Dynasty Question: Should you have to drop a prospect in this scenario (1 Viewer)

[chook]

26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck

It's certainly a difficult situation for a commisioner - as it's a grey area - but I would allow it. While my rule is that all teams must submit their "best" line-up and "losing on purpose" could lead to sanctions, I don't think you can force another team to make a decision that is not in that team's best long term interest (outside of not allowing outright tanking of course).

One would need to use some logic and consider the situation. If you know the owner is sincere in his beliefs than I wouldn't make him drop a guy like Marquise Goodwin to pick up David Nelson just to fill a hole in the line-up. People need to do their best to win, not make stupid long term decisions to do so though.

You would be surprised to how many owners yell foul when someone doesn't drop a player to pickup a scrub to play for one week. This does two things, it does enable that owner to keep a prospect and it also betters their draft position. You can't dictate what's in the head of the other owner with regards to prospects, yet it does show obvious tanking to better their draft position. It seems to be one of the hardest decisions presented to dynasty commissioners.

I think if others have previously dropped a prospect in this situation, it needs to be adhered to for the rest of the season. Then change it at year's end so everyone is aware heading into next season.

 

[loose circuits]

Intetesting thread. In my league a team started Kerley & Alfonso.Smith eventhough they were inactive. Had other wr's on bench, but no active RB. Reece, McGahee, and Jacobs were free agents. Team lost by 7 to a team that is tied for division lead. I gave him grief. You guys have me believing that I may have been out of line.

Guys on roster are hoyer, Alfonso Smith, Ted Finn, and Cadet who was active but on bench

 

[rpstones]

I didn't read all of the posts, so maybe this has already been mentioned. We have a taxi squad in my dynasty league, 2 players max at anytime, to cover bye weeks. We can place a player who is on their bye week on the taxi squad and then pick up a player off of the waiver wire. Once the player's bye week is over, they must be returned immediately to the active roster.

 

[JohnnyU]

Intetesting thread. In my league a team started Kerley & Alfonso.Smith eventhough they were inactive. Had other wr's on bench, but no active RB. Reece, McGahee, and Jacobs were free agents. Team lost by 7 to a team that is tied for division lead. I gave him grief. You guys have me believing that I may have been out of line.

Guys on roster are hoyer, Alfonso Smith, Ted Finn, and Cadet who was active but on bench

You were not out of line at all if he had options on his bench, but chose to start inactive players anyway.

 

[jerry jones]

In my long term dynasty league we have a $20 fine, levied on a per player/game basis. I'd say a team is fined once or twice every season.

Its an allowable strategy, but in this league its so competitive to win i don't recall anyone doing it to tank, but rather to not lose a player.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Intetesting thread. In my league a team started Kerley & Alfonso.Smith eventhough they were inactive. Had other wr's on bench, but no active RB. Reece, McGahee, and Jacobs were free agents. Team lost by 7 to a team that is tied for division lead. I gave him grief. You guys have me believing that I may have been out of line.

Guys on roster are hoyer, Alfonso Smith, Ted Finn, and Cadet who was active but on bench

If he had other WR options and went with Kerely, he should get grief. He's either tanking or not paying attention at all - as Kerley's been out injured for three weeks now and isn't expected back anytime soon.

As far as not picking up crap like Reece, McGahee and Jacobs and dropping a prospect - it's more of a grey area. The players you listed are mostly droppable imo - but I could see why some would want to hold them. As a commisioner I would have at least issued the guy a warning and told him to start paying attention (which he obviously hasn't been doing).

 

[MoveToSkypager]

You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.

But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.

Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.

You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.

I'm familiar with dynasties. I'm also familiar with how to manage a roster in them. I'm sure you are used to making tough decisions, but it seems here you'd rather intentionally field an illegitimate lineup than manage your roster correctly. Aren't these situations considered when determining how many IR spots there are, how many roster spots there are, and so on? These are all variables that you should have considered before claiming tanking in the present justifies a more competitive team in the future. It's important for the entire league that all teams field legitimate lineups every year, and I don't know why this is looked on as an option.Dude, I want to say I am sorry about my tone being directed at you, it's not. I know you are embodying some aspect of FF managing and I'm addressing that. I hope you don't take offense

Manage your roster correctly? Who is the judge of that?

All teams are expected to field a legitimate lineup throughout the year. That's properly managing your roster.

 

[FUBAR]

You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.

But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.

Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.

You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.

I'm familiar with dynasties. I'm also familiar with how to manage a roster in them. I'm sure you are used to making tough decisions, but it seems here you'd rather intentionally field an illegitimate lineup than manage your roster correctly. Aren't these situations considered when determining how many IR spots there are, how many roster spots there are, and so on? These are all variables that you should have considered before claiming tanking in the present justifies a more competitive team in the future. It's important for the entire league that all teams field legitimate lineups every year, and I don't know why this is looked on as an option.Dude, I want to say I am sorry about my tone being directed at you, it's not. I know you are embodying some aspect of FF managing and I'm addressing that. I hope you don't take offense

Manage your roster correctly? Who is the judge of that?

All teams are expected to field a legitimate lineup throughout the year. That's properly managing your roster.

we can agree to disagree here. I'm more laissez-faire and allow a team to manage their roster as they see fit - barring collusion, and the owner must be at least minimally active. Lineups are a different story to a degree, where teams shouldn't be allowed to start players known to be out or on bye weeks.

In short:

Roster - complete freedom

Lineups - duty to field the "best possible" lineup each week from your roster.

Understand some will view this differently. But forcing a team to drop players that the owner thinks will help them more in the future is just bad policy.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck

No, you should not be forced...

But 26 spots and you can't field a team? No one is expendable to acquire someone that could help you win this game?

This league has college players as well. Here is my team. Sorry about the formatting. Three can be no more than 18 college/devy players in the league on all rosters. We start a total of 9 players (1qb, 1-3 rb, 2-5 WRs, 1-3 te, 1 defense). I plan on starting Kaepernick or Gleenon at QB, Andre Brown and Starks at RB, Manningham and Randle at WR, Carlson and Julius Thomas at TE and I will need one more starter. Now it's also looking like I'll be without Julius Thomas, so I may end up needed two now.Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted Trade? Cousins, Kirk WAS QB -1.98 5 FA Glennon, Mike TBB QB ® 122.20 5 FA Kaepernick, Colin SFO QB 171.58 9 FA Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB (O

) 182.22 4 FA * Gray, Johnathan FA RB - - FA * Gurley, Todd FA RB - - 1.03 * Johnson, Duke FA RB - - 1.12 * Yeldon, T J FA RB - - FA Brown, Andre NYG RB 31.20 9 FA Lattimore, Marcus SFO RB ® (O) - 9 FA Robinson, Khiry NOS RB ® 20.60 7 FA Starks, James GBP RB 58.10 4 FA * Cooper, Amari FA WR - - 1.02 * Lee, Marqis FA WR - - FA * Watkins, Sammy FA WR - - FA Goodwin, Marquise BUF WR ® 60.70 12 4.09 Green, A.J. CIN WR 205.00 12 FA Manningham, Mario SFO WR 7.80 9 FA Patton, Quinton SFO WR ® (O) 1.00 9 3.09 Randle, Rueben NYG WR 110.00 9 FA Rogers, Da'Rick IND WR ® - 8 FA Carlson, John MIN TE 50.80 5 FA Eifert, Tyler CIN TE ® 74.70 12 1.08 Thomas, Julius DEN TE (P) 164.00 9 FA Panthers, Carolina CAR DefLooks like what you are doing is going heavy on future prospects, which is keeping you from fielding a legitimate lineup. You should manage your roster more properly. You may not care about this season, but others do and your election to #### the bed this year may have negative effects on the competitive balance of the league. There's nothing wrong with rebuilding, but tanking should be unacceptable, which is what you are doing.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

You should have to drop the player. Intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start to improve your team for next year is tanking. Tanking is implied to be illegal even if it isn't in the rules.

But for the most part, you're not intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start.

Sure you are. You may not be intentionally tanking, but everytime you click the box next to a guy that isn't active and you know he isn't active, you are intentionally fielding a lineup that cannot start. Sorry dude.You want to claim that you have all these prospects and you must keep them all, which prevents you from a legit starting lineup, then you should have managed your roster better.

You cannot control injuries and even if you have IR spots, most leagues require those players designated as "OUT" not be allowed on those IR spots unless they are truly on the NFL IR. Then you have the unlucky byes issue. Dynasty is keep all players year to year, so you shouldn't need to manage your roster to worry about byes from one year to another.

I'm familiar with dynasties. I'm also familiar with how to manage a roster in them. I'm sure you are used to making tough decisions, but it seems here you'd rather intentionally field an illegitimate lineup than manage your roster correctly. Aren't these situations considered when determining how many IR spots there are, how many roster spots there are, and so on? These are all variables that you should have considered before claiming tanking in the present justifies a more competitive team in the future. It's important for the entire league that all teams field legitimate lineups every year, and I don't know why this is looked on as an option.Dude, I want to say I am sorry about my tone being directed at you, it's not. I know you are embodying some aspect of FF managing and I'm addressing that. I hope you don't take offense

Manage your roster correctly? Who is the judge of that?

All teams are expected to field a legitimate lineup throughout the year. That's properly managing your roster.

we can agree to disagree here. I'm more laissez-faire and allow a team to manage their roster as they see fit - barring collusion, and the owner must be at least minimally active. Lineups are a different story to a degree, where teams shouldn't be allowed to start players known to be out or on bye weeks.

In short:

Roster - complete freedom

Lineups - duty to field the "best possible" lineup each week from your roster.

Understand some will view this differently. But forcing a team to drop players that the owner thinks will help them more in the future is just bad policy.

From the league's POV, the most important season is the current one. When someone jobs the balance of the league by tanking, the season's outcome may be artificially changed. This is unacceptable.

 

[squistion]

26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck

No, you should not be forced...

But 26 spots and you can't field a team? No one is expendable to acquire someone that could help you win this game?

This league has college players as well. Here is my team. Sorry about the formatting. Three can be no more than 18 college/devy players in the league on all rosters. We start a total of 9 players (1qb, 1-3 rb, 2-5 WRs, 1-3 te, 1 defense). I plan on starting Kaepernick or Gleenon at QB, Andre Brown and Starks at RB, Manningham and Randle at WR, Carlson and Julius Thomas at TE and I will need one more starter. Now it's also looking like I'll be without Julius Thomas, so I may end up needed two now.Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted Trade? Cousins, Kirk WAS QB -1.98 5 FA Glennon, Mike TBB QB ® 122.20 5 FA Kaepernick, Colin SFO QB 171.58 9 FA Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB (O

) 182.22 4 FA * Gray, Johnathan FA RB - - FA * Gurley, Todd FA RB - - 1.03 * Johnson, Duke FA RB - - 1.12 * Yeldon, T J FA RB - - FA Brown, Andre NYG RB 31.20 9 FA Lattimore, Marcus SFO RB ® (O) - 9 FA Robinson, Khiry NOS RB ® 20.60 7 FA Starks, James GBP RB 58.10 4 FA * Cooper, Amari FA WR - - 1.02 * Lee, Marqis FA WR - - FA * Watkins, Sammy FA WR - - FA Goodwin, Marquise BUF WR ® 60.70 12 4.09 Green, A.J. CIN WR 205.00 12 FA Manningham, Mario SFO WR 7.80 9 FA Patton, Quinton SFO WR ® (O) 1.00 9 3.09 Randle, Rueben NYG WR 110.00 9 FA Rogers, Da'Rick IND WR ® - 8 FA Carlson, John MIN TE 50.80 5 FA Eifert, Tyler CIN TE ® 74.70 12 1.08 Thomas, Julius DEN TE (P) 164.00 9 FA Panthers, Carolina CAR DefLooks like what you are doing is going heavy on future prospects, which is keeping you from fielding a legitimate lineup. You should manage your roster more properly. You may not care about this season, but others do and your election to #### the bed this year may have negative effects on the competitive balance of the league. There's nothing wrong with rebuilding, but tanking should be unacceptable, which is what you are doing.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between rebuilding and tanking in a dynasty league. Going heavy on future prospects like the above in not mismanaging one's roster or tanking - it is considered a viable option in every dynasty league I play in. One is allowed to sacrifice the current year for future years by stockpiling developmental players, it is considered a valid strategy.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

26 man roster dynasty league.

'

Say next week I'm going to be a player short for my lineup because of injuries and byes. Should we be forced to drop a prospect and pick up a scrub off the waiver wire in order to field a lineup where no one is designated as out? Some would consider not dropping a player and picking up another one as tanking to better your draft position, while others may feel that prospect has a future and you shouldn't be forced to drop a prospect to pick up a waiver wire scrub to cover an injury and / or bye, because you don't have an option on your bench. This is a very important dynasty question in my opinion.

Chuck

No, you should not be forced...

But 26 spots and you can't field a team? No one is expendable to acquire someone that could help you win this game?

This league has college players as well. Here is my team. Sorry about the formatting. Three can be no more than 18 college/devy players in the league on all rosters. We start a total of 9 players (1qb, 1-3 rb, 2-5 WRs, 1-3 te, 1 defense). I plan on starting Kaepernick or Gleenon at QB, Andre Brown and Starks at RB, Manningham and Randle at WR, Carlson and Julius Thomas at TE and I will need one more starter. Now it's also looking like I'll be without Julius Thomas, so I may end up needed two now.Player YTD Pts Bye Drafted Trade? Cousins, Kirk WAS QB -1.98 5 FA Glennon, Mike TBB QB ® 122.20 5 FA Kaepernick, Colin SFO QB 171.58 9 FA Rodgers, Aaron GBP QB (O

) 182.22 4 FA * Gray, Johnathan FA RB - - FA * Gurley, Todd FA RB - - 1.03 * Johnson, Duke FA RB - - 1.12 * Yeldon, T J FA RB - - FA Brown, Andre NYG RB 31.20 9 FA Lattimore, Marcus SFO RB ® (O) - 9 FA Robinson, Khiry NOS RB ® 20.60 7 FA Starks, James GBP RB 58.10 4 FA * Cooper, Amari FA WR - - 1.02 * Lee, Marqis FA WR - - FA * Watkins, Sammy FA WR - - FA Goodwin, Marquise BUF WR ® 60.70 12 4.09 Green, A.J. CIN WR 205.00 12 FA Manningham, Mario SFO WR 7.80 9 FA Patton, Quinton SFO WR ® (O) 1.00 9 3.09 Randle, Rueben NYG WR 110.00 9 FA Rogers, Da'Rick IND WR ® - 8 FA Carlson, John MIN TE 50.80 5 FA Eifert, Tyler CIN TE ® 74.70 12 1.08 Thomas, Julius DEN TE (P) 164.00 9 FA Panthers, Carolina CAR DefLooks like what you are doing is going heavy on future prospects, which is keeping you from fielding a legitimate lineup. You should manage your roster more properly. You may not care about this season, but others do and your election to #### the bed this year may have negative effects on the competitive balance of the league. There's nothing wrong with rebuilding, but tanking should be unacceptable, which is what you are doing.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between rebuilding and tanking in a dynasty league. Going heavy on future prospects like the above in not mismanaging one's roster or tanking - it is considered a viable option in every dynasty league I play in. One is allowed to sacrifice the current year for future years by stockpiling developmental players, it is considered a valid strategy.

It becomes tanking when you don't field a legitimate lineup.

 

[Max Power]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

I'm starting to come around on this. In fact while I earlier called it a grey area open to interpretation, looking through my rules again I I found the below. So it's not a grey area in leagues that I commish.

I've seen it happen earlier in a league that I am just an owner. One owner couldn't start 2 RBs and didn't want to drop anyone to pick up a scrub, since he was rebuilding, and I didn't have a problem with it though.

Teams are expected to start full line-ups and should add/drop or trade for players if necessary in order to compensate for bye weeks or injuries.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

I'm starting to come around on this. In fact while I earlier called it a grey area open to interpretation, looking through my rules again I I found this:

Teams are expected to start full line-ups and should add/drop or trade for players if necessary in order to compensate for bye weeks or injuries.

Most good leagues have this rule to keep things clear. Otherwise, we have what we have here.

 

[squistion]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

I'm starting to come around on this. In fact while I earlier called it a grey area open to interpretation, looking through my rules again I I found this:

Teams are expected to start full line-ups and should add/drop or trade for players if necessary in order to compensate for bye weeks or injuries.

Most good leagues have this rule to keep things clear. Otherwise, we have what we have here.

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

 

[Concept Coop]

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

I disagree. Again, if you are not winning this year, a kicker has no value to you. Is it a viable, fair strategy to no roster one? Doing so is a strategy that loos beyond the current year.

 

[FUBAR]

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

I disagree. Again, if you are not winning this year, a kicker has no value to you. Is it a viable, fair strategy to no roster one? Doing so is a strategy that loos beyond the current year.

That's a different debate. But frankly, if an owner thought rostering a 7th WR prospect was more valuable to his team, I'd be fine with him not having a kicker.

 

[jmo87usc]

What about having a rule in your league where if this situation occurs, the team with the shortage may pick up a player just for his lineup that week without making a drop. That same player must be dropped immediately after and allowed back in the waiver pool for all teams. It seems that all other teams would be ok with this.(except for the guy who loses to this team by 2 points and gets knocked out of the playoffs)

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

I'm starting to come around on this. In fact while I earlier called it a grey area open to interpretation, looking through my rules again I I found this:

Teams are expected to start full line-ups and should add/drop or trade for players if necessary in order to compensate for bye weeks or injuries.

Most good leagues have this rule to keep things clear. Otherwise, we have what we have here.

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have owners that try to get cute with this type of stuff in the first place. But other good leagues need this rule. So my bad. The worst leagues have owners that get cute and don't have the rule.

 

[Concept Coop]

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

I disagree. Again, if you are not winning this year, a kicker has no value to you. Is it a viable, fair strategy to no roster one? Doing so is a strategy that loos beyond the current year.

That's a different debate. But frankly, if an owner thought rostering a 7th WR prospect was more valuable to his team, I'd be fine with him not having a kicker.

How is it different? Setting minimum roster requirements is another form of an owner not having complete control of his roster moves.

And when you miss out on the playoffs, and lose money, because team X won't roster a kicker over Philip Tanner or Jordan Todman - still okay with it?

 

[massraider]

If the league has no rule in place, then fine.

I have no interest in playing in a league where a guy can roll with no one at TE or K.

I like the tough decisions aspect of fantasy football, and owners should have to make them occasionally to field a team. Every week people cut someone they like; just because it's a dynasty league (which I play in almost exclusively) shouldn't change that. Agree with Max Power, it's slippery slope.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

I disagree. Again, if you are not winning this year, a kicker has no value to you. Is it a viable, fair strategy to no roster one? Doing so is a strategy that loos beyond the current year.

That's a different debate. But frankly, if an owner thought rostering a 7th WR prospect was more valuable to his team, I'd be fine with him not having a kicker.

How is it different? Setting minimum roster requirements is another form of an owner not having complete control of his roster moves.

And when you miss out on the playoffs, and lose money, because team X won't start a kicker to roster Philip Tanner or AJ Jenkins - still okay with it?

It isn't different, and the scenario you gave happens in bad leagues. Competitive integrity of the current season outweighs future prospects of a single team.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I have to agree that failing to start a full active lineup is tanking. Too many things can go wrong trying to write rules around not fielding a full lineup. Its not worth the hassle as a commissioner. Most of the time your prospects are easily replaceable with other prospects on the wire.

I had to drop a guy to pick up a bye week defense. It sets a double standard for winning and rebuilding teams. Overall, its a slippery slope and one not worth treading on.

I'm starting to come around on this. In fact while I earlier called it a grey area open to interpretation, looking through my rules again I I found this:

Teams are expected to start full line-ups and should add/drop or trade for players if necessary in order to compensate for bye weeks or injuries.

Most good leagues have this rule to keep things clear. Otherwise, we have what we have here.

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

You have to draw a line between "what's best for one individual's team" and "what's fair to the rest of the league" somehwere.

Like some one else said there has to be a line where some one crosses over from "protecting a prospect" to "tanking" as well.

Most of the examples already thrown out in this thread of "prospects" that were being protected are pretty borderline to begin with. Khiry Robinson was in the OP. He's an undrafted free agent RB playing for a team with a corwded backfield that has long favored a RBBC. I'm not trying to say that he will never amount to anythig - he has shown some flashes - but odds are that he will not. Odds are also pretty good that if the OP dropped him, he could get him right back the following week, assumedly having a high waiver priority since he's rebuilding and with Robinson not doing anything.

It's certainly an interesting dilemma, where there really aren't any right or worng answers.

 

[massraider]

It's certainly an interesting dilemma, where there really aren't any right or worng answers.

Yes, it's just the league deciding what sort of parameters they want to have. What each league wants to allow.

 

[FUBAR]

Actually most good dynasty leagues don't have this rule and allow rebuilding teams not to have cut valuable developmental players for a one week substitution for a player that provides minimal points (or sometimes no points at all). A strategy that looks beyond the current year is what distinguishes dynasty from redraft.

I disagree. Again, if you are not winning this year, a kicker has no value to you. Is it a viable, fair strategy to no roster one? Doing so is a strategy that loos beyond the current year.

That's a different debate. But frankly, if an owner thought rostering a 7th WR prospect was more valuable to his team, I'd be fine with him not having a kicker.

How is it different? Setting minimum roster requirements is another form of an owner not having complete control of his roster moves.

And when you miss out on the playoffs, and lose money, because team X won't roster a kicker over Philip Tanner or Jordan Todman - still okay with it?

I'd only be pissed if the guy had a playing kicker on his team and didn't start him. Just to expound upon this, let's say a team had Jarrett Boykin at the start of the year. Should he have had to drop him to pickup a scrub during week 4?

I'm against minimum roster requirements too, so I'm missing your point there.

Like others have said, every league should make their own rules, agreed upon by the owners.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

You guys giving names are those that are injecting subjectivity into this. It doesn't matter who needs to be dropped, a legitimate lineup should be given. If these rules don't exist, like what everyone said, fine. We should all agree that this is tanking though.

 

[Concept Coop]

I'd only be pissed if the guy had a playing kicker on his team and didn't start him. Just to expound upon this, let's say a team had Jarrett Boykin at the start of the year. Should he have had to drop him to pickup a scrub during week 4? I'm against minimum roster requirements too, so I'm missing your point there.

Like others have said, every league should make their own rules, agreed upon by the owners.

Yes, I think that owner should have to make the roster moves needed to field an active lineup.

In our hypothetical league, with no rules against invalid lineups and no roster reqs - the smart action, for rebuilding owners, is to fill their rosters with RBs and WRs, and only those two positions. Zero QBs, TEs, Ks, or Defs. You get the 1.01 each and every year, until you decide that you want to actually be a part of the league and trade for a QB and TE.

Call that classless, tanking, whatever you want. But it's the optimal strategy for rebuilding, if allowed by rules.

 

[FUBAR]

I'd only be pissed if the guy had a playing kicker on his team and didn't start him. Just to expound upon this, let's say a team had Jarrett Boykin at the start of the year. Should he have had to drop him to pickup a scrub during week 4? I'm against minimum roster requirements too, so I'm missing your point there.

Like others have said, every league should make their own rules, agreed upon by the owners.

Yes, I think that owner should have to make the roster moves needed to field an active lineup.

In our hypothetical league, with no rules against invalid lineups and no roster reqs - the smart action, for rebuilding owners, is to fill their rosters with RBs and WRs, and only those two positions. Zero QBs, TEs, Ks, or Defs. You get the 1.01 each and every year, until you decide that you want to actually be a part of the league and trade for a QB and TE.

Call that classless, tanking, whatever you want. But it's the optimal strategy for rebuilding, if allowed by rules.

Are you also going to mandate that a team has a top 12 QB, top 12 TE, top 12 kicker, etc?

If not, what's preventing the owner from fielding a roster of developmental QBs (just make sure they're their team's #2 and aren't on a bye week! Ryan Mallett, for example), rookie TEs who aren't starting (i.e. Vance McDonald, Luke Wilson, etc.)...

ETA: I'd prefer a league find other ways to discourage tanking. Maybe that's a small fee for the league's weekly low score, a lottery system for the top pick, etc.

 

[Concept Coop]

Are you also going to mandate that a team has a top 12 QB, top 12 TE, top 12 kicker, etc?

If not, what's preventing the owner from fielding a roster of developmental QBs (just make sure they're their team's #2 and aren't on a bye week! Ryan Mallett, for example), rookie TEs who aren't starting (i.e. Vance McDonald, Luke Wilson, etc.)...

ETA: I'd prefer a league find other ways to discourage tanking. Maybe that's a small fee for the league's weekly low score, a lottery system for the top pick, etc.

I don't think a potential loophole discredits the need for the rule. There is always potential for owners not to start their best players on purpose.

 

[menobrown]

Not starting a valid lineup, especially in VP format leagues, is unacceptable. It's a disservice to the league.

 

[JohnnyU]

I've decided to drop a player and pickup another. It's not worth the hassle. However, that does nothing for the other league where I'm the commish and have to deal with owners complaining about other owners on this same issue. I don't think anything has been solved in this thread, only to say each side of the argument has valid and invalid points.