Owner sat Monday Nighters for #1 waiver pick (1 Viewer)

[JPeso]

I'm up in the air on this one. In dynasty, most certainly would warn and then boot the next time around, due to rookie draft pick implications.

I'm almost thinking if he wants to sabotage a week like this then that's his choice unless a rule is in place. I don't think you can disallow this week, whatever you do. The commish should put it up for league vote as to how to handle partial lineups in the future. It shouldn't be a rule simply about trying to obtain a wire claim, but instead a blanket partial lineup rule I'd think.

 

[bergs101]

We reward owners to get every point the can by putting a significant amount of $$$ up for grabs for the combined points leader. This could prevent this type of action but who knows (maybe the owner would've still done the same thinking that the risk outweighs the reward?).

 

[nb009]

If a team fails to have a player in every slot of the starting lineup in my league, he's out for the next season unless the league unanimously votes to let him stay in during the next offseason. You can play somebody who's not active that week, or somebody on a bye, but if you don't have someone in the slot, you're done. Unless you're, you know, in a coma or something after waivers go through.

What about someone leading by one point going into MNF whose opponent is done benching the CIN DEF in order to avoid a possible negative score and tie/loss?

Personally, I think that is equally as lame. I've been in that situtaion, started my Def, but have never been burned by a negative score...with that said, a proper league should have a rule in place to prevent things like this, and if it does not, it is on you for not recognizing this when you joined.

I'm the commissioner of the league and I allowed the move. As it turned out, CIN scored a -1 so a win would have becomhe a tie for the owner that benched the CIN defense. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

I completely agree that this move should be allowed. If someone accidentally had an inactive player in their roster and asked to switch them out after the fact, their request would be vehemently denied. What if someone's stud defense was on a Bye and they didn't want to have to drop them (or any other player) to pick a replacement D? Would they be forced to do so?Who cares if he had an extra advantage because it was a Monday game? What difference does it make? If someone was down by 1 point and had one more spot left (and two players to choose from), shouldn't they be allowed to switch out the boom-or-bust guy for the consistent-but low ceiling guy to ensure the win?As far as the OP, I think that's a bit shadier, but also good strategy. I would probably be pissed if I was the #2 guy, but if there was no rule against it (it's not like he tanked the game, he just shaved points), then it should stand.

 

[Henry Ford]

What an arbitrary and asinine rule. If u can start an inactive player what's the difference? And the penalty for not starting a player on bye/inactive, expulsion? Wtf

The difference is that during the first few weeks of the season when people are scrambling to find the "next big thing" on waivers, no one does what this thread is about. Plus, my league regularly has a lot of negative-point players, especially on defense. And, we have people in the league who travel out of the country. If their lineups get screwed up by an injury or a bye week when they have to run out of town at a moment's notice(especially a natural-disaster-caused bye week, for instance) I'm not going to take any action adverse to them. Similarly, if they send me an email saying "Put Ryan Matthews in for me next week during the bye" and then Matthews gets hurt, I'm not penalizing them for failing to contact me in the middle of negotiating a business deal in China. If they field a lineup and then remove someone from that slot, they're not welcome in the league unless there's a good excuse.I should mention that Bye week players lock for starting, though not for add-drops, at the start of the first game in my league. Can't put in a Bye week player after the first game of the week. So that's not an issue either.No one has ever been expelled for this rule, though it's come into play twice. Both times the league said, collectively, "He has a good excuse. No big deal." I can virtually guarantee that if someone had done what the original poster described in this thread, that person would not be coming back to my league.

 

[Joe Summer]

Your league sucks. I didn't even read the thread but I know for a fact that your league sucks.

 

[scools12]

No rule against not much can be done. However, no team should ever be allowed to leave a line-up spot vacant in a free league or a money league.

I understand it is a strategy in this case but it really is an unfair practice for the rest of league that in the end could effect teams making the play-offs or play-off seeding.

 

[Ranethe]

people doing this garbage should get 1 warning and be booted from the league

this.

this.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I don't get the furor over moves like this. He wasn't going to win so "you play to win the game" seems like a knee-jerk response that's not even related to the issue. If anything, he's trying to win his remaining games by getting a better waiver pick.

It sounds like people wanted him to have a good showing Monday night, lose by less and hurt his team for week 2. What does that accomplish, exactly? How is that fair play, or ethical, or anything else? When NFL teams are getting blown out, they don't play their starters so they might lose by less. They bench the starters and play backups.

In the NFL's case, they're doing it for the "reward" of preventing injury and letting the backups get some work. The fantasy team's "reward" is a better waiver pick. Neither team is trying to make the final score look better or lose with more dignity. They're letting that week's games go and look toward what's left of the season.

I get that the consensus is that it's a bush league move. Can someone explain why, if the owner is trying to improve his team for the rest of the season?

If his best lineup would have scored more points than someone else's then he screwed that other owner out of priority. Obviously, reverse standings waivers are intended to help the worst teams get better. If he's sandbagging, he isn't the worst team. So even if he would have lost, he's still violating the spirit of the rule. He's basically the fantasy football equivalent of someone who gets paid cash under the table so they can remain eligible for food stamps.

That said, standings waivers are flawed in that a team in a hole will be better even as their standings ranking may still lag behind. So I am a big fan of blind bid waivers. Standings waivers don't necessarily work as intended even when everyone does what they should and they are certainly susceptible to unethical manipulation to boot.

As for what should be done? If there isn't a rule against it, I don't think you should punish the guy. Whether as a league you want to vote on a new rule and re-set his lineup and re-score his game to fix the priority, that's up to your league. Some things just have to be dealt with as they happen. Just make sure that everyone going forward knows how it is.

That just sounds a lot like "I didn't think of it, so nobody should do it." In that case, you're asking someone to intentionally hurt their team with zero upside. You want them to take a loss and not be able to improve. That's going through the motions even if it hurts your team. Doesn't sound like a great owner to me.

If he tanked to lose a game and affect the standings, that's shady. But he gets a loss either way. If other teams were "worse," blame the schedule. Maybe they didn't have MNF games this week. It's not shady or unethical to take advantage of a schedule quirk that game him two MNF games, a hopeless situation and a shot at a better waiver priority. Everything aligned and the owner took advantage. At least you know the guy wants to get better and isn't on auto pilot.

 

[renesauz]

Every league I'm in has a rule against sandbagging and a requirement to submit a complete lineup whenever possible.

I wouldn't remain a part of a league that tolerated open sandbagging.

 

[tkrull]

Seems like a lot of uptight people in this thread...

 

[duaneok66]

Wah Wah. You play with stupid rules such as waivers when there are much better and fairer options available (FAAB) then you open yourself up to things like this, especially when you don't have rules to govern such situations. It's done. Move on. The guy gets Alfred ####### Morris, not Jim Brown.

this - like Alfred Morris will lead him to the promised land. Morris may well be WW fodder in a few weeks.

 

[VaTerp]

Wah Wah. You play with stupid rules such as waivers when there are much better and fairer options available (FAAB) then you open yourself up to things like this, especially when you don't have rules to govern such situations. It's done. Move on. The guy gets Alfred ####### Morris, not Jim Brown.

I find reverse standing waivers to be one of the worst rules of "standard" leagues. Just an AWFUL AWFUL system for many reasons. All of the and BS rhetoric about FF ethics is amusing to me.When you do waivers stupid stuff like this happens. Deal with it.

 

[Wrigley]

Wah Wah. You play with stupid rules such as waivers when there are much better and fairer options available (FAAB) then you open yourself up to things like this, especially when you don't have rules to govern such situations.

It's done. Move on. The guy gets Alfred ####### Morris, not Jim Brown.

I find reverse standing waivers to be one of the worst rules of "standard" leagues. Just an AWFUL AWFUL system for many reasons. All of the and BS rhetoric about FF ethics is amusing to me.

When you do waivers stupid stuff like this happens. Deal with it.

Do tell

 

[Power Monster]

You play the game to win.

You play to win Championships.Seems like he made his team better.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

Until some joker in the league pays him during the playoff hunt and starts his stiffs so said genius gets sent packing for the year. You play your best in FF or go play chinese checkers at the old folks home. Another reason why most FF leagues are flawed. It is all about the points. He/she that has the most points wins it all. This prevents owners from disrupting league synergy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

It may not be against the rules, but it goes against the spirit of competition and fair play and should not be allowed. I have played in leagues before that fined an owner for not starting a full lineup. That is the way to go to prevent such crap in the future.

 

[T Love]

A guy did this in my league which is why we shifted to blind bid. MUCH better system for waivers...