Which of these decisions in a Dynasty Setting is unaccepptable by you?

[ArrylT]

Based off of the

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=172239

thread I am curious to see which of the following decisions are considered unacceptable / bush league / low class / whatever term you wish to use for going against a "moral" or "traditional" belief.

See above thread for option 1

Option 2 example:

Give Alex Collins & Jamison Crowder - Get a Gurley / Elliott / Kamara

Option 3 example:

Picking up the last Team D, Kicker, Starting QB to keep them out of a team that would now have to start a Zero.

Option 4 example:

Give Jordy Nelson & Javorious Allen - Get a Michael Thomas / Davante Adams / Deandre Hopkins

Option 5 example:

You proposed give Zach Ertz for Hunter Henry however now Hunter Henry just got injured in OTAs

Option 6 example:

You decided against bidding on Marquez Valdez-Scantling in BB Waivers. Waivers ran and no one bid on him. You can grab him 30 seconds after BB Waivers run in FCFS.

Option 7 example:

You are fully comfortable with any of the above scenarios and do not feel you are immoral for doing any of the above.

[ArrylT]

You can vote for as many or as few options as you wish

[ArrylT]

I've edited the title to ensure its Dynasty scenario not re-draft and added a None of the Above option.

[Goddard]

Could use some clarification on a few of these...

What's the difference between option 2 and 4? If you're ok with one, you should be ok with the other I would think, and vice versa.

Not sure why 6 is even an option...seems like no one else was interested and you basically picked up a player once FCFS opened up.

1 and 3 are the only ones I'd have an issue with, but like I stated in the other thread, the owner accepting the trade has a right to. It should be the responsibility of the owner offering the trade to revoke it before the games begin.

[ArrylT]

Here is a previous topic involving one of those scenarios:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=133217

[ArrylT]

And here is a similar to the previous topic thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=132817

[Goddard]

And here is a similar to the previous topic thread:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=132817

This just tells me people don't know how to spell Vinatieri.

[ArrylT]

Could use some clarification on a few of these...

What's the difference between option 2 and 4? If you're ok with one, you should be ok with the other I would think, and vice versa.

Not sure why 6 is even an option...seems like no one else was interested and you basically picked up a player once FCFS opened up.

1 and 3 are the only ones I'd have an issue with, but like I stated in the other thread, the owner accepting the trade has a right to. It should be the responsibility of the owner offering the trade to revoke it before the games begin.

In answer to your question re: 6

sloth8u said:

there is no place in a dynasty league where a race to the computer impacts any transaction. obviously just my opinion

Which reminded me that not all owners support the idea of First Come First serve - and believe players should only be given via a waiver process.

The difference between 2 & 4 is in one you are accepting an offer sent to you and in the other you are hoping another owner will accept your offer. Its like the difference being given more $$ than something is worth and intentionally asking for more $$ than you feel an item is worth.

[ArrylT]

I would also note that if an owner is comfortable making an offer that is obviously in their favor, they should not be surprised if an owner accepts an offer that suddenly just became in their favor due to a change in circumstance.

[snaps06]

I chose "none of the above" and here's why:

Option 1 - Maybe a little unethical, but if the trade is out there, situations like that can happen.

Option 2 - Not your fault the other guy offered a lopsided trade. If anybody is to be blamed, it's the person offering the trade.

Option 3 - Nothing wrong with that. Strategic play on the person picking up the player, and poor team management on the person who failed to pick up the player in a timely manner.

Option 4 - Also maybe a bit unethical and may make negotiations more difficult, but not something that is totally bush league. Annoying, yes, but it's easy to click "decline trade offer."

Option 5 - Absolutely fine. If the situation changes and the person proposing the trade notices it first, then there is nothing wrong with revoking a trade because the parameters have changed.

Option 6 - Not sure what argument can be had here. Perfectly fine and something I frequently do.

[JoshGordonsDealer]

I think it's a dick move to accept a trade right after injury news breaks. It's technically legal, but if someone did that to me, I'd be livid. I'd never do that to someone.

Everything else seems "kosher."

[ArrylT]

snaps06 - appreciate the detailed explanation - thanks!

[Krypto_King]

I'm not sure why any option besides no.1 is even a question. Actually, no.1 shouldn't be a question either, don't do that.

[Orenthal Shames]

Turcorox, is it you?

[Jigga94]

1 is the only one I have issue with and that's on the person who is selfishly accepting the deal. If it was redraft, that would be absurd so why isn't it in dynasty? It's just morally wrong...

Everything else is fine except for picking up the last DST if an opponent had one on bye. I've never personally been in a league where that's an issue though so it seems like a non factor