Is This Considered Tanking In a Dynasty League? (1 Viewer)

[I was in the pool]

This is a dynasty league, 22-man rosters.

An owner dropped their kicker and DEF a few weeks ago when they picked up Laurent Robinson and Vincent Brown. The team was winless at the time and a couple games behind even the team in 11th place. Brown and Robinson both score 15+ pts. that week, so the team keeps them. Because they don't have a DEF or kicker on the roster, the lineup locks after that point, which causes the team to lose every week since badly. The rules state that if no lineup is submitted the previous week's lineup OR a lineup consisting of the highest drafted players will be used. That doesn't look like the case as only a handful of players have been in the starting lineup (less than ideal) since that time and the owner says they have been locked out from being able to sumbit a lineup. This team would still be in last place regardless of any of this and the owner said that Brown and Robinson have more value for a dynasty team at this point and moving towards 2012 than a middling kicker and defense. Is this tanking? And in keeper/dynasty leagues, at what point is it ok to make moves like this to begin preparing for the following year? This move happened in week 10.

 

[I was in the pool]

Wow - 50+ views and no thoughts?

 

[thriftyrocker]

Do you have waivers during the playoffs? Not fielding D or K during the toilet bowl is perfectly fine. During the regular season, not fielding a full lineup is tanking.

 

[Shane Falco]

This is a dynasty league, 22-man rosters.

An owner dropped their kicker and DEF a few weeks ago when they picked up Laurent Robinson and Vincent Brown. The team was winless at the time and a couple games behind even the team in 11th place. Brown and Robinson both score 15+ pts. that week, so the team keeps them. Because they don't have a DEF or kicker on the roster, the lineup locks after that point, which causes the team to lose every week since badly. The rules state that if no lineup is submitted the previous week's lineup OR a lineup consisting of the highest drafted players will be used. That doesn't look like the case as only a handful of players have been in the starting lineup (less than ideal) since that time and the owner says they have been locked out from being able to sumbit a lineup. This team would still be in last place regardless of any of this and the owner said that Brown and Robinson have more value for a dynasty team at this point and moving towards 2012 than a middling kicker and defense. Is this tanking? And in keeper/dynasty leagues, at what point is it ok to make moves like this to begin preparing for the following year? This move happened in week 10.

agree

Do you have waivers during the playoffs? Not fielding D or K during the toilet bowl is perfectly fine. During the regular season, not fielding a full lineup is tanking.

and agree

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I didn't respond because I'm not sure I understand exactly what happened here. The way it's written doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So they picked up a couple of WRs and dropped a K and D weeks ago, and their roster has been locked ever since? And you have a rule in place to determine what happens if a lineup isn't submitted, but that rule hasn't been applied? I think you need to spell out a little more clearly what has happened, what the owner has attempted to do and is trying to do, etc. before you're going to get any meaningful responses.

 

[I was in the pool]

Yes, there are rules written about what happens when a lineup isn't submitted that were not put into effect during those weeks.

In reference to the question about waivers - yes, waivers are open through week 15. So anytime an owner does this prior to that week is tanking?

 

[wiscstlatlmia]

This is a dynasty league, 22-man rosters.An owner dropped their kicker and DEF a few weeks ago when they picked up Laurent Robinson and Vincent Brown. The team was winless at the time and a couple games behind even the team in 11th place. Brown and Robinson both score 15+ pts. that week, so the team keeps them. Because they don't have a DEF or kicker on the roster, the lineup locks after that point, which causes the team to lose every week since badly. The rules state that if no lineup is submitted the previous week's lineup OR a lineup consisting of the highest drafted players will be used. That doesn't look like the case as only a handful of players have been in the starting lineup (less than ideal) since that time and the owner says they have been locked out from being able to sumbit a lineup. This team would still be in last place regardless of any of this and the owner said that Brown and Robinson have more value for a dynasty team at this point and moving towards 2012 than a middling kicker and defense. Is this tanking? And in keeper/dynasty leagues, at what point is it ok to make moves like this to begin preparing for the following year? This move happened in week 10.

I just dropped the Broncos d and rob bironas for Kyle williams and Bilal Powell...I usually never keep a defense and kicker on my team in the offseason. We give the winner of the toilet bowl pick 13, but im willing to 'tank' the toilet bowl because my team kinda stinks and the likely hood of me winning pick 13 is slim. Certainly not tanking in dynasty, he has nothing to play for, so why not get a head start on next year.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Yes, there are rules written about what happens when a lineup isn't submitted that were not put into effect during those weeks.

What about this part?

So they picked up a couple of WRs and dropped a K and D weeks ago, and their roster has been locked ever since?

 

[Warhogs]

I'm not sure what you can do about it at this point but it sounds like your league may want to consider adding something to the rules next year that all teams must submit an entire starting lineup so the teams have to carry a kicker and a defense.

It does not sound to me like this team is tanking from the standpoint of trying to lose but is trying to maximize the value of each roster spot in his mind.

 

[jeter23]

I think it is pretty clearly tanking. The question is what do your rules state happens next? A fine? Removal from the league? There are a lot of players on any dynasty WW with more value than kickers, but not every owner made the choice wo go w/o a full lineup.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it is pretty clearly tanking.

I think it's pretty clearly NOT tanking. There's nothing in the OP to suggest that the owner is deliberately trying to lose games. Instead, he's trying to stockpile players to carry over next year, which is totally fine. If there's no rule requiring him to carry a D or K or to start a full lineup, he's not doing anything wrong.

 

[joey]

I think it is pretty clearly tanking. The question is what do your rules state happens next? A fine? Removal from the league? There are a lot of players on any dynasty WW with more value than kickers, but not every owner made the choice wo go w/o a full lineup.

We have a rule that does exactly this.if you don't submit a "valid" line up (with active, non-bye-week, players) then you get fined.2nd time, you get fined more.3rd time, you're out of the league.tank prevention, baby.

 

[Topes]

Wow - 50+ views and no thoughts?

It's hard to reply to a scenario that seems to suggest your league is a total mess, and needs wholesale revision of both rulebook and charter.While I can wholeheartedly sympathize with liberal roster requirements, I don't find it reasonable that any fantasy league (especially dynasty) allow an owner to have a roster that cannot support a legal lineup (except for byes) during the season. That is, during the season, the minimum lineup requirements should be the minimum roster requirements.

Apparently, your league is not set up thusly. As such, your league could be seen as both inviting and encouraging tanking.

The other rules about rosters reverting and such? Did you all think this thing through..?

I wonder sometimes what the average life span of a dynasty league actually is. They start up. A few guys think they're sneaky by planning for three years out. A couple guys screw their teams up badly. Three guys get married. Four years on, poof.

 

[johnadams]

I don't think it's intentionally tanking games, though the end result is that his team is less competitive. If he's still fielding the best players at other positions, he's just made a conscious decision that he'd rather be less competitive this year in hopes of being better next. Not really that different than someone who trades an aging, productive player like Turner, for younger upside players, making his team weaker this year, but hopefully better in the future.

Ultimately,this is a settings issue. Leagues should require through their settings that a K and DST must be rostered, preventing dropping a K unless another K is either rostered or picked up. I suggest you make that suggestion for next year's rules.

 

[valhallan]

I'm not sure what you can do about it at this point but it sounds like your league may want to consider adding something to the rules next year that all teams must submit an entire starting lineup so the teams have to carry a kicker and a defense. It does not sound to me like this team is tanking from the standpoint of trying to lose but is trying to maximize the value of each roster spot in his mind.

This. He's trying to use his 22 spots to build for the future. I would actually rather the guy in last place not leave players like V.Brown and Robinson on the wire anyway for the health of the league. Too often the worst team in the league fails to acquire obvious waiver gems. So while it may be annoying in the short term that he wasn't fielding a full lineup, in the long term you're better off having him suck less.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't find it reasonable that any fantasy league (especially dynasty) allow an owner to have a roster that cannot support a legal lineup (except for byes) during the season. That is, during the season, the minimum lineup requirements should be the minimum roster requirements.

You need a rule that clearly states the bolded above - otherwise what happened here will keep happening each season now.What he did wasn't necesarily tanking for the sake of tanking - but it had that same effect and this rule will keep that from happening.

 

[Sinrman]

To me, it depends on how your rules specifically state it. If it clearly states that you must start a "legal lineup" or something like that, then I think

something should be done. Otherwise, not much you can do about it. Those players are definitely good ones to stash away for seasons to come, however.

 

[Winning IS Everything]

I don't find it reasonable that any fantasy league (especially dynasty) allow an owner to have a roster that cannot support a legal lineup (except for byes) during the season. That is, during the season, the minimum lineup requirements should be the minimum roster requirements.

You need a rule that clearly states the bolded above - otherwise what happened here will keep happening each season now.What he did wasn't necesarily tanking for the sake of tanking - but it had that same effect and this rule will keep that from happening.

Agreed. We have minimum roster requirements and minimum starting linup requirements that eliminate this from happening. By reading the OP, I do not see anything illegal about what he did as there is no rule against it.