fantasy ethic question

[PlayingWithFire]

Would you be upset if you were the team still in contention and he was trading with you?

This is why leagues place trade deadlines. It prevents a fire sale to the contenders at the end of the season.

If your league does not have a deadline in place, then what they are doing is fully within the rules.

I did say fair trade(well, at least 2/3 of the league mates I talk to think so)

[The Jury]

I would lean towards barring mathematically eliminated teams from making trades with contending teams.

When one has nothing to play for, there is little incentive for some managers to care about their teams anymore. When people don't care, there is an increased risk of vetoable trades, or worse, trades are aren't vetoable but definitely lopsided.

[Thriller]

I was just speaking in general terms.

[PlayingWithFire]

bump this before I go

[nikku88]

Banning weaker teams from trading/etc will most likely lead to more dead teams.

[Madison]

Maybe because the non-contender doesn't want to finish last?

Maybe because the non-contender wants to stay active and participate until the end, like a true competitor?

Maybe because the non-contender understand that having dead teams, or teams give up before it's over, really stinks?

[thedude]

Maybe because the non-contender doesn't want to finish last?

Maybe because the non-contender wants to stay active and participate until the end, like a true competitor?

Maybe because the non-contender understand that having dead teams, or teams give up before it's over, really stinks?

my sentiments exactly.

[The Jury]

Maybe because the non-contender doesn't want to finish last?

Maybe because the non-contender wants to stay active and participate until the end, like a true competitor?

Maybe because the non-contender understand that having dead teams, or teams give up before it's over, really stinks?

my sentiments exactly.

It depends on the experience or commitment level of the managers. The good ones will play to the end, but if you get some less enthusiastic ones who don't really care, then that can ruin the league.

[The Loveable Losers]

I don't see anything wrong with it. If people are uncomfortable with it then put in a trading deadline now...otherwise just let it go.

[Steve-o]

I would lean towards barring mathematically eliminated teams from making trades with contending teams.

When one has nothing to play for, there is little incentive for some managers to care about their teams anymore. When people don't care, there is an increased risk of vetoable trades, or worse, trades are aren't vetoable but definitely lopsided.

That's just plain BS. Maybe you think you have nothing to play for if you are out of it, but I completely disagree. I will never, ever, finish in the bottom third in one of my leagues. No matter what it takes.

By barring teams that people think are out you are seriously reducing the competitiveness of your league. By preventing certain teams from making moves you are creating the exact situation that you warn of. People wont care when the commish tells them that they are no longer allowed to make any moves. In fact, you should strive to find people in your league who have enough pride to do whatever they can to not finish lower in the rankings.

This boils down to having a decent veto system in place in your league. Learn to abide by it. Or put in a trade deadline.