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

[Amused to Death]

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If 2 owners want to swap draft positions, fine. If one owner says "I'll give you $200 to swap draft positions", not fine.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

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?

As part of the transaction? Sure.
If I trade Justin Jefferson and Carlos hyde for jamaar Chase and Stevie wonder, Stevie wonder gets swapped with Justin Jefferson right??

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If in any transaction, one team benefits and another does not, then by the very definition that is collusion.

For whatever reason, 2 teams have colluded to make one team better, to the detriment of the other team.

Textbook collision.

In that hypothetical, for it to not be collusion, something of value (not necessarily perfectly equal) must go back to the team moving to 1.10 “just for fun” because if they’re giving up value (1.01) and getting nothing in return, that is 2 teams colluding to improve only 1 of the teams.

This ain’t rocket surgery here.

 

[ghostguy123]

My scenario swaps owners, and does not alter any part of either roster.

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.

Yes you probably read it wrong because some of your examples have been wayyyy off from what I said was allowed.

 

[BassNBrew]

Bottom line is that you can't have money change hands if the construction of the rosters changes relative to the rest of the league.

They don't in either of these scenarios though. The rosters don't change, just who's managing them.

I see your point. They are changing to the buy in though. The team that drew the 11th slot has paid $500 while the team in the 10th slot has only paid $300. Anyone in their right mind would take slot 10 for $200 less.

 

[ghostguy123]

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If 2 owners want to swap draft positions, fine. If one owner says "I'll give you $200 to swap draft positions", not fine.

Why?? What changes for the league? It's ok if free but not if compensated??? Hogwash

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You have also been wrong five different ways, as his example isn't allowed.

I’ve been correct 5 different ways about scenario #1.

Once again, I’m out. I can only say the same thing so many times.

You asked for an opinion - mine is that it is not ok to involve money in exchange for any sort of advantage prior to a draft.

If I were in a league and someone tried this, I would not be ok with it.

 

[ghostguy123]

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If in any transaction, one team benefits and another does not, then by the very definition that is collusion.

For whatever reason, 2 teams have colluded to make one team better, to the detriment of the other team.

Textbook collision.

In that hypothetical, for it to not be collusion, something of value (not necessarily perfectly equal) just go back to the team moving to 1.10 “just for fun” because if they’re giving up value (1.01) and getting nothing in return, that is 2 teams colluding to improve only 1 of the teams.

This ain’t rocket surgery here.

How much collusion do you know of where it's offered to every owner, out in the open? Please define collusion

 

[ghostguy123]

Bottom line is that you can't have money change hands if the construction of the rosters changes relative to the rest of the league.

They don't in either of these scenarios though. The rosters don't change, just who's managing them.

I see your point. They are changing to the buy in though. The team that drew the 11th slot has paid $500 while the team in the 10th slot has only paid $300. Anyone in their right mind would take slot 10 for $200 less.

Changing each teams buy in would be an interesting way to look at it.

 

[Amused to Death]

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If 2 owners want to swap draft positions, fine. If one owner says "I'll give you $200 to swap draft positions", not fine.

Why?? What changes for the league? It's ok if free but not if compensated??? Hogwash

Generally I agree, its hogwash. Through the luck of the draw you're assigned a draft slot. That should be where you draft. Otherwise, let's just let everyone pick their slots. Some leagues do this.

Bottom line, IMHO, no cash or outside considerations should ever be involved in any trade. Every gets the same amount of players and draft picks. Go build your team.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Its

Why?? What changes for the league? It's ok if free but not if compensated??? Hogwash

It’s not ok for free either. It’s actually *worse* if it’s for free, because there’s no compensation for moving up 9 spots in the draft.

That’s called collusion.

Pay with draft picks if you want that 1.01

Swapping entire drafts for $ is just a round about way to find a loophole to trade those draft picks, using money external to the league pool rather than picks or players within the context of the league.

Ok, NOW I’m out. lol

 

[ghostguy123]

Auction the draft slots. Hmmmm

 

[BassNBrew]

My scenario swaps owners, and does not alter any part of either roster.

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.

In theory the rosters end up the same if everyone drafts by ADP. In reality they don't as because owner A could take People-Jones at 15.1 or 15.10. Once that happens, the rosters relative to the rest of the league have changed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Otherwise, let's just let everyone pick their slots. Some leagues do this.

My league does this. It’s great.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I lite

What if you swap draft slots with someone for fun? Is it collusion?

If in any transaction, one team benefits and another does not, then by the very definition that is collusion.

For whatever reason, 2 teams have colluded to make one team better, to the detriment of the other team.

Textbook collision.

In that hypothetical, for it to not be collusion, something of value (not necessarily perfectly equal) just go back to the team moving to 1.10 “just for fun” because if they’re giving up value (1.01) and getting nothing in return, that is 2 teams colluding to improve only 1 of the teams.

This ain’t rocket surgery here.

How much collusion do you know of where it's offered to every owner, out in the open? Please define collusion

I literally just defined collusion. See: post you quoted.

 

[ghostguy123]

Its

Why?? What changes for the league? It's ok if free but not if compensated??? Hogwash

It’s not ok for free either. It’s actually *worse* if it’s for free, because there’s no compensation for moving up 9 spots in the draft.

That’s called collusion.

Pay with draft picks if you want that 1.01

Swapping entire drafts for $ is just a round about way to find a loophole to trade those draft picks, using money external to the league pool rather than picks or players within the context of the league.

Ok, NOW I’m out. lol

You never be out. You never go out when you say you will. See ya here tomorrow and the day after

 

[Amused to Death]

Otherwise, let's just let everyone pick their slots. Some leagues do this.

My league does this. It’s great.

And I'd bet no one is paying off another owner.

 

[BassNBrew]

Auction the draft slots. Hmmmm

This I would agree with. 12 owners, $500 buy in, $600 pot.

Slot one opens for bidding and ends north of $500. Once you've auctioned 11 slots, slot 12 pays $6000 minus all the other bids.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

And I'd bet no one is paying off another owner.

Nope. KTS baby.

Team 1.01 picked 1.02 and everyone gasped. 1.01 JT was terrible.

Sometimes it works.

Teams picking 10-11-12 generally get stuck with 7-8-9, and it is what it is.

We don’t allow for trading of draft picks in this particular redraft.

 

[BassNBrew]

I think you found your solution @ghostguy123

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Auction the draft slots. Hmmmm

This I would agree with. 12 owners, $500 buy in, $600 pot.

Slot one opens for bidding and ends north of $500. Once you've auctioned 11 slots, slot 12 pays $6000 minus all the other bids.

I would have zero issue with this type of league, provided all funds go into the league kitty, and not into individual owner’s pockets.

This topic is like the mob. As soon as I think I’m out….

 

[ghostguy123]

I think you found your solution @ghostguy123

Hmmmm

 

[ghostguy123]

I think auctioning draft slots for a snake draft would be better than an auction draft or a snake draft.
Might even be possible for the guys drafting bottom three to be playing for free in year 1.

 

[Amused to Death]

I think auctioning draft slots for a snake draft would be better than an auction draft or a snake draft.
Might even be possible for the guys drafting bottom three to be playing for free in year 1.

Have you ever done an auction? You may not want to do another snake draft. Build your team any way you want, compete for any player you want. So much more strategy in an auction.

 

[ghostguy123]

I think auctioning draft slots for a snake draft would be better than an auction draft or a snake draft.
Might even be possible for the guys drafting bottom three to be playing for free in year 1.

Have you ever done an auction? You may not want to do another snake draft. Build your team any way you want, compete for any player you want. So much more strategy in an auction.

No interest. I like trading picks before and during the draft, also like slow drafting (which I suppose can be done with an auction format).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I think auctioning draft slots for a snake draft would be better than an auction draft or a snake draft.
Might even be possible for the guys drafting bottom three to be playing for free in year 1.

Have you ever done an auction? You may not want to do another snake draft. Build your team any way you want, compete for any player you want. So much more strategy in an auction.

No interest. I like trading picks before and during the draft, also like slow drafting (which I suppose can be done with an auction format).

The only auction formats I’ve done were slow format.

It’s far superior to snake.

What would be really cool is an auction where every team has a $500 budget of real dollars, and all bids go into the kitty.

Would have to have a minimum total spend (say, $250) but in theory a team could place smart bids, get a bunch of cheap players and win disproportionately.

You’d need 12 people with $250-$500 to burn, but it could be an interesting way to draft a league.

 

[Deamon]

Are there divisions? If so, it could create competitive imbalance. (A weaker division might have just become stronger if it now has the guy that owns the 1.01.... or the stronger player might be taking over the strong team which makes that division harder than it usually was).

Either way this all smells wrong.

 

[ghostguy123]

Are there divisions? If so, it could create competitive imbalance. (A weaker division might have just become stronger if it now has the guy that owns the 1.01.... or the stronger player might be taking over the strong team which makes that division harder than it usually was).

Either way this all smells wrong.

The teams don't have to change divisions. The owners just swap

 

[Mitchie]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

 

[ghostguy123]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

 

[Mitchie]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

 

[ghostguy123]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

Why does redraft or dynasty matter??

 

[Mitchie]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

Why does redraft or dynasty matter??

The team getting the #1 pick would be getting some advantage, but I guess that's splitting hairs, I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

[ghostguy123]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

Why does redraft or dynasty matter??

The team getting the #1 pick would be getting some advantage, but I guess that's splitting hairs, I guess it doesn't really matter.

They would be getting the exact same advantage the team who USED to have the 1 slot had.

 

[Mitchie]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

Why does redraft or dynasty matter??

The team getting the #1 pick would be getting some advantage, but I guess that's splitting hairs, I guess it doesn't really matter.

They would be getting the exact same advantage the team who USED to have the 1 slot had.

right, but in a dynasty league if it was one of the stronger teams getting that advantage I could see someone griping about that. again think the case is pretty weak but could see it.

also could be somewhat league dependent (for dynasty), depending on league structure the value of the #1 pick could vary

ETA: my comments are related to existing dynasty league not one starting from scratch.

 

[ghostguy123]

Haven't read through most of the thread since 4 pages but here's my take:

1. no
2. yes*, with league approval

Reason to not allowing 1 is it is using money to impact the competitive balance of the league. This is not the intent nor within the rules of fantasy football leagues. A trade has to stand on its own, an owner can't offer money to another team for players and/or picks.

Reason to allowing 2 is that there is no impact to competitive balance since entire teams are changing hands. I can't think of a reason not to allow this, however, it is outside the rules of most leagues so I would seek league approval for something like this.

Both complete rosters change hands in both scenarios.
Re-read scenario 1 again. The teams are exchanging ALL assets. Basically they are just swapping ownership. No players or picks move to the other team.

Ok it is similar assuming it's a re-draft league and not dynasty then I'd apply my comments on the 2nd scenario to both

Why does redraft or dynasty matter??

The team getting the #1 pick would be getting some advantage, but I guess that's splitting hairs, I guess it doesn't really matter.

They would be getting the exact same advantage the team who USED to have the 1 slot had.

right, but in a dynasty league if it was one of the stronger teams getting that advantage I could see someone griping about that. again think the case is pretty weak but could see it.

How do you know who the stronger team is?? Or stronger owner I should say.

 

[rockaction]

This reminds me of that Toyota commercial with the young kid who keeps saying "Why?"

"Why? Because you're human and humans aren't supposed to put their genitals in goats, that's why!"

 

[rockaction]

Holy language filter malfunction there.

eta* adjusted

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This reminds me of that Toyota commercial with the young kid who keeps saying "Why?"

It reminds me more of a little kid asking a question and when people try to have a conversation with that kid to tell him why something is wrong, he runs around the room with his fingers in his ears yelling “La…La…La….I can’t hear you. La..La..La…I’m am so smart and you’re all stupid”.

Basically same response to every post.

 

[ghostguy123]

This reminds me of that Toyota commercial with the young kid who keeps saying "Why?"

It reminds me more of a little kid asking a question and when people try to have a conversation with that kid to tell him why something is wrong, he runs around the room with his fingers in his ears yelling “La…La…La….I can’t hear you. La..La..La…I’m am so smart and you’re all stupid”.

Basically same response to every post.

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

 

[ghostguy123]

As for the slippery slope idea, there's nothing keeping people from making shady backdoor deals in existing leagues. I don't think allowing a draft slot swap prior to a maiden draft is somehow some sort of gateway drug that is going to bring in shady deal after shady deal. It's a perfectly fair exchange that does not alter the asset makeup of either franchise and can obviously only happen one time since there's only one startup draft.
If we think this leads to a black market kind of league, I think we are living in fear just a bit too much.

 

[GordonGekko]

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

 

[eighsse2]

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

Solid take. And, though I've voiced my opinion against either idea posited in the premise, my answer in that particular poll, were it to exist, would be No, I would not leave the league. I would, however, vote against it if my league proposed allowing such things as a new rule -- or vote for banning it (as the league has no stance on it currently, though it's never happened to my knowledge).

I don't think it's evil or unethical. I don't even know the exact definition of the word unethical, and if I did, I would probably say "Screw ethics, that's stupid." For me it all comes down to: I would rather dominance be neither purchasable nor profitable outside of league-sanctioned mechanics. Period.

 

[ghostguy123]

[ of the word unethical, and if I did, I would probably say "Screw ethics, that's stupid." For me it all comes down to: I would rather dominance be neither purchasable nor profitable outside of league-sanctioned mechanics. Period.
[/QUO



I agree about the dominance.
However, if it does absolutely nothing to alter the competitive balance of the league, and two owners agree to something like this out in the open, so be it. It doesn't change anything I am doing with my own team, and doesn't make winning any more difficult, as in, no competitive advantage is gained over the rest of the league by either team that partakes in either scenario.

 

[eighsse2]

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

So 12 teams enter a startup. 11 of the teams are perfectly fine with their draft slot. The guy at 12 is ticked because

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

Solid take. And, though I've voiced my opinion against either idea posited in the premise, my answer in that particular poll, were it to exist, would be No, I would not leave the league. I would, however, vote against it if my league proposed allowing such things as a new rule -- or vote for banning it (as the league has no stance on it currently, though it's never happened to my knowledge).

I don't think it's evil or unethical. I don't even know the exact definition of the word unethical, and if I did, I would probably say "Screw ethics, that's stupid." For me it all comes down to: I would rather dominance be neither purchasable nor profitable outside of league-sanctioned mechanics. Period.

I agree about the dominance.
However, if it does absolutely nothing to alter the competitive balance of the league, and two owners agree to something like this out in the open, so be it. It doesn't change anything I am doing with my own team, and doesn't make winning any more difficult, as in, no competitive advantage is gained over the rest of the league by either team that partakes in either scenario.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that dominance were created in the process. But the dominance (if one and only one of the two involved teams is in fact dominant already) is being purchased by one owner, and being cashed out by another owner. Even though you said nothing about one team being dominant, I'm just saying, it's obviously a possibility if you allow that kind of thing to be done.

 

[Riddick02]

[ of the word unethical, and if I did, I would probably say "Screw ethics, that's stupid." For me it all comes down to: I would rather dominance be neither purchasable nor profitable outside of league-sanctioned mechanics. Period.

I agree about the dominance.
However, if it does absolutely nothing to alter the competitive balance of the league, and two owners agree to something like this out in the open, so be it. It doesn't change anything I am doing with my own team, and doesn't make winning any more difficult, as in, no competitive advantage is gained over the rest of the league by either team that partakes in either scenario.

Then why are you (you being the manager, not necessarily you) doing it? It's being done because there is a benefit (whether perceived or not) to you. If there wasn't, then running your team from the drawn 10 spot wouldn't have been an issue.

No offense but is this thread shtick? Any money being exchanged between players for assets that is done outside of league fees is collusion.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

So 12 teams enter a startup. 11 of the teams are perfectly fine with their draft slot. The guy at 12 is ticked because

It's fine if people don't want to allow this in their league. I understand why.
However, some of the responses in here are from people clearly not understanding the scenario and what is allowed, and not allowed.
I mean Jesus, people are saying this is the same thing as if you gave me Ekeler, but all I gave you was 100 bucks on the side. That.......isn't.........part.......of....the......scenario

Try this instead

Set up a poll. Ask people here if these changes were made, would they leave that league or not.

Also add in the annual team "buy in" amount plus the payout structure so people know the actual money at stake.

Something I've generally accepted by playing FF, for a long time, is if you lose half your league's teams in any single offseason, then something is very wrong. Do you think you could enact these changes without losing half your league in the process?

It's entirely possible with your league's specific makeup and owner base, that they'd tolerate it. But my observation and experience would make a strong guess that nearly all existing leagues, in any format, would not.

Here's the thing, if someone out there knows they are a good advanced skilled engaged and active owner who can negotiate the tone and culture of how most leagues play, then they can be welcome and a value add into any league. There is no greater compliment than having random owners in your leagues reach out to you in private and say "I have another private league, a dynasty or keeper, and I want you in that league, we want good competitive owners and we want guys just like you in there with us" Good FF owners know their worth and understand the value of their time/effort. They aren't going to want to stay in a situation that rides the edge of their general comfort level about fair play.

You can decide for yourself whatever views you want. But if your actions shed good owners, then, in my book, you've lost in total.

But go on, set up a poll, ask people if they'd leave a league making the changes you suggest. That should give you a predictor of what's likely to happen if you actually try this in one of your leagues.

Solid take. And, though I've voiced my opinion against either idea posited in the premise, my answer in that particular poll, were it to exist, would be No, I would not leave the league. I would, however, vote against it if my league proposed allowing such things as a new rule -- or vote for banning it (as the league has no stance on it currently, though it's never happened to my knowledge).

I don't think it's evil or unethical. I don't even know the exact definition of the word unethical, and if I did, I would probably say "Screw ethics, that's stupid." For me it all comes down to: I would rather dominance be neither purchasable nor profitable outside of league-sanctioned mechanics. Period.

I agree about the dominance.
However, if it does absolutely nothing to alter the competitive balance of the league, and two owners agree to something like this out in the open, so be it. It doesn't change anything I am doing with my own team, and doesn't make winning any more difficult, as in, no competitive advantage is gained over the rest of the league by either team that partakes in either scenario.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that dominance were created in the process. But the dominance (if one and only one of the two involved teams is in fact dominant already) is being purchased by one owner, and being cashed out by another owner. Even though you said nothing about one team being dominant, I'm just saying, it's obviously a possibility if you allow that kind of thing to be done.

It seems like the owner who built the better team would have a better chance of making it dominant that the team who had to buy the better team.

 

[Amused to Death]

No offense but is this thread shtick? Any money being exchanged between players for assets that is done outside of league fees is collusion.

I didn't want to use the "C" word but I agree. If two teams are discussing any deal and one side is hesitant and the other says "I'll give you $200 if you do it", that's wrong. Clearly in that case one side is entering into the deal strictly for the money and not because they think it makes *their* team stronger.

 

[ghostguy123]

[/QUOTE]

Then why are you (you being the manager, not necessarily you) doing it? It's being done because there is a benefit (whether perceived or not) to you. If there wasn't, then running your team from the drawn 10 spot wouldn't have been an issue.

No offense but is this thread shtick? Any money being exchanged between players for assets that is done outside of league fees is collusion.
[/QUOTE]


One team trades their benefit with another teams. Hence, no competitive balance issues for the league.
Of course the person buying the 1 slot has better assets now, but that doesn't change the competitive balance of the league. Why?? Because SOMEONE has to get the 1 slot, right? Neither roster is gaining anything, however one owner is gaining value while the other owner is losing value (theoretically).

It's nothing more than owners changing teams. Again, this is NOTHING like the example of one team buying a player from another team for money.

Also, there is no money being exchanged for assets. As in, there are no assets moving from one roster to another. The owners are changing which team's they control. That is NOT the same thing.

 

[ghostguy123]

No offense but is this thread shtick? Any money being exchanged between players for assets that is done outside of league fees is collusion.

I didn't want to use the "C" word but I agree. If two teams are discussing any deal and one side is hesitant and the other says "I'll give you $200 if you do it", that's wrong. Clearly in that case one side is entering into the deal strictly for the money and not because they think it makes *their* team stronger.

If it was a regular trade, them sure, that would absolutely be collusion and wrong.
This isn't that though. It's not a trade. It's an ownership change. Not the same.