Opinion Needed on Waiver Rule (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Know-It-All]

We have a waiver rule that allows 3 waiver moves per week.  We have a gentleman's agreement that every team should be able to fill an entire lineup each week.  So someone uses all 3 of their waivers on Thursday night waiver run and a guy gets listed as OUT and they have no backup on their bench, then they should be screwed as they should have used their waivers more wisely or held one back in reserve.  Well this week, the commish allowed a 4th waiver because a guy used 2 waivers to pick up RBS to cover bye week and another waiver to cover his kicker.  Then on Friday one of his 2 DBs got listed as OUT (and he had no waivers left).  To me that seems unfair in that others of us have managed our rosters to ensure bye week coverage, admittedly the latest injury was not foreseeable - but if the dude managed roster better he wouldn't have had to use 3 waivers to cover 3 guys on bye weeks - he should have planned ahead.

So now there is another guy in the league who has used his 3 waivers, but has open roster spots at DL and DB because he intentionally did not carry enough players to cover byes, but since this other move was allowed now he feels it is his right to field a full lineup as well.  So stupid.

Need unbiased opinions on how to respond.  I say draft and manage your waivers better, but maybe I am being too harsh?

 

[BigBlue_RI]

As a former commish, I would not have done this team a favor. We too have the 3 add/drops per week rule (which I am not a fan of). I think we still have this restriction because most owners like the challenge. While I always felt bad when dumb rules combined with awful idea of weekly TNF, hurts an owner, you need to manage your roster based on the rules.

 

[themeistersinger]

The gentlemen's agreement is the problem here - either the limit is enforced, or there should not be a limit.  Since the first guy was allowed a fourth move in one week, I think precedent has been set and now second guy gets fourth move (so only gets to add one player).  

As much as possible, the rules should be clearly stated and followed by everyone.  Commissioners should not be making exceptions for people, except in cases where somebody obviously hits the wrong button and drops the wrong guy.  If you tell me that happened right after you made the mistake, I will fix it for you, but if you wait a few hours or days then tough luck.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/750814-streaming-dst-cowboys-dolphins-ravens-whir/

 

[thatguy25]

While I do not like the rule, if it was an AGREED upon rule, then all owners should abide by it. The problem is now, one team was allowed to break the rule. Now the commish has no choice but to allow other to break the rule.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

While I do not like the rule, if it was an AGREED upon rule, then all owners should abide by it. The problem is now, one team was allowed to break the rule. Now the commish has no choice but to allow other to break the rule.

Yes, this is what I think as well.  What sucks is last week I was in a similar situation, but traded a RB to get a DB to cover an open roster spot.  I gave up value to not roster a 0.  This guy now gets to dump a nobody to avoid a 0.  The difference is I abided by the rule and now my opponent is getting a free pass.  Lesson learned.  I will just load up on best available and if I swind up with a bye week issue - just point to the precedent.  Definitely a rule we need to clarify next year.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

ETA - so I started Maclin who reinjured his groin early with no targets and no receptions.  Sent an e-mail to the league asking since I had no way to foresee this injury if I could replace Maclin.  Surprisingly the answer was no.

 

[Gally]

ETA - so I started Maclin who reinjured his groin early with no targets and no receptions.  Sent an e-mail to the league asking since I had no way to foresee this injury if I could replace Maclin.  Surprisingly the answer was no.

Totally different situation but understand the frustration....hahaha

As a commish I would have not allowed the transaction in the first place but if I even thought about allowing it I would have put it to a league vote first.  If no other owners had any issue then I may have allowed it.  The second guy should definitely be allowed to get the further transaction because he is in an identical position as the first team so he should get the same allowance. 

Moving forward for this year everyone should get this allowance.  It sucks for the teams like you that didn't think it would be allowed so you made other arrangements (that is where the real complaint should come from).  In the off season the rule should be voted on and then abided by after that.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Ironic that the player he was allowed to pick up scored 6 points.  I lost by 5 points.  No "good deed" goes unpunished.

 

[DirtyCashDylan]

Gentleman's agreement, Schmentleman's agreement. If it's a rule then make it a rule. 

see mine