Is it ever OK to play an inferior lineup in FF (a pole)? (1 Viewer)

[Jppaul]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

If those are indistinguishable, wouldn't you also have to say that if you have future draft picks, even just your natural picks, then you're intentionally losing by not trading the picks for even better players now?

It may be the case that I calculate my best shot at winning a championship is trading my future picks for better players now, or I may estimate that I'm better off keeping those future picks. Either course of action is fine and happens all the time, and no one claims one or the other is unethical (because, of course, neither of them is, nor is any other lineup strategy you employ within the rules to maximize your chances of winning the prize).

i guess his philosophical argument missed the target?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

Huh?

Assuming the trades aren't unconscionable, there's a massive difference...

What's the massive difference between "fielding a terrible lineup" (which is just good management) and "intentionally losing" (the latter done by fielding a terrible lineup).

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Assuming the trades aren't unconscionable, there's a massive difference...

It's beyond massive. It's apples to baseballs. lol

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

Huh?

Assuming the trades aren't unconscionable, there's a massive difference...

What's the massive difference between "fielding a terrible lineup" (which is just good management) and "intentionally losing" (the latter done by fielding a terrible lineup).

Obviously the difference is that in one scenario you're benching good players and in the other scenario you are not benching good players.

Is this a schtick?

 

[Jppaul]

Assuming the trades aren't unconscionable, there's a massive difference...

It's beyond massive. It's apples to baseballs. lol

well, you can smash both of those, just like his argument?

 

[Zow]

Most of my dynasty/empire/keeper leagues do have an anti-tanking rule though. There it's not okay and it's usually not an issue.

The one situation where I think it may still be okay in that context is if you're a big underdog. For example, Team A is like a 50 point favorite to Team B and Team B thinks "hey, I need to take risks" and starts like a Taysom Hill or say a healthy TJ Hockenson or Dallas Goedert or something with the idea that Hill's got the higher ceiling (with a much lower floor). I'd argue this is fine even though it's not the optimal lineup.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

In the former case, you’ve turned talent into future assets (picks). In the latter there’s no immediate benefit to benching those players.

There's no immediate benefit to future assets, either. You benefit from them in the future.

It's strange that so many people will twist themselves into knots trying to make these two things different when they're essentially the same.

Sorry, that's just not logical or reasonable - all due respect.

I laid it out.
Scenario 1: you're fielding your best lineup, which happens to be terrible. This is a season-long scenario with no specific opponent.
Scenario 2: You're deliberately NOT fielding your best lineup for a specific opponent.

If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it any better than that.

In scenario 1, your best lineup happens to be terrible because you intentionally made it terrible. Moving your best players from your starting lineup to another team is ok, but moving them to your bench is morally reprehensible?

Also, practically speaking, it's rarely if ever a "season-long scenario." Are you philosophically opposed to trades that occur during the season? They're not equitable to the league.

 

[Jppaul]

Most of my dynasty/empire/keeper leagues do have an anti-tanking rule though. There it's not okay and it's usually not an issue.

The one situation where I think it may still be okay in that context is if you're a big underdog. For example, Team A is like a 50 point favorite to Team B and Team B thinks "hey, I need to take risks" and starts like a Taysom Hill or say a healthy TJ Hockenson or Dallas Goedert or something with the idea that Hill's got the higher ceiling (with a much lower floor). I'd argue this is fine.

I've never been in leagues with anti-tanking rules... nor would I want to be. If the other owners don't understand it's wrong, then we're not a good fit for the same league.

to your 2nd point... that's not tanking

 

[Zow]

to your 2nd point... that's not tanking

True - the OP specified the "trying to lose" part.

 

[Jppaul]

12 yes votes

 

[Jppaul]

12 yes votes

for those who voted "yes"...

why not just submit an empty line up?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

That said, it’s perfectly acceptable to deal away talented players for picks and then field a terrible lineup hoping for 1.01 - that’s just good management.

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

These are functionally indistinguishable.

It's very strange how people view them so differently.

If those are indistinguishable, wouldn't you also have to say that if you have future draft picks, even just your natural picks, then you're intentionally losing by not trading the picks for even better players now?

It may be the case that I calculate my best shot at winning a championship is trading my future picks for better players now, or I may estimate that I'm better off keeping those future picks. Either course of action is fine and happens all the time, and no one claims one or the other is unethical (because, of course, neither of them is, nor is any other lineup strategy you employ within the rules to maximize your chances of winning the prize).

i guess his philosophical argument missed the target?

Yes, it was pretty far off target, honestly.

 

[Zow]

In the former case, you’ve turned talent into future assets (picks). In the latter there’s no immediate benefit to benching those players.

There's no immediate benefit to future assets, either. You benefit from them in the future.

It's strange that so many people will twist themselves into knots trying to make these two things different when they're essentially the same.

Sorry, that's just not logical or reasonable - all due respect.

I laid it out.
Scenario 1: you're fielding your best lineup, which happens to be terrible. This is a season-long scenario with no specific opponent.
Scenario 2: You're deliberately NOT fielding your best lineup for a specific opponent.

If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it any better than that.

In scenario 1, your best lineup happens to be terrible because you intentionally made it terrible. Moving your best players from your starting lineup to another team is ok, but moving them to your bench is morally reprehensible?

Also, practically speaking, it's rarely if ever a "season-long scenario." Are you philosophically opposed to trades that occur during the season? They're not equitable to the league.

Yes, because you are receiving consideration in return from another team (which lends to competitive balance in the league because your trade partner's team is now weaker). This is equitable in the long run.

The second scenario is different and morally reprehensible because there is no long-term equitable balance scenario.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

for those who voted "yes"...

why not just submit an empty line up?

Sometimes the rules prohibit this, and usually the league management software prevents it anyway.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yes, because you are receiving consideration in return from another team (which lends to competitive balance in the league because your trade partner's team is now weaker). This is equitable in the long run.

Making one team stronger and one team weaker leads to competitive balance? How does the week 17 opponent of the team that is suddenly stronger feel about this assessment? How does the league feel about the fact that a single owner has the benefit of facing the suddenly weaker team that week?

 

[Jppaul]

for those who voted "yes"...

why not just submit an empty line up?

Sometimes the rules prohibit this, and usually the league management software prevents it anyway.

so the only reason you don't steal from your neighbor is because of the rules/laws?

 

[Jppaul]

Yes, because you are receiving consideration in return from another team (which lends to competitive balance in the league because your trade partner's team is now weaker). This is equitable in the long run.

Making one team stronger and one team weaker leads to competitive balance? How does the week 17 opponent of the team that is suddenly stronger feel about this assessment? How does the league feel about the fact that a single owner has the benefit of facing the suddenly weaker team that week?

this is a separated topic... but if league members are displeased by this, it's probably because they suck at trading.

 

[Grid71]

I've started players that I want to trade. Felt a bench guy was my preferred option due to matchups, but thought benching player X would give away I'd lost faith in the player.
Basically, allowed me give the perception a player is a starter for me in the trade vs a bench guy.

 

[BassNBrew]

In the former case, you’ve turned talent into future assets (picks). In the latter there’s no immediate benefit to benching those players.

There's no immediate benefit to future assets, either. You benefit from them in the future.

It's strange that so many people will twist themselves into knots trying to make these two things different when they're essentially the same.

Sorry, that's just not logical or reasonable - all due respect.

I laid it out.
Scenario 1: you're fielding your best lineup, which happens to be terrible. This is a season-long scenario with no specific opponent.
Scenario 2: You're deliberately NOT fielding your best lineup for a specific opponent.

If you can't see the difference, I can't explain it any better than that.

I'm going to tank the remaining weeks of the season so it's not a specific opponent.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

so the only reason you don't steal from your neighbor is because of the rules/laws?

No, because that would be unethical. But if my neighbor and I both paid a bunch of money to enter a "see who can steal the most stuff from their neighbor" contest, it would be a different situation.

 

[Scoresman]

I voted Yes because I play exclusively redraft.

In redraft, the only viable reason to play a bad lineup would be to maneuver your team into a particular playoff matchup which I feel is ok since it would happen so rarely and is actually a tactic for more short term success for your team.

In Dynasty, I'd probably vote no. but I don't like Dynasty. This is one of the reasons.

 

[Jppaul]

I guess the question is... is not tanking a social convention?

would it be tantamount to tipping in a restaurant? I mean, there's no law, no sign when you enter the restaurant that says you have to tip?

(side note: stop asking for a tip when I get my own stuff and go to a self-check out)

 

[TheWinz]

Inferior lineup and tanking are 2 totally separate things, as long as the owner THINKS he/she are starting the lineup that will score the most points. Tanking is outright TRYING to lose.

 

[Gally]

Now you're acting like there aren't toss up decisions made every single week. I could have multiple versions of my best lineup every week. I know some guys have better upsides and some players have better floors. If we're in the last week of the season and I'd benefit from losing, I'll play a guy who is more floor than upside. That is in no way an integrity thing.

I am not talking about toss up decisions at all. Maybe I am not explaining the situation correctly. My question was is it ever ok to purposely play a worse lineup to try and lose? That is all I was asking.

Yet in your OP you excuse owners trading away their best players and not being a competitive team as not an issue. It's purposefully upsetting the power balance of the league and I'd argue that is just as unethical.

In a dynasty format there are times when you aren't competitive so you make a decision to start a rebuild by making trades that will deplete your current year roster in an attempt to gather future assets. That is completely different than purposely playing an inferior lineup. A lineup that you do not believe to be the best lineup based on your roster. Those are two different items and not the point of the pole question. These are two completely different things with respect to ethics (integrity).

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I guess the question is... is not tanking a social convention?

I think part of the problem is people are conflating social conventions with competitions entered into for the explicit purpose of winning other people's money. Lying, for instance, is generally considered unethical - but bluffing in poker is a perfectly acceptable strategy. They are different contexts.

 

[eighsse2]

In defense of the "trading players for picks is the same as starting a weak lineup" argument, though I disagree, it would make pretty good sense to equate the two IFF assets were 100% fluid and maintained at least approximate value. Or even with randomly fluctuating value.

I'm 2-7.
Trade ALL of my decent players for picks and/or injured players or prospects.
Lose out.
Get the #1 draft spot.
Trade the same picks/players back for the same good players I used to have.

The only thing keeping the two concepts from being the same, for our purposes here, as I see it, is the non-fluidity of assets in a small market like a fantasy league.

 

[Gally]

The one situation where I think it may still be okay in that context is if you're a big underdog. For example, Team A is like a 50 point favorite to Team B and Team B thinks "hey, I need to take risks" and starts like a Taysom Hill or say a healthy TJ Hockenson or Dallas Goedert or something with the idea that Hill's got the higher ceiling (with a much lower floor). I'd argue this is fine even though it's not the optimal lineup.

This is for sure fine because the owner is deciding on a strategy that he thinks is his best shot to win that game. It is not intentionally playing a lineup he feels gives him a worse chance to win that game.

The crux of the question is in the "intentionally" playing a lesser lineup "trying to lose". FF is a crapshoot every week. Nobody knows what the best lineup is or the correct decision. We all make educated guesses and typically do what we believe gives us the best shot to win that particular game. The question was is it ever ok to intentionally play a lesser lineup to try and lose. I believe there is never a reason to do that.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Inferior lineup and tanking are 2 totally separate things, as long as the owner THINKS he/she are starting the lineup that will score the most points. Tanking is outright TRYING to lose.

So what of the situation where the owner genuinely believes he is starting the lineup that will score the most points, which just so happens to be projected for an extremely low total because he traded away a bunch of his better players? That's not tanking?

 

[eighsse2]

Inferior lineup and tanking are 2 totally separate things, as long as the owner THINKS he/she are starting the lineup that will score the most points. Tanking is outright TRYING to lose.

So what of the situation where the owner genuinely believes he is starting the lineup that will score the most points, which just so happens to be projected for an extremely low total because he traded away a bunch of his better players? That's not tanking?

It's similar but it has a permanent effect on your roster. If assets were perfectly fluid I think you'd be spot on.

 

[Gally]

The question is irrelevant in leagues that have good settings. So, yes, in any league I'm in, people can set whatever lineups they like because there is 0 benefit to setting a poor line up on purpose.

You are completely missing the point.

I think you are being extremely vague and not providing a point. This entire poll and your responses in it feel like the build up to some "gotcha" moment for some other league mate where you can say "see the internet agrees with me". The question you're asking without any qualifying statements is quite frankly stupid. And your dismissing of anyone trying to get more detailed information about what potential circumstances surround the question, or even your reason for asking it, feels very disingenuous. I regret even responding. Have a great league year.

The question is clear, however you seem to be trying to make more out of it than what it is. If your answer is it doesn't matter if your rules make it so losing doesn't matter then it is missing the point. You aren't answering the question. The answer of "it doesn't matter" really isn't a choice.

I am not dismissing people when they are answering the question. You started down a road about league rules and if the rules were good then there is no reason to do this so it doesn't matter. Again. Not the point.

My reason for asking it was a conversation with a friend about purposely playing inferior lineups. I thought it would make a good topic for discussion. I figured I would get the people that think it's ok going with the "I am bettering my draft pick so it's fine to do crowd". I was hoping to get into more of a philosophical discussion about playing FF and the decisions you make with respect to league integrity or playing in a vacuum. Part of the discussion my buddy and I had was about competitive balance during the course of a year where team is trying to win for 4 or 5 weeks and then starts playing bad lineups on purpose trying to lose and whether or not that is a lack of integrity or not.

I was not trying to use this as a "gotcha" moment. Just thought it could bring up some good discussion.

 

[Gally]

let's say its the week before the playoffs.....and I am guaranteed to make the playoffs.....and for whatever reason Team A only has Josh Allen at QB and he can't make any moves and Allen will be out the first week of the playoffs....and I know if I lose the week before the playoffs I would be matched up against Team A in the first round of the playoffs...otherwise if I win I am going to be facing a tougher fully loaded team.....losing basically guarantees me advancing to the second round of the playoffs....hmmmmm....give me the L....

you could argue, if the goal of every team should be to win the championship.....I would actually be doing the league a disservice by not trying to lose that last regular season game.....as losing that game gives me a better chance to win the big prize....

I agree that this is a situation that would make sense and that your reasoning was for a better chance at winning this year. Makes sense.

 

[Gally]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

 

[Gally]

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

This was the crux of the question. I was wondering if anybody thought this was ok. Seems like some do think it is ok. That surprises me.

 

[BassNBrew]

12 yes votes

for those who voted "yes"...

why not just submit an empty line up?

Because my league rules require me to pick up scrubs off the WW after I've traded away all my studs to field a lineup.

 

[eighsse2]

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

This was the crux of the question. I was wondering if anybody thought this was ok. Seems like some do think it is ok. That surprises me.

I believe Zow mentioned a league that expressly allows it (until the rule changes soon). If even one such league exists in the world then the answer is clearly yes.

 

[Gally]

Inferior lineup and tanking are 2 totally separate things, as long as the owner THINKS he/she are starting the lineup that will score the most points. Tanking is outright TRYING to lose.

Exactly.

Tanking is not trading current assets for future assets with the by-product of weakening your current year roster. You are doing this as an attempt to improve your future. This is part of dynasty leagues.

Purposely playing an inferior lineup from the assets on your roster in an attempt to try to lose shouldn't be part of any league.

 

[BassNBrew]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking is not trading current assets for future assets with the by-product of weakening your current year roster. You are doing this as an attempt to improve your future.

How do you discern each owner's intentions to know this?

 

[Zow]

The one situation where I think it may still be okay in that context is if you're a big underdog. For example, Team A is like a 50 point favorite to Team B and Team B thinks "hey, I need to take risks" and starts like a Taysom Hill or say a healthy TJ Hockenson or Dallas Goedert or something with the idea that Hill's got the higher ceiling (with a much lower floor). I'd argue this is fine even though it's not the optimal lineup.

This is for sure fine because the owner is deciding on a strategy that he thinks is his best shot to win that game. It is not intentionally playing a lineup he feels gives him a worse chance to win that game.

The crux of the question is in the "intentionally" playing a lesser lineup "trying to lose". FF is a crapshoot every week. Nobody knows what the best lineup is or the correct decision. We all make educated guesses and typically do what we believe gives us the best shot to win that particular game. The question was is it ever ok to intentionally play a lesser lineup to try and lose. I believe there is never a reason to do that.

Agreed - I corrected myself after I reread the OP.

 

[Zow]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

Nobody is arguing the bold. Everybody is saying the hypothetical trades are "fair."

 

[BassNBrew]

Inferior lineup and tanking are 2 totally separate things, as long as the owner THINKS he/she are starting the lineup that will score the most points. Tanking is outright TRYING to lose.

Tanking is not trading current assets for future assets with the by-product of weakening your current year roster. You are doing this as an attempt to improve your future. This is part of dynasty leagues.

That's exactly what tanking is. Fire sale of your your assets for future considerations is one of the main ways pro teams tank.

 

[Zow]

But I draw the line at intentionally losing. Never ok for any reason.

This was the crux of the question. I was wondering if anybody thought this was ok. Seems like some do think it is ok. That surprises me.

I believe Zow mentioned a league that expressly allows it (until the rule changes soon). If even one such league exists in the world then the answer is clearly yes.

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023). It was pitched to me as kind of a nuance/niche to the league. So, yeah, while some of us didn't like it (and people got way carried away with it last year which prompted the anticipated rule change), it was "ok" from a moral perspective because the rules expressly permitted it.

 

[BassNBrew]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

Nobody is arguing the bold. Everybody is saying the hypothetical trades are "fair."

As is starting inferior players OR

Not actively working the waiver wire for a better starter OR

Not checking in at 3;55 to see the late scratches for the 4 pm games

Unless your rules required you to do these things.

 

[Gally]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

I will give the benefit of the doubt in this hypothetical situation that the trade that was made was even so the value difference between the lesser players and better players was made up in pick value. So by making an even trade you are in no way trying to lose overall. It may have the ultimate outcome of losing but you are not trying to lose by making a conscious decision to play a lesser player over a better player that are currently available to you.

Now if you trade a stud for a player that is paralyzed and will never play again, then you can likely assume that by making that trade you are trying to lose.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Purposely playing an inferior lineup from the assets on your roster in an attempt to try to lose shouldn't be part of any league.

I agree that it probably shouldn't be a part of any league. But it is part of many leagues, because many leagues (unintentionally) encourage it via incentives that are misaligned with preventing tanking. Despite your earlier objections, it really is mostly an issue of league structure. Don't try to legislate against tanking, or shame people into not tanking by making spurious arguments about ethics - just remove the incentives to tank and tanking will magically no longer be an issue.

 

[Gally]

Tanking is not trading current assets for future assets with the by-product of weakening your current year roster. You are doing this as an attempt to improve your future.

How do you discern each owner's intentions to know this?

Basic assumption of dynasty team building but to answer your question there is no way to know for sure. What's are you trying to get at?

 

[Zow]

If I'm trying to win a championship in the next three years and losing in week 17 this year will give me a better chance of doing that, I'm still trying to win, too. Why is it "unethical" to bench a player one week, but not similarly unethical to, say, trade away my first round pick to another owner? In both instances I'm making my team worse in the short term, at the exclusive benefit of a single other owner, in the hopes of making my team better in the long run.

Trading away players for future assets is a common rebuild situation where you are trying to improve your team. The fact it is worsening your team in the short term is part of that process. It is unavoidable because in order to gain future assets you have to give up current assets (at least this is a common way of doing so). You are not necessarily "trying to lose" but are hoping that's a byproduct. You are still playing the best players on your roster week to week at the time trying to put up the most points you can.

With respect to the benching your stud to try and lose week 17 scenario you are purposely trying to lose in the current year. It's a conscious decision to be worse than you are which isn't right for the rest of the league.

I understand the fine line and understand your argument. I just don't think it is the same thing with the latter (making an inferior lineup from your available roster) being unethical if a competitive situation.

If you trade your best assets for lesser players then you aren't trying to win, which is nets the same outcome as trying to lose and has the same identical impact on the rest of the league in the current year.

Nobody is arguing the bold. Everybody is saying the hypothetical trades are "fair."

As is starting inferior players OR

Not actively working the waiver wire for a better starter OR

Not checking in at 3;55 to see the late scratches for the 4 pm games

Unless your rules required you to do these things.

I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. We're discussing whether just pure tanking is the same as trading away current players for future draft picks/assets.

 

[Gally]

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023).

What is "expressly permitted"? By that I mean, do the rules say you can play people on bye to try and lose? (or other examples of this nature)

 

[eighsse2]

Tanking is not trading current assets for future assets with the by-product of weakening your current year roster. You are doing this as an attempt to improve your future.

How do you discern each owner's intentions to know this?

Basic assumption of dynasty team building but to answer your question there is no way to know for sure. What's are you trying to get at?

Doesn't seem like an entirely safe assumption, though true the vast majority of the time I'm sure.

 

[Zow]

Yeah I'm part of a league where tanking is, again, expressly permitted in the bylaws (at least through FF season 2023).

What is "expressly permitted"? By that I mean, do the rules say you can play people on bye to try and lose? (or other examples of this nature)

I don't recall the rule verbatim, and there are rules about at least setting a viable starting lineups (i.e. you can't start a player on bye and you can't start a knowingly injured player), but the rules do contain the phrase "tanking is not forbidden and is expressly permitted."

So, basically, you have a few owners the second half of the year picking up like team's second string QBs and 4th string WRs to fill out half their rosters (and bench their keepers). I find it dumb and unfair to those who don't get to play those teams after they went into tank mode, but I cannot say the owners were not "ok" in doing what they did from a moral perspective given the rules.

ETA: At times it gets kind of comical because we had one team beat the other like 1.8 to .6. Kind of funny when you think that a random single catch by some guy like Brevin Jordan decides a fantasy game in its entirety.