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.
Thats a good way to put it, but it seems like "not trying to win" has also been chalked up to an integrity issue for some here.
Making trades to put your team in a better position for the following year and beyond would = "not trying to win"
I don't think this is tanking in the true sense of the word, as they're just trading assets to prepare their teams for the future. I understand this article is defining it as such and the term is sometimes used this way.
I can agree with this. That said, league rules should address the various forms of tanking if they want certain forms banned.
Legal according to most league rules. i have no qualms with this. The taxi squad is its own animal, and league rules determine duration.
Sure its legal. But I was a bit surprised with the unethical viewing of certain aspects of dynasty management. If I drafted Bijan and left him on my taxi squad all year, are the same people mad about benching him mad about that?
of course not, you're making a decision in the best long term interest of your team. this is much more like trading assets for draft picks. you're not intentionally losing games.
ID argue that you are intestinally losing games at that point. You're not playing your best lineup.
have to put forth your best effort to win each individual game with the eligible players on your roster. that's pretty much it.
Yeah its the ridiculousness of making a player eligible or not that gets equated to ethics... that's what I find hypocritical.
For me it depends on whether or not there is a reason to leave that player on the TS that benefits the team in some way other than playing a worse player.
Tough lineup decisions that are coin flips where you aren't sure the best option is not what is in question. That is not a "best lineup angle" that I am referring to.
No time limits. This is as simple as I know I'm not a championship team. I drafted Bijan and can leave him on the TS for a year as a rookie to have an extra roster spot to utilize during the year. Starting Bijan makes my team score more points, and I choose not to do that. How is that more ethical than benching him for a week?
The intent is improving draft stock or playoff seeding. The attempt to lose vs putting a team in a situation to lose are irrelevant to me.
To me it would not be. I am not sure the purpose of the TS if there is no keeper benefits to it. Why even have a TS if there is no purpose to it other than to hide good players to make your team worse?
TS is for players you have the rights to, but don't intend to start. Most leagues I've seen allow rookies to stay there to not impact roster limits.
Leave my indigestion out of this.
It’s not hypocritical. It’s exactly what taxi squads are for.
I guess I just fundamentally disagree with you. If you're leaving Bijon your taxi squad you're doing the exact same thing as benching him. Not trying to win each week.
And yet it’s clearly not the same thing.
Again I disagree. The overall impact the league is the same. Drawing an ethical line there doesn't add up.
Each to their own. I see the difference as pretty obvious, but we can agree to disagree.
Presumptively, the reason you leave someone on the taxi squad is that you don't expect them to score points and help you win games this year. (I've never been in a league with a taxi squad, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Why would you leave someone on the taxi squad, rookie or 35 years old, unless you thought they were going to put up fewer points than the guys you're choosing to include on your active roster? If you do in fact put someone on the taxi squad that you expect to score more points then any players on your active roster, how is that "ethically" different from leaving a guy on the bench whom you expect to score more points than your starters? What other advantage is there to putting them on the taxi squad?
In my league you can only keep players a certain number of years. That clock doesn't start until the player is on the active roster. So by putting a player on the TS you are delaying the start of that clock. In this situation putting a guy like Bijan on the TS has a long term advantage plus you put them on before the season starts so you don't know for sure they will produce as expected. Another reason to put them on TS even if you believe they can help you....there is no guarantee they will at the time you put them on the TS.
The reason you’d leave them on the TS isPresumptively, the reason you leave someone on the taxi squad is that you don't expect them to score points and help you win games this year. (I've never been in a league with a taxi squad, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Why would you leave someone on the taxi squad, rookie or 35 years old, unless you thought they were going to put up fewer points than the guys you're choosing to include on your active roster? If you do in fact put someone on the taxi squad that you expect to score more points then any players on your active roster, how is that "ethically" different from leaving a guy on the bench whom you expect to score more points than your starters? What other advantage is there to putting them on the taxi squad?
ETA: I suppose an argument could be made that Player A is on your active roster because you think he's more matchup dependent, and could be a very good start certain weeks, whereas player B, though you expect him to score more points throughout the season, would have fewer weeks that you'd actually start him due to being more consistent and less matchup dependent.
But either way, in the example of Bijan versus Tank Bigsby, it would require an essentially equally absurd argument to make your case for leaving Bijan on the taxi squad for Bigsby.
Agreed, same with trading players away, there is a subtle difference (versus benching), which is you are permanently deforming your team, which is a cost you have to weigh against potentially raising your draft slot.The reason you’d leave them on the TS isPresumptively, the reason you leave someone on the taxi squad is that you don't expect them to score points and help you win games this year. (I've never been in a league with a taxi squad, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Why would you leave someone on the taxi squad, rookie or 35 years old, unless you thought they were going to put up fewer points than the guys you're choosing to include on your active roster? If you do in fact put someone on the taxi squad that you expect to score more points then any players on your active roster, how is that "ethically" different from leaving a guy on the bench whom you expect to score more points than your starters? What other advantage is there to putting them on the taxi squad?
ETA: I suppose an argument could be made that Player A is on your active roster because you think he's more matchup dependent, and could be a very good start certain weeks, whereas player B, though you expect him to score more points throughout the season, would have fewer weeks that you'd actually start him due to being more consistent and less matchup dependent.
But either way, in the example of Bijan versus Tank Bigsby, it would require an essentially equally absurd argument to make your case for leaving Bijan on the taxi squad for Bigsby.
1. They don’t count against active roster limits
2. They don’t accrue contract years (if applicable)
3. They don’t count against salary cap (if applicable)
4. For the same reason you’d bench them, to benefit your draft status the next year assuming you aren’t competitive anyway.
But the difference between #4 and benching Bijan to tank is that (again) there is a cost to activating Bijan from the TS.
There is no cost in benching him.
It’s a subtle, yet important difference. As I said above, both achieve the same results, so I understand why folks might be confused about the nuance, but IMO it’s fairly obvious.
Especially in light of most leagues having “no tanking” rules, where benching a top tier player is an obvious violation, while keeping one on the TS is a legal move since they can’t simply be swapped back and forth to the active roster like benching can.
to me it comes down to cost. There’s no cost / penalty to putting a player on the bench, while keeping a player on the TS costs a TS squad spot (most leagues with TS have limits) and active roster position cost if one activates said player.
And ethically speaking, there can be no question about a rebuilding team with a top tier player on the taxi squad. They’re running out the same lineup every week regardless of opponent. The team with a top tier player deliberately benched calls into question why they’re giving their opponent a softer matchup. Sure, one can say they’re doing it to benefit themselves, but there’s also a benefit to that week’s opponent. Usually it’s best to avoid those questions in FF in my experience.
Like I said above - the results look similar, but the methods are vastly different. Just because two cars arrive at the same gas station doesn’t mean they took the same route to get there.
You are intentional losing games. In fact you're intentional losing more games than benching someone in week 15. It's even a more ergrious tanking job.
by that logic teams wouldn't be able to keep any players on their taxi squad because it would make their current team worse.
That's a nonsense argument ... You can only keep so many players on the active roster. If you can have additional players that can only be on the taxi squad, of course you're going to fill those extra spots. The question is which players go on taxi and which go on active.
My point is that all of these are a form of tanking. I'm fine defining some tanking as OK and other tanking as not, it just needs to be outlined in the league rules. If it's not in the leagues rules then IMO every form of tanking is OK. I'm not a fan of unwritten rules or the commish using judgement to say this form of tanking is OK but this form isn't.
Yeah, good example of the problem with subjective "judgment"-type rules.
I get where you’re coming from, honestly I do.
Fine trade the guy for future picks then rather than activating him
I think it's a fair analogy because in either case, if you leave it up to judgment calls, there are edge cases where it will appear to some people that something illegal is going on, but there isn't.
Neither of those scenarios are remotely similar to intentionally benching a top player in order to lose.
I'm certain Miles Sanders over Breece Hall would get called out in a lot of leagues.
Sure, but it’s still not the same thing.
They may not be at the same level of outrage. The point is either one has gray areas.
I feel like this is getting into the weeds and semantical. Again, the obvious tanking isn’t the same as starting players projected .3 apart.
Right, those are obviously not the same. Starting someone expected to do more poorly comes in a full spectrum, from totally 100% acceptable, no argument whatsoever from anyone, to complete outright tanking, no question about it. Toward the middle of that spectrum, there is gray where people start to argue.I feel like this is getting into the weeds and semantical. Again, the obvious tanking isn’t the same as starting players projected .3 apart.
Making rules is the way to avoid the ambiguity you’re talking about. No one needs to guess intent.
We’ve hit “agree to disagree” territory here.
All of what’s been discussed so far.
This is different because the entire league gets the same advantage of not playing against Bijan.
And yet this is frowned upon by the rules of some leagues.
The analogy was Jefferson for Puka in week one of last year 2023. Jefferson had just posted 24 pts and was a top pick, Puka had been picked up off the wire. That creates an uproar in most leagues.
