Dynasty - Two teams trading entire teams (1 Viewer)

[Concept Coop]

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.

There is no new owner coming, however. It is not an either or situation. Turnover can hurt leagues. There is no perfect, fair way to reward incoming owners. But that doesnt' mean you shouldn't be as fair as you can in examples where an owner is not leaving.Why should trades be measured in how they hurt the rest of the league? The league is a collection of players that won't change based on what owners do. Why do you care if team A, B, or C owns Aaron Rodgers? So why do you care if A GIVES B Aaron Rodgers? Why are you okay with that, but not a much bigger version of that?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The league is a collection of players that won't change based on what owners do. Why do you care if team A, B, or C owns Aaron Rodgers? So why do you care if A GIVES B Aaron Rodgers? Why are you okay with that, but not a much bigger version of that?

Hasn't this already been explained multiple times?

 

[Concept Coop]

The league is a collection of players that won't change based on what owners do. Why do you care if team A, B, or C owns Aaron Rodgers? So why do you care if A GIVES B Aaron Rodgers? Why are you okay with that, but not a much bigger version of that?

Hasn't this already been explained multiple times?

CETA: Yes, both sides have shared their opinions. I view it as against the rules in the leagues in which I play. That depends on our different leagues and opinions on the matter. I feel that just because my odds of winning are unchanged (though, that might not be the case, seeing as now each owner will do different things with the rosters) doesn't make it right. To each their own.

 

[Athletic Supporter]

The league is a collection of players that won't change based on what owners do. Why do you care if team A, B, or C owns Aaron Rodgers? So why do you care if A GIVES B Aaron Rodgers? Why are you okay with that, but not a much bigger version of that?

Hasn't this already been explained multiple times?

CETA: Yes, both sides have shared their opinions. I view it as against the rules in the leagues in which I play. That depends on our different leagues and opinions on the matter. I feel that just because my odds of winning are unchanged (though, that might not be the case, seeing as now each owner will do different things with the rosters) doesn't make it right. To each their own.

Your odds of winning change every week when a team makes a waiver move. How do you justify weekly waivers if you are so against upsetting the balance of the league. A trade is no different.You are policing trades based on how they affect your team, using some arbitrary set of percieved player values. That is wrong.

 

[Concept Coop]

Your odds of winning change every week when a team makes a waiver move. How do you justify weekly waivers if you are so against upsetting the balance of the league. A trade is no different.You are policing trades based on how they affect your team, using some arbitrary set of percieved player values. That is wrong.

No. I am actually accusing the opposing argument of doing so, inconsistently, however. That party seems to be okay with this trade because "it doesn't change the balance."ETA: I'm trying to understand why you would be okay with this, but wouldn't be okay with Team A trading Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford. The answer has been: The major doesn't affect the balance that the smaller trade does. Does that make it right or within the rules? Is knowingly making a bad trade out of boredom or fun within the rules? I say no.

 

[Athletic Supporter]

Your odds of winning change every week when a team makes a waiver move. How do you justify weekly waivers if you are so against upsetting the balance of the league. A trade is no different.You are policing trades based on how they affect your team, using some arbitrary set of percieved player values. That is wrong.

No. I am actually accusing the opposing argument of doing so, inconsistently, however. That party seems to be okay with this trade because "it doesn't change the balance."ETA: I'm trying to understand why you would be okay with this, but wouldn't be okay with Team A trading Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford. The answer has been: The major doesn't affect the balance that the smaller trade does. Does that make it right or within the rules? Is knowingly making a bad trade out of boredom or fun within the rules? I say no.

I'm perfectly fine with Team A trading Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford. I'm fine with any trade as long as both owners agree to the terms. Collusion, by its true definition, would be the only reason a trade should be questioned. Even then, you better have some pretty good proof.

 

[Concept Coop]

Your odds of winning change every week when a team makes a waiver move. How do you justify weekly waivers if you are so against upsetting the balance of the league. A trade is no different.You are policing trades based on how they affect your team, using some arbitrary set of percieved player values. That is wrong.

No. I am actually accusing the opposing argument of doing so, inconsistently, however. That party seems to be okay with this trade because "it doesn't change the balance."ETA: I'm trying to understand why you would be okay with this, but wouldn't be okay with Team A trading Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford. The answer has been: The major doesn't affect the balance that the smaller trade does. Does that make it right or within the rules? Is knowingly making a bad trade out of boredom or fun within the rules? I say no.

I'm perfectly fine with Team A trading Rodgers and McCoy for Bradford. I'm fine with any trade as long as both owners agree to the terms. Collusion, by its true definition, would be the only reason a trade should be questioned. Even then, you better have some pretty good proof.

How is "I'm giving Rodgers and McCoy to Team B because I am bored; not because I think it is in the best interest of my team" not "pretty good proof"?Would you be fine with it if you were playing team B for a playoff spot?What if they want to trade back in 2 years? You know - for fun.Or what if owner A turns the roster into a winner and wants to trade with another undeserving owner?

 

[Concept Coop]

I'm fine with any trade as long as both owners agree to the terms. Collusion, by its true definition, would be the only reason a trade should be questioned. Even then, you better have some pretty good proof.

"I want you to beat Team C. I don't like him. Here, have player X."Collusion? By "true definition" it is no more collusion than this trade; does that make it okay?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Right or within the rules? Why have rules just for the sake of having rules? It doesn't affect the balance, it doesn't really affect the other owners, it just violates some specific definition of the rules you've created CC. That's silly IMO.

Rules are in place to create a framework to work in and prevent owners from doing something to upset the balance of the league. Anything outside of that is a waste and shouldn't be a rule.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Quit comparing this to trading rosters in the NFL, you are comparing apples and oranges. If they want to swap rosters let them, but the teams stay in the same division, the only thing that changes is who sets the lineups, drafts the players, and accepts the trades.

 

[Billy Ball Thorton]

They should just trade teams, keep the team in same division ect. No actual trade just each guy taking on a new team.

 

[Philogelos]

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?

maybe think of it as teams swapping owners instead of teams swapping rosters.all trades are inherently subjective -- no matter how convinced people about their valuations, they're still just guesses.you're basically saying leagues can't do trades of this size.

 

[Bronx Bomber]

So just to clarify. If they trade teams and those teams switch divisions then its a problem. If just the owners names switch its not an issue. Does this sum it?

 

[Goldalene]

Leave the players on their teams and just swap the owners.

 

[Concept Coop]

Owners switching teams (not a trade) is the only way I could see it not being an issue. And it would have to take place during the off-season.

I still don't like it. If the league has no problem with it, then good for them. Both owners get what they want.

ETA: I have had owners in some of my leagues that are constantly making bad trades. Is it a stretch to think team B is like this, seeing his roster and record over the last 3 years? I wouldn't want him having more assets to send out in bad trades, randomly rewarding league mates, myself included.

 

[Concept Coop]

you're basically saying leagues can't do trades of this size.

Not at all. I just think every trade should be made with the intension of improving your team. If team A made this trade thinking he was doing that, then fine. But doing it because he is bored - again, I don't like that. I see it as no different than team A giving team B players on a smaller level deal.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Owners switching teams (not a trade) is the only way I could see it not being an issue.

I think this is what most of us have been assuming the situation is. It's not really a trade of any kind, they're just switching franchises.