What's Worse: Accepting Lopsided Deals From Inexperienced Owners or Deliberate Tanking? (1 Viewer)

[the lone star]

What's Worse: Manipulating A Rookie Owner Into A Lopsided Deal or Tanking?

 

[the lone star]

I should have hit preview. Don't like how this poll came out. Too slanted.

 

[the lone star]

So by "Accepting Lopsided Deals From Inexperienced Owners" I mean taking advantage of his/her lack of experience for your own gain.

 

[Cjw_55106]

I went with tanking. It’s simply cheating imo. 

Inexperienced players are fully capable of asking others or researching on the interwebs. IF they choose not too, it has little to do with inexperience. 

 

[the lone star]

Tough call for me either way. Ideally minimize the chances of both happening, but if I were to pick one, I'd go with the lopsided trades. But there are worlds where both are perfectly fine.

 

[BoltBacker]

Worst is signing up for a trade league if there are trades made that really bother you.

Just play draft-and-go and sidestep the whole mess. No lopsided trades. No tanking(on purpose anyway). Lots of free time during the season to simply watch football.

 

[the lone star]

Worst is signing up for a trade league if there are trades made that really bother you.

Just play draft-and-go and sidestep the whole mess. No lopsided trades. No tanking(on purpose anyway). Lots of free time during the season to simply watch football.

Yeah, I like those kinds of leagues the best too tbh.

 

[Ilov80s]

What do you mean by tanking? I assume we are talking dynasty. How much of the season is being tanked and how are they doing it?

 

[Cjw_55106]

What do you mean by tanking? I assume we are talking dynasty. How much of the season is being tanked and how are they doing it?

That’s the rub...it’s hard to prove. Generally people aren’t so deliberate as to sit their studs but they’ll start guys who are doubtful or they’ll bench guys that most owners would start. It’s one of those things you know it when you see it, but you can’t prove it without a doubt. That’s why I prefer “possible points” to determine draft position rather than record. Truly, the worst roster will get the better draft position. 

 

[Ilov80s]

That’s the rub...it’s hard to prove. Generally people aren’t so deliberate as to sit their studs but they’ll start guys who are doubtful or they’ll bench guys that most owners would start. It’s one of those things you know it when you see it, but you can’t prove it without a doubt. That’s why I prefer “possible points” to determine draft position rather than record. Truly, the worst roster will get the better draft position. 

Right and I don’t know if it’s really wrong to tank. Assuming the league costs money, it’s throwing an entire seasons diues down the drain and ofcourse there’s no guarantee the top pick will be worth it. If you tanked for Zeke, you got one great season and one season mostly lost to suspension. Fournette was good last year but guys like Hunt and Kamara might be better. Gurley paid off but he still had one very rough season. Nobody took Bell, Brown, OBJ, or DJ anywhere close to 1.01. I don’t think taking is a very optimal strategy. 

 

[Cjw_55106]

Whether it works out or not, having the 1.01 is always better than 2-4. You have to remember that it’s generally only the bottom half of the league that would consider tanking, so they aren’t really throwing much away as they probably had zero chance of cashing anyways. 

 

[Dismattle]

Tanking is just terrible  Imagine one team playing to start the Season w players suspended n' hurt who eats a loss by a few points  Then another Team plays the same guy twice and wax's him both times  Yeah maybe similar can happen w bs trades  But at least the owner isn't playing dumb

 

[-OZ-]

What's Worse: Manipulating A Rookie Owner Into A Lopsided Deal or Tanking?

Not the same question as your poll.

What's Worse: Accepting Lopsided Deals From Inexperienced Owners or Deliberate Tanking?

If all you're doing is accepting an offer made to you, tanking is worse. 

If you go out of your way to "manipulate" another owner who is just getting into the hobby, you might be pushing someone away from the hobby. 

 

[Ilov80s]

Whether it works out or not, having the 1.01 is always better than 2-4. You have to remember that it’s generally only the bottom half of the league that would consider tanking, so they aren’t really throwing much away as they probably had zero chance of cashing anyways. 

Sure and what is tanking? Losing the last game of the year on purpose? Losing the last month? Tossing off the whole season? It’s not all the same. I have no issues with tanking as long as a playable lineup is filled each week. Also how is tanking even defined? If I don’t like my team and want to rebuild with younger players, would it be tanking for me trade away most of my starting quality veterans in exchange for rookies that need time to develop and future draft picks? 

 

[NeverEnough]

This should not even be a question. Tanking is worse.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Tough call for me either way. Ideally minimize the chances of both happening, but if I were to pick one, I'd go with the lopsided trades. But there are worlds where both are perfectly fine.

Why are you so obsessed with being allowed to tank? This is the second thread you made to put forth that agenda? Tanking is a form of cheating (even if not explicitly forbidden, it is shady at best) which hurts all the other teams in your league - those trying to rebuild legitimately and those teams fighting for the playoffs relying on help from others.

Bad trades are not ideal, but a league can overcome them and they happen - tanking can ruin a league quickly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Sure and what is tanking? Losing the last game of the year on purpose? Losing the last month? Tossing off the whole season? It’s not all the same. I have no issues with tanking as long as a playable lineup is filled each week. Also how is tanking even defined? If I don’t like my team and want to rebuild with younger players, would it be tanking for me trade away most of my starting quality veterans in exchange for rookies that need time to develop and future draft picks? 

Most dynasty players will not define tanking that way (bolded). "Rebuilding" is what you are describing and is a legit strategy. A team trading away veterans for prospects should still try and put their best lineup forward as if they were trying to win. The teams getting the veterans are sacrificing their long term health for short term gain so they are playing fair as well.

Tanking would be leaving bye week or injured players in your lineup or starting Wayne Gallman and benching Todd Gurley (subtle tanking would be harder to point out and would likely be let go in most situations).

Why tanking is not a legit strategy is that it hurts all the owners playing the right way while one team benefits by acting in a non-competitive manner.

 

[Ilov80s]

Most dynasty players will not define tanking that way (bolded). "Rebuilding" is what you are describing and is a legit strategy. A team trading away veterans for prospects should still try and put their best lineup forward as if they were trying to win. The teams getting the veterans are sacrificing their long term health for short term gain so they are playing fair as well.

Tanking would be leaving bye week or injured players in your lineup or starting Wayne Gallman and benching Todd Gurley (subtle tanking would be harder to point out and would likely be let go in most situations).

Why tanking is not a legit strategy is that it hurts all the owners playing the right way while one team benefits by acting in a non-competitive manner.

Right but what’s the difference ethically from “rebuilding” and “tanking”? 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Right but what’s the difference ethically from “rebuilding” and “tanking”? 

My post explained the difference. There is give and tank among leaguemates when teams rebuild. When a team tanks they are "cheating" other owners vying for the top pick in an ethical way while also directly effecting playoff races. One could argue that a team that strips itself down is also giving an advantage to opponents in late season matchups but that's the nature of the beast in dynasty and upsets can still happen. When some one is starting players that are listed as "out" or on a bye, the chance of an upset is basically non-existent. 

 

[Bfrahm3]

Right but what’s the difference ethically from “rebuilding” and “tanking”? 

Like he posted above, not starting a full lineup (leaving in bye week or injured players) is the main problem with actual tanking just to get a higher pick. Rebuilding is making your team worse right now to get better for the future.

Ive only tried rebuilding 1 time because I usually would rather trade future picks and go for the win. In this league tho I took over a team and the first year tried to win (finished fourth), then started the next year bad with losses to my division mates already and figured i wouldn't have a shot that year. Had a core of AB, Ajayi, Crabtree and some other decent players. I traded almost all of my starters so I wouldn't score points for younger players I thought would be better the next year, picks or injuried players. I know have Barkley, cook, hill and Allen Robinson plus some other younger players I like which I think is much better then what I had just a year ago. Basically I ended up having to start guys like Bruce Ellington (when healthy) so I wouldn't score that many points but I still started a full lineup

 

[Ilov80s]

Like he posted above, not starting a full lineup (leaving in bye week or injured players) is the main problem with actual tanking just to get a higher pick. Rebuilding is making your team worse right now to get better for the future.

Ive only tried rebuilding 1 time because I usually would rather trade future picks and go for the win. In this league tho I took over a team and the first year tried to win (finished fourth), then started the next year bad with losses to my division mates already and figured i wouldn't have a shot that year. Had a core of AB, Ajayi, Crabtree and some other decent players. I traded almost all of my starters so I wouldn't score points for younger players I thought would be better the next year, picks or injuried players. I know have Barkley, cook, hill and Allen Robinson plus some other younger players I like which I think is much better then what I had just a year ago. Basically I ended up having to start guys like Bruce Ellington (when healthy) so I wouldn't score that many points but I still started a full lineup

My post explained the difference. There is give and tank among leaguemates when teams rebuild. When a team tanks they are "cheating" other owners vying for the top pick in an ethical way while also directly effecting playoff races. One could argue that a team that strips itself down is also giving an advantage to opponents in late season matchups but that's the nature of the beast in dynasty and upsets can still happen. When some one is starting players that are listed as "out" or on a bye, the chance of an upset is basically non-existent. 

I fully agree leaving a spot empty is wrong. But why is playing Theo Riddick over Leveon Bell wrong? I don’t see an issue with that. Sure the team they play that week gets an advantage but they would have gotten that same advantage had I traded Bell for a draft pick plus they might have gotten doubled screwed if they then had to face Bell in the playoffs on a loaded squad. Dynasty just isn’t always going to be fair because teams might have differing motives and might be playing to win in different time frames.

 

[Bfrahm3]

I fully agree leaving a spot empty is wrong. But why is playing Theo Riddick over Leveon Bell wrong? I don’t see an issue with that. Sure the team they play that week gets an advantage but they would have gotten that same advantage had I traded Bell for a draft pick plus they might have gotten doubled screwed if they then had to face Bell in the playoffs on a loaded squad. Dynasty just isn’t always going to be fair because teams might have differing motives and might be playing to win in different time frames.

True, your instance is the fine line, myself and many others would consider that tanking not rebuilding but I do get what your saying. Basically I'd look at it that you should start bell but hope that you make the rest of your team bad enough that it doesn't matter. Like I have will fuller on that team  rebuilding, when Watson starting throwing Tds to him it did not help my chances of losing but I still started him every week because he was starter for me and personally I feel like it was the right thing to do.

Now I also probably wouldn't throw that much of a fit because you started riddick over Bell because riddick can be decent but it's not something I would do

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I fully agree leaving a spot empty is wrong. But why is playing Theo Riddick over Leveon Bell wrong? I don’t see an issue with that. Sure the team they play that week gets an advantage but they would have gotten that same advantage had I traded Bell for a draft pick plus they might have gotten doubled screwed if they then had to face Bell in the playoffs on a loaded squad. Dynasty just isn’t always going to be fair because teams might have differing motives and might be playing to win in different time frames.

Why would a line-up decision be based on a "what if" scenario? Sure if Bell had already been traded away then the opponent would face Riddick by necessity but that isn't the case. If another owner acquired Bell in a trade there is give and take - unless some one accepted an horrible offer for Bell the team trading for him would have to give up serious assets to do so.

And I did say there's little one can do when the tanking is "subtle" - your scenario is a little beyond subtle but if I was a commissioner a move like that would warrant an explanation from the team benching Bell as to why he though Riddick was the better choice - perhaps he could sell it.

My leagues also have anti-tanking rules so it's literally cheating to do so - in a league that doesn't have a rule its more of a grey area.

 

[Ilov80s]

You are right I gave an extreme example. It just comes down that I don’t  see the issue in dynasty saying I’m trying to lose now so I can win later. That’s my long term team strategy. Ofcourse if the league has specific rules in place, then that’s different. 

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

You are right I gave an extreme example. It just comes down that I don’t  see the issue in dynasty saying I’m trying to lose now so I can win later. That’s my long term team strategy. Ofcourse if the league has specific rules in place, then that’s different. 

The difference is in your objective.  In one case you're goal is to lose games while in the other case it is a byproduct of acquiring assets to make your team better.  An aging RB or WR or QB on a team that has absolutely no depth is a depreciating asset that may have lost all value by the time the rest of the roster catches up and is not currently helping the team get a title.  Based on this logic nobody would be allowed to trade players for draft picks because they are making their current roster weaker.

 

[the lone star]

Why are you so obsessed with being allowed to tank? This is the second thread you made to put forth that agenda? Tanking is a form of cheating (even if not explicitly forbidden, it is shady at best) which hurts all the other teams in your league - those trying to rebuild legitimately and those teams fighting for the playoffs relying on help from others.

Bad trades are not ideal, but a league can overcome them and they happen - tanking can ruin a league quickly.

That's fair, but I've seen a league ruined with trades even though tanking was still taking place. Personally, I've never seen a league ruined through tanking, but maybe I will one day.

 

[kittenmittens]

Deliberate tanking is most likely worse.

What do you even do if you receive a really bad trade offer in your favor?  Do you just accept it?  Do you decline it and let somebody else in your league potentially get a steal?

It's really weird when you didn't even ask for anything, but just got a really lopsided trade offer in your inbox while your draft pick is on the clock...  It's not really manipulating if there was no negotiation other than the offer, but its still taking advantage I guess...

 

[the lone star]

Deliberate tanking is most likely worse.

What do you even do if you receive a really bad trade offer in your favor?  Do you just accept it?  Do you decline it and let somebody else in your league potentially get a steal?

It's really weird when you didn't even ask for anything, but just got a really lopsided trade offer in your inbox while your draft pick is on the clock...  It's not really manipulating if there was no negotiation other than the offer, but its still taking advantage I guess...

Yeah that's true, but some owners may suspect collusion.

 

[Chaka]

It sounds like you have a lot of problems with your league.

My guess is the feeling is mutual.