Dynasty - Two teams trading entire teams (1 Viewer)

[Spin]

In a 10 team dynasty with IDP. Two owners are discussing trading entire teams. Has anyone had this happen in one of their leagues before?

Team A - Won it all in our initial year. Placed 4th last year, and this year missed the playoffs due to some unlucky match ups against higher than average scoring opponents at the beginning.

Team B - Has never made the playoffs, and has finished in the bottom 4 all 3 years with the lowest points for. This year is playing for 7th/8th this week (coincidentally against Team A).

The number after each players' name is how many years remain on their contract.

Rosters:

Start 1 qb/2rb/3wr/1te/1flex(any)/idp

Team A-

Player Years remaining on Contract

Cutler, Jay CHI QB 4

Locker, Jake TEN QB (P) 10

Newton, Cam CAR QB 9

Vick, Michael PHI QB (O) 1

Battle, Jackie SDC RB 1

Brown, Bryce PHI RB ® 3

Foster, Arian HOU RB 1

McCoy, LeSean PHI RB (O) 2

Tate, Ben HOU RB (P) 5

Woodhead, Danny NEP RB 1

Bowe, Dwayne KCC WR 2

Britt, Kenny TEN WR (P) 2

Cobb, Randall GBP WR 7

Decker, Eric DEN WR 3

Edelman, Julian NEP WR (I) 2

Jackson, DeSean PHI WR (I) 4

Meachem, Robert SDC WR 1

Smith, Torrey BAL WR 7

Cook, Jared TEN TE (P) 1

Dreessen, Joel DEN TE 1

Gresham, Jermaine CIN TE (P) 1

Tamme, Jacob DEN TE 1

Bironas, Rob TEN PK 1

Scobee, Josh JAC PK 1

Abraham, John ATL DE 1

Campbell, Calais ARI DE (P) 2

Hardy, Greg CAR DE 2

Angerer, Pat IND LB 5

Brown, Zach TEN LB ® 1

Lofton, Curtis NOS LB 1

Weatherspoon, Sean ATL LB 2

Wheeler, Philip OAK LB 1

Arenas, Javier KCC CB 4

McKelvin, Leodis BUF CB (P) 1

Williams, Tramon GBP CB 1

Delmas, Louis DET S (O) 1

Griffin, Michael TEN S 1

Weddle, Eric SDC S 1

Team B-

Player Years remaining on Contract

Bradford, Sam STL QB 9

Campbell, Jason CHI QB 1

Palmer, Carson OAK QB (P) 1

Bradshaw, Ahmad NYG RB (P) 1

Draughn, Shaun KCC RB 1

Greene, Shonn NYJ RB 2

Helu, Roy WAS RB (I) 4

Turner, Michael ATL RB (P) 1

Avery, Donnie IND WR 1

Boldin, Anquan BAL WR 1

Breaston, Steve KCC WR (O) 1

Doucet, Early ARI WR (P) 1

Driver, Donald GBP WR (P) 1

Gibson, Brandon STL WR 1

Knox, Johnny CHI WR (O) 3

Moss, Santana WAS WR 1

Ogletree, Kevin DAL WR 2

Rice, Sidney SEA WR (P) 2

Simpson, Jerome MIN WR 2

Smith, Steve CAR WR 1

Dickson, Ed BAL TE (O) 1

Fasano, Anthony MIA TE (P) 2

Olsen, Greg CAR TE (P) 1

Akers, David SFO PK 1

Jones, Jason SEA DT 1

Babin, Jason JAC DE 1

Peppers, Julius CHI DE 1

Wake, Cameron MIA DE 2

Hali, Tamba KCC LB (P) 3

Harris, David NYJ LB 2

Schofield, O'Brien ARI LB (I) 1

Ware, Demarcus DAL LB 1

Woodley, LaMarr PIT LB (O) 4

Hall, Deangelo WAS CB (P) 2

Marshall, Richard MIA CB (I) 3

McCourty, Devin NEP CB 3

Peterson, Patrick ARI CB 7

Barber, Ronde TBB S 1

Landry, LaRon NYJ S (P) 2

Should there be an issue in this? I don't understand why someone would want to do it, but owner A wants to see if he could build owner B's team into contention, I guess test his "skills".

Has anyone ever seen this before? Some of the owners are saying it shouldn't be allowed. I personally don't see what's wrong with it, I don't see how it would hurt the league. What are your thoughts?

 

[Shutout]

Don't know how it can be an issue at all. Its the same teams, just in different locations.

Its kind of like the ultimate "I can take your'n and beat mine or take mine and beat your'n" statement.

 

[Mentos]

No issue with this.

Hell, Carol Rosenbloom did this in real football.

 

[kardplayer]

No issue at all. Thought about doing it myself.

 

[Banemorth]

Why not? It's not like one team is trading all of his best players to another. It doesn't affect the balance of the league in anyway. Let 'em have their fun.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Not sure why team A would want the other team but it's kind of like trading first round picks before the start-up or before the season starts.

 

[gianmarco]

If others are against it, the two owners can literally make a trade with all their players. Or all of them but 1 just to be cute.

 

[Concept Coop]

Isn't it basically admitting to collusion, though? Knowing making a bad trade? Never mind the fact that it is veto worthy?

Why should a bad owner be rewarded (and make money, likely) simply because another owner is bored? I don't like it.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Isn't it basically admitting to collusion, though? Knowing making a bad trade? Never mind the fact that it is veto worthy?Why should a bad owner be rewarded (and make money, likely) simply because another owner is bored? I don't like it.

Yeah, nothing against it in any rules maybe, but it just seems wrong. It does throw the divisions all out of whack as well. I'd work on the ego of the guy currently with the bad team to keep it from happening. Give hims #### about trying to take the easy way, not being able to build it himself. Maybe that's not the right tactic but it could keep a really annoying team switch from happening if that's what you want OP. otherwise it's hard to think of an argument against it.I could never, ever see myself doing this. But then I trade a lot and because of that all of my dynasty teams have a distinct feeling of being "mine" and I couldn't imagine throwing all of that work away to take on someone else project, whether it was better or worse. Just goes against everything dynasty is to me, and all the reasons I choose to play it and love it so much.

 

[Concept Coop]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Isn't it basically admitting to collusion, though? Knowing making a bad trade? Never mind the fact that it is veto worthy?Why should a bad owner be rewarded (and make money, likely) simply because another owner is bored? I don't like it.

Yeah, nothing against it in any rules maybe, but it just seems wrong. It does throw the divisions all out of whack as well. I'd work on the ego of the guy currently with the bad team to keep it from happening. Give hims #### about trying to take the easy way, not being able to build it himself. Maybe that's not the right tactic but it could keep a really annoying team switch from happening if that's what you want OP. otherwise it's hard to think of an argument against it.I could never, ever see myself doing this. But then I trade a lot and because of that all of my dynasty teams have a distinct feeling of being "mine" and I couldn't imagine throwing all of that work away to take on someone else project, whether it was better or worse. Just goes against everything dynasty is to me, and all the reasons I choose to play it and love it so much.

Both good points, Find a different way to spice it up if team A is bored. Like I said trade future draft picks or something else. This would probably not go over well in any league I'm in. If the teams were comperable then maybe...

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

CC knows what collusion is. I get what he's saying. If team A is bored and knowingly/purposefully making bad trades, that's different then just not being a good ownern and making bad trades that he thinks is good trades

 

[Concept Coop]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

Wiki:"Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.[citation needed] It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3]"Anything else you need, sir?

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

CC knows what collusion is. I get what he's saying. If team A is bored and knowingly/purposefully making bad trades, that's different then just not being a good ownern and making bad trades that he thinks is good trades

You should too...

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Nothing wrong with this. It doesn't negatively effect the "balance of power" in the league. If anything, it should make the league more balanced, as you would expect the new owner of Team A to manage his team poorly, and vice versa.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seems like a ton of the players on Team B have one year contracts. Is that an advantage that might offset the talent disparity?

 

[Concept Coop]

Nothing wrong with this. It doesn't negatively effect the "balance of power" in the league. If anything, it should make the league more balanced, as you would expect the new owner of Team A to manage his team poorly, and vice versa.

If the Cardinals traded Rosters with the Texans, would that effect the balance of power in the NFL?And it's not about balance. If the balance is a result of the league's owners, great. If it's unbalanced because of the league's owners, great. Why is team B the recipient of Team A's generosity and boredom? What about the other lesser teams?Maybe Team A should make bad trades with every team below .500. Does that help the league?

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

CC knows what collusion is. I get what he's saying. If team A is bored and knowingly/purposefully making bad trades, that's different then just not being a good ownern and making bad trades that he thinks is good trades

You should too...

Okay...whats your definition? If I'm wrong that's fine and I'll admit it. This is just one part of what I always thought was part of it.

 

[Spin]

Seems like a ton of the players on Team B have one year contracts. Is that an advantage that might offset the talent disparity?

Not really. At the end of the year everyone's contracts go down by 1, and anyone who has a 1 now, will become a RFA. What that means is during the month of April every RFA is open to bidding any remaining "Snotes" (Our free agent blind bidding currency) on the players. The players are auctioned among the other owners until no one has increased the bid over a 48 hour period. Then the original owner has the option of matching the high bid, or letting the player walk.Current "Snotes" for the two teams:Team A - 186Team B - 77Each owner gets 75 in August of each year, and the snotes are tradeable, as well as draft picks, players etc. Team A sold Chris Johnson for 70 snotes at the beginning of the year to a rb needy team. I assume this was to be able to match any bids on Foster at the end of the year. He currently has the most. The second highest is 122. So he should be able to easily match any bids on Foster. Unless of course, he trades his entire team. But I assume he would then just bid on Foster, in which case Team B would have to "sell" some players/picks in order to get the snotes to match the high bid, or let him walk.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

The reason you don't allow those kinds of trades is because they redistribute the talent between rosters, whereby some rosters get stronger and others get weaker. In the OP's case, this isn't happening. All of the rosters in the league are staying the same.It seems there are two possibilities at this point: Owner A is better at fantasy football than Owner B, or they are about the same skillwise but Owner A's had better luck over the relatively short life of the league. If Owner A is really better than Owner B, then by swapping teams you're arguably making the league more balanced in the short term, and in the long run Owner A will make his new team better and Owner B will make his new team worse. I don't see why any of that is a problem and there's nothing wrong with the trade. If Owner A and Owner B have the same amount of fantasy skill, then there shouldn't be anything wrong with the trade. They will continue to manage their new teams in a similar fashion and the balance of the league remains exactly the way it was. Regarding the defninition of collusion you posted:"Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage.[citation needed] It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production.[1] It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties".[2] In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.[3]"Which part, specifically, do you believe this trade falls under?

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

CC knows what collusion is. I get what he's saying. If team A is bored and knowingly/purposefully making bad trades, that's different then just not being a good ownern and making bad trades that he thinks is good trades

You should too...

Okay...whats your definition? If I'm wrong that's fine and I'll admit it. This is just one part of what I always thought was part of it.

Collusion is defined as a secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose, which plays into each parties hands. A secret agreement between two or more persons to defraud others of their rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.Collusion has nothing to do with the equality or lopsidedness of the agreement or whether can be deemed "fair". Simply put, collusion is cooperation by two or more teams to win league and split the prize. Too many trade nazi's on this board throw around the word collusion as a reason to prevent trades from occuring that hurt their chances.

 

[Spin]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

I think this is where my fundamental problem with the swapping stems from as well. There's no way the other owners would be ok with him giving away small portions of the team in lopsided deals, this just seems like a mass scale version of that.

 

[SSOG]

Nothing wrong with this. It doesn't negatively effect the "balance of power" in the league. If anything, it should make the league more balanced, as you would expect the new owner of Team A to manage his team poorly, and vice versa.

If the Cardinals traded Rosters with the Texans, would that effect the balance of power in the NFL?And it's not about balance. If the balance is a result of the league's owners, great. If it's unbalanced because of the league's owners, great.

Why is team B the recipient of Team A's generosity and boredom? What about the other lesser teams?

Maybe Team A should make bad trades with every team below .500. Does that help the league?

Yeah, what would the NFL do in this situation? Imagine if an NFL owner- say, Robert Irsay- got together with another NFL owner- I don't know, Carol Rosenblatt or someone- and decided to just trade franchises? Do you know how much outrage that would generate? Because I sure do- none at all.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?

Of course not, that's collusion. So is this.

Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

You sir, need to look up the definition of collusion.

CC knows what collusion is. I get what he's saying. If team A is bored and knowingly/purposefully making bad trades, that's different then just not being a good ownern and making bad trades that he thinks is good trades

You should too...

Okay...whats your definition? If I'm wrong that's fine and I'll admit it. This is just one part of what I always thought was part of it.

Collusion is defined as a secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose, which plays into each parties hands. A secret agreement between two or more persons to defraud others of their rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.Collusion has nothing to do with the equality or lopsidedness of the agreement or whether can be deemed "fair". Simply put, collusion is cooperation by two or more teams to win league and split the prize. Too many trade nazi's on this board throw around the word collusion as a reason to prevent trades from occuring that hurt their chances.

Interesting, I've never actually looked up the definition so you were correct in saying I should. I think many dynasty owners then have created their own definetion based on their own ideas. Thats how I got my opinion of it was by asking other veternan owners when I first started.

 

[Concept Coop]

Collusion is defined as a secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose, which plays into each parties hands. A secret agreement between two or more persons to defraud others of their rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.Collusion has nothing to do with the equality or lopsidedness of the agreement or whether can be deemed "fair". Simply put, collusion is cooperation by two or more teams to win league and split the prize. Too many trade nazi's on this board throw around the word collusion as a reason to prevent trades from occuring that hurt their chances.

You're taking the literal definition of a word only loosely applicable to fantasy football. Pick a different word, if it makes you feel better. Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

I think this is where my fundamental problem with the swapping stems from as well. There's no way the other owners would be ok with him giving away small portions of the team in lopsided deals, this just seems like a mass scale version of that.

The reason people are against small-scale versions of this is because it directly affects their own competitiveness in the league. If one of my opponents colludes to pay less than fair market value for good players, then his team gets disproportionately stronger, which means my (and everyone else's team) is disadvantaged by the deal. But that doesn't happen when you swap entire rosters. If these two owners swap their whole teams, my competition is the same as it was before the trade went down, just with different names.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Collusion is defined as a secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose, which plays into each parties hands. A secret agreement between two or more persons to defraud others of their rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.Collusion has nothing to do with the equality or lopsidedness of the agreement or whether can be deemed "fair". Simply put, collusion is cooperation by two or more teams to win league and split the prize. Too many trade nazi's on this board throw around the word collusion as a reason to prevent trades from occuring that hurt their chances.

You're taking the literal definition of a word only loosely applicable to fantasy football. Pick a different word, if it makes you feel better. Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Please explain how it's cheating.

 

[Concept Coop]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

I think this is where my fundamental problem with the swapping stems from as well. There's no way the other owners would be ok with him giving away small portions of the team in lopsided deals, this just seems like a mass scale version of that.

The reason people are against small-scale versions of this is because it directly affects their own competitiveness in the league. If one of my opponents colludes to pay less than fair market value for good players, then his team gets disproportionately stronger, which means my (and everyone else's team) is disadvantaged by the deal. But that doesn't happen when you swap entire rosters. If these two owners swap their whole teams, my competition is the same as it was before the trade went down, just with different names.

If you are the Seahawks, and the Cardinals trade rosters with the Texans, are you affected?And why is whether you are affected or not the question here? A team is making a bad trade on purpose, helping another team win more games. Why does there need to be more to it than that? Why are we justifying that?

 

[Concept Coop]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

 

[belljr]

So they are just swapping ownership?

How will that affect division, integrity blah blah blah?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

Which team is he helping to win?

 

[Concept Coop]

Collusion is defined as a secret agreement and cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose, which plays into each parties hands. A secret agreement between two or more persons to defraud others of their rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.Collusion has nothing to do with the equality or lopsidedness of the agreement or whether can be deemed "fair". Simply put, collusion is cooperation by two or more teams to win league and split the prize. Too many trade nazi's on this board throw around the word collusion as a reason to prevent trades from occuring that hurt their chances.

You're taking the literal definition of a word only loosely applicable to fantasy football. Pick a different word, if it makes you feel better. Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Please explain how it's cheating.

Player A is putting player B at an advantage, based on nothing player B did to earn it strategically. If player A decided to give his draft picks to team B, would that be okay?

 

[Concept Coop]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

Which team is he helping to win?

B

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

No issue with it. Team A wants a challenge taking over Team B I assume.

I think he's crazy taking it over, as that's a poor 12 team league roster let alone 10 teams, but that's his choice.

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Would you let Team A make smaller, equally lopsided deals? Say, Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford and Helu?Of course not, that's collusion. So is this. Or what if he just gave away his best payers randomly around the league? What if he made 6 bad trades with 6 random owners, helping all of them, you know, because he's bored.

I think this is where my fundamental problem with the swapping stems from as well. There's no way the other owners would be ok with him giving away small portions of the team in lopsided deals, this just seems like a mass scale version of that.

The reason people are against small-scale versions of this is because it directly affects their own competitiveness in the league. If one of my opponents colludes to pay less than fair market value for good players, then his team gets disproportionately stronger, which means my (and everyone else's team) is disadvantaged by the deal. But that doesn't happen when you swap entire rosters. If these two owners swap their whole teams, my competition is the same as it was before the trade went down, just with different names.

If you are the Seahawks, and the Cardinals trade rosters with the Texans, are you affected?And why is whether you are affected or not the question here? A team is making a bad trade on purpose, helping another team win more games. Why does there need to be more to it than that? Why are we justifying that?

Who determines if a trade is good or bad?? How do you know the team will win more games?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

Which team is he helping to win?

B

B isn't a team, B is an owner. If you mean, the team that B is receiving, then no, it doesn't seem like that team's chances of winning are increasing.

 

[Athletic Supporter]

So they are just swapping ownership?How will that affect division, integrity blah blah blah?

This is the easiest solution for the OP's league, assuming the owners seriously want to pursue this endeavor; swap franchises rather than a full-blown trade. Teams stay intact, in the same divisions, exactly the same as they are today, however franchise ownership is transferred. The commish changes the password for each franchise and sends it to the other owner. Once swapped, they can change the team name, personal information and such.No one should have a problem with this.

 

[Concept Coop]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

Which team is he helping to win?

B

B isn't a team, B is an owner. If you mean, the team that B is receiving, then no, it doesn't seem like that team's chances of winning are increasing.

B is a team and owner. And his chances of winning money that everyone paid into, greatly went up. If the Texans traded rosters with the Cardinals, the Cardinals are still the team in Arizona; just with much better odds of winning.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Knowing making bad trades to help another team win is cheating; that's what is going on here.

Who's making a bad trade to help another team win?

A

Which team is he helping to win?

B

B isn't a team, B is an owner. If you mean, the team that B is receiving, then no, it doesn't seem like that team's chances of winning are increasing.

B is a team and owner. And his chances of winning money that everyone paid into, greatly went up.

Possibly. And owner A's chances of winning money presumably decreased. Owners C, D, E... have the same chances of winning money as they did before, which is all they should be concerned with.

If the Texans traded rosters with the Cardinals, the Cardinals are still the team in Arizona; just with much better odds of winning.

Like the poster above mentioned, I'm assuming that the owners are simply switching their ownership from one franchise to the other. The actual teams abd players are staying in the same divisions. If that's not the case then I think you have a legitimate point.

 

[Real Man of Genius]

Nothing wrong with this. It doesn't negatively effect the "balance of power" in the league. If anything, it should make the league more balanced, as you would expect the new owner of Team A to manage his team poorly, and vice versa.

If the Cardinals traded Rosters with the Texans, would that effect the balance of power in the NFL?And it's not about balance. If the balance is a result of the league's owners, great. If it's unbalanced because of the league's owners, great. Why is team B the recipient of Team A's generosity and boredom? What about the other lesser teams?Maybe Team A should make bad trades with every team below .500. Does that help the league?

Making a bad trade with another team is nothing like this situation. If Team A trades Brady to Team B for Brandon Pettigrew, that is an unbalanced trade. If you trade one entire team for another, the league is unchanged. Why should other owners care who is managing each team?

 

[Herm23]

Nothing wrong with this. It doesn't negatively effect the "balance of power" in the league. If anything, it should make the league more balanced, as you would expect the new owner of Team A to manage his team poorly, and vice versa.

If the Cardinals traded Rosters with the Texans, would that effect the balance of power in the NFL?And it's not about balance. If the balance is a result of the league's owners, great. If it's unbalanced because of the league's owners, great.

Why is team B the recipient of Team A's generosity and boredom? What about the other lesser teams?

Maybe Team A should make bad trades with every team below .500. Does that help the league?

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.That being said, there literally is no reason that I can think of that something like this should not be allowed to take place. Neither team is willingly loading up 1 roster in order to increase the advantage of that roster over the other teams in the league, there is absolutely no competitive advantage gained, and in reality the league stays exactly the same other than the names of the owner attached to each roster. If someone is upset because they didn't get to "receive the generosity" then they should have thought about bringing it up to the owner before the other person.

 

[Patroclus]

So they are just swapping ownership?How will that affect division, integrity blah blah blah?

This is the best post so far. Ownership changes all the time in dynasty leagues. This is just two teams swapping owners. I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Concept Coop]

Making a bad trade with another team is nothing like this situation. If Team A trades Brady to Team B for Brandon Pettigrew, that is an unbalanced trade. If you trade one entire team for another, the league is unchanged. Why should other owners care who is managing each team?

Using that logic, there is no such thing as an unbalanced league. Any trade that hurts one team helps another, right? Is that not some form of balance?

 

[Concept Coop]

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.

You're reaching, here. Making an unbalanced trade because your bored is not a genuine attempt to improve your team, which every trade should be.

 

[Herm23]

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.

You're reaching, here. Making an unbalanced trade because your bored is not a genuine attempt to improve your team, which every trade should be.

I don't feel I am reaching at all. Rather, I feel you are reaching to come up with some reason this shouldn't be allowed when there really isn't any. However, that is probably a matter of us each having different viewpoints and neither of us may be reaching in the end.Let's take this a different direction- if the owner with the superior roster was otherwise going to quit the league and the only reason he will continue playing is because he is taking over a team that is more of a project and it will reinvigorate his energy for the hobby/league, what exactly is the problem?How is this any different than both of these 2 teams owners quitting and replacing them with 2 new owners? The only transaction really taking place here is the name of the team owners, not the players themselves. I am struggling to see anything that resembles a problem with this?

 

[Concept Coop]

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.

You're reaching, here. Making an unbalanced trade because your bored is not a genuine attempt to improve your team, which every trade should be.

I don't feel I am reaching at all. Rather, I feel you are reaching to come up with some reason this shouldn't be allowed when there really isn't any. However, that is probably a matter of us each having different viewpoints and neither of us may be reaching in the end.Let's take this a different direction- if the owner with the superior roster was otherwise going to quit the league and the only reason he will continue playing is because he is taking over a team that is more of a project and it will reinvigorate his energy for the hobby/league, what exactly is the problem?How is this any different than both of these 2 teams owners quitting and replacing them with 2 new owners? The only transaction really taking place here is the name of the team owners, not the players themselves. I am struggling to see anything that resembles a problem with this?

Because quitting a league is very different than shuffling. Ideally, no team would quit. Because you have to remedy that by replacing the owner, doesn't mean it is right to shuffle teams. I have no problem losing money to a guy that kicked my ### over the last few season fairly. I am not going to be happy losing money to a poor owner who got lucky, in that another owner was bored and wanted to trade teams.

 

[Herm23]

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.

You're reaching, here. Making an unbalanced trade because your bored is not a genuine attempt to improve your team, which every trade should be.

I don't feel I am reaching at all. Rather, I feel you are reaching to come up with some reason this shouldn't be allowed when there really isn't any. However, that is probably a matter of us each having different viewpoints and neither of us may be reaching in the end.Let's take this a different direction- if the owner with the superior roster was otherwise going to quit the league and the only reason he will continue playing is because he is taking over a team that is more of a project and it will reinvigorate his energy for the hobby/league, what exactly is the problem?How is this any different than both of these 2 teams owners quitting and replacing them with 2 new owners? The only transaction really taking place here is the name of the team owners, not the players themselves. I am struggling to see anything that resembles a problem with this?

Because quitting a league is very different than shuffling. Ideally, no team would quit. Because you have to remedy that by replacing the owner, doesn't mean it is right to shuffle teams. I have no problem losing money to a guy that kicked my ### over the last few season fairly. I am not going to be happy losing money to a poor owner who got lucky, in that another owner was bored and wanted to trade teams.

If a new owner comes in, said owner is going to win money and be lucky because the old owner got bored and quit. In this scenario, that is an unavoidable consequence- someone is going to get "lucky" by taking over this team, whether it's because 2 current owners swap or because the owner quits and a new owner luckily is handed the keys to the roster. I still don't see how being upset that you didn't get "lucky" or not liking that another owner benefited from "luck" is in any way a valid reason to say something shouldn't be allowed to happen.

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Based on the bold, why should any 2 teams ever be allowed to trade then? The idea of a truly fair deal in which each side receives exactly 50% of the value of the trade is an absolute myth. In any exchange, 1 party is going to receive 51% of the value (or greater) while the other party will receive 49% of the value (or less). The bolded essentially states that you believe no trade should ever happen since the party receiving the lesser share of the value will, by nature, be unable to share that generosity with the rest of the league.

You're reaching, here. Making an unbalanced trade because your bored is not a genuine attempt to improve your team, which every trade should be.

I don't feel I am reaching at all. Rather, I feel you are reaching to come up with some reason this shouldn't be allowed when there really isn't any. However, that is probably a matter of us each having different viewpoints and neither of us may be reaching in the end.Let's take this a different direction- if the owner with the superior roster was otherwise going to quit the league and the only reason he will continue playing is because he is taking over a team that is more of a project and it will reinvigorate his energy for the hobby/league, what exactly is the problem?

How is this any different than both of these 2 teams owners quitting and replacing them with 2 new owners? The only transaction really taking place here is the name of the team owners, not the players themselves. I am struggling to see anything that resembles a problem with this?