Ethics issue (trading pick slots, teams) (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

Moving this here as to not hijack the trades thread anymore.
Two scenarios came up. Yay or nay?

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.
Your ownership changes places with theirs.

Scenario 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, same divisions, same schedule, just with new owners.

Have fun

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

I'll throw my opinion in on both scenarios as per the last thread. Also note, I'm not bashing you for this at all, but I feel strongly that it's a clear cut issue.

#1. IMO, this is collusion. As per the other thread, any outside influence (in this case $$$) used to gain a perceived or real advantage in game (in this case swapping draft slots) is collusion
#2. This is also collusion, although it's a more severe version. Outside influence ($$$) for an in game advantage (Team swap).

 

[ghostguy123]

I'll throw my opinion in on both scenarios as per the last thread. Also note, I'm not bashing you for this at all, but I feel strongly that it's a clear cut issue.

#1. IMO, this is collusion. As per the other thread, any outside influence (in this case $$$) used to gain a perceived or real advantage in game (in this case swapping draft slots) is collusion
#2. This is also collusion, although it's a more severe version. Outside influence ($$$) for an in game advantage (Team swap).

If both are done free, is it still a problem in your mind?

 

[nightmare]

I have no problem with either scenario as long as it's open and known beforehand.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

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.

 

[ghostguy123]

I have no problem with either scenario as long as it's open and known beforehand.

It absolutely would be, no secrets at all

 

[ghostguy123]

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

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

I'll throw my opinion in on both scenarios as per the last thread. Also note, I'm not bashing you for this at all, but I feel strongly that it's a clear cut issue.

#1. IMO, this is collusion. As per the other thread, any outside influence (in this case $$$) used to gain a perceived or real advantage in game (in this case swapping draft slots) is collusion
#2. This is also collusion, although it's a more severe version. Outside influence ($$$) for an in game advantage (Team swap).

If both are done free, is it still a problem in your mind?

Without the cash exchange, #1 becomes more benign. That said, in REDRAFT, I'd have to have a serious discussion with the two teams because it is a way to get around the randomness of drafting. #2 circumvents the purpose of the game and I'd have a REALLY hard time believing that no money was exchanged in that deal. Leagues vary, but these are things that would be cause for a LOT of intra-league discussion in the long term leagues I commish.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Interesting topic. If there was no objection from other owners, would a team be allowed to offer money/picks to improve their draft position in the future? You say it is a one-time thing, but I could see other owners objecting if they tried to swap firsts in the future and add cash to incentivize the other owner to make a deal. It would then drain all the fun out of the league due to arguing.

It feels like it opens up an opportunity for owners with deep pockets to dominate the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

I'll throw my opinion in on both scenarios as per the last thread. Also note, I'm not bashing you for this at all, but I feel strongly that it's a clear cut issue.

#1. IMO, this is collusion. As per the other thread, any outside influence (in this case $$$) used to gain a perceived or real advantage in game (in this case swapping draft slots) is collusion
#2. This is also collusion, although it's a more severe version. Outside influence ($$$) for an in game advantage (Team swap).

If both are done free, is it still a problem in your mind?

Without the cash exchange, #1 becomes more benign. That said, in REDRAFT, I'd have to have a serious discussion with the two teams because it is a way to get around the randomness of drafting. #2 circumvents the purpose of the game and I'd have a REALLY hard time believing that no money was exchanged in that deal. Leagues vary, but these are things that would be cause for a LOT of intra-league discussion in the long term leagues I commish.

Well, you can easily make a rule against it.
That said, I completely understand why many of you would not be in favor of these possibilities. That said, there is no collusion or cooperative advantage/disadvantage caused to the league. Those two owners,?? Sure, but not even to those teams. The teams stay the same, and are now under new direction. Nothing is added to or subtracted from any franchise.
Bad optics? Maybe. But that's all, if even that.

 

[ghostguy123]

Interesting topic. If there was no objection from other owners, would a team be allowed to offer money/picks to improve their draft position in the future? You say it is a one-time thing, but I could see other owners objecting if they tried to swap firsts in the future and add cash to incentivize the other owner to make a deal. It would then drain all the fun out of the league due to arguing.

It feels like it opens up an opportunity for owners with deep pockets to dominate the league.

No that absolutely can NOT be done, and is a completely different thing all together.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Explain the difference to me. In both cases, money is being used to incentivize an owner to make a trade that otherwise would hold no appeal.

 

[ghostguy123]

Picture Jerry Jones and Bob craft. They decided to sell each other their teams, Jerry gets 100 billion, Craft gets 75 Billion.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

First, the title needs to include “selling draft slot to highest bidder” to properly frame this discussion.

From the other topic, me:
Highest bidder just sounds kinda sketchy regardless.

Most leagues have a set finance process. Pay for league fees, pay for add/drops, etc. Every team pays the same, every team competes on a level playing field.

This is money that’s not going into the league kitty, that’s changing hands between two teams, presumably to the non-financial advantage of one of those teams.

In summary
• one team gains an advantage in the league
• one team gains an advantage in their wallet

That seems problematic for rest of the league.

I stand by this.

 

[ghostguy123]

Explain the difference to me. In both cases, money is being used to incentivize an owner to make a trade that otherwise would hold no appeal.

Because the rosters stay exactly the same. The owners change.
The other would be a player changing rosters with nothing coming back within the league. Obvious that's not going to be allowed.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

 

[ghostguy123]

First, the title needs to include “selling draft slot to highest bidder” to properly frame this discussion.

From the other topic, me:
Highest bidder just sounds kinda sketchy regardless.

Most leagues have a set finance process. Pay for league fees, pay for add/drops, etc. Every team pays the same, every team competes on a level playing field.

This is money that’s not going into the league kitty, that’s changing hands between two teams, presumably to the non-financial advantage of one of those teams.

In summary
• one team gains an advantage in the league
• one team gains an advantage in their wallet

That seems problematic for rest of the league.

I stand by this.

How is it problematic for the rest of the league? Do explain, as nothing changes for the rest of the league.

 

[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?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

First, the title needs to include “selling draft slot to highest bidder” to properly frame this discussion.

From the other topic, me:
Highest bidder just sounds kinda sketchy regardless.

Most leagues have a set finance process. Pay for league fees, pay for add/drops, etc. Every team pays the same, every team competes on a level playing field.

This is money that’s not going into the league kitty, that’s changing hands between two teams, presumably to the non-financial advantage of one of those teams.

In summary
• one team gains an advantage in the league
• one team gains an advantage in their wallet

That seems problematic for rest of the league.

I stand by this.

How is it problematic for the rest of the league? Do explain, as nothing changes for the rest of the league.

Did every team put extra money in their wallets?

The explanation is in the bullet points. It’s a clear advantage to one team outside the constraints of league finances.

 

[Amused to Death]

Anything that involves an owner gaining a competitive advantage by paying money directly to another owner feels wrong to me. I would leave the league if it was allowed to happen.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

You lose me with the "nothing coming back within the league" phrase. If owner A trades the 1.10 to owner B for the 1.01 and gives owner B $1K to make the trade, I do not see the difference between that and the scenarios you mentioned. I see no difference.

 

[ghostguy123]

You lose me with the "nothing coming back within the league" phrase. If owner A trades the 1.10 to owner B for the 1.01 and gives owner B $1K to make the trade, I do not see the difference between that and the scenarios you mentioned. I see no difference.

But it's completely different. I mean, completely.
So completely different I'm not sure if even needs an explanation.
Trading a player away for money is a competitive balance issues.
Swapping entire rosters is not.

 

[ghostguy123]

Anything that involves an owner gaining a competitive advantage by paying money directly to another owner feels wrong to me. I would leave the league if it was allowed to happen.

Did the owner really gain a competitive advantage?? Does that mean the previous owner had a competitive advantage??

 

[Amused to Death]

Swapping entire rosters is not.

This seems like an owner buying a championship caliber team. What happens when his crappy team becomes good, can he buy it back?

Again, seems wrong and I would quit the league.

 

[Amused to Death]

Anything that involves an owner gaining a competitive advantage by paying money directly to another owner feels wrong to me. I would leave the league if it was allowed to happen.

Did the owner really gain a competitive advantage?? Does that mean the previous owner had a competitive advantage??

Why is he paying money if he doesn't feel like he's gaining something?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Scenario 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

I’m actually ok with scenario #2.

We had an opening in a league where I’m in full rebuild.

I thought the commish should offer the team to existing managers before inviting a new manager. The team that was orphaned was a playoff team with really solid assets.

My team has like, 5 good players and a crapload of draft picks.

I’m enjoying the rebuild process, so I likely would not have made the swap, but it would have been nice to have the opportunity.

But yeah - I don’t mind one team selling their entire franchise to another, swapping teams. Zero problem with that.

Buying someone’s draft pick is where I draw the line. And especially in the context of “to the highest bidder”. What if Elon Musk or Mark Cuban is in your league? They’re the highest bidder - done.

Clear advantage to the more moneyed owners, and an ethical red flag, IMO.

 

[Amused to Death]

Don't these types of threads generally come down to one thing - if you have to ask, you know its wrong.

 

[ghostguy123]

Anything that involves an owner gaining a competitive advantage by paying money directly to another owner feels wrong to me. I would leave the league if it was allowed to happen.

Did the owner really gain a competitive advantage?? Does that mean the previous owner had a competitive advantage??

Why is he paying money if he doesn't feel like he's gaining something?

Of course he's gaining what he feels to be an advantage. However, there is a difference between that and a "competitive advantage".
It would be omd thing if s team bought players and stacked his team. That would screw over the rest of the league.
Two guys swapping teams does not screw over the rest of the league.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Depending on the year and college prospects, I do believe there could be an advantage gained. For instances, Bijan Robinson could be a generational talent at RB. If the league is superflex, Wilson and Drake maybe be generational talents next year. Just my opinion.

Almost feels like if you want to run a league in this manner it should be done at startup, and if deep pockets are allowed, the league should be an auction league with no salary cap.

 

[ghostguy123]

Buying someone’s draft pick is where I draw the line. And especially in the context of “to the highest bidder”. What if Elon Musk or Mark Cuban is in your league? They’re the highest bidder - done.

Clear advantage to the more moneyed owners, and an ethical red flag, IMO.
[/QUOTE]
Buying someone's pick was never an option, no idea why you even mention it. That was never presented.

 

[ghostguy123]

Depending on the year and college prospects, I do believe there could be an advantage gained. For instances, Bijan Robinson could be a generational talent at RB. If the league is superflex, Wilson and Drake maybe be generational talents next year. Just my opinion.

Almost feels like if you want to run a league in this manner it should be done at startup, and if deep pockets are allowed, the league should be an auction league with no salary cap.

I actually DID say it would happen before the startup.
We're not talking about a rookie draft here.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

Exactly. Lol, dynasty depot wouldn't exist if everyone was against this

 

[Amused to Death]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

In my one dynasty league, the commish has a waiting list of people who want in. I don't think I could just sell my team and have be ok with everyone. The commish, along with league approval, controls who owns the teams.

 

[eighsse2]

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.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

In my one dynasty league, the commish has a waiting list of people who want in. I don't think I could just sell my team and have be ok with everyone. The commish, along with league approval, controls who owns the teams.

You can present the scenario to the league and the commish. Tell them you have a good team you want to be compensated for, but want the challenge of taking over a rebuild squad. It's either accepted or not.

 

[SayWhat?]

Extremely slippery slope. There’s really no justification for why any one owner should be allowed to pay cash to another owner. If you need pay cash in order to make a trade (all picks, full team swap, whatever) then it’s pretty clearly an outside influence to essentially affect a trade. As a commish these would be hard no’s.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

In my one dynasty league, the commish has a waiting list of people who want in. I don't think I could just sell my team and have be ok with everyone. The commish, along with league approval, controls who owns the teams.

Fair enough, that's your league. In this hypothetical scenario we have to presume that there isn't a waiting list and that it would be fine for a change of ownership.

If a league is content with an entire change of ownership for any individual team, I don't see how it could be unhappy with what has been proposed here, given the caveat that there won't be anything questionable in the future because of this.

 

[Amused to Death]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

In my one dynasty league, the commish has a waiting list of people who want in. I don't think I could just sell my team and have be ok with everyone. The commish, along with league approval, controls who owns the teams.

You can present the scenario to the league and the commish. Tell them you have a good team you want to be compensated for, but want the challenge of taking over a rebuild squad. It's either accepted or not.

We're a long-time group of friends in a 21 year old dynasty league - pretty sure I know how that would go. And not only would it be rejected, I'd expect to be kicked out for asking.

 

[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.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would people be content to sell their team to someone from outside the league for $1000 and then take over someone else's who didn't want to play in it anymore for nothing?

Seems like the same thing to me.

In my one dynasty league, the commish has a waiting list of people who want in. I don't think I could just sell my team and have be ok with everyone. The commish, along with league approval, controls who owns the teams.

You can present the scenario to the league and the commish. Tell them you have a good team you want to be compensated for, but want the challenge of taking over a rebuild squad. It's either accepted or not.

We're a long-time group of friends in a 21 year old dynasty league - pretty sure I know how that would go. And not only would it be rejected, I'd expect to be kicked out for asking.

Case in point, every league is different.

 

[eighsse2]

Okay so ethical or not ... Do you want to olay in a league with a guy with $20 million who just buys the best team each year? This brings up a new question. If team-buying is allowed, when is it allowed? Can the rich guy wait until week 13 or whatever, and pay off whoever has the best shot at the title? Then he just does this every year and tries to win as many titles as possible, money be damned?

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

It's definitely completely lame that someone would pay for a startup draft spot or to trade teams. I don't think I'd want to be part of it, but if I was, I wouldn't feel like someone just gained an unfair advantage.

One guy now has the good team whereas previously it was another guy. That's it. If anything, the good team being controlled by someone who bought it, rather than someone savvy enough to build it, is better for me as a competitor.

 

[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?

 

[SayWhat?]

To clarify my reaction, I think the team swap is less of an issue than the pick swap. If you allow all picks in a startup to be swapped for a cash payment being made by one of the parties, then you need to be ok with the league powerhouse trading his “unknown” future 1st plus $200 for the league doormat’s “unknown” future 1st. There’s really no difference. If two teams both feel that cash needs to be involved to make a deal happen, then neither party feels the trade is fair as it would stand without the cash.

 

[ghostguy123]

Okay so ethical or not ... Do you want to olay in a league with a guy with $20 million who just buys the best team each year? This brings up a new question. If team-buying is allowed, when is it allowed? Can the rich guy wait until week 13 or whatever, and pay off whoever has the best shot at the title? Then he just does this every year and tries to win as many titles as possible, money be damned?

Well, if you charge him enough, he will end up losing money even if he keeps finishing high.
And yes I want to play with that guy, and I hope he makes cash offers for my team every year.

 

[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.
In fact my scenarios 1 and 2 are essentially identical

 

[eighsse2]

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.

 

[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.

 

[ghostguy123]

To clarify my reaction, I think the team swap is less of an issue than the pick swap. If you allow all picks in a startup to be swapped for a cash payment being made by one of the parties, then you need to be ok with the league powerhouse trading his “unknown” future 1st plus $200 for the league doormat’s “unknown” future 1st. There’s really no difference. If two teams both feel that cash needs to be involved to make a deal happen, then neither party feels the trade is fair as it would stand without the cash.

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