Dynasty league concerns (1 Viewer)

[KingDread]

I am for sure next year going to join a couple dynasty leagues, but first I just wanted to ask around on here what some of you guys thought about two of the concerns I have with dynasty leagues.

1.) Do trades often ruin the balance of dynasty leagues? In redraft, offers like Peterson and Peyton Manning for Case Keenum, Andre Ellington, and Terrance Williams would be shut down immediately, but in dynasty that offer makes sense if the Keenum owner is throwing in a high draft pick. Maybe that is a bad example, but I just have a strong feeling that in dynasty, trades like this happen quite a bit and end up winning people championships when in redraft you have to be more savvy with trades if you want to improve. Trades like that could be fine I suppose, but when the guy on the Keenum side quits the league the next season it just seems like this kind of stuff would ruin dynasty leagues.

2.) Does tanking occur often in dynasty? I would hate to win or lose games towards the end of the season just because some guy is tanking on purpose. That would take all the fun out of it for me. I'm sure there are some things to do about tanking, but I'm just curious really.

I'm sure both of these things are remedied by joining leagues with people that know what they are doing, but that is easier said than done. Only way to find out if I enjoy dynasty is to join them. I plan on joining a couple next year, and see how it goes. My thinking is I'll probably prefer redraft, but who knows.

 

[snellman]

I prefer dynasty way over redraft, but you very well could be different. I like the year round activity of dynasty and the challenge of either starting a league and balancing present and future or taking over a poor team with the challenge of rebuilding.

Be very picky in picking your league. If you get the right group of owners, there won't be any tanking (or very little). You also have to look at it differently when it comes to trades because what might be viewed as a bad trade in redraft cannot be viewed the same way in dynasty. I have been lucky in that the leagues I have been involved in have been very competitive

 

[Fariq]

I have one running now and will be starting another in 2014. The big concern is finding good owners. Tanking is almost impossible to totally eradicate, but I do put some measures in place to get rid of the temptation to tank.

Trades are fine. If some person makes a really bad one and quits, then you find a replacement owner. You don't even need to have the replacement take over the team as is. If the switch is made in the offseason you can release the team's players into the free agent pool and have the new guy create his own team from the entire free agent pool. Pretty simplistic stuff here, but I am at work and haven't the time to explain further.

 

[Hu-Tang Clan]

I'm not in a dynasty league but why not start with one instead of trying to join a few at the same time?

 

[KingDread]

Well, I was wanting to join two of them just in case one of them went poorly.

I guess my main thing with the trades in dynasty is it seems like champions could be crowned due to lopsided trades. I'm not a big fan of people winning due to getting by far the better of deals for the current year. Maybe the trade evens out over time, but having owners winning due to lopsided trades seem like it would happen a lot more in dynasty. Like it has been said in this thread, stuff like this could be remedied by having the entire league filled up with owners who know what they are doing.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Well, I was wanting to join two of them just in case one of them went poorly.

I guess my main thing with the trades in dynasty is it seems like champions could be crowned due to lopsided trades. I'm not a big fan of people winning due to getting by far the better of deals for the current year. Maybe the trade evens out over time, but having owners winning due to lopsided trades seem like it would happen a lot more in dynasty. Like it has been said in this thread, stuff like this could be remedied by having the entire league filled up with owners who know what they are doing.

But that's the thing--in dynasty, it's not just the current year that matters. When you go all in on 2013, it might look "lopsided"--but the pieces you're giving up could very well make the other guy a favorite in 2014. 2015, and 2016. It's a line you have to straddle carefully, but it doesn't ruin leagues. Because they aren't redraft leagues--they're dynasty leagues, long-term. At any given time, most leagues have between 1-4 teams with their eyes on 2015 or so, in a rebuild. That's no less worthy in the long run than the guy trading his future for Peyton to try to win it this year. You're just bringing a little too much of a redraft mindset into the equation, which is perfectly acceptable considering at this time that's all you know. Read through the in-season dynasty trades thread here, and pay attention to which trades get praised and criticized. It will help you with this a lot.

 

[battlebaby]

Dynasty trading is all about finding a "championship window" for your team. So if you've got a lot of young, promising rookies on your team (e.g., Giovani Bernard, Keenan Allen, Julio Jones, etc.) and you know you're not winning it all this year, it makes a lot of sense to trade off the older stud on your team (e.g., Adrian Peterson) while his value is still at its peak in order to stock up on guys that fit more with your "championship window". Championship teams usually look really lopsided in dynasty, but in another year or two, that team that stocked up on the young talent will probably be the one that takes over as the lopsided, dominant team.

And unfortunately, there really isn't any great way to prevent tanking aside from finding good owners. I'm commish of my 12-team dynasty league, and I only have one owner that is clearly trying to tank (he's 3-8). I just have to keep an eye on his team to make sure he doesn't do anything against the rules to help in his tanking...for example, one of our league rules is that you always have to set a legal roster each week that includes no players on bye and no players that have been declared inactive (we have a sub rule so that GTD guys declared inactive can be switched out with a declared sub). Last week, this owner started Peyton Hillis as his RB2 even though Hillis was declared inactive (he had Daniel Thomas on his bench). He was trying to do the same thing this week with Sproles and he hadn't declared a sub, so I just had to let the owner know that he had to switch out Sproles before the game or that I would have to bench Sproles for him. He's also been starting Donnie Avery for the past few weeks and keeping Aaron Dobson on his bench, but there's not much I can do about that regardless of how stupid it seems to me. Really annoying to have to babysit an owner, but it always seems like there's one of these guys in every league.

 

[FUBAR]

1) trades rarely ruin a dynasty league, though a few bad deals could upset the balance fairly quickly. The great thing is they tend to balance out eventually. Every league is different, but generally some teams will be building, some will be competing for the current year. This is why trades happen more often in dynasty.

2) Tanking can happen, sure. Your perspective matters here - is trading Peterson for Doug Martin "tanking"? If you think it is, then you need to re-consider your perspective and consider the long haul. You also want to make sure your perspective is the same as the league's. Meaning, one legitimate perspective is that no owner should ever start an inactive player or a player on a bye week. Others will have a different view, that nobody should have to drop a player just to have a one-week fill. This happens in redraft too sometimes, but it's less common. Whichever view you take, and if it's important to you, you'll want rules in keeping with that view.

 

[KingDread]

Thanks for the answers and reassurances guys.

Tanking to me is not making trades like Peterson for Martin. I wouldn't see anything wrong with that at all, but I don't want to really be in a league with guys who are benching Charles for Jacobs. To me that is tanking and would ruin the league. It would be extremely frustrating missing out on the playoffs because someone in the league was tanking and other opponents benefited from it.

 

[snellman]

Have you ever played IDP? I enjoy IDP dynasty much more than standard and there are a lot more ways to build a team depending on the scoring. Just throwing it out there.

 

[Riffraff]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

 

[battlebaby]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

 

[JohnnyU]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

 

[cstu]

Well, I was wanting to join two of them just in case one of them went poorly.

I guess my main thing with the trades in dynasty is it seems like champions could be crowned due to lopsided trades. I'm not a big fan of people winning due to getting by far the better of deals for the current year. Maybe the trade evens out over time, but having owners winning due to lopsided trades seem like it would happen a lot more in dynasty. Like it has been said in this thread, stuff like this could be remedied by having the entire league filled up with owners who know what they are doing.

That's the purpose of dynasty. You're constantly forced to make win-now vs. win-later decisions. If you trade two 1st's for Peyton Manning then you're weakening your team long-term in order to improve your chances this year. For someone who is new to dynasty you're going to be tempted to greatly overpay for what you think is a lop-sided trade in your favor.

As long as you have knowledgeable owners who are planning to stay in the league when they make trades the league will be fine.

 

[cstu]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

It also penalizes bad teams with veteran players over those with younger, developmental type players.

 

[JohnnyU]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

It also penalizes bad teams with veteran players over those with younger, developmental type players.

good point.

 

[Riffraff]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

MFL adds it up for you. there's a potential points column in the Power Rankings listing.

 

[Riffraff]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

Strong starters means you are gaining the majority of your potential points. Starting low point getters in order to lose has no effect when using potential points.

Weak benches (IR guys and wishful thinking prospects) help a team have a weak potential points score. That's the way they'd have to tank, by having no depth and bad starters. It's a true test of who has the worst team. But owners may not want to set their entire team back years just to possibly move up 1 draft position.

No specific way is foolproof, but potential points has shown to be a good way of determining the weakest rosters/teams.

 

[FUBAR]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

MFL adds it up for you. there's a potential points column in the Power Rankings listing.

Also all-play, which also has merit. Not with tanking, but perhaps with a last playoff spot

 

[msudaisy26]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

Ya I hate dynasty leagues with rules on who you have to start. For example. I had a horrible bye week 9, I also have Reggie Wayne, David Wilson, Randall Cobb, Doug Martin on IR. I had to start Martin at running back that week because of bye and injury issues. However by those leagues with rules against it I would have had to drop Wayne and pick up some random back to fill in for a week that I would have lost anyways during a season that I have no chance. I would stay away from leagues that won't let you start guys on a bye or injured players.

 

[battlebaby]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

Ya I hate dynasty leagues with rules on who you have to start. For example. I had a horrible bye week 9, I also have Reggie Wayne, David Wilson, Randall Cobb, Doug Martin on IR. I had to start Martin at running back that week because of bye and injury issues. However by those leagues with rules against it I would have had to drop Wayne and pick up some random back to fill in for a week that I would have lost anyways during a season that I have no chance. I would stay away from leagues that won't let you start guys on a bye or injured players.

In leagues where you have to put together a full starting roster each week, good commisioners will allow you to have one-week roster fill-in players so that you can keep your better long-term prospects but still have someone to start for that week. Even if it means you're just picking up a scrub for the week, it still looks better to other members in the league and hopefully avoids complaints about tanking.

 

[GregR]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

It also penalizes bad teams with veteran players over those with younger, developmental type players.

No different in that regard than using winning percentage, so I don't see the issue.

Both methods are setting the draft order based on how they did in 2013, or on how they could have done, with the players they had. Both base it on how the players you had on your roster did this year, with no regard for where they are in their career.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To alleviate some potential tanking, have the non-play-off teams get ranked by potential points instead of record. They would have to gather all the IR players and trade away performers to tank. Some of that is counter-productive for future success. It does eliminate owners playing bye week or injured players though. Potential points shows how strong a team is over-all, not just about a bad fantasy schedule or a purposeful bad record.

This is a pretty good idea...but would that mean that you'd have to go back through each week for every non-playoff team and see what their "optimum lineup" score would be?

Doesn't that method penalize those with a weak bench, but strong starters?

If you have strong starters, you'll put up a pretty strong "potential points", still. If you have mediocre starters and a weak bench, then potential points will hate your squad... but that's exactly the sort of squad you want to be giving high picks to. A team with the 2nd worst starters and the worst bench probably deserves a top pick more than a team with the worst starters and a middle-of-the-pack bench.

There are always ways to "game" the system. I'm in a 1st-year dynasty league where I have the lowest potential points by a mile... because my core is Rob Gronkowski, Michael Crabtree (drafted after his injury), Percy Harvin (traded for after his injury), and Julio Jones (traded for after his injury). My backup QB is Sam Bradford (added after he was dropped due to his injury). Jordan Reed is on my taxi squad, and I'd be flexing him every week (TE premium), but I'm not going to activate him and lose the extra roster spot. Add in a few more core pieces that should be better in 2014 than 2013 (Griffin III, Tavon, Eifert, Montee Ball, Ben Tate), and I've got a team that I feel is a powerhouse, but is last by a mile in potential points. The league doesn't award draft picks based on potential points, and I'm still fielding the best possible lineup on a weekly basis, but if you were going to try to game a "potential points" system, this would be the way to do it.

Still, I'd much rather have guys trying to "game the system" in ways that don't alter the competitive landscape for the teams still trying for the playoffs. My squad is shallow as hell, but I submit the best possible lineup every week. I'm not giving anybody any free wins. I'm not benching Stevan Ridley for Montee Ball or Rob Gronkowski for Robert Housler. I have not once finished with the weekly low score. If someone needs me to beat my opponent in order to make the playoffs, they can at least go into their Sunday matchup secure in the knowledge that I'm trying my best to do just that. That's a big advantage of potential points, is that there's never any incentive for a team to start anything EXCEPT its best possible lineup.

 

[GoodLloydHaveMercy]

I'm the commish for my 12 team non-ppr dynasty and I have added a few rules to help with the issue of tanking even though we haven't had a huge problem in that area so far.

Maybe some of these ideas would be helpful so I will post them here.

Top six make playoffs and bottom 6 play in a consolation playoff which awards an EXTRA draft pick before the second rd of our rookie draft to the winner of that consolation playoff. Bottom 4 (after regular season) are put into our "lottery" rookie pick pool with the 12th place finisher having the best odds for the first overall pick followed by the odds if winning that pick by the 11th place finisher etc. etc.

So technically the 12th place finisher could win the consolation rd and be awarded an EXTRA rookie pick at 1.13 plus and then win the lotto for the 1st overall pick as well. So far it has worked out well with these rules.

We also require that any trades involving draft picks for future seasons must include payment of league entry fees for that future season as a protection of sorts to ensure that even if an owner drops out for a future season his replacement will have his best foot forward and plays the first yr for free essentially.. We are also considering giving the new owner a compensatory 2nd rd pick as long as the last owner finished in the bottom 6

 

[ghostguy123]

All the dynasty leagues I am in are at the point where you HAVE to spend a lot of time going after 1-2 lopsided deals per year to be able to compete with the other 2-3 teams who rip people off. Or make 15 trades getting ahead a little each time, with a good end result.

I mean, when someone else trades ROddy White and James Jones midseason and gets Dez Bryant, he just got a competitive advantage over the league for almost a decade with that deal.

Even the best fantasy players will have a very hard time winning in leagues I am in or pay attention to unless they get some great deals themselves.

As for tanking, yes, it occurs. I don't see people blatantly starting the likes of HIllis over Peterson or anything, but just their rosters in general can not compete because they stash draft picks and young players and/or injured players, looking ahead a year or two.

Being a "decent" team is a bad place to be in dynasty I have seen to this point. You won't want to rebuild to get better in a year or two because you can make the playoffs (where anything can happen of course), but are also probably not going to win anything because there are usually 2-3 very strong teams.

 

[Adam Harstad]

All the dynasty leagues I am in are at the point where you HAVE to spend a lot of time going after 1-2 lopsided deals per year to be able to compete with the other 2-3 teams who rip people off. Or make 15 trades getting ahead a little each time, with a good end result.

I mean, when someone else trades ROddy White and James Jones midseason and gets Dez Bryant, he just got a competitive advantage over the league for almost a decade with that deal.

Even the best fantasy players will have a very hard time winning in leagues I am in or pay attention to unless they get some great deals themselves.

As for tanking, yes, it occurs. I don't see people blatantly starting the likes of HIllis over Peterson or anything, but just their rosters in general can not compete because they stash draft picks and young players and/or injured players, looking ahead a year or two.

Being a "decent" team is a bad place to be in dynasty I have seen to this point. You won't want to rebuild to get better in a year or two because you can make the playoffs (where anything can happen of course), but are also probably not going to win anything because there are usually 2-3 very strong teams.

I don't consider what you're describing to be tanking. Different people are going to have different roster-building philosophies. Once a team is out of it, there's no reason at all for them to prioritize 2013 production when putting together their roster. If they're actively putting themselves in positions where they're starting illegal rosters (e.g. dropping all of their defenses for prospects), or if they're deliberately not putting out their best possible starting lineup every week (e.g. your Hillis over Peterson example), then I consider those tanking. If they drop Tony Gonzalez for Dennis Pitta, leaving them in a position where they're now forced to start Rob Housler every game, then... well, that's just good roster management, imo.

 

[madmatg]

my league has a consolation tournament for the top half of the picks for all those that don't make the playoffs. That tournament will decide which teams get which picks., one addon rule is that if the team has not been tanking and is just genuinely terrible they get a free pass into the top four picks round of the consolation playoffs. Of course deciding if a team is tanking or not is up to some debate but I like it better than having a bunch of teams playing for nothing at the end of the season

 

[ghostguy123]

All the dynasty leagues I am in are at the point where you HAVE to spend a lot of time going after 1-2 lopsided deals per year to be able to compete with the other 2-3 teams who rip people off. Or make 15 trades getting ahead a little each time, with a good end result.

I mean, when someone else trades ROddy White and James Jones midseason and gets Dez Bryant, he just got a competitive advantage over the league for almost a decade with that deal.

Even the best fantasy players will have a very hard time winning in leagues I am in or pay attention to unless they get some great deals themselves.

As for tanking, yes, it occurs. I don't see people blatantly starting the likes of HIllis over Peterson or anything, but just their rosters in general can not compete because they stash draft picks and young players and/or injured players, looking ahead a year or two.

Being a "decent" team is a bad place to be in dynasty I have seen to this point. You won't want to rebuild to get better in a year or two because you can make the playoffs (where anything can happen of course), but are also probably not going to win anything because there are usually 2-3 very strong teams.

I don't consider what you're describing to be tanking. Different people are going to have different roster-building philosophies. Once a team is out of it, there's no reason at all for them to prioritize 2013 production when putting together their roster. If they're actively putting themselves in positions where they're starting illegal rosters (e.g. dropping all of their defenses for prospects), or if they're deliberately not putting out their best possible starting lineup every week (e.g. your Hillis over Peterson example), then I consider those tanking. If they drop Tony Gonzalez for Dennis Pitta, leaving them in a position where they're now forced to start Rob Housler every game, then... well, that's just good roster management, imo.

Oh, correct. It's good roster management. But it's tanking, lol.

I mean, there is a fine line at times. Some teams might have one QB (lets say for example it is Andrew Luck but he tore his ACL week 5 and is out for the year, and their IR squad is full). Does this team HAVE to pick up another QB and be forced to drop a prospect?

I mean, a little bit of common sense will tell you if someone's decisions are legitimately in the best interest of their team and not intentional tanking, but unintentional tanking is still tanking, lol. I see nothing wrong with that at all, but it really is tanking, and a couple teams will be doing it every year.

 

[Tool]

All the dynasty leagues I am in are at the point where you HAVE to spend a lot of time going after 1-2 lopsided deals per year to be able to compete with the other 2-3 teams who rip people off. Or make 15 trades getting ahead a little each time, with a good end result.

I mean, when someone else trades ROddy White and James Jones midseason and gets Dez Bryant, he just got a competitive advantage over the league for almost a decade with that deal.

Even the best fantasy players will have a very hard time winning in leagues I am in or pay attention to unless they get some great deals themselves.

As for tanking, yes, it occurs. I don't see people blatantly starting the likes of HIllis over Peterson or anything, but just their rosters in general can not compete because they stash draft picks and young players and/or injured players, looking ahead a year or two.

Being a "decent" team is a bad place to be in dynasty I have seen to this point. You won't want to rebuild to get better in a year or two because you can make the playoffs (where anything can happen of course), but are also probably not going to win anything because there are usually 2-3 very strong teams.

I don't consider what you're describing to be tanking. Different people are going to have different roster-building philosophies. Once a team is out of it, there's no reason at all for them to prioritize 2013 production when putting together their roster. If they're actively putting themselves in positions where they're starting illegal rosters (e.g. dropping all of their defenses for prospects), or if they're deliberately not putting out their best possible starting lineup every week (e.g. your Hillis over Peterson example), then I consider those tanking. If they drop Tony Gonzalez for Dennis Pitta, leaving them in a position where they're now forced to start Rob Housler every game, then... well, that's just good roster management, imo.

Oh, correct. It's good roster management. But it's tanking, lol.

I mean, there is a fine line at times. Some teams might have one QB (lets say for example it is Andrew Luck but he tore his ACL week 5 and is out for the year, and their IR squad is full). Does this team HAVE to pick up another QB and be forced to drop a prospect?

I mean, a little bit of common sense will tell you if someone's decisions are legitimately in the best interest of their team and not intentional tanking, but unintentional tanking is still tanking, lol. I see nothing wrong with that at all, but it really is tanking, and a couple teams will be doing it every year.

yes, they should have to play a complete roster and field a competitive team even if that means dropping someone they'd rather not drop.

 

[ghostguy123]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

 

[FUBAR]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

As a guy who has dropped quite a few players who others didn't think were worth rostering, I absolutely agree with this. Over the years, I've dropped Antonio Gates, Victor Cruz, Tom Brady, Jarrett Boykin, and a few others for one week players because I was competing. That was a choice I made but if I was a last place team at any of those times, forced to drop one for a player who would not benefit my team, I'd be pissed

 

[Tool]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

we'll have to agree to disagree. i've been in a dynasty league for a long time and it's an obligation of every owner to field a competitive team. It's only fair that everyone has to compete against a complete roster every week. By playing with empty roster spots you are tanking that game. If you're missing a qb, you have to pick one up. If you lose out on a player you had to drop then that's the way it goes. We have pretty deep rosters so it's really never been a huge issue. So maybe rosters need to be a little bigger to account for this.

 

[snellman]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

we'll have to agree to disagree. i've been in a dynasty league for a long time and it's an obligation of every owner to field a competitive team. It's only fair that everyone has to compete against a complete roster every week. By playing with empty roster spots you are tanking that game. If you're missing a qb, you have to pick one up. If you lose out on a player you had to drop then that's the way it goes. We have pretty deep rosters so it's really never been a huge issue. So maybe rosters need to be a little bigger to account for this.

To a certain point yes but there are times.

Example I have Sam Bradford and Jake Locker in a 16 team league. When Bradford got hurt I spent a fair amount of my FA money to get Clemmens even though my team is in the toiled to make sure I fielded a competitive team. Well, Locker wen down and Clemmens bye came up. In also happened to be the same week McGloin was going to get the start. However, I did not have enough FA money left to get him and got outbid leaving me to start Clemmens who was on a bye.

It is going to happen in dynasty leagues, especially in larger ones.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

I like the $/win idea given (not sure if is/was this thread)

Weighted 'draft lottery' non-playoff teams and 'toilet bowl compensation pick' (end of round 1) for toilet bowl winner are other ideas I've liked.

 

[Tool]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

we'll have to agree to disagree. i've been in a dynasty league for a long time and it's an obligation of every owner to field a competitive team. It's only fair that everyone has to compete against a complete roster every week. By playing with empty roster spots you are tanking that game. If you're missing a qb, you have to pick one up. If you lose out on a player you had to drop then that's the way it goes. We have pretty deep rosters so it's really never been a huge issue. So maybe rosters need to be a little bigger to account for this.

To a certain point yes but there are times.

Example I have Sam Bradford and Jake Locker in a 16 team league. When Bradford got hurt I spent a fair amount of my FA money to get Clemmens even though my team is in the toiled to make sure I fielded a competitive team. Well, Locker wen down and Clemmens bye came up. In also happened to be the same week McGloin was going to get the start. However, I did not have enough FA money left to get him and got outbid leaving me to start Clemmens who was on a bye.

It is going to happen in dynasty leagues, especially in larger ones.

in that example, obviously it's beyond your control if there are no available players. That's different than just not picking up someone because you don't want to drop your 5th rb.

 

[Shanahanigans]

My dynasty league has a few ways to prevent tanking:

1 If someone thinks another owner is tanking they formally accuse them. The accused owner is then given a chance to defend/explain themselves. After the defense the owners vote on whether they were tanking. If a 2/3 majority (8 of 12 teams) votes 'yes', that they were tanking, that team forfeits their first round pick the following year. If the same owner is 'convicted' a second time, they are kicked out of the league.

2 We have a Toilet Bowl for the 6 non-playoff teams, and the winner gets $50 and control of the traveling Golden Toilet trophy. Beyond that, if you get a bye week in the toilet bowl you compete in the Charmin Classic which you can net another $10 from winning. We are thinking of upping the pay out from 50 to 100 dollars to make winning/getting a bye even more enticing.

3 Every game has a ten dollar bet attached to it. So, if you go 0-13, you owe an additional $130 at the end of the year. This serves as a minor deterrent to tanking.

4 Having a trade deadline after Week 10 helps avoid trades to help tanking, plus as others have mentioned, this is a dynasty league so trading away your good players for nothing does not make a whole lot of sense.

5 Last, and probably least, their is a $10 prize for the highest score each week. I say this is the smallest deterrent, because if your team is doing poorly enough to make you want to tank, odds are you don't have a great chance at the weekly high score prize. That said, 9 of 12 teams this year have been high score at least one week, so any given Sunday everyone does have a chance.

 

[msudaisy26]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

we'll have to agree to disagree. i've been in a dynasty league for a long time and it's an obligation of every owner to field a competitive team. It's only fair that everyone has to compete against a complete roster every week. By playing with empty roster spots you are tanking that game. If you're missing a qb, you have to pick one up. If you lose out on a player you had to drop then that's the way it goes. We have pretty deep rosters so it's really never been a huge issue. So maybe rosters need to be a little bigger to account for this.

To a certain point yes but there are times.

Example I have Sam Bradford and Jake Locker in a 16 team league. When Bradford got hurt I spent a fair amount of my FA money to get Clemmens even though my team is in the toiled to make sure I fielded a competitive team. Well, Locker wen down and Clemmens bye came up. In also happened to be the same week McGloin was going to get the start. However, I did not have enough FA money left to get him and got outbid leaving me to start Clemmens who was on a bye.

It is going to happen in dynasty leagues, especially in larger ones.

in that example, obviously it's beyond your control if there are no available players. That's different than just not picking up someone because you don't want to drop your 5th rb.

This is why the OP should avoid leagues with rules like this. Intentional tanking is one thing, but if you are sitting at 3 - 8 this week and your running backs are Foster, Martin, Spiller, Wilson and Rashard Jennings, you shouldn't have to drop one of those players or a guy like Case Keenum at quarterback or Randle, Patterson or Hopkins at receiver just to start full lineup, in a game that doesn't matter for you.

If you get into leagues with rules that make you drop one of your up and coming guys you will hate the league and quit dynasty after a year. Find a league with some of these rules.

No vetoing of trades, you want to run your team how you run your team

That lets you start guys on a bye/injured instead of making you drop a player that could help you next year.

Prevents intentional tanking, if a guy is starting injured or bye week guys but they have players on their bench that are playing

Find an active league or active owners, this is probably the most important in my eyes. There is nothing worse then trying to trade with teams and getting no answers, getting near a trade deadline and either the contenders or pretenders aren't trying to make themselves better at all.

 

[Tool]

Tool...redraft yes, dynasty no.

I certainly would feel zero obligation to drop some young flier with talent to get mcgloin or some crap for a game or two, only to watch my flier blow up.

we'll have to agree to disagree. i've been in a dynasty league for a long time and it's an obligation of every owner to field a competitive team. It's only fair that everyone has to compete against a complete roster every week. By playing with empty roster spots you are tanking that game. If you're missing a qb, you have to pick one up. If you lose out on a player you had to drop then that's the way it goes. We have pretty deep rosters so it's really never been a huge issue. So maybe rosters need to be a little bigger to account for this.

To a certain point yes but there are times.

Example I have Sam Bradford and Jake Locker in a 16 team league. When Bradford got hurt I spent a fair amount of my FA money to get Clemmens even though my team is in the toiled to make sure I fielded a competitive team. Well, Locker wen down and Clemmens bye came up. In also happened to be the same week McGloin was going to get the start. However, I did not have enough FA money left to get him and got outbid leaving me to start Clemmens who was on a bye.

It is going to happen in dynasty leagues, especially in larger ones.

in that example, obviously it's beyond your control if there are no available players. That's different than just not picking up someone because you don't want to drop your 5th rb.

This is why the OP should avoid leagues with rules like this. Intentional tanking is one thing, but if you are sitting at 3 - 8 this week and your running backs are Foster, Martin, Spiller, Wilson and Rashard Jennings, you shouldn't have to drop one of those players or a guy like Case Keenum at quarterback or Randle, Patterson or Hopkins at receiver just to start full lineup, in a game that doesn't matter for you.

If you get into leagues with rules that make you drop one of your up and coming guys you will hate the league and quit dynasty after a year. Find a league with some of these rules.

You have to find someone to drop. If you can't, the roster size is probably too small.

 

[msudaisy26]

It might be something else to look at too, but I wouldn't play in a league that forced you to drop a guy that could be a stud or is an injured stud to play a plug and play guy in dynasty. It is just stupid.

 

[Adam Harstad]

my league has a consolation tournament for the top half of the picks for all those that don't make the playoffs. That tournament will decide which teams get which picks., one addon rule is that if the team has not been tanking and is just genuinely terrible they get a free pass into the top four picks round of the consolation playoffs. Of course deciding if a team is tanking or not is up to some debate but I like it better than having a bunch of teams playing for nothing at the end of the season

We did this in my first dynasty league for a couple of seasons, but after seeing a team twice finish in the top 3 in points scored but miss the playoffs due to schedule luck, only to walk away with the #1 overall pick for their troubles, we put the kibosh on that. We still have the consolation bracket (we call them the "loser playoffs"), but the reward for winning is now an extra pick between the end of the 1st round and the start of the 2nd. Still fun and valuable enough to keep everyone interesting, but not nearly so franchise-altering. Draft order is determined by a team's potential points (and, in the case of playoff teams, how far they advanced).

 

[Adam Harstad]

Here's my rule of thumb for tanking: If all draft picks were randomly assigned by drawing a name out of a hat, would the team still make that move? If no, then he's tanking. If yes, then he's not tanking.

If I had a 3-8 team and we were past the trade deadline, I would drop Tony Gonzalez for anyone with a pulse, whether draft picks were randomly assigned or not. That's not tanking. If draft picks were randomly assigned, though, there would be absolutely no reason for me to start Case Keenum over Peyton Manning. That's tanking.

 

[Tool]

It might be something else to look at too, but I wouldn't play in a league that forced you to drop a guy that could be a stud or is an injured stud to play a plug and play guy in dynasty. It is just stupid.

Or add an IR spot or 2. Teams shouldn't be playing incomplete lineups when there are players on the waiver wire that can be picked up. It throws off the competitive balance of the league. So two teams are going for a playoff spot but one team gets to play a team without a QB b/c the QB is on bye. That's just stupid.

 

[Adam Harstad]

For what it's worth, in a dynasty league this week I'm facing a team that's starting Terrell Pryor at QB because his regular starter (Wilson) is on bye. There's a not insignificant chance that I'll lose out on the #1 pick as a result. And I don't blame him- if I were in his shoes, I would be doing the exact same thing. It's either start Pryor or drop a valuable asset like Daniel Thomas (the guy I'd tag as the worst player on his roster) for a Scott Tolzier or Jason Campbell. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course, situations like this are when deeper rosters or awarding picks based on potential points start looking a lot more appealing.

It might be something else to look at too, but I wouldn't play in a league that forced you to drop a guy that could be a stud or is an injured stud to play a plug and play guy in dynasty. It is just stupid.

Or add an IR spot or 2. Teams shouldn't be playing incomplete lineups when there are players on the waiver wire that can be picked up. It throws off the competitive balance of the league. So two teams are going for a playoff spot but one team gets to play a team without a QB b/c the QB is on bye. That's just stupid.

I do like the idea of having short-term IR spots to give teams room to add fill-ins when their starters are out, although as a commissioner I can also imagine that being a headache to implement and enforce.

 

[cstu]

For what it's worth, in a dynasty league this week I'm facing a team that's starting Terrell Pryor at QB because his regular starter (Wilson) is on bye. There's a not insignificant chance that I'll lose out on the #1 pick as a result. And I don't blame him- if I were in his shoes, I would be doing the exact same thing. It's either start Pryor or drop a valuable asset like Daniel Thomas (the guy I'd tag as the worst player on his roster) for a Scott Tolzier or Jason Campbell. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course, situations like this are when deeper rosters or awarding picks based on potential points start looking a lot more appealing.

How many roster spots?

 

[msudaisy26]

It might be something else to look at too, but I wouldn't play in a league that forced you to drop a guy that could be a stud or is an injured stud to play a plug and play guy in dynasty. It is just stupid.

Or add an IR spot or 2. Teams shouldn't be playing incomplete lineups when there are players on the waiver wire that can be picked up. It throws off the competitive balance of the league. So two teams are going for a playoff spot but one team gets to play a team without a QB b/c the QB is on bye. That's just stupid.

We have 2 IR spots in our league that is how bad injuries have hit me this year.

Week 9

20 roster spots

2 IR spots

Cobb and Dwayne Allen on IR

guys on a bye

Vernon Davis

Julius Thomas

Rueben Randle

Eric Decker

Cecil Shorts

Injured players not on a bye

Doug Martin

Reggie Wayne

David Wilson

That leaves 12 guys on my roster and we start 11 players oh ya I have 3 quarterbacks with Brady, Keenum, Foles. 1 qb 2 rb 3 wrs 1 te 2 flex 1 kicker 1 def.

I was screwed that week and that would have set my team back farther to have to drop someone to pick up a flier for a week I got killed in and I was 3 - 5 going into week 9. I obviously wasn't tanking but you can't ask me to drop a good player and give someone a free player to try to win a game that meant nothing for me, it doesn't even help with draft pick because we have the non playoff teams compete for the picks to avoid this.

 

[belljr]

we do lotto in our league, i forget the odds but the worse you finish the more chips in the lotto

 

[Dr Oadi]

?......, but having owners winning due to lopsided trades seem like it would happen a lot more in dynasty.......

Do your future league a favor and don't join.

 

[KingDread]

You guys bring up a lot of good points. For sure though, I wouldn't even consider doing dynasty unless the rosters were big enough. Not exactly sure how much is the perfect amount, but anything less than 20 roster spots, and fielding competitive rosters would be a chore at various points in a season for some of the rebuilding teams. It just seems like anything less than 20 roster spots and you are just looking for trouble. I could be wrong though.

 

[Adam Harstad]

For what it's worth, in a dynasty league this week I'm facing a team that's starting Terrell Pryor at QB because his regular starter (Wilson) is on bye. There's a not insignificant chance that I'll lose out on the #1 pick as a result. And I don't blame him- if I were in his shoes, I would be doing the exact same thing. It's either start Pryor or drop a valuable asset like Daniel Thomas (the guy I'd tag as the worst player on his roster) for a Scott Tolzier or Jason Campbell. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course, situations like this are when deeper rosters or awarding picks based on potential points start looking a lot more appealing.

How many roster spots?

20, + 2 IR and 2 Taxi Squad spots. Player has to be on NFL IR to get demoted to one of the IR spots, and once they do they're done for the year (even if they're "IR - Designated to Return").

 

[msudaisy26]

You guys bring up a lot of good points. For sure though, I wouldn't even consider doing dynasty unless the rosters were big enough. Not exactly sure how much is the perfect amount, but anything less than 20 roster spots, and fielding competitive rosters would be a chore at various points in a season for some of the rebuilding teams. It just seems like anything less than 20 roster spots and you are just looking for trouble. I could be wrong though.

I agree with you on the bench spots. I actually have tried to get our league to bump up the roster to 22 with 2 IR spots. I think you should have a minimum of 10 bench spots for dynasty leagues.