What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

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 as 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
The example was thrown out there to illustrate that there are outcomes from these two scenarios that you haven't considered. And, with all due respect, the mental gymnastics needed to normalize something a solid majority here think is unethical (or at the very least, worthy of leaving a league) is...troublesome. I'm gonna bookmark this thread to read in a few months once the thrill/fun of arguing on the internet over this particular topic has died down. I hope you will do the same.
 
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 as 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
The example was thrown out there to illustrate that there are outcomes from these two scenarios that you haven't considered. And, with all due respect, the mental gymnastics needed to normalize something a solid majority here think is unethical (or at the very least, worthy of leaving a league) is...troublesome. I'm gonna bookmark this thread to read in a few months once the thrill/fun of arguing on the internet over this particular topic has died down. I hope you will do the same.
So you are saying that I haven't considered that each wouldn't draft exactly the same as the other?? Lol
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
One could suppose just about anything without evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence is proof of something.

“No one in this topic supports my point of view, therefore everyone not in this topic supports my point of view” is a hell of an argument though.

But one generally wouldn’t, because it’s a gigantic steaming pile of fallacy. (In this case an argumatum ad populum, or “appeal to the masses”, specifically. Also the whole proof by omission thing).
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
One could suppose just about anything without evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence is proof of something.

But one generally wouldn’t, because it’s a gigantic steaming pile of fallacy. (In this case an argumatum ad populum, or “appeal to the masses”, specifically).
Well, since the word possibility is different than the word proof........,
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
One could suppose just about anything without evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence is proof of something.

But one generally wouldn’t, because it’s a gigantic steaming pile of fallacy. (In this case an argumatum ad populum, or “appeal to the masses”, specifically).
Well, since the word possibility is different than the word proof........,
Just take the L on this one, chief.
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
One could suppose just about anything without evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence is proof of something.

But one generally wouldn’t, because it’s a gigantic steaming pile of fallacy. (In this case an argumatum ad populum, or “appeal to the masses”, specifically).
Well, since the word possibility is different than the word proof........,
Just take the L on this one, chief.
There's no L or W to be taken. Either your league would be ok with it or it wouldn't.
I wouldn't care along with a few others posting in here. You would, along with a few others posting in here.
 
Also, the people responding here is a rather small sample size. This is the kind of thread where people against it will post, and then people who don't care probably won't.
I suppose you haven't considered that possibility.
One could suppose just about anything without evidence, and then claim that the lack of evidence is proof of something.

But one generally wouldn’t, because it’s a gigantic steaming pile of fallacy. (In this case an argumatum ad populum, or “appeal to the masses”, specifically).
Well, since the word possibility is different than the word proof........,
Just take the L on this one, chief.
Also remember you are the guy ok with scenario 2, which is a franchise swap. So is scenario 1.
 
There's no L or W to be taken. Either your league would be ok with it or it wouldn't.
I wouldn't care along with a few others posting in here. You would, along with a few others posting in here.
The L in this case is on the appeal to the masses/proof by omission you just proposed about how everyone not in this topic probably agrees with you. It’s why I quoted it.

It’s a completely fallacious bit of reasoning, topic aside. Real solo selfie, “me & my friends are all out here having a great time…they’re all just out of frame” vibes.

The topic itself has probably run its course, with the vast majority of posters disagreeing that the thing you want to do is ok to do. But you’re dug in like a tick on that one and it’s entertaining to watch, so by all means, please continue.
 
Also remember you are the guy ok with scenario 2, which is a franchise swap. So is scenario 1.
Because they’re completely different scenarios.

Rather than write a new response to this showing exactly why this is a false equivalence, I’ll simply refer you to my several posts earlier in this topic where I explained this in detail. 👍🏼
 
There's no L or W to be taken. Either your league would be ok with it or it wouldn't.
I wouldn't care along with a few others posting in here. You would, along with a few others posting in here.
The L in this case is on the appeal to the masses/proof by omission you just proposed about how everyone not in this topic probably agrees with you. It’s why I quoted it.

It’s a completely fallacious bit of reasoning, topic aside. Real solo selfie, “me & my friends are all out here having a great time…they’re all just out of frame” vibes.

The topic itself has probably run its course, with the vast majority of posters disagreeing that the thing you want to do is ok to do. But you’re dug in like a tick on that one and it’s entertaining to watch, so by all means, please continue.
Actually, the people saying they didn't mind it stopped posting after the first page or two. The few of you strongly against have continued to repeatedly post against it.
 
Also remember you are the guy ok with scenario 2, which is a franchise swap. So is scenario 1.
Because they’re completely different scenarios.

Rather than write a new response to this showing exactly why this is a false equivalence, I’ll simply refer you to my several posts earlier in this topic where I explained this in detail. 👍🏼
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
 
One of these days when I'm bored and drunk I'll read back through here and try and tally up the yays, nays, and the folks who didn't really have an answer. It will NOT be the vast majority of nays that Hot Sauce thinks.
 
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
oh ffs.
Scenario 1: blank rosters
Scenario 2: known assets (picked players)

Entirely different. Different valuations, known vs unknown, not remotely the same.

Clearly false equivalence.
 
One of these days when I'm bored and drunk I'll read back through here and try and tally up the yays, nays, and the folks who didn't really have an answer. It will NOT be the vast majority of nays that Hot Sauce thinks.
Good luck with that. Several others have already pointed out the the vast majority disagrees with you. I concur.

It’s so disproportionate that I’m starting to suspect this entire topic is a schtick.
 
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
oh ffs.
Scenario 1: blank rosters
Scenario 2: known assets (picked players)

Entirely different. Different valuations, known vs unknown, not remotely the same.

Clearly false equivalence.
So the question is, why does the blank roster vs known assets change anything about your rationale to accept one and not the other?
 
One of these days when I'm bored and drunk I'll read back through here and try and tally up the yays, nays, and the folks who didn't really have an answer. It will NOT be the vast majority of nays that Hot Sauce thinks.
Good luck with that. Several others have already pointed out the the vast majority disagrees with you. I concur.

It’s so disproportionate that I’m starting to suspect this entire topic is a schtick.
You realize you are ok with half of my scenarios right?
 
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
oh ffs.
Scenario 1: blank rosters
Scenario 2: known assets (picked players)

Entirely different. Different valuations, known vs unknown, not remotely the same.

Clearly false equivalence.
So the question is, why does the blank roster vs known assets change anything about your rationale to accept one and not the other?
You can’t be serious here.

Ok, I’m out.
 
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
oh ffs.
Scenario 1: blank rosters
Scenario 2: known assets (picked players)

Entirely different. Different valuations, known vs unknown, not remotely the same.

Clearly false equivalence.
So the question is, why does the blank roster vs known assets change anything about your rationale to accept one and not the other?
You can’t be serious here.

Ok, I’m out.
Oh, I am dead serious.
Two owners are swapping for money in both scenarios. Your big hold up is that it's better to do it for existing rosters than prior to the startup draft.
Makes no sense to me why one is better than the other.
If anything, it would make more sense to be ok with scenario 1 and NOT 2 because of the known better roster.
 
Two owners swap places for money in both scenarios. Yep, completely different.
oh ffs.
Scenario 1: blank rosters
Scenario 2: known assets (picked players)

Entirely different. Different valuations, known vs unknown, not remotely the same.

Clearly false equivalence.
So the question is, why does the blank roster vs known assets change anything about your rationale to accept one and not the other?

Ok, I’m out.
No, you won't be
 
Scenario 2, someone buys a better roster from someone else.

Scenario 1, someone buys the chance at a better roster from someone else

Again, why is buying a better roster ok but buying the theoretical chance at a better roster not ok?
 
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.
Doomsday outcome?

My comments were to one small issue. Honestly I’m kind of done with the general back and forth of the “point” of the thread.
I only got back involved because I felt like I had to defend a position I took earlier.
 
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.

If your league approves any action then it is OK. That is kind of the basis for all leagues. As long as everyone is OK with it then go for it. This is no different.

You asked whether people would be ok with it. The overwhelming response is that it is not ok to exchange real money to do transactions in a league. Morality or competitive balance is not the issue. It's the act of real money exchanging hands that is the issue. Doesn't really matter what it is for.

I don't think there is anything more to discuss.
 
Scenario 1, someone buys the chance at a better roster from someone else

I don't think this description is correct either. Whether you draft in slot X or Y you are still doing the drafting so your quality of team is on you. In scenario 1 you are buying a card that identifies a draft slot that you prefer. No more, no less. No actual advantage (or "chance") gained.
 
Scenario 1, someone buys the chance at a better roster from someone else

I don't think this description is correct either. Whether you draft in slot X or Y you are still doing the drafting so your quality of team is on you. In scenario 1 you are buying a card that identifies a draft slot that you prefer. No more, no less. No actual advantage (or "chance") gained.
Mostly agree, though I should have described it as a perceived chance, since most people would prefer the higher pick slot.
 
Scenario 1, someone buys the chance at a better roster from someone else

I don't think this description is correct either. Whether you draft in slot X or Y you are still doing the drafting so your quality of team is on you. In scenario 1 you are buying a card that identifies a draft slot that you prefer. No more, no less. No actual advantage (or "chance") gained.
That said, no advantage, so why not allow it?
Also, you had said the overwhelming response is against this. Well, sure, the last few pages, because there's only like 5 people posting. The first page has several people ok with it, but they have stopped posting. So, it really has not been some overwhelming majority in this thread against it, just an overwhelming majority of POSTS against it from like three people.
 
That said, no advantage, so why not allow it?
Because outside money should not be used for league transactions. It sets a bad precedent and lends itself to it being used in nefarious ways in the future.

If your league is fine with outside money being used in this manner, great. Go for it. I do not which is why I wrote into my bylaws that real cash cannot be used in transactions.
 
That said, no advantage, so why not allow it?
Because outside money should not be used for league transactions. It sets a bad precedent and lends itself to it being used in nefarious ways in the future.

If your league is fine with outside money being used in this manner, great. Go for it. I do not which is why I wrote into my bylaws that real cash cannot be used in transactions.
So just to clarify, my scenario in your opinion is basically ok in the sense that it doesn't harm any part of the integrity of the league, however, you would not allow it because you think it could increase the potential of a shady deal occuring in the future?
 
Asking the question for validation should give you a clue about the right thing to do. View this from the perspective of the 10 teams not involved with the trade. Does it rub you the wrong way?

Those 2 owners exchange money outside our league for their own personal benefit inside our league. Someone clearly thinks they are getting an advantage by spending money. The other would give someone else in the league an edge if you pay them on the side. Is this the kind of person I want to play with when I have cash in the game too?

Personally, I’d propose kicking those 2 teams out for collusion or just drop the league and find another group.
 
Asking the question for validation should give you a clue about the right thing to do. View this from the perspective of the 10 teams not involved with the trade. Does it rub you the wrong way?

Those 2 owners exchange money outside our league for their own personal benefit inside our league. Someone clearly thinks they are getting an advantage by spending money. The other would give someone else in the league an edge if you pay them on the side. Is this the kind of person I want to play with when I have cash in the game too?

Personally, I’d propose kicking those 2 teams out for collusion or just drop the league and find another group.
Is it collusion if it's presented to the entire league for approval? The answer is no.
As for viewing it from the perspective of the 10 other teams, I have. It would not bother me in the slightest if two teams wanted to swap ownership, whether they used outside money or not.

As long as none of the franchises gains anything unfairly, then more power to em.
 
Last edited:
So just to clarify, my scenario in your opinion is basically ok in the sense that it doesn't harm any part of the integrity of the league, however, you would not allow it because you think it could increase the potential of a shady deal occuring in the future?

Since I have a rule in my bylaws that says you cannot use real cash in league transactions I do not think this is ok in any way. I have already taken away the chance of future shady deals happening by not allowing it in the first place.

I have no issue with swapping draft slots. I see no collusion (even with money exchanging hands it is not collusion). I see no issue with giving up assets allowed per league rules if both teams are on board. I have done this many times over the years because I hate drafting in the middle. I do not think a snake draft is unfair so every position is valued the same with respect to competitive advantage so exchanging "cards" for draft slot is perfectly fine in my opinion.
 
That said, no advantage, so why not allow it?


What's the difference between someone asking their partner for an open relationship before they are married versus after they are married?

Don't try to change the original deal after the commitment. If you do, expect a fight.

Brand new league that hasn't started yet or deep preseason before the draft and before people have turned in their money is one thing. The implication you are suggesting, i.e. a bait and switch, on your entire league is a wholly different animal.

The kind of owners who would accept this, either A or B or both, aren't owners I'd want to play with in any league. And that's OK too. To not want to play with them. Because it's better to play with owners who share your "value system".

You know how you do that? You start your own brand new league, you put these "features" into the league constitution and then you try to recruit new owners, who get to see immediately and before investment, the deal they are possibly buying into upfront.
You give them the chance to think it over, and if it's not something they can live with, they walk away. This is something you've never addressed, since I brought it up before, and clearly you won't address. If you think there is nothing wrong with it, start a league with "it" laid out for an entire new set of owners who share your value system and view of competition.

Do you know why you won't? Because you already know the majority of fantasy players and especially the more rare good active engaged owners won't put up with it.

If I was in the same league with you, and you tried to pull this after the league fees were all turned in, I'd assess it as you making an attempt to steal everyone's money. You are selling an advantage, whether it's functionally realized or not, for a "currency" outside the league system. Lots of other fantasy players would tolerate someone stealing from them. I wouldn't. You'll say you don't see it that way. I wouldn't care. Your feelings don't need to be everyone else's reality. And there are a subset of people out there playing fantasy right now, not the majority, who would see it the way I do.

Ask people to join something you've started. Don't inflict upon them with a bait and switch. If you can't see the difference, then you assume the risk that comes with that. If you want to do it, then do it. But recognize that it's entirely possible that the situation will end with someone clubbing you with a baseball bat over it all. I cannot stress this part enough - Fantasy or not is just the context and conduit to the conflict , a basic solid rule of life is not to mess with other people's money. People don't have a sense of humor about you messing with their money. You have no idea how people will react if they believe you stole from them. Whether you believe different is irrelevant if they decide to pick up a bat, or a pipe wrench, or a screw driver.
 
Asking the question for validation should give you a clue about the right thing to do. View this from the perspective of the 10 teams not involved with the trade. Does it rub you the wrong way?

Those 2 owners exchange money outside our league for their own personal benefit inside our league. Someone clearly thinks they are getting an advantage by spending money. The other would give someone else in the league an edge if you pay them on the side. Is this the kind of person I want to play with when I have cash in the game too?

Personally, I’d propose kicking those 2 teams out for collusion or just drop the league and find another group.
Is it collusion if it's presented to the entire league for approval? The answer is no.
As for viewing it from the perspective of the 10 other teams, I have. It would not bother me in the slightest if two teams wanted to swap ownership, whether they used outside money or not.

As long as none of the franchises gains anything unfairly, then more power to em
Bringing the plan to a vote is a tactic to make this collusion seem ethical or fair if you can get the others to approve. Might cause your plan to fail by making it public, but it is a tactic.

Constructive suggestion for your consideration. You should recommend a new rule for your league to allow exchanges of money between franchises to swap players or draft picks. Nothing specific about the transactions you proposed. Approve into the team bylaws, yea or nay.

You can add that as another element to that league. Whomever draws that first pick can sell it to the highest bidder. Talk your opponents into paying you to swap teams. Turn your fantasy league into a little capitalistic venture.

That sounds like a great format for you. I wouldn’t play in that league, but there are plenty who will. Good luck
 
Asking the question for validation should give you a clue about the right thing to do. View this from the perspective of the 10 teams not involved with the trade. Does it rub you the wrong way?

Those 2 owners exchange money outside our league for their own personal benefit inside our league. Someone clearly thinks they are getting an advantage by spending money. The other would give someone else in the league an edge if you pay them on the side. Is this the kind of person I want to play with when I have cash in the game too?

Personally, I’d propose kicking those 2 teams out for collusion or just drop the league and find another group.
Is it collusion if it's presented to the entire league for approval? The answer is no.
As for viewing it from the perspective of the 10 other teams, I have. It would not bother me in the slightest if two teams wanted to swap ownership, whether they used outside money or not.

As long as none of the franchises gains anything unfairly, then more power to em
Bringing the plan to a vote is a tactic to make this collusion seem ethical or fair if you can get the others to approve. Might cause your plan to fail by making it public, but it is a tactic.

Constructive suggestion for your consideration. You should recommend a new rule for your league to allow exchanges of money between franchises to swap players or draft picks. Nothing specific about the transactions you proposed. Approve into the team bylaws, yea or nay.

You can add that as another element to that league. Whomever draws that first pick can sell it to the highest bidder. Talk your opponents into paying you to swap teams. Turn your fantasy league into a little capitalistic venture.

That sounds like a great format for you. I wouldn’t play in that league, but there are plenty who will. Good luck
Wut?
 


Constructive suggestion for your consideration. You should recommend a new rule for your league to allow exchanges of money between franchises to swap players or draft picks. Nothing specific about the transactions you proposed. Approve into the team bylaws, yea or nay.


The money would need to be "held"

Even if you pass this kind of insane new option into a league constitution, there has to be an immediate mechanism to ensure the "seller" gets paid. It's not enough for two people to post in the league message board to say, "Yes, I did get paid"

Again, even if this could pass, no one would vote for an unlimited system. There would have to be a hard cap for the season, just like FAAB dollars. FAAB works because the transactions are made public. They are immediate. And they are finite.

Good luck to the OP to try to convince 8-12-16-20 team leagues to front real life money to be held for an "optional" scenario that most would never use.

The only variation on any of this I could see surviving an actual league wide vote is someone can buy extra FAAB dollars. Like 100 dollars for 100 extra FAAB dollars on top of the standard allotment. That money going to charity. I can see other owners possibly accepting it if the money was not used to enrich one specific owner.

And this doesn't even cover the issue that the "buyer" in Scenario A and/or B presents. Anyone who will spend real life cash to upgrade a draft pick is gutless in my book. Good active engaged owners get dealt a hand, sometimes it's good or bad, and then they play it to the bone. Competitive owners adapt to the circumstances. They don't become a model owner by buying their way out of that circumstance. So what if you get a lower pick at random. Find a way to win no matter what.
 


Constructive suggestion for your consideration. You should recommend a new rule for your league to allow exchanges of money between franchises to swap players or draft picks. Nothing specific about the transactions you proposed. Approve into the team bylaws, yea or nay.


The money would need to be "held"

Even if you pass this kind of insane new option into a league constitution, there has to be an immediate mechanism to ensure the "seller" gets paid. It's not enough for two people to post in the league message board to say, "Yes, I did get paid"

Again, even if this could pass, no one would vote for an unlimited system. There would have to be a hard cap for the season, just like FAAB dollars. FAAB works because the transactions are made public. They are immediate. And they are finite.

Good luck to the OP to try to convince 8-12-16-20 team leagues to front real life money to be held for an "optional" scenario that most would never use.

The only variation on any of this I could see surviving an actual league wide vote is someone can buy extra FAAB dollars. Like 100 dollars for 100 extra FAAB dollars on top of the standard allotment. That money going to charity. I can see other owners possibly accepting it if the money was not used to enrich one specific owner.

And this doesn't even cover the issue that the "buyer" in Scenario A and/or B presents. Anyone who will spend real life cash to upgrade a draft pick is gutless in my book. Good active engaged owners get dealt a hand, sometimes it's good or bad, and then they play it to the bone. Competitive owners adapt to the circumstances. They don't become a model owner by buying their way out of that circumstance. So what if you get a lower pick at random. Find a way to win no matter what.
Nothing you just typed is applicable to the situation.

Also, as some others have stated, it's annoying to do several startup drafts and have the same draft slots. It isn't necessarily about buying a better draft slot because you are an insecure gutless wonder. It's about buying a different slot so you don't have the same one every single time.

The whole FAAB thing you mentioned makes no sense and isn't applicable to anything here.

Money doesnt need to be held anywhere.

Your entire post is bananas bad.

Unless of course you are just continuing that other guys sarcastic idea, in which case have at it, but it has nothing to do with this
 
Last edited:
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Better solution to make one rule change compared to bringing these proposals for a league vote each time they come up. Scenarios are endless.

Hopefully for you, the other owners are cool with the rule change.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Better solution to make one rule change compared to bringing these proposals for a league vote each time they come up. Scenarios are endless.

Hopefully for you, the other owners are cool with the rule change.
I suspect I wouldn't last long in a situation where an owner could buy a championship, not being frivolously rich myself.
 
Gotta say, a LOT of people here do not seem to be thinking through the situation. There is definitely a major distinction between the things @ghostguy123 is proposing and simply "buying a player or pick with cash". I am against both, but there's a huge difference.

The way I see it, there are TWO things to be concerned about in these situations:

(1) one franchise using outside assets to build up a team, stronger than it would have been without that transaction, and hence having a better shot at winning the championship -- or even doing many of these transactions and gaining a massive majority of the championship odds by having all thr best players. This is something that probably 99.99% of fantasy football players would have a problem with.

(2) one owner using outside assets to increase his own odds of winning the championship (or future titles). In this case nothing about the franchises has to change. The only concern is that league dominance becomes a purchasable product to those who don't have it, and a profitable product for those who do have it, since an individual owner may acquire the apparently strongest team at any time, given he has enough moolah. Just seems really ugly to me, but I could see many players being okay with it if they thought it through.

Concern number 1 is the huge one, and that does not at all present itself in the two proposals in the original post. I don't like either concern, but don't conflate the two.

Ultimately ... practically nothing is "unfair" as long as everyone knows the rules.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Better solution to make one rule change compared to bringing these proposals for a league vote each time they come up. Scenarios are endless.

Hopefully for you, the other owners are cool with the rule change.
I suspect I wouldn't last long in a situation where an owner could buy a championship, not being frivolously rich myself.
Perhaps some day that could help you if you have a great team and someone offers you a stupid amount of money for it.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.

Thank you. That’s the point. Your proposed question is a “horrible idea.” If you don’t like approving a rule allowing compensation on the side for exchanges of players, then don’t do it.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.

Thank you. That’s the point. Your proposed question is a “horrible idea.” If you don’t like approving a rule allowing compensation on the side for exchanges of players, then don’t do it.
I wouldn't. It approved exchanging ownership, not players. Crystal clearly not the same thing.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.

Thank you. That’s the point. Your proposed question is a “horrible idea.” If you don’t like approving a rule allowing compensation on the side for exchanges of players, then don’t do it.
If you have 12 franchises, and 12 owners, even if you were to do an unlimited sequence of 1-for-1 swaps (money involved or not) of owners with respect to the franchises attached to them, there is never any opportunity for one franchise to build itself into a better team. The rosters all stay the same. No two teams could conspire to try to build up a "superteam".

If you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, then so long as there aren't any outside assets being exchanged, in theory, with sane owners agreeing to the swap, the swap should be relatively fair. That's called a trade. We all are okay with trades. Here, two teams could conceivably conspire to build a "superteam", but that would mean they are making one-sided deals to strengthen one team and weaken the other (likely to split the pot if they win ... which, if true, means money is being exchanged after all, conflicting with the premise of this paragraph anyway). This is collusion, and that is why the league looks at trades and might try to stop a trade if it seems like there is likely funny business going on.

But if you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, WITH outside assets being exchanged to "make it worth doing", then the deal is likely inherently unbalanced. Someone is making his team stronger; the other, weaker. By this means, someone can forcibly build a superteam using cash. This is basically the legalization of collusion. If someone wants a league like that, have at it. But almost no one wants that.

My point is, OP is talking about the first paragraph. You are talking about the third paragraph. Miles apart.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.

Thank you. That’s the point. Your proposed question is a “horrible idea.” If you don’t like approving a rule allowing compensation on the side for exchanges of players, then don’t do it.
If you have 12 franchises, and 12 owners, even if you were to do an unlimited sequence of 1-for-1 swaps (money involved or not) of owners with respect to the franchises attached to them, there is never any opportunity for one franchise to build itself into a better team. The rosters all stay the same. No two teams could conspire to try to build up a "superteam".

If you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, then so long as there aren't any outside assets being exchanged, in theory, with sane owners agreeing to the swap, the swap should be relatively fair. That's called a trade. We all are okay with trades. Here, two teams could conceivably conspire to build a "superteam", but that would mean they are making one-sided deals to strengthen one team and weaken the other (likely to split the pot if they win ... which, if true, means money is being exchanged after all, conflicting with the premise of this paragraph anyway). This is collusion, and that is why the league looks at trades and might try to stop a trade if it seems like there is likely funny business going on.

But if you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, WITH outside assets being exchanged to "make it worth doing", then the deal is likely inherently unbalanced. Someone is making his team stronger; the other, weaker. By this means, someone can forcibly build a superteam using cash. This is basically the legalization of collusion. If someone wants a league like that, have at it. But almost no one wants that.

My point is, OP is talking about the first paragraph. You are talking about the third paragraph. Miles apart.

Some of these guys think thats what it will turn into, a total free for all with players and picks being bought and sold. Total anarchy.
 
Also, a lot of people are introducing a "slippery slope" aspect to this. In some way I kind of agree with that (cash entering the picture just feels dirty, I don't like it). But one thing really doesn't have to open any door to anything else when there are clearly defined boundaries between what is allowed and what isn't. A statement like "Well, you can trade a player for cash, but only if it's just a small amount for a player with not too much value, because that's just not really a big deal" would open a door because it's so poorly defined. This situation, though, is very clearly defined. I get it though. Money exchanging hands is not something I want, personally.
 
It is a serious suggestion. Make it a rule in your league to permit franchise owners to pay each other directly in exchange for swapping players or draft picks. Once approved, there are no ethics concerns because you are playing within your league rules.

Sounds like a horrible idea, which is why that was never a suggestion in the first place.

However, that does sound like how MLB works.

Thank you. That’s the point. Your proposed question is a “horrible idea.” If you don’t like approving a rule allowing compensation on the side for exchanges of players, then don’t do it.
If you have 12 franchises, and 12 owners, even if you were to do an unlimited sequence of 1-for-1 swaps (money involved or not) of owners with respect to the franchises attached to them, there is never any opportunity for one franchise to build itself into a better team. The rosters all stay the same. No two teams could conspire to try to build up a "superteam".

If you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, then so long as there aren't any outside assets being exchanged, in theory, with sane owners agreeing to the swap, the swap should be relatively fair. That's called a trade. We all are okay with trades. Here, two teams could conceivably conspire to build a "superteam", but that would mean they are making one-sided deals to strengthen one team and weaken the other (likely to split the pot if they win ... which, if true, means money is being exchanged after all, conflicting with the premise of this paragraph anyway). This is collusion, and that is why the league looks at trades and might try to stop a trade if it seems like there is likely funny business going on.

But if you allow individual players or picks to be swapped, WITH outside assets being exchanged to "make it worth doing", then the deal is likely inherently unbalanced. Someone is making his team stronger; the other, weaker. By this means, someone can forcibly build a superteam using cash. This is basically the legalization of collusion. If someone wants a league like that, have at it. But almost no one wants that.

My point is, OP is talking about the first paragraph. You are talking about the third paragraph. Miles apart.

This may have already been said, I’m not reading through 8 pages here.

Imo that’s the problem with #2 which doesn’t arise in the first scenario. You’d need to look back at previous trades between the two owners whereas most leagues let slightly unbalanced trades go.
It seems two owners willing to swap teams probably made previous trades.
 
I think this is a WWJD question. "Would an owner have a reasonable motivation to make this trade if you got no cash out of it?" I can see 10 ways from Sunday where someone might prefer the 10 slot over the 1 slot in a draft so scenario 1 is a no-brainer to allow.

Scenario 2 interesting. For every one hand, there's either an other hand or an irrelevancy or both

One one hand, the owner with the great team might like the idea of a challenge to turn the "crappy" team around. Never mind that everyone's definition of crappy is different, never mind that it only takes a couple of Tony Pollard and Dameon Pierce's to turn a team from crappy very quickly. The owner gets a free roll for two years' worth of dues to have some fun playing FF general manager on turbo-charge. What's the harm in that? This isn't a collusion scenario where one owner gets a huge boost at the expense of another for outside compensation - that "great" team was already great (and probably in better hands) and the crappy team was already crappy - this didn't change the competitive landscape for other owners on the surface. Hell it might even be good to put a loaded team into a clown's hands - am in quite a few leagues I love seeing some guys make great drafts or trades because I know they will piss it away in a couple of years and they aren't a threat to me.

On the other hand though, this could lead to the new owner taking the cash and bailing on the league. But that's mostly irrelevant because the original owner could always just bail and leave a "crappy" team in his wake.

The real problem is the precedent this sets. If you allow this you have to allow trading Don'ta Foreman and $100 for Barkley, or Cooper Kupp for John Metchie and $200 (hey, they are both on IR, there's no competitive balance). If it's ok to include outside compensation in trades, you end up with P2W (pay to win) which as any gamer knows is a horrible model to run a platform on. The guy making 200k a year will think nothing of throwing $50 out to try to win a $5k payout but the small business owner can't afford to take those risks. You end up with a horrible competition model. I think the key is if all members agree up front that this is how they want to run the league. If they are all up for it then sure, do it, because they all forsee the risks. You're never going to get that agreement from an online league, but hey if you do, or if you're in a league with all lawyer or doctor buddies why not?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top