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

[CalBear]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

 

[Amused to Death]

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

How is the bolded any different from any other trade - collusive or not? Everyone makes trades because they *believe* the move will improve their team. If both teams in this hypothetical truly believes they're improving their team, do it without the money. One team clearly would not do an even trade, but will if they get paid. So they're not making the sale for the sake of improving their team (regardless how it ends up), they're doing it for money.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

This is true.
Perhaps the guy who drew the 11th spot for the fourth time in a row is sick of drafting all the same players, and wants to start out different for once.

 

[ghostguy123]

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

How is the bolded any different from any other trade - collusive or not? Everyone makes trades because they *believe* the move will improve their team. If both teams in this hypothetical truly believes they're improving their team, do it without the money. One team clearly would not do an even trade, but will if they get paid. So they're not making the sale for the sake of improving their team (regardless how it ends up), they're doing it for money.

I'd gladly take the 12 slot at a huge discount, and do nothing but go young and trade for future picks.
It's the startup draft. Once the dust settles on the draft slots, go. I would not care how anyone got their draft slot, unless there was collusion from the commish on how draft slots were originally handed out.
No draft slot is given any sort of advantage in scenario 1, as none of the assets are different. Nothing is added or subtracted.

 

[Gally]

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

No I do not. Many others do not as well. Money is involved because of personal preference....not because of an advantage. There is no inherent advantage for any draft slot.

This is the crux of why you and the OP will never agree here.

Now I agree that this is still shady as I agree no additional money should change hands because it will lead to something that actually is a problem. On its surface, I don't think this in and of itself will change anything for that season. It is not collusion. But I do think it leads to potential issues down the line. It's why in all my leagues I have an explicit rule stating money cannot be exchanged as part of any trades. This would not be allowed in my leagues.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Which is all fine and good… So trade league capital, not external financial capital for that belief.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

No I do not. Many others do not as well. Money is involved because of personal preference....not because of an advantage. There is no inherent advantage for any draft slot.

This is all semantics. The crux of the issue is the money involved. I believe you and I are on the same page on that.

So let me say it this way: the belief is that the team receiving cash is giving up an advantage, which also means the converse is true.

Perhaps that’s a better way to phrase it, so that these splitting hairs questions of whether there’s a real advantage or not are avoided. To me, that’s a red herring.

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

For who?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

For who?

The entire league. I’ve explained this previously.

 

[ghostguy123]

No I do not. Many others do not as well. Money is involved because of personal preference....not because of an advantage. There is no inherent advantage for any draft slot.

This is all semantics. The crux of the issue is the money involved. I believe you and I are on the same page on that.

So let me say it this way: the belief is that the team receiving cash is giving up an advantage, which also means the converse is true.

Perhaps that’s a better way to phrase it, so that these splitting hairs questions of whether there’s a real advantage or not are avoided. To me, that’s a red herring.

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

Do you feel someone gains an advantage over the rest of the league here?
If you do, then you must think snake drafts are unfair. Which is a perfectly fine thought

 

[ghostguy123]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

For who?

The entire league. I’ve explained this previously.

You haven't actually explained it. You just keep saying it. Nothing changes for the rest of the league.

 

[ghostguy123]

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

No I do not. Many others do not as well. Money is involved because of personal preference....not because of an advantage. There is no inherent advantage for any draft slot.

This is the crux of why you and the OP will never agree here.

Now I agree that this is still shady as I agree no additional money should change hands because it will lead to something that actually is a problem. On its surface, I don't think this in and of itself will change anything for that season. It is not collusion. But I do think it leads to potential issues down the line. It's why in all my leagues I have an explicit rule stating money cannot be exchanged as part of any trades. This would not be allowed in my leagues.

Well said. You don't like it. You also sound like you actually understand what the scenario is, so that is helpful.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

For who?

The entire league. I’ve explained this previously.

You haven't actually explained it. You just keep saying it. Nothing changes for the rest of the league.

Actually, I have, and in great detail. If you are trading picks for players, or trading players, for players, that is a well defined and well understood system of league capital. It is internal to the league.

If you are involving cash money, that is a poorly defined system, and it is one that can lead to future trades of cash money for league capital. Who would want to trade a draft pick or player when they can get cash instead?

In fact, I have said this several times. That you choose not to acknowledge it does not mean that I have not said it.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This is the crux of why you and the OP will never agree here.

I disagree. I think 15 more pages of sound logic like "No, it's not like that, because it's not" and everyone will come around.

 

[ghostguy123]

Now let's say this happened in a shady way, and easily could without anyone knowing on a site like FFPC.
Let's say the league fills up and right before before anyone else looks, two owners email the FFPC and ask them to swap ownership of their teams. Let's say the FFPC actually does it. Let's say one of the teams paid the other team to do it.
I am not advocating for backroom shady behavior like this, but even if this did happen, nobody would notice, as nothing changes. Every franchise has the exact same assets. No trades were made.

Or, two teams trade every pick with each other and tell the league they each just wanted the other draft slots. Meanwhile, without anyone knowing, one owner gives the other owner money for the transaction.

Again, nobody would know. No assets change on any franchise.

Now, THAT type of dealing could lead to some shady behavior. On the flip side, in my scenario where the entire league is presented with the scenario, I don't see that being some springboard to future shenanigans.

 

[ghostguy123]

Yep. If two teams swap draft slots, they may both end up better than they would have. They both might end up worse.

But you already know one is more likely to end up better. Otherwise why would $ be involved?

I, and others, keep pointing this out.

It's not "likely to end up better". The person buying the #1 slot just believes his team will wind up better. That doesn't mean he's right, and it doesn't mean that the team that sold the slot would have wound up worse.

Bringing external Cash into the situation devalues league capital.

For who?

The entire league. I’ve explained this previously.

You haven't actually explained it. You just keep saying it. Nothing changes for the rest of the league.

Actually, I have, and in great detail. If you are trading picks for players, or trading players, for players, that is a well defined and well understood system of league capital. It is internal to the league.

If you are involving cash money, that is a poorly defined system, and it is one that can lead to future trades of cash money for league capital. Who would want to trade a draft pick or player when they can get cash instead?

In fact, I have said this several times. That you choose not to acknowledge it does not mean that I have not said it.

And again, cash for league capital is not allowed. Swapping ownership isn't the same thing.

Even exchanging cash for an ownership swap isn't the same thing.

 

[Gally]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

 

[ghostguy123]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

 

[Gally]

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

It can just be a slippery slope. I get your entire point but involving money is just asking for issues down the road. So even though in these scenarios it's not really an issue per se it will lead to someone pushing the envelope down the road. Best not to even leave that glimmer of possibility.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

Right - but that’s your belief.

The belief of the owner accepting cash is that they are trading an advantageous draft slot for a less advantageous draft slot, and the belief by the team paying for it is the converse.

Beliefs are what matters here. Money is changing hands for that belief.

And yes - I completely agree (and have been saying) money is a slippery slope. I would define that better as “setting a dangerous precedent”. Slippery slope is a fallacy where some thing that will never happen could happen so danger danger (e.g. smoking weed leads to shooting heroin leads to a life of crime). In this situation a precedent is being set that an external payment can be offered/accepted in exchange for picks or players.

To me that’s the beginning and the end of why this shouldn’t be allowed.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

 

[ghostguy123]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

I don't agree about setting that precedent for a transaction made out in the open and agreed to buy the league

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

I don't agree about setting that precedent for a transaction made out in the open and agreed to buy the league

It sets a clear precedent that money can be exchanged for picks.

There’s simply no debating this point.

 

[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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

As long as it's every asset for every asset, with everyone's knowledge and acceptance, absolutely not unethical

 

[ghostguy123]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

If you want to view it as money for picks, fine. I do not.

If i give you 100 bucks for your future 1st, THAT is money for picks.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

If you want to view it as money for picks, fine. I do not.

If i give you 100 bucks for your future 1st, THAT is money for picks.

I’ll give you $500 for all of your picks.

It’s still money for picks. No need for me to define it. It’s inherent to the equation.

1x5 = 5
5x1 = 5

Same same

 

[ghostguy123]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

If you want to view it as money for picks, fine. I do not.

If i give you 100 bucks for your future 1st, THAT is money for picks.

I’ll give you $500 for all of your picks.

It’s still money for picks. No need for me to define it. It’s inherent to the equation.

1x5 = 5
5x1 = 5

Same same

Four quarters is a dollar, but a dollar is not four quarters

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

If you want to view it as money for picks, fine. I do not.

If i give you 100 bucks for your future 1st, THAT is money for picks.

I’ll give you $500 for all of your picks.

It’s still money for picks. No need for me to define it. It’s inherent to the equation.

1x5 = 5
5x1 = 5

Same same

Four quarters is a dollar, but a dollar is not four quarters

They’re both $1.

they’ll both buy me a bag of Lay’s in the vending machine.

It’s the same thing dude.

 

[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.

Why would you assume that the guy who had the 1.01 pick wasn't going to take Davis at 4.12?

The person at 1.01 will make choices about the players he drafts, and those choices will affect the rest of the league. That's how fantasy football works. As the player at 1.02 you don't have any control over it and you're not competitively disadvantaged by those choices.

Because 1.10 had planned to reach for him at 4.2.

 

[ghostguy123]

The only point that matters is that both teams involved in the trade believe an advantage is being sold for cash. Whether that advantage is realized or not is immaterial to the discussion.

I don't think this is at all true. But I don't think there is any inherent advantage to any draft slot. It is all personal preference.

I hate a middle draft slot. I would do anything to move out of it if possible. I have swapped late picks and I think once I even gave up my last pick to move to an end draft slot. I wasn't doing that because I thought I was gaining a draft advantage. The other guy didn't insist upon it because he thought he was being disadvantaged. I did it because I hate the middle. He insisted because he was an a$$ and didn't want to do it because I approached him (he actually preferred a middle slot but wanted to stick it to me - he is a friend by the way).

Money is the slippery slope and why I wouldn't allow the original scenario....but not because this specific action is gaining someone an advantage. It's just because money shouldn't be a trade asset ever.

I agree money should not be a trade asset because it would alter the competitive balance of the league. Rosters shouldnt be changed due to outside influence.
However, I don't care if money is involved in changing ownership of teams.

Then you know your answer to the greater question of paying someone $500 to change draft positions.

It’s the exact same thing - money for picks.

And precedent would be set for trading $ for picks or players.

That’s it. The whole enchilada.

If you want to view it as money for picks, fine. I do not.

If i give you 100 bucks for your future 1st, THAT is money for picks.

I’ll give you $500 for all of your picks.

It’s still money for picks. No need for me to define it. It’s inherent to the equation.

1x5 = 5
5x1 = 5

Same same

Four quarters is a dollar, but a dollar is not four quarters

They’re both $1.

they’ll both buy me a bag of Lay’s in the vending machine.

It’s the same thing dude.

Two teams swapping ownership.......is not.....the same as one team buying one player from the other team to put on his roster.
It isn't, no matter how you slice it.
You may not like either, but they are not the same thing.

 

[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.

Why would you assume that the guy who had the 1.01 pick wasn't going to take Davis at 4.12?

The person at 1.01 will make choices about the players he drafts, and those choices will affect the rest of the league. That's how fantasy football works. As the player at 1.02 you don't have any control over it and you're not competitively disadvantaged by those choices.

Because 1.10 had planned to reach for him at 4.2.

No idea why that's relevant

 

[BassNBrew]

Selling of picks for money is not allowed. Has never been allowed, can never be allowed.
Neither scenario changes anything about either franchise. Buying a pick would.

But you’re literally selling all the picks for money by trading draft slots…for money.

If it’s not allowed, and has never been allowed and never will be allowed, then you already know the answer.

Perhaps there is a disconnect here on what happening.
Franchise 1 has picks A,B,C,D.
Franchise 2 has picks V,X,Y,Z

None of that changes in scenario 1. Both franchises remain exactly the same. There is no unfair disadvantage to anyone in the league. Assets do not even changes franchises.

Yes they do.

Please join one of the survivor leagues in the mock draft forum this year. If I randomly draw you for slots 1, 2, or 3 in the draft and I happen get a 7-12 slot, I'm just swapping our ownership since assets aren't changing franchises.

 

[GordonGekko]

Now let's say this happened in a shady way, and easily could without anyone knowing on a site like FFPC.
Let's say the league fills up and right before before anyone else looks, two owners email the FFPC and ask them to swap ownership of their teams. Let's say the FFPC actually does it. Let's say one of the teams paid the other team to do it.
I am not advocating for backroom shady behavior like this, but even if this did happen, nobody would notice, as nothing changes. Every franchise has the exact same assets. No trades were made.

Never mess with other people's money. Not even the appearance of it. That's a good solid basic rule of every day life.

If someone out there, right or wrong, fair or not, thinks you cheated them out of money, in any context ( i.e. you sold your entire team or sold a higher pick in a pick swap for real life cash), you don't know how people will react to that. If they believe that move eventually cost them a championship win and the money involved. Or some kind of consolation payout otherwise.

Some people, probably most, would sit there and take it.

Some people, however, might decide to find you, drive up to your place, and tune you up with a baseball bat. Or worse.

People say money brings out the worst in others. I don't believe that. I never believed that. I have always held money is the circumstance where the "mask" that most people wear comes off. And all you have left is the pure savage underneath.

I've seen people die over far less. I've seen people stabbed, shot, beaten, drowned, massacred over far less. What you are proposing is messing with other people's money. Or lending the perception as such. Nothing good is going to come of it.

Fantasy money leagues are are really a soft serve version of gambling. I'm not going to pretend otherwise. As soon as you mix what amounts to some form of gambling with money and questions about fairness in the process, things can go out of control very quickly. A couple of thousand of dollars might not be much to some people here, or could be a huge windfall to someone else, you just don't know people and their circumstances most of the time. There are people where the idea of you "gaming" them for a couple of hundred bucks or a thousand bucks is tantamount to asking for violent confrontation.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Two teams swapping ownership.......is not.....the same as one team buying one player from the other team to put on his roster.
It isn't, no matter how you slice it.
You may not like either, but they are not the same thing.

Math is all about finding common denominators.

In these equations, the common denominator is cash being exchanged for picks.

Everything else is irrelevant, and it absolutely sets a precedent for cash being exchanged for picks or players.

You keep looking for ways to make this not true, and failing to do so.

 

[ghostguy123]

Selling of picks for money is not allowed. Has never been allowed, can never be allowed.
Neither scenario changes anything about either franchise. Buying a pick would.

But you’re literally selling all the picks for money by trading draft slots…for money.

If it’s not allowed, and has never been allowed and never will be allowed, then you already know the answer.

Perhaps there is a disconnect here on what happening.
Franchise 1 has picks A,B,C,D.
Franchise 2 has picks V,X,Y,Z

None of that changes in scenario 1. Both franchises remain exactly the same. There is no unfair disadvantage to anyone in the league. Assets do not even changes franchises.

Yes they do.

Please join one of the survivor leagues in the mock draft forum this year. If I randomly draw you for slots 1, 2, or 3 in the draft and I happen get a 7-12 slot, I'm just swapping our ownership since assets aren't changing franchises.

If you did that......the assets aren't changing franchises.
If Jerry Jones and Kraft swap ownership, the Cowboys are still the cowboys and the Pats are still the Pats

 

[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.

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.

Why would you assume that the guy who had the 1.01 pick wasn't going to take Davis at 4.12?

The person at 1.01 will make choices about the players he drafts, and those choices will affect the rest of the league. That's how fantasy football works. As the player at 1.02 you don't have any control over it and you're not competitively disadvantaged by those choices.

Because 1.10 had planned to reach for him at 4.2.

And what if the guy who sold the pick would have done the same thing? Or what if the draft lottery had come out differently and the guy who wanted to reach for him got to pick #1? What if it turns out that he's a major flop and the guy who reached for him was wrong?

The draft will proceed the same way it would have proceeded; people will make picks, one per team per round, and when it gets to your turn you get to choose from the available players.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

As long as it's every asset for every asset, with everyone's knowledge and acceptance, absolutely not unethical

Ok, let's break it down in an example.

4 player teams in this thought experiment.

Team A: Mahomes, Saquon, Jefferson and Kelce

Team B: Davis Mills, Antonio Gibson, Allen Robinson, and Higbee

We've established swapping teams is equivalent to trading all players on each team With that in mind, no league on the planet would allow the trade of team A's players for team B's players. It is inequitable. Add $$$ to the formula and it's unethical.

 

[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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

As long as it's every asset for every asset, with everyone's knowledge and acceptance, absolutely not unethical

Ok, let's break it down in an example.

4 player teams in this thought experiment.

Team A: Mahomes, Saquon, Jefferson and Kelce

Team B: Davis Mills, Antonio Gibson, Allen Robinson, and Higbee

We've established swapping teams is equivalent to trading all players on each team With that in mind, no league on the planet would allow the trade of team A's players for team B's players. It is inequitable. Add $$$ to the formula and it's unethical.

Well, that isn't quite the situation because now all those players swap franchises, and perhaps one division gets screwed over and one gets a lot easier.
So, no, in my scenario the players do not change franchises. They do not make anyone else's schedule harder or easier, those players do not switch divisions..........

So, while trading all assets to another team for all of theirs is a complete asset swap, my scenario does not do that. The owners swap places, but the teams stay in the same place.

In your example, I was just saying it's not unethical if everyone is ok with it. But that wasn't the same as my scenario.

 

[ghostguy123]

Now, I can see a little confusion. In a startup, if you TRADE all the picks to another owner, it can alter which division has the team who drew the #1 pick.
If you swap the owners, that doesn't happen.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

Now, I can see a little confusion. In a startup, if you TRADE all the picks to another owner, it can alter which division has the team who drew the #1 pick.
If you swap the owners, that doesn't happen.

It also affects the way others run their draft. Another scenario: FootballguyShark draws 1.11 and LittleGuppy draws 1.01. Both agree to swap entire drafts for $$$. Who gets screwed? 1.02 guy. Twice. First, he's now in a position where FBGShark will draft an ostensibly better draft than LG would have, making his draft both more difficult and less likely to have value. Second, 1.10 and 1.12 guys/gals are now in a position to have an ostensibly better draft making their teams potentially more competitive. By swapping entire drafts, you have altered the course of the season for a large portion of the league.

 

[InDitkaWeTrust]

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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

As long as it's every asset for every asset, with everyone's knowledge and acceptance, absolutely not unethical

Ok, let's break it down in an example.

4 player teams in this thought experiment.

Team A: Mahomes, Saquon, Jefferson and Kelce

Team B: Davis Mills, Antonio Gibson, Allen Robinson, and Higbee

We've established swapping teams is equivalent to trading all players on each team With that in mind, no league on the planet would allow the trade of team A's players for team B's players. It is inequitable. Add $$$ to the formula and it's unethical.

Well, that isn't quite the situation because now all those players swap franchises, and perhaps one division gets screwed over and one gets a lot easier.
So, no, in my scenario the players do not change franchises. They do not make anyone else's schedule harder or easier, those players do not switch divisions..........

So, while trading all assets to another team for all of theirs is a complete asset swap, my scenario does not do that. The owners swap places, but the teams stay in the same place.

In your example, I was just saying it's not unethical if everyone is ok with it. But that wasn't the same as my scenario.

Studly with the new great team will likely be better with that team than the dud owner, making that division more difficult. Likewise the division with the new Dud owner with a Dud lineup just got ostensibly worse. You've changed the outcome of BOTH divisions where the swap was made. YOUR assumption is that the level of play of each owner is the same. We all know that's just not the case. Doormats are generally doormats for a reason.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

Fair enough - in fact, both things are correct. The slippery slope is one of the classic logical fallacies.

It is however true that it can be argued effectively as a tool of persuasion, which is how you’re using it.

But for sure, it is also a fallacy of logic when used as such.

One of those rare times where we are both correct.


For this example/context, you’re probably more correct. Though a few suggested it would lead to the end of the league, etc which could also either be a logical next step or a hyperbolic presumption.

It does set precedent though, which I thought was a better way to frame the argument against it.

 

[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.

Ownership change between two teams is the equivalent of trading every player from team 1 to team 2. For money. Unethical.

As long as it's every asset for every asset, with everyone's knowledge and acceptance, absolutely not unethical

Ok, let's break it down in an example.

4 player teams in this thought experiment.

Team A: Mahomes, Saquon, Jefferson and Kelce

Team B: Davis Mills, Antonio Gibson, Allen Robinson, and Higbee

We've established swapping teams is equivalent to trading all players on each team With that in mind, no league on the planet would allow the trade of team A's players for team B's players. It is inequitable. Add $$$ to the formula and it's unethical.

Well, that isn't quite the situation because now all those players swap franchises, and perhaps one division gets screwed over and one gets a lot easier.
So, no, in my scenario the players do not change franchises. They do not make anyone else's schedule harder or easier, those players do not switch divisions..........

So, while trading all assets to another team for all of theirs is a complete asset swap, my scenario does not do that. The owners swap places, but the teams stay in the same place.

In your example, I was just saying it's not unethical if everyone is ok with it. But that wasn't the same as my scenario.

Studly with the new great team will likely be better with that team than the dud owner, making that division more difficult. Likewise the division with the new Dud owner with a Dud lineup just got ostensibly worse. You've changed the outcome of BOTH divisions where the swap was made. YOUR assumption is that the level of play of each owner is the same. We all know that's just not the case. Doormats are generally doormats for a reason.

And your assuming the guy getting the higher pick is some fantasy guru???? Weird

 

[ghostguy123]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

But would it be considered a problem if the entire league allows it? If buying players for cash became allowed, why isn't a problem if the entire league approves it?
Again, I don't see your slippery slop apply for a situation brought up by two owners to the whole league out in the open about wanting to make the swap.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

But would it be considered a problem if the entire league allows it? If buying players for cash became allowed, why isn't a problem if the entire league approves it?
Again, I don't see your slippery slop apply for a situation brought up by two owners to the whole league out in the open about wanting to make the swap.

If you want to play in a league where everybody was ok with paying cash out of pocket in trades and everybody else did as well there wouldn’t be a problem. It doesn’t seem like that is what was being discussed though.

And trust me, I know you don’t see it.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

Fair enough - in fact, both things are correct. The slippery slope is one of the classic logical fallacies.

It is however true that it can be argued effectively as a tool of persuasion, which is how you’re using it.

But for sure, it is also a fallacy of logic when used as such.

One of those rare times where we are both correct.


For this example/context, you’re probably more correct. Though a few suggested it would lead to the end of the league, etc which could also either be a logical next step or a hyperbolic presumption.

It does set precedent though, which I thought was a better way to frame the argument against it.

Anything can be taken to ridiculous extremes of course.

 

[ghostguy123]

Slippery slope is a fallacy

No it’s not. It’s a valid legal term used often in legal decisions. At its simplest, it’s a concern that once X is allowed (say allowing some one to pay cash to trade draft slots) it’s much easier to take that next step to allow Y (allowing some one to pay cash in a trade for Mahomes) and the precedent for allowing cash in the first place is the first step.

Look what happened with comfort animals. Once airlines started allowing dogs or cats in the cabin if they were “comfort” animals, of course some people wanted to take llamas on planes and their arguments were “well you allow dogs, as long as they’re comfort animals and without this llama, I’ll never make it through the flight”…

But would it be considered a problem if the entire league allows it? If buying players for cash became allowed, why isn't a problem if the entire league approves it?
Again, I don't see your slippery slop apply for a situation brought up by two owners to the whole league out in the open about wanting to make the swap.

If you want to play in a league where everybody was ok with paying cash out of pocket in trades and everybody else did as well there wouldn’t be a problem. It doesn’t seem like that is what was being discussed though.

And trust me, I know you don’t see it.

No, but your doomsday outcome is incredibly unlikely in my scenario, again a scenario in which a couple owners agree to something that the entire league is aware of and approves prior to it happening.
In fact, if the two owners wanted to, they could EASILY pull something like this off behind closed doors in a secret deal. I think the fact they are out in the open about it and explaining why they want to do it kills your slippery slope argument.

Also, to my knowledge, there hasnt been a Llama on a plane yet.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Also, to my knowledge, there hasnt been a Llama on a plane yet.

Touché

ETA: but wait…