Not starting a K/DST. How terrible? (1 Viewer)

[pollardsvision]

I know it's a dirtball move either way. I'm likely not going to do it, but I was just curious if you guys think there's ever a situation where it might be justified.

Situation:

Deep keeper league.12 team. Auction/FAAB league where you keep as many players as you want each season.

FA pick-ups, no matter how much they cost in the FA Auction, can be kept for $6 the next season with cost rising $5 each season after. (same as auction day players. FA's are considered to have cost $1 for keeper purposes). Given the way this affects the market, players bought in auction end up being very expensive and even when they pan out, don't make great long-term keepers.

Point is, FA guys that pan out are pure gold and might be the biggest key to building a long-term winner.

My team is probably about the 7-8th best roster in the league (might go up a little if Gronk ever plays again), but it's also 0-4. 6 teams make the playoffs (7 are currently 3-1 or better). 5 of those 7 teams are clearly better than mine and by a wide margin. The other 2 are probably only marginally better.

If I go to 0-5 this week, then going forward, I'd prefer not to roster a kicker, defense, or any productive vet that'll cost too much to keep (and has little trade value, ie MJD/Bowe).

The 2 roster spots from not carrying a K/DST would almost certainly not amount to anything, but given the shape of my roster, the 1% that one the players I get in lieu of a K/DST pans out is worth far more to me than long-term than an extra 10-15% chance to win each week in a lost season.

I know all the reasons not to do this. It's bad for the league. It's certainly bush league. I woudldn't be proud of it in anyway.

At the same time, it's not my job to make the playoff race more "fair" for the league. It's my job to try to improve my roster for 2014 and beyond.

The commish is aware that I'm considering this option, and of course, not a fan. There's not a rule on this issue currently because nobody's done it before. If I proceed with it, there will be a debate amongst the league, so I'm preparing for that.

Just curious what you guys think.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Meh, bush league, violates the spirit of the rules, etc. I wouldn't do it, and if I was a commissioner I don't think I'd allow it.

I was actually just thinking of this situation on my commute this morning - in my office guppy league I have a stacked team, but at TE I only have Cameron and Gronk who are both on bye in week 10. I was considering what to do if I got to that point and didn't want to drop anyone for whatever WW TE was available for that one week, and considered just taking a 0 at TE, and then it occurred to me to just drop my K for a TE and take a 0 at K that week instead, and even that felt bush league to me. I certainly wouldn't roll with no K or D all season long.

 

[Danish Bengal]

It's pretty simple: if the rules allow it, do it. Otherwise don't

 

[pollardsvision]

It's pretty simple: if the rules allow it, do it. Otherwise don't

True. As far as I know, we don't have a specific rule about starting a full lineup. Commish isn't aware either (he's stated he won't allow it, but I haven't really started the argument yet either).

 

[Sweet Love]

I don't like it...there are rules and "spirit of the rules" . For example, none of my leagues have a rule that specifically states I can't hack into my leaguemates' MFL accounts and change their rosters at the last second, yet I think we could all say "that is against the rules". I don't have a problem if someone rosters 1 kicker and Def and don't want to drop them during the bye week and play without one for that particular week, but to go the remainder of the year without both is booty.

 

[thriftyrocker]

Are you tanking for a draft spot too? Or "only" ruining the competitiveness of the league?

 

[pollardsvision]

Are you tanking for a draft spot too? Or "only" ruining the competitiveness of the league?

No, there is now "advantage" for finishing last. Everyone gets $200 at auction, minus the cost of their keepers.

I'd be doing it for 2 "extra" roster spots to use on lotto ticket RBs/WRs/TEs.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

another bush league vote.

 

[pollardsvision]

I don't like it...there are rules and "spirit of the rules" . For example, none of my leagues have a rule that specifically states I can't hack into my leaguemates' MFL accounts and change their rosters at the last second, yet I think we could all say "that is against the rules". I don't have a problem if someone rosters 1 kicker and Def and don't want to drop them during the bye week and play without one for that particular week, but to go the remainder of the year without both is booty.

It's very easy to make the case that the former is more unfair to the latter.

"Tanking" one game helps 1 team and not 10 others (and is thus unfair to them). Doing it for 8 games would only be unfair to 5 teams.

 

[habsfan]

I would press your commish/league to put a stake in the ground on this issue now. If they don't support it, ensure the league follows through with a rule change/addition in the off-season. In this instance, I would not do it.

If your league is not opposed to the strategy, then you would be doing it with "full disclosure".

 

[footballnerd]

my leagues have last place penalties, bottom dweller pays

 

[pollardsvision]

I would press your commish/league to put a stake in the ground on this issue now. If they don't support it, ensure the league follows through with a rule change/addition in the off-season. In this instance, I would not do it.

If your league is not opposed to the strategy, then you would be doing it with "full disclosure".

That's more what I'm going for here.

I'm considering it, but I know it's bush league. I believe in fantasy karma, and probably wouldn't do it because of that. If I did, it's still 10 days away (not considering for this week).

But we need a ruling on this, so we're about to flesh that out.

The issue on the table currently is that teams "have to make a competitive effort".

In a redraft league, that means one thing. In a deep keeper, that can mean a number of different things.

There's also the issue that, I'm sure (and I'll check), some time over the past decade, some idiot in our league has accidentally started a player that didn't play or maybe even left a bye week player in the lineup (very active league, but it's bound to have happened).

As far as I know, the commish didn't start a player for them.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's pretty simple: if the rules allow it, do it. Otherwise don't

This is bad advice.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I want to make perfectly clear that I would never do what you want to do myself--I don't like the idea of it. I'm not sure if I would call it bush league--but it's certainly something towards bush league. The not playing a kicker or defense thing doesn't really bother me as much mainly because of my recent experience playing fantasy baseball for the first time. In fantasy baseball--generally websites grant players positional eligibility based on what position they had played the previous season. Many times you will see relief pitchers changing their roles to starting pitchers from one season to another---but fantasy leagues still give them relief pitcher eligibility. Of course having a "starting pitcher" in a "relief pitcher" roster spot can really inflate stats--more wins, more strikeouts, more innings pitched, more quality starts..etc--and this has really intrigued me. I thought it was completely dumb--and borderline unfair--that fantasy owners were knowingly using these players as they went against the "spirit" of what a relief pitching roster spot was designed to be---so I started a thread asking more veteran fantasy baseball players about their opinions on this. Apparently it is something that nobody really had a problem with--- it just "is what it is". In dynasty leagues--the concept that one sacrifices one season to invest in their future is not bush league. However--- I do have a problem with you not rostering veteran guys of decent value and in essence "player dumping" as this completely could skew the competitiveness of the rest of the league who are still trying to win this year. I don't like the not starting a kicker or defense--but would probably tolerate it-and I'm very opposed to you dumping veteran players--and wouldn't tolerate this.

 

[habsfan]

I would press your commish/league to put a stake in the ground on this issue now. If they don't support it, ensure the league follows through with a rule change/addition in the off-season. In this instance, I would not do it.

If your league is not opposed to the strategy, then you would be doing it with "full disclosure".

That's more what I'm going for here.

I'm considering it, but I know it's bush league. I believe in fantasy karma, and probably wouldn't do it because of that. If I did, it's still 10 days away (not considering for this week).

But we need a ruling on this, so we're about to flesh that out.

The issue on the table currently is that teams "have to make a competitive effort".

In a redraft league, that means one thing. In a deep keeper, that can mean a number of different things.

Exactly.

In my opinion, not all rules have an intrinsic "rightness" or wrongness" behind them.

In my league the spirit of a line-up rule is focused on participation / level of engagement. Based on what you've disclosed about your league settings, that's clearly not an issue.

I wouldn't get into sentiments like "bush league" to defend or attack something like this. Are we (collectively) allowing this or not? Decide it and move on.

 

[pollardsvision]

I want to make perfectly clear that I would never to what you want to do myself--I don't like the idea of it. I'm not sure if I would call it bush league--but it's certainly something towards bush league. The not playing a kicker or defense thing doesn't really bother me as much mainly because of my recent experience playing fantasy baseball for the first time. In fantasy baseball--generally websites grant players positional eligibility based on what position they had played the previous season. Many times you will see relief pitchers changing their roles to starting pitchers from one season to another---but fantasy leagues still give them relief pitcher eligibility. Of course having a "starting pitcher" in a "relief pitcher" roster spot can really inflate stats--more wins, more strikeouts, more innings pitched, more quality starts..etc--and this has really intrigued me. I thought it was completely dumb--and borderline unfair--that fantasy owners were knowingly using these players as they went against the "spirit" of what a relief pitching roster spot was designed to be---so I started a thread asking more veteran fantasy baseball players about their opinions on this. Apparently it is something that nobody really had a problem with--- it just "is what it is". In dynasty leagues--the concept that one sacrifices one season to invest in their future is not bush league. However--- I do have a problem with you not rostering veteran guys of decent value and in essence "player dumping" as this completely could skew the competitiveness of the rest of the league who are still trying to win this year. I don't like the not starting a kicker or defense--but would probably tolerate it-and I'm very opposed to you dumping veteran players--and wouldn't tolerate this.

K/DST thing is definitely bush league and I'd accept any unkind words in my direction for even considering it.

But player dumping is fine in this scenario.

Only players I would dump are, to this point, MJD and Bowe. To this point, MJD has been completely worthless and Bowe has been nearly that. Nobody else on the roster is expensive or over 27, so it's unlikely I dump them. Bowe is a waiver caliber player, and MJD would be, except that he's a starting RB. It would take a few more weeks of complete worthlessness from both for this to happen, at which point it really won't be player dumping.

I wouldn't have a problem with dropping an actually good player that's too expensive to keep, though I wouldn't do it because that would mean somebody in my league could keep him for $6.

It's bad for me, but (I know this might sound surprising), I wouldn't want to screw up the long-term balance of the league for others in thsi manner.

 

[McGarnicle]

Now let's say it's week 10, you're 9-0 and the next best team is 6-3. You're blowing everyone out every week and have the first round bye sewn up already. You have the Chiefs defense which has been kicking ### all year and now they're on a bye. Your team is loaded with players doing really well and you don't want to drop any of them for a 1-week defense. You're playing the 6-3 team who is battling for the first round bye as well. You feel you're about 50/50 to win even without a defense. Bush league to start no defense in that scenario? Would a 5-4 team be justified in complaining to the commish?

 

[Phenix]

I had a spot clinched a few years back in week 13, Andre Johnson got hurt at about 3:30p with his Hammy issues. I decided to drop my starting D and roll no D and pick up Santana Moss for my playoff run as I was uncertain about how long AJ would be out. I ended up losing which gave me a better matchup according to everyone. I ended up winning the SB title so they say I threw week 13 to get a better spot and matchup. Whatever my job is to win a title within the rules, I did as there was no rule for it. Now, you bet your ### there is a rule. lol

Cash still spent the same even though everyone says I cheated. It was a redraft so no future draft picks were at stake.

 

[VaTerp]

I'm in the minority here but as long as there is no rule against it and you are acting in what you think is the best interest of your team I have ZERO problem with it. And I'd add that as a commish I think its a completely unnecessary rule as long as you have competent owners.

All of the talk about competitive balance is completely misguided IMO.

 

[socrates]

I always save a few fantasy bucks in my dynasty league to make a final bid or two for speculative adds at the end of the season, and I like that idea, but proceeding without a kicker or defense violates the competitive spirit of the game. At some point, you may not be playing for anything this season, but other teams are.

I have been tempted to leave a bye week player in, rather than make a move for a throw-away player, or to leave an injured player in where I had no other option, and roster spots are limited, so I do understand the dilemma, but to the extent you are able to plan and remedy it, I do not like the idea of taking a zero at any spot.

 

[pollardsvision]

Now let's say it's week 10, you're 9-0 and the next best team is 6-3. You're blowing everyone out every week and have the first round bye sewn up already. You have the Chiefs defense which has been kicking ### all year and now they're on a bye. Your team is loaded with players doing really well and you don't want to drop any of them for a 1-week defense. You're playing the 6-3 team who is battling for the first round bye as well. You feel you're about 50/50 to win even without a defense. Bush league to start no defense in that scenario? Would a 5-4 team be justified in complaining to the commish?

Would come back to the same rule I guess.

I'd have a problem with that (I do think it's better to do this for most of the season than just for one match-up, if it's allowed).

Regarding the OP situation, not going to happen. League's generally opposed, and I'm not going to fight to do something that obviously feels bush league. I'd probably be opposed if someone else had tried, but then I've never been in a situation where it'd be in my best interest to do this. We'll have an official ruling now, in case something similar comes up.

 

[Quibbler]

Totally bush league, IMO--goes against the spirit of the league. Yes, the current rules structure effectively encourages you to tank the rest of the season. But, taken to its logical conclusion, this sort of play would lead to all the teams out of the playoffs to start jettisoning players for speculative FAs.

Personally, I'd bring this up with the league and suggest a rule change for next year (or this year, if everyone agrees). Good fantasy karma and all that.

My suggestion would be that every week you have to have a valid starting lineup in terms of position, but not in terms of not having any players on bye. That way, as in McGarnicle's example above, you can keep your DST over a bye without a backup, if you think that's best, but you can't just drop your DST and use that roster spot on another position.

You could even insist that teams always have a valid lineup throughout the week (i.e. you can't drop your kicker on Tuesday, then pick one up on Saturday). I personally don't like that rule, since I find that Yahoo league software makes multiple waiver claims a pain in the ###, so it's really useful to be able to drop your kicker in your secondary waiver claim. But if you have better league software, then that shouldn't be a problem.

 

[pollardsvision]

[Totally bush league, IMO--goes against the spirit of the league. Yes, the current rules structure effectively encourages you to tank the rest of the season. But, taken to its logical conclusion, this sort of play would lead to all the teams out of the playoffs to start jettisoning players for speculative FAs.

Personally, I'd bring this up with the league and suggest a rule change for next year (or this year, if everyone agrees). Good fantasy karma and all that.

My suggestion would be that every week you have to have a valid starting lineup in terms of position, but not in terms of not having any players on bye. That way, as in McGarnicle's example above, you can keep your DST over a bye without a backup, if you think that's best, but you can't just drop your DST and use that roster spot on another position.

You could even insist that teams always have a valid lineup throughout the week (i.e. you can't drop your kicker on Tuesday, then pick one up on Saturday). I personally don't like that rule, since I find that Yahoo league software makes multiple waiver claims a pain in the ###, so it's really useful to be able to drop your kicker in your secondary waiver claim. But if you have better league software, then that shouldn't be a problem.

Disagree with the bolded.

For the first, in an active league, teams should be allowed to drop whoever they want in the best interests of their teams. I wouldn't do it with a really good player (very subjective term, of course), but it should be allowed.

In the second, that's a distinction without a difference from the original premise. If you have to start a K/def every week, then you shouldn't be able start one on a bye (and the language of the rule should state that). You either have to make an attempt to field a full lineup, or you don't, imo.

 

[hagmania]

You're up by 2 points with no one left to play on either team but one of your RBs. Bush league to sit your RB in fear of a first snap fumble and game-ending injury, or something similarly freakish?

 

[Rubi]

It's pretty simple: if the rules allow it, do it. Otherwise don't

Good point. Most leagues will be very specific about a starting lineup,mine are. You MUST start 1 Kicker and 1 Defense.

But if it's not in your rules you can manage your team as you wish.

Next year I'm sure there will be a rule addressing it.

 

[Joe Summer]

I used to play in a league where the Commissioner insisted on penalizing kickers for missed or blocked field goals, including -5 for missed attempts over 50 yards (how dumb is that??) If you didn't own one of the top kickers, you stood a good chance of scoring negative points that week.

So, I started acquiring kickers who had BYE weeks. And I would routinely outscore a few guys every week. The Commissioner grumbled but it was within the rules so he couldn't do anything.

Then more guys started acquiring BYE week kickers, until there were no BYE week kickers left to get. So I just dropped my kicker altogether.

Again, the Commish grumbled about the "spirit of the rules" but he had no choice but to let me do it.

The next year he finally relented and stopped penalizing kickers for misses. I'm not in that league anymore.

/coolstorybro

 

[McGarnicle]

You're up by 2 points with no one left to play on either team but one of your RBs. Bush league to sit your RB in fear of a first snap fumble and game-ending injury, or something similarly freakish?

Very tempting if it's a playoff or championship game. Then the NFL sends out a stat correction later in the week, causing you to lose by a point, and you go out to the garage and hang yourself.

 

[pollardsvision]

You're up by 2 points with no one left to play on either team but one of your RBs. Bush league to sit your RB in fear of a first snap fumble and game-ending injury, or something similarly freakish?

Very tempting if it's a playoff or championship game. Then the NFL sends out a stat correction later in the week, causing you to lose by a point, and you go out to the garage and hang yourself.

Yeah, I'd have no problem with that (if the rules allowed), but I would be worried about a stat correction to even try. If it was out of the margin for a stat correction, then you'd be out of any likely negative game danger (well, unless it's David Wilson).

 

[Hoss Style]

I try to stay away from leagues that don't have a rule stating that every owner must field a full starting lineup each week. It doesn't solve every problem, but it helps.

I wouldn't do it in your situation. If you are dead set on it, then chat with your Commish about it. See what he thinks.

 

[pollardsvision]

I try to stay away from leagues that don't have a rule stating that every owner must field a full starting lineup each week. It doesn't solve every problem, but it helps.

I wouldn't do it in your situation. If you are dead set on it, then chat with your Commish about it. See what he thinks.

He's not up for that, and neither is the rest of the league.

I'll just try to forget I considered such a ####head thing to do.

 

[yellowdog]

Imagine you were playing in week 13 for a playoff spot and needed team A to beat team B. Team A doesn't field a kicker and loses by 2 points. What would you think of team A?

 

[Doubtingthomas]

If I were commissioner and someone did this I would kick them out of the league. As a member of the league I would want you kicked out or I would leave. Don't be rules lawyer ##### over some fantasy football league.

 

[Leonidas]

Meh, bush league, violates the spirit of the rules, etc. I wouldn't do it, and if I was a commissioner I don't think I'd allow it.

I was actually just thinking of this situation on my commute this morning - in my office guppy league I have a stacked team, but at TE I only have Cameron and Gronk who are both on bye in week 10. I was considering what to do if I got to that point and didn't want to drop anyone for whatever WW TE was available for that one week, and considered just taking a 0 at TE, and then it occurred to me to just drop my K for a TE and take a 0 at K that week instead, and even that felt bush league to me. I certainly wouldn't roll with no K or D all season long.

I'd rather start a kicker than a WW TE.

As for the OP's situation, I would not consider that a competitive effort. Willfully giving up on winning for the majority of a season is basically what is being suggested here. That's not a competitive effort IMO.

 

[Joe Summer]

Imagine you were playing in week 13 for a playoff spot and needed team A to beat team B. Team A doesn't field a kicker and loses by 2 points. What would you think of team A?

If I was Team B I'd be pretty stoked.

 

[Don Quixote]

I think it's a pretty weak move to go the rest of the season like that.

 

[Casting Couch]

You should be required to roster at least one player per position. If this is not the case then you should lobby to get the rule adopted.

 

[ebsteelers]

I could understand doing this in short bench leagues... i think

im starting to see why people would do that.. 4-5 bench spots..

in week 9 i have manning prater and broncos defense.

i already have a back up qb which is fine.

but i have guys like harvin and vereen on the bench.

and dont want to drop either of them for some back up defense or drop prater for some kicker who might get me 7 or 8 points.

idk will probably find a way to drop some guys but still stinks

 

[ebsteelers]

is playing with no kicker any different then some guy forget to set his lineup or a late scratch?

 

[pollardsvision]

I could understand doing this in short bench leagues... i think

im starting to see why people would do that.. 4-5 bench spots..

in week 9 i have manning prater and broncos defense.

i already have a back up qb which is fine.

but i have guys like harvin and vereen on the bench.

and dont want to drop either of them for some back up defense or drop prater for some kicker who might get me 7 or 8 points.

idk will probably find a way to drop some guys but still stinks

I could understand doing this in short bench leagues... i think

im starting to see why people would do that.. 4-5 bench spots..

in week 9 i have manning prater and broncos defense.

i already have a back up qb which is fine.

but i have guys like harvin and vereen on the bench.

and dont want to drop either of them for some back up defense or drop prater for some kicker who might get me 7 or 8 points.

idk will probably find a way to drop some guys but still stinks

Yeah, other than the bush league nature of the move, that's really why I can see that it's a problem.

Roster limitations are just part of the game that everyone has to deal with, and probably should have to deal with whether winning this season is still a priority or not.

If someone else were to do it, that's the part that would upset me more than screwing with the playoff push. They'd be getting rewarded with 2 extra roster spots as a "reward" for stinking (which to me, is a big deal).

 

[pollardsvision]

is playing with no kicker any different then some guy forget to set his lineup or a late scratch?

Different without a distinction, I guess. Doing it on purpose and not even spending a roster a spot on a kicker is probably more unseemly.

In this league, it has happened on occasion that a team accidentally got froze out of a K or def (auctions at noon and no other add/drops, so it's possible to miss on a def if you only bid on one) and the opponent has allowed them to have a K or def added in every case.

 

[ebsteelers]

But theres always guys who will punt a whole week and just draft week 4 or week 5 guys.

Is that any fairer?

Week 12

your line up could look something like this

QB: Vick

RB: Lynch

RB: GIO

WR: AJ

WR: Desean

Flex: Fred Jackson

TE: Celek

K: Henery

D: Bengals

sure you can throw some back ups in there but its still punting a week.

Everyone saying its bush league.. But its also strategic move

 

[pollardsvision]

But theres always guys who will punt a whole week and just draft week 4 or week 5 guys.

Is that any fairer?

Week 12

your line up could look something like this

QB: Vick

RB: Lynch

RB: GIO

WR: AJ

WR: Desean

Flex: Fred Jackson

TE: Celek

K: Henery

D: Bengals

sure you can throw some back ups in there but its still punting a week.

Everyone saying its bush league.. But its also strategic move

Sure, and that's why leagues have to decide where they stand on the issue. Either you force teams to field a full, non-bye week roster each week or not.