Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jgcrawfish

Fairness...when have you crossed the line?

Recommended Posts

Got to thinking about this. One of my work-league mates jokingly told me I was "evil" because of a couple of moves last week.

 

The first was when it was announced that AP was getting traded. We were still waiting for waivers run and I was at the end. I sent a message to the guy with #1 priority asking him if was going to try to pick up AP, and if so, if he would consider trading him to me. I would not have minded getting him, but the main goal was to keep the better teams who were ahead of me in the WW order from getting him.

 

The second was when it was announced Elliot TRO had been overturned and the suspension was back on. I immediately grabbed McFadden off FA. Was talking few minutes later with another co-worker who was asking about the situation there, and I casually mentioned that I didn't know who the starter would be, McFadden or Morris, but that he might consider picking up Morris. Again, it helps him, but goes farther in keeping other good teams away.

 

Was this seedy/shady? How far is too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offering a trade to #1 WW priority team is fine. Example - "If you pickup Peterson off waivers since you have #1 claim, I'll trade you Deshaun Watson for him."

 

Telling another Owner to pick up a player to prevent other teams from picking up said player is shady. Manage your own team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you were willing to trade for Peterson, then it's fine. If you just wanted that guy to pick up Peterson so that no one could get him, then, to me, that would be collusion.

 

I see nothing wrong with the McFadden, Morris, Elliott situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% fair.

 

Everyone has same access to the information that everyone else has, so its all fair game. Heck, there was rumblings that AP was going to be traded the week before anyway, so any of those owners could have just picked him up when they were on their bye just to hold and see.

 

There was also rumblings that a decision for Elliott was probably going to be made during their bye week, just like it was. Those same owners could have picked up either of Morris/McFadden the week before in anticipation.

 

When you're reactive to news instead of proactive, then you have nobody to complain about except yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not shady at all. All you did was give advice. You didn't force them to make the decision. You were just "helping" someone who may not have known better. You were just playing the politics portion of fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything shady or wrong with what you did. Especially if part of it is other owners hoping someone doesn't have freely available info.

 

Sometimes I'll talk myself out of proposing a lopsided trade with a less knowledgeable owner in a non-serious league, but I'm sure some people here would say those would also be fine with them.

 

On the other hand, I've reminded lazy owners to update their lineups if they are playing against someone I'd like to see lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I've reminded lazy owners to update their lineups if they are playing against someone I'd like to see lose.

In our league you lose draft picks the following year for having an incomplete lineup. We have deep benches so there is no reason to have a bye week player in your lineup. If it's a game time decision, that's a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double standard alert:

 

If it is a money league then all is fair in love and war.

If it's a free league then it's still fair, but there's more of a dickish factor to the move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both moves are 100% fine. The goal is to win by playing within the rules. Duh. You didn't break any rules. Advising other teams as to what to do to gain competitive advantage is what you are supposed to be doing. NFL owners and GMs are always doing this. It's called "COMPETITION".

 

IF it isn't straight up collusion, it's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't get the Peterson trade worked out, because he value soared beyond a point that I was willing to pay for it. The Morris situation is different, because it's so fluid. I picked up McFadden and traded him while he had value. The guy who picked up Morris held him , but he's essentially worthless at this juncture unless there is a major change.

 

Ok, one more scenario (not me, a friend a few years back): Championship and my buddy is playing in it. It's Sunday morning and he notices that the one defense his opponent rosters has a horrible matchup. Again, they're about 2 hours before the first games start. So my buddy sets his starters and drops his entire bench, then picks up the seven (7) DST's that he figures will score the most. It's a 12 team league, so he now has 8 defenses on his roster, plus some other teams who have been eliminated are carrying 2 themselves, so way more than 20 defenses are now claimed. My buddy ends up winning by 3 pts and 5 of the 7 defenses sitting on his bench would have scored enough to win the 'ship for the other dude. Shady?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't get the Peterson trade worked out, because he value soared beyond a point that I was willing to pay for it. The Morris situation is different, because it's so fluid. I picked up McFadden and traded him while he had value. The guy who picked up Morris held him , but he's essentially worthless at this juncture unless there is a major change.

 

Ok, one more scenario (not me, a friend a few years back): Championship and my buddy is playing in it. It's Sunday morning and he notices that the one defense his opponent rosters has a horrible matchup. Again, they're about 2 hours before the first games start. So my buddy sets his starters and drops his entire bench, then picks up the seven (7) DST's that he figures will score the most. It's a 12 team league, so he now has 8 defenses on his roster, plus some other teams who have been eliminated are carrying 2 themselves, so way more than 20 defenses are now claimed. My buddy ends up winning by 3 pts and 5 of the 7 defenses sitting on his bench would have scored enough to win the 'ship for the other dude. Shady?

No; the other owner had the whole week to address his problem at defense and didn't.

He deserved that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ok, one more scenario (not me, a friend a few years back): Championship and my buddy is playing in it. It's Sunday morning and he notices that the one defense his opponent rosters has a horrible matchup. Again, they're about 2 hours before the first games start. So my buddy sets his starters and drops his entire bench, then picks up the seven (7) DST's that he figures will score the most. It's a 12 team league, so he now has 8 defenses on his roster, plus some other teams who have been eliminated are carrying 2 themselves, so way more than 20 defenses are now claimed. My buddy ends up winning by 3 pts and 5 of the 7 defenses sitting on his bench would have scored enough to win the 'ship for the other dude. Shady?

Not shady, brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, one more scenario (not me, a friend a few years back): Championship and my buddy is playing in it. It's Sunday morning and he notices that the one defense his opponent rosters has a horrible matchup. Again, they're about 2 hours before the first games start. So my buddy sets his starters and drops his entire bench, then picks up the seven (7) DST's that he figures will score the most. It's a 12 team league, so he now has 8 defenses on his roster, plus some other teams who have been eliminated are carrying 2 themselves, so way more than 20 defenses are now claimed. My buddy ends up winning by 3 pts and 5 of the 7 defenses sitting on his bench would have scored enough to win the 'ship for the other dude. Shady?

I thought you were going to say he picked them up one at a time and dropped them again to force them out of free agent status (which I think shouldn't be allowed). But the actual action is just the type of move that you feel great about after it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a bonus, he changed his team name the following season to "The Defenders" in honor of his 8 defenses. :lol:

 

I'd be curious to hear about questionable or shady stuff that's happened in your leagues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to thinking about this. One of my work-league mates jokingly told me I was "evil" because of a couple of moves last week.

 

The first was when it was announced that AP was getting traded. We were still waiting for waivers run and I was at the end. I sent a message to the guy with #1 priority asking him if was going to try to pick up AP, and if so, if he would consider trading him to me. I would not have minded getting him, but the main goal was to keep the better teams who were ahead of me in the WW order from getting him.

 

The second was when it was announced Elliot TRO had been overturned and the suspension was back on. I immediately grabbed McFadden off FA. Was talking few minutes later with another co-worker who was asking about the situation there, and I casually mentioned that I didn't know who the starter would be, McFadden or Morris, but that he might consider picking up Morris. Again, it helps him, but goes farther in keeping other good teams away.

 

Was this seedy/shady? How far is too far?

 

All rhetorical questions, not looking for answers

 

 

Are you the commissioner of the league?

 

Its a different standard like it or not

 

Are you the boss of any owners you made these suggestions to?

 

There could be a chance these owners feel pressure for reasons other than advancing the interest of their own teams

 

Are any of these novice owners who regularly ask you for advice?

 

If the advice was not primarily to make them better, you may be taking advantage of their trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to thinking about this. One of my work-league mates jokingly told me I was "evil" because of a couple of moves last week.

 

The first was when it was announced that AP was getting traded. We were still waiting for waivers run and I was at the end. I sent a message to the guy with #1 priority asking him if was going to try to pick up AP, and if so, if he would consider trading him to me. I would not have minded getting him, but the main goal was to keep the better teams who were ahead of me in the WW order from getting him.

 

The second was when it was announced Elliot TRO had been overturned and the suspension was back on. I immediately grabbed McFadden off FA. Was talking few minutes later with another co-worker who was asking about the situation there, and I casually mentioned that I didn't know who the starter would be, McFadden or Morris, but that he might consider picking up Morris. Again, it helps him, but goes farther in keeping other good teams away.

 

Was this seedy/shady? How far is too far?

I dont think there is anything against the rules in giving someone at the bottom of the standings an idea or two for roster moves.

 

in the end, the decision is still theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; the other owner had the whole week to address his problem at defense and didn't.

He deserved that.

yeah, if he was dumb enough to wait until the last minute he put himself in a situation where someone could do this to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you were going to say he picked them up one at a time and dropped them again to force them out of free agent status (which I think shouldn't be allowed). But the actual action is just the type of move that you feel great about after it works.

Right, that's shady.

Though I'm pretty sure most sites have fixed that in their default status, and now mandate you holding a guy for a day before being dropped and have his status changed from Free Agent to Waiver.

 

ex: After waivers opened at 2 AM I picked up Matt Forte since nobody put in a claim for him.

After waivers were processed, I see that Robert Kelley is back as a Free Agent as the owner that put in a waiver for him ended up getting someone else with a higher priority to them.

I then dropped Forte for Kelley, but since it was only a couple of hours, Forte goes back to being a Free Agent and can be picked up by anybody at any time.

 

That's how it should be, to avoid the constant churning of players through one spot on your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a 40 year old wrongly advising 8 year olds, then you suck.

 

I would suggest just getting into a league that has a good amount at stake. Then these lessons teach those who listen to loser advice that they are following losers and not taking things into their own hands. But my guess is they will be schooling you instead of the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, that's shady.

Though I'm pretty sure most sites have fixed that in their default status, and now mandate you holding a guy for a day before being dropped and have his status changed from Free Agent to Waiver.

 

ex: After waivers opened at 2 AM I picked up Matt Forte since nobody put in a claim for him.

After waivers were processed, I see that Robert Kelley is back as a Free Agent as the owner that put in a waiver for him ended up getting someone else with a higher priority to them.

I then dropped Forte for Kelley, but since it was only a couple of hours, Forte goes back to being a Free Agent and can be picked up by anybody at any time.

 

That's how it should be, to avoid the constant churning of players through one spot on your team.

Just join leagues that make sense and dont blame those that take advantage of the rules in a dumb league setup. Easy peasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy I'm playing this week lost Rodgers... So I picked Wentz so he couldn't... Now I have him, Mariota, and Watson lol Now he has to Start Big Ben against my Wentz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy I'm playing this week lost Rodgers... So I picked Wentz so he couldn't... Now I have him, Mariota, and Watson lol Now he has to Start Big Ben against my Wentz

Wentz was on the wire huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy I'm playing this week lost Rodgers... So I picked Wentz so he couldn't... Now I have him, Mariota, and Watson lol Now he has to Start Big Ben against my Wentz

Seems like anytime I get crafty it comes back to bite me in the ass. Getting cocky means Big Ben is likely to light you up this weekend with a 4TD week and 380 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just planted the seed...it's up to them to water it & harvest. No foul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some like to compare FF and poker.

Just a thought: you can't give advice to other players at the table during a poker hand.

 

The guy who picked up the 7 defenses... it's a false equivalent as he wasn't trying to use another owner's roster/bench to his advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some like to compare FF and poker.

Just a thought: you can't give advice to other players at the table during a poker hand.

 

The guy who picked up the 7 defenses... it's a false equivalent as he wasn't trying to use another owner's roster/bench to his advantage.

Nah fantasy football is like roulette. You can talk all you want about strategy, but the people who really know what they're doing win more than those that don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah fantasy football is like roulette. You can talk all you want about strategy, but the people who really know what they're doing win more than those that don't.

I think I agree with this one more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah fantasy football is like roulette. You can talk all you want about strategy, but the people who really know what they're doing win more than those that don't.

Not sure how it's more like roulette... you're not playing against other players at the roulette table like in poker.

 

Regardless, you didn't address the right or wrong of "giving advice" (which in this topic means getting other FF owners to keep players away from specific opponents to help one's self).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how it's more like roulette... you're not playing against other players at the roulette table like in poker.

 

Regardless, you didn't address the right or wrong of "giving advice* (which in this topic means getting other FF owners to keep players away from specific teams).

It's not exactly like poker or roulette. You can't control what hand you get or your opponent t gets, and it's totally legal to coach another opponent in poker.

 

I gave my input earlier. I don't need to restate that just for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how it's more like roulette... you're not playing against other players at the roulette table like in poker.

 

Regardless, you didn't address the right or wrong of "giving advice" (which in this topic means getting other FF owners to keep players away from specific opponents to help one's self).

Why is this even a topic? Would anyone here complain about a league member giving them bad advice and posting a topic on it here asking if it was right for them to do it or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was me. I think it's fair.

 

Was going to trade Zeke for Ingram a week ago. Then Zeke's suspension got put on a hold, so I didn't follow through on the trade. That same opponent lost Rodgers and is a big Chargers fan. I told him I'd trade Rivers/Montgomery for Ingram. Then Ingram blew up. I looked on the WW and saw someone had dropped Mariota when he got injured.

 

I knew he was going for Mariota. So I said if I get him, I'll trade you Rivers/Mariota/Montgomery for Ingram so you can play QB match ups ROS and be set at QB.

 

I didn't get Mariota with the 7th spot, so story over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My commissioner (who I don't think in 10 years has even ever made the playoffs), said I made a move because I didn't roster a defense. The reason: I was 12th for the waiver wire (5-0) at the time. For the waiver wire, I set my #1 priority for Washington Def. at home against SF. Someone else picked them up, I had my #2 priority as Adrian Peterson, #3 as Jerick McKinnon (he had 19 pts. prior week), #4 priority as Nelson Agholar. So not only was I last priority, I was last in each round of waiver pick ups and he says I'm hoarding players and should have picked up a defense. I show him the denied waiver request for Washington Defense, and he says I should have taken another. I said I didn't think all the owners were dumb enough to let me get all 3 of the players, and that I would still have 1 of my 3 waiver pick ups for the week available, and if I didn't get a defense in the case I got all 3 of those guys I was OK w/ it. He was just belligerent. I then tried to trade a guy Adrian Pederson for a defense, but he didn't want to. I told the commish I wanted a defense and wasn't going to try to lose a game because I was hoarding players, but he wasn't having it. I won by 18 without a defense anyway. He brought up my complaint of prior years with owners not setting their rosters and making easy wins for other owners getting into the playoffs. (injured players or others on a bye week). I told him that was an entirely different situation and I had proof x2 that I was trying to get a defense. I think he was being a ! What do you think?

 

Then, this week I have a bunch of good RB's (Hunt, Elliot, Ajayi, McKinnon, Peterson, and D. Henry) and can only start 2. So, I want to trade one to another team and come to an agreed trade of Ajayi and Martavis Bryant for Deandre Hopkins and E. Ebron (who I would drop for a defense). Seems pretty fair, definitely not collusion. The other guy has horrible running backs and Ajayi would definitely be his #1. The commish has shirked his responsibility and given veto power to the whole league such that if any 3 players veto a trade it doesn't go through. 6 owners veto it, they say they don't want the 6-0 team to get any better. So, most just veto all trades for other people in our league for the same reason. We've had like one approved trade in several years because of this stupid rule. (I argued trades are part of the fun of FF and it was ruined by him) I tried to tell him about the veto being for cases of collusion, but he wasn't hearing it. Commish is an idiot, right?

My team: QB- M. Ryan, T. Taylor (start 1)

RB- Hunt, Elliot, Ajayi, McKinnon, Peterson, and D. Henry (start 2)

WR- Fitzgerald, Agholar, M. Bryant, C. Hogan, and K. Benjamin (start 3)

TE- Gronk (start 1)

K- Gr. Gano

Def- empty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People not setting lineups, vetoing trades to prevent other teams from getting better, commish that has no idea what he's doing, sounds like a fun league. If you get an open spot can I join in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My commissioner (who I don't think in 10 years has even ever made the playoffs), said I made a ###### move because I didn't roster a defense. The reason: I was 12th for the waiver wire (5-0) at the time. For the waiver wire, I set my #1 priority for Washington Def. at home against SF. Someone else picked them up, I had my #2 priority as Adrian Peterson, #3 as Jerick McKinnon (he had 19 pts. prior week), #4 priority as Nelson Agholar. So not only was I last priority, I was last in each round of waiver pick ups and he says I'm hoarding players and should have picked up a defense. I show him the denied waiver request for Washington Defense, and he says I should have taken another. I said I didn't think all the owners were dumb enough to let me get all 3 of the players, and that I would still have 1 of my 3 waiver pick ups for the week available, and if I didn't get a defense in the case I got all 3 of those guys I was OK w/ it. He was just belligerent. I then tried to trade a guy Adrian Pederson for a defense, but he didn't want to. I told the commish I wanted a defense and wasn't going to try to lose a game because I was hoarding players, but he wasn't having it. I won by 18 without a defense anyway. He brought up my complaint of prior years with owners not setting their rosters and making easy wins for other owners getting into the playoffs. (injured players or others on a bye week). I told him that was an entirely different situation and I had proof x2 that I was trying to get a defense. I think he was being a ######! What do you think?

 

Then, this week I have a bunch of good RB's (Hunt, Elliot, Ajayi, McKinnon, Peterson, and D. Henry) and can only start 2. So, I want to trade one to another team and come to an agreed trade of Ajayi and Martavis Bryant for Deandre Hopkins and E. Ebron (who I would drop for a defense). Seems pretty fair, definitely not collusion. The other guy has horrible running backs and Ajayi would definitely be his #1. The commish has shirked his responsibility and given veto power to the whole league such that if any 3 players veto a trade it doesn't go through. 6 owners veto it, they say they don't want the 6-0 team to get any better. So, most just veto all trades for other people in our league for the same reason. We've had like one approved trade in several years because of this stupid rule. (I argued trades are part of the fun of FF and it was ruined by him) I tried to tell him about the veto being for cases of collusion, but he wasn't hearing it. Commish is an idiot, right?

My team: QB- M. Ryan, T. Taylor (start 1)

RB- Hunt, Elliot, Ajayi, McKinnon, Peterson, and D. Henry (start 2)

WR- Fitzgerald, Agholar, M. Bryant, C. Hogan, and K. Benjamin (start 3)

TE- Gronk (start 1)

K- Gr. Gano

Def- empty

Find another league. Get some good people to join. In my league, there have been a couple questions over the past 15 years, but no veto ever occurred. And we have a fairly big money league. Be creative with how you structure it all. Have fun with not having stupid rules or confrontational/angry selfish owners. Turn to auctions and some keeper format. We have limited contract spots we can lay on players at auction value for up to 4 years. Just throwing it out there..... Be creative.

 

We also have incentives where we have investment shares at stake based upon how you finish in the overall standings. So 50% of the yearly buy in goes to grow that investment fund, and the other 50% goes to yearly pay outs.

 

Also, league loser pays the bill for the next year's draft food and drink. :)

 

Incentives for not giving up on the year is key.

Majority of owners are rational is key.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commish is an idiot, right?

 

Although it's technically not right, I've been in leagues where I've had trades vetoed just because people didn't perceive it as fair. As the season wears on I love to trade depth for quality. I draft for depth and work the WW and as the season wears I'll always try to make 2 for 1 trades (like the one you offered essentially). People get mad all the time. All that being said, you were doing the right thing to upgrade WR and should think about a QB upgrade if you can get it. And your commish, and apparently several of the people in the league as well, are dooshes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fournette is DNP all week and questionable for Sunday.

 

You're facing the Fournette owner this week and notice he doesn't have great RB options on his bench in case Fournette sits.

 

Chris Ivory is on the WW and you scoop him up even though you're already loaded at RB just to block your opponent from having him.

 

Would anyone find anything wrong with the following situation? I bring this up specifically because I can guarantee it's happening in a lot of leagues at this very moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it's technically not right, I've been in leagues where I've had trades vetoed just because people didn't perceive it as fair. As the season wears on I love to trade depth for quality. I draft for depth and work the WW and as the season wears I'll always try to make 2 for 1 trades (like the one you offered essentially). People get mad all the time. All that being said, you were doing the right thing to upgrade WR and should think about a QB upgrade if you can get it. And your commish, and apparently several of the people in the league as well, are dooshes!

Thanks exactly. I was going to trade the Rodgers owner a couple of weeks ago for Matt Ryan and Jay Ajayi. He said no. He had even worse running backs. He had started w/ David Johnson and the Dalvin Cook, but w/ them out he really needed a RB. I wish he would have accepted trade so I could have laughed in the faces of the other jealous owners when they vetoed that trade. He's one that vetoed the recent trade and he gave his reason for rejecting my trade was because he didn't want to help the 4-0 owner. Hopefully, they get some bad kharma. If Hopkins gets hurt, I will laugh at them again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×