Amused to Death
Footballguy
Right, and now you have a potential bidding war for the 1.01 where the highest bidder gains an advantage.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Ethics issue (trading pick slots, teams) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ghostguy123
- Start date
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Ummm, yeah, it's the same. It's a complete asset swap
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Gains an advantage over what they previously had, sure. Meanwhile the team who used to own 1 loses that advantage
Meanwhile........the rest of the league is not affected
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Scenario two involves paying money for a team that is clearly better. Otherwise, why would money be exchanged?
Yeah, it's the same
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Its unfair to the other owners who can't pay as much. You're creating a bidding war where the owner willing to pay the most gains an advantage over the others.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
You laughing at other people’s points is ironic. Maybe you’re not familiar with that concept either.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Known assets vs unknown assets.
Moreover, yet to be picked assets, which effects the entire league, as opposed to the team swap which only effects 2 teams.
You’re looking at this through rose-colored glasses to make it ok.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Nothing changes for them with this transaction. Nothing. Nothing unfair is created.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
In scenario 2 many things will play out in the future that affect all the other teams rosters......but thats ok???
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I think someone pointed it out but this thread title is misleading. We're not discussing *trading* draft slots, we're discussing *selling* draft slots. Big difference.
Wigglytuff's Gruff
Footballguy
I guess I just don't see it that way mate. Someone is drafting at 1.01, whether they got it through the luck of the draw or paid for the privilege. If you consider it such an advantage to draft from that position then fair enough, I personally don't. The guy picking at 1.01 is just as likely to **** it up as they are make it work. As someone picking at 1.02, 1.05 or 1.11 I don't see how my chances are affected in any way by whichever person ends up in that spot. I'm in the same position as I was beforehand and so is the rest of the league.
I wouldn't want to be playing in a league like that, mos def. I'd avoid it. But if I found out after things had started that's what had happened, I'd be nonplussed.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Agree to disagree.
At this point I would just be repeating myself, so bowing out.
-OZ-
Footballguy
Agreed, it’s gray.
If the question is whether I’d allow it in my league, or I’d want to be in a league where it is, probably not. But I also don’t play in leagues with all sorts of other rules.
If the question is whether it’s inherently unethical, I say it’s not.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Two issues I see immediately
1) It's very hard to find a great fantasy league. I mean one with entire roster of owners being active, skilled and committed. It's also very hard to find good individual owners to fill slots in existing leagues for most people/commissioners. A league is as only as good as it's roster of owners. If you have a good to great league, why risk losing owners over this kind of issue? Because something like this will most definitely cause owners to leave that league, especially if it's a money league. You can say it's a big deal or not a big deal, but if you are losing good owners, that's a net loss.
2) Part of the "fun" in fantasy football is it's a type of escapism. For example, I used to take my godson to do Muay Thai training. One of the coaches kept blaring his personal problems to the parents of the students. Even sometimes crossing boundaries into talking about his adult problems in front of the kids. OK, the parents there aren't at work. When you go to work, you have to deal with crap you don't want to deal with and suffer through some of it to make a living. When I took my godson to do martial arts, I'm looking to escape the real life problems of my employees, my clients, my payroll, legal obligations, contracts, taxes, etc, etc. People join fantasy leagues to have fun. Once you start bringing in "real life drama" into it, especially self inflicted, it drives people away from that "community" I pay the fees for my godson to learn how to do a round house kick. Not become part of a free therapy session for some mouth breather who doesn't understand basic boundaries. People pay their fees into a fantasy league to compete and have some fun, not end up in a long drawn out league battle over whether you can effectively sell a draft slot or entire team or not. Again, while you might not feel that selling a draft position is a **** move, taking away the "escapism factor" from people just looking for some light hearted occasional fun and competition will look like a **** move to many of them.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
Whether or not you find the situation ethical or not, or if others find it ethical or not, is entirely up to you or up to them.
But I just don't see how a Commissioner can pass this kind of proposal without losing owners over it. And the owners who don't leave, many might "box you out" anyway in private. Meaning they won't trade with you or the other owner or engage with you at all. I was in a league a long time ago where an owner went onto the league message board and start blasting other teams about trade proposals they turned down from him. He criticized their view of "value" and it just turned into an ugly issue. Then he went from some trades sometimes to no trade at all, since the situation dragged in drama to the entire league and cast a pall over it. Then it became a league issue where some owners wouldn't even bother to respond to his trade offers. It's one thing to commit to not trading with someone, it's another to simply refuse to say "No" or refuse to hit the "Reject Trade" button out of discontent. You don't have to trade with anyone, but you can't refuse to communicate, so that became an issue. So some people got tired of the mess and left the league.
You can bring up any perspective you want on the issue, and it's your right, but if others don't agree and leave or don't agree, stay and box you out, then nothing good is coming from it.
Put it this way, your scenario is one thing if it's a feature of the league that's accepted BEFORE the league is started and before anyone plays their first game. It's another to make this kind of switch after the league has been ongoing.
I can only speak to my viewpoint on this:
If I was the Commissioner and this came up, I'd veto it or push the other voters to veto it. I'm not willing to lose owners over it. Especially good owners that I'd know would be very hard or impossible to replace. If it's a majority vote and they voted it in, I'd leave the league.
If I was in a league and a Commissioner allowed this or the majority voted for it, I'd leave the league.
If you are OK with it, you are OK with it. It's OK that you are OK with it. The reality though is many other owners won't be OK with it.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
You type too much.
This seems like a far cry from posting on the league message board and pissing everyone off.
This seems like a far cry from posting on the league message board and pissing everyone off.
Lehigh98
Footballguy
This was an interesting point and I can see it both ways. In both scenarios the other teams in the league really aren't affected as far as the setup of the league and level of competition. The rosters didn't change and they are playing against the same teams with the same players even though they are now managed by someone else.
That being said, a wise philosopher once said, "Mo money, mo problems". The league constitution that I wrote says the following in the "preamble" (that I probably borrowed from somewhere): "This league is designed to be a competition between managers, but it not a cut-throat league where anything goes. The rules described below are designed to act as a guideline for overall league play, and any disputes will be handled by the executive committee of the league. Please remember that the overall goal of this league is to have fun and enjoy the game of football. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask."
I believe that allowing deals with outside cash to take place, even if the rosters stay the same as above, will eventually lead to issues, complaints, hard feelings, people leaving the league, etc. As a commish for over 20 years I try to make things as fair as possible for everyone but also eliminate "drama" wherever possible. For that reason, I just clarified the rules in our constitution with the following: "Only players, blind bidding dollars and future draft picks (1 year in advance) are tradable. Outside assets / resources like cash, food, beers, etc cannot be included in league trades. 'Future considerations' and other conditions informally attached to a trade cannot be enforced by the league and are discouraged when trading."
If your league mates are on board with allowing the scenarios above, go for it. I just think it could eventually lead to problems down the road that I just don't want to have to deal with and are simple enough to avoid.
Same mindset here.
Scenario two is the same as if an owner quits and you are selling the team to someone else. If the team is +EV to win money at the end of the year I could see owners bidding more than the standard entry fee. In this scenario the competitive balance between the two teams and the rest of the league is unchanged.
Scenario one is collusion IMO. It's the same as saying I'll trade you Cmac for CEH and $200 cash. The owner getting the superior talent is sharing his expected winnings with a another owner. Essentially you are pooling teams. In this scenario the competitive balance between the two teams and the rest of the league is changing.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
What???? There's is no pooling of assets in scenario 1, at all.
Two teams are swapping their starting positions. Each team has exactly what they started with, except for a new owner.
rockaction
Footballguy
I think part of the (in general) league buy-in and re-up is an understanding that no other paid transactions will occur after that. It serves to keep the field level. The first scenario violates that axiom. People select leagues often based on how much the league costs to them, and one can generally assume a certain amount of income or budget from that. Not everybody has a budget on top of a budget to tilt the field to their advantage. It seems like extra expenditures do just that, which is why they're outlawed as a form of collusion in almost all leagues besides leagues that pay transaction fees out of pocket.
That's also why there are high-stakes leagues, which serve to weed people out and still keep the income expenditures reasonable to all involved.
Another error, and this comes from your premise, is that you're assuming competitive balance trumps every other ethical concern regarding the rules of the game. Competitive balance does not equal fairness -- or justice. It is not necessarily the case why all the rules in your league are in place. If "competitive balance" were the be-all end-all, you'd do things like have a randomly-ordered dispersal draft at the end of every year because situations and team prowess changes, leaving teams at advantages and disadvantages in respect to one another. As it were, other things get taken into account when it comes to the rules, like a manager's right to manage his own team on his own terms and to reap the benefits of his labor that he or she put into the acquisition of assets. Basic issues of fairness and justice do not fall under the "competitive balance" rubric.
The second scenario is trickier, but I'm pretty sure I'd leave that league because it's acquiring somebody else's personal labor over their own team, a labor that obviously has monetary value but is outside the scope of acceptable quantifiable payment within typical league constraints. It don't smell right to me. The law of the land is not logic, and I think I'd split if that happened.
That's also why there are high-stakes leagues, which serve to weed people out and still keep the income expenditures reasonable to all involved.
Another error, and this comes from your premise, is that you're assuming competitive balance trumps every other ethical concern regarding the rules of the game. Competitive balance does not equal fairness -- or justice. It is not necessarily the case why all the rules in your league are in place. If "competitive balance" were the be-all end-all, you'd do things like have a randomly-ordered dispersal draft at the end of every year because situations and team prowess changes, leaving teams at advantages and disadvantages in respect to one another. As it were, other things get taken into account when it comes to the rules, like a manager's right to manage his own team on his own terms and to reap the benefits of his labor that he or she put into the acquisition of assets. Basic issues of fairness and justice do not fall under the "competitive balance" rubric.
The second scenario is trickier, but I'm pretty sure I'd leave that league because it's acquiring somebody else's personal labor over their own team, a labor that obviously has monetary value but is outside the scope of acceptable quantifiable payment within typical league constraints. It don't smell right to me. The law of the land is not logic, and I think I'd split if that happened.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I have no unearthly idea how my scenario 1 is lumped in with "trading CMC for CEH and $200".
That....is not even in the same ballpark of similarity.
That....is not even in the same ballpark of similarity.
rockaction
Footballguy
That's actually exactly what it is. Once you put a name with the slot, that's what you're doing. That's part of the reason why it's collusion and illegal.
Let's take your scenario and feed it some roids.
$500 entry, 20 draft picks.
Team A offers picks 1-10 for picks 11-20 and $500. Are you allowing this?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Holy ****, no.
The CMC scenario is clear collusion and should not be allowed. One team is acquiring CMC without giving up anything of value from his team.
That is NOT the same as swapping all assets prior to the draft by simply swapping all draft positions.
rockaction
Footballguy
This reminds me of partnership agreements and what is allowed under law. Generally, partnerships in front of courts are given wide berth -- whatever the partners agree upon. If the contestants in these leagues agree to this beforehand, there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed. Consent and all of that. But if they don't specify certain things, then basic doctrines take over the adjudication of determining what is appropriate and not with the assets in a partnership.
But the real question is that if even if everybody agrees, the question is who would play in those leagues? My guess is you'll get an answer where a vast majority wouldn't want to play in a league like that. Gekko's point upthread was a good one. If you read him, he makes some good points every so often.
But the real question is that if even if everybody agrees, the question is who would play in those leagues? My guess is you'll get an answer where a vast majority wouldn't want to play in a league like that. Gekko's point upthread was a good one. If you read him, he makes some good points every so often.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
No, my god no. How on earth is that even lumped in with my scenario 1?????
One set of assets is worth more than the other.
rockaction
Footballguy
Holy ****, yes it was just two years ago. CMC was the number one pick in the draft and CEH was going about 10th. Kick in 200 bucks to CEH and - voíla! -- you've got CMC.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yes, but the team stays the same. Both teams stay the same. The owners change.
It's the exact same scenario with the money bumped and the consideration exchanged increased.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
This doesn't make any sense or have anything to do with the scenario that was laid out.
rockaction
Footballguy
Tooting my own horn and own way here: The leagues I play in specifically forbid out-of-pocket transactions. It avoids this scenario quite nicely. There's really no argument. Get caught, get kicked out.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Uhh, no, it's creating a super team and kills the rest of the league.
My scenario does none of that.
rockaction
Footballguy
Sure it does. You want to swap the tenth pick for the first pick. For 200 dollars.
The first pick would be CMC
The tenth pick would be CEH
The value of CMC is CEH + 200 dollars.
For somebody dealing in abstraction, you're a bit obtuse about this.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Again, nobody is doing any backroom deals here. It would be out in the open and available to all.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Lol, your example would not be allowed though. It's totally different
rockaction
Footballguy
Right, if everybody agrees to that and wants to get in a money league run that way, sure.
The default setting should be against that for all the reasons listed above and throughout this thread.
Lehigh98
Footballguy
They don't in either of these scenarios though. The rosters don't change, just who's managing them.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
The construction of the rosters doesn't change though. Nothing changes except which owner owns which team.
rockaction
Footballguy
No, it's not.
And we can keep saying "yes, it is" while I say "no, it's not" so let's just spare everybody and let the readers decide.
You want to swap the first pick with the tenth pick.
The first pick would be CMC
You'd get somebody of CEH's caliber with the tenth pick.
CMC = CEH + 200
No different than any other trade.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Are you being willfully obtuse?? There's nothing similar about your example to what I proposed.
You are talking about moving one player from one roster to another for outside considerations. That's a NO.
My scenario swaps owners, and does not alter any part of either roster.
GordonGekko
Footballguy
The most valuable "asset" in any fantasy football league is not money, it's good solid committed owners with an advanced skill set that competes relentlessly.
Most leagues have some committed owners, some wishy washy owners and some owners that are close to abandoning their teams. Obviously money leagues and how much money raises the stakes and raises the level of the kind of potential owner you get.
Good competitive leagues are always on the lookout for good owners. If you get a reputation as a skilled fair competitor with good communication habits and you have a habit of making your team consistently better, despite what you might have inherited to start, other owners notice and eventually will want you to join their other leagues.
If you suggest what you are suggesting, you will start closing many of those doors. Whether you feel that's fair or not.
I'm from the old school. I was playing fantasy football back when you had to get newspapers and look up box scores and mail in your lineups with an envelope and a stamp. I've seen enough and experienced enough kind of leagues and situations where I'd say if you want this kind of option, then the best course would be for you to start an entirely new league with this scenario as part of the actual league constitution.
If I had a choice between two potential owners in a fantasy league
1) A guy with extra cash and is willing to pay money to improve his odds by buying an improved draft slot or an entire roster
2) A guy who says, "You can put my into any situation, I can inherit any team, under any circumstance, under any limitation, and I'll still find a way to crawl inch by inch and punch you in the mouth"
Well, I'd pick the 2nd guy. But that's just me. Personally I sometimes enjoy inheriting a bad team, limited on draft picks by previous trades by the old owner, broken roster, looks a bit hopeless, then fight like mad to turn it all around. Organically. Like it was a personal grudge. I see a "bad starting draft position" as a challenge, not as a precursor to a transaction.
Start a new league with the rules and league constitution you want, if you want to pick something off the beaten path. Then everyone knows and agrees upfront on what they are getting into and risking their money on. I believe that's the best solution.
That's why I think scenario 2 is OK. It has no impact
So your defense is that's it's not that bad so it should be allowed?
The team swapping draft down spots is actually getting a $200 stake in the team moving up. That's collusion.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
You aren't allowed to swap the 1st pick with the 10th pick for money.
However, you can swap every asset with every asset for money.
Your example changes competitive balance.
Mine does not.
However, you can swap every asset with every asset for money.
Your example changes competitive balance.
Mine does not.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I’ve said this 5 different ways. Seems pretty straightforward.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
But the 1.10 gets swapped with the 1.01, along with the 2nd through whatever picks, right?
So in fact, regardless of everything else that happens, the 1.10 does indeed get swapped with the 1.01, right?
ghostguy123
Footballguy
You have also been wrong five different ways, as his example isn't allowed.I’ve said this 5 different ways. Seems pretty straightforward.
rockaction
Footballguy
Not your first scenario. Did I read it wrong? I don't think so at all. Once you put a name with a draft slot -- and we all do before drafts -- then you've essentially traded that player for another player at least once in the exercise.
Perhaps I'm being too abstract and the literality of the exchange is what you're looking at. In reality, it doesn't function that way, and everybody with any skin in this game knows it.
Again, I'm leaving it up to the reader to decide from here on out.
