you will refer to it as a dynasty strategy.

Sorry guys, but you have to call a spade "a spade".

 

[Turbo Punch]

There is one glaring fact that really makes all of the people voting that it was OK and thus opposing Stinkin Ref though. The fact that the real NFL does not allow such things to happen in real life. You didn't see SF or Oak dumping their top vet players as the playoffs came near for picks did you. Of course not, this would be considered TANKING the current NFL season and UNETHICAL. Of course there a cap implications to consider in the real NFL as well, but teams could manage around those just as they do in the offseason if need be. This is a major hurdle for anyone (myself included) voting that it is OK to do. Compare this to what happens in baseball. Every year teams dump players due to salary concerns - they won't be able to sign them when they become free agents or the amount they will get through arbitration will be too high.They trade an established vet for young minor leaguers or draft picks to teams making a playoff run. No one complains that it is unethical or changes the balance of teh league.The reason it doesn't happen in the NFL is because of the salary cap.

 

[jurb26]

There is one glaring fact that really makes all of the people voting that it was OK and thus opposing Stinkin Ref though. The fact that the real NFL does not allow such things to happen in real life. You didn't see SF or Oak dumping their top vet players as the playoffs came near for picks did you. Of course not, this would be considered TANKING the current NFL season and UNETHICAL. Of course there a cap implications to consider in the real NFL as well, but teams could manage around those just as they do in the offseason if need be.

This is a major hurdle for anyone (myself included) voting that it is OK to do.

Compare this to what happens in baseball. Every year teams dump players due to salary concerns - they won't be able to sign them when they become free agents or the amount they will get through arbitration will be too high.

They trade an established vet for young minor leaguers or draft picks to teams making a playoff run. No one complains that it is unethical or changes the balance of teh league.

The reason it doesn't happen in the NFL is because of the salary cap.

They don't?

You have just stated on of the 3 major reasons as to why I have and never will watch or be a baseball fan! I'm sure I'm not alone. I have heard several people complain about how MLB has the least level playing field in all of professional sports.

 

[Turbo Punch]

There is one glaring fact that really makes all of the people voting that it was OK and thus opposing Stinkin Ref though. The fact that the real NFL does not allow such things to happen in real life. You didn't see SF or Oak dumping their top vet players as the playoffs came near for picks did you. Of course not, this would be considered TANKING the current NFL season and UNETHICAL. Of course there a cap implications to consider in the real NFL as well, but teams could manage around those just as they do in the offseason if need be.

This is a major hurdle for anyone (myself included) voting that it is OK to do.

Compare this to what happens in baseball. Every year teams dump players due to salary concerns - they won't be able to sign them when they become free agents or the amount they will get through arbitration will be too high.

They trade an established vet for young minor leaguers or draft picks to teams making a playoff run. No one complains that it is unethical or changes the balance of teh league.

The reason it doesn't happen in the NFL is because of the salary cap.

They don't?

You have just stated on of the 3 major reasons as to why I have and never will watch or be a baseball fan! I'm sure I'm not alone. I have heard several people complain about how MLB has the least level playing field in all of professional sports.

The trade is not the reason they complain about upsetting league balance.

They complain because MLB doesn't have a salary cap. If they did you would not see these type of trades just like in the NFL.

I agree MLB is the least level but the reason is the lack of a salary cap.