Championship Ethics..Is it **** move to intentionally block free agent (1 Viewer)

[spodog]

About 10 years ago I did some WW churning to keep QBs on waivers

Churning, acquiring players and then immediatly dumping them back into the waiver pool, is indeed a d*** move, and is outlawed in many leagues.

Picking up a guy and retaining him on your roster through the weekend with the primary intent to block your opponent from getting him is different, and is allowed in almost all leagues.

 

[flapgreen]

I just blocked a team from picking up Greg Jennings. Thanks!

 

[davearm]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name) because my opponent didn't really have another viable starter on his bench, just a bunch of platoon guys. The Priest owner bashed me relentlessly on the message board for doing this, calling me a poor sport, calling it a weasel move, etc. I defended it as a good strategy. Whatever stiff he ended up starting had a surprise big game, the Priest backup didn't do squat and I lost in the finals. If I would have just let him pick up Priest's backup, he surely would have started him and I would have won.

Moral of the story…. sometimes karma is a ##### when you make those decisions.

It was totally fine and legit even if you had left Holmes' replacement on the bench.

The fact that you started the guy you added takes away all doubt from the situation. Frankly I can't see the other guy's side of it at all. You grabbed a guy you thought was a better option than your worst RB starter. Who wouldn't do that??

 

[ghostguy123]

To me the roster churning thing SHOULD be against the rules, but if it isn't then I see no problem with that either. .

I think you should. If anyone in a league sees a loophole in the bylaws, they can either bring it up so that it can be fixed to make the league better or they can exploit it for personal gain. One of those things is the "right" thing to do and the other is clearly the "wrong" thing to do.

Churning allows you to use 1 roster spot to the power of X roster spots and is wrong for the same reasons that roster sharing type trades are wrong.

I get that argument. Not saying I would do it. In fact I never have, not sure I ever would. I generally just prefer to have the best players i can on my roster in case I am forced to use them.

With roster churning it seems like you will just end up with lesser players for your backups, and might be screwed if you need to use them.

 

[ghostguy123]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name) because my opponent didn't really have another viable starter on his bench, just a bunch of platoon guys. The Priest owner bashed me relentlessly on the message board for doing this, calling me a poor sport, calling it a weasel move, etc. I defended it as a good strategy. Whatever stiff he ended up starting had a surprise big game, the Priest backup didn't do squat and I lost in the finals. If I would have just let him pick up Priest's backup, he surely would have started him and I would have won.

Moral of the story…. sometimes karma is a ##### when you make those decisions.

It was totally fine and legit even if you had left Holmes' replacement on the bench.

The fact that you started the guy you added takes away all doubt from the situation. Frankly I can't see the other guy's side of it at all. You grabbed a guy you thought was a better option than your worst RB starter. Who wouldn't do that??

I don't think he started the guy. He was just saying that the guy didn't do anything (pretty sure on his bench) while the other guy his opponent picked up did well.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Good move. I have done this before, ended up with 5 QBs on my team. Its part of the game.

 

[Phenix]

Good move. I have done this before, ended up with 5 QBs on my team. Its part of the game.

This, although I did it consecutive weeks and lost. lol

 

[spodog]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name)

Don't recall his name?

Larry Johnson filled in for Holmes in both '04 and '05 due to injury, although in both seasons, these injuries occured well before the weeks where fantasy playoffs would have started. In both of of those seasons, Johnson's first week replacing Holmes was a 2 TD 100 yard rushing week.

If you were in a keeper or dynasty format, you hopefully held on as in '06, Johsnon then went off for 1789 rushing yards 19 total TDs on the season.

 

[Sarnoff]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name)

Don't recall his name?

Larry Johnson filled in for Holmes in both '04 and '05 due to injury, although in both seasons, these injuries occured well before the weeks where fantasy playoffs would have started. In both of of those seasons, Johnson's first week replacing Holmes was a 2 TD 100 yard rushing week.

If you were in a keeper or dynasty format, you hopefully held on as in '06, Johsnon then went off for 1789 rushing yards 19 total TDs on the season.

Fond memories. I won my first championship by picking up LJ in '05, then using 1 of my 3 keeper spots on him in '06 when he was still the backup at the start of camp.

Anyway, holding players to block is totally legit. It's part of the game. Ask anyone who says otherwise if they release all their bench players in time to be claimed before the game... if they say they don't, they're hypocrites.

Churning is unethical. Anyone who churns should be kicked out of the leeg.

 

[Tong Po]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name) because my opponent didn't really have another viable starter on his bench, just a bunch of platoon guys. The Priest owner bashed me relentlessly on the message board for doing this, calling me a poor sport, calling it a weasel move, etc. I defended it as a good strategy. Whatever stiff he ended up starting had a surprise big game, the Priest backup didn't do squat and I lost in the finals. If I would have just let him pick up Priest's backup, he surely would have started him and I would have won.

Moral of the story…. sometimes karma is a ##### when you make those decisions.

That isn't karma. That was bad luck.

Your opponents response to your move is asinine and means he essentially wants to play in a league using teamRB since he felt he was "entitled" to the Prist Holmes replacement. Just wow.

I think it sucks something fierce that after being a whiny baby he then beat you like that...you should have just left the player on your bench and played with whatever else you had probably but oh well. I hope you no longer play with guys like that.

I agree. And I actually DID leave the player on my bench. I basically picked him up to keep my opponent from getting him. The Priest Holmes backup had a terrible game, and if I let the dude have him, he would have started him for sure. Instead he was forced to start one of the platoon backs on his bench, who ended up scoring solid points for him. The difference in points cost me the win.

Bad karma. Bad luck.

 

[Tong Po]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name)

Don't recall his name?

Larry Johnson filled in for Holmes in both '04 and '05 due to injury, although in both seasons, these injuries occured well before the weeks where fantasy playoffs would have started. In both of of those seasons, Johnson's first week replacing Holmes was a 2 TD 100 yard rushing week.

If you were in a keeper or dynasty format, you hopefully held on as in '06, Johsnon then went off for 1789 rushing yards 19 total TDs on the season.

It wasn't Larry Johnson. I did some recon because it was bugging me. It was Mike Cloud and the season was 2002.

Ouch… like pouring salt in an open wound.

 

[Agent575]

I remember several years back, I made the finals and was going against a solid team who (if I remember correctly) lost Priest Holmes (his best player) in the semi-final round. I had priority on the waiver pickups and grabbed the backup RB at the time (don't recall his name) because my opponent didn't really have another viable starter on his bench, just a bunch of platoon guys. The Priest owner bashed me relentlessly on the message board for doing this, calling me a poor sport, calling it a weasel move, etc. I defended it as a good strategy. Whatever stiff he ended up starting had a surprise big game, the Priest backup didn't do squat and I lost in the finals. If I would have just let him pick up Priest's backup, he surely would have started him and I would have won.

Moral of the story…. sometimes karma is a ##### when you make those decisions.

That isn't karma. That was bad luck.

Your opponents response to your move is asinine and means he essentially wants to play in a league using teamRB since he felt he was "entitled" to the Prist Holmes replacement. Just wow.

I think it sucks something fierce that after being a whiny baby he then beat you like that...you should have just left the player on your bench and played with whatever else you had probably but oh well. I hope you no longer play with guys like that.

I agree. And I actually DID leave the player on my bench. I basically picked him up to keep my opponent from getting him. The Priest Holmes backup had a terrible game, and if I let the dude have him, he would have started him for sure. Instead he was forced to start one of the platoon backs on his bench, who ended up scoring solid points for him. The difference in points cost me the win.

Bad karma. Bad luck.

Oh I see.

Suppose it depends on what you feel the player in question would do. If its a player I think is trash that people are falling for then I certainly leave him there in the hopes my opponent takes him and plays him but if it's a player I am concerned about, whether I would play him myself, I take him to avoid the risk.

It sucks that you took the wrong path that year.

 

[MDSkinner]

I can't imagine why a person in the championship game would NOT do this. It seems like a no brainer if you have the roster space and if your rules allow it. The goal is for you to put the best team out there and give yourself the best chance to win. This still does that, it is not like it is colluding by having some other team who is no longer in the chase pick them up.

 

[Sinn Fein]

In my dynasty league, I had Peterson and Gerhart - last week the brother of my opponent picked up Asiata - even though he was eliminated from the playoffs this year.

Some people are just #####.

 

[Ghost Rider]

As long as you're alive in the playoffs, it is fair game.

In one league, the team I playing in the Super Bowl this week has zero bidding dollars left, but I still have some, so I am bidding small amounts on three players who can be picked up (and dropping three players who have zero chance of being in my lineup this week), who could be pretty good starts this week. I don't need them, but better to be on my bench than his lineup. He doesn't really need them either, but better to be safe than sorry.

 

[Symbius]

Picking up guys to block others during the Waiver Wire is completely legit.

If you are in a league where releasing a player puts them on Waivers for a certain amount of time, thereby blocking anyone from picking them up for the week is bad form.

The simple answer is to just not be in leagues that have this type of Waiver system, instead of making players immediate Free Agent's when dropped post initial Waiver Wire. If they become immediate FA's then it is impossible to block a bunch of players for the week unless a team actually keeps them on their roster.

 

[Warrior]

You really think Andrew Luck is that horrible of an option for him?

You're overthinking this. He wasn't going to pick up one of those QBs anyway.

 

[Not Sleeping]

I'm shocked that some people think this is bad sportsmanship. You should strive every week to make sure not only that you have your best lineup possible, but that you're not letting your opponent have a potential top 10 player that's just sitting out there.

 

[adam220891]

Once, a guy tried trading me for a RB, because he needed one the next week. He was playing me next week, and he probably was hoping I didn't realize this or didn't realize he would have a void due to byes.

To get back at him, I claimed the best FA RB for the week, so he could not. I did not start him, did not need him.

It backfired, because the second best guy had more points.

I still won.

 

[KellysHeroes]

nothing wrong with rostering talent so your opponent can't get them... its plain smart. However, the one yr I played in CBS and they had some crazy rule that players were it locked players for the week after they were dropped... some guy clearly had the best team and after waivers ran he added and dropped all worth while FAs so nobody could pick them up. That was taking it too far and I never returned

 

[G-Money]

If there's a player on the WW that is better than a player I have rostered (whether it be by matchup, injury replacement, ect), I'll make the move everytime to make my team as strong as I can........it's just good team management.

 

[ghostguy123]

If there's a player on the WW that is better than a player I have rostered (whether it be by matchup, injury replacement, ect), I'll make the move everytime to make my team as strong as I can........it's just good team management.

No question about it. You never know when you will have to use your backups.

If its ok in week 4 its bad in week 15 or 16??? No. Pretty sure it is nothing more than good team management to pick those guys up, whether your opponent could use them or not.

 

[Shawn]

I do it all the time, even during the regular season. it's their own fault if they wait too long, and if you have a higher waiver priority than someone you are playing, then by all means pick up that WR he needs etc!

 

[Daywalker]

He used is FA budget throughout the year to beat you. You are using your's now.

 

[habsfan]

You really think Andrew Luck is that horrible of an option for him?

You're overthinking this. He wasn't going to pick up one of those QBs anyway.

I have Luck and am in the championship game where I have him. I've had a plan B on my radar for weeks and recognized awhile ago that I'm probably going to give points away at QB to whoever I face. He's had a few great weeks but far more forgettable ones. I have Fitzpatrick as well and haven't ruled out starting him...

 

[death of the cool]

You really think Andrew Luck is that horrible of an option for him?

You're overthinking this. He wasn't going to pick up one of those QBs anyway.

In my league Luck has only been over 15 points twice in the last 6 weeks.....his point totals since week 9: 13, 18, 13, 10, 32, 15

Luck is on the road vs the #4 ranked defense vs QBs, and Luck is getting very little help with no running game and inconsistant WR's. Plus the guy already benched Luck once for Josh McCown vs Dallas. He is not playing Luck in the championship game with those better options at QB....there is no question in my mind.

 

[gethugefast1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMk5sMHj58I

 

[flapgreen]

I can't imagine why a person in the championship game would NOT do this. It seems like a no brainer if you have the roster space and if your rules allow it. The goal is for you to put the best team out there and give yourself the best chance to win. This still does that, it is not like it is colluding by having some other team who is no longer in the chase pick them up.

yeah

 

[CoachJankySpanky]

Friendly league for bragging rights? Probably best to let him put his best roster possible out there so no one claims your win was cheap.

money league? Fire away. All's fair and it'd be irresponsible not to.

I can agree with this for the most part. If it is a fun, friendly league with no stakes, I might just be a nice guy about it. I would probably make sure I told him what I could've done, but decided to be a nice guy about it. It might be a little too cutthroat for a free league.

In a money league, I would snatch all three for sure.

 

[RushHour]

I picked up Dennis Johnson today with no intention of using him, because I thought he would be an upgrade on one of my opponent's starters. As this is a keeper league, I'll probably "churn" him in a couple of days to pick up a more attractive potential keeper option to hold through the offseason. He'll then be locked on waivers.

I suppose it's a bit if a bush league move but the way I look at it, our waivers had processed for the week and every player could be picked up as a FA. My opponent had an opportunity to pick Johnson up but I got to him first.

 

[ghostguy123]

I picked up Dennis Johnson today with no intention of using him, because I thought he would be an upgrade on one of my opponent's starters. As this is a keeper league, I'll probably "churn" him in a couple of days to pick up a more attractive potential keeper option to hold through the offseason. He'll then be locked on waivers.

I suppose it's a bit if a bush league move but the way I look at it, our waivers had processed for the week and every player could be picked up as a FA. My opponent had an opportunity to pick Johnson up but I got to him first.

I don't like that, but it isn't like it's unfair or anything. You are right, everyone else has the same opportunity to pick guys up as you do. Maybe you have a better opportunity since you saved more waiver dollars. Kudos to you for that, smart thinking.

Then again, if you thought Johnson was a potential keeper, but then see a better potential keeper, go for it.

It's a tricky thing that leagues should probably just have pretty clear rules on, and just go with whatever the rules allow.