Not sure if its the right forum here more ethics than should I do this but heres the situation. Draft was last night keeper league and my keepers were Lamont Jordan, Ronnie Brown, Steve Smith, and of course Dominick Davis. So I approached an owner in our league who had the second pick in this draft and told him I may be able to help him out at rb. I offered DD for pick 1.2 and 1.8 I also told him it was up to him to decide if he liked DD over Bush, Parker, Westy, and Dunn, (the available players) he took the trade. the worst part is in the 12th and 13th I took Morency and Lundi. I do feel guily in some respect and while I feel it was common knowledge DD was hurt and would at least miss week 1, I dont think it is common knowledge the extent of the injury. thoughts...............................
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Should I Feel Guilty (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter phowler13
- Start date
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Buyer beware. You got the most out of what you were trying to move, and you didn't lie to him. I don't see the problem.
my man otis
Footballguy
if it's a friend it's pretty uncool i think.
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
Of course you should not feel guilty, in fact I think this above board transaction will only strengthen your relationship with your friend. Think of all the good times you will have reminiscing about the time you traded him a guy that may be cut for two first rounders and then you two can laugh and laugh, then he will look at you and say "Boy, you crafty son of a gun you really got me there." and exchange a man hug. As a matter of fact I think your friend should actually thank you, you are doing him a great service by teaching him that he has a gullible nature and shouldn't even trust his "friends" in life and he will be better off for it.
Mmen of Steel
Footballguy
Explain the reason for the lock.Maybe you can teach the guy something.Or maybe you can see that you don't have a reason.Either way, we're all better off with an explanation.Moderators - is there a way we can "lock" the 'lock' ???It is getting to be just plain stupid.
thank you................ if you want it locked where is the better forum?????
happy_donut
Footballguy
anywhere would be better than here. lose friend over FF =
Last edited by a moderator:
Gandalf
Footballguy
Here's the issue that you will find making these types of deals with friends. You can make them exactly ONE time. Then you have burned a bridge. Your deal was not illegal by your league rules, and I'm not sure if it was unethical--did you mislead your friend into thinking his injury wasn't that big a deal? You can mislead by ommission, which sounds by your story like you did. Your credibility with other owners likely will take a hit once your friend realizes what transpired. Trashing your rep is not worth winning at fantasy football. Think twice next time before putting it to a friend. Here's a good test to determine if your actions are ethical... if you have to ask a FF forum whether your actions were ethical, they probably weren't.
pinequick
Footballguy
Don't piss in the trading pool. If DD really is out for an extended period, you've pretty much guaranteed that he will never trade with you again. 
Avery
Footballguy
Why wouldn't he?Unless there is a rule in the league that says, "A trade will be vetoed if one owner screws over another owner by misleading by omission the severity of a player injury that is involved in the trade."I wouldn't have done the trade myself. It burns the trading bridge with that owner (and perhaps the league) to the ground, and I play in leagues I plan to stay in long term, but there is nothing vetoable about it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
"Oh yeah. And Manning retired."
"Which one?"
"Both of them."
Not excellent.
Have a nice season, guy.
"Which one?"
"Both of them."
Not excellent.
Have a nice season, guy.
So in your mind every trade is fine as long as the owners did not collude?
M
mojorizin
Guest
What did we know last night? That DD was probably out 1st week, right? I wouldnt have offered him at all until we knew more, but thats how it goes sometimes.
salmonstud
Footballguy
That is pretty uncool when you know a guy is injured and try to trade him to a buddy without telling him.
However, in my 12 team redraft league, a guy took Dom Davis late in the 2nd round. In that league it's unspoken law that once you select a player, you can't take it back once you find out the guy is injured. I guess you could argue that is nearly as bad.
The logic is if you are dumb enough to not be up to speed on players, then you shouldn't be gambling money by playing in $$$ FF leagues. I almost suggested that we let this guy take his pick back but I would have been stoned by my league mates. After the pick, I did give him the name of DD's backups and suggest that he may want to take them late in the draft. See...I do have a heart.
However, in my 12 team redraft league, a guy took Dom Davis late in the 2nd round. In that league it's unspoken law that once you select a player, you can't take it back once you find out the guy is injured. I guess you could argue that is nearly as bad.
The logic is if you are dumb enough to not be up to speed on players, then you shouldn't be gambling money by playing in $$$ FF leagues. I almost suggested that we let this guy take his pick back but I would have been stoned by my league mates. After the pick, I did give him the name of DD's backups and suggest that he may want to take them late in the draft. See...I do have a heart.
Imagine if, in week 2 of last season, someone traded Deuce McAllister, Kevin Jones, and Priest Holmes for Larry Johnson, Mike Anderson, and Steve Smith. People would have vetoed that trade in a heartbeat if they could, protecting the owner getting LJ and Smiff from "his own stupidity".That's why trades shouldn't be vetoable unless there's some evidence of wrongdoing. A lot of times, the owners who need to be protected from their stupidity are the ones trying to drop the veto.Daywalker said:
I've never been in a league where a veto occurred. In over 10 years of playing football and baseball. I nearly did call for a veto this past baseball season. An owner traded K. Escobar and waiver wire trash for C. Carpentar. I let it go because I wasn't prepared to draw the line there. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If an owner in your league was a big S. Alexander fan and he offered the owner of the #1 pick all of his picks from rounds 1-8 for the #1 pick would you let that go? You can't let that go.
Avery
Footballguy
Then you better have something written in your rules for that or else you will have some POed owners. I can think of a lot of cases in dynasty/keeper leagues where owners say a trade "isn't fair" using the "I know it when I see it" standard. When things ultimately shake out over a couple of years the trade often turns out to be damn fair if not lopsided the other way.Since none of us are Nostradamus, none of us can say a trade isn't equitable in the long run, because we don't really know which players will pan out. Some trades involving a basketball player turned TE who plays for the Chargers and a disgruntled backup running back who now starts for the Chiefs come to mind where owners said the trade was unfair for the team getting the basketball player and the backup RB.It turned out pretty well for them.
If you don't have anything in the rules against it, you HAVE to let it go. In my opinion, if you start interpreting the rules or adding clauses that aren't already there, you're just starting yourself down a very slippery slope. You lose all moral authority in the future to say "that trade is not vetoable", because you've established a precedent that trades CAN be vetoed based on subjective criteria- and who's to say where the line is at that point? There's a reason it's called subjective.If you really want to prevent a situation like that one, write a clause into your league's rules saying that any trade of draft picks that involves one side getting 50% more value than the other according to the FBG's pick value calculator is subject to an automatic veto. Or set the bar at 100%, or 25%, or pick a different pick value calculator, or whatever. If you want to regulate in-season trades, then do a similar rule involving the FBGs "Top 200 Forward" list that they publish every week of the season. Obviously you have to establish SOME room for people to gain or lose value, because everyone's going to value every player differently, but if you have some hard and fast rule on the books with very clear and non-debateable lines drawn, then no one can whine if their trade is found to be illegal.
In the end, there can't be the slightest hint of subjectivity in a trade veto, or it WILL come back to bite you in the butt at some point in the future.
If you don't have anything in the rules against it, you HAVE to let it go. In my opinion, if you start interpreting the rules or adding clauses that aren't already there, you're just starting yourself down a very slippery slope. You lose all moral authority in the future to say "that trade is not vetoable", because you've established a precedent that trades CAN be vetoed based on subjective criteria- and who's to say where the line is at that point? There's a reason it's called subjective.
If you really want to prevent a situation like that one, write a clause into your league's rules saying that any trade of draft picks that involves one side getting 50% more value than the other according to the FBG's pick value calculator is subject to an automatic veto. Or set the bar at 100%, or 25%, or pick a different pick value calculator, or whatever. If you want to regulate in-season trades, then do a similar rule involving the FBGs "Top 200 Forward" list that they publish every week of the season. Obviously you have to establish SOME room for people to gain or lose value, because everyone's going to value every player differently, but if you have some hard and fast rule on the books with very clear and non-debateable lines drawn, then no one can whine if their trade is found to be illegal.
In the end, there can't be the slightest hint of subjectivity in a trade veto, or it WILL come back to bite you in the butt at some point in the future.
[/quote
I agree well said.
I would tell him, but if it's a money league (and you aren't friends with any of the owners), then I can understand if you choose not to.If it's a friendly league, I feel like there's absolutely positively NO REASON not to tell him.
kris
Footballguy
I wouldn't want to win by tricking someone else. I like a good bargaining session where both teams get something they need. That said, at some point everyone has to be held accountable for knowing what's going on. So there's a fine line, what you did was tricky, but it's just one of those things that's on you. Obviously, you have a conscious or you wouldn't have brought this topic up. Now, if it's a guy who has been a jerk to me in negotiations, then maybe the hammer goes down on him if he's not up on the current news.
This is supposed to be a "keeper" league, right? That in itself means you are not dealing with rookie players here. These are the FF junkies. I feel that this owner got what was coming to him. It's not like DD's situation is not common knowledge for a long time now. That bridge being burned however, I think you know it would be wasted breath to ever attempt another trade with this guy.
In our league, after the commish vetoed a trade that the league considered fair, he instituted a vote on all trades clause. Every owner gets one vote, commish gets 1.5 as tie-breaker. Votes are counted after two days. If only 4 people voted, but 3 were yes, the trade goes through. This simple system has all but eliminated the utterly lop-sided trade proposals. Guys know that anything too crazy will just get vetoed. I like the system...but the dark side of the force in me also laughs a little at the above manuever.
In our league, after the commish vetoed a trade that the league considered fair, he instituted a vote on all trades clause. Every owner gets one vote, commish gets 1.5 as tie-breaker. Votes are counted after two days. If only 4 people voted, but 3 were yes, the trade goes through. This simple system has all but eliminated the utterly lop-sided trade proposals. Guys know that anything too crazy will just get vetoed. I like the system...but the dark side of the force in me also laughs a little at the above manuever.
Big Score
Footballguy
It is a money league. Personally, I would like to tell him, but I don't think that would sit too well with some of the other owners.Kind of in a Catch 22 situation, if you see what I mean.
You leave out too much info to get any real answers... but obviously you knew he was a guppie and you took advantage... If this is a friend league, low money... then you probally lost some friends... if it's a competitive league then each to his own... you have to put it in prospective...If it was a new owner who took over the keeper team... I'd probally hold you down while he kicked the #### out of you... as you probally just ruined fantasy football for a new owner...If you feel this is how you have to win your league, you are probally already a loser... But if it's competitive, big money... good jobphowler13 said:
but I got a feeling it's not...
GrandpaRox
Footballguy
Legally it is a good move =
Morally it is a really really crappy move =
What it does is tell what kind of person you are more than what kind of FF player you are.
And you know how bad a move it is just by posting here and asking.
Being a "shark" is one thing, this is not a "shark" move.
Morally it is a really really crappy move =
What it does is tell what kind of person you are more than what kind of FF player you are.
And you know how bad a move it is just by posting here and asking.
Being a "shark" is one thing, this is not a "shark" move.
fsufan
Footballguy
here is a trade that happen last offseason in one of my dynasty leagues. About Feb of last year a guy traded T. Bell for LJ. At the time everyone thought Bell was going to be the #1 RB for Denver and said this is a dumb trade. Look what happened.here is a trade that went down a week ago in another dnasty league I play in.R. Williams for K. Robinson, G. Jones and Wilford
Last edited by a moderator:
