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

[Riddick02]

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.

It's right there in black and white in your own words. Trading benefit, person now has better assets. It's collusion, pure and simple. The draft slot is an asset and money is being exchanged for one of more perceived value. The competitive balance has now been altered because one person is paying extra for a benefit they should not of had otherwise.

This seems purposefully obtuse. I'll bow out. I would not participate in any league where this type of logic lawyering is taking place.

 

[ghostguy123]

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.

It's right there in black and white in your own words. Trading benefit, person now has better assets. It's collusion, pure and simple. The draft slot is an asset and money is being exchanged for one of more perceived value. The competitive balance has now been altered because one person is paying extra for a benefit they should not of had otherwise.

This seems purposefully obtuse. I'll bow out. I would not participate in any league where this type of logic lawyering is taking place.

This could easily happen and you wouldn't even know it happened.
Say you join a startup, as soon as picks are drawn two of the teams change ownership. You wouldn't even notice. Yet the competitive balance is now altered?? Nothing changes except who controls those two teams. They basically sold their teams to each other.
No advantage is gained by either "franchise".

 

[rockaction]

You're doing this because you're bored at the auto shop, aren't you? They out of batteries?

I kid, I kid. Enjoy your hypotheticals.

 

[Gally]

I think the crux of the two sides is whether or not you believe a snake draft is inherently unfair or not. Those saying someone is paying for an advantage to draft from the 1st draft slot believes that to be an unfair advantage and thus paying for it is unjust. Those that don't see an issue with paying to change spots see all spots equal and up for personal preference.

Scenario 1 is essentially two teams exchanging the card they drew for a draft slot. If the luck of the draw was different they wouldn't have to make an exchange. Nothing in the league changes at all. One person is still drafting from every draft slot. I see no problem with it because I don't see any draft slot being an advantage. It's all personal preference to me. I wouldn't pay to change cards but I would do it for nothing.

The bigger concern is outside money exchanging hands and what that could lead to. It leads to a perception of being able to buy things. That is bad. It's why my leagues specifically state you cannot use real money in any trades. Therefore this scenario wouldn't be allowed. But there would be no problem at all of swapping draft slots.

 

[GordonGekko]

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.

Competitive balanced leagues are designed to exchange a type of "buy in" ( which would be the league's annual fee to participate, if it's a money league) for a set form of "league currency" to use.

The "buy in" price is equalized. The "league currency" is equalized.

If the league has, for example, a 500 dollar buy in for the whole season, and it's a dynasty with a salary cap and FAAB, then the league currency is equalized cap space per franchise, equalized draft picks distributed (people may trade their picks from earlier or for future seasons, but the exchange value is still locked into the league's internal currency system) and some set amount of hard cap space.

So if every team gets 150 in FAAB dollars to use during the season, the "buy in" purchases that. It also purchases an equalized number of draft choices.

Once you introduce "value" OUTSIDE the league currency system, you've disbalanced the league.

If the league constitution says each owner has an additional 200 dollars in real cash to add into trades, in whole or part, and each owner could be verified in having 200 dollars to spend like that, then that's a different matter. That becomes a function of the league's "currency system" in place. It's not conventional, but it's EQUALIZED. It's been discussed and voted on beforehand. People understand it's existence as part of the expectation.

I'll give you an NBA example. Gail Miller and the Miller family, when she owned the Utah Jazz, was encouraged privately to trade for Chris Bosh. Because the Miller family was hitting some hard financial times ( relative to an NBA owner, no one was going to starve here) The reason to do the trade was that Bosh's contract was being covered, in part, by insurance money, because he was ineligible to play because of his health conditions. Bosh's contract, on it's face, met salary cap requirements to hit the "salary floor" but the actual cash payout by the franchise who held his rights for far less. So if you are paying someone 20 million a year against the salary cap, but only are paying an actual 10 million in cash because 10 million is covered in insurance, you have found a way to game league requirements to have a minimum team aggregate salary floor but save cash in real life. What if Mickey Arison of the Heat said, "Trade me two future first round picks and I'll trade you Bosh, and the net savings will be 40 million on the rest of his contract in cash" Do you see the problem here? A owner who is seen more as "cash rich" is using value OUTSIDE of the league's nominal currency system to take advantage of a team who is seen as "cash poor" in a relative sense.

This is why actual professional sports leagues have so many rules and conditions in their CBAs, to prevent owners like Cohen from the Mets, or Ballmer from the Clippers, or Dolan from the Knicks, using their personal vast cash leverage, to give outside value to acquire league renewable internal assets like draft picks, young players or cap space.

In order for your "pay for pick upgrade idea to work", everyone needs to have real life cash to spend on potentially upgrading their picks, and everyone needs to have the same opportunity to offer cash for that upgraded pick and the league constitution needs to spell out the rules around how that can happen.

As for your Scenario B, where two teams trade their entire franchises, odds are one will be in a better position, and that just won't cover the smell test to most fantasy owners. Why would someone take a worst team than they have right now? It does not look above reproach, so most leagues, to my viewpoint, would not allow it.

It's like a zombie movie. Did you get bit by that zombie? Or did you scratch up your arm real bad jumping over that fence? Well I can't be sure, I won't take the risk. So I'm shooting you in the head. Since I'm practical, I'd want to save the ammo and hit you in head with a hatchet instead. Same principles apply in money leagues. Can't be sure it's on the up and up? Then leave the league. Even if it's "clean", if it looks even a shred of dirty, people will leave. Do you want to be the guy who spent 200 dollars to upgrade picks in a league that just lost 8 owners over it?

If you want 200 bucks in real life optional cash to be part of the equation in any deal, you need to make real life cash part of the league's internal currency structure. For everyone. Saying "Anyone can make that offer" isn't enough. You need a formal allotment created, stored, itemized and recorded with transparency. For every team whether they use it or not.

Be the owner who takes advantage of all OPPORTUNITIES presented in front of him in the pursuit of winning, competitiveness and fairness. Don't be the owner who is constantly looking to take advantage of the SITUATION. There's a difference.

 

[CalBear]

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.

ghostguy's point, which I think people are not really engaging with, is that from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing changes. You drew the #2 pick, you still have the #2 pick. There's someone else ahead of you who has the #1 pick. From your team's perspective, it's no different than if the draft slot lottery came out differently. So I don't think there's a reasonable moral objection to the idea.

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

To me this is the crux, and the impact on rest of the league is peripheral.

If there’s money changing hands that isn’t going into the league kitty, that’s enough for me to be against the transaction.

 

[ghostguy123]

Sorry Gordon, your NBA example isn't the same type of transaction.
Also, in case anyone didn't know, certain owners are able to afford players that other owner can not due to the guaranteed portion of contracts. And that is in REAL sports, not magic football.
Also, again, your example is something different all together. A more valid example would be if the Bulls owner and Nets owner agreed to swap ownership of their franchises, and one owner pays the other owner more cause their franchises is worth more.

 

[ghostguy123]

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

To me this is the crux, and the impact on rest of the league is peripheral.

If there’s money changing hands that isn’t going into the league kitty, that’s enough for me to be against the transaction.

Again, it's the same thing as scenario 2. As in, one owner is paying the other owner money to swap assets. As in, simply changing ownership and leaving the rosters as-is.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

To me this is the crux, and the impact on rest of the league is peripheral.

If there’s money changing hands that isn’t going into the league kitty, that’s enough for me to be against the transaction.

Again, it's the same thing as scenario 2. As in, one owner is paying the other owner money to swap assets. As in, simply changing ownership and leaving the rosters as-is.

And again, we have a difference of opinion about that. I believe in scenario two, the assets are defined, and scenario one, the assets are not to find. That changes a substantial amount of the equation.

 

[GordonGekko]

ghostguy's point, which I think people are not really engaging with, is that from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing changes. You drew the #2 pick, you still have the #2 pick. There's someone else ahead of you who has the #1 pick. From your team's perspective, it's no different than if the draft slot lottery came out differently. So I don't think there's a reasonable moral objection to the idea.

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

When my godson was young, something I taught him about the full time workforce is one day he'll likely be in a situation where he's in a room where two other co-workers are badmouthing someone else in that same same workplace. Happens all the time everywhere.

I told him, quietly but with some practical haste, exit the situation. What you don't want to do is to have someone walk in, hear the gossip, see the table or area, see two people jawing away and see you there in that group.

"But I was just in the room. I was just standing there. It has nothing to do with me. I didn't say anything bad about that person"

Does that fly?

Even if you are "clean" ( and I'll let people decide for themselves about how they feel about that part), it's perception of the issue that kills.

A highly competitive environment can't just be clean. It also has to have the pomp and circumstance of being perceived as clean. Otherwise there's no faith there, and without faith in the process, people just leave.

When you say "people aren't engaging", I'll agree with you. Because if the participants in this thread were all owners in a single league where this was happening, I'd still wager that most of them would just get up and walk out.

The fact that this thread was started in the first place indicates the OP already knows this is going to start conflict/drama into that league. The existence of this thread is proof of life that the OP knows it won't be perceived well, no matter the context. Trying to parse down terms on what this word means or that word means won't change that.

I'm OK with the OP being OK with it for himself. He doesn't seem to be OK with the majority not being amenable to it. But he already knows the majority will lean towards hostile towards it, hence why he started the thread. The OP pretending otherwise is just being willfully obtuse.

 

[ghostguy123]

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

To me this is the crux, and the impact on rest of the league is peripheral.

If there’s money changing hands that isn’t going into the league kitty, that’s enough for me to be against the transaction.

Again, it's the same thing as scenario 2. As in, one owner is paying the other owner money to swap assets. As in, simply changing ownership and leaving the rosters as-is.

And again, we have a difference of opinion about that. I believe in scenario two, the assets are defined, and scenario one, the assets are not to find. That changes a substantial amount of the equation.

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

 

[ghostguy123]

ghostguy's point, which I think people are not really engaging with, is that from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing changes. You drew the #2 pick, you still have the #2 pick. There's someone else ahead of you who has the #1 pick. From your team's perspective, it's no different than if the draft slot lottery came out differently. So I don't think there's a reasonable moral objection to the idea.

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

When my godson was young, something I taught him about the full time workforce is one day he'll likely be in a situation where he's in a room where two other co-workers are badmouthing someone else in that same same workplace. Happens all the time everywhere.

I told him, quietly but with some practical haste, exit the situation. What you don't want to do is to have someone walk in, hear the gossip, see the table or area, see two people jawing away and see you there in that group.

"But I was just in the room. I was just standing there. It has nothing to do with me. I didn't say anything bad about that person"

Does that fly?

Even if you are "clean" ( and I'll let people decide for themselves about how they feel about that part), it's perception of the issue that kills.

A highly competitive environment can't just be clean. It also has to have the pomp and circumstance of being perceived as clean. Otherwise there's no faith there, and without faith in the process, people just leave.

When you say "people aren't engaging", I'll agree with you. Because if the participants in this thread were all owners in a single league where this was happening, I'd still wager that most of them would just get up and walk out.

The fact that this thread was started in the first place indicates the OP already knows this is going to start conflict/drama into that league. The existence of this thread is proof of life that the OP knows it won't be perceived well, no matter the context. Trying to parse down terms on what this word means or that word means won't change that.

I'm OK with the OP being OK with it for himself. He doesn't seem to be OK with the majority not being amenable to it. But he already knows the majority will lean towards hostile towards it, hence why he started the thread. The OP pretending otherwise is just being willfully obtuse.

I have said from the start I see why people are against it, and that many will be against it.
I'm also attempting to rationalize that there's nothing to be afraid of fellas.
Also, this conversation may have spurned a great idea, auctioning draft slots

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

Because I feel there’s a difference between trading rosters of players Vs trading blank canvas.

With the latter, I’ve explained previously that I saw an advantage going one way and cash going the other. If it weren’t an advantage, why would anyone pay for
It?

It could not be more clear what the difference is.

It’s ok - we don’t have to agree. It just feels like false equivalence to somehow make something that’s a gray area into not a problem.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

Because I feel there’s a difference between trading rosters of players Vs trading blank canvas.

With the latter, I’ve explained previously that I saw an advantage going one way and cash going the other. If it weren’t an advantage, why would anyone pay for
It?

It could not be more clear what the difference is.

It’s ok - we don’t have to agree. It just feels like false equivalence to somehow make something that’s a gray area into not a problem.

In scenario 2, cash goes one way and an advantage goes the other way. The EXACT same thing you said about the blank canvas trade.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

Because I feel there’s a difference between trading rosters of players Vs trading blank canvas.

With the latter, I’ve explained previously that I saw an advantage going one way and cash going the other. If it weren’t an advantage, why would anyone pay for
It?

It could not be more clear what the difference is.

It’s ok - we don’t have to agree. It just feels like false equivalence to somehow make something that’s a gray area into not a problem.

I also didn't say it's not a problem for you. I'm just saying it shouldn't be IMO

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

Because I feel there’s a difference between trading rosters of players Vs trading blank canvas.

With the latter, I’ve explained previously that I saw an advantage going one way and cash going the other. If it weren’t an advantage, why would anyone pay for
It?

It could not be more clear what the difference is.

It’s ok - we don’t have to agree. It just feels like false equivalence to somehow make something that’s a gray area into not a problem.

In scenario 2, cash goes one way and an advantage goes the other way. The EXACT same thing you said about the blank canvas trade.

Sorry; I forgot which scenario was which.

I find swapping whole teams to be less problematic with swapping blank canvases.

That should have been “the former” not “the latter”.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why? Any future moves and assets are not defined in scenario 2.

Because I feel there’s a difference between trading rosters of players Vs trading blank canvas.

With the latter, I’ve explained previously that I saw an advantage going one way and cash going the other. If it weren’t an advantage, why would anyone pay for
It?

It could not be more clear what the difference is.

It’s ok - we don’t have to agree. It just feels like false equivalence to somehow make something that’s a gray area into not a problem.

In scenario 2, cash goes one way and an advantage goes the other way. The EXACT same thing you said about the blank canvas trade.

Sorry; I forgot which scenario was which.

I find swapping whole teams to be less problematic with swapping blank canvases.

That should have been “the former” not “the latter”.

You find one scenario bad for a reason, that same reason exists in the other scenario. The exact same reason.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

You find one scenario bad for a reason, that same reason exists in the other scenario. The exact same reason.

That’s a matter of opinion, clearly.

For the probably 10th time, I find wholly inappropriate.

That cash would exchange hands outside of the parameter of league finances in order for one team, to gain an advantage from another is my problem with this.

One team gets money in their wallet, and the other team gets a more favorable draft position

No matter what color of lipstick you want to put on that pig, it’s still a pig.

 

[ghostguy123]

You find one scenario bad for a reason, that same reason exists in the other scenario. The exact same reason.

That’s a matter of opinion, clearly.

For the probably 10th time, I find wholly inappropriate.

That cash would exchange hands outside of the parameter of league, finances in order for one team, to gain an advantage from another. One team gets money in your wallet, and the other team selection of more favorable draft position.

Is there a more acceptable difference between a more favorable TEAM vs. more favorable startup picks????
If anything the players picked by the guy at 1 might not even be more favorable than who the other guy picked.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Is there a more acceptable difference between a more favorable TEAM vs. more favorable startup picks????

One question mark will do.

And yes. Existing teams have established rosters in an established league.

Startup picks do not and are not.

Anyway, we disagree. We’ll leave it at that. It’s not something I would do, nor is it something I would want in my leagues. Asked and answered. No judgement.

Good luck with your leagues.

 

[habsfan]

You find one scenario bad for a reason, that same reason exists in the other scenario. The exact same reason.

One team gets money in their wallet, and the other team gets a more favorable draft position.

One manager gets money in their wallet. Their team doesn't get anything (which is part of what feels icky about it).

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

You keep saying this but unless you can guarantee that the teams draft the exact players the other team would have drafted in that draft slot then the asset makeup has changed. When the teams signed up for this league they were agreeing that x owners would pay y amount and get a random draft slot. If your rules didn't state that an owner could buy their way into a better draft slot then you are changing the rules after the fact.

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

ghostguy's point, which I think people are not really engaging with, is that from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing changes. You drew the #2 pick, you still have the #2 pick. There's someone else ahead of you who has the #1 pick. From your team's perspective, it's no different than if the draft slot lottery came out differently. So I don't think there's a reasonable moral objection to the idea.

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

Say I'm the 1.10 guy and I'm going to reach for Gabe Davis at 4.2. Now I have the 1.1 pick and can get Davis at 4.12. The other teams are now competing against different rosters because money exchanged hands.

 

[habsfan]

Speaking strictly as a commish my concern is this: The kind of "mind" that offers to throw money at someone for a draft slot or roster or what have you is the same kind of mind that will eventually consider offering money to "sweeten" other kinds of transactions.

 

[GordonGekko]

You find one scenario bad for a reason, that same reason exists in the other scenario. The exact same reason.

That cash would exchange hands outside of the parameter of league finances in order for one team, to gain an advantage from another is my problem with this.

Yes, but it goes further than that. Like the NBA example I used, not everyone has the same bargaining leverage in real life cash outside of the league. Most leagues are not in a situation where everyone knows everyone else's personal finances.

What if Team A has an owner where offering 1000 dollars means nothing to him, against his real life earning power and wealth compared to Team B? We are talking about a scenario with no rules, no limits, no hard cap, no structure.

So it's not just the money outside the league's internal currency system that's the problem ( but yes, that aspect is still a huge problem), it's that there is ZERO formal logistics to support the concept.

If a league is a 100 dollar "buy in" or a 500 dollar "buy in" or any kind of buy in, that number is upfront. It's finite. Potential owners can assess if they can afford it or not before the start of the season. This is why I used the NBA example. Gail Miller, when she owned the Jazz, understood the salary / cost requirements to compete in a "baseline season" against someone like Steve Ballmer, someone with far more money than her. Ballmer can use his cash advantage to get better facilities, better doctors, better amenities like private planes or rehab equipment and pay for more coaches / specialists like more shooting coaches. But the system is not designed for him to use his personal wealth to garner an advantage in a "baseline season"

All NBA teams get an annual "cash allotment" to add into trades or buy out a foreign players contract, but it's a small sum against the total cap and everyone has the same amount to use. It doesn't roll over as well. But it's within the expected cost of a "baseline season"

These considerations are why so many fantasy leagues, in all sports, have a rule where any changes can only be applied to the "next season" That way any change can be considered before any team "buys in"

So real life practical fantasy consideration - Many of the people in these forums have played fantasy a long time. I've played since you had to look at newspaper box scores and mail in your lineups via an envelope and a stamp. Or any adjustments had to be hashed out over a rotary phone. I've been in enough leagues to know that nothing is more exhausting that a league owner who is constantly trying to "game the system". Those kind of owners are just too much maintenance. No one really wants to play with those types long term and if you get too many in a league all at once, it causes an exodus of other good owners.

As I said before, the OP should start a new league and write a league constitution that outlays his values and methodology, including this "feature", and find owners that want to enter into that kind of play style. But he's suggesting foisting onto an existing league because he already know that the majority of good owners out there, and good owners are hard to find, won't buy into that to start. Active engaged committed owners will be the first to just leave a league over something like this.

This is more than just bad faith, it's effectively passive aggressive bait and switch. This lines up about the level of someone using a panoramic photo from 10 years ago and 80 pounds ago for their Plenty Of Fish profile.

I have nothing against the OP personally, but he's about two inches away from typing out that he likes long walks on the beach and loves animals.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yes, but it goes further than that. Like the NBA example I used, not everyone has the same bargaining leverage in real life cash outside of the league. Most leagues are not in a situation where everyone knows everyone else's personal finances.

Yes, I brought that up earlier in the topic as well.

 

[GordonGekko]

Yes, but it goes further than that. Like the NBA example I used, not everyone has the same bargaining leverage in real life cash outside of the league. Most leagues are not in a situation where everyone knows everyone else's personal finances.

Yes, I brought that up earlier in the topic as well.

We should start a new dynasty league together. A "Hot Sauce" league.

12 owners. Everyone starts with 30 FAAB dollars for use the entire season for weekly waivers. Each use of a single FAAB dollar would require entire usage of one bottle of your hot sauce, before the season ends. Filmed for proof by each league owner. I'm thinking I'd completely fund something like that. Every team is sent 30 bottles before the season starts. Good business for you ( 360 bottles sold) and good marketing if you have a website ( people dying on camera from fire breathing hot sauce) Actually I think that kind of marketing would instantly go viral.

I can't lie about it. Would I tolerate someone trading 1.10 for 1.1, if they had to drink 10 bottles of your hot sauce first? And film it? A bottle for each draft spot moved up. That might be appealing just to see it happen.

I bet some people cry when eating your hot sauce because of the fire element. Which I'm used to, seeing men cry helplessly, mostly because I've been around a lot of married men. I can no longer distinguish between weddings and funerals now. That's not true, funerals usually have better food.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I bet some people cry when eating your hot sauce because of the fire element. Which I'm used to, seeing men cry helplessly, mostly because I've been around a lot of married men. I can no longer distinguish between weddings and funerals now. That's not true, funerals usually have better food.

Reminds me of a line one of the dudes on the radio said today. He & his Co-host were getting fired up in a heated discussion, and the producer said, “let’s not fight now” and one dude said, “oh this ain’t a fight - I’m married.”

 

[Gally]

One team gets money in their wallet, and the other team gets a more favorable draft position

I disagree that someone is getting an advantage. It may be more "favorable" in the context of I prefer to draft late or early but I don't see it as an advantage.

I have traded draft slots many times in leagues over the years (didn't give or receive extra money) because I preferred to draft on an end rather than the middle. I have moved to an earlier slot as well as a later slot. I see no advantage just a preference.

I think this is why you and the OP are talking past each other. You think someone is gaining and advantage. He doesn't think that.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

One team gets money in their wallet, and the other team gets a more favorable draft position

I disagree that someone is getting an advantage. It may be more "favorable" in the context of I prefer to draft late or early but I don't see it as an advantage.

I have traded draft slots many times in leagues over the years (didn't give or receive extra money) because I preferred to draft on an end rather than the middle. I have moved to an earlier slot as well as a later slot. I see no advantage just a preference.

I think this is why you and the OP are talking past each other. You think someone is gaining and advantage. He doesn't think that.

If it’s not an advantage then why is money changing hands?

1.01 is Bijan Robinson.

While there are loads of other players involved, there’s no escaping this point as well.

It seems like an absolute that one team is gaining an advantage. Otherwise why is there a buyer & a seller here?

There’s no talking past that. It’s clearly a team paying for an advantage.

 

[Gally]

If it’s not an advantage then why is money changing hands?

1.01 is Bijan Robinson.

While there are loads of other players involved, there’s no escaping this point as well.

It seems like an absolute that one team is gaining an advantage. Otherwise why is there a buyer & a seller here?

There’s no talking past that. It’s clearly a team paying for an advantage.

It's my understanding this is not a rookie draft. It's a regular fresh start draft. In a rookie draft I would agree having the 1.01 is an advantage.

ETA: there is a buyer and a seller because the buyer is an idiot. He is willing to pay for his personal preference of draft slot. When I have traded draft slots in the past I have had other owners try and get me to give them extra to swap slots and I just decline. It's not worth giving up anything extra to swap for my personal preference.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

If it’s not an advantage then why is money changing hands?

1.01 is Bijan Robinson.

While there are loads of other players involved, there’s no escaping this point as well.

It seems like an absolute that one team is gaining an advantage. Otherwise why is there a buyer & a seller here?

There’s no talking past that. It’s clearly a team paying for an advantage.

It's my understanding this is not a rookie draft. It's a regular fresh start draft. In a rookie draft I would agree having the 1.01 is an advantage.

ETA: there is a buyer and a seller because the buyer is an idiot. He is willing to pay for his personal preference of draft slot. When I have traded draft slots in the past I have had other owners try and get me to give them extra to swap slots and I just decline. It's not worth giving up anything extra to swap for my personal preference.

I have no issue with paying extra in terms of picks or players for such a a swap. In this case it would be picks, obviously.

However, I have a big problem with cash money changing hands outside of league finances.

I’ve said this before - it’s as simple as that.

Trading within the constraints of the league is a different animal than paying another team to make such a move. Paying cash instead of team assets actually bypasses the constraints of how every league I’ve ever known works. IMO it corrupts the entire economy of the league. The things that had value are supplanted by payola.

like you said - you wouldn’t pay picks to another team to make such a move, but some managers would.

But no managers should be paying money in lieu of team assets. This is a hill I’m prepared to die on.

 

[ghostguy123]

One team gets money in their wallet, and the other team gets a more favorable draft position

I disagree that someone is getting an advantage. It may be more "favorable" in the context of I prefer to draft late or early but I don't see it as an advantage.

I have traded draft slots many times in leagues over the years (didn't give or receive extra money) because I preferred to draft on an end rather than the middle. I have moved to an earlier slot as well as a later slot. I see no advantage just a preference.

I think this is why you and the OP are talking past each other. You think someone is gaining and advantage. He doesn't think that.

If it’s not an advantage then why is money changing hands?

1.01 is Bijan Robinson.

While there are loads of other players involved, there’s no escaping this point as well.

It seems like an absolute that one team is gaining an advantage. Otherwise why is there a buyer & a seller here?

There’s no talking past that. It’s clearly a team paying for an advantage.

Advantage over who? Two owners are changing teams

 

[ghostguy123]

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

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

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

Yes, a startup snake, not auction, correct?

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

Please explain the difference. I must be missing something.

ghostguy's point, which I think people are not really engaging with, is that from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing changes. You drew the #2 pick, you still have the #2 pick. There's someone else ahead of you who has the #1 pick. From your team's perspective, it's no different than if the draft slot lottery came out differently. So I don't think there's a reasonable moral objection to the idea.

I do think the point that the league should be a closed system (no transactions other than those in the rules) is a reasonable one, but that's an issue of league parameters, not of collusion or ethics. I mean, auctioning the #1 draft spot is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but, not everyone may want to play in a league where the #1 draft spot is up for auction. It definitely feels like something outside of normal league parameters.

Say I'm the 1.10 guy and I'm going to reach for Gabe Davis at 4.2. Now I have the 1.1 pick and can get Davis at 4.12. The other teams are now competing against different rosters because money exchanged hands.

So when a team is orphaned, this same thing happens. A new owner makes different decisions.

 

[ghostguy123]

But no managers should be paying money in lieu of team assets. This is a hill I’m prepared to die on.
[/QUOTE]
Yet you are ok with scenario 2. That makes zero sense.

 

[ghostguy123]

If it’s not an advantage then why is money changing hands?

1.01 is Bijan Robinson.

While there are loads of other players involved, there’s no escaping this point as well.

It seems like an absolute that one team is gaining an advantage. Otherwise why is there a buyer & a seller here?

There’s no talking past that. It’s clearly a team paying for an advantage.

It's my understanding this is not a rookie draft. It's a regular fresh start draft. In a rookie draft I would agree having the 1.01 is an advantage.

ETA: there is a buyer and a seller because the buyer is an idiot. He is willing to pay for his personal preference of draft slot. When I have traded draft slots in the past I have had other owners try and get me to give them extra to swap slots and I just decline. It's not worth giving up anything extra to swap for my personal preference.

Does anyone actually think I was talking about a rookie draft? God I hope not.

 

[GregR]

The first one is clear cut collusion by normal fantasy rules. Trading a set of draft picks for a set of draft picks that you think is worse, but doing it for outside money, is collusion. It's no different than trading your 1st for a 2nd plus cash, or trading Mahomes for Davis Mills plus cash.

The second scenario, I have personally never played in a league where a person owned a team in a real life legal sense where they could sell the team in this fashion. If an owner chose to no longer run a team then it was up to the league on who would take over the team after that. They would have no authority to "give" their team to someone else. If a league wanted to allow owners to swap to another team, they could, but it's their call, including what criteria are used to decide who gets dibs.

For the sake of argument let's say the league does have real life legal contracts that grant the ability to sell the team to another. In such a case, we are no longer talking about a fantasy trade. We're talking about a real life sale of an asset, which would have to happen in accordance with said contracts and the law.

That is not a fantasy trade and it would not be evaluated by normal fantasy trade ethics considerations. Because of this it just doesn't equate to the first scenario at all.

And just because you can swap teams via a real life commercial transaction doesn't mean you can perform collusive fantasy trades that would reach the same outcome. If a league chooses to allow such sale of a team as a commercial transaction, then that's the avenue that you have to take.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The first one is clear cut collusion by normal fantasy rules. Trading a set of draft picks for a set of draft picks that you think is worse, but doing it for outside money, is collusion. It's no different than trading your 1st for a 2nd plus cash, or trading Mahomes for Davis Mills plus cash.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Does anyone actually think I was talking about a rookie draft? God I hope not.

No, I did not.

 

[GregR]

And let me quickly address a scenario I imagine someone will ask:

Owner 1: I paid my $500 fee, so I can do what I want with the team.

League: You are the owner for the team this season covered by the dues, yes. You can have a friend run the team for you if you want.

Owner 1: Ok so I'm going to run Owner 2's team and he's going to run mine.

League: No that would be collusion. Please see our well thought out rules which state an owner having undo control over a team other than his own is collusion and not allowed. You are Team 1's owner, you cannot be making decisions for other teams.

 

[ghostguy123]

And let me quickly address a scenario I imagine someone will ask:

Owner 1: I paid my $500 fee, so I can do what I want with the team.

League: You are the owner for the team this season covered by the dues, yes. You can have a friend run the team for you if you want.

Owner 1: Ok so I'm going to run Owner 2's team and he's going to run mine.

League: No that would be collusion. Please see our well thought out rules which state an owner having undo control over a team other than his own is collusion and not allowed. You are Team 1's owner, you cannot be making decisions for other teams.

Nobody said anything about running someone else's teams. Once you switch ownership, you are now running your new team.

 

[GregR]

And let me quickly address a scenario I imagine someone will ask:

Owner 1: I paid my $500 fee, so I can do what I want with the team.

League: You are the owner for the team this season covered by the dues, yes. You can have a friend run the team for you if you want.

Owner 1: Ok so I'm going to run Owner 2's team and he's going to run mine.

League: No that would be collusion. Please see our well thought out rules which state an owner having undo control over a team other than his own is collusion and not allowed. You are Team 1's owner, you cannot be making decisions for other teams.

Nobody said anything about running someone else's teams. Once you switch ownership, you are now running your new team.

If the league has legal contracts that allow owners to sell teams, he can give up ownership of team 1, and he can obtain ownership of team 2. Which I don't think is the norm for fantasy leagues.

I'm saying if it isn't a special case that truly gives ownership in a commercially legal sense, then the owners can't just say "I'm going to control the other team". Because regardless of his desire, he's Team 1's owner. Most leagues don't allow owners to decide who takes their team if they give it up, as previously said.

 

[ghostguy123]

The first one is clear cut collusion by normal fantasy rules. Trading a set of draft picks for a set of draft picks that you think is worse, but doing it for outside money, is collusion. It's no different than trading your 1st for a 2nd plus cash, or trading Mahomes for Davis Mills plus cash.

It is in no way the same as trading a 2nd and cash for a 1st. It's just not. In that example, the makeup of the franchise is unfairly changed due to outside money.

In my scenario 1, each franchise stays exactly the same. As in, every asset stays the same. Nothing is added or subtracted from either franchise. Hence, there's nothing unfair being created for the rest of the league.

In your example, one of the top teams who needs a QB could give someone 100 bucks for Mahomes. No, that's can't be allowed, and that is not all all something happening in scenario 1.

 

[Amused to Death]

"Two scenarios came up. Yay or nay?"

You're getting answers to your questions but you don't like them.

 

[GregR]

The first one is clear cut collusion by normal fantasy rules. Trading a set of draft picks for a set of draft picks that you think is worse, but doing it for outside money, is collusion. It's no different than trading your 1st for a 2nd plus cash, or trading Mahomes for Davis Mills plus cash.

It is in no way the same as trading a 2nd and cash for a 1st. It's just not. In that example, the makeup of the franchise is unfairly changed due to outside money.

In my scenario 1, each franchise stays exactly the same. As in, every asset stays the same. Nothing is added or subtracted from either franchise. Hence, there's nothing unfair being created for the rest of the league.

In your example, one of the top teams who needs a QB could give someone 100 bucks for Mahomes. No, that's can't be allowed, and that is not all all something happening in scenario 1.

If a team is willing to trade all of their picks for all of another team's picks, then they do so. If a team is willing to trade Mahomes for Davis Mills, then they do so.

If they are being paid to make the trade, then it is collusion. You can put anything you want on both sides of the trade ledger, it doesn't matter.

A trade needs to be for fantasy assets only that are allowed to be traded, and with an honest expectation by each owner that his team's gametime efforts benefit from the trade.

 

[ghostguy123]

And let me quickly address a scenario I imagine someone will ask:

Owner 1: I paid my $500 fee, so I can do what I want with the team.

League: You are the owner for the team this season covered by the dues, yes. You can have a friend run the team for you if you want.

Owner 1: Ok so I'm going to run Owner 2's team and he's going to run mine.

League: No that would be collusion. Please see our well thought out rules which state an owner having undo control over a team other than his own is collusion and not allowed. You are Team 1's owner, you cannot be making decisions for other teams.

Nobody said anything about running someone else's teams. Once you switch ownership, you are now running your new team.

If the league has legal contracts that allow owners to sell teams, he can give up ownership of team 1, and he can obtain ownership of team 2. Which I don't think is the norm for fantasy leagues.

I'm saying if it isn't a special case that truly gives ownership in a commercially legal sense, then the owners can't just say "I'm going to control the other team". Because regardless of his desire, he's Team 1's owner. Most leagues don't allow owners to decide who takes their team if they give it up, as previously said.

Of course most leagues don't have this happen. That's not the point.
Let's say you just did three startup drafts and got the 11th pick every time. Well, you sign up for another startup and got the 11th slot yet AGAIN.
You are ticked, so you shoot a message out to the league that this is your 4th straight draft in this spot, and you would be willing to pay someone to swap draft slots. Possibly you negotiate with a couple teams and end up making a swap for a couple hundred bucks (500 league buy in let's say) to get the 3 slot in the snake draft.

Why in all blue hell are people gonna have such a problem with this that they throw a fit and quit the league or think this is COLLUSION of all things. It sure isn't collusion.

The draft hasn't even started yet. Nothing has changed except two owners swap their draft slots. Each franchise remains exactly the same.

I can't fathom not allowing two owners to do this regardless of who pays who, as it's not proving any sort of advantage that want previously there.

 

[ghostguy123]

"Two scenarios came up. Yay or nay?"

You're getting answers to your questions but you don't like them.

Well, some of the answers are providing examples of why it shouldn't be allowed, yet their examples are completely off, and in no way similar to the scenario.

 

[GregR]

And let me quickly address a scenario I imagine someone will ask:

Owner 1: I paid my $500 fee, so I can do what I want with the team.

League: You are the owner for the team this season covered by the dues, yes. You can have a friend run the team for you if you want.

Owner 1: Ok so I'm going to run Owner 2's team and he's going to run mine.

League: No that would be collusion. Please see our well thought out rules which state an owner having undo control over a team other than his own is collusion and not allowed. You are Team 1's owner, you cannot be making decisions for other teams.

Nobody said anything about running someone else's teams. Once you switch ownership, you are now running your new team.

If the league has legal contracts that allow owners to sell teams, he can give up ownership of team 1, and he can obtain ownership of team 2. Which I don't think is the norm for fantasy leagues.

I'm saying if it isn't a special case that truly gives ownership in a commercially legal sense, then the owners can't just say "I'm going to control the other team". Because regardless of his desire, he's Team 1's owner. Most leagues don't allow owners to decide who takes their team if they give it up, as previously said.

Of course most leagues don't have this happen. That's not the point.
Let's say you just did three startup drafts and got the 11th pick every time. Well, you sign up for another startup and got the 11th slot yet AGAIN.
You are ticked, so you shoot a message out to the league that this is your 4th straight draft in this spot, and you would be willing to pay someone to swap draft slots. Possibly you negotiate with a couple teams and end up making a swap for a couple hundred bucks (500 league buy in let's say) to get the 3 slot in the snake draft.

Why in all blue hell are people gonna have such a problem with this that they throw a fit and quit the league or think this is COLLUSION of all things. It sure isn't collusion.

The draft hasn't even started yet. Nothing has changed except two owners swap their draft slots. Each franchise remains exactly the same.

I can't fathom not allowing two owners to do this regardless of who pays who, as it's not proving any sort of advantage that want previously there.

If an owner feels that getting all the picks from the 11 spot for all of his picks from the 4 slot are better, then you and he would do the trade.

If he is not willing to do that trade, then it means he thinks he would be worsening his team by making the trade. If you pay him to make a trade he believes worsens his team, then you are colluding with him.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

A trade needs to be for fantasy assets only that are allowed to be traded, and with an honest expectation by each owner that his team's gametime efforts benefit from the trade.

Exactly what I said only a few posts ago.

If the trade is done within the constraints of league rules/finances, I have no issue with it.

A 2nd and 3rd for a 1st you say? Have at it.

$500 cash for a 1st? (Or to swap teams) Bzzzzt!

It’s the most basic element of this question, and everything else is window dressing. The biggest issue is that it devalues actual league assets in favor of cash on the side. Who’s gonna lose a 2nd round pick of you can just slip a C-note in my pocket on the side?

How is this even a question?