THE QUESTION OF INTENTIONAL TANKING...... (1 Viewer)

[kremenull]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is.

Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.

So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common.

Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

 

[cstu]

So now you're ok with trading draft picks in an initial dynasty draft?

 

[EBF]

It depends on your definition of tanking.

I don't have a problem with a team dumping some of its veteran assets in a rebuilding move. My team in Misfits IV was slipping into the ####ter last year so I traded McNabb, Boldin, Ward, and Stallworth away for draft picks. Now I have the 1.02, 1.03, 1.07, 1.11, and 2.02 to rebuild with.

Was this tanking? Not really. I knew I wasn't going to win without a radical overhaul of my personnel. So I sucked it up and took a short-term loss for (hopefully) a long-term gain. I still picked up veterans like Randle El and Toomer off the waiver wire and tried to field the best team I could each week.

I think rebuilding and foresight are necessary in dynasty. Sometimes you have to sell of some assets and take a gamble on picks or prospects. It's not tanking. It's actually the smart thing to do.

That said, I wouldn't approve of a deal where one team is clearly taking it in the pants. For example, I would definitely cry foul if someone dealt LaDainian Tomlinson for David Givens and Andre Davis. You have to give owners some flexibility to make deals using their own personal concept of player values, but you have to draw the line somewhere. It's usually a judgement call. If it's at all borderline then you let it slip.

I also think you have to punish teams when they're not making any attempt to submit their best lineup. I play in leagues with good owners so I don't often see this sort of thing. But I've heard of other leagues where teams who were eliminated from the playoffs benched all their best players and tried to lose all their remaining games to get a higher pick. I think that's crossing the line.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is. Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common. Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

I'd have a problem discussing this with you because right out of the gate I don't agree with your definition or your labelling of people's intentions in the kind of trade you're talking about.Tanking is taking steps to deliberately try to lose your games. What you're talking about is far from tanking. A team can make a decision that gives them an overall better chance to do well in the league at the cost of a short term loss, without ever trying to intentionally lose any game they ever play. So I think your use of the term is just going to make this thread be people talking about 2 different things.As for the situation you're talking about, I see no problem with it. In my initial dynasty auction I correctly predicted that teams would overpay for RBs and so I just tried to get some RBs who I could start and wouldn't kill my team, but then loaded up on every backup RB with potential I could, at very low prices compared to everyone else's starters, in the hopes some would break out, giving my team going forward good starters at very low cap prices. (Which worked when guys like FWP and Gore broke out in a big way.)The philosophy behind what I did is no different than what you're talking about. I tried to win every game, I tried to field the strongest overall team for the longest period of time I could. It would be a bald faced lie to call what I did tanking. I realized that my strategy might include being weaker in year 1 as I took on more risk at RB, but ultimately I should have several years of great cap position and strength at most all positions. These are the kind of strategic decisions a dynasty league is about.

 

[kremenull]

So now you're ok with trading draft picks in an initial dynasty draft?

Not OK by me based on your open-ended statement. 1st Rd rookie picks for Top 50 players I'm definitely not OK with for my leagues. I think I've explained why a.n. But this value system is something worth considering, as I did try to put some sort of value assessment together (for a 1st Rd pick vs a vet draft pick) for my startup last year. In the final analysis though, it still didn't make sense for the objectives of my league and the culture I wanted to establish for that league. For this particular league, I want guys competing for the top prize from the start, and trading an early Rd veteran pick for a future 1st Rd rookie pick is a recipe for disaster, IMO, and doesn't coincide with being competitive.

 

[kremenull]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is. Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common. Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

I'd have a problem discussing this with you because right out of the gate I don't agree with your definition or your labelling of people's intentions in the kind of trade you're talking about.Tanking is taking steps to deliberately try to lose your games. What you're talking about is far from tanking. A team can make a decision that gives them an overall better chance to do well in the league at the cost of a short term loss, without ever trying to intentionally lose any game they ever play. So I think your use of the term is just going to make this thread be people talking about 2 different things.As for the situation you're talking about, I see no problem with it. In my initial dynasty auction I correctly predicted that teams would overpay for RBs and so I just tried to get some RBs who I could start and wouldn't kill my team, but then loaded up on every backup RB with potential I could, at very low prices compared to everyone else's starters, in the hopes some would break out, giving my team going forward good starters at very low cap prices. (Which worked when guys like FWP and Gore broke out in a big way.)The philosophy behind what I did is no different than what you're talking about. I tried to win every game, I tried to field the strongest overall team for the longest period of time I could. It would be a bald faced lie to call what I did tanking. I realized that my strategy might include being weaker in year 1 as I took on more risk at RB, but ultimately I should have several years of great cap position and strength at most all positions. These are the kind of strategic decisions a dynasty league is about.

My description here of intentional tanking = throwing away the season from the outset........There's no reason to get tied up in semantics here, but your viewpoint and example, although not quite apples-apples, is much appreciated.

 

[kremenull]

It depends on your definition of tanking. I don't have a problem with a team dumping some of its veteran assets in a rebuilding move. My team in Misfits IV was slipping into the ####ter last year so I traded McNabb, Boldin, Ward, and Stallworth away for draft picks. Now I have the 1.02, 1.03, 1.07, 1.11, and 2.02 to rebuild with. Was this tanking? Not really. I knew I wasn't going to win without a radical overhaul of my personnel. So I sucked it up and took a short-term loss for (hopefully) a long-term gain. I still picked up veterans like Randle El and Toomer off the waiver wire and tried to field the best team I could each week. I think rebuilding and foresight are necessary in dynasty. Sometimes you have to sell of some assets and take a gamble on picks or prospects. It's not tanking. It's actually the smart thing to do. That said, I wouldn't approve of a deal where one team is clearly taking it in the pants. For example, I would definitely cry foul if someone dealt LaDainian Tomlinson for David Givens and Andre Davis. You have to give owners some flexibility to make deals using their own personal concept of player values, but you have to draw the line somewhere. It's usually a judgement call. If it's at all borderline then you let it slip. I also think you have to punish teams when they're not making any attempt to submit their best lineup. I play in leagues with good owners so I don't often see this sort of thing. But I've heard of other leagues where teams who were eliminated from the playoffs benched all their best players and tried to lose all their remaining games to get a higher pick. I think that's crossing the line.

Agreed. I believe we are on the same page here, and I really don't see any problems with this example you've provided. Rebuilding for the future after you've tried to make it a go is a far different animal to me than virtually giving up from the start WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY skewing the competitive landscape of the league at it's birth. Thanks for the feedback and the example. See, two guys can still be civil even though they don't see eye-to-eye on everything.......or virtually nothing, that is......McFadden is the #1 stunna!......

 

[BigJim®]

Youth movements are not tanking.

 

[FantasyTrader]

So now you're ok with trading draft picks in an initial dynasty draft?

Not OK by me based on your open-ended statement. 1st Rd rookie picks for Top 50 players I'm definitely not OK with for my leagues. I think I've explained why a.n. But this value system is something worth considering, as I did try to put some sort of value assessment together (for a 1st Rd pick vs a vet draft pick) for my startup last year. In the final analysis though, it still didn't make sense for the objectives of my league and the culture I wanted to establish for that league. For this particular league, I want guys competing for the top prize from the start, and trading an early Rd veteran pick for a future 1st Rd rookie pick is a recipe for disaster, IMO, and doesn't coincide with being competitive.

My league, my league MY LEAGUE. All due respect but your description seems like you run dictatorship leagues which I try to avoid at all costs. "it still didn't make sense for the objectives of my league". For real? All of the owners paid the exact same amount of money to join (at least I hope they did). Shouldn't they have the right do with their team whatever they choose? In my dynasty leagues I dump guaranteed vet points all the time for future picks. It's very viable. In fact, it's one of the key factors that allows repeat champions to reload rather than rebuild.

 

[gianmarco]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.

If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Actually, I think it is good long term strategy to be bad the first year. QB's and Wr's have a long shelf life in dynasty. I think a case can be made for skipping rb early, trading back to get extra picks, and having your first 4 rounds look like Fitz, Edwards, Colston and Romo/Big Ben. Take some fliers on some Rb's with some upside. Then you will lose this year and probably finish last. Draft Wells/Moreno, or trade them for a player.

Presto, now you are right in the mix, and you have a team that likely has staying power.

I only consider it tanking if you are not involved, or not starting your best roster every week. My guess is, you are fairly new to dynasty, and haven't seen the cyclical nature of it yet.

 

[moderated]

As long as a team is making moves that they think are in the best interest of their team long term i don't see any problems with using different strategies to build a team.

And conversely if a team thinks making moves could help their team win a championship and gives up future potential to do it that is fine too.

Everyone has different ideas on how they want to build their team.

 

[Wyld Stallyns]

I used to think along these lines when I first got into fantasy football, that it's all competition and strategy is strategy so anything goes... Tanking now to win later would've been an acceptable move in my mind.

Over the past few seasons though, I've outgrown that mindset and really realized that tanking is frowned upon in pretty much all pro sports for a reason. (At least, blatant tanking anyway)... There's an unspoken pride/honor that comes with professional competition, and part of that code is to always put your best foot forward regardless. If fantasy football is meant to emulate the NFL, then that mindset should carry over as well. IMHO

 

[comfortably numb]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

In the though that "giving up one player, your team is doomed for failure."I ran the table and went 15-0 in a startup 16 team dynasty league that includes some FBG staff.I had no 1st RD pick, and my 1st pick which was early 2nd was Caddy.

 

[gianmarco]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

In the though that "giving up one player, your team is doomed for failure."I ran the table and went 15-0 in a startup 16 team dynasty league that includes some FBG staff.I had no 1st RD pick, and my 1st pick which was early 2nd was Caddy.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't see how giving up assets to build a better future is any different in year one than it is in year two or year three.

I'm in a dynasty where a guy gave up three picks during the startup draft to land additional rookie picks for 2008. He also drafted rookies Dwayne Bowe and Adrian Peterson (maybe more, I didn't look).

As a result of some incredible luck he ended up with the first four picks in this year's rookie draft, plus four or five young/established quality starters - and he's got a team that will be very hard to beat for the next several years.

No one in our league even thought twice about the moves - he had a strategy and he pursued it. As is his right once he put his $$ on the table.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

To me, tanking is when you intentionally try to lose a game. A strategy of trading vets for picks is not tanking in my book.

 

[kremenull]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.

If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

Really....is that what I said??? Not hardly. I stated that these trade deals were a recipe for disaster, and that was meant for the league, not the individual. Although said owner will be in a steep hole out the gate, whether you want to admit it or not. What I am staunchly against, and I've stated over and over and many of you still keep countering with a lot of generic examples that aren't either close to what I'm saying or totally not comparable, is this consensus value assessment on the future rookie picks vs. vet picks. And whether you all are willing to admit it or not, EVERY trade comes down to a value assessment. And if your commish is willing to process ANY trade that comes across his table, then more power to you all for sticking with those leagues.

Let me pose another correlation (example). A few years back, just about every Top 500 company was expensing their employee stock options in such a way that made it highly advantageous to their books, or bottom line. Given this and other subtle accounting practices, it became the "consensus" for these companies to operate in this fashion. And it took a couple of major, fraudulent accounting scandals for regulators to take a closer look at things. Well, they determined that these "consensus" practices weren't the right thing to be doing and changes to the system were implemented.

Now, in relation to fantasy football, this trading of a future 1st Rd pick for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 5th, and I'd even say 6th, but to a lesser degree, during the inaugural draft is just not close to being fair value, IMO, and thus provides a huge advantage for the receiving (of the vet pick) owner, and severely impacts the competitive landscape of the league for the other paying owners. And whether you agree or not, but this is an opinion for which I will continue to defend, but competitive landscape should be taken into consideration. These types of deals, especially the higher the vet pick, should immediately raise an eyebrow toward possible collusion. Now, answer this question if this is such a fair deal, Who in here would reject an offer of their future 1st pick for a current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick landing on your table during an inaugural draft? And you guys don't want me to keep stressing the $$$$ involved, but it's important to the discussion as I especially don't play for free, and higher stakes normally means 1) less risk that you'd be willing to take, and 2) greater reward when you win. If this is such a fair and balanced deal, then someone in here will (honestly) tell me they'd reject this.

Last but not least, to those that try to attack my credibility and/or integrity and attribute things to me that they have no basis for, simply because I have a differing viewpoint from the masses, take a few steps back and always.....always.........speak on what you know about others, not what you assume. And take a moment to remember the folks of Jamestown.......u guys drink all the kool-aid you want, and I'll continue to drink my vitamin water....

Nobody wants to come forward with the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of stories out there where someone giving up a future 1st in the inaugural draft for an early vet pick pretty much dismantled the league, or at the very least, disturbed quite a few owners.........hmmmmmmmmm

 

[gianmarco]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.

If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

Really....is that what I said??? Not hardly. I stated that these trade deals were a recipe for disaster, and that was meant for the league, not the individual. Although said owner will be in a steep hole out the gate, whether you want to admit it or not.

What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ?

Sorry, but that is exactly what you said.

 

[kremenull]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.

If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

Really....is that what I said??? Not hardly. I stated that these trade deals were a recipe for disaster, and that was meant for the league, not the individual. Although said owner will be in a steep hole out the gate, whether you want to admit it or not.

What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ?

Sorry, but that is exactly what you said.

So then what would an owner be doing when giving up a 2nd to 4th Rd pick in the inaugural draft?........Gunning for the championship that year? Be real dude, if you or anyone else does a trade like this, the owner is instantly thinking about Yr 2, don't be in denial. And yeah, lightning can strike and this owner could still end up competing, but the intent, rather it is blatant or not, is to not fare so well and bank on parlaying those picks into something very good down the line. Please don't sit here and tell me that a more than likely 1.06 to 1.12 rookie selection that you will be receiving, is equivalent to the players selected in Rds 2-4 in a vet draft. Puuuullleeeeeeease!If so, then go ahead and trade me Colston, Boldin, or Reggie Wayne for 1.08......Sucker!.....So are you turning down the offer that I mentioned in the previous post?....You didn't mention that but instead wanted to go in circles a.n. yet not addressing the real issue....the value is just way too skewed......and nobody is willing to admit to this.....

 

[King of the Wolfies]

The thing about trading a stud to a team for future picks is that you in all likelihood just made the pick that you get back worse than it initially was. I was talking to a team about trading either #3 this for Housh or DeAngelo Williams. Then all of a sudden, he offers the #3 and his pick next year for both. And not thinking, I accepted, forgetting that I just made his team ALOT better. So instead of getting a top 5 pick next year, I will probably get the 5 or 6 pick. So to get one of my top 3 picks would take alot more than a single future pick.

 

[Tecmo]

I've never understood why owners would give away all their studs just for a bunch of draft picks? Obviously, they want to load up on the best draft picks and hope they land a Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson and crush their opponents for a whole decade. But in reality, they're paying league dues each year and waiting for this young team to blossom. It's a horrible strategy to me, too risky. If that's what an owner wants to do, fine, it's a strategy. It does kind of bother me that the teams in that division get too many easy wins, it upsets the balance which is messed up, but I can live with it as long as they're not tanking.

 

[rabidfireweasel]

Really....is that what I said??? Not hardly. I stated that these trade deals were a recipe for disaster, and that was meant for the league, not the individual. Although said owner will be in a steep hole out the gate, whether you want to admit it or not.

What I am staunchly against, and I've stated over and over and many of you still keep countering with a lot of generic examples that aren't either close to what I'm saying or totally not comparable, is this consensus value assessment on the future rookie picks vs. vet picks. And whether you all are willing to admit it or not, EVERY trade comes down to a value assessment. And if your commish is willing to process ANY trade that comes across his table, then more power to you all for sticking with those leagues.

Let me pose another correlation (example). A few years back, just about every Top 500 company was expensing their employee stock options in such a way that made it highly advantageous to their books, or bottom line. Given this and other subtle accounting practices, it became the "consensus" for these companies to operate in this fashion. And it took a couple of major, fraudulent accounting scandals for regulators to take a closer look at things. Well, they determined that these "consensus" practices weren't the right thing to be doing and changes to the system were implemented.

Now, in relation to fantasy football, this trading of a future 1st Rd pick for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 5th, and I'd even say 6th, but to a lesser degree, during the inaugural draft is just not close to being fair value, IMO, and thus provides a huge advantage for the receiving (of the vet pick) owner, and severely impacts the competitive landscape of the league for the other paying owners. And whether you agree or not, but this is an opinion for which I will continue to defend, but competitive landscape should be taken into consideration. These types of deals, especially the higher the vet pick, should immediately raise an eyebrow toward possible collusion. Now, answer this question if this is such a fair deal, Who in here would reject an offer of their future 1st pick for a current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick landing on your table during an inaugural draft? And you guys don't want me to keep stressing the $$$$ involved, but it's important to the discussion as I especially don't play for free, and higher stakes normally means 1) less risk that you'd be willing to take, and 2) greater reward when you win. If this is such a fair and balanced deal, then someone in here will (honestly) tell me they'd reject this.

Last but not least, to those that try to attack my credibility and/or integrity and attribute things to me that they have no basis for, simply because I have a differing viewpoint from the masses, take a few steps back and always.....always.........speak on what you know about others, not what you assume. And take a moment to remember the folks of Jamestown.......u guys drink all the kool-aid you want, and I'll continue to drink my vitamin water....

Nobody wants to come forward with the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of stories out there where someone giving up a future 1st in the inaugural draft for an early vet pick pretty much dismantled the league, or at the very least, disturbed quite a few owners.........hmmmmmmmmm

I haven't seen any first round rookie picks for a future (unknown) draft pick. I could see moving a second round pick for top 3 rookie pick this year (if you were looking at Maroney and would prefer Mendenhall). Usually what I have seen is trade down from the second round to the third round and a rookie pick. For me, in a start-up, you can never get consensus value- that is part of the fun of FF. In a 12 team league with extensive starting requirements and shorter rosters,5.11 is more important than in league with fewer requirements and a deeper bench. In a standard league, for me the tipping point is close to pick 60. If I was sitting at about pick 66 and a particularly inept owner (so far in the draft) offered me their first in 09 and I was looking at Driver, McCallister, Julius Jones, and Norwood- I would do it.

 

[comfortably numb]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is. Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common. Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

I am ok with any team doing what they think is best for their team.I don't consider playing for years 2+ "tanking". I consider it a strategy.I consider tanking, trading LT for K, or intentionally benching LT for Sammy Morris who is on his BYE.Much like If I wanted to trade my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RD picks in order to accumulate large amount of picks in the 4-7 RD's.You might think I am throwing the balance of the league off, while I may feel I can get most value in those RDs.If you are truly basing your leagues in an "ULTRA COMPETITIVENESS" fashion. Then why restrict a team by not allowing trades that may make that team, competitive at their pace. Just because a team may not be competitive in year 1 doesn't mean they can't or won't be.Some owners can gear themselves in a 2-3 year time frame to be a "dynasty" in this fashion.Also, how do you handle the teams that want to rebuild, or a new owner who takes over a bad team?Do you not allow them to trade their stars for picks, if they are mired in meritocracy?I just took over a 16 team league and I made the decision to just rebuild from scratch.I am keeping 2-3 young players. Older guys, and players I don't want (like Eli, BJacobs, Tjones, Toomer, Muhammed, Lamont) have or will be moved for appropriate value.Some of that value, may be strictly 09 draft picks.Would you not allow this?Because IMO, buy doing this i sacrifice 1-2 years, but I would rather do this, then be mediocre for years to come.I understand wanting every team to be balanced and competitive, and it's a valid concern, but with injuries, and bad play, every year you will have teams that only win 1-3 games.So strictly IMO, buy allowing teams to "purge" their good players, in a year they know they may not be good, or even from the start up pf a league, is just another way an owner can try to become better.

 

[TheOriginalDoubledown]

It seems like trading picks in the initial draft for future picks is no different than trading veteran players for future picks. As long as the owners is payed up for the years that picks are traded in, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't generally expect other owners to place the same value on players or picks as I do in determining whether or not a trade is approved. As long as there is no collusion involved, trades are approved. As long as an owner is trying to make his team better either for this year only, for the next few years, or making it worse for a year to be better for the next 5 years, i don't see any problem.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is. Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common. Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

I'd have a problem discussing this with you because right out of the gate I don't agree with your definition or your labelling of people's intentions in the kind of trade you're talking about.Tanking is taking steps to deliberately try to lose your games. What you're talking about is far from tanking. A team can make a decision that gives them an overall better chance to do well in the league at the cost of a short term loss, without ever trying to intentionally lose any game they ever play. So I think your use of the term is just going to make this thread be people talking about 2 different things.As for the situation you're talking about, I see no problem with it. In my initial dynasty auction I correctly predicted that teams would overpay for RBs and so I just tried to get some RBs who I could start and wouldn't kill my team, but then loaded up on every backup RB with potential I could, at very low prices compared to everyone else's starters, in the hopes some would break out, giving my team going forward good starters at very low cap prices. (Which worked when guys like FWP and Gore broke out in a big way.)The philosophy behind what I did is no different than what you're talking about. I tried to win every game, I tried to field the strongest overall team for the longest period of time I could. It would be a bald faced lie to call what I did tanking. I realized that my strategy might include being weaker in year 1 as I took on more risk at RB, but ultimately I should have several years of great cap position and strength at most all positions. These are the kind of strategic decisions a dynasty league is about.

 

[Liquid Tension]

So now you're ok with trading draft picks in an initial dynasty draft?

Not OK by me based on your open-ended statement. 1st Rd rookie picks for Top 50 players I'm definitely not OK with for my leagues. I think I've explained why a.n. But this value system is something worth considering, as I did try to put some sort of value assessment together (for a 1st Rd pick vs a vet draft pick) for my startup last year. In the final analysis though, it still didn't make sense for the objectives of my league and the culture I wanted to establish for that league. For this particular league, I want guys competing for the top prize from the start, and trading an early Rd veteran pick for a future 1st Rd rookie pick is a recipe for disaster, IMO, and doesn't coincide with being competitive.

You shouldn't play in Dynasty leagues then

 

[Liquid Tension]

If you really think ONE player is a make or break for an entire team, then I think there are some things to learn about fantasy football. It is VERY possible, and in capable hands even likely, that a team can forfeit something as high as a 3rd or 4th round pick in a startup draft and still not only compete, but compete very well. Losing one pick like that should not destroy a team to the point of not being able to compete this year. It's akin to someone who loses their 1st, 2nd or 3rd round pick to injury in week 1 or 2. All is not lost. There is depth. There is the WW. There is trading. There are MANY tools to building a good overall team and modifying it.

If I was able to get good value by giving up an early pick knowing I could compensate with the rest of my draft and managerial skills, then I think it would be absolutely wrong for someone to keep me from doing that. What you are essentially stating is that by giving up one player, that team is doomed to failure or "tanking". That is absurd. A good owner can and has to know how to deal with losing one or two or more players during the course of the season. Therefore, "losing" someone during the draft, even as early as a 3rd or 4th round pick and getting something that could be quite valuable in the future should be completely fine if the owner knows how to make the most of the rest of his picks.

Really....is that what I said??? Not hardly. I stated that these trade deals were a recipe for disaster, and that was meant for the league, not the individual. Although said owner will be in a steep hole out the gate, whether you want to admit it or not. What I am staunchly against, and I've stated over and over and many of you still keep countering with a lot of generic examples that aren't either close to what I'm saying or totally not comparable, is this consensus value assessment on the future rookie picks vs. vet picks. And whether you all are willing to admit it or not, EVERY trade comes down to a value assessment. And if your commish is willing to process ANY trade that comes across his table, then more power to you all for sticking with those leagues.

Let me pose another correlation (example). A few years back, just about every Top 500 company was expensing their employee stock options in such a way that made it highly advantageous to their books, or bottom line. Given this and other subtle accounting practices, it became the "consensus" for these companies to operate in this fashion. And it took a couple of major, fraudulent accounting scandals for regulators to take a closer look at things. Well, they determined that these "consensus" practices weren't the right thing to be doing and changes to the system were implemented.

Now, in relation to fantasy football, this trading of a future 1st Rd pick for a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, 5th, and I'd even say 6th, but to a lesser degree, during the inaugural draft is just not close to being fair value, IMO, and thus provides a huge advantage for the receiving (of the vet pick) owner, and severely impacts the competitive landscape of the league for the other paying owners. And whether you agree or not, but this is an opinion for which I will continue to defend, but competitive landscape should be taken into consideration. These types of deals, especially the higher the vet pick, should immediately raise an eyebrow toward possible collusion. Now, answer this question if this is such a fair deal, Who in here would reject an offer of their future 1st pick for a current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick landing on your table during an inaugural draft? And you guys don't want me to keep stressing the $$$$ involved, but it's important to the discussion as I especially don't play for free, and higher stakes normally means 1) less risk that you'd be willing to take, and 2) greater reward when you win. If this is such a fair and balanced deal, then someone in here will (honestly) tell me they'd reject this.

Last but not least, to those that try to attack my credibility and/or integrity and attribute things to me that they have no basis for, simply because I have a differing viewpoint from the masses, take a few steps back and always.....always.........speak on what you know about others, not what you assume. And take a moment to remember the folks of Jamestown.......u guys drink all the kool-aid you want, and I'll continue to drink my vitamin water....

Nobody wants to come forward with the hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of stories out there where someone giving up a future 1st in the inaugural draft for an early vet pick pretty much dismantled the league, or at the very least, disturbed quite a few owners.........hmmmmmmmmm

One rule I have is that people pay one year in advance and you can also have anyone that trades next years draft picks to get better in the present must pay the dues in advance for the years they gave away future draft picks. that works well.

 

[FantasyTrader]

"Who in here would reject an offer of their future 1st pick for a current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick landing on your table during an inaugural draft?"

This is the crux of the issue. If anyone said "I would" they'd just be stupid in your mind (and personally speaking...in my mind too). But here's the thing. All caps so you can't miss it. IT IS NOT YOUR 1ST, 2ND, 3RD OR 4TH ROUND PICK TO DEFEND!

If I am a better fantasy football player than another owner in my league and somehow stumble upon a guy who will trade me his 2nd and 4th in a 1st yr. dynasty for my 1st in '10 that is me taking advantage of the other person's lack of proper pick valuation. By vetoing this trade you've now handcuffed one of the true "skills" in fantasy football. And it's motivated by jealousy that YOU didn't think of it first.

If we're going to veto anything that even hints at being a lobsided trade in FF, heck let's just all auto-draft, auto-waiver pick FA's in the exact order of pts. scored and run every trade through an application to make sure they are within a knat's a** of each other? At that point we may as well all be posting on rockpaperscissorsguys.com

 

[kremenull]

I'm curious to know where most people stand on this topic, intentional tanking. What I'm defining intentional tanking as, an owner's intent, right from the onset of the league (i.e., inaugural draft), to throw in the towel for year 1 and basically give away high-valued assets to other teams for future (unknown assets). Is this a valid strategy to employ? Shockingly, probably to some of you in here, I would say YES, it is. Now, before I go further, I would say that even though I'm saying it is a valid strategy, I would also say that any league that I run is not geared towards this being a valid strategy, as there is a league culture that I'm establishing that is based on ULTRA-COMPETITIVENESS. And for this purpose, this is how the league is promoted, and structured, in order to fascilitate this type of competitive culture. And with this competitive tone set, and explained very clearly upfront, and reiterated throughout league communications, my objective is to not appeal to everyone out there, as some may not see this as a right fit for them. And that is just fine, then they're most likely not the right fit for what I'm looking to build either.So, back on the subject matter at hand, intentional tanking as a valid strategy or not. If your league culture is not really specific, or without a purpose, and you allow for owners to immediately throw in the towel by trading Top 30-50 picks for future picks, then that is just fine if it is in accord with your league guidelines. I personally wouldn't agree with a trade like that (and would exercise my right to veto, if applicable, but knowing ahead of time that a league allows and/or promotes these types of deals would be the prospective league-seeker's decision on whether to join this type of league. One thing that I would strongly encourage is that League By-laws be implemented to address/outline the objectives of the league, if any, and to be clear and upfront about the types of trades allowed, and any baseline criteria, if applicable. Thankfully, I have yet to encounter a league experience where someone traded a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick for a future 1st Rd pick, and am surprised that some say this is so common. Feel free to chime in on which side of the fence you sit on and add any experiences for which you've conducted this type of deal, and the outcome (result) for you in that league for the year of the occurrence.

I am ok with any team doing what they think is best for their team.I don't consider playing for years 2+ "tanking". I consider it a strategy.I consider tanking, trading LT for K, or intentionally benching LT for Sammy Morris who is on his BYE.Much like If I wanted to trade my 1st, 2nd, and 3rd RD picks in order to accumulate large amount of picks in the 4-7 RD's.You might think I am throwing the balance of the league off, while I may feel I can get most value in those RDs.If you are truly basing your leagues in an "ULTRA COMPETITIVENESS" fashion. Then why restrict a team by not allowing trades that may make that team, competitive at their pace. Just because a team may not be competitive in year 1 doesn't mean they can't or won't be.Some owners can gear themselves in a 2-3 year time frame to be a "dynasty" in this fashion.Also, how do you handle the teams that want to rebuild, or a new owner who takes over a bad team?Do you not allow them to trade their stars for picks, if they are mired in meritocracy?I just took over a 16 team league and I made the decision to just rebuild from scratch.I am keeping 2-3 young players. Older guys, and players I don't want (like Eli, BJacobs, Tjones, Toomer, Muhammed, Lamont) have or will be moved for appropriate value.Some of that value, may be strictly 09 draft picks.Would you not allow this?Because IMO, buy doing this i sacrifice 1-2 years, but I would rather do this, then be mediocre for years to come.I understand wanting every team to be balanced and competitive, and it's a valid concern, but with injuries, and bad play, every year you will have teams that only win 1-3 games.So strictly IMO, buy allowing teams to "purge" their good players, in a year they know they may not be good, or even from the start up pf a league, is just another way an owner can try to become better.

Appreciate the feedback and your perspective is just fine....I wouldn't disagree, other than stating that I am only concerned about 1 specific situation with regards to trading, pretty much anything else is a go as long as it isn't like an LT or AD for Rudi type of deal......Just the value of a straight swap of a future 1st Rd vs a current vet pick, that's all........I can't see how this translates to a fair deal, and in fair, I'm saying that the playing field is severely altered in favor of the receiving owner, and not only for Yr 1.....this much of a head start (adding a Top 50 player for virtually nil) on the rest of the comp has a very high potential of being big all through the years......This type of deal just can't be justified, IMO......now some of the (much appreciated) examples have shown that other picks/players can be added in, and yes, this would probably make it much more allowable, but straight-up I'd say HELL NO!

 

[kremenull]

"Who in here would reject an offer of their future 1st pick for a current 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Rd vet pick landing on your table during an inaugural draft?"

This is the crux of the issue. If anyone said "I would" they'd just be stupid in your mind (and personally speaking...in my mind too). But here's the thing. All caps so you can't miss it. IT IS NOT YOUR 1ST, 2ND, 3RD OR 4TH ROUND PICK TO DEFEND!

If I am a better fantasy football player than another owner in my league and somehow stumble upon a guy who will trade me his 2nd and 4th in a 1st yr. dynasty for my 1st in '10 that is me taking advantage of the other person's lack of proper pick valuation. By vetoing this trade you've now handcuffed one of the true "skills" in fantasy football. And it's motivated by jealousy that YOU didn't think of it first.

If we're going to veto anything that even hints at being a lobsided trade in FF, heck let's just all auto-draft, auto-waiver pick FA's in the exact order of pts. scored and run every trade through an application to make sure they are within a knat's a** of each other? At that point we may as well all be posting on rockpaperscissorsguys.com

Honestly, this post didn't even deserve a response......but I will anyway 'cause I'm that type of gentleman. If you think that you have skill 'cause you found some novice to bite on this type of league-skewing deal, then good luck to you in your weak-sister leagues. As far as being jealous of anything, I'm much too handsome, and talented, for that to ever be the case.....Just So You Know.......But I am here to "weed out" these types of deals........so clearly, my objectives are .....in caps so that you will truly understand.......MUCH BIGGER THAN YOU AND YOUR MINI-BAKE-OVEN DEALS!

 

[FantasyTrader]

See, why do you have to go there? I'm just stating my opinion in terms of an overall FF league philosophy and you have to make it personal. Why would me being able to swing this deal mean I'm in a "weak-sister" league? Taking advantage of another owners differences in player/pick valuation IS fantasy football.

As far as the whole "your jealously" comment I wasn't talking to you specifically - but to anyone who feels these things should be vetoed. That's taking away from the skill of the game. But anyway, I'm gonna move along now. You weren't "curious to know where other people stand on this this topic". Just interested in attacking opposing views.