Claiming Players Your Opponent Wants/Needs (1 Viewer)

[Anarchy99]

Say you are in the playoffs and your league still allows waivers or free agency claims even in the playoffs. You notice your opponent lost his two QBs to injury last week and he has no one else even rostered to play this week.

Let's also say that there are 3 QBs that are filling in for starters available on the waiver wire. You have $100 blind bid dollars left and your opponent $20. Having deadwood on your roster and more bidding dollars left, you bid $21 each on the 3 guys (and end up with 6 QBs on your roster) but thus prevent your opponent from having a starting QB.

Yeah or nay on this one.

Now imagine the same situation but the guy without a QB is the high point scorer in your league but is facing someone else in the semifinals. You can pull the same move and it will have no impact on your game, but it could keep the #1 seed out of the finals by preventing him from having a starting QB.

Yeah or nay on this one.

 

[SSOG]

Yea to both. There's no rule in fantasy football that says you have to make every effort to help your opponents acquire startable talent. If you have the roster spaces to burn and believe that this move will improve your chances of winning, you're pretty much obligated to make it.

Now, if you were simply exploiting a glitch or something (such as adding and dropping every single free agent QB just to put them on waivers so he couldn't claim them for 48 hours, and he'd have to burn his priority when he did), then I would definitely say that was uncouth. In this case, you're sacrificing something to obtain a legal advantage without exploiting anything, which sounds to me like shrewd management.

 

[thecardiackid]

Yea to both. There's no rule in fantasy football that says you have to make every effort to help your opponents acquire startable talent. If you have the roster spaces to burn and believe that this move will improve your chances of winning, you're pretty much obligated to make it.Now, if you were simply exploiting a glitch or something (such as adding and dropping every single free agent QB just to put them on waivers so he couldn't claim them for 48 hours, and he'd have to burn his priority when he did), then I would definitely say that was uncouth. In this case, you're sacrificing something to obtain a legal advantage without exploiting anything, which sounds to me like shrewd management.

I might only grab one or two vs. all 3 though - give the guy a chance.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I see no problem with this. In fact you are a fool if you don't do this.

 

[SSOG]

Yea to both. There's no rule in fantasy football that says you have to make every effort to help your opponents acquire startable talent. If you have the roster spaces to burn and believe that this move will improve your chances of winning, you're pretty much obligated to make it.Now, if you were simply exploiting a glitch or something (such as adding and dropping every single free agent QB just to put them on waivers so he couldn't claim them for 48 hours, and he'd have to burn his priority when he did), then I would definitely say that was uncouth. In this case, you're sacrificing something to obtain a legal advantage without exploiting anything, which sounds to me like shrewd management.

I might only grab one or two vs. all 3 though - give the guy a chance.

I feel like the move has no value unless you grab all three. Let's say the three QBs available are QB22, QB23, and QB24. If you grab them all, you're wasting 3 roster spots to leave the other guy with NOTHING. If you only grab two, you're wasting 2 roster spots to force the guy to grab QB24 instead of QB22. In other words, if you grab 3 you're wasting 3 roster spots to hurt the other guy, while if you grab 2 you're just wasting 2 roster spots.

 

[twbillingsley]

Art Of War.

Fight your enemy at his weakest point.

 

[Fear & Loathing]

I'm the dissenting voice so far.

Worry about your own team, not his. I think it's incredibly lame to be that Machiavellian about fantasy football. Let the guy at least field a legit lineup.

Now if you needed one of the QBs for depth because he's better than what you have, that's a different story. But going out and picking up QBs you don't even want just to keep them off the other guy's roster is so weak.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I would rather have a good player sitting on my bench than sitting in someone else's starting lineup, though I am not sure I would want to spend money on three different transactions for players I will never start, but if his team is that powerful, do whatever you can to cripple his chances.

 

[Finless]

I'm the dissenting voice so far.Worry about your own team, not his. I think it's incredibly lame to be that Machiavellian about fantasy football. Let the guy at least field a legit lineup. Now if you needed one of the QBs for depth because he's better than what you have, that's a different story. But going out and picking up QBs you don't even want just to keep them off the other guy's roster is so weak.

You are obviously not swimming with the sharks in the big money leagues

 

[killease]

I usually have no problem with this. It just killed me today though. In the playoffs with a team consisting of a strong stable of RBs and WRs but below average QBs. Well, somehow I won the first round with Jason Campbell and Rex Grossman getting knocked out of the game. Waiver wire just posted and my "colleagues" picked up Collins and Orton and they arent even in the playoffs. Start 2QB league, so Im stuck with Croyle, McNown, or Hill. Praying for a bajillion points out of ADP. Alls fair in war and fantasy football though.

 

[jscout]

...and they arent even in the playoffs...

That's a different story. If they aren't in the play-offs and aren't playing for any consolation/toilet bowls and it's not a dynasty league, they shouldn't be allowed to impact the play-offs. There's nothing wrong with play-off teams blocking each other, because they're still in play. Our redraft league has a rule that freezes a roster upon elimination.

 

[Socrates11]

I usually have no problem with this. It just killed me today though. In the playoffs with a team consisting of a strong stable of RBs and WRs but below average QBs. Well, somehow I won the first round with Jason Campbell and Rex Grossman getting knocked out of the game. Waiver wire just posted and my "colleagues" picked up Collins and Orton and they arent even in the playoffs. Start 2QB league, so Im stuck with Croyle, McNown, or Hill. Praying for a bajillion points out of ADP. Alls fair in war and fantasy football though.

That's bullschit and I'd be raising some serious hell. Only two reasons someone out of the playoffs would do this- 1) they are colluding with a playoff owner. 2) they have personal feelings about screwing the owner who needs a QB. There are a few guys in my league who I don't personally like but I would never do this to them.Very uncool.

 

[Prof. Chaos]

As long as there is no rule against it why not?

 

[Ozymandias]

Just look at what the NFL does. They are careful not to put players on waiver, if they think that a team in their division will pick them up. Or, they will pick up a player they don't particularly need, in order to prevent a team in their division from getting him.

This isn't pattycake, where we all need to feel good and have cookies and milk. It's not even life or death. It's much more important than that.

 

[PsychoMan]

smooth smooth

 

[Nemesis]

Let's also say that there are 3 QBs that are filling in for starters available on the waiver wire. You have $100 blind bid dollars left and your opponent $20. Having deadwood on your roster and more bidding dollars left, you bid $21 each on the 3 guys (and end up with 6 QBs on your roster) but thus prevent your opponent from having a starting QB.

To the original poster, I would say:1-How many starters and how many bench players for your team?......sounds a little like your league might have too many bench spots b/c most of the leagues that I'm in, if I did what you're trying to do I would have to cut valuable talent on my bench that I might need in the following wks.

2-I'm guessing those "BB dollars" are not real US $. I'm not a fan of imaginary bid dollars FOR THE EXACT REASON you stated. I've see too many FA schenanigans where leagues have free transactions or imaginary dollars and owners try to pull a fast one (if the OP's league doesn't have a problem with it, more power to you). You don't see these kinds of problems in the real NFL as they don't pick up players for free.....why should it be different in your FFL?

Here's a question for you:

IF you were actually charged $63 US Dollars for those 3 qb transactions, WOULD YOU STILL DO IT?

 

[Sinn Fein]

I usually have no problem with this. It just killed me today though. In the playoffs with a team consisting of a strong stable of RBs and WRs but below average QBs. Well, somehow I won the first round with Jason Campbell and Rex Grossman getting knocked out of the game. Waiver wire just posted and my "colleagues" picked up Collins and Orton and they arent even in the playoffs. Start 2QB league, so Im stuck with Croyle, McNown, or Hill. Praying for a bajillion points out of ADP. Alls fair in war and fantasy football though.

That's bullschit and I'd be raising some serious hell. Only two reasons someone out of the playoffs would do this- 1) they are colluding with a playoff owner. 2) they have personal feelings about screwing the owner who needs a QB. There are a few guys in my league who I don't personally like but I would never do this to them.Very uncool.

Depends - dynasty league - all teams should have equal access to the waiver wire; Re-draft league - non playoff teams should be barred from the waiver wire.In my re-draft league, we have such a rule. In my dynasty league owners are still dropping dead weight picking up prospects.

 

[Wrigley]

It's all part of the game.

Our league freezes out owners that are out of the playoff picture.

The only question I have is............you have to drop someone, right?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Let's also say that there are 3 QBs that are filling in for starters available on the waiver wire. You have $100 blind bid dollars left and your opponent $20. Having deadwood on your roster and more bidding dollars left, you bid $21 each on the 3 guys (and end up with 6 QBs on your roster) but thus prevent your opponent from having a starting QB.

To the original poster, I would say:1-How many starters and how many bench players for your team?......sounds a little like your league might have too many bench spots b/c most of the leagues that I'm in, if I did what you're trying to do I would have to cut valuable talent on my bench that I might need in the following wks.

2-I'm guessing those "BB dollars" are not real US $. I'm not a fan of imaginary bid dollars FOR THE EXACT REASON you stated. I've see too many FA schenanigans where leagues have free transactions or imaginary dollars and owners try to pull a fast one. You don't see these kinds of problems in the real NFL as they don't pick up players for free.....why should it be different in your FFL?

Here's a question for you:

IF you were actually charged $63 US Dollars for those 3 qb transactions, WOULD YOU STILL DO IT?

If the winner gets $500, I probably don't even blink before I make the transactions. It all comes down to what do you have to gain, and what is the probability of winning.If I think my chances of winning $500 are currently at 25%, my expected gain is $125. Now, I can spend $63 and improve my odds to 50%, and my expected gain is $218.50 ((500-63)*0.5). I spent $63 to gain $93.50.

The better the payoff and/or the better it improves your chances of winning the more likely you are to make the payout.

 

[bulldog_guy]

Yea to both. There's no rule in fantasy football that says you have to make every effort to help your opponents acquire startable talent. If you have the roster spaces to burn and believe that this move will improve your chances of winning, you're pretty much obligated to make it.Now, if you were simply exploiting a glitch or something (such as adding and dropping every single free agent QB just to put them on waivers so he couldn't claim them for 48 hours, and he'd have to burn his priority when he did), then I would definitely say that was uncouth. In this case, you're sacrificing something to obtain a legal advantage without exploiting anything, which sounds to me like shrewd management.

My thoughts exactly. The first is strategy, the second is legally correct, but unsportsmanlike.

 

[KellysHeroes]

It's all part of the game.

Our league freezes out owners that are out of the playoff picture.

The only question I have is............you have to drop someone, right?

Great Idea for Redrafts... Grab as many ww RBs u can. Dynasty is where the problem comes. I don't want to drop one of my young players just too pick a guy like Gabo.

 

[Modog814]

Let's also say that there are 3 QBs that are filling in for starters available on the waiver wire. You have $100 blind bid dollars left and your opponent $20. Having deadwood on your roster and more bidding dollars left, you bid $21 each on the 3 guys (and end up with 6 QBs on your roster) but thus prevent your opponent from having a starting QB.

To the original poster, I would say:1-How many starters and how many bench players for your team?......sounds a little like your league might have too many bench spots b/c most of the leagues that I'm in, if I did what you're trying to do I would have to cut valuable talent on my bench that I might need in the following wks.

2-I'm guessing those "BB dollars" are not real US $. I'm not a fan of imaginary bid dollars FOR THE EXACT REASON you stated. I've see too many FA schenanigans where leagues have free transactions or imaginary dollars and owners try to pull a fast one. You don't see these kinds of problems in the real NFL as they don't pick up players for free.....why should it be different in your FFL?

Here's a question for you:

IF you were actually charged $63 US Dollars for those 3 qb transactions, WOULD YOU STILL DO IT?

If the winner gets $500, I probably don't even blink before I make the transactions. It all comes down to what do you have to gain, and what is the probability of winning.If I think my chances of winning $500 are currently at 25%, my expected gain is $125. Now, I can spend $63 and improve my odds to 50%, and my expected gain is $218.50 ((500-63)*0.5). I spent $63 to gain $93.50.

The better the payoff and/or the better it improves your chances of winning the more likely you are to make the payout.

You're expected gain after making the move is 500*.5 - 63 = 187 (It's costing you the whole $63, you have to pay that regardless of you winning or not). So you're spending 63 to gain 62. Assuming that you'd go from a 25% to a 50% you'd need to win at least 504 to make the move worth it (of course this doesn't include any money for runner up or the likes)

 

[Judge Smails]

Keepaway is a major part of FF strategy, especially come playoff time. I paid $160 in a FA bidding war to keep Chatman away from the Brown owner.

 

[Prussian]

Yes to both ... whatever you leave behind makes your opponent stronger.

Destroy all available resources that could be used against you.

 

[saintfool]

i support it. i can't decide which is better though...

1) using the player(s) against them in a match; or

2) letting those player(s) rot on your bench in a match.

if it results in a victory then it's good strategy.

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

1. if you are in the playoffs, your goal is to win by any means necessary, as long as it's not cheating.

2. owners who do not make the playoffs should be locked and not able to make any adds or drops

 

[Stinkin Ref]

both very underestimated parts of FF Shark 101