What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Dynasty Question: Should you have to drop a prospect in this scenario (1 Viewer)

JohnnyU

JohnnyU

Footballguy
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tough call, but I vote no, you don't have to drop someone. Your obligation is to start the best lineup possible with the roster you have, not to change your roster to improve your chances any given week.

I acknowledge this could be abused, but the abuse can be easily spotted -- cycling through players with upcoming byes so this issue comes up multiple times per season. Abuse should be dealt with.

 
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
It's certainly a difficult situation for a commisioner - as it's a grey area - but I would allow it. While my rule is that all teams must submit their "best" line-up and "losing on purpose" could lead to sanctions, I don't think you can force another team to make a decision that is not in that team's best long term interest (outside of not allowing outright tanking of course).

One would need to use some logic and consider the situation. If you know the owner is sincere in his beliefs than I wouldn't make him drop a guy like Marquise Goodwin to pick up David Nelson just to fill a hole in the line-up. People need to do their best to win, not make stupid long term decisions to do so though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus said:
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
It's certainly a difficult situation for a commisioner - as it's a grey area - but I would allow it. While my rule is that all teams must submit their "best" line-up and "losing on purpose" could lead to sanctions, I don't think you can force another team to make a decision that is not in that team's best long term interest (outside of not allowing outright tanking of course).

One would need to use some logic and consider the situation. If you know the owner is sincere in his beliefs than I wouldn't make him drop a guy like Marquise Goodwin to pick up David Nelson just to fill a hole in the line-up. People need to do their best to win, not make stupid long term decisions to do so though.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised to how many owners yell foul when someone doesn't drop a player to pickup a scrub to play for one week. This does two things, it does enable that owner to keep a prospect and it also betters their draft position. You can't dictate what's in the head of the other owner with regards to prospects, yet it does show obvious tanking to better their draft position. It seems to be one of the hardest decisions presented to dynasty commissioners.

 
JohnnyU said:
Dr. Octopus said:
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
It's certainly a difficult situation for a commisioner - as it's a grey area - but I would allow it. While my rule is that all teams must submit their "best" line-up and "losing on purpose" could lead to sanctions, I don't think you can force another team to make a decision that is not in that team's best long term interest (outside of not allowing outright tanking of course).

One would need to use some logic and consider the situation. If you know the owner is sincere in his beliefs than I wouldn't make him drop a guy like Marquise Goodwin to pick up David Nelson just to fill a hole in the line-up. People need to do their best to win, not make stupid long term decisions to do so though.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised to how many owners yell foul when someone doesn't drop a player to pickup a scrub to play for one week. This does two things, it does enable that owner to keep a prospect and it also betters their draft position. You can't dictate what's in the head of the other owner with regards to prospects, yet it does show obvious tanking to better their draft position. It seems to be one of the hardest decisions presented to dynasty commissioners.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it's certainly not an easy situation to deal with.

As a commisioner, you would need to make the determination by considering all the particulars. Sure, you may be implictly allowing a team to tank, but is adding a guy like Donnie Avery, John Kuhn or David Nelson really going give them so much better of a chance.

If the guy is carrying two kickers or doesn't want to drop Frank Summers, then I'd step in but if he doesn't want to drop Jonathan Franklin to pick up Jason Snelling, you have to respect the logic in that.

 
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.

 
FUBAR said:
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.
Click to expand...
Some (many) people believe it's not right to allow someone to start a player who is out, even if they don't have any other options on their bench. They feel you should have to drop someone like Dion Lewis and pick up a valid player to insert into your lineup to cover a bye or someone who is listed as OUT. I'm not one of those people, but as a commissioner I get beat up every year from those who oppose someone doing this, because they feel it is tanking to better their draft position, which it is, in addition to hanging on to the prospect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.
Click to expand...
Some (many) people believe it's not right to allow someone to start a player who is out, even if they don't have any other options on their bench. They feel you should have to drop someone like Dion Lewis and pick up a valid player to insert into your lineup to cover a bye or someone who is listed as OUT. I'm not one of those people, but as a commissioner I get beat up every year from those who oppose someone doing this, because they feel it is tanking to better their draft position, which it is, in addition to hanging on to the prospect.
Click to expand...
Understand there are complainers out there, but I'd like to see a rational argument from somebody here who truly believes a league shouldn't allow owners to manage their roster. I'm just picturing a team in a short bench league with Crabtree, Cobb, Calvin and DThomas being forced to drop one of their receivers to grab a wire guy last week. (obviously worst case, but that's what they need to consider)

 
FUBAR said:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.
Click to expand...
Some (many) people believe it's not right to allow someone to start a player who is out, even if they don't have any other options on their bench. They feel you should have to drop someone like Dion Lewis and pick up a valid player to insert into your lineup to cover a bye or someone who is listed as OUT. I'm not one of those people, but as a commissioner I get beat up every year from those who oppose someone doing this, because they feel it is tanking to better their draft position, which it is, in addition to hanging on to the prospect.
Click to expand...
Understand there are complainers out there, but I'd like to see a rational argument from somebody here who truly believes a league shouldn't allow owners to manage their roster. I'm just picturing a team in a short bench league with Crabtree, Cobb, Calvin and DThomas being forced to drop one of their receivers to grab a wire guy last week. (obviously worst case, but that's what they need to consider)
Click to expand...
If it was so cut and dry as you indicate, then why am I hammered by it every year as a commissioner where someone is complaining about someone else doing this? They say it's a huge advantage to do this because it betters your draft position and also can have playoff positioning implications. Also, the shoe is on the other foot as well where I have the same problem in week 12, so should I have to drop someone like Quinton Patton or Khiry Robinson to pickup a player to play? As it is in that league no rules are set up to handle this, but I can see someone complaining next week should I decide to start a player who is out so I don't have to drop a prospect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.
Click to expand...
Some (many) people believe it's not right to allow someone to start a player who is out, even if they don't have any other options on their bench. They feel you should have to drop someone like Dion Lewis and pick up a valid player to insert into your lineup to cover a bye or someone who is listed as OUT. I'm not one of those people, but as a commissioner I get beat up every year from those who oppose someone doing this, because they feel it is tanking to better their draft position, which it is, in addition to hanging on to the prospect.
Click to expand...
Understand there are complainers out there, but I'd like to see a rational argument from somebody here who truly believes a league shouldn't allow owners to manage their roster. I'm just picturing a team in a short bench league with Crabtree, Cobb, Calvin and DThomas being forced to drop one of their receivers to grab a wire guy last week. (obviously worst case, but that's what they need to consider)
Click to expand...
If it was so cut and dry as you indicate, then why am I hammered by it every year as a commissioner where someone is complaining about someone else doing this? They say it's a huge advantage to do this because it betters your draft position and also can have playoff positioning implications. Also, the shoe is on the other foot as well where I have the same problem in week 12, so should I have to drop someone like Quinton Patton or Khiry Robinson to pickup a player to play? As it is in that league no rules are set up to handle this, but I can see someone complaining next week should I decide to start a player who is out so I don't have to drop a prospect.
Click to expand...
People will ##### any time they think someone is getting an "advantage". How many "is this collusion?" threads have we seen here - when the trade is generally bad (although not always) but there is no evidence of collusion? Give 11-15 people any semblance of reason to gripe and some will.

 
FUBAR said:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
JohnnyU said:
FUBAR said:
How is this a debate? You don't force owners to make roster moves. You prevent tanking by seeing who is on their roster, then if they "start" a player on a bye or a known injury over a guy who is playing.

Owners should have complete freedom as it pertains to their roster. I wouldn't be in a league with contrary rules.
Click to expand...
Some (many) people believe it's not right to allow someone to start a player who is out, even if they don't have any other options on their bench. They feel you should have to drop someone like Dion Lewis and pick up a valid player to insert into your lineup to cover a bye or someone who is listed as OUT. I'm not one of those people, but as a commissioner I get beat up every year from those who oppose someone doing this, because they feel it is tanking to better their draft position, which it is, in addition to hanging on to the prospect.
Click to expand...
Understand there are complainers out there, but I'd like to see a rational argument from somebody here who truly believes a league shouldn't allow owners to manage their roster. I'm just picturing a team in a short bench league with Crabtree, Cobb, Calvin and DThomas being forced to drop one of their receivers to grab a wire guy last week. (obviously worst case, but that's what they need to consider)
Click to expand...
If it was so cut and dry as you indicate, then why am I hammered by it every year as a commissioner where someone is complaining about someone else doing this? They say it's a huge advantage to do this because it betters your draft position and also can have playoff positioning implications. Also, the shoe is on the other foot as well where I have the same problem in week 12, so should I have to drop someone like Quinton Patton or Khiry Robinson to pickup a player to play? As it is in that league no rules are set up to handle this, but I can see someone complaining next week should I decide to start a player who is out so I don't have to drop a prospect.
Click to expand...
People will ##### any time they think someone is getting an "advantage". How many "is this collusion?" threads have we seen here - when the trade is generally bad (although not always) but there is no evidence of collusion? Give 11-15 people any semblance of reason to gripe and some will.
Click to expand...
Well, that I cannot argue with.

 
well this topic hits close to home as I commish a league with strong personalities...

i don't think any owner should be forced to make the roster moves in the scenario you described. I also don't think that the league gets to determine anybody else's starting lineup. BUT it is the Commish's job to guard the integrity of the league, and any owner can contact the Commish to alert them to potential issues. I think it is poor form to call other owners out, harangue them for not making roster moves or starting X over Y.

i read the "tanking" thread that got bumped looking for ideas on how to determine draft order for those teams not making the playoffs since a simple reversal in the order of finish (by record, natch) could expose any league to these types of abuses.

YMMV

 
DexterDew said:
well this topic hits close to home as I commish a league with strong personalities...

i don't think any owner should be forced to make the roster moves in the scenario you described. I also don't think that the league gets to determine anybody else's starting lineup. BUT it is the Commish's job to guard the integrity of the league, and any owner can contact the Commish to alert them to potential issues. I think it is poor form to call other owners out, harangue them for not making roster moves or starting X over Y.

i read the "tanking" thread that got bumped looking for ideas on how to determine draft order for those teams not making the playoffs since a simple reversal in the order of finish (by record, natch) could expose any league to these types of abuses.

YMMV
Click to expand...
You should not mess with the draft order in dynasty leagues where the worst team doesn't get the top pick. This is how bad teams get better and you must enable bad teams to get better by having the highest picks. What about the playoff implication issue? What if TEAM X doesn't drop a player to pickup a viable substitute to fill his lineup and that person loses and allows team A into the playoffs, whereas they wouldn't have made the playoffs and TEAM B would have, had team X picked up player and started him instead of starting a player who is OUT.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A team in our league is starting a DAL DT this week because Atkins is out and he only has 3 dline on the roster. In order to pick up a dline, he would have had to cut a player (creating a contract penalty) to pick up a one week filler. He's likely going to win this week regardless (unless Cam scores less than 8), but I don't see anything as wrong with it. He even texted me to give me a heads up that he was starting someone on a bye this week because of the contract penalties associated with cutting players.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

 
I definitely had a situation like this for this past week as well. Had an owner that had Rodger/Vick as his QB's with McCown, Tolzien, Clemens, and McGloin all out there. It's a league where we roster 25 active, 2 taxi, and 2 ir. This owner's team is currently 3-8 (one week with a doubleheader) but with his division being totally awful (4-7, (2) 3-8, 2-9), still has a chance to win their division, and money.

I agree if they have prospects that are worth something, then a move shouldn't be made, but with players such as Aaron Melette and Ramses Barden rostered (one active, both ir spots full), I asked for a move to be made. I also consulted a few of my league mates from different leagues and we all agreed on my decision.

 
r0llin_game said:
I definitely had a situation like this for this past week as well. Had an owner that had Rodger/Vick as his QB's with McCown, Tolzien, Clemens, and McGloin all out there. It's a league where we roster 25 active, 2 taxi, and 2 ir. This owner's team is currently 3-8 (one week with a doubleheader) but with his division being totally awful (4-7, (2) 3-8, 2-9), still has a chance to win their division, and money.

I agree if they have prospects that are worth something, then a move shouldn't be made, but with players such as Aaron Melette and Ramses Barden rostered (one active, both ir spots full), I asked for a move to be made. I also consulted a few of my league mates from different leagues and we all agreed on my decision.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line trying to say who's a viable prospect and who isn't? It can't, nor should be done. You can't tell an owner he has to drop a player. That can't be right and there has to be another solution. Remember, this is not only a tanking issue vs keeping viable prospects, but it could have an impact on who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The entire point of dynasty leagues is that they're year-to-year, not week-to-week. Making decisions based on long-term value is par for the course.

 
JohnnyU said:
r0llin_game said:
I definitely had a situation like this for this past week as well. Had an owner that had Rodger/Vick as his QB's with McCown, Tolzien, Clemens, and McGloin all out there. It's a league where we roster 25 active, 2 taxi, and 2 ir. This owner's team is currently 3-8 (one week with a doubleheader) but with his division being totally awful (4-7, (2) 3-8, 2-9), still has a chance to win their division, and money.

I agree if they have prospects that are worth something, then a move shouldn't be made, but with players such as Aaron Melette and Ramses Barden rostered (one active, both ir spots full), I asked for a move to be made. I also consulted a few of my league mates from different leagues and we all agreed on my decision.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line trying to say who's a viable prospect and who isn't? It can't, nor should be done. You can't tell an owner he has to drop a player. That can't be right and there has to be another solution. Remember, this is not only a tanking issue vs keeping viable prospects, but it could have an impact on who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.
Click to expand...
I think if the owner is active, and can explain why he's starting the bye week player instead of dropping a prospect, I'm ok with it. It should only be an issue if they're leaving viable choices on the bench, or have the same lineup from last week roll over and just don't make any changes.

 
Spin said:
JohnnyU said:
r0llin_game said:
I definitely had a situation like this for this past week as well. Had an owner that had Rodger/Vick as his QB's with McCown, Tolzien, Clemens, and McGloin all out there. It's a league where we roster 25 active, 2 taxi, and 2 ir. This owner's team is currently 3-8 (one week with a doubleheader) but with his division being totally awful (4-7, (2) 3-8, 2-9), still has a chance to win their division, and money.

I agree if they have prospects that are worth something, then a move shouldn't be made, but with players such as Aaron Melette and Ramses Barden rostered (one active, both ir spots full), I asked for a move to be made. I also consulted a few of my league mates from different leagues and we all agreed on my decision.
Click to expand...
Where do you draw the line trying to say who's a viable prospect and who isn't? It can't, nor should be done. You can't tell an owner he has to drop a player. That can't be right and there has to be another solution. Remember, this is not only a tanking issue vs keeping viable prospects, but it could have an impact on who makes the playoffs and who doesn't.
Click to expand...
I think if the owner is active, and can explain why he's starting the bye week player instead of dropping a prospect, I'm ok with it. It should only be an issue if they're leaving viable choices on the bench, or have the same lineup from last week roll over and just don't make any changes.
Click to expand...
The commish in the league where I don't have a starter because of injuries and byes says that I SHOULD have to drop a player and that he will change the rules for 2014 to make sure it says we have to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyU said:
The commish in the league where I don't have a starter because of injuries and byes says that I SHOULD have to drop a player and that he will change the rules for 2014 to make sure it says we have to.
Click to expand...
Welps, I think I would consider about not playing in that league. Guess it depends on how big of a fuss you want to make during the offseason. I don't agree with the rule, and I'm sure you can get half the owners to agree with you. In the dynasty league I commish, we have no problem with it. How people run their team is their own decision.

Earlier in the season, I had a simliar situation happen to me. Full roster, and had given the max contract years out. When Trich got traded, I now had two rbs with a week 8 bye. I started Jstew and Charles. Because of my situation, if I wanted to pick up a rb for just this week, I would have needed to drop a multi year player (due to penalties associated with dropping players). I decided to keep Jstew on my roster as I thought it was better for my team overrall, even if the zero at rb cost me a win in week 8, which it didn't anyhow (thanks Calvin!).

What would the penalty be that your commish is recommending? Loss of a draft pick? Forfeit the week? Reduced RFA bucks? How would you enforce it?

 
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.

 
JohnnyU said:
The commish in the league where I don't have a starter because of injuries and byes says that I SHOULD have to drop a player and that he will change the rules for 2014 to make sure it says we have to.
Click to expand...
That could be a different problem altogether. Does he mean requesting the league vote and change a rule, or is he taking the "this is my league, I make the rules" stance?

 
Pretty easy fix here. Unlimited IR spots but you can only put a player on IR if you own them before they got hurt. As soon as they are healthy you have to activate them and drop somebody. You are then required to start a full roster every week. No tanking.

 
i agree that the worst team should get the first pick, however, I could argue that the worst teams has the least amount of potential points and not W/L record. It would address the starting Player X over Player Y questions since who ever scores the most points will ultimately get counted towards potential points.

To address the issue of fielding a complete starting line up, that can be regulated since it is a black/white, binary answer. Can't start players on bye. Can't start players not in the NFL (for Devy leagues). And that is about it. Make sure the players are active on game day, though that may be more difficult in larger leagues.

saw an idea of making Devy drafts an auction, which would add another dimension. Sure the worst team could still get the "best" rookie, but what if there was trading of auction bucks, too? it kind of neuters the tanker who would be assured of the 1.01. I'm just spitballin' here. Or maybe make the rookie draft serpentine so that the 1.01 doesn't get the 2.01, too, but instead the 2.12 (again, trying to negate some advantages/reasons to "tank")

ultimately, I think we agree that every owner has earned/paid for the right to manage their team the way they see best. It is the responsibility of the Commish to ensure that each owner understands their part in keeping the integrity of the league in tact and to monitor the owners.

 
FUBAR said:
JohnnyU said:
The commish in the league where I don't have a starter because of injuries and byes says that I SHOULD have to drop a player and that he will change the rules for 2014 to make sure it says we have to.
Click to expand...
That could be a different problem altogether. Does he mean requesting the league vote and change a rule, or is he taking the "this is my league, I make the rules" stance?
Click to expand...
He's not going to call a vote on it.

 
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? In dynasty leagues the prospects you have are the future of your team and is a start to improve your team. So you think I should have to drop one of those prospects, which are the future of my team, to pickup some scrub like David Nelson in order to complete a lineup for a given week? hmmm.

 
The problem here is this can easily lead to "legal" tanking. Because who is to say what is a prospect, and what is a scrub?

For example, a guy started the season w/ Rodgers and Bradford. When Rodgers went down, he was 2-6. He figures "whatever - I'll just play for the top pick now". Should he be allowed to start no qb week after week because he says he wants to hang onto Austin Pettis, Ramses Barden, and Cedric Peerman (clearly tanking)? But if you penalize him, you are penalizing him for exactly the same thing another team was allowed to do. How is it tanking when one person does it, and not tanking when someone else does it?

I'm all for the commish being the final judge of the above, but the guy saying "you let someone else do the exact same thing" does have a point (even though I hate playing with rules lawyers like that.)

 
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? In dynasty leagues the prospects you have are the future of your team and is a start to improve your team. So you think I should have to drop one of those prospects, which are the future of my team, to pickup some scrub like David Nelson in order to complete a lineup for a given week? hmmm.
Click to expand...
Yes. Otherwise you are tanking. That you don't know what that means speaks volumes.

 
Open up one additional in-season (only) roster spot and mandate owners make drops, in order to field a completely active roster.

 
jwb said:
The problem here is this can easily lead to "legal" tanking. Because who is to say what is a prospect, and what is a scrub?

For example, a guy started the season w/ Rodgers and Bradford. When Rodgers went down, he was 2-6. He figures "whatever - I'll just play for the top pick now". Should he be allowed to start no qb week after week because he says he wants to hang onto Austin Pettis, Ramses Barden, and Cedric Peerman (clearly tanking)? But if you penalize him, you are penalizing him for exactly the same thing another team was allowed to do. How is it tanking when one person does it, and not tanking when someone else does it?

I'm all for the commish being the final judge of the above, but the guy saying "you let someone else do the exact same thing" does have a point (even though I hate playing with rules lawyers like that.)
Click to expand...
This.

Without the rule in black and white, the loopholes are too easy to take advantage of. If I am not competing, kickers and defenses have no value to me. I don't think anyone would take issue with a commish stepping if I tried to get away without rostering/playing them. What's the difference?

 
r0llin_game said:
I definitely had a situation like this for this past week as well. Had an owner that had Rodger/Vick as his QB's with McCown, Tolzien, Clemens, and McGloin all out there. It's a league where we roster 25 active, 2 taxi, and 2 ir. This owner's team is currently 3-8 (one week with a doubleheader) but with his division being totally awful (4-7, (2) 3-8, 2-9), still has a chance to win their division, and money.

I agree if they have prospects that are worth something, then a move shouldn't be made, but with players such as Aaron Melette and Ramses Barden rostered (one active, both ir spots full), I asked for a move to be made. I also consulted a few of my league mates from different leagues and we all agreed on my decision.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree with this logic. Who are you to judge the validity of a prospect on someone's team? I happen to be a huge Aaron Mellette fan and have him on a number of teams. If I'm sitting at 3-8 and I was being asked to drop him for Scott Tolzien, I'd be pretty angry.

A few weeks ago, Bobby Rainey was considered one of those dead weight players.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
solorca said:
Completely disagree with this logic. Who are you to judge the validity of a prospect on someone's team?
Click to expand...
I agree. I think it needs to be black and white. Either owners have to make drops to cover bye weeks, or they don't. I don't like the idea of a commish having to make that call everytime it comes up.

 
I tend to prefer to let owners run the team the way they want, and then we judge each individual situation as merited whether someone is abusing it where tanking is their primary motivation.

That said, if you were looking for a compromise, you could do this. Go ahead and make the rule that every week's starting lineups must contain players believed to be active.... but then give a little extra roster space and perhaps even changes to IR rules so that the number of prospects people can retain previous to the rule doesn't really change very much. It might be 1 extra roster space is enough, or if you start more players than other leagues maybe you need 2 or 3 extra spots. Your league can decide what is appropriate.

As far as IR, if doing this I would suggest having unlimited IR space so someone with Julio, Cobb, Crabtree, etc doesn't have to cut them. Though maybe with a restriction that prevents people from picking up every player from waivers who is on IR and stashing them. Something like, "after you already have 2 players on IR, you can only add more if the player was on your roster during his last active NFL game before he was placed on NFL IR".

 
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Seems to simply be a question of league rules - if you have to field a lineup (you should but not all leagues require it) then you need to manage your roster to do it.

BUT that said I doulb you have to drop a good prospect - there is probably someone who is clearly not a keeper you could part with - better than just giving a better chance of a W to one team while others don't have that advantage

 
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. You didn't intentionally get your starters injured, or schedule all those byes on the same week.

Now, there are some instances where it clearly is intentional. If a team is actually going out and adding players on byes every week and then playing the "oh, I don't have anyone to start this week" card, then he's intentionally creating that positional shortage. If the positional shortage arose without any intent on the owners' part, though, then that owner is not tanking.

In my mind, if you take away all considerations surrounding the rookie pick, any move that leads to a team scoring fewer points today but more points tomorrow is not tanking. Imagine that all rookie picks were randomly assigned to all teams by drawing a number out of a hat. Could you still see a bad team making that particular move? If so, it's not tanking. If not, then it is. If rookie picks were randomly assigned, I could still see a bad team cutting Tony Gonzalez for Levine Toilolo. If rookie picks were randomly assigned, I could not see a bad team benching Peyton Manning for Matt McGloin. The former is building, the latter is tanking.

 
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.

You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.

 
MoveToSkypager said:
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? In dynasty leagues the prospects you have are the future of your team and is a start to improve your team. So you think I should have to drop one of those prospects, which are the future of my team, to pickup some scrub like David Nelson in order to complete a lineup for a given week? hmmm.
Click to expand...
Yes. Otherwise you are tanking. That you don't know what that means speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
What does starting a lineup now that will NOT improve my team next year have to do with tanking? People are forced to play players that probably won't even be on their team next year when those prospects start to pay off. That's what I meant by "what does this even mean". Unless my interpretation of your statement was skewed.

I'm starting to think the best solution is just to add more IR spots and allow players who are "OUT" to be on it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.

You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.

 
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
What does this even mean? In dynasty leagues the prospects you have are the future of your team and is a start to improve your team. So you think I should have to drop one of those prospects, which are the future of my team, to pickup some scrub like David Nelson in order to complete a lineup for a given week? hmmm.
Click to expand...
Yes. Otherwise you are tanking. That you don't know what that means speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
What does starting a lineup now that will NOT improve my team next year have to do with tanking? People are forced to play players that probably won't even be on their team next year when those prospects start to pay off.
Click to expand...
I agree with your stance, assuming rules allow for it. I just don't feel that rules should allow for it. If I can manage my roster without having to worry about my weekly lineup, why do I need to roster a kicker or defense? If I am rebuilding, they don't matter to me. Neither does a bye week QB, or TE, usually.

Everyone is asked to make some sacrifices for the league, and I don't think that's wrong.

 
Concept Coop said:
jwb said:
The problem here is this can easily lead to "legal" tanking. Because who is to say what is a prospect, and what is a scrub?

For example, a guy started the season w/ Rodgers and Bradford. When Rodgers went down, he was 2-6. He figures "whatever - I'll just play for the top pick now". Should he be allowed to start no qb week after week because he says he wants to hang onto Austin Pettis, Ramses Barden, and Cedric Peerman (clearly tanking)? But if you penalize him, you are penalizing him for exactly the same thing another team was allowed to do. How is it tanking when one person does it, and not tanking when someone else does it?

I'm all for the commish being the final judge of the above, but the guy saying "you let someone else do the exact same thing" does have a point (even though I hate playing with rules lawyers like that.)
Click to expand...
This.

Without the rule in black and white, the loopholes are too easy to take advantage of. If I am not competing, kickers and defenses have no value to me. I don't think anyone would take issue with a commish stepping if I tried to get away without rostering/playing them. What's the difference?
Click to expand...
I counter this with having no positional limits other than that you must at all times "[SIZE=9pt]have the minimum players at each position which would allow them to submit a starting line-up on their rosters". So if every team has to have a kicker and D/ST they have no excuse not to have one that is playing that week.[/SIZE]

 
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.

You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with dynasties. I'm also familiar with how to manage a roster in them. I'm sure you are used to making tough decisions, but it seems here you'd rather intentionally field an illegitimate lineup than manage your roster correctly. Aren't these situations considered when determining how many IR spots there are, how many roster spots there are, and so on? These are all variables that you should have considered before claiming tanking in the present justifies a more competitive team in the future. It's important for the entire league that all teams field legitimate lineups every year, and I don't know why this is looked on as an option.

Dude, I want to say I am sorry about my tone being directed at you, it's not. I know you are embodying some aspect of FF managing and I'm addressing that. I hope you don't take offense :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.

You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
Imagine the following two teams from last May:

Team A: Aaron Rodgers, Reggie Bush, Doug Martin, Julio Jones, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Dennis Pitta

Team B: Joe Flacco, Ray Rice, Steven Jackson, Marques Colston, Dwayne Bowe, Anquan Boldin, Brent Celek

Question #1: which team managed his roster better?

Question #2: which team has a harder time fielding a starting lineup today?

How well you manage your roster has absolutely nothing at all to do with how many injuries you get hit by.

 
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.

You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
Imagine the following two teams from last May:

Team A: Aaron Rodgers, Reggie Bush, Doug Martin, Julio Jones, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Dennis Pitta

Team B: Joe Flacco, Ray Rice, Steven Jackson, Marques Colston, Dwayne Bowe, Anquan Boldin, Brent Celek

Question #1: which team managed his roster better?

Question #2: which team has a harder time fielding a starting lineup today?

How well you manage your roster has absolutely nothing at all to do with how many injuries you get hit by.
Click to expand...
Is this a 7 player roster? I have no experience with a league like that.

 
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
Imagine the following two teams from last May:

Team A: Aaron Rodgers, Reggie Bush, Doug Martin, Julio Jones, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Dennis Pitta

Team B: Joe Flacco, Ray Rice, Steven Jackson, Marques Colston, Dwayne Bowe, Anquan Boldin, Brent Celek

Question #1: which team managed his roster better?

Question #2: which team has a harder time fielding a starting lineup today?

How well you manage your roster has absolutely nothing at all to do with how many injuries you get hit by.
Click to expand...
Is this a 7 player roster? I have no experience with a league like that.
Click to expand...
After reading your comments, I question what experience you have with dynasty rosters of any size.

 
MoveToSkypager said:
JohnnyU said:
MoveToSkypager said:
Adam Harstad said:
MoveToSkypager said:
You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.
Click to expand...
But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.
Click to expand...
Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.
Click to expand...
You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with dynasties. I'm also familiar with how to manage a roster in them. I'm sure you are used to making tough decisions, but it seems here you'd rather intentionally field an illegitimate lineup than manage your roster correctly. Aren't these situations considered when determining how many IR spots there are, how many roster spots there are, and so on? These are all variables that you should have considered before claiming tanking in the present justifies a more competitive team in the future. It's important for the entire league that all teams field legitimate lineups every year, and I don't know why this is looked on as an option.Dude, I want to say I am sorry about my tone being directed at you, it's not. I know you are embodying some aspect of FF managing and I'm addressing that. I hope you don't take offense :)
Click to expand...
Manage your roster correctly? Who is the judge of that?

 
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
No, you should not be forced...

But 26 spots and you can't field a team? No one is expendable to acquire someone that could help you win this game?

 
DropKick said:
JohnnyU said:
26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck
Click to expand...
No, you should not be forced...

But 26 spots and you can't field a team? No one is expendable to acquire someone that could help you win this game?
Click to expand...
This league has college players as well. Here is my team. Sorry about the formatting. Three can be no more than 18 college/devy players in the league on all rosters. We start a total of 9 players (1qb, 1-3 rb, 2-5 WRs, 1-3 te, 1 defense). I plan on starting Kaepernick or Gleenon at QB, Andre Brown and Starks at RB, Manningham and Randle at WR, Carlson and Julius Thomas at TE and I will need one more starter. Now it's also looking like I'll be without Julius Thomas, so I may end up needed two now.

Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted Trade? Cousins, Kirk WAS QB -1.98 5 FA Glennon, Mike TBB QB ® 122.20 5 FA Kaepernick, Colin SFO QB 171.58 9 FA Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB (O) 182.22 4 FA * Gray, Johnathan FA RB - - FA * Gurley, Todd FA RB - - 1.03 * Johnson, Duke FA RB - - 1.12 * Yeldon, T J FA RB - - FA Brown, Andre NYG RB 31.20 9 FA Lattimore, Marcus SFO RB ® (O) - 9 FA Robinson, Khiry NOS RB ® 20.60 7 FA Starks, James GBP RB 58.10 4 FA * Cooper, Amari FA WR - - 1.02 * Lee, Marqis FA WR - - FA * Watkins, Sammy FA WR - - FA Goodwin, Marquise BUF WR ® 60.70 12 4.09 Green, A.J. CIN WR 205.00 12 FA Manningham, Mario SFO WR 7.80 9 FA Patton, Quinton SFO WR ® (O) 1.00 9 3.09 Randle, Rueben NYG WR 110.00 9 FA Rogers, Da'Rick IND WR ® - 8 FA Carlson, John MIN TE 50.80 5 FA Eifert, Tyler CIN TE ® 74.70 12 1.08 Thomas, Julius DEN TE (P) 164.00 9 FA Panthers, Carolina CAR Def

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think owners should be forced to make roster moves, and in dynasty leagues with 24+ roster sizes (assuming 12 teams or larger) there is nobody you will be able to pick up who you can reasonably assume will make a real impact on your game so I don't agree with a tanking argument in that case. In smaller leagues and especially in redraft leagues where winning now is the only important thing, I can understand having a rule that requires a legit starting lineup at all times. In dynasty leagues with 24+ roster sizes I think you can let the owners manage their teams.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Best waiver wire player available in your league
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
Doubles
D
socrates
Dynasty Waiver Monitor List
Replies
27
Views
1K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
Joe Bryant
Co-Own A NFFC Prime Time Team with Me
Replies
23
Views
1K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top