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)

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?
It doesn't set that precedent at, and in no way does it mean you now need to allow buying and selling of individual players.
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.

Also, this idea that someone with deep pockets can keep getting over on everyone. Well, that's not true. Nobody is going to sell a great team for peanuts.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.

Not sure why I keep reviewing this... because, IMO, this is not right. It is a trade of draft picks, no matter if it is 2 picks or 15 picks or an entire team picks. It does affect the competitive balance.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.

Not sure why I keep reviewing this... because, IMO, this is not right. It is a trade of draft picks, no matter if it is 2 picks or 15 picks or an entire team picks. It does affect the competitive balance.
If the definition of competitive balance is what I would expect it to be ... it doesn't affect it. Does it affect one or more owners' chances? Absolutely. But the franchises stay exactly the same. If the title odds currently are

19% Team A
14% Team B
10% Team C
10% Team D
9% Team E
7% Team F
7% Team G
7% Team H
6% Team I
5% Team J
4% Team K
2% Team L

and then you just play musical chairs throwing money around and swapping owners from franchise to franchise, you can literally play that game all day, and none of those percentages are changing (okay, with the exception of the fact that some owners make better decisions, of course -- if Team A is owned by a dunce who makes bad decisions and hae just been lucky to be so good, and then sells his team to a shrewd owner, it could change the percentage ... I don't think that is noteworthy). That is what I would expect competitive balance to mean.

But if Team A acquires McCaffrey, Kupp, and Kelce to his already great team, by trading scrubs plus $500 cash, that 19% is going to skyrocket.
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.

Not sure why I keep reviewing this... because, IMO, this is not right. It is a trade of draft picks, no matter if it is 2 picks or 15 picks or an entire team picks. It does affect the competitive balance.
No, because the players/picks don't switch franchises. The teams stay in the same divisions, same schedule......
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
Actually, that wouldn't be allowed.
They need to change the ownership, not trade the players. The players need to stay with their current franchise.
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
Actually, that wouldn't be allowed.
They need to change the ownership, not trade the players. The players need to stay with their current franchise.
Is the issue there only divisional alignment, or what? Well, also the team records matter if the deal is made mid-season. So yeah, that would not be the same mid-season. But, in the offseason, in a divisionless league, certainly it wouldn't make a difference whether they traded franchises, or just traded all players and picks, correct?
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
Actually, that wouldn't be allowed.
They need to change the ownership, not trade the players. The players need to stay with their current franchise.
Is the issue there only divisional alignment, or what? Well, also the team records matter if the deal is made mid-season. So yeah, that would not be the same mid-season. But, in the offseason, in a divisionless league, certainly it wouldn't make a difference whether they traded franchises, or just traded all players and picks, correct?
I guess it could matter depending on league schedule or whatever.
In my scenario, from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing would change except the owners names would change places.
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
Actually, that wouldn't be allowed.
They need to change the ownership, not trade the players. The players need to stay with their current franchise.
Is the issue there only divisional alignment, or what? Well, also the team records matter if the deal is made mid-season. So yeah, that would not be the same mid-season. But, in the offseason, in a divisionless league, certainly it wouldn't make a difference whether they traded franchises, or just traded all players and picks, correct?
I guess it could matter depending on league schedule or whatever.
In my scenario, from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing would change except the owners names would change places.
Okay yeah schedule is one other thing to consider. Yeah unless you neutralize everything (no divisions, round robin schedule, must be offseason) there is a difference between the two.
 
It can be a little perplexing, seeing as if two owners each traded half of their assets (players and picks) to each other, and one paid the other cash for the deal, TOTAL COLLUSION. Or if they did the same thing but traded the other halves of their teams instead (all the players that weren't involved in the first trade), with cash added, TOTAL COLLUSION. But, if they did both things at the same time, because there isn't any net fracturing of the rosters, it's not collusion.
Actually, that wouldn't be allowed.
They need to change the ownership, not trade the players. The players need to stay with their current franchise.
Is the issue there only divisional alignment, or what? Well, also the team records matter if the deal is made mid-season. So yeah, that would not be the same mid-season. But, in the offseason, in a divisionless league, certainly it wouldn't make a difference whether they traded franchises, or just traded all players and picks, correct?
I guess it could matter depending on league schedule or whatever.
In my scenario, from the perspective of the rest of the league, nothing would change except the owners names would change places.
Okay yeah schedule is one other thing to consider. Yeah unless you neutralize everything (no divisions, round robin schedule, must be offseason) there is a difference between the two.
Right so in both scenarios, has to be an ownership swap
 
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
 
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
Hypothetical right now, though the potential of scenario 1 came up last summer when I entered a startup and the guy at #1 made some sort of joke about selling the pick slot after another guy complained of getting a late pick for like his 4th draft in a row, and then people started making cash offers on the message board to swap draft slots with the #1. It was fun for a day or two of negotiations and banter. It didn't happen, but only because the guy at #1 didn't get a good enough offer in his opinion. Not one person made a comment that they were against it out of the 7-8 guys who posted.

Scenario 2 is a total hypothetical based on how many teams I see for sale on FFPC and dynasty depot, and how every year in my leagues there's multiple new owners.
 
Last edited:
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
Hypothetical right now, though the potential of scenario 1 came up last summer when I entered a startup and the guy at #1 made some sort of joke about selling the pick slot after another guy complained of getting a late pick for like his 4th draft in a row, and then people started making cash offers on the message board to swap draft slots with the #1. It was fun for a day or two of negotiations and banter. It didn't happen, but only because the guy at #1 didn't get a good enough offer in his opinion. Not one person made a comment that they were against it out of the 7-8 guys who posted.

Scenario 2 is a total hypothetical based on how many teams I see for sale on FFPC and dynasty depot, and how every year in my leagues there's multiple new owners.
Thanks, I'll go back to what I said many pages ago. I think technically there is nothing wrong with these type of deals, but as long as the league is in agreement. I do see the other side of the argument where some people just don't want real money to be introduced into league transactions in any way, shape or form.
 
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
Hypothetical right now, though the potential of scenario 1 came up last summer when I entered a startup and the guy at #1 made some sort of joke about selling the pick slot after another guy complained of getting a late pick for like his 4th draft in a row, and then people started making cash offers on the message board to swap draft slots with the #1. It was fun for a day or two of negotiations and banter. It didn't happen, but only because the guy at #1 didn't get a good enough offer in his opinion. Not one person made a comment that they were against it out of the 7-8 guys who posted.

Scenario 2 is a total hypothetical based on how many teams I see for sale on FFPC and dynasty depot, and how every year in my leagues there's multiple new owners.
Thanks, I'll go back to what I said many pages ago. I think technically there is nothing wrong with these type of deals, but as long as the league is in agreement. I do see the other side of the argument where some people just don't want real money to be introduced into league transactions in any way, shape or form.
I get it, and understand that thought process.
However as you said, technically, there is nothing wrong in either scenario as no advantage is obtained by either franchise, and none of the 10 other franchises are put at any sort of disadvantage.

Hey, what two people wanna do behind closed doors is fine with me, as long as both of them consent, nothing illegal is being done, and it doesn't affect me.
 
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
Hypothetical right now, though the potential of scenario 1 came up last summer when I entered a startup and the guy at #1 made some sort of joke about selling the pick slot after another guy complained of getting a late pick for like his 4th draft in a row, and then people started making cash offers on the message board to swap draft slots with the #1. It was fun for a day or two of negotiations and banter. It didn't happen, but only because the guy at #1 didn't get a good enough offer in his opinion. Not one person made a comment that they were against it out of the 7-8 guys who posted.

Scenario 2 is a total hypothetical based on how many teams I see for sale on FFPC and dynasty depot, and how every year in my leagues there's multiple new owners.
Thanks, I'll go back to what I said many pages ago. I think technically there is nothing wrong with these type of deals, but as long as the league is in agreement. I do see the other side of the argument where some people just don't want real money to be introduced into league transactions in any way, shape or form.
I get it, and understand that thought process.
However as you said, technically, there is nothing wrong in either scenario as no advantage is obtained by either franchise, and none of the 10 other franchises are put at any sort of disadvantage.

Hey, what two people wanna do behind closed doors is fine with me, as long as both of them consent, nothing illegal is being done, and it doesn't affect me.
well guess i'm continuing this argument but i could see a scenario where an one owner who based on previous history everyone knows is a weaker owner i.e. always finishes towards the back of standings, sells a higher pick to an owner who is consistently strong and is competing for the title each year. In that case I could see some objections. Maybe the weaker owner is thinking i'm probably not gonna win anyway, I'll take the sure $50 or whatever to give up a small amount of advantage in the draft.
 
may have already been asked but is this but is this an actual trade going down in your league, or just a hypothetical?
Hypothetical right now, though the potential of scenario 1 came up last summer when I entered a startup and the guy at #1 made some sort of joke about selling the pick slot after another guy complained of getting a late pick for like his 4th draft in a row, and then people started making cash offers on the message board to swap draft slots with the #1. It was fun for a day or two of negotiations and banter. It didn't happen, but only because the guy at #1 didn't get a good enough offer in his opinion. Not one person made a comment that they were against it out of the 7-8 guys who posted.

Scenario 2 is a total hypothetical based on how many teams I see for sale on FFPC and dynasty depot, and how every year in my leagues there's multiple new owners.
Thanks, I'll go back to what I said many pages ago. I think technically there is nothing wrong with these type of deals, but as long as the league is in agreement. I do see the other side of the argument where some people just don't want real money to be introduced into league transactions in any way, shape or form.
I get it, and understand that thought process.
However as you said, technically, there is nothing wrong in either scenario as no advantage is obtained by either franchise, and none of the 10 other franchises are put at any sort of disadvantage.

Hey, what two people wanna do behind closed doors is fine with me, as long as both of them consent, nothing illegal is being done, and it doesn't affect me.
well guess i'm continuing this argument but i could see a scenario where an one owner who based on previous history everyone knows is a weaker owner i.e. always finishes towards the back of standings, sells a higher pick to an owner who is consistently strong and is competing for the title each year. In that case I could see some objections. Maybe the weaker owner is thinking i'm probably not gonna win anyway, I'll take the sure $50 or whatever to give up a small amount of advantage in the draft.

I've been in a league with someone else that, had they drawn the 11th slot or whatever, I would object to them swapping with #1 for money. Partially because he was a good owner, and partially cause I hated the guy.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.
Well you clearly have an agenda here, because of course it's a trade. One owner had a bunch of guys and another owner had a different bunch of guys, and now each of those owners has a different bunch of guys based on this transaction. That's a trade bro. Justify it all you want, lawyer it up all you want, it's a trade.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.
Well you clearly have an agenda here, because of course it's a trade. One owner had a bunch of guys and another owner had a different bunch of guys, and now each of those owners has a different bunch of guys based on this transaction. That's a trade bro. Justify it all you want, lawyer it up all you want, it's a trade.
It's more like those bunch of guys has a new owner. Semantics? Maybe, but since the players never leave the franchise, it's not a trade.

Again, if Jerry Jones and Robert Craft swap their ownership stake, is it considered a "trade"?? Each owner now has a bunch of new guys right?
 
Last edited:
9 pages of the OP rebuffing any and all opinions/thoughts on the question they asked for others poster’s thoughts on? :lmao:
Just the parts that aren't in line with the scenario…
…at least, aren’t in line per the OP’s opinion.
Depends. When someone compares it to buying a player that goes from one roster to another, then no, that's just wrong. An opinion CAN be wrong. For example, I think the Browns were the best team of all time last year.
 
I've been in a league with someone else that, had they drawn the 11th slot or whatever, I would object to them swapping with #1 for money. Partially because he was a good owner, and partially cause I hated the guy.
You lose a lot of credibility with this statement. It's either fine to do.....or it isn't. Making your decision based on who is involved is terrible. That kind of attitude is why trade committees are the worst thing in the world.
 
I've been in a league with someone else that, had they drawn the 11th slot or whatever, I would object to them swapping with #1 for money. Partially because he was a good owner, and partially cause I hated the guy.
You lose a lot of credibility with this statement. It's either fine to do.....or it isn't. Making your decision based on who is involved is terrible. That kind of attitude is why trade committees are the worst thing in the world.
I had credibility?

(Apparently my humor didn't come out on the post you quoted. Of course I would let them do it).
 
I've been in a league with someone else that, had they drawn the 11th slot or whatever, I would object to them swapping with #1 for money. Partially because he was a good owner, and partially cause I hated the guy.
You lose a lot of credibility with this statement. It's either fine to do.....or it isn't. Making your decision based on who is involved is terrible. That kind of attitude is why trade committees are the worst thing in the world.
I had credibility?

(Apparently my humor didn't come out on the post you quoted. Of course I would let them do it).
Oh okay, that makes more sense. It sounded serious with a little jokiness to it. Good to know it was all joke.
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.
Well you clearly have an agenda here, because of course it's a trade. One owner had a bunch of guys and another owner had a different bunch of guys, and now each of those owners has a different bunch of guys based on this transaction. That's a trade bro. Justify it all you want, lawyer it up all you want, it's a trade.
It's more like those bunch of guys has a new owner. Semantics? Maybe, but since the players never leave the franchise, it's not a trade.

Again, if Jerry Jones and Robert Craft swap their ownership stake, is it considered a "trade"?? Each owner now has a bunch of new guys right?

🤔 dude. It’s a trade. The owners in scenario two didn’t lose their franchise history. In scenario one, presumably the owners kept their team name (or if changed that wasn’t part of the deal).
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.
Well you clearly have an agenda here, because of course it's a trade. One owner had a bunch of guys and another owner had a different bunch of guys, and now each of those owners has a different bunch of guys based on this transaction. That's a trade bro. Justify it all you want, lawyer it up all you want, it's a trade.
It's more like those bunch of guys has a new owner. Semantics? Maybe, but since the players never leave the franchise, it's not a trade.

Again, if Jerry Jones and Robert Craft swap their ownership stake, is it considered a "trade"?? Each owner now has a bunch of new guys right?

🤔 dude. It’s a trade. The owners in scenario two didn’t lose their franchise history. In scenario one, presumably the owners kept their team name (or if changed that wasn’t part of the deal).
Pick another team in one of your leagues. Now imagine you own his team and he owns yours..........

If Jerry Jones sells the Cowboy and buys the Browns, he isn't taking the Cowboys name with him. He relinquished ownership of that franchise.

So, in scenario 2, yeah they kinda did lose their franchises history, regardless of what they name their new franchise after the swap. I mean, they don't own the same franchise anymore...
 
Again, it's not a trade. It's a complete franchise swap. A trade of players for money affects the competitive balance of the league. Swapping franchises does not. Totally different things.
Well you clearly have an agenda here, because of course it's a trade. One owner had a bunch of guys and another owner had a different bunch of guys, and now each of those owners has a different bunch of guys based on this transaction. That's a trade bro. Justify it all you want, lawyer it up all you want, it's a trade.
It's more like those bunch of guys has a new owner. Semantics? Maybe, but since the players never leave the franchise, it's not a trade.

Again, if Jerry Jones and Robert Craft swap their ownership stake, is it considered a "trade"?? Each owner now has a bunch of new guys right?

🤔 dude. It’s a trade. The owners in scenario two didn’t lose their franchise history. In scenario one, presumably the owners kept their team name (or if changed that wasn’t part of the deal).
Pick another team in one of your leagues. Now imagine you own his team and he owns yours..........

If Jerry Jones sells the Cowboy and buys the Browns, he isn't taking the Cowboys name with him. He relinquished ownership of that franchise.

So, in scenario 2, yeah they kinda did lose their franchises history, regardless of what they name their new franchise after the swap. I mean, they don't own the same franchise anymore...

The entire shark pool to GG
 
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.
That's an interesting situation to consider. Would I sell my franchise to an outsider who wants to join the league? If so, what next? Join another league? Buy back into the same league? That's an idea I could support, as well as paying someone to swap franchises (draft position) prior to league inception, but not during the season.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top