Competitive Balance Question - Opinions Needed (1 Viewer)

Nothing can be done at this point - no rule in play, but looking for rule suggestion going forward beyond this season.

0-5 team with Russell Wilson and Matthew Stafford at QB.  This week the guy drops Stafford to pick up Case Keenum.  At this point, Stafford is the 8th highest scoring QB in the league - exactly double the points of Case Keenum.  It isn't like he is dropping Rodgers or Brady, but seems to be a pretty egregious mistake that could create a potential competitive imbalance in the league (one of the top teams picks up a decent QB in an otherwise barren QB market).  Sure enough, the 5th place team that owns Aaron Rodgers swoops in and picks up Stafford for Brian Hoyer (who is statistically better than Keenum).  This move does not effect me - I do not play the owner who picked up Stafford in the regular season, and if I face him in the post season he would be starting Rodgers anyway.  My bigger concern is this appears to be dumping (NOT collusion) from a team that has given up in this redraft league.  A team in the same division has complained of the unfairness of this transaction (mainly in part because said team has Carr and Rivers as his QBs and did not have high enough waiver priority to swoop in on Stafford himself).

My first thought is - every owner has a responsibility to manage their own team and what may seem like a dumb move may actually be part of a strategy so do not interfere. What rules do other leagues use (if any) for situations like this?    

Cam was dumped in one of my leagues a few weeks back, Carr in another .... that's FF. 

candian fantasy guy said:

Cam was dumped in one of my leagues a few weeks back, Carr in another .... that's FF. 

Click to expand...

That's BS, Cam was terrible and Carr was hurt. Stafford should be put back on the team that dropped him and a replacement owner should be found.

petekrum said:

That's BS, Cam was terrible and Carr was hurt. Stafford should be put back on the team that dropped him and a replacement owner should be found.

Click to expand...

But that owner has Wilson on a bye and decided to role with Keenam over an injured Stafford. I'm not sure I agree with that play, but that is HIS CHOICE, isn't it? 

petekrum said:

That's BS, Cam was terrible and Carr was hurt. Stafford should be put back on the team that dropped him and a replacement owner should be found.

Click to expand...

Umm. Other than than 1 game this year Stafford has been almost as bad as Cam had been.  It's basically the same exact situation. 

The guy shouldn't have dropped Stafford, probably could have traded him for something decent but let's stop pretending that this is extraordinary egregious here. It really is not in redraft.

I think you let teams make their own decisions. As the Canadian says, there was a rationale behind it that others might not see. In any of these cases the guy releasing Stafford might know something about Stafford or about Keenam that others don't. Absent collusion, I much prefer leagues where owners can make their own decisions.

I don’t get the issue other than perception of value based on name recognition by you.  He swapped out one QB2 for another.  In our leagues Keenum actually has a higher FF ppg.

Manage your own team and let him manage his.

On this board, any post raising issues with waivers can be counted on to produce several snarky replies about switching to a free agent bidding system.  Since the original poster was looking for rules options to eliminate the issue going forward, though, it's actually a valid idea here.

Another option, used by some sites like espn, is to have a "no cut" list of players deemed to productive, which teams are unable to cut.  This comes with its own problems, especially in restricting action on injured players if the list is not updated in timely fashion, but would give complaining owners an objective answer:  "Stafford wasn't on the "no cut" list so no issue here" for instance.

don't care about this move (op shouldn't really either) but is keenum really a good play this week? 

Asking for selfish reasons - Mariota is my usual starter and ty Taylor is my backup. I do have Cassell and keenum.

Arodin said:

On this board, any post raising issues with waivers can be counted on to produce several snarky replies about switching to a free agent bidding system.  Since the original poster was looking for rules options to eliminate the issue going forward, though, it's actually a valid idea here.

Another option, used by some sites like espn, is to have a "no cut" list of players deemed to productive, which teams are unable to cut.  This comes with its own problems, especially in restricting action on injured players if the list is not updated in timely fashion, but would give complaining owners an objective answer:  "Stafford wasn't on the "no cut" list so no issue here" for instance.

Click to expand...

Yep, that's a "solution" if this really were a problem.

Arodin said:

On this board, any post raising issues with waivers can be counted on to produce several snarky replies about switching to a free agent bidding system.  Since the original poster was looking for rules options to eliminate the issue going forward, though, it's actually a valid idea here.

Another option, used by some sites like espn, is to have a "no cut" list of players deemed to productive, which teams are unable to cut.  This comes with its own problems, especially in restricting action on injured players if the list is not updated in timely fashion, but would give complaining owners an objective answer:  "Stafford wasn't on the "no cut" list so no issue here" for instance.

Click to expand...

Sure, that's a possibility, but how would the 24th ranked QB(4pts per TD) make it on such a list?

Edit - looking at the wrong list, he is 16th. 

Arodin said:

Since the original poster was looking for rules options to eliminate the issue going forward, though, it's actually a valid idea here.

Click to expand...

What is the issue that you see in the OP that it requires a rule to fix?

I think it would be a much bigger error and actually would create league imbalance if a rule were created to fix a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in his league.  

candian fantasy guy said:

Sure, that's a possibility, but how would the 24th ranked QB(4pts per TD) make it on such a list?

Click to expand...

It's amazing what 4 per td does compared to 5 I guess, Stafford is the 9th QB in my leagues, 12th ppg.

-OZ- said:

It's amazing what 4 per td does compared to 5 I guess, Stafford is the 9th QB in my leagues, 12th ppg.

Click to expand...

that was my bad, he is 16th in my scoring.

candian fantasy guy said:

that was my bad, he is 16th in my scoring.

Click to expand...

Your point remains, Stafford would only be on the no cut list because of name and the list is usually set before the season.

To the OP - not your job to 'fix' people's teams. Btw at 0-5 I'd say cut, burn, slash do whatever you have to do to get a win. Seeing Keenum as getting in a shootout with GB could make sense. And I have personally thought of dropping Stafford in a short bench league. I really don't blame the guy. Stay out of his roster. 

Bronco Billy said:

What is the issue that you see in the OP that it requires a rule to fix?

I think it would be a much bigger error and actually would create league imbalance if a rule were created to fix a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in his league.  

Click to expand...

That's how I also feel about this. There is nothing to fix here, it's just the way it works. 

Don't have a rule change solution to offer, but I do think it's premature based on this one transaction to accuse the owner of dumping and already think a new rule should be implemented.  To characterize it as dumping, you'd need much more than a single example of an injured QB2 (on his team) drop for a bye-week replacement.  It's not like he suddenly dropped all his stars and you stated nothing besides his record to suggest he's given up.  Any "dumb" move is naturally going to create some imbalance.  

This is a non issue. 

Questionable move? Maybe. If ever there were a “get right” game for Stafford, this is the one. Certainly better on paper than facing a much tougher Packers secondary. 

But is this someting that should cause rules to be changed, owners to be replaced or dander to get kicked up? 

No. Stafford has been hot garbage this year - he still doesn’t have a 300+ game, and he’s nursing injury. 

This seems to be a case of perception based on name-brand value, and the OP (and whatever league member who posted) overreacting to what should be a total non issue. 

Dude preferred Keenum to Stafford covering the BYE, and is likely concerned about Russ Wilson who’s also been pretty up & down. 

Way to heap insult to injury on an 0-5 team who’s making moves to try to win a game. This isn’t “roster dumping” - that’s an 0-5 team dropping Hunt to the FA pool and leaving Wilson at QB for the week. Here you’ve got an 0-5 Team still making moves to try to win and y’all freaking out over it?

you should put this one to bed and be thankful you’ve got an active owner of an 0-5 Team. Terrible to criticize them for this move. 

Bronco Billy said:

What is the issue that you see in the OP that it requires a rule to fix?

Click to expand...

Since you quoted me...I don't personally see any issue here at all.  I dislike "no cut" lists and only like blind bidding in leagues with experienced owners.

But I embrace the idea that just because I don't like a particular rule doesn't mean everybody else should have to be rid of it.  So I guess the "issue" I was addressing was that the OP wanted a league that ran differently than I prefer, and as an abstract question, it was fairly easy to see how to achieve what he wanted.

Bronco Billy said:

What is the issue that you see in the OP that it requires a rule to fix?

I think it would be a much bigger error and actually would create league imbalance if a rule were created to fix a problem that doesn’t appear to exist in his league.  

Click to expand...

Exactly this. Non-issue, overacting.

and even if a “no-drop” list were implemented, a 16th ranked QB wouldn’t be on it. 

Hot Sauce Guy said:

This is a non issue. 

Questionable move? Maybe. If ever there were a “get right” game for Stafford, this is the one. Certainly better on paper than facing a much tougher Packers secondary. 

But is this someting that should cause rules to be changed, owners to be replaced or dander to get kicked up? 

No. Stafford has been hot garbage this year - he still doesn’t have a 300+ game, and he’s nursing injury. 

This seems to be a case of perception based on name-brand value, and the OP (and whatever league member who posted) overreacting to what should be a total non issue. 

Dude preferred Keenum to Stafford coveting the BYE, and is likely concerned about Russ Wilson who’s also been pretty up & down. 

Way to heap insult to injury on an 0-5 team who’s making moves to try to win a game. This isn’t “roster dumping” - that’s an 0-5 team dropping Hunt to the FA pool and leaving Wilson at QB for the week. Here you’ve got an 0-5 Team still making moves to try to win and y’all freaking out over it?

you should put this one to bed and be thankful you’ve got an active owner of an 0-5 Team. Terrible to criticize them for this move. 

Click to expand...

This!

Purple Label - makes a statement, but should be palatable to most.

As far as I'm concerned "competitive balance" is a made up term, usually used to rationalize a broad bucket of really subjective "behaviours" and corresponding "rules".

You are on a slippery slope when you start trying to legislate effort or "skill" in fantasy leagues. If you have owners that aren't meeting the notional standard of participation you have in mind for your league, the answer is almost always to get rid of them and get people who do. 

habsfan said:

As far as I'm concerned "competitive balance" is a made up term, usually used to rationalize a broad bucket of really subjective "behaviours" and corresponding "rules".

You are on a slippery slope when you start trying to legislate effort or "skill" in fantasy leagues. If you have owners that aren't meeting the notional standard of participation you have in mind for your league, the answer is almost always to get rid of them and get people who do. 

Click to expand...

Good answer.

in both the league I'm commissikner of, and the league I co-commission, we have 1 rule about competitive balance:

Rule: you must field a complete lineup. 

That’s it. Field a team. I don’t care if you’re 8-1 or 1-8, and I don’t care if you have to spend $20 on 4 transactions to make it happen, to stay in the league field a team.

No one hands anyone an easy win. That’s a slippery slope to potential collusion. Not that anyone in either of my leagues would collide, but if there’s an incomplete lineup that accusation could be leveled, so best to avoid it.

It sucks to have to spend $ on a team with none chance at the playoffs, but that is how you ensure competitive balance.

so as commissioners, if we notice an illegal lineup, or if another team in the league points it out, we’ll send a PM to the team owner explaining why it’s important to make the moves necessary. 

IMO that’s the only valid competitive balance issue. 

Trades that aren’t perfectly even, or moves like dropping Stafford for Keenum wouldn’t even scratch the surface. 

SaintsInDome2006 said:

To the OP - not your job to 'fix' people's teams. Btw at 0-5 I'd say cut, burn, slash do whatever you have to do to get a win. Seeing Keenum as getting in a shootout with GB could make sense. And I have personally thought of dropping Stafford in a short bench league. I really don't blame the guy. Stay out of his roster. 

Click to expand...

This was my take as well. The owner is 0-5 and making moves to try and get a win with Wilson on Bye and Stafford banged up. It could be interpreted by some as a questionable move, and by others as a ballsy move. FWIW I cut Stafford in my league this week, he’s the 16th ranked QB in my scoring but I had some injuries/suspension/Bye weeks to contend with.