Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
John Paul

Commish issues during championship week

Recommended Posts

Waivers processed last night and Breshad Perriman was claimed by the team playing for 3rd in our league. He obviously had the highest waiver claim. I am playing the #1 seed in the championship, I am the #2 seed, also acting commish. Third place does have a payout, BTW.

#1 seed lost Godwin last week and was sitting 11th in the waiver order. He obviously wanted Perriman with the hamstring injury to Godwin. I was 12th in waiver and also put in a claim. I knew there was the slimmest of chances he would be there.

#1 seed is upset the GM claimed Perriman since he was not competing in the championship, that he shouldn't get in the way of the two teams playing for the crown. "Piss poor chicken #### etiquette" is the terminology being used.

I am of the opinion that either of the two teams competing for 3rd/payout have just as much right to work their waiver priorities as anyone else. It seems simple to me. However, I pose the topic to the forum for discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this even an issue if 3rd place is for a payout? If there was nothing to play for maybe, but they are still trying to get a competitive advantage over their opponent for a possible payout. 

if your toilet bowl was the loser has to get the sacko type of punishment then I would even say the same thing. #1 obviously is just sour...

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude had 15 weeks to pick up Perriman if he wanted him....hell he should have added him when the Evans news came out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Money on the line, they have every right to make waiver claims. The guy is a whiner.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JoeSteeler said:

Nothing in the bylaws to address this?

We have a Gentleman's Agreement in our constitution that says compete to the ultimate fairness allowable. We added it several years ago when someone tanked in the playoffs by starting backups and players on IR after he was out of payout contention. That same year one of the other GMs grabbed a player that was dropped after cutdown date (it's a keeper league). Anyway, it was a general agreement because we can't cover every conceivable scenario in our constitution. It was to cover the "you didn't say I couldn't do it" mindset.

This is much easier, IMO, he competing for payout and has every right to place the claim. Thanks for everyone's input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Wrigley said:

How is this a commish issue? 

Because I am acting commish and both have reached out to me. Double-checking to see if there is anything to revisit in the offseason that would strengthen our constitution for future reference. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd replace the drama queen with a new owner in 2020. About 15 years as commish, I've found that owners that ##### about stuff like this with no valid argument are just going to keep doing it again every year, and it just gets worse every season. They hold unfounded resentment towards the commish (and the league in general) because they don't win or get what they want (whether it's a waiver claim or a rule change).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, John Paul said:

Because I am acting commish and both have reached out to me. Double-checking to see if there is anything to revisit in the offseason that would strengthen our constitution for future reference. 

Being a commish is a thankless job 

 

point out that the rules don’t prohibit owners, still playing for monies, to better their teams 

 

Sit down and write out a real league constitution in the offseason(amend as you go)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy one here.  3rd place gets paid, he gets a shot at him.

I'm in the same boat.  I wanted him and had 11th, my opponent in the final also wanted him and had 12th.  The 3rd place guy had 6th waiver priority and took him.  No arguments from anyone, he's playing for money.

I take away add/drop abilities as teams are eliminated from money but anyone who still can win money should for sure be able to take whoever they want.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Paul said:

We have a Gentleman's Agreement in our constitution that says compete to the ultimate fairness allowable. We added it several years ago when someone tanked in the playoffs by starting backups and players on IR after he was out of payout contention. That same year one of the other GMs grabbed a player that was dropped after cutdown date (it's a keeper league). Anyway, it was a general agreement because we can't cover every conceivable scenario in our constitution. It was to cover the "you didn't say I couldn't do it" mindset.

This is much easier, IMO, he competing for payout and has every right to place the claim. Thanks for everyone's input.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could someone still in the playoffs be out of payout contention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, joeschmo said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how could someone still in the playoffs be out of payout contention?

Maybe they play a game for 5th/6th place to determine next year's draft order.  Could do that for consolation side too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Paul said:

We have a Gentleman's Agreement in our constitution that says compete to the ultimate fairness allowable. We added it several years ago when someone tanked in the playoffs by starting backups and players on IR after he was out of payout contention. That same year one of the other GMs grabbed a player that was dropped after cutdown date (it's a keeper league). Anyway, it was a general agreement because we can't cover every conceivable scenario in our constitution. It was to cover the "you didn't say I couldn't do it" mindset.

This is much easier, IMO, he competing for payout and has every right to place the claim. Thanks for everyone's input.

enough of a reason right there in the bolded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard for me to believe people like this exists.  Who in the hell does he think he is?  The 3rd place team playing for $$$ has just as much of a right to Perriman ans that other guy does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We solve this by giving the two teams playing for the championship waiver priority, the higher seed gets top pick.  Its a reward for the season success.  The consolution bowl teams pick last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

We solve this by giving the two teams playing for the championship waiver priority, the higher seed gets top pick.  Its a reward for the season success.  The consolution bowl teams pick last.

I disagree with that on at least two levels.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Paul said:

Waivers processed last night and Breshad Perriman was claimed by the team playing for 3rd in our league. He obviously had the highest waiver claim. I am playing the #1 seed in the championship, I am the #2 seed, also acting commish. Third place does have a payout, BTW.

#1 seed lost Godwin last week and was sitting 11th in the waiver order. He obviously wanted Perriman with the hamstring injury to Godwin. I was 12th in waiver and also put in a claim. I knew there was the slimmest of chances he would be there.

#1 seed is upset the GM claimed Perriman since he was not competing in the championship, that he shouldn't get in the way of the two teams playing for the crown. "Piss poor chicken #### etiquette" is the terminology being used.

I am of the opinion that either of the two teams competing for 3rd/payout have just as much right to work their waiver priorities as anyone else. It seems simple to me. However, I pose the topic to the forum for discussion.

The other guy is a whiny child. He used his waiver priority up and gets in line. Why should the team playing for third capitulate to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Deamon said:

Maybe they play a game for 5th/6th place to determine next year's draft order.  Could do that for consolation side too.

Then they are playing for something and should still have waiver ability...……..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, John Paul said:

We have a Gentleman's Agreement in our constitution that says compete to the ultimate fairness allowable.

Off topic but this rule sounds like one of those ones that only works when everyone is in violent agreement. If so, it's a bad rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Gally said:

Then they are playing for something and should still have waiver ability...……..

No that's a different issue. His post he was replying to was about playoff teams out of the money tanking.  And someone asked why they would be out of money if still in playoffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.