WAIVER SYSTEMS (1 Viewer)

[V1LL]

I've heard Lamney say if a league isn't A "BLIND BID" league, he wouldn't even consider joining it. I agree with him. It's the fairest way and it rewards the owners who really pay attention. It also adds yet another dimension in that you need to manage your money..Is Taiwan Jones worth most of your allotted FA money after Mcfadden limps off week one or do you wait to spend your money toward the end of the season?

Just wondering what the consensus is here...

VILL

 

[gandalas]

Blind Bid/Worst to first. I like both fairly equally, as Blind Bidding is definitely the fairest, but Worst to First helps the teams at the bottom get more competitive in a hurry, which is also important for long-term dynasty stability.

 

[rct]

In Dynasty leagues, worst-to-first is the best way to go IMO. The reason for that is if you are taking over or have a bad team there are only two ways to rebuild that do not involve skill: the rookie draft and free agency. If you make free agency blind bid you are turning it into another skill contest (good for the best teams who always seem to win the best players in blind bidding, but bad for the owners who are not as savvy and trying to rebuild).

I have taken over horrible orphan teams in Dynasty leagues and with worst-to-first have been able to make the playoffs within two years - if blind bid leagues it has taken me about 3-4 years, unless I was able to outthink 11 other owners in the blind bid process.

 

[V1LL]

In Dynasty leagues, worst-to-first is the best way to go IMO. The reason for that is if you are taking over or have a bad team there are only two ways to rebuild that do not involve skill: the rookie draft and free agency. If you make free agency blind bid you are turning it into another skill contest (good for the best teams who always seem to win the best players in blind bidding, but bad for the owners who are not as savvy and trying to rebuild).I have taken over horrible orphan teams in Dynasty leagues and with worst-to-first have been able to make the playoffs within two years - if blind bid leagues it has taken me about 3-4 years, unless I was able to outthink 11 other owners in the blind bid process.

Why make it "easier" for bad/lazy teams? Aren't the best leagues those that are most competitive with the most active and knowledgeable owners?

 

[rct]

In Dynasty leagues, worst-to-first is the best way to go IMO. The reason for that is if you are taking over or have a bad team there are only two ways to rebuild that do not involve skill: the rookie draft and free agency. If you make free agency blind bid you are turning it into another skill contest (good for the best teams who always seem to win the best players in blind bidding, but bad for the owners who are not as savvy and trying to rebuild).I have taken over horrible orphan teams in Dynasty leagues and with worst-to-first have been able to make the playoffs within two years - if blind bid leagues it has taken me about 3-4 years, unless I was able to outthink 11 other owners in the blind bid process.

Why make it "easier" for bad/lazy teams? Aren't the best leagues those that are most competitive with the most active and knowledgeable owners?

To make it more fair for everyone - if you don't like that fine, then play in blind bid leagues. I have seen Dynasty leagues fail because of a blind bidding system, bad teams couldn't be replaced because it would take too long to rebuild versus worst-to-first. I would prefer to play in a league that it is easier to replace the owners of bad teams, rather than a league of sharks that only lasts 3-4 years because the poor teams couldn't be replaced. It depends what you want and what you are looking for. It is a matter of personal prefernece - I prefer worst-to-first and that is just my opinion.

 

[DropKick]

You've left out the very common option of dropping to the bottom in waiver priority after you acquire a player. This is more fair than worst/first (all the time) or first come/first serve (some of us have lives). Blind bid seems to most appropriate in auction/salary cap structures.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Why make it "easier" for bad/lazy teams? Aren't the best leagues those that are most competitive with the most active and knowledgeable owners?

I would say it's not necessarily bad/lazy teams at the bottom, teams with bad luck and injuries get there in a hurry. if you have a league with dedicated owners, "helping" the lower end teams goes a long way in keeping the group together for years. for public leagues, i agree with you.

 

[chickensoup]

The problem with blind bid in dynasty has kind of been stated above but I'll add more.

It puts a ton of extra emphasis on not only winning the right guys (Cruz last year) but doing so with as little overage as possible. It's nearly impossible to tell if a guy is legit after one game but in dynasty you better believe he's gone off waivers by Wednesday night by someone if they blow up for a game. So you're left with a choice if you are the bottom guy. Make sure you outbid everyone else (ie overspend when your team is already a basement dweller and you need guys) or roll the dice with a lesser amount and possibly have that good player end up elsewhere (possibly a team that's already good) it's a lose lose. Redraft it's not a big deal but give the number 1 team Cruz last year and what happens?

 

[gandalas]

Like i said above, for long-term dynasty stability, worst-to-first is the only way to go. You need parity, otherwise you lose owners eventually.

 

[DropKick]

In Dynasty leagues, worst-to-first is the best way to go IMO. The reason for that is if you are taking over or have a bad team there are only two ways to rebuild that do not involve skill: the rookie draft and free agency. If you make free agency blind bid you are turning it into another skill contest (good for the best teams who always seem to win the best players in blind bidding, but bad for the owners who are not as savvy and trying to rebuild).I have taken over horrible orphan teams in Dynasty leagues and with worst-to-first have been able to make the playoffs within two years - if blind bid leagues it has taken me about 3-4 years, unless I was able to outthink 11 other owners in the blind bid process.

Why make it "easier" for bad/lazy teams? Aren't the best leagues those that are most competitive with the most active and knowledgeable owners?

To make it more fair for everyone - if you don't like that fine, then play in blind bid leagues. I have seen Dynasty leagues fail because of a blind bidding system, bad teams couldn't be replaced because it would take too long to rebuild versus worst-to-first. I would prefer to play in a league that it is easier to replace the owners of bad teams, rather than a league of sharks that only lasts 3-4 years because the poor teams couldn't be replaced. It depends what you want and what you are looking for. It is a matter of personal prefernece - I prefer worst-to-first and that is just my opinion.

With the various means of acquiring players (trade, draft, waiver), why should it take 3-4 years to rebuild? If the team is that bad, it should have a high draft picks which can be used or parlayed in trade.I've never played blind bid but would guess your chance of acquiring someone is comparable to other systems. Teams may withhold or limit their bid thinking about the "next" guy to come down the pike; or someone may over-spend and be less of a waiver factor. Of course, the key would be to get ahead of the waiver curve and grab the guy before he explodes on national TV on Monday night.

 

[chickensoup]

1) depending on the size of the league, waivers is the easiest and quickest way to help rebuild your team. It gives you guys to use for trading and guys to use for keeping later. Trading is possible, but frankly it's easy to dominate a trade with a last place guy. They have to hit on a lot of players long term to get out of the hole. The draft is so few players that it could take 5 or 6 years of sucking to field a competent team from rookie drafts.

2) like I said before, in dynasty, blind bid is a double edged sword. If you are a cellar dweller you rely on waivers for trade bait and to improve your team. While due diligence can tell you who to take and who not to, what it can't do is tell you how much other teams are going to bid on what players and which ones will be good long term with any kind of certainty.

Let's say last year you were in a full rebuild. Victor Cruz is on your radar after week 1 (we will pretend he was not on a team). How much do you bid on him? Let's say he emerged in week 2, how much do you bid on him and McCluster? (he was going for the Charles roll). Which was more likely to succeed? An UDFA as a teams WR3 or a guy sharing carries with Thonas Jones?

The point is that it's impossible to tell how much to bid on guys, and teams at the top can afford to overspend because guys like Cruz last year were luxury pickups if they had a proper team construction. In order to get Cruz you had to blue a large portion of your FAAB, which also meant you were less likely to get OTHER players. And if you spent a lot and Cruz didn't do much else it was a wasted pickup

 

[DropKick]

1) depending on the size of the league, waivers is the easiest and quickest way to help rebuild your team. It gives you guys to use for trading and guys to use for keeping later. Trading is possible, but frankly it's easy to dominate a trade with a last place guy. They have to hit on a lot of players long term to get out of the hole. The draft is so few players that it could take 5 or 6 years of sucking to field a competent team from rookie drafts.2) like I said before, in dynasty, blind bid is a double edged sword. If you are a cellar dweller you rely on waivers for trade bait and to improve your team. While due diligence can tell you who to take and who not to, what it can't do is tell you how much other teams are going to bid on what players and which ones will be good long term with any kind of certainty. Let's say last year you were in a full rebuild. Victor Cruz is on your radar after week 1 (we will pretend he was not on a team). How much do you bid on him? Let's say he emerged in week 2, how much do you bid on him and McCluster? (he was going for the Charles roll). Which was more likely to succeed? An UDFA as a teams WR3 or a guy sharing carries with Thonas Jones?The point is that it's impossible to tell how much to bid on guys, and teams at the top can afford to overspend because guys like Cruz last year were luxury pickups if they had a proper team construction. In order to get Cruz you had to blue a large portion of your FAAB, which also meant you were less likely to get OTHER players. And if you spent a lot and Cruz didn't do much else it was a wasted pickup

My experience with "worst to first" was just that... the last place team picking up the top free agent every week to hold them for ransom to the rest of the league. This created some controversial situations... which I won't go into. I thought this was simply too big of an advantage to have every week.

 

[chickensoup]

If by holding them for ransom you mean not playing them and intentionally tanking games, eek.