Dynasty

[Chef99]

You had a rant on it? I'm guessing it's been disregarded, I sure can't even remember it.

I know I've been in some discussions about the right/wrong of it. .from way back on the board which shall not be named. .but have yet to ever really see it in person. .that I can truly say, yeah he tanked on purpose.

I'm saying this only because the only frame of reference in dynasty leagues I have on it is in baseball, and I'm not even sure it applies there. I do know that if, in black and white, tanking is purposely losing a game solely to get a better draft position for next year, I'm against it and will not do it myself. Can't really say what I'll think if someone else does it, I'll have to cross that bridge when I come to it.

 

[Chef99]

Btw, it was a pretty good rant; I try not to post immediately after arriving at home from one of my weekend work marathons.

 

[broncosmitty]

Ok guys, I was going through some old posts, and about this "tanking", please disregard my rant on the subject. I was having a really bad day when I posted that, and my overreaction reflected my mood.

I say this because I really have no experience in exactly what it is, so I'll keep my mouth shut until I come across it.

Pretty sure I won't like it, tho.

Too late.

The judge can ask the jury to disregard, but the jury remembers...... The jury always remembers.

I think people will be slick aboot their tanking. Trading for draft picks rather than benching stud muffins. But who will be the first to crack and give up a future pick?

 

[Chef99]

Too late.

The judge can ask the jury to disregard, but the jury remembers...... The jury always remembers.

I think people will be slick aboot their tanking. Trading for draft picks rather than benching stud muffins. But who will be the first to crack and give up a future pick?

That's the thing. Trading for draft picks is considered tanking? How so? You are not purposely benching someone to lose.

 

[obxyankeefan]

That's the thing. Trading for draft picks is considered tanking? How so? You are not purposely benching someone to lose.

Let's say I have Rodgers and G Smith at QB. I trade you Rodgers for your first round next year and whoever's the Rams QB is. I didn't bench anybody to lose, but I might as well have and now have two first rounders too.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Let's say I have Rodgers and G Smith at QB. I trade you Rodgers for your first round next year and whoever's the Rams QB is. I didn't bench anybody to lose, but I might as well have and now have two first rounders too.

I would be indifferent to someone doing that, whereas I would be upset if player A benched Rodgers and started Smith the final 7 weeks. Both are trying to get the first pick though.

 

[broncosmitty]

That's the thing. Trading for draft picks is considered tanking? How so? You are not purposely benching someone to lose.

I don't think it's considered tanking.

But I think it's sneaky tanking. Trading good, quality, producing, starting worthy players for future picks is a great way to build for the future. Its practical when you know you're out of contention. It's also a good way to lose now. And the key to tanking is losing now.

I don't think it requires blatant moves, like starting a Practice Squad player, to tank.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

clearly in a dynasty and in most keeper leagues there will always be some level of tanking...

 

[Chef99]

Let's say I have Rodgers and G Smith at QB. I trade you Rodgers for your first round next year and whoever's the Rams QB is. I didn't bench anybody to lose, but I might as well have and now have two first rounders too.

But you gave up Rodgers.

 

[Chef99]

I don't think it's considered tanking.

But I think it's sneaky tanking. Trading good, quality, producing, starting worthy players for future picks is a great way to build for the future. Its practical when you know you're out of contention. It's also a good way to lose now. And the key to tanking is losing now.

I don't think it requires blatant moves, like starting a Practice Squad player, to tank.

I would think that in a dynasty league if you have a losing team, trading for draft picks is par for the course, yes? Now I'm confused again.

 

[broncosmitty]

I would think that in a dynasty league if you have a losing team, trading for draft picks is par for the course, yes? Now I'm confused again.

Trading for picks makes sense, and is par for the course. It also aids in an owner having an easier path to a W for the week.(the opposing owner to the forward thinking owner who made said trade) Just as tanking does.

Not everyone will find a buyer for the player they want to stop starting in exchange for a player that isn't in the league yet.

Tanking is in the eyes of the beholder really.

 

[Chef99]

Trading for picks makes sense, and is par for the course. It also aids in an owner having an easier path to a W for the week.(the opposing owner to the forward thinking owner who made said trade) Just as tanking does.

Not everyone will find a buyer for the player they want to stop starting in exchange for a player that isn't in the league yet.

Tanking is in the eyes of the beholder really.

Ok, tanks for the input.

 

[leftypower]

I don't think it's considered tanking.

But I think it's sneaky tanking. Trading good, quality, producing, starting worthy players for future picks is a great way to build for the future. Its practical when you know you're out of contention. It's also a good way to lose now. And the key to tanking is losing now.

I don't think it requires blatant moves, like starting a Practice Squad player, to tank.

Seems like a pretty fair analogy. I think team owners will probably make moves that could be considered tanking in order to improve their draft position, thus helping to build for the future. I'm new to this, but it seems that would fall in line with the concept of a dynasty league.
The real rub for me is a late season deal that gives another team a major advantage heading into the playoffs - that starts to look like collusion - which I'm violently opposed to. The Rodgers for a future draft pick is a good example. ....

 

[TKOSpikes]

Seems like a pretty fair analogy. I think team owners will probably make moves that could be considered tanking in order to improve their draft position, thus helping to build for the future. I'm new to this, but it seems that would fall in line with the concept of a dynasty league.
The real rub for me is a late season deal that gives another team a major advantage heading into the playoffs - that starts to look like collusion - which I'm violently opposed to. The Rodgers for a future draft pick is a good example. ....

That's why I think a trade deadline between week 8 and 9 is best.

 

[TREFF]

Well I can't for the life of me ever foresee collusion from this group. ..but if we're going to consider dealing studs for future draft picks once you're out of the running for a playoff spot...in ANY way shape or form. .. "tanking" we're gonna have some butt-hurt feelings.

Long as your fielding the best team possible from what you've got on the roster, and not starting Sanchize over Stafford, you not tanking..I don't care who you traded for draft picks

 

[leftypower]

Well I can't for the life of me ever foresee collusion from this group. ..but if we're going to consider dealing studs for future draft picks once you're out of the running for a playoff spot...in ANY way shape or form. .. "tanking" we're gonna have some butt-hurt feelings.

Long as your fielding the best team possible from what you've got on the roster, and not starting Sanchize over Stafford, you not tanking..I don't care who you traded for draft picks

I don't disagree - a very, very unlike scenario - and I also really don't care who trades who for who, or for what draft slot. Just wanted to point out that appears to be 'tanking' may or may not be - it may just be that owners strategy to improve going forward - I think improving your team for the present and/or future is what dynasty is all about (?).
Collusion on the other hand is a distasteful approach to benefit a buddy - probably should have never even mentioned it on here - apologies.

 

[The Foot]

Like TKO said we should def have a trade dedline week 8 or 9 seems right but we can discuss.

 

[The Foot]

And even though the thought of losing when you are all ready out of the play offs looks attractive I am certian everyone will field their best roster each week. I have played in dynasty and have never had any problems like that with anyone and this group is above and beyond that.

 

[SteelersPride]

no, but you certainly will move some better players in hopes of improving yourr team for the next season, thats to be expected........somoene in the playoffs will benefit from it, and then lose some ammo for the next year, its part of dynasty

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Need a trade deadline.