Tanking

[cazzie33]

"And I am sure that the next time in-season you get an offer of

Give random 2019 1st

Get AJ Green

You'll reject the offer because accepting this trade is completely unfair to your future opponents because your team would now be much stronger than it was compared to the past opponents. "

Actually , yes I would and have turned down obviously lowball asks in return for players. Many times I've said the other guys in the league will get pissed if we were to do x,y,z...deal.

Now if you said that the random pick was from last year's trade then it would be dependent. Everyone was stacking up firsts in hopes of landing Saquon,Guice or Chubb hoping that all would return to 100% status. I made such a trade with B. Cooks. Ended up being the 1.02 . Now we got trashed @ the time but we rolled the dice & other players were involved so trading for A.J. in exchange for a pick that has a chance of being top three in '19 plus adding a player to appease the masses I'd do. Because I have seen it go in favor of the pick before as Green has often been injured and is hitting the feared 30 yr old marker. Holding him that one year too long can risk getting anything near a top three 1st rd pick. If you don't believe me go ask Dez owners. Or B. Marshall from a couple of years back. Or Deymarius, or ... you get the point !

Now if you said OBJ or Hopkins then no way it should be considered anything but a collusion deal. And yes I have had pissed off owners offer similar deals which I have refused because it isn't fair to the league for deals like that to happen. They ruin leagues. Plus I take no pride in winning that way. I prefer it when I hear that we got the short end of the deal. Then it is even more enjoyable if it works out in our favor.

To the point of it not being fair to previously played opponents that's not even what is at question here. Everyone tries to improve their team and shouldn't apologize for doing so. Those teams had the same chance as me to acquire said players. Make a better offer to get them. If you've been inactive and miss out that's your fault.

We're talking about tanking to purposely lose. Not exactly apples to apples

[cd6696]

So you'd have no problems if you're a game behind and I'm playing a buddy that you need to catch for the last playoff spot and I go to him and say "Give me a first and a second rd then I'll give you A. Rodgers and have no QB to beat you with. It will improve my draft position and give me more picks next year. My team is not going to be in the playoffs anyway." And I do that after playing your team the week before and beat you cuz A. Rodgers scored 35 points. Not a problem

And your scenario that you laid out here isn't what you said you did. You claimed that you purposely constructed a lineup w/o a single starting QB. If you did that from week one then it wouldn't be giving certain teams an advantage. Still I wouldn't want you in a league I'm going to be in. But doing it in the middle of the season is giving teams a huge advantage vs the ones you played with a full lineup.

Trading to rebuild and having a weaker starting lineup is fine. But purposely having a starting lineup with players known to not be playing is utterly B.S. Hoping you don't teach those ethics in your classroom.

Nobody is giving up Odell, Aaron, DJ,Luck, etc...or any such player for peanuts. In all of the leagues I played in the return was Le'Veon, D. Carr, J. Landry, D. Freeman,etc...So while you had a dead spot (unless your lg. has an IR designation) you still had to play someone that would be in the game that week. If you played backup players all the time to secure the top draft spot next season you should be booted from the league.

And no I don't agree most owners would be fine with you trading Brady midseason and going with a Lamar Jackson the rest of way knowing he doesn't dress or isn't listed on the 53 man active roster game day. That's a weasel move and I sure wouldn't be proud of it. Make the trade ,fine. Then get a Nathan Peterman if you like or Ryan Fitzmagic as long as they are starting that week. If it makes you feel better to play semantic games and say "but Lamar Jackson is my best QB to put in my lineup" because you traded yourself into him being your ONLY QB then in my book you are unethical and cheating other owners in the league.

Your 1st point is collusion. I would have a problem with that. If you are rebuilding and want to trade Aaron Rodgers for picks in the last week of the regular season, that's your choice and I can't fault you for that.

2nd bolded point: Again I've never asked to be in any of your leagues, so this is a non-issue.

3rd bolded point: If you had those players go down, odds are you are forced into starting backups at those positions. Again, I would not purposefully start a backup while I had a better player available.

4th bolded point: If half way through the season, I realize I'm going to have to start a rebuild, I don't think many owners are going to think it's a weasel move to move Brady for a young and upcoming qb, even if he's not starting. It's not cheating, it's called rebuilding. In the league that I did this, there were relatively short benches and I liked the players on my roster and two, there were no QBs worth rostering on waivers.

To go off the previous post of you saying you'd decline because it was lopsided. You are missing the point. The point is that you would decline for the reason that it's unfair to the owners you played previously.

[cd6696]

I just re-read my original post, and it does sound super weaselly. I didn't have the intent of getting to zero starting QBs on my roster, and then give them away for nothing. I traded older qbs for picks and value at other positions. I got a rookie qb and didn't have a starting NFL qb. To trade for one of the caliber of Fitzpatrick or pick one off waivers would cause me to lose overall value on my team and in a rebuild it's all about increasing your value where you can.

[M-Dub]

I am the commish in my league, and I have been accused of tanking and also had to talk with other owners about suspected tanking. What it really comes down to is tanking, much like collusion, is pretty hard to conclusively prove. You basically have to give your fellow owners the benefit of the doubt.

That’s not to say that if a team falls on hard times and suddenly starts making questionable lineup decisions, they’re immune from ballbusting and/or serious questioning from leaguemates. My league does a pretty good job of policing itself. If an owner appears to be tanking, I’ll certainly weigh in with my opinion on their questionable lineup decisions, but unless it’s something completely egregious, like benching a healthy Nuk or OBJ for Krishawn Hogan, I’m not going to start overriding owners’ lineup decisions. We have language in our constitution that roughly defines tanking and identifies it as a frowned-upon practice. We also have language that distinguishes it from legitimate rebuilding. Additionally, it states that all owners are subject to evaluation each offseason and may be subject to removal from the league if it’s determined that they’re simply not a good fit. So far, that has been enough. We’re also all friends IRL though, so in a league of strangers, you might need to have more clearly defined ramifications.

In the specific case of taxi squads, as AT already said, it really comes down to what your rules are. We have a taxi squad and the restrictions are simply that only rookies may be taxied and it must be done prior to the start of week 1. Once a player is on the TS, he can remain there indefinitely, even beyond his rookie year, but once he’s activated, he can’t go back on your or anyone else’s TS, and he can’t be replaced with another player until the following offseason. So yes, you could taxi Saquon, but you’d have to do it prior to week 1, which means that the owner doing it is obviously rebuilding and trying to improve their draft stock for the following season. Since we play a balanced schedule, it doesn’t disproportionately affect any of the other teams.

Now if you have a less restrictive taxi squad where guys can be promoted and demoted without recourse, and a competing team suddenly falls on hard times and decides to taxi their most productive rookies mid-season, then yes, that looks an awful lot like tanking, but it’s still on you and your leaguemates for allowing that loophole to exist in the first place. Feel free to bust their balls about it, but if they’re not breaking any rules, just suck it up and fix the rules next offseason.

[jordanzs]

Side question about legally tanking in leagues that use potential points to determine draft order:

Last year is a great example. What if early in the year you traded away Leveon Bell, Hopkins, and Fournette for David Johnson, OBJ, and Dalvin Cook. You did this after their injuries.

Would that skew your weekly “potential points” way down because they will score zero that week? And even projected to score zero?

Is that how it works?

If so, that seems like a smart strategy to give yourself a competitive edge for next year.

Last season, I made a trade like that with an owner, but we don’t use potential points. I got leveon and Matt Ryan. He got David Johnson and Wentz. I went on to make the title. His lack of leveon points in his lineup helped to secure barkley for him. Win-win.

Nothing wrong with trading away for the future. Potential points is how many points you would have scored, even if you left guys on your bench that scored more. So if you sat Fournette for Andre Ellington, Fournette's higher score would still go to your Potential Points. (it's your best possible starting lineup, like a bestball league) It's designed to stop people from playing a bad lineup to tank for the better pick next year. The problem is, on most taxi squads, the Potential points of the player aren't included, so Barkley's Potential points don't count towards your lineup, thus giving you a better shot at next years draft pick.

So if potential points is the key to getting an early draft slot, it seems like you can assist that by making sure that on your bench you shed your extra DST, productive vets that won’t help next year, and best ball gunners like Ted Ginn last year. Shed them for prospects that have a future but might be pulling weekly donuts. And trade for IR guys that will return next year

[clarion contrarion]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

[sloth8u]

If someone were to be in a rebuild and draft Barkley, would putting him on Taxi Squad all year count as tanking? I haven't encountered this before and know that not starting him in season would be tanking (extenuating circumstances excluded). I'm fairly new to Taxi Squads and not quite sure why etiquette dictates on this. For the record, I feel it should be considered tanking as you're not starting him any game. I'm mostly wanting to make sure that I'm not harshly judging an accepted practice.

im not in favor of the ts, just increase roster spots if your league wants more players rostered. there should never be a rule in place that forces owners to use "certain players" to eat up a roster spot. especially when the "certain players" are rookies in which we have no idea how they will perform. likewise....how can anyone say who should or shouldnt start on the taxi. we can go on for hours about who should or shouldnt be there....just expand rosters. that will take the taxi squad out of tanking.

[Walter W.]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

[Rasorin]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

There are many reasons someone would choose to rebuild. You attacking their ability is totally uncalled for in this situation. Career ending injuries, early retirements, much less front office changes call all greatly impact a team's ability to be competitive. As such rebuilding is a totally viable option that doesn't need to be mocked and the owner shouldn't be degraded.

Recently, I took over an orphan that was in serious need of a rebuild. Lucky for me I joined a league where a few owners respected the moves I made as it will take a couple of years to be competitive. In my analysis that was the right call and one I knew when I decided to join the league this year. I hope you never have to face the same decision. Karma is a bitch.

[sloth8u]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

There are many reasons someone would choose to rebuild. You attacking their ability is totally uncalled for in this situation. Career ending injuries, early retirements, much less front office changes call all greatly impact a team's ability to be competitive. As such rebuilding is a totally viable option that doesn't need to be mocked and the owner shouldn't be degraded.

Recently, I took over an orphan that was in serious need of a rebuild. Lucky for me I joined a league where a few owners respected the moves I made as it will take a couple of years to be competitive. In my analysis that was the right call and one I knew when I decided to join the league this year. I hope you never have to face the same decision. Karma is a bitch.

at no point in his statement did he mention the word rebuild.

this is a tanking via the taxi squad discussion. perhaps he took it a bit farther and brings up "tanking" in general...but the point is still the same. if everyone tried to win....we would have no problem.

we can argue selling off players cheap as a viable strategy...which is where i think you are going rosarin (im not sure what the other reason is that your new leaguemates could "respect your moves"

[Rasorin]

Agreed. My bad.

[btv802]

What if teams were ranked off Potential Points, and PPs were based not just in players on your roster, but on your taxi, as well?

Then it wouldn't be as much of an issue.

I think the issue becomes that MFL may not set up to calculate PP this way. You'd be asking your commissioner to do the calculation manually.

[hockeyBjj]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

Nice post. Our league dumpster fire is just shifting the embers around. He has a bad team not only because he got a less than average one three years ago, but because he's a bad owner that has made bad moves and has managed to make his team even worse since then. Now, he owns 7 picks from 1.8 through 2.10 in a shotgun approach to hitting on guys and is convinced he'll have a good, young, balanced lineup coming out of this

But, he's a bad owner, and I bet those 6 picks he doesn't have in there take 3-4 useful players in the span while he gets only 1 and a bunch of bye week at best kind of guys

[btv802]

In my only league there was a rule change this offseason that essentially makes it acceptable to taxi any rookie. In the past, it was a loose expectation that we would always start our best possible lineup (rookies included). There is no longer any rule in place that makes it a requirement that we place any rookie on our active roster regardless of their performance.

I'm actually not stoked about it and have made a stink with our commissioner all offseason but it seems like the rule is going to stick. However I'm sitting on a relatively not-competitive roster and I am technically allowed to taxi Guice at any point even if he's putting up RB1 numbers. Doesn't make sense to me but it is what it is I guess.

[btv802]

AH yes tanking , the last refuge of the incompetent or perhaps semi competent.

They could not build a decent team so they gut their squad to try to be good 3 or 4 years from now - the thing is their same lack of foresight or ability transfers with them generally . I know it can work if you really load up on picks and hit them but it is a tacit admission you cannot cut the mustard on level ground and thus must be the most incompetent today in the hopes of getting an edge a few years from now. I would forego that gambit and move along to a different hobby !

Nice post. Our league dumpster fire is just shifting the embers around. He has a bad team not only because he got a less than average one three years ago, but because he's a bad owner that has made bad moves and has managed to make his team even worse since then. Now, he owns 7 picks from 1.8 through 2.10 in a shotgun approach to hitting on guys and is convinced he'll have a good, young, balanced lineup coming out of this

But, he's a bad owner, and I bet those 6 picks he doesn't have in there take 3-4 useful players in the span while he gets only 1 and a bunch of bye week at best kind of guys

I hear all of this and agree to a certain extent...but you can 100% take advantage of tanking and do it quickly because I've witnessed it. The guy in our league that earned 1.01 last season is currently going to be starting a 2018 lineup that includes Zeke, Kamara, Hopkins, MT, Evans & Adams and is generally favored to win the league. It required a lot of creative trading for injured & suspended players, taking advantage of desperate owners willing to sell cheap and overpay to try and stay competitive, etc...was frustrating to watch but I have to give him credit he pulled it off nicely.

I've always felt like the people who champion the "win at all costs" mentality but criticize tanking fail to recognize that there is a symbiotic relationship between both and neither would exist without the other. I'd argue both can have an equally negative impact on the balance of a dynasty league and neither is better than the other.