Is this a fair way to run a league?

Player mentions

Article text

I’m going to try and sum this up concisely, but it’s been a bit of a back and forth argument for a while between some of our league and one player. Let me start this by saying our draft order is decided by POINTS FOR, so there’s no way players can start a rubbish line up and get away with unethically tanking. The long story short - is there any limit in your league as to how “bad” a starting player can be, assuming he’s still the best player that team has available to field? The situation was this - team A has Jeanty as his RB1 and nobody currently at RB2 (Chris Rodriguez would be the best player on the bench, but hypothetically this could be anybody worse too). They were offered Egbuka and a 2027 1st for Jeanty, which they were tempted by, but this would have left them very short at RB. This wasn’t something they were fussed by though, as they’re currently building for the future and aren’t particularly interested in winning this year. Team B then comes along and claims that this is unfair, and that team A should be required to trade for a player (someone like Pollard was the example) in order to field a “startable” player at each position, even if this isn’t someone they’re interested in acquiring or they’ve got nobody on their team that they’d like to move for Pollard. Obviously, this brings about issues such as team A then being held at ransom for startable RBs as the league knows they “need” to buy one, or the Pollard owner being “forced to sell for a fair price” which also isn’t fair at all in my opinion. The argument mainly was that it’s “boring for the league” if matches are too one sided and that it’s “a rubbish way to play” if you tank that intensely for the 1.01, even though my argument was that that’s exactly how dynasty leagues work and that it sounded like team B would prefer a redraft league. Any opinions? Any similar situations in your leagues? submitted by /u/JamesH371 [link] [comments]