Buying players to increase odds for 1.01 End of season update

[lukkynumber13]

But what would you have the Brissett owner do? Go trade for a different starting QB? Be forced to hold Brissett until he becomes a worthless asset (any backup in a 1QB is essentially worth nothing)?

[Two Cents]

why is Jacoby Brissett this teams only starting QB at this point in the season? Im surprised nobody has asked that.......

I think something that is going unsaid here is that, while a pick would be better than nothing, that doesnt mean the trade has the teams priorities and best interest in mind. For example.....if CEH were my only RB, giving me a 2nd for him might be a solid offer, but it does nothing to address the need of me needing a RB. I think the spirit of trading is that you are trading to address each others needs first, and get max value 2nd. Obviously if your team is pretty set and meets all minimum requirements then you have a little more privilege to prioritize value. But this particular instance is not one of those situations. I think ignoring this does endanger the integrity of the league because the intention here isnt to honor another teams needs, even when its glaringly obvious. Its not like the QBs are Brissett, Heinecke and Jordan Love where you can maybe imagine there being a starting option after Brissett.

I honestly think the answer is finding a cheap QB (maybe like Mayfield or Love) to trade to this team for a prospect you like better. This would likely achieve the same thing while still at least "attempting" to make this deal fair in terms of meeting minimum requirements.

¢¢

[lukkynumber13]

why is Jacoby Brissett this teams only starting QB at this point in the season? Im surprised nobody has asked that.......

I think something that is going unsaid here is that, while a pick would be better than nothing, that doesnt mean the trade has the teams priorities in mind. For example.....if CEH were my only RB, giving me a 2nd for him might be a solid offer, but it does nothing to address the need. I think the spirit of trading is that you are trading to address needs first, and get max value 2nd. Obviously if your team is pretty set and meets all minimum requirements then you have a little more privilege to prioritize value. But this is not one of those situations. I think ignoring this does endanger the integrity of the league because the intention isnt to honor another teams actual needs, even when its obvious. Its not like the QBs are Brissett, Heinecke and Jordan Love where you can kinda justify taking Brissett of the owners hands.

¢¢

1) First bolded part:

Because it’s someone else managing that team, and we don’t know their thoughts. I could speculate but at the end of the day, IDK

2) This other owner is 2-7… he doesn’t really have “team needs” at this point in the season. In fact, if he were to try and address “lineup needs” at this point in the season (at the expense of value), he would be doing himself a disservice. Value heading into next year is literally the ONLY thing this other owner should be concerned with.

[Two Cents]

Because it’s someone else managing that team, and we don’t know their thoughts. I could speculate but at the end of the day, IDK

2) This other owner is 2-7… he doesn’t really have “team needs” at this point in the season. In fact, if he were to try and address “lineup needs” at this point in the season (at the expense of value), he would be doing himself a disservice. Value heading into next year is literally the ONLY thing this other owner should be concerned with.

I like how you say its someone elses team and then proceed to dictate what YOU THINK that team should do. The point is that you're suggesting the team tank because it serves YOU....not because it actually serves him (or the league).

I edited my last post a little late so I will reiterate here. I think the move with the most league-wide integrity would be to acquire a cheap QB like a Mayfield or something and then flip it to this team for something that you like a little more than what you gave to acquire. That way you still gain value without further pillaging a team (for your own interests).

¢¢

[lukkynumber13]

Because it’s someone else managing that team, and we don’t know their thoughts. I could speculate but at the end of the day, IDK

2) This other owner is 2-7… he doesn’t really have “team needs” at this point in the season. In fact, if he were to try and address “lineup needs” at this point in the season (at the expense of value), he would be doing himself a disservice. Value heading into next year is literally the ONLY thing this other owner should be concerned with.

I like how you say its someone elses team and then proceed to dictate what YOU THINK that team should do. The point is that you're suggesting the team tank because it serves YOU....not because it actually serves him (or the league).

I edited my last post a little late so I will reiterate here. I think the move with the most league-wide integrity would be to acquire a cheap QB like a Mayfield or something and then flip it to this team for something that you like a little more than what you gave to acquire. That way you still gain value without further pillaging a team (for your own interests).

¢¢

Me saying IDK what he’s thinking, is 100% factual. Me saying what he should do, because it makes logical sense, is totally different.

He can CHOOSE to try and field a lineup going forward the final few weeks. That’s fine if he wants to. But why? If I were in his shoes, I wouldn’t care about my lineup at 2-7 I would be doing everything I could to rebuild even though I don’t own my own First the following year.

[slaughterrt]

At 2-7, I think his team needs are draft picks, youth, and strategizing next year. Last time I checked, this was a dynasty league football forum, not a redraft league forum. To say that he shouldn’t cash out on essentially a value-less QB is just asinine. And what happens when Watson comes back? Are you guys gonna demand that the now-benched Brissett owner trade for a starting QB? Give me a break.

[hoos89]

why is Jacoby Brissett this teams only starting QB at this point in the season? Im surprised nobody has asked that.......

I think something that is going unsaid here is that, while a pick would be better than nothing, that doesnt mean the trade has the teams priorities and best interest in mind. For example.....if CEH were my only RB, giving me a 2nd for him might be a solid offer, but it does nothing to address the need of me needing a RB. I think the spirit of trading is that you are trading to address each others needs first, and get max value 2nd. Obviously if your team is pretty set and meets all minimum requirements then you have a little more privilege to prioritize value. But this particular instance is not one of those situations. I think ignoring this does endanger the integrity of the league because the intention here isnt to honor another teams needs, even when its glaringly obvious. Its not like the QBs are Brissett, Heinecke and Jordan Love where you can maybe imagine there being a starting option after Brissett.

I honestly think the answer is finding a cheap QB (maybe like Mayfield or Love) to trade to this team for a prospect you like better. This would likely achieve the same thing while still at least "attempting" to make this deal fair in terms of meeting minimum requirements.

¢¢

This doesn't actually make any sense. Why would a 2-7 team trade for a cheap QB? Also Love might never even be a starter and Mayfield might or might not be going forward so those are weird names to pick.

"Minimum requirements" do not matter in terms of whether a deal is fair, especially for rebuilds. Rebuilds should trade for raw value, not to fill lineup requirements.

Also, if you're getting plus value (especially in pick form) for a player, you can turn around and trade that for a player who does fit your needs if you want. If you need an RB then getting a 2nd for CEH (who is looking pretty useless) would probably still be better than trying to trade him directly for another RB, because you could turn around and use the 2nd to trade for an RB without having to worry about whether your trade partner thinks CEH is going to get carries again. Sometimes you just take the win.

[cazzie33]

Don't want to make or not make the playoffs by some team intentionally taking zeros @ any position. Personally would have at least a reasonable chance of having a starter out if respect for the other teams still trying to make the playoffs.

Now if I had Winston who got benched & Ryan and he got benched too I'd try to get their backup or someone at a fairly cheap cost even if it meant trading a late pick to have someone in the position that could score some points. Conceivably it happens that you end up with not a single one but that's not what we are talking about here.

Maybe most here wouldn't be pissed if the team you're competing with gets to play a team w/o a QB or open roster spots that they purposely created . Just for me that's not good way for a lg to allow unfair advantage that directly effects who makes the playoffs.

[lukkynumber13]

Don't want to make or not make the playoffs by some team intentionally taking zeros @ any position. Personally would have at least a reasonable chance of having a starter out if respect for the other teams still trying to make the playoffs.

Now if I had Winston who got benched & Ryan and he got benched too I'd try to get their backup or someone at a fairly cheap cost even if it meant trading a late pick to have someone in the position that could score some points. Conceivably it happens that you end up with not a single one but that's not what we are talking about here.

Maybe most here wouldn't be pissed if the team you're competing with gets to play a team w/o a QB or open roster spots that they purposely created . Just for me that's not good way for a lg to allow unfair advantage that directly effects who makes the playoffs.

Intentionally taking zeroes is very different from “Bad teams should be required to trade for players so they can field starting lineups of active players each week, and if they aren’t willing to trade FOR players, they are NOT allowed to trade away starting players”

[dustyroads]

Don't want to make or not make the playoffs by some team intentionally taking zeros @ any position. Personally would have at least a reasonable chance of having a starter out if respect for the other teams still trying to make the playoffs.

Now if I had Winston who got benched & Ryan and he got benched too I'd try to get their backup or someone at a fairly cheap cost even if it meant trading a late pick to have someone in the position that could score some points. Conceivably it happens that you end up with not a single one but that's not what we are talking about here.

Maybe most here wouldn't be pissed if the team you're competing with gets to play a team w/o a QB or open roster spots that they purposely created . Just for me that's not good way for a lg to allow unfair advantage that directly effects who makes the playoffs.

Intentionally taking zeroes is very different from “Bad teams should be required to trade for players so they can field starting lineups of active players each week, and if they aren’t willing to trade FOR players, they are NOT allowed to trade away starting players”

You seem to be being purposefully dense here. And also choosing to only respond to some comments, not others; and twisting the words of of most people's responses to alter the intent of the message. Let's make this as clear as possible:

A dynasty team, regardless of record, should never be at a point where they roster 0 QBs (or really 0 of any starting position) by their own choice and are unable to field a starting line up for multiple weeks. Point blank.

There needs to be some minimum standard of participation in leagues, some low thresh hold that people need to at least attempt to step over to keep a league from spiraling into complete trash. And IMO, and I'd think most others, it would be trying to field a starting roster each week. That would include not purposefully putting your team in a spot where it has no one to start at a particular position for almost half a season. And that's where the integrity comes in. Acknowledging that the balance between you shedding points from your roster to get a better draft pick becomes out of balance when it drastically effects the outcomes for the rest of the owners in the league. Which he's not even really doing because you own his draft pick lol. It's farcical, and an obvious attempt to circumnavigate the intended workings of the league and how it's set up. And you are obviously supremely biased with your take here.

We aren't talking about injuries, or byes, or a guy losing his starting spot; not talking about extenuating circumstances in COVID years; not talking about unforeseen circumstances. We are talking about a team only having 1 QB on their roster (for whatever reason, and that's fine, dumb IMO, but fine), and then trading away that last QB in the middle of the season and planning to go the rest of the year without ever starting a QB. If you think this is totally fine for an owner/league, you are in the minority of owners feeling this way, and vast minority of leagues that would allow such a thing. If you enjoy playing that way, that's fine. You won't find many people agreeing with you here or elsewhere. Really no further conversation needed. Enjoy your league.

[j4pac]

Don't want to make or not make the playoffs by some team intentionally taking zeros @ any position. Personally would have at least a reasonable chance of having a starter out if respect for the other teams still trying to make the playoffs.

Now if I had Winston who got benched & Ryan and he got benched too I'd try to get their backup or someone at a fairly cheap cost even if it meant trading a late pick to have someone in the position that could score some points. Conceivably it happens that you end up with not a single one but that's not what we are talking about here.

Maybe most here wouldn't be pissed if the team you're competing with gets to play a team w/o a QB or open roster spots that they purposely created . Just for me that's not good way for a lg to allow unfair advantage that directly effects who makes the playoffs.

Intentionally taking zeroes is very different from “Bad teams should be required to trade for players so they can field starting lineups of active players each week, and if they aren’t willing to trade FOR players, they are NOT allowed to trade away starting players”

You seem to be being purposefully dense here. And also choosing to only respond to some comments, not others; and twisting the words of of most people's responses to alter the intent of the message. Let's make this as clear as possible:

A dynasty team, regardless of record, should never be at a point where they roster 0 QBs (or really 0 of any starting position) by their own choice and are unable to field a starting line up for multiple weeks. Point blank.

There needs to be some minimum standard of participation in leagues, some low thresh hold that people need to at least attempt to step over to keep a league from spiraling into complete trash. And IMO, and I'd think most others, it would be trying to field a starting roster each week. That would include not purposefully putting your team in a spot where it has no one to start at a particular position for almost half a season. And that's where the integrity comes in. Acknowledging that the balance between you shedding points from your roster to get a better draft pick becomes out of balance when it drastically effects the outcomes for the rest of the owners in the league. Which he's not even really doing because you own his draft pick lol. It's farcical, and an obvious attempt to circumnavigate the intended workings of the league and how it's set up. And you are obviously supremely biased with your take here.

We aren't talking about injuries, or byes, or a guy losing his starting spot; not talking about extenuating circumstances in COVID years; not talking about unforeseen circumstances. We are talking about a team only having 1 QB on their roster (for whatever reason, and that's fine, dumb IMO, but fine), and then trading away that last QB in the middle of the season and planning to go the rest of the year without ever starting a QB. If you think this is totally fine for an owner/league, you are in the minority of owners feeling this way, and vast minority of leagues that would allow such a thing. If you enjoy playing that way, that's fine. You won't find many people agreeing with you here or elsewhere. Really no further conversation needed. Enjoy your league.

This week we had a manager owning Stafford and dropping his other QBs…so he collected a zero this week. We are going to do a stat adjustment and assign him the points of the best QB available on the waiver wire.

[dustyroads]

Intentionally taking zeroes is very different from “Bad teams should be required to trade for players so they can field starting lineups of active players each week, and if they aren’t willing to trade FOR players, they are NOT allowed to trade away starting players”

You seem to be being purposefully dense here. And also choosing to only respond to some comments, not others; and twisting the words of of most people's responses to alter the intent of the message. Let's make this as clear as possible:

A dynasty team, regardless of record, should never be at a point where they roster 0 QBs (or really 0 of any starting position) by their own choice and are unable to field a starting line up for multiple weeks. Point blank.

There needs to be some minimum standard of participation in leagues, some low thresh hold that people need to at least attempt to step over to keep a league from spiraling into complete trash. And IMO, and I'd think most others, it would be trying to field a starting roster each week. That would include not purposefully putting your team in a spot where it has no one to start at a particular position for almost half a season. And that's where the integrity comes in. Acknowledging that the balance between you shedding points from your roster to get a better draft pick becomes out of balance when it drastically effects the outcomes for the rest of the owners in the league. Which he's not even really doing because you own his draft pick lol. It's farcical, and an obvious attempt to circumnavigate the intended workings of the league and how it's set up. And you are obviously supremely biased with your take here.

We aren't talking about injuries, or byes, or a guy losing his starting spot; not talking about extenuating circumstances in COVID years; not talking about unforeseen circumstances. We are talking about a team only having 1 QB on their roster (for whatever reason, and that's fine, dumb IMO, but fine), and then trading away that last QB in the middle of the season and planning to go the rest of the year without ever starting a QB. If you think this is totally fine for an owner/league, you are in the minority of owners feeling this way, and vast minority of leagues that would allow such a thing. If you enjoy playing that way, that's fine. You won't find many people agreeing with you here or elsewhere. Really no further conversation needed. Enjoy your league.

This week we had a manager owning Stafford and dropping his other QBs…so he collected a zero this week. We are going to do a stat adjustment and assign him the points of the best QB available on the waiver wire.

If you're saying he dropped his other QBs so he could start no one, yeah that pretty bogus.

There are so many possible scenarios that could result in some weird/quirky things in leagues with lineups. I consider myself one of the most "liberal" commissioners out there, and really if someone can provide a decent explanation and show some good intent in their actions, I let just about everything slide. I've undone accidental drops, swapped players at 1:20 when someone misses a late inactive, totally allowed people to leave open starting spots at times, fronted teams buy-ins when they hit rough times, I institute no voting on trades in leagues where I can't I push to make it so a trade only needs one non-affiliated yes vote to pass (IOW, everyone in the league would have to vote against it to veto), hell I remember back when we still used team defense I was an advocate for being able to bench them when the game is already locked up so you don't risk losing points. But what this guy is talking about is low integrity manipulation and potentially league breaking IMO. I'd without a doubt be putting this kinda move to a league vote and letting the majority (minus the two involved) decide. And if they decided they were ok with it, I'd be finding a new league. But that's just me. Ultimately I want fantasy football to be fun. Minimal rules, the rules there are to be black and white with little room for interpretation/bias, less/no penalties/fines, and try to remove luck where possible without majorly effecting any of the previous things. The shenanigans he's describing are not fun to me.

[hoos89]

Dropping players for the purpose of getting a 0 is much different than trading away players for value, especially than trading away someone like Brissett who will be essentially worthless in a couple of weeks.

Also, at times in each of my leagues there aren't even starting QBs available on WW.

In either case, leagues go to trash when the bad teams let their teams just degrade into absolute bleep, NOT when they're actively trading for value and planning for the future.

[Ice]

It's called league integrity. In my leagues you wouldn't have to worry. The owners would throw out collusive owners.

Obviously your league doesn't have a "Best Efforts Clause". If you set an example like this don't be surprised 4-5 other owners try to follow suit. If you like those type of leagues go for it but most find that mindset quite concerning and put rules in place to eliminate the "its all about me at any cost owners".

Your league your rules so if your okay with that and your league mates are fine as well then so be it.

What the heck is a best efforts clause? Also what is more "best efforts"...a rebuilding owner holding onto a QB who will be worthless in a couple of weeks anyway, or selling that player for something while they still can. I greatly prefer owners of bad teams that actually make moves to those who just hold onto aging assets that will be of no use to them by the time their team might be able to contend again.

A best efforts clause is simply a clause many leagues have in their rules to help ensure owners try to win the games played on their schedule.

Surprised you haven't heard of this, That said here is a clause from one of our leagues. It is a complicated IDP format with salary cap, contract years rookie drafty and vet auction. Complicated enough that it takes two to handle the work load.

Basically, it is a rule for the purpose of deterrence. This is longstanding league 20 years or so and we do not have tanking issues. Not saying it is completely necessary but it works as intended in this league as we haven't had to invoke the rule. We also use PP for now playoff team draft which also reduces the incentive to tank.

Best Effort

Owners are not allowed to intentionally lose games for any reason. A team's starting roster should be made up of those players an Owner expects to garner the greatest number of points, or in some way improve the Owner's ability to win. It is understood that such decisions can be subjective given injury status, opponent lineups and player match ups. This rule does not in any way hinder such decisions; its sole purpose is to prevent player substitutions that are clearly intended to lessen an Owner's chance of winning.

In keeping with this intent, Owners are also expected to make a legitimate attempt to set their lineup each and every week. Life often interferes with FFB, but an Owner must make a reasonable effort to communicate this to the Commissioner, or somehow arrange for the team to be properly managed. Failure to do so, outside of extreme circumstances, will be considered a violation of this Best Effort clause.

Best Effort shall be enforced as follows:

Any Owner may lodge a complaint with Commissioner.*
If Commissioner determines an infraction may have occurred, issue is brought to a League vote.
A simple majority (7 Owners) decides whether or not Best Effort has been violated.
If decision is that Best Effort has been violated, the offending Owner:
Will lose next year’s 1st round rookie pick (or next owned 1st round pick available March 1st)
Will lose lineup setting privileges if team has been effectively abandoned.

* If the Commissioner identifies the issue, then at least one other Owner should be sought out before bringing the matter to the League's attention.

[dustyroads]

Dropping players for the purpose of getting a 0 is much different than trading away players for value, especially than trading away someone like Brissett who will be essentially worthless in a couple of weeks.

Also, at times in each of my leagues there aren't even starting QBs available on WW.

In either case, leagues go to trash when the bad teams let their teams just degrade into absolute bleep, NOT when they're actively trading for value and planning for the future.

It was claimed he was traded a "late round pick" for Brisset, and even OP said himself "they both (the pick and Brisset) will be worthless by next season" (pretty much showing how every convenient argument back tracking this likely true statement, supposedly made with concern for this poor team that only has Brisset at QB, since is disingenuous). Going by 3 value charts I just checked, a 2023 late 4th round pick is still more valuable than Brisset. Best case scenario, supposing he got a late 4th round rookie pick for Brisset. Be real and tell me what is that 4th round rookie pick doing for his team value in the future? Measure whatever the rosiest colored glasses can see that pick turning into against the detriment of having a team gift wins to every opponent and effect the playoff standings of the league for the rest of the season. Him getting a near worthless 4th round pick, if not worse, for Brisset at the detriment to the entirety of the rest of the league due to a situation he put himself in, and being defended only by the guy who has everything to gain while the rest of the league suffers due to this move is bullshit. That is the point. If you can't see that, there is no point in having any further discussion.

Stop disguising this particular scenario behind broad arguments that DO NOT APPLY TO THIS SITUATION. My last post on this topic. Have at it.