Fantasy Trade- Ethical Question

[johnci]

Hi Guys,
I am in a 12 team league, each team can keep three players for the following season, granted they were not drafted in the first 3 rounds.

Team A is 2-6 and in 10th place.
Team B is 6-2 and tied for 1st.

Team A is offering D Thomas and a 5th round pick next year.

Team B is offering J. Jones and a 3rd round pick next year, and L. Taliaferro.

Team A has Joiqe Bell, Vereen, and Lacy, fyi.

To me, this is a form of roster dumping. The league leader (Team B) is getting more powerful, and the real cost to them isn't felt until next year's draft. Team A is trading the best WR for one a tier lower, and a garbage RB. Really the value here to them is draft pick upgrade primarily, right?

So a powerful team is sacrificing a draft pick to get an edge this year, the bottom dweller is getting an edge on everyone next year, and the other ten teams in my opinion are getting a raw deal here. Thoughts?

 

[orangemonk]

you should've tried to make a trade with the shitty team.

 

[johnci]

I don't want to mortgage my future to maintain being competitive. It just doesn't seem ethical for a trade to happen that defers the cost one team bears to a different season. If this trade goes through, doesn't it start some sort of arms race with top teams dumping picks for players to stay in the game? Then all of these teams start behind the ball next year?

 

[orangemonk]

who cares if you're trying to win this year or next year, as long as there isn't collusion

 

[johnci]

So full disclosure, I have a share of first place. I feel that I have earned this with a good draft, a good trade, and good waiver moves. Now someone who I share first has gained an edge over me, and it doesn't cost them anything until next year. So I am less likely to win the league this year, and am not more likely to win more next year, because the value my prime competitor this year is losing, is being transferred to a different competitor next year.

So my biggest rival is gaining an edge this year, not feeling a loss from the other end of the deal until next year, and the other guy gets an advantage of me and everyone next year with an extra 3rd round pick. The other 10 teams actually get boned twice from this, but the teams at the top this year get the worst of it.

 

[Fondybadger]

I don't want to mortgage my future to maintain being competitive. It just doesn't seem ethical for a trade to happen that defers the cost one team bears to a different season. If this trade goes through, doesn't it start some sort of arms race with top teams dumping picks for players to stay in the game? Then all of these teams start behind the ball next year?

This is exactly the type of deals that occur in keeper leagues. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it and that's what you signed up. The same thing happens in my keeper baseball leagues all the time. For example in a league where we keep 8 each season Aramis Ramirez was traded for a 5th round pick in 2015, Brandon Moss and Jason Hammels were traded for prospects (Henry Owens and Aaron Nola), Mark Trumbo and a 6th next year for a 3rd next year, etc.

It's always an arms race and you either need to go all out to compete that season or build for future seasons. If you're in the bottom of the league sell off players for future picks. If you're in the top try to trade unusable picks/lesser value to improve your team this year.

 

[Fondybadger]

Our arms race always occur with closers for future draft picks or prospects. Also, was Julio Jones drafted in first 3 rounds? I'm assuming Demaryius was. That's another thing the first place guy is giving up for next season and bottom dweller can look forward to next season. Nothing is stopping any other teams from making similar moves.

 

[johnci]

Yeah Fondy they were both 1st or 2nd round picks, so they don't get to keep these players next year.

 

[guaranteeed]

ya no problem with this, any type of keeper league would and should have people not in it for this year dealing current assets for future assets

 

[johnci]

Wow I'm surprised. So in your keeper leagues, the top 3-5 teams hemmorage draft picks to keep up with each other? Then next year, these teams are all at disadvantage to start the year? We only keep three, so it really sets you back if you miss an early round draft pick.

 

[JumpOnBoard]

Yea this isn't close to anything wrong, ethical or otherwise....in most cases trades in keeper leagues look worse than this one on paper..much worse in fact...even then they are fine...

 

[johnci]

Jump this isn't a keeper trade. The players will not be kept. The issue is one guy is letting his season go (Jones is -50 rest of the way to Thomas) for a pick.

Doesn't this lead to a see-saw type scenario where guys are dumping talent for picks, and then having stacked drafts next year? I could see this being fair in a legacy scenario or maybe if we kept a few more than 3, but it seems to me to devalue the season long strategy moves, because you can just sell out your future for a star down the stretch to put you over the top if you're in the hunt.

 

[reNew Orleans]

is still the same thing...

Player B is increasing his chances of winning this year, decreasing his chances of winning next year
Player A knows he cant win this year, builds for the future by increasing his chances of winning next year.

the scenarios just involved actual keepers instead of a draft pick.

 

[johnci]

Yes I understand it being equitable between A & B, I just think its unfair to the other 10 teams. More importantly, I think it devalues the strategies needed to navigate a year and win the league. It just seems like a cheap way to gain an edge over managers who have outdrafted you and been better on the wire and setting lineups. But I understand everyone's points- its not unethical, but I still think it makes it less fun.

 

[orangemonk]

then isn't every trade by definition unfair to the other 10 teams, since the two teams, in theory, are both getting better and the other 10 aren't

 

[Fondybadger]

Yes I understand it being equitable between A & B, I just think its unfair to the other 10 teams. More importantly, I think it devalues the strategies needed to navigate a year and win the league. It just seems like a cheap way to gain an edge over managers who have outdrafted you and been better on the wire and setting lineups. But I understand everyone's points- its not unethical, but I still think it makes it less fun.

The thing is you can create the same edge for yourself. I'd also argue that a 4th round pick in your league is worth more than a 3rd round pick (assuming a round bump each season?). My suggestion is to play in a non-keeper league, or if you otherwise like this format, make it so draft picks can't be traded.

 

[johnci]

Monk- I think the unfairness is that Team B is improving during this year of competition, but what they are sacrificing for this improvement doesn't affect him until next season. It's the deferment of what they are giving up until after the season that tips an advantage their way. If a trade happens and two teams exchange players that improve both their lineups, they are exchanging talent for talent during the year that the players were acquired, so its different.

 

[guaranteeed]

but you have a keeper element

the other team doesn't care about improvement this year

they are both doing this trade with the intention of winning the league, for 1 guy its just not this season

 

[johnci]

Fondy- Now the focus of the league goes from who drafted well, waivered, traded players, and set the right lineups, to who is willing to sell out their future to jump ahead of the competition. This to me is less strategic and sounds less fun. We've been playing for 4 years together and this is the first time such a trade has been proposed, where the primary goal of one of the teams is a draft pick upgrade. Maybe after a year I will have a different view but I think this is possibly unfair, and definitely less fun. Of course the money on the line has me more concerned about it being equitable right now.

 

[johnci]

GTeed-
I'm aware of why they want to do it, and how it benefits them. It's the deferred cost that gives Team B an unfair edge IMO, and its the practice of dumping talent for picks next year that reduces the value of the strategy that makes fantasy fb fun.

 

[Fondybadger]

Fondy- Now the focus of the league goes from who drafted well, waivered, traded players, and set the right lineups, to who is willing to sell out their future to jump ahead of the competition. This to me is less strategic and sounds less fun. We've been playing for 4 years together and this is the first time such a trade has been proposed, where the primary goal of one of the teams is a draft pick upgrade. Maybe after a year I will have a different view but I think this is possibly unfair, and definitely less fun. Of course the money on the line has me more concerned about it being equitable right now.

It sounds like teams weren't doing enough to improve in prior seasons. Biggest mistakes uncompetitive teams make in keeper leagues is not selling out for future years. If you have an opportunity to win a league you may have to give up some future assets or fall behind your competition. Just a nature of the beast. Besides changing rules for draft picks and the like you may want to look at making the trade deadline earlier so teams aren't "out" of it so early.

 

[johnci]

I think we are going to consider an earlier trade deadline, or perhaps not allowing draft picks higher than some not yet specified round. We've had almost 1,000 messages in our Facebook thread in the last 36 hours, pretty exhausting lol

 

[Fondybadger]

I think we are going to consider an earlier trade deadline, or perhaps not allowing draft picks higher than some not yet specified round. We've had almost 1,000 messages in our Facebook thread in the last 36 hours, pretty exhausting lol

In the meantime you need to go get a top player from another bottom team for a 3rd round pick but don't give up a quality player like Julio

 

[KenPiffyJr]

The whole point of fantasy football is that you're managing a team like a GM would in real life. Some teams suck and try to stock up on future draft picks since they won't be winning this year. You only object to this because you think it hurts your chances of winning. To be fair, it's one of the many headaches of keeper leagues and I prefer redraft to avoid crap like this.

 

[RetroVK]

What is key is having a keeper league where the players are committed for years in advance. One thing I have always noticed over the years is that when I am invited into a keeper league because a spot opened up, it is a team devoid of all talent... I am sure that had nothing to do with why the person no longer has the time for fantasy football anymore. It is never a loaded team. Ever.

So for keeper leagues you should really have a multi-year financial commitment from all players regardless if they quit or not. My two cents.

As for the deal ... the deal is only bad if it is clearly not in the best interests of one of the two parties involved ... which doesn't appear the case here.

 

[CASH]

Ethical??? who is ethical on this site.. I thought that is why we are all here...

 

[orangemonk]

What is key is having a keeper league where the players are committed for years in advance. One thing I have always noticed over the years is that when I am invited into a keeper league because a spot opened up, it is a team devoid of all talent... I am sure that had nothing to do with why the person no longer has the time for fantasy football anymore. It is never a loaded team. Ever.

So for keeper leagues you should really have a multi-year financial commitment from all players regardless if they quit or not. My two cents.

As for the deal ... the deal is only bad if it is clearly not in the best interests of one of the two parties involved ... which doesn't appear the case here.

i took over and turned an 11th place dynasty team into 3rd place the next year. champion the following year.