Legit Rebuild versus tanking tactics

[cazzie33]

Rebuilding teams does the following. Rate and support your opinion:

Rating scale 1-4 (1 totally unethical, 2 sketchy, 3 a plan to win, 4 I would totally do that!). No one gets to be on the fence with these rankings.

Scenarios for rebuild team:

1 claiming FAs who aren’t high producer this year due to early in career or injury. There are other FA who are routinely producing higher pointss
4. Our objective is to have our best possible team in a couple years.

2. Deciding not to rotate defenses to go other what would seem the highest possible points
2. Sketchy but defenses are fickle and I could see a team playing a hunch
3. Playing a bottom half defenses every week. U only carry one defense.
3. A case by case scenario(ty turcorox) if you have no extra roster spots fine. Maybe you believe in two years the Browns defense is the one to own. You don't want to drop them and risk losing them.A guy dropped Jags D week 3 last year chasing weekly points. We snagged them and rode them the rest of the year. He cried constantly about losing them
4 streaming the worst defense every week to have the lowest point total. U have no other defenses on your roster.
1. Obvious attempt @ throwing of games
Would love to know how everyone feels. Feel free to pose other legal plays that might be some shade of ethical grey.
[/quote]

[ArrylT]

I don’t know how anyone would say not starting AB isn’t unethical. The only reason I wouldn’t start him is if I was a complete trash team or orphan and nobody was willing to pay half a decent price for him than I would understand the reasoning somewhat.

Actually you bring up a good point (maybe by accident?)

If you own A. Brown in a 12 team PPR league and not much else, what is more ethical?

The 11 owners choosing not to pay market value for Brown*
or
the 1 owner choosing to bench Brown

Each of those 12 owners is choosing to do what they feel is best for their team

However unfortunately the 1 Brown owner, their actions are perceived to affect the other 11 owners on a weekly basis because of the impact it has on the H2H records.**

whereas the other owners choice to not pay for Brown unless they can get a good discount only affects them & the 1 other owner.

So ergo it is perceived that their actions are more ethical by virtue of affecting less people.

Basically the argument could come down to your team should suffer and be "mediocre" because none of us want to pay a fair price for Brown and none of us want our teams H2H records affected by your lineup decisions.

Just food for thought.

* - lets say for this example Brown has been on the trade block for the entire off-season and it is now week I - the best offer received by the Brown owner was a future 1st and a D. Moncrief type player, and that the offers sent by the Brown owner have all been ignored or rejected.

** - its a moot point in best ball leagues or leagues where potential points determine rookie order

[ArrylT]

The way I see it is is the golden rule comes into play.

If you as an owner want another owner to play fair & be ethical then you need to show you're just as ethical.

We all get those stupid "lets see if you'll give up Hopkins for Aaron Jones and a future 2nd" offers - but why is it ethical for an owner to do that?

All the onus is on the owner to reject - and any owner that accepts that offer is subjected to a barrage of "your trade should be vetoed" or "you dont belong in dynasty" etc but thats not what I am talking about ...

What makes offering sh*tty offers to other teams to get their best players for your mediocre bench guys more tolerable than benching a stud player to get a future pick that may or may not pan out.

Because I see a lot more of these crappy offers than I see actual owners intentionally benching studs - not saying it does not happen - just that its a lot less prevalent in my leagues than crappy trade offers.

I am completely on the no veto side - you can see my signature for that. I am just noting if owners want to truly ensure their leaguemates are playing fair & square - sometimes the message should start at home. Show them 'respect' and dont waste their time with Marlon Mack for Todd Gurley or Kenny Golladay for Antonio Brown offers, and then get upset that they benched Gurley / Brown week 10 when they are 2-7.

Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. Act ethically if you want owners to act ethically as well.

[Cult of Dionysus]

I am working on a new set of bylaws for a new league (which will likely never start), and I am including a clause that both the offeror and the offeree of a terrible trade will get booted from the league. Meaning if you try to acquire Nuk for a mere 3rd, and someone is dumb enough to accept that terrible offer, you could get kicked out of the league. Think that speaks to your point.

[Gordon09]

My thoughts pretty closely mirror cazzie’s on the issue. While everyone puts up money and has a right to do with their team whatever they choose, there’s a ripple effect to starting injured players, players on bye, or intentionally starting a weaker lineup. Others that have put up money as well are given advantages/disadvantages based on the decisions you make.

The argument that there’s tanking in real sports doesn’t really fly for me. Sure, front offices make personnel decisions catered toward increasing draft position, FA budget etc., and to me that’s the equivalent of trading AB for a haul of picks in fantasy. Losing in the short term and improving your draft position is a byproduct of that move, which I have no problem with. And in this instance, you’re gonna ask for James Washington in a trade rather than Larry Fitzgerald or Mitchell Trubisky instead of Drew Brees. That’s fine, no one can blame you for this.

However, in real sports, you’re never gonna get the coach or the players to not try to win. And to me, thats why you should always be putting in your best line-up, regardless what your position in the standings is. Starting the browns d over the jags d, benching AB, etc, you’re actively trying to lose. Youre ruining the competitive balance of the league.

[snaps06]

None of what you listed is unethical.

Frankly, I don't believe any sort of tanking is "unethical". If a rebuilding team sits AB because they're going for the 1.01, is that annoying? Yup. Could it lead to a league breakdown and owners leaving? I guess, although I wouldn't leave a league simply because an owner tanked deliberately. It's not unethical tho - we are paying owners, gunning for money at the end of the year. Run your team how you see fit.

Sitting AB is absolutely unethical and destroys the integrity of a league. That should never be tolerated in any league, and any owner who does such should be immediately booted. There is no argument anyone could present that would be able to change my mind on that issue. 100% unethical.

[Triton85]

We actually had a week 14 game this past season that was between bottom 2 teams.... loser was really the winner of the 1.01

We just asked that they put their best foot forward, each week attempt to win - start a full roster and don't just start guys like backup quarterbacks etc.

We don't have any hard rules about it other than starting a full lineup of starting players (ie not injured / IR/ bye week guys).

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

Who determines that they are starting "a bottom half fantasy defense" or adding free agents who "won't produce this year"? The by-laws should stipulate that owners should always aim to start their best possible lineups and disallow tanking. However, there should not be set rules against players on bye, or arguments over this player or that regardless of rankings. Commissioners should grant their owners latitude to play however they want, and commissioners should only penalize owners for actions that are 100% clear violations.

For example, I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about the following scenarios. Assume the owner is clearly not going to make the playoffs and is rebuilding / playing for next year:

Scenario 1: An owner starts Jay Cutler over Aaron Rodgers because the match-up is better for Cutler. Is this tanking?

Scenario 2: An owner trades away two of his running backs on Thurs, refuses to add additional running backs, and is forced to start players on bye for both required running back slots on Sun. Is this tanking?

Scenario 3: An owner starts a QB on a bye week after deliberately trading away another QB that could've started for him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you said that Scenario 1 is tanking, what if I told you last year in week 6 Cutler scored 14.6 pts @ ATL and Rodgers scored 0.90 pts @ MIN after breaking his collarbone early into the game? If you argue that Rodgers's injury is hindsight and that no one should ever bench him, what if I told you that in weeks 4-5, MIN held opposing QBs to an average of 12.0 fantasy PPG, and many analysts were discussing whether Rodgers might struggle against them on the road?

If you said that Scenario 2 is tanking, what if I told you that this owner traded away Lamar Miller and Marshawn Lynch for a 1st + 2nd on Thurs? What if his running backs were Le'Veon Bell, Melvin Gordon, Jordan Howard, James Conner, Austin Ekeler, and Tarik Cohen, and all of them were on bye last year in Week 9? What if the rest of his roster is full of young WR and TE prospects, and he doesn't want to drop any of them just to have a starting RB for one week?

If you said that Scenario 3 is tanking, what if I told you that this owner traded away Russell Wilson for Alvin Kamara last year after Kamara's first big game in Week 4? What if this owner's other QBs were Drew Brees and Matt Ryan, who were both on bye in Week 5, and didn't have any roster space to add a Joe Flacco or Eli Manning just to be forced to start them for one week and then drop them again?

Just food for thought whenever something is argued to be "clearing tanking".

[Triton85]

In our league scenario 2 & 3 would result in a $3 fine per roster spot open - however that is it

[snaps06]

Who determines that they are starting "a bottom half fantasy defense" or adding free agents who "won't produce this year"? The by-laws should stipulate that owners should always aim to start their best possible lineups and disallow tanking. However, there should not be set rules against players on bye, or arguments over this player or that regardless of rankings. Commissioners should grant their owners latitude to play however they want, and commissioners should only penalize owners for actions that are 100% clear violations.

For example, I'm curious to see what everyone thinks about the following scenarios. Assume the owner is clearly not going to make the playoffs and is rebuilding / playing for next year:

Scenario 1: An owner starts Jay Cutler over Aaron Rodgers because the match-up is better for Cutler. Is this tanking?

Scenario 2: An owner trades away two of his running backs on Thurs, refuses to add additional running backs, and is forced to start players on bye for both required running back slots on Sun. Is this tanking?

Scenario 3: An owner starts a QB on a bye week after deliberately trading away another QB that could've started for him.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you said that Scenario 1 is tanking, what if I told you last year in week 6 Cutler scored 14.6 pts @ ATL and Rodgers scored 0.90 pts @ MIN after breaking his collarbone early into the game? If you argue that Rodgers's injury is hindsight and that no one should ever bench him, what if I told you that in weeks 4-5, MIN held opposing QBs to an average of 12.0 fantasy PPG, and many analysts were discussing whether Rodgers might struggle against them on the road?

If you said that Scenario 2 is tanking, what if I told you that this owner traded away Lamar Miller and Marshawn Lynch for a 1st + 2nd on Thurs? What if his running backs were Le'Veon Bell, Melvin Gordon, Jordan Howard, James Conner, Austin Ekeler, and Tarik Cohen, and all of them were on bye last year in Week 9? What if the rest of his roster is full of young WR and TE prospects, and he doesn't want to drop any of them just to have a starting RB for one week?

If you said that Scenario 3 is tanking, what if I told you that this owner traded away Russell Wilson for Alvin Kamara last year after Kamara's first big game in Week 4? What if this owner's other QBs were Drew Brees and Matt Ryan, who were both on bye in Week 5, and didn't have any roster space to add a Joe Flacco or Eli Manning just to be forced to start them for one week and then drop them again?

Just food for thought whenever something is argued to be "clearing tanking".

You are presenting random, weird dynasty scenarios, none of which constitute "tanking." Tanking is intentionally losing in order to secure higher draft position. You're trying too hard by presenting several hyperboles and no legit tanking claims and you know it.

[cazzie33]

What if a meteor crashed into the Saints practice facility on Saturday night and took out Brees, Thomas & Kamara and they all were on the same team for one owner ?

Would he be obligated to drop them all for waiver wire replacement level players to field a starting lineup

Some guys will go to ludicrous lengths to project the Black Swan effect but I will take the bait and engage with "Ditka".

Scenario #2 if trading for draft picks then that owner should have two roster spots open and YES ... He should be ethically obligated if not by bylaws mandated to picking up two RB's to field an active lineup with players that are actually playing that week. It is only fair to the rest of the owners that he puts forth at least a minimal effort to win that week. No one faults him for getting the draft picks for aging players.

Scenario #3 is tanking and should be called out. Purposely trading to create a empty spot in starting lineup is intentionally trying to put an inferior team out there in hopes of losing. At the very least owner should try to get a player either in trade or waiver wire for the week. If impossible or clearly detrimental to his team's roster then so be it but like a meteor strike it is such an unlikely probability that you almost would have to purposely put yourself in that position.

Hunches, bad weather, better matchup on paper, etc... are legit reasons for playing Cutler over Rodgers. You are allowed to be a bad manager. Starting an injured and widely understood inactive Rodgers over a healthy and starting Cutler would be obvious tanking. That should be called out.

[snaps06]

Scenario #2 if trading for draft picks then that owner should have two roster spots open and YES ... He should be ethically obligated if not by bylaws mandated to picking up two RB's to field an active lineup with players that are actually playing that week. It is only fair to the rest of the owners that he puts forth at least a minimal effort to win that week. No one faults him for getting the draft picks for aging players.

Scenario #3 is tanking and should be called out. Purposely trading to create a empty spot in starting lineup is intentionally trying to put an inferior team out there in hopes of losing. At the very least owner should try to get a player either in trade or waiver wire for the week. If impossible or clearly detrimental to his team's roster then so be it but like a meteor strike it is such an unlikely probability that you almost would have to purposely put yourself in that position.

I would agree that scenario 2 is unethical, but my assumption based upon the description of the team in scenario 2 is that the team in question is not vying for 1.01, but is instead a championship contender. I would not consider it tanking.

After rereading scenario 3 (which I misread last night), I'd agree that it is tanking.

[Walter W.]

It's the world we've in today. Civic responsibility is an antiquated thought for most now. I guess

In my way I was raised you have a responsibility to those around you. You are not in a vacuum where your actions don't have a ripple effect. Do things in a fair , decent manner. You can build for the future while putting out your best lineup every week that is on your roster.

You don't have an obligation to mess up your long term goals chasing the best streamer of the week. Unless you have open roster spots I wouldn't drop a DeAngelo Henderson to get a Darren Sproles just because Sproles is likely to score more this week / year.

Dropping Jags D to the bench to pick up & play the Browns is an unethical move as someone is trying to beat your opponent out for a better playoff spot. Sure, you may not even be trying to make the postseason but your throwing games effects others.

Nobody should expect you to drop Adam Sheehan to get B. Watson as you are in a rebuild. But neither should you be starting Adam Sheehan.

Here is a real scenario that I was tempted to do to a guy who thought all was fair in love, war & Fantasy football. He tanked for a couple of years bad to get top picks. Out & out blatant B.S. moves. Commish did nothing. This year he finally is a contender going for the playoffs with his young studs ( Zeke and a couple others) but he needs me to beat my opponent week 13 to get in.

So early in the week I yank all my starters and have a lineup of guys that won't even see the field. Guess who complains to high heavens Which is just what I wanted to happen. My explanation was I think our chances of winning the title are better if I let my week 13 opponent in. I use his own words that I have " no obligation to try to win" to help out another team. I paid my money so I have every right to do whatever gives me the best chance of winning.

Of course I didn't follow through with the sham, just wanted to show him that he wouldn't like it if others did his tactics to him. He didn't stick around long after that.

Money shouldn't matter , stick to the Golden Rule. Do unto others ... But nowadays it seems as long as the bottom line is you get what you want it doesn't matter how you got there. Lack of respect for others doesn't seem to cost a moment's sleep.

I can't make any owner change his mind but I can & will call him out for tanking in obvious instances. I don't suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, I won't go quietly into the night. But I won't convert to the modern day Trump Syndrome of disrespecting whomever as long it gets me what I want.

Couldn't agree more. Tanking is weak, as you stated you are screwing with other teams' chances to win. I only play/commish one dynasty league and it's all dudes who know each other and have been playing in my redraft leagues forever. Tanking will get you kicked out of the league, so nobody does it.

I understand the logic of those who claim it's a legit tactic, but I don't agree with them. Ultimately, it's supposed to be a fun league/activity.

[TB3falcons]

All's fair in love and war... an owner that pays dues can run his/her team how they want as long as they aren't participating in collusion.

As a sidenote, I am a strong proponent of using potential points as a barometer for draft positions for teams that don't make the playoffs.

[btv802]

Get rid of team defense position in your league it's wiggity wiggity whack.