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.

Transactions by non-playoff teams (1 Viewer)

Down Under

Footballguy
I've been away from FF for 8-9 years (grad school), so I'm not sure if this is a rule or not.  Isn't it standard to no longer allow non-playoff teams to add or drop players?  Like shouldn't their rosters be frozen after it was determined this morning they did not make it?  I could see tons of possibilities for collusion (dropping players for friends to pick them up, adding players to block a friend's opponents need, etc.  Or do most leagues allow this?  Why else would they be paying a few $$ to add/drop when their season is over???

 
League format matters a whole lot for this discussion. 

Dynasty - shouldn't lock, imo, but some do. 

Keeper - shouldn't lock, imo, but most do.

Redraft - should lock. It's not like they're making moves for next year. 

In all formats, there should be rules to deal with blatant bad drops. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
League format matters a whole lot for this discussion. 

Dynasty - shouldn't lock, imo, but some do. 

Keeper - shouldn't lock, imo, but most do.

Redraft - should lock. It's not like they're making moves for next year. 

In all formats, there should be rules to deal with blatant bad drops. 
A lot of leagues have consolation brackets (Toliet Bowl/Pride Bowl) and IMO, picking up players to compete in that is good for the league.  But once teams are eliminated, they shouldn't be picking up players in a redraft format.  Dynasty and Keepers should be open for the duration of the season.

 
In every league there should be a basic collusion rule that prevents any kind of dropping all of a losing teams studs so a playoff bound friend can pick them up.

Otherwise the other posters are right - it depends on the nature of your league and what you have left to play for.  Imo a dynasty league should never close roster moves outside of game time, a keeper should have them open all season, and anyone still fielding a team (for legit playoffs or loserbowls) should be able to make moves in redraft.

 
I use this in all My Keep 1 leagues: 

Main Bracket: Normal waivers/pickups 

Consolation Bracket: Can't participate in waivers but can pick up FA's after waivers have run

Eliminated Teams: Locked 

 
Down Under said:
I've been away from FF for 8-9 years (grad school), so I'm not sure if this is a rule or not.  Isn't it standard to no longer allow non-playoff teams to add or drop players?  Like shouldn't their rosters be frozen after it was determined this morning they did not make it?  I could see tons of possibilities for collusion (dropping players for friends to pick them up, adding players to block a friend's opponents need, etc.  Or do most leagues allow this?  Why else would they be paying a few $$ to add/drop when their season is over???
We shut down trades after week 10 and free agency prior to week 13 for all teams. 

 
redraft do what you want, but in dynasty all teams should be able to add / drop players whether it's the playoffs or not.

 
We have 7 of 12 teams in the playoffs and the other 5 play for consolation money, all rosters lock after the final waiver run on Sat/Sun before week 14 action. 

 
So, just to be clear, is the idea that if I am eliminated from the playoffs I should no longer try to win my next game?

Or is it that I should try to win but be denied the resources that non-eliminated teams have access to?

Seriously? Go back to Russia.

 
I think there are some unintended consequences from locking rosters. Consider:

Two teams are in the hunt for a playoff spot. Team A is facing an eliminated team, but they're a competitive owner and want to win. But they can't add any players because rosters lock, meaning their waiver priority is meaningless. So Team A gets an easy win, which eliminates Team B because A has the tiebreaker. Is that how a playoff spot should be determined? With one team getting an easy win but another facing a real challenge? 

You're also giving five or six teams full access to the waiver wire, including players they'd never get during the year with such low waiver priority. That can also change the balance of power in the playoffs. 

I always try to win. Even if I'm eliminated, I want a winning record, or to finish .500 or to eliminate a buddy or whatever. But if you're worried about collusion, either have a small prize for highest weekly score or find better owners. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there are some unintended consequences from locking rosters. Consider:

Two teams are in the hunt for a playoff spot. Team A is facing an eliminated team, but they're a competitive owner and want to win. But they can't add any players because rosters lock, meaning their waiver priority is meaningless. So Team A gets an easy win, which eliminates Team B because A has the tiebreaker. Is that how a playoff spot should be determined? With one team getting an easy win but another facing a real challenge? 

You're also giving five or six teams full access to the waiver wire, including players they'd never get during the year with such low waiver priority. That can also change the balance of power in the playoffs. 

I always try to win. Even if I'm eliminated, I want a winning record, or to finish .500 or to eliminate a buddy or whatever. But if you're worried about collusion, either have a small prize for highest weekly score or find better owners. 
I think we are talking about locking rosters once playoff teams have been decided.

 
I think we are talking about locking rosters once playoff teams have been decided.
I think there are two situations and it wasn't defined in the OP. 

Redraft:

There is the "eliminated from playoffs" group that are still playing the regular season and could be against teams vying for playoff seeds.  Those teams should be able to operate as if they are in the playoffs.  The season is still going on and they can affect seeding etc.  Just because you are eliminated from the playoffs doesn't mean you aren't trying to knock teams out of the playoffs or drop them a seed or two.  Then there are the teams that didn't make playoffs and the regular season is over.  Those teams should be locked from any transactions.  There season is over and therefore their team is frozen.....unless there are consolation brackets that have money, draft pick, punishment, etc tied to it.  In those cases their season isn't over and they should be allowed to operate their team just like anybody else still playing.

Dynasty/Keeper:

No teams should be locked.  Acquiring potential keepers/upside is how teams stay competitive.  The team is still active and they should be able to better their future just like anybody else.   

 
In our league the teams that are no longer in the playoffs in weeks 14-16 play a head-to-head matchup with another team that has been eliminated.  Winner gets $10 per win.  It isn't much but is a way to recoup at least a little money.   There is nothing that prevents one these teams from making a transaction but I've only seen it happen once or twice because a kicker or TE got injured and they didn't have a backup.  

 
I took over a bad dynasty team in a play for free league last summer. I'm out of the playoffs but just yesterday traded Daniel Fells for a late 4th round pick. Trade worked for both of us. I picked up a pick for an old TE having a productive season. The other team just had a ton of injuries at TE and needed some depth. For dynasty it makes sense to allow owners to still make trades.

 
efactor said:
A lot of leagues have consolation brackets (Toliet Bowl/Pride Bowl) and IMO, picking up players to compete in that is good for the league.  But once teams are eliminated, they shouldn't be picking up players in a redraft format.  Dynasty and Keepers should be open for the duration of the season.
If you are eliminated from the championship bracket...

stay off the wire. 

No ambiguity about it. If you are out, stay out. 

Period.

Thats my take.

Just went through this yesterday and did not budge on my position and almost got serious as we had a heated convo with the commish to lock the teams.

 
I run a 12 man redraft that uses the consolation bracket as a tournament for the first pick next year.  It used to be a keeper league, but we voted last year to get rid of keepers and go back to redraft, but everybody liked the idea of this year's finish determining next year's draft order so we kept that.  Nobody's roster gets locked, and everyone understands that once you are officially eliminated from everything, you don't make any moves at all

If it was a true redraft with random draft order (or auction) then I see no reason to not lock the non-playoff teams.  Truly nothing for them to play for after Week 13

 
If you are eliminated from the championship bracket...

stay off the wire. 

No ambiguity about it. If you are out, stay out. 

Period.

Thats my take.

Just went through this yesterday and did not budge on my position and almost got serious as we had a heated convo with the commish to lock the teams.
Disagree.  People paid their money, so they should be able to play the season out, even if competing in some kind of consolation bracket.  

Once eliminated, then yeah, stay out of it.

 
Disagree.  People paid their money, so they should be able to play the season out, even if competing in some kind of consolation bracket.  

Once eliminated, then yeah, stay out of it.
Cuz 7th place matters when people are actually playing for money? Your season is over. All you are doing is tilting the balance because you are making moves and quite possibly cutting players that screw over a team and cause chaos cuz you are playing for 7th place in a meaningless game. Thats a very strange take. 

One you are not in the playoffs or championship bracket, you are eliminated. You paid your money. You lost. 

 
In redraft I would agree that if you are still playing games you can and should still make moves. However, I also am against a consolation bracket so I guess my position is only the teams in the running for a title should be making moves and those eliminated should be locked out of activity.

 
So, just to be clear, is the idea that if I am eliminated from the playoffs I should no longer try to win my next game?

Or is it that I should try to win but be denied the resources that non-eliminated teams have access to?

Seriously? Go back to Russia.
I think he means once playoffs start?  If you do not have a game in week 14, you shouldn't be doing waivers.

 
As long as I have games, I'm going to continue to play, whether I'm out of the money or not.  If you believe there's collusion involved, man-up & revoke transactions, but don't restrict my fun because YOU are all about the $$$.

 
Cuz 7th place matters when people are actually playing for money? Your season is over. All you are doing is tilting the balance because you are making moves and quite possibly cutting players that screw over a team and cause chaos cuz you are playing for 7th place in a meaningless game. Thats a very strange take. 

One you are not in the playoffs or championship bracket, you are eliminated. You paid your money. You lost. 
If you are still playing for money (some leagues have consolation brackets that pay off) then you should be able to make moves.  If you are just running out the string because the league gives you a matchup and there are no benefits (money, draft spot, keeper, etc) then you should not be making moves. 

 
So, just to be clear, is the idea that if I am eliminated from the playoffs I should no longer try to win my next game?

Or is it that I should try to win but be denied the resources that non-eliminated teams have access to?

Seriously? Go back to Russia.
Draft better so you can make the playoffs.

But seriously, this comes up every year. In redraft, just make it a rule at the draft so everyone knows that if you don't make the playoffs, your team is out. We do this because we pay out only to the teams in the finals.  If no money is involved i wouldn't care one way or the other.

 
If you are eliminated from the championship bracket...

stay off the wire. 

No ambiguity about it. If you are out, stay out. 

Period.

Thats my take.

Just went through this yesterday and did not budge on my position and almost got serious as we had a heated convo with the commish to lock the teams.
Any team in the running for $, championship , 3rd place, consolation, whatever, should be allowed to pick up players. 

 
Draft better so you can make the playoffs.

But seriously, this comes up every year. In redraft, just make it a rule at the draft so everyone knows that if you don't make the playoffs, your team is out. We do this because we pay out only to the teams in the finals.  If no money is involved i wouldn't care one way or the other.
draft better so that your team that is in the playoffs doesnt need to depend on getting an advantage on the waiver wire weeks 14-16 😜   Seriously though if there is any money on the line at all I think teams ought to be able to strengthen their teams til the very end.  We have a 20 dollar high score payout to the high scorer and a 40 dolar payout in week 17.  Id thin its pretty unfair to disadvantage those teams not in the playoffs who are stil eligible for that.  Only way I could see that working is make the teams in the playoffs INELIGIBLE for that money once playoffs start and we all know how well that suggestion would go over.  

 
As long as somebody is making moves that make a reasonable amount of sense (ie not dropping Lamar Jackson), who cares?  

 
The consolation in one of my leagues is $300, why should teams vying for that be handcuffed? 
Well they are playing for money, i said its of course allowed, you dont have to qualify that with consolation cuz of course if you are playing for money its an exception.

But 99% of leagues dont give out money in consolation. 

 
So, just to be clear, is the idea that if I am eliminated from the playoffs I should no longer try to win my next game?

Or is it that I should try to win but be denied the resources that non-eliminated teams have access to?

Seriously? Go back to Russia.
When a team is eliminated from the playoffs in your league, who do they play in the playoffs?

My 14 team redraft league has 12 teams move on -- 6 in the championship bracket (top 2 with byes week 14), and 6 in the consolation bracket (teams ranked 7 and 8 also get byes). 

Top 3 teams in 'ship bracket get a payout, as does winner of the consolation winner, in descending amounts.  

Bottom two teams (13th and 14th place) are locked out once the playoffs begin -- in Yahoo, they simply don't have any games weeks 14-16.

Teams in both brackets get locked as they get eliminated.

 
Well they are playing for money, i said its of course allowed, you dont have to qualify that with consolation cuz of course if you are playing for money its an exception.

But 99% of leagues dont give out money in consolation. 
I'm in 6 leagues and 5 of them have consolation/toilet bowls, I'd guess it's more than 1% do something like that. I think it's a good way to keep teams invested. 

 
So if my team goes 0-8 and is eliminated 6 weeks before most playoffs begin is it okay to quit and stop submitting lineups, bye weeks be damned?

But it's okay to force me to quit?

No thanks, comrades.

 
I'm in 6 leagues and 5 of them have consolation/toilet bowls, I'd guess it's more than 1% do something like that. I think it's a good way to keep teams invested. 
Yes, almost every league has consolation games. None, I repeat exactly 0 of the over 300 leagues I have played in my near 20 years has ever rewarded people for being awful fantasy owners and making consolation bracket with money, nor should people who have bad teams be rewarded. 

I think it is clear, you missed my clear statement that if you are playing for money, keep making moves...if you are not playing for money dont. Dont. No exceptions. I ddont care if you are in a toilet bowl, if no money attached, stay out. 

No money, no moves. If its a free league with no money, who cares. All about the money. Making it about anything but is disingenuous. 

So if your consolation awards bad players, so be it. But 99.9999999999999% of leagues do not reward the oft losers of games. Toilet bowls are for dynos, if your playing a toilet bowl in redraft, u reward failure. The entire point is to win, not reward last place. I dont care about the interest of the 9th place team nor should anyone else when the season is over.

Want to make moves, dont get eliminated for the playoffs that matter.

 
So if my team goes 0-8 and is eliminated 6 weeks before most playoffs begin is it okay to quit and stop submitting lineups, bye weeks be damned?

But it's okay to force me to quit?

No thanks, comrades.
This is a disingenuous argument.

1) Clearly you are still in season. You know that, makes your argument disingenuous.

2) Its playoff time right now and no one is talking about 0-8 teams in week 8, we are talking teams not in the playoffs as we currently sit at week 14, makes your comment disingenuous.

3) If you didnt already virtually quit, you wouldnt be 0-8. If you are 0-8 you are now wanting to make moves? We all know the 0-8 teams are the people who dont care or are really bad and most likely were not making moves when it mattered, this argument is also disingenuous.

4)  You know thats not what we are talking about, its pretty clear from the many other posts and arguments, that also makes your comment disingenuous. 

5) This typicaly goes against most rules that all teams must field their lineups for all games. So typically you have to make moves when your in season. SMH

Such a disingenuous argument on every single front, without exception. You know its disingenuous too makes it that much worse. 

As I said above and clearly, if you are not in the playoffs in the championship bracket, you do not make moves, period. If you are in consolation or toilet bowl and they do not have winnings, stay out. If they pay money, make moves. If they reward anything like draft picks, that can be considered "money or winnings" 

This isnt hard.

Lets make it even easier.

At this very second, if you are not in the playoffs. Do not make moves, unless you are somehow still playing for money/winnings. No one cares about your meaningless 7th place game but you. The league cares about who is champion.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a disingenuous argument.

1) Clearly you are still in season. You know that, makes your argument disingenuous.

2) Its playoff time right now and no one is talking about 0-8 teams in week 8, we are talking teams not in the playoffs as we currently sit at week 14, makes your comment disingenuous.

3) If you didnt already virtually quit, you wouldnt be 0-8. If you are 0-8 you are now wanting to make moves? We all know the 0-8 teams are the people who dont care or are really bad and most likely were not making moves when it mattered, this argument is also disingenuous.

4)  You know thats not what we are talking about, its pretty clear from the many other posts and arguments, that also makes your comment disingenuous. 

5) This typicaly goes against most rules that all teams must field their lineups for all games. So typically you have to make moves when your in season. SMH

Such a disingenuous argument on every single front, without exception. You know its disingenuous too makes it that much worse. 

As I said above and clearly, if you are not in the playoffs in the championship bracket, you do not make moves, period. If you are in consolation or toilet bowl and they do not have winnings, stay out. If they pay money, make moves. If they reward anything like draft picks, that can be considered "money or winnings" 

This isnt hard.

Lets make it even easier.

At this very second, if you are not in the playoffs. Do not make moves, unless you are somehow still playing for money/winnings. No one cares about your meaningless 7th place game but you. The league cares about who is champion.  
It sounds like this is super important to you so if that works for leagues you run or is the hill you are prepared to die on when you're deciding whether or not to join a league, fine but don't talk about an opinion like it's some sort of fantasy axiom - it's not.

Some leagues are looking for ways to keep managers engaged as long as possible. Toilet bowls / consolation brackets are common/popular ways of doing this. My league has one and as a commissioner, I'm not about to impose, administrate or enforce some kind of two tier system in the play-offs. If you have a game this week, play the game - all of it. If you don't? Stop playing. You want to talk about making it easier? That's "Yoda easy" - play or play not.

 
habsfan said:
It sounds like this is super important to you so if that works for leagues you run or is the hill you are prepared to die on when you're deciding whether or not to join a league, fine but don't talk about an opinion like it's some sort of fantasy axiom - it's not.

Some leagues are looking for ways to keep managers engaged as long as possible. Toilet bowls / consolation brackets are common/popular ways of doing this. My league has one and as a commissioner, I'm not about to impose, administrate or enforce some kind of two tier system in the play-offs. If you have a game this week, play the game - all of it. If you don't? Stop playing. You want to talk about making it easier? That's "Yoda easy" - play or play not.
Sounds like some think everyone should get a participation award. And no, some things are just flat out wrong and rationalizing them because they benefit you dont make them right.

Making moves when you are not in the money or playing for anything other than who wins 7th place is pointless and impacts those in the money. Thats not a debate. Tolerating such things is why some people think its ok to begin with. Its flat out wrong. And yes, it is important to me, I just saw what can happen when it is allowed. Chaos.  Its clearly also important to you, you took time out to respond.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Making moves when you are not in the money or playing for anything other than who wins 7th place is pointless and impacts those in the money. Thats not a debate. Tolerating such things is why some people think its ok to begin with. Its flat out wrong. And yes, it is important to me, I just saw what can happen when it is allowed. Chaos.  
If it's a dynasty league you are the one who is wrong.  Teams should be able to improve their team with add/drops if playoff teams can do it.  Playoff teams should not be able to improve their team and non-playoff teams not be able to do this.  Unless of course you have a rule where non-playoff teams can't add/drop players after the playoff starts any players added by playoff teams must be dropped once the league Super Bowl has been played.

 
If it's a dynasty league you are the one who is wrong.  Teams should be able to improve their team with add/drops if playoff teams can do it.  Playoff teams should not be able to improve their team and non-playoff teams not be able to do this.  Unless of course you have a rule where non-playoff teams can't add/drop players after the playoff starts any players added by playoff teams must be dropped once the league Super Bowl has been played.
I already referenced we are not talking dynasty because thats a continuous league and common sense says thats not even in this discussion so needs no qualifiers. This is strictly redraft as has been said.

 
Sounds like some think everyone should get a participation award. And no, some things are just flat out wrong and rationalizing them because they benefit you dont make them right.

Making moves when you are not in the money or playing for anything other than who wins 7th place is pointless and impacts those in the money. Thats not a debate. Tolerating such things is why some people think its ok to begin with. Its flat out wrong. And yes, it is important to me, I just saw what can happen when it is allowed. Chaos.  Its clearly also important to you, you took time out to respond.
It isn't flat out wrong.  Everyone plays for different reasons.  Sounds like you are all just about winning and money.  That's great.  In those instances govern the way you do.  It works.

However, some people do this for fun.  Playing games and winning is fun even if no money is involved.  Maybe bragging rights against your friends is more important.  Maybe your have a punishment for finishing last.  It's not about a participation award.  There are many flavors of this game and it's not one size fits all.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that team eliminated from the playoffs should be done and their roster's locked.  However, there could be set ups where teams aren't eliminated for whatever reason.  As long as everyone knows and is ok with it then all is good. 

 
It isn't flat out wrong.  Everyone plays for different reasons.  Sounds like you are all just about winning and money.  That's great.  In those instances govern the way you do.  It works.

However, some people do this for fun.  Playing games and winning is fun even if no money is involved.  Maybe bragging rights against your friends is more important.  Maybe your have a punishment for finishing last.  It's not about a participation award.  There are many flavors of this game and it's not one size fits all.

Generally speaking, I agree with you that team eliminated from the playoffs should be done and their roster's locked.  However, there could be set ups where teams aren't eliminated for whatever reason.  As long as everyone knows and is ok with it then all is good. 
Indeed, and I said only if you are playing for money/winnings. I have been pretty clear. Im not unreasonable. Fun leagues, sure. Guys not taking common sense out.

But 10 team redraft league for money, 6 teams make playoffs. 4 teams that didnt make playoffs have nothing on the line, no future draft pick position, no money, no last place punishment, just regular eliminated. They should not be anywhere near the waiver wire for any reason what so ever. Not for fun, not for the awesome yahoo rating, not for any reason at all. We all understand why this is so, but why I am confused is why would people want the team that went 2-11 making more moves when his team means nothing that can impact the outcome. It eliminates any risk of the league putting itself in a bad position. 

 
Amazing to me how heated the argument is here over something that basically can be decided league by league, without a “right” or “wrong” way to do it.

Closest thing to a strong “right” argument is the one thing everyone agrees on, that if you can still win money you should keep playing.

I don’t see anything “wrong” with letting eliminated teams make transactions.  Why should the waiver wire get easier in the playoffs?  If I’m the 3-seed, I’d just as soon not have the 4-seed get first pick of waivers every week.  But I see the logic either way.

Only thing I will say should be absolutely clear is that whatever the rule is in a given league it should be spelled out directly in the rules before the season starts.

 
Indeed, and I said only if you are playing for money/winnings. I have been pretty clear. Im not unreasonable. Fun leagues, sure. Guys not taking common sense out.

But 10 team redraft league for money, 6 teams make playoffs. 4 teams that didnt make playoffs have nothing on the line, no future draft pick position, no money, no last place punishment, just regular eliminated. They should not be anywhere near the waiver wire for any reason what so ever. Not for fun, not for the awesome yahoo rating, not for any reason at all. We all understand why this is so, but why I am confused is why would people want the team that went 2-11 making more moves when his team means nothing that can impact the outcome. It eliminates any risk of the league putting itself in a bad position. 
Just so I'm clear:

Let's say the playoffs start in week 15. Week 14 is coming up and I'm 6-7. I'm out of it. Should I be allowed to use the waiver wire?

If not, what if I'm playing a team that needs to win to get in? If I give them an easy win, doesn't that impact another team that needed them to lose to make the playoffs?

Didn't my 6-7 team impact the postseason by trying to win (or not being allowed to try to win)? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just so I'm clear:

Playoffs start in week 15. Week 14 is coming up and I'm 6-7. I'm out of it. Should I be allowed to use the waiver wire?

If not, what if I'm playing a team that needs to win to get in? If I give them an easy win, doesn't that impact another team that needed them to lose to make the playoffs?

Didn't my 6-7 team impact the postseason by trying to win (or not being allowed to try to win)? 
I checked back into this thread on this page, so pardon me if my declaration has been raised or is moot given other comments. Your moves on your 6-7 team totally could have impacted the postseason via the postseason standings in some way if you were playing a team that had not clinched a definitive seed or was still fighting for one (I'm thinking of a closed wire that would prevent you from fielding tight ends, kickers, D/STs if streamed as the most likely occurrences of this.)

My brief opinion is that there are no perfect strategies for situations, teams, seasons, etc. until the postseason seedings are determined. Any "locking out" of a team is going to be subject to the aforementioned bad facts = bad law analysis that I brought up here. 

Probably why this is its own topic. It can't be a hard and fast absolute rule unless there are specific, written documentations given the stated goals of the league and the commissioner's actions are in keeping with these stated goals. If it's a generic and abstract reason to lock eliminated teams from participating, chances are the logic behind it won't hold in a gnarly situation like one is reasonably expected to run across. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top