Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Messing with your opponents (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hilts
- Start date
BB's answer is yes, still unfair 
Hilts
Footballguy
If a trade is in question I think it's reasonable to ask owners to explain themselves. If they have legitimate arguments I think you've got to let it stand. One year I remember being the commish in a league where an owner traded away some high drafted player for some week one ww flash in the pan. I grilled them both as they're friends and it was suspicious. Anyhow, they had good reasons even if I disagreed so I let it stand. By the end of the season the ww flash in the pan turned out to be a stud.
In your scenario I think it would likely fall clearly into the spirit of collusion, but perhaps there are salary or other unusual considerations.
Eta but I agree with your other point, which is as long as everyone is on the same page with what's fair game, then do as you see fit.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Excellent post. Could not agree more.
As for the accidental trade acceptance thing, as commish I've had that happen a few times over the years. Each time there's a message, "what kind of dog#### deal is this you're offering? hell no I will not accept that trade!" and oops. They were on a smart phone, tiny screen, sausage fingers, etc.
So I encourage anyone rejecting a crappy deal to include a message indicating why you're rejecting it with as many insults as possible. Because if you accidentally click accept it's a nice way to protect yourself.
There are two different situations here.
One is picking up a specific player to block someone from getting him. Nothing wrong with this. It is a strategy and has a purpose.
The second move is roster churning...picking up as many FA's as possible and rotating them to try and use up all the available players so someone can't get anybody. This is the unethical and problematic move that goes against the purpose of the FA system. This is the unethical play that is being identified as a problem.
Hilts
Footballguy
In both scenarios you're being unsportsmanlike by grabbing a player you have zero intention of starting with the sole purpose of keeping them from your opponent.
Deamon
Footballguy
Yes but you're actually KEEPING him.
Why does a league LOCK players who are dropped? It's so if someone has valuable a guy on their roster and drops him, it's not a race to the computer. It's so someone can't use a high waiver pick and drop them with a friend in the league being ready to pick him up 1 second later. The lock rule is to PREVENT collusion, and make it a fair process for those to pick him up.
Allowing this rule to stand when its not for those reasons doesn't work. If a guy is picked up and dropped the same week, he should 100% be able to be grabbed via message board.
This is opening up floodgates. If this stands/is allowed, why wouldn't people in this league do this every week? If a guy forgets to do his tuesday night waivers but plans on grabbing his kicker wednesday morning, why doesn't the whole league just pick up and drop every kicker and screw him for the week? Or if you have a deep team, why not just do that with every single player on waivers so that no one is available for anyone to grab after tuesday night?
I'm very surprised anyone would defend this move.
Football Jones
Footballguy
Yeah, picking up a player & keeping him all week is completely on the other side of the spectrum as opposed to picking up & immediately dropping (or dropping ANYTIME in the same week for that matter).
One is strategy...the other is BS.
One is strategy...the other is BS.
Last edited by a moderator:
Disagree they are the same and unsportsmanlike. In one scenario you are picking up ONE player. The one you think is the best option and keeping him for the week to prevent that ONE player from being picked up. That is essentially why you pick up any player to add to your roster. You are always picking up players to prevent other teams from having them.
The other is picking up ALL players and preventing anyone from picking up anybody at a particular position because you are trying to make it so someone cannot playa player at a position of need. This is unethical and goes against the spirit of sportsmanship.
Those two things are apples and oranges
Hilts
Footballguy
I strongly disagree with you guys, but to each their own. I agree it's important to ensure everyone has a fair and reasonable opportunity to grab players. I think insta-churn is awful and bs.
But beyond that? If that criteria has been met then it's fair game, imo, and I think people are trying to draw a distinction when there's no real difference between holding a guy all week or a day, as both are done with the sole purpose of improving your odds of making an opponent lose.
But beyond that? If that criteria has been met then it's fair game, imo, and I think people are trying to draw a distinction when there's no real difference between holding a guy all week or a day, as both are done with the sole purpose of improving your odds of making an opponent lose.
@Hilts, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like what you're saying is you initially had the same visceral reaction to this strategy as most of the people in this thread, but as you examine your logic you're not sure exactly what it is that makes it objectionable? Is that accurate?
My answer would be that, while there is obviously some subjectivity involved, as well as a continuum of behavior -- picking up one person isn't as bad as picking up two, which is worse than three, etc. -- what crosses the line is that you're not trying to make your own team better with roster churning. In fact, you're deliberately making your team worse, out of the hope that it will leave another team even worse off than you are. Yes, fantasy (and sports in general) are largely zero-sum affairs, where making someone else worse can ultimately help you, but IMO doing it so blatantly is what makes it a d##k move, particularly if you're playing among friends. I would have less objection to doing this in a high-stakes league with strangers (although I suspect if you took it too far with a bunch of sharks, it would backfire spectacularly).
My answer would be that, while there is obviously some subjectivity involved, as well as a continuum of behavior -- picking up one person isn't as bad as picking up two, which is worse than three, etc. -- what crosses the line is that you're not trying to make your own team better with roster churning. In fact, you're deliberately making your team worse, out of the hope that it will leave another team even worse off than you are. Yes, fantasy (and sports in general) are largely zero-sum affairs, where making someone else worse can ultimately help you, but IMO doing it so blatantly is what makes it a d##k move, particularly if you're playing among friends. I would have less objection to doing this in a high-stakes league with strangers (although I suspect if you took it too far with a bunch of sharks, it would backfire spectacularly).
The Frankman
Footballguy
We have weekly and season long roster change limits to prevent this type of thing on a large scale. But even then you get situations you can't predict.
We had a situation like this last year in my 16-team league. Guy made a trade and then 2 days after the Zeke Elliot suspension came down he wanted it reversed, turned out he was drunk when making the deal. Long story short, he was mad at me and when I needed a Bye week QB that week, he cycled all of his roster moves to blank out all the FA QBs. Needless to say I had to undo all the moves, reset their status, and then kick his ### out of the league.
We had a situation like this last year in my 16-team league. Guy made a trade and then 2 days after the Zeke Elliot suspension came down he wanted it reversed, turned out he was drunk when making the deal. Long story short, he was mad at me and when I needed a Bye week QB that week, he cycled all of his roster moves to blank out all the FA QBs. Needless to say I had to undo all the moves, reset their status, and then kick his ### out of the league.
Aznflyer14
Footballguy
In my league, we hold a waiver wire once a week prior to Thursday game during regular season and the waiver ranking is always reset after MNF to reflect the latest win/loss/tie standing. I had a few owners who complained about this rule but ultimately, my whole league likes this format and do not like "rushing to the keyboard" and make excessive FA pick-ups.
As former commish in dynasty PPR league, I can attest this experience. Because of some people's cleverly exploitation of loopholes, we had to make several rule changes to close them in the following off-season activities. Unfortunately, this sometime caused a several turnover in owners.
As for franchise fee, I really hate chasing particular owners who always late in payment.
Not sure what all has been discussed but I think you may be seeing this as a ### for tat situation. It is not. Player A is using his roster size strategically. If you say yes but they are hoarding players at a certain position even if they dont intend to start them ...so what? That strategy can work and it can also bite you in the butt. If you say a team cant roster backups are handcuffs now all the sudden not allowed? Its a slippery slope and not one that makes any sense to me. Now if they hoard these players and it keeps them from making a K or defense pick up legitimately? Well that is on them. But roster churning is NOT legitimately. Player B used 1 roster spot to pick up and drop all the players available at a certain position for the express purpose not to block player A but to deplete the position completely with no cost to themselves. (at the end of the sequence they end up with whowever they want because they leave that person till last) Player A, rostering all those players...has used roster spots for all those players... not 1 roster spot to churn players which he ends up filling with his last move.... 2 totally different situations.
After failing to get through to some people that roster churning is against the spirit of the rules we put in a rule that says you add a player during FCFS he stays on your roster for the week. That worked well until someone picked upa kicker who then got injured late in the week. The new rule Iess restrictive rule which still allows people to change their minds with no benefit to churning is that: Any player who gets ppicked up and dropped during FCFS is fair game reguardless if they are locked or not ( I dont see a setting to make fcfs adds/drops not go on the restricted list or I would do that) All the owners have to do is call me and I do the transaction for them (since the player is locked) Has worked out well and amazingly enough now that their is no benefit to churning nobody does it anymore.
After failing to get through to some people that roster churning is against the spirit of the rules we put in a rule that says you add a player during FCFS he stays on your roster for the week. That worked well until someone picked upa kicker who then got injured late in the week. The new rule Iess restrictive rule which still allows people to change their minds with no benefit to churning is that: Any player who gets ppicked up and dropped during FCFS is fair game reguardless if they are locked or not ( I dont see a setting to make fcfs adds/drops not go on the restricted list or I would do that) All the owners have to do is call me and I do the transaction for them (since the player is locked) Has worked out well and amazingly enough now that their is no benefit to churning nobody does it anymore.
I think the distinction is COST.... There is a cost to picking up 1 player and holding them has a cost. The cost is taking up 1 roster space that you arent able to use for a different player. Churning doesnt have a COST which is imo why its unethical and should be against the rules.
I do not like this option. As commish I love it when the team owners are fighting and clawing for each little advantage they can get. At this point in my league things are so competitive that people pick up players (especially rbs) when there is even a hint that they might have value. Heck several years ago when there was word that a rb was about to be brought in for a tryout by detriot ( kevin Johnson maybe ?) I picked him up on a flyer and he ended up blowing up for a couple of weeks. You dont get that level of participation with roster move limits.
The Frankman
Footballguy
If an owner can't survive on 7 roster moves per week and 75+ on the season (5 man bench), I have no idea what kind of team they are trying to run. Roster spots mean something, it means you research most every move you make. If you are hitting 7 moves per week with a 5 man bench; something's wrong. You'd have to do the equivalent of changing your whole bench every week. just to do 5 moves... remember, trades and drops don't count.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deamon
Footballguy
There's a massive difference in the two. Doing something just to hurt another team should be against the rules.I strongly disagree with you guys, but to each their own. I agree it's important to ensure everyone has a fair and reasonable opportunity to grab players. I think insta-churn is awful and bs.
But beyond that? If that criteria has been met then it's fair game, imo, and I think people are trying to draw a distinction when there's no real difference between holding a guy all week or a day, as both are done with the sole purpose of improving your odds of making an opponent lose.
What if Team A and Team B are tied with 2 weeks to go. You want Team A in the playoffs because Team B is stacked and you want to avoid them. So you don't start a line up (or start an awful one) against Team A because you want them to win and get in playoffs. There's likely nothing against this in the 'rules' of your league. You can start whoever you want. It's not collusion as the other owner knows nothing about it. You'd be cool with this?
Deamon
Footballguy
Yes I often find it funny how people start threads looking for "impartial opinions" because they have "an open mind and want some other thoughts on it", but then argue against everyone (usually the majority) who doesn't see it their way. Usually it's Lonestar who is doing that lately.
I think most of the disagreement here is based on the fact that something can be "fair" but yet "unethical". You may be right that the act of churning rosters is not "unfair". Anyone can do it and if your league doesn't have a specific rule against it then it is "fair" to do. However, just because something is fair doesn't mean it is the proper thing to do.
Most people that are opposing your view are opposing it based on ethics. Churning rosters for the purpose of preventing people from having an opportunity to sign a needed free agent is unethical. I would not want to play in leagues that allow this to take place whether it is written or unwritten in the rules.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Perfectly said.
in real life baseball there are a lot of “unwritten rules” that people accept as fair play.
If you’re up 7 runs in the 8th inning, it’s a Richard move to steal a base, for example.
There’s nothing in the baseball rule book that says you can’t steal a base in that situation.
Theres no rule against it at all.
but it’s considered poor sportsmanship, and this it’s not done.
And if it is done, that hitter can expect to get a fastball to the ribs the next time he stands in the box against that team.
letter of the law, spirit of the law.
Roster churning is considered poor sportsmanship, even if it’s allowable within the technical constraints of your league’s hosting system, and even if it’s not specifically written in the rules.
it is manipulating a system that’s designed to make player acquisition fair into doing the opposite by locking up players to make them unavailable.
I honestly don’t know why we have a 4+ page topic about the ethics of roster churning here. I’ve played fantasy sports since the “USA TODAY BOX SCORE” days of fantasy baseball & I’ve always known roster churning as a bad thing.
It even has a name. That’s how you know it’s commonly understood. lol
to me it goes beyond ethics. If churning is allowed you effectively require a team to roster both a kicker and a defense (and a qb for that matter) by the time the waiver wire has run. So you have a kicker or defense on a bye week yup there goes your waiver wire priority (even if you are sitting in spot 1) Other option is to take a zero or make sure you are at the computer when FCFS opens (ours is at 4am) contrast that with having a sensible no churning rule in place where people can play matchups with their kickers and defenses (and in some cases qbs) all because some jackhole locks every kicker and defense (and any other players he so chooses) just because there isnt a written rule. disclaimer.....the above is the SIMPLEST reason why churning isnt allowed. It could be used by any player for any reason and would absolutely ruin the game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
Man In The Box
Footballguy
I didn’t read the entire thread, but this. If you pick up a player off the waiver wire, and you cut him before his next game kicks off, he’s a free agent and is able to be picked up by any other owner. No waiver period involved.
DropKick
Footballguy
Its a dirt bag move... Not sure why you can't differentiate between low class and poor sportsmanship. They go hand in hand.
DropKick
Footballguy
Thread title is "messing with your opponents"... and the question still has to be asked...
