Ethics issue (trading pick slots, teams) (4 Viewers)

[ghostguy123]

I simply don't think any money, goods, or services should enter or exit anyone's hands other than the league rules say (fees and winnings). Closed system.

And that's a fine thought. That said, do you see a competitive balance issues? And if so exactly where and how?

I think it makes it easier to win if you have expendable money to throw around.

I do concede that your case is a bit of a special case because no team actually changes.

Ultimately, I think what you're saying is. Let's imagine a 4-team dynasty league for simplicity. Suppose all four are generally equal "fantasy football owners". There isn't a buffoon ruining his team, or an emperor who makes all the right moves every year. Suppose the probabilities of the teams winning the upcoming season, just based on the best mathematical model available, were as follows:

Team A: 40% (Adam)
Team B: 25% (Bob)
Team C: 20% (Charles)
Team D: 15% (David)

If David pays Adam $500 to swap teams, and we're saying they're similar-caliber owners, then the probabilities are now:

Team A: 40% (David)
Team B: 25% (Bob)
Team C: 20% (Charles)
Team D: 15% (Adam)

Nothing changed. No team suddenly jumped up to 55%. The eventual championship was not won or lost or affected at all, from the teams' perspectives.

So I agree that I don't think it would be called collusion. But I think money coming into play feels dirty. I don't want to buy a championship. And I don't want someone else in the league to buy it either. But it is separate from collusion.

Special case?? It's the only case I'm talking about, lol.
Some of these guys are throwing things out like buying players or picks or whatever. That isnt anything I proposed.

Yes, it's a special case of adding money to make a trade happen. The special case is, it's ALL the players, on BOTH SIDES. If there are 20-man rosters, and Adam wants to do a 19-for-19 trace with David, but he wants $500 with it, that's collusion. But if you throw in that last player on both sides, it becomes a special case. An entire team.

Correct, must be entire team and all picks.
In the startup, the future picks don't need to change hands, and shouldn't.

 

[ghostguy123]

Buying someone's pick was never an option, no idea why you even mention it. That was never presented

Isn’t buying someone’s draft position the same thing?

No.
We are talking about a startup draft. It's not at a the same.

Yes, a startup snake, not auction, correct?

So if you buy the draft position, you are drafting from a different slot, correct? You change where you pick for the entire start-up draft, correct?

Please explain the difference. I must be missing something.

You are definitely missing something.
Swapping an entire team is different than one team buying something from another team to add to their team. That's a big no no

 

[ffmail4me]

I feel like trading anything other than draft picks or players in scenario 1makes it wrong. I mean, if it's okay to get paid to take a worse draft spot, is it okay to trade Chase for Claypool if you are paid enough? Gets way too messy. I'd say the same thing if you were using your hot wife or gf as bait in trade negotiations too.

2nd scenario I'm honestly undecided so would probably just leave it be.

 

[SayWhat?]

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

 

[ghostguy123]

I is it okay to trade Chase for Claypool if you are paid enough?

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Buying someone's pick was never an option, no idea why you even mention it. That was never presented

Isn’t buying someone’s draft position the same thing?

No.
We are talking about a startup draft. It's not at a the same.

Yes, a startup snake, not auction, correct?

So if you buy the draft position, you are drafting from a different slot, correct? You change where you pick for the entire start-up draft, correct?

Please explain the difference. I must be missing something.

You are definitely missing something.
Swapping an entire team is different than one team buying something from another team to add to their team. That's a big no no

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

Exactly - I see none difference.

 

[ghostguy123]

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

No, none of those things you asked would be allowed, and non are similar to my scenarios 1.
In scenario 1, EVERY part of each franchise changes hands.
For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

 

[Amused to Death]

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

 

[ghostguy123]

If entire franchises swap owners, there's nothing unfair being done to the rest of the league, since both teams remain exactly the same, just have new owners.
If a great team gives another team 200 bucks for Kelce, well, that's a problems and causes something unfair to the rest of the leagues.
Those situations are completely different.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

So then don't do it.

 

[Amused to Death]

If entire franchises swap owners, there's nothing unfair being done to the rest of the league, since both teams remain exactly the same, just have new owners.

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

No, it’s selling every pick to another team, by trading draft slots.

And as others have pointed out, if there were no advantage, then no $ would have to be exchanged.

obviously the team paying the [$XXX.XX] for the other teams draft position believes it is an advantageous move. And obviously the team receiving that money for their draft position believes they are downgrading, and the financial compensation makes up for it.

IMO, that’s all the ethical question boils down to.

 

[Amused to Death]

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

So then don't do it.

Hey, if two teams agree they like the other's better and want to swap, have at it. Just leave the cash out of it.

 

[ghostguy123]

Buying someone's pick was never an option, no idea why you even mention it. That was never presented

Isn’t buying someone’s draft position the same thing?

No.
We are talking about a startup draft. It's not at a the same.

Yes, a startup snake, not auction, correct?

So if you buy the draft position, you are drafting from a different slot, correct? You change where you pick for the entire start-up draft, correct?

Please explain the difference. I must be missing something.

You are definitely missing something.
Swapping an entire team is different than one team buying something from another team to add to their team. That's a big no no

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

Exactly - I see none difference.

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

 

[SayWhat?]

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

No, none of those things you asked would be allowed, and non are similar to my scenarios 1.
In scenario 1, EVERY part of each franchise changes hands.
For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

You have two examples. One was a full franchise swap. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about this example:

Scenario 1. You enter a startup draft with a $500 buy in, and someone draws the #1 slot, and you draw the #10. They offer to swap draft slots with you (every pick except future picks) if you pay them 200 bucks.
Now, whether or not you would do it isn't the question. The question is, should this be allowed? I say absolutely yes, and can't see one single reason why it shouldn't be allowed. There is no competitive balance issue whatsoever.

Of course there’s a reason it shouldn’t be allowed:

how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

 

[Dr. Octopus]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

 

[ghostguy123]

For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

No, it’s selling every pick to another team, by trading draft slots.

And as others have pointed out, if there were no advantage, then no $ would have to be exchanged.

obviously the team paying the [$XXX.XX] for the other teams draft position believes it is an advantageous move. And obviously the team receiving that money for their draft position believes they are downgrading, and the financial compensation makes up for it.

IMO, that’s all the ethical question boils down to.

One team gains an advantage over where they WERE, but not over the rest of the league.
I have no idea how you can think scenario 2 is ok but not scenario 1. That makes no sense.

 

[ghostguy123]

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

So then don't do it.

Hey, if two teams agree they like the other's better and want to swap, have at it. Just leave the cash out of it.

Why??? That cash doesn't affect anything in the league

 

[ghostguy123]

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

No, none of those things you asked would be allowed, and non are similar to my scenarios 1.
In scenario 1, EVERY part of each franchise changes hands.
For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

You have two examples. One was a full franchise swap. I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about this example:

Scenario 1. You enter a startup draft with a $500 buy in, and someone draws the #1 slot, and you draw the #10. They offer to swap draft slots with you (every pick except future picks) if you pay them 200 bucks.
Now, whether or not you would do it isn't the question. The question is, should this be allowed? I say absolutely yes, and can't see one single reason why it shouldn't be allowed. There is no competitive balance issue whatsoever.

Of course there’s a reason it shouldn’t be allowed:

how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

The guys with the 1.01 is free to sell to whoever he wants. I don't think it HAS to go to the highest bidder, however that would obviously make the most sense..
Perhaps he wanted a specific draft slots and accepted less money for his 1.01

 

[Amused to Death]

Adding cash between owners to get any type of trade done crosses a line. Make trades on the merits of your ffl capitol, picks and players.

So then don't do it.

Hey, if two teams agree they like the other's better and want to swap, have at it. Just leave the cash out of it.

Why??? That cash doesn't affect anything in the league

Paying an owner to accept a deal is wrong. Make trades with your players and picks without promise of extra favors. You asked our opinions and I gave mine.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

 

[ghostguy123]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

Don't........allow.......it.....to.......lead.......there..........

 

[-OZ-]

Both fine with me. Don't see any problems with either scenario.

No other teams are affected by either transaction, league ostensibly remains the same after each transaction. Anyone complaining simply hasn't thought it through.

The only issue I'd have is playing in a league with someone so willingly ready to throw cash at people in that manner. I would expect it to not be long before they started offering deals that did cross the line.

It's a one time thing. I would not at all assume this leads to shady dealings later on

I wouldn’t assume it but I’d be keeping an eye open. More so than with other teams. If nothing else, dude has shown a willingness to go with unconventional moves.

No. Trading the future pick for money isn't the same thing at all. For one, in a startup, the picks are KNOWN.
Your scenario of the 200 bucks to swap future picks is not allowed

Ok, so would you allow a trade of rookie picks 1.12/2.01/3.12/4.01/5.12 plus $200 cash for rookie picks 1.01/2.12/3.01/4.12/5.01? The picks are KNOWN.

Would you allow a trade of Justin Herbert plus $200 cash for Josh Allen? The players are KNOWN.

If not, what’s the difference? You’re allowing cash to be exchanged by two parties because both parties feel it needs to be included to make the deal.

And as for a slippery slope, how do you handle the situation as a commish if the owner of 1.01 agreed to swap his entire draft with the owner of 1.12 in exchange for $200 cash but then the owner of 1.11 said “that’s BS because I offered the 1.01
to swap all of my picks plus $300?”

No, none of those things you asked would be allowed, and non are similar to my scenarios 1.
In scenario 1, EVERY part of each franchise changes hands.
For the 100th time this is NOT the same as one team selling a player or pick to another team

I’m actually with you on this, but the fact that anyone have a problem with the first is an example of why auction is much better. I’m not joining any new leagues but if I did it would have to be auction.

The question isn’t really about Owner A or B, it’s relative to “innocent” bystanders - the rest of the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

Yet it provides no disadvantage of any kind to the rest of the league

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Don't........allow.......it.....to.......lead.......there..........

You don't get the concepts then - because others do (and will) and you're creating the precedent and making the slope more slippery.

It doesn't seem like you're willing to see it outside of your own lens though so I don't see why people even bother discussing it.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

Yet it provides no disadvantage of any kind to the rest of the league

Other than the financial one you mean, since none of them were paid for you improving your lot?

Again, if you’re not improving, then why compensate the other owner?

This seems fairly obvious.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It doesn't seem like you're willing to see it outside of your own lens though so I don't see why people even bother discussing it.

This.

 

[-OZ-]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

very aware of these.
But the real question is about competitive balance to the rest of the league. There’s no splitting the teams up in either hypo. It literally is swapping the owners names. No imbalance to the league, no issue.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

One owner is advantaged in an equal manner that the other is disadvantaged though, surely?

The net benefit, outside of one guys bank balance, is zero. And nothing within the league is imbalanced.

Surely you can at least admit that, even if you don't like the look of it for an individual?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

very aware of these.
But the real question is about competitive balance to the rest of the league. There’s no splitting the teams up in either hypo. It literally is swapping the owners names. No imbalance to the league, no issue.

I’m talking strictly about the cash exchanged to swap draft slots. You’re opening doors that don’t need to be open.

 

[ghostguy123]

Don't........allow.......it.....to.......lead.......there..........

You don't get the concepts then - because others do (and will) and you're creating the precedent and making the slope more slippery.

It doesn't seem like you're willing to see it outside of your own lens though so I don't see why people even bother discussing it.

So you don't think it should ever be allowed because of what might happen in the future? Even though it's clearly spelled out at the beginning what happening?? Lol, ok then

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One owner is advantaged in an equal manner that the other is disadvantaged though, surely?

The net benefit, outside of one guys bank balance, is zero. And nothing within the league is imbalanced.

Surely you can at least admit that, even if you don't like the look of it for an individual?

It’s nothing I have to “admit” - you’re repeating back to me exactly what I stated.

The bank balance is the exact issue at hand here.

“Other than that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?”

 

[ghostguy123]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

Yet it provides no disadvantage of any kind to the rest of the league

Other than the financial one you mean, since none of them were paid for you improving your lot?

Again, if you’re not improving, then why compensate the other owner?

This seems fairly obvious.

You improve, then other team gets worse. You compensate them for that.
It has nothing to do with the rest of the league

 

[ghostguy123]

It doesn't seem like you're willing to see it outside of your own lens though so I don't see why people even bother discussing it.

This.

Yet you approve of scenario 2

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Don't........allow.......it.....to.......lead.......there..........

You don't get the concepts then - because others do (and will) and you're creating the precedent and making the slope more slippery.

It doesn't seem like you're willing to see it outside of your own lens though so I don't see why people even bother discussing it.

So you don't think it should ever be allowed because of what might happen in the future? Even though it's clearly spelled out at the beginning what happening?? Lol, ok then

Yeah - I’m not really sure if I’m capable of explaining it better and it doesn’t seem you are willing or able to try and understand it anyway.

What may happen in the future is basically the main point of those concepts.

 

[menobrown]

Scenario 1. You enter a startup draft with a $500 buy in, and someone draws the #1 slot, and you draw the #10. They offer to swap draft slots with you (every pick except future picks) if you pay them 200 bucks.
Now, whether or not you would do it isn't the question. The question is, should this be allowed? I say absolutely yes, and can't see one single reason why it shouldn't be allowed. There is no competitive balance issue whatsoever.

Should not be allowed due to need to pay for the swap creating competitive disadvantage created by owners with more flexible fantasy money to spend. Obviously fine to do if you paying compensation available inside the league parameters, so no $$$.

cenario 2. You are in an existing league. $500 buy in. You have an awesome team. Some other guys team sucks. He offers you $1000 to switch teams with him. Every player, every pick.....basically the only thing that changes is the owners swap spots. The question isn't whether or not you would do it. The question is, should it be allowed? I say absolutely yes, as no competitive balance issues are evident.
Someone said this is like trading players for money. No, it is VERY not like that. Trading players for money would be an obvious competitive balance issue. Swapping teams is not as the teams remain exactly the same as they were, just with new owners.

This is fine with caveat it's done during the off-season. Not really any different then buying and selling a team, this just cuts out the middle men. This is a zero sum situation to the rest of the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

very aware of these.
But the real question is about competitive balance to the rest of the league. There’s no splitting the teams up in either hypo. It literally is swapping the owners names. No imbalance to the league, no issue.

This is correct.
People are blinded by the money aspect.
Oh no, money, it must be wrong

 

[ghostguy123]

It's pretty plain as day honestly. In one situation, the owners change places. The teams remain the same.
In the example of trading a player or pick for money, that means a player/pick comes off one roster and is added to another roster.
I do not know how else to explain that these are not the same things.

I understand what you’re saying completely.

I just dispute that it’s an ethically sound thing to do.

It boils down to 1 owner buying an advantage from another owner. Obviously they have a player or strategy in mind that they can only execute with a “better” draft slot.

So they are willing to financially compensate another owner, outside the constraints of league finances, to get into that advantageous position.

That, to me, is ethically unsound.

One owner is advantaged in an equal manner that the other is disadvantaged though, surely?

The net benefit, outside of one guys bank balance, is zero. And nothing within the league is imbalanced.

Surely you can at least admit that, even if you don't like the look of it for an individual?

Also correct

 

[ghostguy123]

One owner is advantaged in an equal manner that the other is disadvantaged though, surely?

The net benefit, outside of one guys bank balance, is zero. And nothing within the league is imbalanced.

Surely you can at least admit that, even if you don't like the look of it for an individual?

It’s nothing I have to “admit” - you’re repeating back to me exactly what I stated.

The bank balance is the exact issue at hand here.

“Other than that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?”

But why is the bank balance an issue??

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yet you approve of scenario 2

It would be highly unusual, but it’s not entirely dissimilar to selling an established team to someone outside of the league, which is a pretty well-established practice.

I wouldn’t exactly say I “approve”, but it’s definitely less of an issue for me, yes. I see them as different scenarios.

 

[ghostguy123]

Scenario 1. You enter a startup draft with a $500 buy in, and someone draws the #1 slot, and you draw the #10. They offer to swap draft slots with you (every pick except future picks) if you pay them 200 bucks.
Now, whether or not you would do it isn't the question. The question is, should this be allowed? I say absolutely yes, and can't see one single reason why it shouldn't be allowed. There is no competitive balance issue whatsoever.

Should not be allowed due to need to pay for the swap creating competitive disadvantage created by owners with more flexible fantasy money to spend. Obviously fine to do if you paying compensation available inside the league parameters, so no $$$.

cenario 2. You are in an existing league. $500 buy in. You have an awesome team. Some other guys team sucks. He offers you $1000 to switch teams with him. Every player, every pick.....basically the only thing that changes is the owners swap spots. The question isn't whether or not you would do it. The question is, should it be allowed? I say absolutely yes, as no competitive balance issues are evident.
Someone said this is like trading players for money. No, it is VERY not like that. Trading players for money would be an obvious competitive balance issue. Swapping teams is not as the teams remain exactly the same as they were, just with new owners.

This is fine with caveat it's done during the off-season. Not really any different then buying and selling a team, this just cuts out the middle men. This is a zero sum situation to the rest of the league.

It's the same as scenario 1. It's. Complete team swap

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I

But why is the bank balance an issue??

It’s literally the only issue.

I’ve answered this several times. It is compensation outside of the constraints of league finances for something that is *not* what I consider a standard or well-established practice.

Gray areas exist. I feel like this is one of them.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yet you approve of scenario 2

It would be highly unusual, but it’s not entirely dissimilar to selling an established team to someone outside of the league, which is a pretty well-established practice.

I wouldn’t exactly say I “approve”, but it’s definitely less of an issue for me, yes. I see them as different scenarios.

You see them as different, but they are not. They are both complete team swaps

 

[Amused to Death]

No it's not ok, and not at all similar to swapping draft slots prior to a startup draft.

Are you aware of the "slippery slope" legal theory or the concepts of "precedent" and "extrapolation"? Because you seem so generally shocked (and oddly defiant) when people are trying to point out where this could lead.

very aware of these.
But the real question is about competitive balance to the rest of the league. There’s no splitting the teams up in either hypo. It literally is swapping the owners names. No imbalance to the league, no issue.

This is correct.
People are blinded by the money aspect.
Oh no, money, it must be wrong

IMHO, the money aspect is what's wrong. Paying another owner to make a deal, to me, is over the line. The owner with the most money gains an unfair advantage. If I propose trades to multiple owners and two teams like what I offer, can I tell one of them the other is willing to pay my entrance fee next year? They're both fair offers but I'm willing to accept money to show favor to one owner over the other. The league competitive balance is unchanged. But one owner is willing pay money. That would not be allowed in any league I'd hope.

 

[menobrown]

It's the same as scenario 1. It's. Complete team swap

No it's not and you don't even have a team yet, you just have picks to build a team and the 1.1 is the spot anyone would want to have to start the building process of the team.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You see them as different, but they are not. They are both complete team swaps

Except for the fact that one involves teams with well-defined assets in a league that’s established, where not every team has the same value, or draft capital, as compared to a start-up with 12 “blank canvases” and a full player pool available for drafting at certain positions?

Other than that, sure - they’re exactly the same.

Cmon.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It's the same as scenario 1. It's. Complete team swap

No it's not and you don't even have a team yet, you just have picks to build a team and the 1.1 is the spot anyone would want to have to start the building process of the team.

Thank you.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

It’s nothing I have to “admit” - you’re repeating back to me exactly what I stated.

I didn't see you state that one players advantage is another's, equal, disadvantage. And as a hypothetical competitor in that league that's really all I'm basing it on. Nobody has gained an advantage over me beyond what already existed, if draft position is even an advantage.

In a startup, before teams even exist, I don't really see how drafting from any position creates an advantage above another. Maybe it's just me. All I'm seeing in this is one stupid person prepared to pay someone else for essentially nothing. Fair play to the person getting something for nothing is my view. Nobody else is affected in my eyes.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

It’s nothing I have to “admit” - you’re repeating back to me exactly what I stated.

I didn't see you state that one players advantage is another's, equal, disadvantage. And as a hypothetical competitor in that league that's really all I'm basing it on. Nobody has gained an advantage over me beyond what already existed, if draft position is even an advantage.

In a startup, before teams even exist, I don't really see how drafting from any position creates an advantage above another. Maybe it's just me. All I'm seeing in this is one stupid person prepared to pay someone else for essentially nothing. Fair play to the person getting something for nothing is my view. Nobody else is affected in my eyes.

Perhaps you missed that in this hypothetical it’s a snake draft?

There’s a pretty obvious advantage to getting the 1.01, otherwise why would money be exchanged?

 

[ghostguy123]

No. Your scenario should not be allowed and causes a direct competitive imbalance