Is this considered Tanking?

[Bay City Original]

I'm in a 12 team, superflex, salary cap league. Long story short... I bid the farm on Luck and ARod and obviously we all know what's up with that. The rest of my QBs are back-ups... Fitzpatrick, Kessler, Moore, Petty or QBs on the Travel Squad (Dobbs, Webb, Peterman).

For a couple weeks I had been getting away with starting Fitzpatrick and Moore because of injuries (and it seems Fitz is a play again for a couple weeks) but there were weeks when none of the QBs had guarantees of playing. There are no other QBs on the waiver wires that can be picked up to start.

Is this considered "tanking" by me not making a trade for a starting QB? I've been active in trying to pick up QBs on the WW that I thought had a chance of starting (which is how I got all the above named QBs not on the TS) but I wasn't willing to give up any other value (picks or players) just to have someone start.

I don't believe in intentionally tanking for draft picks and do my best to start my best line-up every week but also don't think I should have to give up any of my future to resolve a situation that wiped out all my QBs.

Thanks for your opinions.

[hockeyBjj]

No. You should not be forced to trade for a starting QB. The time for a commissioner should have said something was when you made trades that deprived you of two starting QBs. If you made those trades before injuries and such, that's not your fault. Also, you said Superflex not 2QB, so technically you can start a non-QB in the SF spot and have a full legal lineup

un-ethical tanking to me is A) purposely setting a lineup to fail B) purposely trading away assets to leave you without a full lineup to submit. Typically only happens to QBs.

[KCLep20]

No.

[BigBawseRoss]

you are fine. i would prob try to get someone anyone in there for extremely cheap tho. i just personally dont like the idea of not fielding a complete lineup (there is always a BS trade to be had of 2 non facotrs in the grand scheme of things)

[RB6]

Nope. Its fine.

[Kramer]

Not tanking. A team should never be required to trade for a player to start. If the waivers don't have anyone available, then I think it's more than reasonable if that team doesn't have an active player in that slot.

[snaps06]

I agree with the above. Not tanking. I'm in the same situation in a deep 14 team superflex league I'm in. I'm a Luck owner, and don't currently have a viable starting QB (Hoyer got benched, and I traded away McCown and Stafford prior to that for snap-accept offers). I'm currently rolling out Matt Moore in the off-chance Cutler gets benched/injured and he gets in for part of the game. Nothing on waivers and even garbage QBs are ridiculously expensive. It happens sometimes.

[onetwothree]

Does it matter?

As long as you're making moves to better your team within the rules it shouldn't matter.

12 teams, 2 starting QBs each. Only 32 starters in the NFL. That means 4 teams only have 2 actual starters. Are they required to trade for a starter when byes or injuries occur?

[sugbear65]

Maybe not tanking per say. But if your league has a rule that you must start a valid and active lineup, then it's not ok. It's breaking the rule, and you need to find a startable QB.

[jcc6fd]

I don’t understand this. First why would injuries to your best players further penalize you? You shouldn’t have to trade simply because of your bad fortune. Rather you should be compensated with higher draft picks for having a lost season.

Secondly why would “tanking” as you described even be illegal? You should only be required to set the best lineup of available players that you own. It would be a strategic move to purge older talent in a year you can’t win to gain better draft position as you rebuild. It’s a common and accepted real life and dynasty fantasy strategy.

So my question is why is this even being asked? Pressure from league mates? I don’t think they have a leg to stand on if that’s the case.

[sugbear65]

I don’t understand this. First why would injuries to your best players further penalize you? You shouldn’t have to trade simply because of your bad fortune. Rather you should be compensated with higher draft picks for having a lost season.

Secondly why would “tanking” as you described even be illegal? You should only be required to set the best lineup of available players that you own. It would be a strategic move to purge older talent in a year you can’t win to gain better draft position as you rebuild. It’s a common and accepted real life and dynasty fantasy strategy.

So my question is why is this even being asked? Pressure from league mates? I don’t think they have a leg to stand on if that’s the case.

Because of competitive imbalance. I operate under the belief U should be starting an entire active roster every week in fantasy, not just the weeks it's convenient for you. That's like fantasy 101 for me personally. If your league doesn't have a rule in place regarding this, then u can stop reading here and by all means do what you want. But if you play in a league that does have this rule(all of mine do), than no it is not ok to not start a Position, especially when done premeditated.
I understand that can make for difficult decisions or cuts. But everyone is playing under that umbrella rule, so it's not like it's unfair. Havin a lot of bye weeks or injuries is unfortunate, but part of the game.
The argument that you have to do what's best for your team is null and void in this case. I could do a lot of things that is breaking the rules just because they would best for my team. I could collude on a trade because it's best for my team, is that ok? I could hold more players over the maximum roster allotment because its best for my team. I could pay another team to not start their best lineup so I can get a win. Ultimately if there is a rule in place, breaking it because "it's best for my team" isn't a valid argument.

[RCogburn]

I don’t understand this. First why would injuries to your best players further penalize you? You shouldn’t have to trade simply because of your bad fortune. Rather you should be compensated with higher draft picks for having a lost season.

Secondly why would “tanking” as you described even be illegal? You should only be required to set the best lineup of available players that you own. It would be a strategic move to purge older talent in a year you can’t win to gain better draft position as you rebuild. It’s a common and accepted real life and dynasty fantasy strategy.

So my question is why is this even being asked? Pressure from league mates? I don’t think they have a leg to stand on if that’s the case.

Because of competitive imbalance. I operate under the belief U should be starting an entire active roster every week in fantasy, not just the weeks it's convenient for you. That's like fantasy 101 for me personally. If your league doesn't have a rule in place regarding this, then u can stop reading here and by all means do what you want. But if you play in a league that does have this rule(all of mine do), than no it is not ok to not start a Position, especially when done premeditated.
I understand that can make for difficult decisions or cuts. But everyone is playing under that umbrella rule, so it's not like it's unfair. Havin a lot of bye weeks or injuries is unfortunate, but part of the game.
The argument that you have to do what's best for your team is null and void in this case. I could do a lot of things that is breaking the rules just because they would best for my team. I could collude on a trade because it's best for my team, is that ok? I could hold more players over the maximum roster allotment because its best for my team. I could pay another team to not start their best lineup so I can get a win. Ultimately if there is a rule in place, breaking it because "it's best for my team" isn't a valid argument.

If injuries prevent him from starting a "starting QB", then he is playing by the rules. The owner is not tanking. No one should have a gun placed on their head to make a trade for some crappy "starting QB" just to fill out a lineup. I would be out of a league like that in a heartbeat.

[Shoreline Steamers]

If injuries prevent him from starting a "starting QB", then he is playing by the rules. The owner is not tanking. No one should have a gun placed on their head to make a trade for some crappy "starting QB" just to fill out a lineup. I would be out of a league like that in a heartbeat.

Completely agree. What the OP is experiencing is a run of bad luck. We've all been there.

But to then say that he HAS to make some sort of trade, shipping off assets he'd rather hold to maintain "competitive balance" in the league is just ridiculous. That's essentially fantasy football double jeopardy. Punishing the OP twice for his misfortune.

[Bay City Original]

I posted the initial question to gain clarity to make sure my starting Moore and Fitzpatrick week after week, in hopes than an ailing QB would need a sub, is legitimate and not "tanking." No pressure or comments have been made to me but as a competitor, it bothered me that I had to do that.

I agree with others and appreciate that others also feel that forcing a trade in this type of situation is not needed.

[maxhyde]

No way. You ran into bad luck. Making a weak deal just makes it worse. Everyone in your league knows what happened so if they want to make a fair deal sure but I certainly wouldn't feel obligated to go get a QB to start