Curbing Tanking?

[SuperMario]

I don't have a problem with "tanking" if it means a planned rebuild with attention paid to the team throughout the year.

I run 5 dynasty leagues and the problem I have is GM's just not even bothering to set their lineups anymore after Xmas. You have maybe 25-33% of the league that is active every day pretty much, setting lineups and clearly care about their team, another 33-50% that check in on a regular basis and usually get their lineups done (usually) and respond to trade offers within a few days (usually), and then the last 25-33% that stop bothering with their lineups by January and rarely check in for anything, you have to send several emails to even confirm they are in the league anymore.

It's this last group that really hurt the league, as it throws off the balance with the matchups. If two teams are in a tight playoff race late in the season, and one of them is playing a team with several players that have been injured for a month still in it's active lineup, it's not fair to the other GM as he could be up against a fully rostered team.

I've been running leagues for years and I love doing it - but this year I've actually had enough with disinterested GM's and I'm shutting one or two of my leagues down.

The league I run has tried to overcome this by having what we dubbed our "Showdown Week" where the last week of the regular season features manually set matches pitting teams that are fighting for playoff spots / seeding against each other so that teams can somewhat control their own fate. It's only the last week of the year - and our league doesn't have the issue of absent GM's thankfully - but perhaps it's something that could help here.

[roenick27]

Its probably been said before, but Im in a H2H dynasty. I agree with what I would call "active tanking." This is the act of still fielding a team, paying attention, being active in the group etc, but at the same time, pitching vets for youth that will help.

There has to be a level of care, responsibility, and accountability. Just not setting lineups, making roster moves is what hurts the leagues, nit the GM that IS actively trying to improve (be it in the future)

- - - Updated - - -

Its probably been said before, but Im in a H2H dynasty. I agree with what I would call "active tanking." This is the act of still fielding a team, paying attention, being active in the group etc, but at the same time, pitching vets for youth that will help.

There has to be a level of care, responsibility, and accountability. Just not setting lineups, making roster moves is what hurts the leagues, nit the GM that IS actively trying to improve (be it in the future)

[ericdaoust]

The other issue with sellers/tankers is when good vets are traded at discount rates. The common excuse is "it was the best offer" when in fact nobody was holding a gun to anyone's head. Yet the trade hurts the league in two ways:

1) Shifts the "balance of power" as one team improves significantly for next to nothing
2) Leaves the rebuilding team with lesser assets for the rebuild

The mindset of getting younger overtakes the need to win trades. Every time it's the same story being told by the GM being killed in these deals and the result is always the same - an endless rebuild.

I hate it but it happens in every keeper league in some way.

[Jouko-Pouko]

I think there's nothing wrong with teams rebuilding (trading vets for young players and picks, acquiring injured players who can help in future years, utilizing cap space in cap leagues where free drops don't exist etc.) but all teams should always dress their best possible lineup. You can make a case for scratching a 50 point player to dress a PIM/Hit guy instead but you can't make an excuse for scratching McDavid from your lineup (well, maybe with weekly lineups if he only has 1 game - but I think you get my point ).

I also like what the NHL did, meaning the worst team doesn't automatically end up with a top-2 pick but instead the top-3 picks are all up for grabs in the lottery. I think the worst team should still have the best odds to win but automatically handing out a top-2 pick isn't a good idea because then it's a race for last place - especially in years when there are clearly two prospects above the others.

[roenick27]

The other issue with sellers/tankers is when good vets are traded at discount rates. The common excuse is "it was the best offer" when in fact nobody was holding a gun to anyone's head. Yet the trade hurts the league in two ways:

1) Shifts the "balance of power" as one team improves significantly for next to nothing
2) Leaves the rebuilding team with lesser assets for the rebuild

The mindset of getting younger overtakes the need to win trades. Every time it's the same story being told by the GM being killed in these deals and the result is always the same - an endless rebuild.

I hate it but it happens in every keeper league in some way.

I agree to an extent. I also feel like other teams could've stepped up their offers...and didn't. In a way, it comes off as sour grapes.
I also don't think its fair to tell each team how to build their franchises. I know ED isn't quite saying that, but it happens that way a lot of times. League balance turns into an excuse sometimes.

[ericdaoust]

I agree to an extent. I also feel like other teams could've stepped up their offers...and didn't. In a way, it comes off as sour grapes.
I also don't think its fair to tell each team how to build their franchises. I know ED isn't quite saying that, but it happens that way a lot of times. League balance turns into an excuse sometimes.

I really don't understand your post. A shitty trade is a shitty trade and calling it sour grapes is just trying to polish a turd. The GM holds the players and is usually not under any obligation to make a deal.

Of course I'm not telling people how to run their teams. There's good rebuilds and bad ones. About 99% of them are done poorly and usually the GM gets disinterested and either quits or gets booted. Then the league is left with a bottom-feeder and everyone suffers long-term.

[roenick27]

I really don't understand your post. A shitty trade is a shitty trade and calling it sour grapes is just trying to polish a turd. The GM holds the players and is usually not under any obligation to make a deal.

Of course I'm not telling people how to run their teams. There's good rebuilds and bad ones. About 99% of them are done poorly and usually the GM gets disinterested and either quits or gets booted. Then the league is left with a bottom-feeder and everyone suffers long-term.

What I'm saying is what I've personally seen. Where one GM always comes up with "that's a bad trade" or "My offer was better" or better yet " I would've offered more". I for one don't always want parity across the league. I think that can end up being stale. Just because one team "rebuilds" doesn't mean its a bad trade.

I also think you have to look at the scope of the league. Maybe I'm in a less competitive league than you are, but to me it should be active and fun, first and foremost. I get the feeling that you see it as competitive first and foremost. And that's fine. There's free leagues and $1m leagues.

[ericdaoust]

What I'm saying is what I've personally seen. Where one GM always comes up with "that's a bad trade" or "My offer was better" or better yet " I would've offered more". I for one don't always want parity across the league. I think that can end up being stale. Just because one team "rebuilds" doesn't mean its a bad trade.

I also think you have to look at the scope of the league. Maybe I'm in a less competitive league than you are, but to me it should be active and fun, first and foremost. I get the feeling that you see it as competitive first and foremost. And that's fine. There's free leagues and $1m leagues.

I think you're mixing up "bad trade" and "rebuilding trade". I have no issue with rebuilds on the surface. My issue is most people don't do it well and are willing to get killed on the trade front for the sole purpose of getting younger.

Suppose you're in a multi-cat dynasty league and you own Hanzal. There's a difference between selling him for McCarron+1st (prospect draft) and selling him for Andrighetto+2nd. The latter is simply a bad deal. You're better off holding on to Hanzal than doing the second deal. After all, he'll still be solid in the format two years from now when this rebuild *should* be over.

[SuperMario]

What I'm saying is what I've personally seen. Where one GM always comes up with "that's a bad trade" or "My offer was better" or better yet " I would've offered more". I for one don't always want parity across the league. I think that can end up being stale. Just because one team "rebuilds" doesn't mean its a bad trade.

I also think you have to look at the scope of the league. Maybe I'm in a less competitive league than you are, but to me it should be active and fun, first and foremost. I get the feeling that you see it as competitive first and foremost. And that's fine. There's free leagues and $1m leagues.

If you're running a league, ensuring that things are set up to encourage parity is PARAMOUNT to league survival. As ED alluded to, if you're left with a bottom-feeding team, devoid of real assets, and that GM quits, you're going to have a hell of a time replacing them. What happens more often is the league contracts (which is usually a survival tactic and usually not something you strive for) or folds.

[roenick27]

I think you're mixing up "bad trade" and "rebuilding trade". I have no issue with rebuilds on the surface. My issue is most people don't do it well and are willing to get killed on the trade front for the sole purpose of getting younger.

Suppose you're in a multi-cat dynasty league and you own Hanzal. There's a difference between selling him for McCarron+1st (prospect draft) and selling him for Andrighetto+2nd. The latter is simply a bad deal. You're better off holding on to Hanzal than doing the second deal. After all, he'll still be solid in the format two years from now when this rebuild *should* be over.

Im on board with that. But each league is still different. Fpr example, im in a dynasty 14 team H2H cap that is relatively deep. There is no way anyone would give a 1st for Hanzal and I'd say I'd be almost shocked if Mac was traded for him head up. More than likely, you'd have to settle for say a 2nd rounder type deal (I don't think Hanzal would fetch that either) or stash him in the minors.

- - - Updated - - -

If you're running a league, ensuring that things are set up to encourage parity is PARAMOUNT to league survival. As ED alluded to, if you're left with a bottom-feeding team, devoid of real assets, and that GM quits, you're going to have a hell of a time replacing them. What happens more often is the league contracts (which is usually a survival tactic and usually not something you strive for) or folds.

I've been in leagues for 10 years + and there are definitely some teams that I would consider perennial bottom feeders. Its still active. All Im saying is that there is a difference between a bad gm and making a rebuilding trade

[SuperMario]

Im on board with that. But each league is still different. Fpr example, im in a dynasty 14 team H2H cap that is relatively deep. There is no way anyone would give a 1st for Hanzal and I'd say I'd be almost shocked if Mac was traded for him head up. More than likely, you'd have to settle for say a 2nd rounder type deal (I don't think Hanzal would fetch that either) or stash him in the minors.

- - - Updated - - -



I've been in leagues for 10 years + and there are definitely some teams that I would consider perennial bottom feeders. Its still active. All Im saying is that there is a difference between a bad gm and making a rebuilding trade

Free league or money league?

Not going to assume as that's dangerous, but I'd be willing to bet free league. In a money league, you're not going to have guys stick around essentially gifting money away for a decade.

[roenick27]

Free league or money league?

Not going to assume as that's dangerous, but I'd be willing to bet free league. In a money league, you're not going to have guys stick around essentially gifting money away for a decade.

$100 buy in. Nothing crazy.

See to me, the $100 is my "fun" away from the kids and wife etc...I guess we all view things differently

[SuperMario]

$100 buy in. Nothing crazy.

See to me, the $100 is my "fun" away from the kids and wife etc...I guess we all view things differently

Hmmm, I'd have never guessed...

I would have to say you've got an incredible league in that case. Congrats - my current league aspires to be on the level of yours, and I say this without sarcasm.

Kudos to all you guys

[roenick27]

It's a good league with little turnover. But has had its share of bumps.

Hmmm, I'd have never guessed...

I would have to say you've got an incredible league in that case. Congrats - my current league aspires to be on the level of yours, and I say this without sarcasm.

Kudos to all you guys

[tictactao]

I don't see a problem with tanking as much, people do it in our league every year(1-2 teams mostly) but it helps both ends, you can get depth players for the push, first place gets 1000$$ so it's a commitment. We have introduced a consolation playoffs that the bottom 6 teams that don't make it into the money playoffs still have to compete to even get the first overall so completely gutting your team isn't getting you any better than 6th overall