Peterson dropped in my league...As a commisioner is this the fairest w (1 Viewer)

[Soaring Eagle]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

 

[FUBAR]

Priority waiver.

Might suck for the other owners but don't change rules mid season

 

[nastynate]

"Fantasy" -- as in, has nothing to do with real life.

Tough spot though with a top 5 pick being available on waivers. I would have tried to talk the owner into seeking a trade prior to the release. If he was willing to release and told the league what was going on, he would have received at least a few fair-ish offers that wouldn't have shifted the balance drastically.

 

[VaTerp]

My thoughts are that is a substantial overreach of commissioner powers and I personally would not play in a league where this happens.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

Let team manage how they see fit.

Wouldn't change league rules mid-season.

 

[Johnny Blood]

I would throw a revolt and have you removed as commissioner if you don't retract this ridiculous midseason rule change.

 

[tangfoot]

If you're "forced" to do something, put him back on the roster and make it an open-bid trade for the entire league.

 

[Hankmoody]

My thoughts are that is a substantial overreach of commissioner powers and I personally would not play in a league where this happens.

This. I would walk away the instant you did it. Just believing it's the right thing to do, without discussing with the league in general, creates enough doubt in your ability to make good decisions.

Also, blind-bid waivers solves this rather than arbitrary waivers.

 

[SengerCJ]

In a case like this, I think I would force add Peterson back onto his roster and tell the rest of the league they have to make a trade offer today if they want him. The best offer wins, I think this is far more fair than the top waiver priority getting him.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I would have you arrested.

 

[Chaka]

My thoughts are that is a substantial overreach of commissioner powers and I personally would not play in a league where this happens.

I tend to agree. Gotta let it play out.

 

[nastynate]

Yep -- a trade is the answer. Obviously the whole league knows what's going on so put the word out, put the AD back on his roster and make him choose the best offer tomorrow afternoon.

Easy answer here.

 

[steveski]

Good thing he dropped AP. I'm sure he was going straight to hell for having him on his fantasy football roster.

 

[Johnny Blood]

Yep -- a trade is the answer. Obviously the whole league knows what's going on so put the word out, put the AD back on his roster and make him choose the best offer tomorrow afternoon.

Easy answer here.

I'd say it's obvious the league has huge disagreements about AP's future, just like this message board does, so the commissioner should take off his imaginary fairness police hat and play within the pre-existing rules.

 

[VaTerp]

Yep -- a trade is the answer. Obviously the whole league knows what's going on so put the word out, put the AD back on his roster and make him choose the best offer tomorrow afternoon.

Easy answer here.

Why are we forcing a trade. If the owner wants to drop someone then he should be able to do so as long as he's not doing solely to tank his team.

Somebody else is going to benefit from it but that's the way the cookie crumbles. The NFL and FF are unpredictable. Just b/c Peterson has a lot of value when he plays doesn't mean that there should be special rules applied when an owner decides to drop him for a legitimate reason.

 

[Godsbrother]

Yep -- a trade is the answer. Obviously the whole league knows what's going on so put the word out, put the AD back on his roster and make him choose the best offer tomorrow afternoon.

Easy answer here.

Why are we forcing a trade. If the owner wants to drop someone then he should be able to do so as long as he's not doing solely to tank his team.

Somebody else is going to benefit from it but that's the way the cookie crumbles. The NFL and FF are unpredictable. Just b/c Peterson has a lot of value when he plays doesn't mean that there should be special rules applied when an owner decides to drop him for a legitimate reason.

Not only that but the way the NFL is today there is a good chance Peterson could get suspended, possibly for an indefinite period of time. Forcing a trade could screw another team if that happens.

It sucks but I think you have to let this go.

 

[belljr]

I'm glad I play in a league where none of us have morals ...

 

[blake]

My thoughts are that is a substantial overreach of commissioner powers and I personally would not play in a league where this happens.

This. I would walk away the instant you did it. Just believing it's the right thing to do, without discussing with the league in general, creates enough doubt in your ability to make good decisions.

Also, blind-bid waivers solves this rather than arbitrary waivers.

I would hope owners would walk away from this league if this happened. A terrible idea, and this should be a lesson learned to go with blind bid waivers and not a waiver order. This is a difficult position to be in, and not enjoyable, but sometimes that has to happen to better the league for the long term. The commissioner being heavy handed and forcing a trade or "inactive" status is one of the worst decisions possible.

 

[Johnny Blood]

How is this clearly an argument against traditional waivers? I'd be HOPING someone above me on the waiver list wastes their claim on AP.

This commissioner thinks AP still has large value and is using his own subjective player evaluations to make up rules on the fly.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Just gave Torrey Smith for him in a non-PPR dynasty.

 

[McGarnicle]

The trade option seems most fair I guess. But also the owner who dropped him should know this kind of crap will not be tolerated in the future. It's a game of predicting statistics, nothing more. Maybe it's not the best hobby for this guy.

 

[massraider]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

The fairest thing to do is play your league under your rules.

What you are saying to the guy with the #1 waiver priority is that we are going to break the rules to hurt YOUR team, but this is fairest to everyone else, in MY opinion.

Return his entry fee, and pray he finds a league that follows the rules they claim they have.

 

[MattFancy]

Can't change the rules midseason.

 

[Apple Jack]

How is changing the rules the fairest thing to do? No way commish should get involved here. Agree that if top waiver guy wanted him he should get his money back if he wants out.

 

[SengerCJ]

How do you even make a player inactive? I've never seen the ability to do this in espn

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

Huge mistake, that's not for you to decide. Even worse you're probably not the one who would have benefited so you are going to look like you are manipulating the rules as commish.

 

[McGarnicle]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

 

[proninja]

Commissioner must think that the team with the #1 waiver priority is a threat.

 

[blake]

How is this clearly an argument against traditional waivers? I'd be HOPING someone above me on the waiver list wastes their claim on AP.

This commissioner thinks AP still has large value and is using his own subjective player evaluations to make up rules on the fly.

That is your opinion. Obviously, from this thread, there are many who feel differently and feel Peterson has value. Changing the rules midstream in the league is a terrible precedent. Not only that, but it completely pulls the rug out from anyone in the waiver order that was looking forward to the opportunity to acquire Peterson.

My argument for blind bid waivers, is this commissioner's heavy hand would be unnecessary. Blind bid waivers are essential because it gives everyone an equal chance to acquire a player like Peterson, provided they have the money. With "traditional" waivers, the person with the #1 waiver spot is in the driver's seat, so every team does not have an equal chance. Then, it fosters situations like this where commissioners who shouldn't be in charge of a league try to change things even there are rules in place.

Maybe my opinion is wrong here. It just seems that this commissioner needs all the help he can get, and still, even with that, he might screw it up. But inserting himself is wrong and I would think blind bid waivers would be equal to a trade in terms of fairness for the league. Just a thought there.

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

The fairest thing to do is play your league under your rules.

What you are saying to the guy with the #1 waiver priority is that we are going to break the rules to hurt YOUR team, but this is fairest to everyone else, in MY opinion.

Return his entry fee, and pray he finds a league that follows the rules they claim they have.

Exactly. There are rules for a reason. You don't change the goal posts all of a sudden. I love the final comment. And it couldn't be more accurate. A shame to have to find a real league, but it is nice to finally know the true colors of a commissioner and league.

 

[MattFancy]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

Pretty sure a bunch of sites removed Peterson from the Can't Cut List after last week.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The team who owns Peterson has dropped him feeling that can't morally own him with what he has done

While I am fine if an owner wants to drop him and not have him on his team, I do not feel it is fair to the rest of the league to have one team be able to gain an advantage by picking him up

I decided to make Peterson "inactive" for the season were no team would be able to pick him up and use him

Any other people facing similar situation in their leagues???

What are other's thoughts?

You should step down as commissioner. You don't get to decide what is "fair" in cases where you have clearly established rules.

 

[GROOT]

It's not illegal, and collusion isn't involved. Legal.

 

[VaTerp]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

Wow! So the commish should lie to the league?

 

[Shawn]

I'm glad I play in a league where none of us have morals ...

my league has morals, but we also have brains and know we dont really "own" the players on our teams in real life too.

 

[Gr00vus]

Similar thing is happening in our league (which I'm commissioner of). The drop won't be official until tomorrow, meaning he won't be available for pick up until the next FA bidding period. So I'm taking the opportunity to let the league vote on it - let normal waivers handle it, or remove him from the player pool after being dropped are the options. I think that's the fairest solution, I didn't feel comfortable making a unilateral decision in this case.

 

[joffer]

this is why you do bling bidding waivers

 

[Hankmoody]

How is this clearly an argument against traditional waivers? I'd be HOPING someone above me on the waiver list wastes their claim on AP.

This commissioner thinks AP still has large value and is using his own subjective player evaluations to make up rules on the fly.

They can still waste the resource. They are just wasting BB money instead, while avoiding the whole "omg, just because he scored 3 less points than me he has WW priority for a top 5 RB waa waa waa".

 

[MikeApf]

I know you are trying to be fair, but it's actually not fair to allow one owner (the peterson owner) to essentially force a rule change in the middle of the year.

I believe that in the offseason, if you guys want, you can vote in a new rule to handle such situations, perhaps that if 3/4 of the owner's agree, a player may be made inactive due to extreme character issues (though I would NOT like that rule, as there is TONS of grey area in there...where would you start or stop).

For the present, no current rule was broken, so you have to go with the rules you have.

 

[blake]

You should step down as commissioner. You don't get to decide what is "fair" in cases where you have clearly established rules.

+1

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

Wow! So the commish should lie to the league?

Wow is right. An earnest response to lie to the league is noted for my personal reference on this forum.

 

[Sudoku_in_the_Bathtub]

Edit waiver priority to give you #1 & then let everyone you don't feel comfortable deactivating Peterson from league.

Then you get what you want.

 

[Soaring Eagle]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

 

[Unlucky]

A few points:

1. Peterson should not be made available on league waivers. He still has too much value given that he's currently playing and not suspended. If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

2. Leagues should have a can't cut list, but sometimes the software is not user-friendly for handling it and it's not automatic. In that case, the commissioner needs to use his judgement to prevent cuts that shouldn't happen.

3. A good commissioner adjusts to crazy scenarios like this one when the rules may not exist. That's the role - someone that runs the league in the best interest of fairness for the entire league. Why throw this guy out as commissioner? Allowing owners to cut top players like Peterson and have them go to waivers is NOT in the best interest of fairness for a fantasy league.

I would rule that the owner can't cut Peterson right now since he's currently not suspended and currently a top RB. He can trade him and I'm sure someone in the league will offer up something of value.

 

[nastynate]

Yep -- a trade is the answer. Obviously the whole league knows what's going on so put the word out, put the AD back on his roster and make him choose the best offer tomorrow afternoon.

Easy answer here.

I'd say it's obvious the league has huge disagreements about AP's future, just like this message board does, so the commissioner should take off his imaginary fairness police hat and play within the pre-existing rules.

I don't think it's too much to suggest the guy consider a trade if he doesn't want him. If the owner insists on dropping him for nada, then sure, let him and let the waiver game commence. But, I'm guessing the owner would easily put him on the block and tell the whole league, which would set off a firestorm of offers, a few likely reasonable.

That doesn't seem like it's outside the rules in any way.

 

[massraider]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

Would have been less posts, but you didn't specify that you only wanted people that agreed with you to post.

 

[VaTerp]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

B.S.

An owner dumping his roster b/c he's a sore loser is a clear violation of written rules, at least it is in my leagues including the one I commish.

This is an owner doing what he feels is right for his team that he paid money to manage. Completely different. Just b/c it's a unique situation doesn't give the commish the power to unilaterally impose rules mid-season. That is a recipe for disaster.

 

[utche96]

I would let it go through the waiver process but the owner who dropped AD should be out of the league next year. That type of owner is bad for a league.

 

[sdp1226]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

B.S.

An owner dumping his roster b/c he's a sore loser is a clear violation of written rules, at least it is in my leagues including the one I commish.

This is an owner doing what he feels is right for his team that he paid money to manage. Completely different. Just b/c it's a unique situation doesn't give the commish the power to unilaterally impose rules mid-season. That is a recipe for disaster.

Not exaclty. The owner is acting based on his own moral dilemmas. This has nothing to do with him making competative roster decision. He's definitely not thinking about how this will impact the 11 other guys who are trying to compete.

 

[jomar]

Can't change the rules midseason.

as far as scoring, lineups, etc. go, I'd agree with this sentiment. but to say that you can never change a rule, or make a new one, during a season is ludicrous, IMO.

as an example, Josh Gordon was suspended for the year. the NFL then changed the rules midseason and he is no longer suspended. while all of this was up in the air, the commissioner made a rule that we couldn't add any player who was suspended for the year. he later decided to just keep Gordon ineligible all year as we didn't want our league decided by the timing of whenever the NFL decided to no longer keep him suspended for the year. rare occurrences like this call for decisions to be made and that's what a commish is for. if people don't trust their commish to make fair decisions, then they should get a new commish.

extreme situations like this call for a rules determination now, not next year. commish makes a call and the rule is on the books for future similar situations.

 

[GregR]

I agree in principle with not changing rules during the season, but there are unique situations that arise that can ruin the competitive balance of the league. I'm curious to know if this league has a can't cut list and why AP wasn't on it. You could treat it as a website error if people complain.

An owner can't dump his roster in week 12 because he's a sore loser, and this is a similar situation to me. Definitely tighten up the rules for next season but I wouldn't just sit there and do nothing in this case.

this is how i felt...only took 30 posts for someone to come out and say this...it is myfantasyleague league so no can't cut lists, $250 entry fee...it is a FAAB...still this is the way i felt

B.S.

An owner dumping his roster b/c he's a sore loser is a clear violation of written rules, at least it is in my leagues including the one I commish.

This is an owner doing what he feels is right for his team that he paid money to manage. Completely different. Just b/c it's a unique situation doesn't give the commish the power to unilaterally impose rules mid-season. That is a recipe for disaster.

I think there's plenty of room for the argument that in this case, he didn't run his team based on trying to make them competitive. If we have to come down to it is the measure that should be used whether it's someone dropping his entire roster to be a #### or a case like this.

I think asking the owner to trade the player rather than drop them is the best solution. If he says no, I don't think it would be wrong to then require that he trade him. But it should get input from the league first before it gets that far. Asking first is best. Make him realize his action is going to cause strife within your league, which is party to just further increasing the amount of harm done by Peterson's actions, in this case to a bunch of other owners who don't deserve to have that happen to their league.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

A few points: If your league allows owners to manage as they see fit, what do you do when a disgruntled owner drops his entire team? Do you really allow that?

This has been brought up twice now, but its really no analogous. That guy isn't "managing his team as he sees fit", he's purposely trying to disrupt the league and not acting in his teams best interest. That's where a commissioner HAS to step in - situations that are outside of the rules.