What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

waivers as a weapon (1 Viewer)

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
....using the waivers and playing "keep away" is one thing, we all should be doing it in some fashion....its one area where you can still get a little advantage in this day of easy info for everybody....
right - there’s definitely a difference. If I have WW priority & drop someone to pick up a RB who’s about to get a promotion due to injury even though I’m not gonna play him because it was your RB who got hurt, hey, all’s fair in love & FF. 

But that’s not the same as add/dropping the 20 available RBs to lock them up to you can’t have any of them.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
As much crap as yahoo gets as a platform, credit them for being a free platform that has the mechanics in place that would keep those players available instead of on waivers.   Since this platform clearly puts those players on waivers, then the commish is going to need to step in, babysit, and make a rule.   A really good one would have been on top of this loophole from the get go.

I'm not okay with the owner's actions in the OP's scenario.   Here's a twist that happened in my yahoo league that's nearly as ruthless, that I am okay with as the commish:

Owner A still hasn't added a kicker to his starting lineup after the 3pm games.   There are three available options for Sunday night and Monday night.

Owner B, locked in a close game with owner A, goes in and adds and holds the three kickers to his bench at 6:30pm, leaving owner A with no options for his starting kicker.

A couple of the drops were half-way interesting players that received FAAB bids the following week.   Ruthless way to play, but I think Team B made the right decision that locking in a zero on his opponent's K score to get the victory was more important than the players he sacrificed from his bench.   I don't think there's much of a leg to stand on when you're Team A and don't have a K in your lineup by 6:30pm CT Sunday.

 

Flash

Footballguy
this wouldn't be an issue if the other owner didn't put himself in a position to where something like this can happen to him.....he was "banking" on there being some options for him and wasn't looking ahead or being proactive......he was getting the benefit of keeping other guys rostered because he didn't want to make a move "ahead of time" to cover his bye at QB
ORRRRRR, maybe the guy has a life and couldn't get to the website until late.

 

Flash

Footballguy
As much crap as yahoo gets as a platform, credit them for being a free platform that has the mechanics in place that would keep those players available instead of on waivers.   Since this platform clearly puts those players on waivers, then the commish is going to need to step in, babysit, and make a rule.   A really good one would have been on top of this loophole from the get go.

I'm not okay with the owner's actions in the OP's scenario.   Here's a twist that happened in my yahoo league that's nearly as ruthless, that I am okay with as the commish:

Owner A still hasn't added a kicker to his starting lineup after the 3pm games.   There are three available options for Sunday night and Monday night.

Owner B, locked in a close game with owner A, goes in and adds and holds the three kickers to his bench at 6:30pm, leaving owner A with no options for his starting kicker.

A couple of the drops were half-way interesting players that received FAAB bids the following week.   Ruthless way to play, but I think Team B made the right decision that locking in a zero on his opponent's K score to get the victory was more important than the players he sacrificed from his bench.   I don't think there's much of a leg to stand on when you're Team A and don't have a K in your lineup by 6:30pm CT Sunday.
I thinks this is BS as well.

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Here's a twist that happened in my yahoo league that's nearly as ruthless, that I am okay with as the commish:

Owner A still hasn't added a kicker to his starting lineup after the 3pm games.   There are three available options for Sunday night and Monday night.

Owner B, locked in a close game with owner A, goes in and adds and holds the three kickers to his bench at 6:30pm, leaving owner A with no options for his starting kicker.

A couple of the drops were half-way interesting players that received FAAB bids the following week.   Ruthless way to play, but I think Team B made the right decision that locking in a zero on his opponent's K score to get the victory was more important than the players he sacrificed from his bench.   I don't think there's much of a leg to stand on when you're Team A and don't have a K in your lineup by 6:30pm CT Sunday.
In that scenario there's no churn. There was a cost to Player A's moves - he added and held them, dropping 3 desirable (or at least semi-desirable) players back to the player pool. 

In the OP scenario, there's no cost to the churning owner - just 1 back of the bench player to lock up X# of free agents. 

Huge difference. I don't see anything unethical about adding 3 kickers, though it is a pretty cut-throat move. Not unethical, but a little shady. 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
ORRRRRR, maybe the guy has a life and couldn't get to the website until late.
either way....doesn't matter....I often only carry one QB in most leagues so I can have the roster flexibility elsewhere...when you only carry one, you have known all year that you only need to worry about the bye week and you decide when you want to account for that and cover for it.....if you wait till the week of, this is the price you pay.....week 7 is the heaviest bye week and you had to assume there was going to be some movement at QB on the WW that week....so the prudent/non greedy move is to address it a week ahead of time....not the week of....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I thinks this is BS as well.
It is and it isn't - this one goes under the "letter of the law/spirit of the law" kinda thing. 

Ethically it's probably ok. They didn't just churn through FAs to lock them up. 

But practically speaking it's still a dbag move. lol 

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
It is and it isn't - this one goes under the "letter of the law/spirit of the law" kinda thing. 

Ethically it's probably ok. They didn't just churn through FAs to lock them up. 

But practically speaking it's still a dbag move. lol 


this one I see nothing wrong with really....he held the players....again, the other owner holds some responsibility here, as he was probably waiting till the last minute so as not to automatically lose the player he would have had to drop for the PK.....even if it was another PK possibly.....let's say his PK was Bass and he really didn't want to drop him and make him available on waivers the following week...or maybe a guy that was also on bye like say Emmanuel Sanders was like who he was going to drop for the other PK and keep Bass.....he wouldn't want Sanders to be snatched and would want a chance to get him back in waivers....there is some risk/responsibility when you get greedy and try to play the waiver wire to your advantage the other way too....these are part of the strategies we use in this hobby....its a game....again, I don't agree with out and out churning, but manipulating the waiver wire, playing keep away, and in some ways dictating other owners rosters when you can is part of the game.....cut throat maybe in some cases, but still part of the hobby/game....

real football teams do stuff like this all the time with their rosters but it just looks different.....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
I play in an espn league where pretty much every week I will drop my PK and my DST and snatch up the two best flavors of the week that I can off of the waiver wire....then come Sunday morning at the last minute....I drop whatever two guys I think are the least valuable and stream a PK and DST.....the two I dropped aint scoring for me....but at least they aint scoring for somebody else....FF 101 in many ways....

 

Prinefan

Footballguy
I don't see an issue with it if it's not specifically in the rules.  The guy needing a QB waited until the last minute.  The "churner" didn't do his churning until Saturday morning (giving the QB-less owner plenty of time to be prepared).   The QB-less owner had no one but himself to blame.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
I think your thinking is much more in line with mine, Stinkin' Ref.   I definitely get that there's gray area, and a lot of it, to some extent, depends on the culture of the league.   In this case, it's a 15-year league with no inexperienced players, and a number of known cut-throats at the top of the standings.

In this environment, I almost view the "D-bag move" to be more on the guy that wasn't playing competitive enough to secure a kicker for his lineup by Sunday night.   I get opinions to the contrary though.   I definitely wouldn't be playing that way in a church league or casual work league.   Against the cut-throat, listen to podcasts all day to determine their Tuesday night FAAB strategy, no hesitation if someone leaves themselves vulnerable due to their own carelessness.   In this case it was carelessness / busy Sunday.   But it easily could have been them trying to gain an edge by only picking up a kicker if it was needed in order to protect bench player X.  

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
I don't see an issue with it if it's not specifically in the rules.  The guy needing a QB waited until the last minute.  The "churner" didn't do his churning until Saturday morning (giving the QB-less owner plenty of time to be prepared).   The QB-less owner had no one but himself to blame.
I can't believe you really believe that.  Sometimes loop holes aren't covered, not by choice, and the spirit of fair competition comes into play.  Not everything is black and white.  Not only would I not want to play in a league where a commish would not correct this, I wouldn't want to play in a league with someone that thinks this is OK.  As a commish for many years I would overturn that and immediately make an amendment to the rules based on our league integrity clause.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I don't see an issue with it if it's not specifically in the rules.  The guy needing a QB waited until the last minute.  The "churner" didn't do his churning until Saturday morning (giving the QB-less owner plenty of time to be prepared).   The QB-less owner had no one but himself to blame.
The bank robber waited until the last minute to rob the bank. The bank has no one to blame but themselves. :shrug:  

Still doesn't make bank robbery ok. 

Roster churning has been illegal in every league I've ever played in - it doesn't matter if the site allows it. It's an ethical violation, and a pretty obvious one. It's using a loophole to play keep-away so they can block an opponent without impacting their own roster limits. 

That it's the league commish doing it make it even worse. 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I can't believe you really believe that.  Sometimes loop holes aren't covered, not by choice, and the spirit of fair competition comes into play.  Not everything is black and white.  Not only would I not want to play in a league where a commish would not correct this, I wouldn't want to play in a league where someone thinks this is OK.
100%. 

 

Prinefan

Footballguy
The bank robber waited until the last minute to rob the bank. The bank has no one to blame but themselves. :shrug:  

Still doesn't make bank robbery ok. 

Roster churning has been illegal in every league I've ever played in - it doesn't matter if the site allows it. It's an ethical violation, and a pretty obvious one. It's using a loophole to play keep-away so they can block an opponent without impacting their own roster limits. 

That it's the league commish doing it make it even worse. 
The bank knew it was going to be robbed in 6 days but did nothing to improve security, and didn't try to improve it until the day of the robbery.  The bank has a share of the blame to me.

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
I thinks this is BS as well.


Out of curiosity, let's take a hypothetical scenario a step further...

Sunday night, Team A still doesn't have a bye week TE streamer plugged in.   There are three okay options left in free agency, let's say they're forecasted for 5 to 7 points, then a tier break to a bunch of backup TEs that are all projected for less than 3 points, and for good reason.

Still a BS move if Team B (TE wealthy) scoops and holds the three middling TEs, leaving Team A a far inferior option if they wake up and plug one in?    If they at least have a fighting chance of an unlikely TD reception with one of the crap TEs in this scenario, is it still a BS move by Team B?   

At some point, BS move -vs- playing competitive fantasy football becomes a slippery slope.   But if leaving zero options for any fantasy scoring -vs- terrible options for fantasy scoring is the threshold, that's a fair enough line to draw in the sand.

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
The bank knew it was going to be robbed in 6 days but did nothing to improve security, and didn't try to improve it until the day of the robbery.  The bank has a share of the blame to me.
Preposterous on every level. 

1. the bank did not know it would be robbed in 6 days. The bank only knew they might need to improve security in general (in this case, the team needing a QB couldn't expect a morally, ethically questionable move to be made, especially by the commissioner) 

2. Regardless of whether the bank is Fort Knox, or has one semi-retired schoolteacher with a toupe & a wooden leg working security, bank robbery is still a crime, and the criminals are the ones who are 100% guilty of robbing the bank. There is no "shared blame". 

You're basically making the rape apologist "what was she wearing?" or "why was she walking home alone?" argument here. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
lol....love how the discussion has gone to robbing banks....I think we all agree out and out churning is BS....

but the PK one before the Sunday night game is ok....he kept them, he didn't churn....dude needing a PK sat around forever with tons of options at PK probably available "all week"....and then it got down to three and he "got caught" trying to be greedy....we are just supposed to play nice and let him manipulate it his way all the way up till the last minute...?....so he gets an perceived advantage.....I don't think so.....its a two way street.....bet he will think about it next time....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

travdogg

Footballguy
100% BS move. I'd basically make that team forfeit the week (regardless of whether the moves made a difference) if not boot them from the league midseason. Seeing this is the commissioner doing it is even worse, and another reason why I don't play in any leagues where I'm not the commish, which is why I'm down to 2 leagues instead of 4-5.

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
lol....love how the discussion has gone to robbing banks....I think we all agree out and out churning is BS....
What can I say, I love a good analogy. ;)  

Unfortunately some here disagree that out and out churning is BS. Some are arguing the opposite. 

but the PK one before the Sunday night game is ok....he kept them, he didn't churn....dude needing a PK sat around forever with tons of options at PK probably available "all week"....and then it got down to three and he "got caught" trying to be greedy....we are just supposed to play nice and let him manipulate it his way all the way up till the last minute...?....so he gets an advantage.....I don't think so.....its a two way street.....bet he will think about it next time....
I agree. It's not a nice thing to do to someone, but it's not an unethical move, either like churning to manipulate the waiver lock. 

One year I was absolutely running the league. Undefeated team through 8 weeks (maybe it was 7) and crushing all comers. I had Tomlinson, Travis Henry & Moss putting up ridiculous numbers every week & I was stacked everywhere. The biggest draft steals for me were Donovan McNabb & Jake Delhomme as my backup. 

In the morning games, McNabb broke his Tibia. In the afternoon game Delhomme got hurt. 

The next waiver run, 4 teams with higher priority than me claimed QBs. None of them "needed" QBs, but I was obviously the favorite to win, and they all independently decided to grab one. It wasn't coordinated - it was just smart fantasy. Nothing at all unethical about it - I cruised into the playoffs & got crushed because I had a complete scrub at QB. 

Had one person add/dropped 4 QBs to prevent me from getting one, that's a completely different scenario.  

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
my son was in a similar situation this week and actually playing the greedy guy.....Allen was his only QB.....he saw that Wentz/Jimmy G and Geno were available....he knew he didn't really need to worry about it....so he waited, and waited.....the weather in SF was something he wanted to see as well....Marquez Callaway who he didn't really want to dump was who he was going to have to drop....if he drops him at say 5:00 PM on Sunday.....he can be picked up after 5:00 PM on Monday before their game....so he was waiting....he also said....well I could pick up wentz and then if the weather sucks I can drop him and switch to Geno if I want.....so he was in a way, using waivers rules as well....so there are times where the guy on the other side is having to take into consideration the rules as well...its not just real life getting in the way or the other guy being a jerk....

 
Last edited by a moderator:

eighsse

Footballguy
Sounds like each man has his own line, where strategy becomes cheating -- which is normal. I would group the churning idea along with something like trying to take advantage of other managers by offering trades in the immediate minutes after major news comes out, without telling the other guy about the news. Sure, it verifies that you have greed, and people can stop wondering whether or not you are actually Jesus. But it's within the rules, until you make a rule. When the Rams did that fake return a number of years ago -- in which they pretended one guy was lined up to catch the ball, but the ball was headed the other direction to a different guy -- was that exploiting a loophole? Was it despicable/unsportsmanlike? Was it cheating?

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Sounds like each man has his own line, where strategy becomes cheating -- which is normal. I would group the churning idea along with something like trying to take advantage of other managers by offering trades in the immediate minutes after major news comes out, without telling the other guy about the news. Sure, it verifies that you have greed, and people can stop wondering whether or not you are actually Jesus. But it's within the rules, until you make a rule. When the Rams did that fake return a number of years ago -- in which they pretended one guy was lined up to catch the ball, but the ball was headed the other direction to a different guy -- was that exploiting a loophole? Was it despicable/unsportsmanlike? Was it cheating?
I believe 99% of fantasy owners knows what he did was wrong.  If it looks like duck....., you know it when you see it...., actions like this threaten the integrity of the league and the commish must step in and correct right away, along with closing the loophole in the rules.  Some loophole infractions are worse than others.  Plain and simple, you know it when you see it.

 

eighsse

Footballguy
I believe 99% of fantasy owners knows what he did was wrong.  If it looks like duck....., you know it when you see it...., actions like this threaten the integrity of the league and the commish must step in and correct right away, along with closing the loophole in the rules.  Some loophole infractions are worse than others.  Plain and simple, you know it when you see it.
Exactly. It wasn't a rule, so if people don't like it, make a rule. This is how many rules are born.

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Exactly. It wasn't a rule, so if people don't like it, make a rule. This is how many rules are born.
It goes beyond just making a rule and documenting it.  This is a case where you have to reverse the damage, not just say oh well, it wasn't in the rules so I must allow it.  It's situations like this that separate the good commissioners from the bad ones.

When it comes to league integrity not everything is black and white and sometimes judgement calls must be made for the betterment of the league.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

leave a whisper

Footballguy
in my favorite league --- no waiver wire

35 man rosters ..... draft day is awesome (and with sooooo much information out year round, makes it surprisingly easy)

 

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
Sounds like each man has his own line, where strategy becomes cheating -- which is normal. I would group the churning idea along with something like trying to take advantage of other managers by offering trades in the immediate minutes after major news comes out, without telling the other guy about the news. Sure, it verifies that you have greed, and people can stop wondering whether or not you are actually Jesus. But it's within the rules, until you make a rule. When the Rams did that fake return a number of years ago -- in which they pretended one guy was lined up to catch the ball, but the ball was headed the other direction to a different guy -- was that exploiting a loophole? Was it despicable/unsportsmanlike? Was it cheating?
the whole point of real football in many ways is deception....play action....etc....so your Ram example is nothing really....

 

eighsse

Footballguy
the whole point of real football in many ways is deception....play action....etc....so your Ram example is nothing really....
Should the whole point of football be deception? A purist might say that it's a physical sport and should remain physical.

 

Chaka

Footballguy
Miles said:
Thanks folks-

  • The league has a $5 transaction charge. So, Team A basically spent $40 for a win.
  • Team B was Team A's college roommate. Which comes with all the trash talking and competitiveness one imagines.
I think it's a bush league strategy but these factors make it more interesting.

First, the transaction fee is supposed to act as a barrier to these shenanigans so the bad sportsman did pay for his bad sportsmanship.

More important is the college roommate factor. It strikes me that you sometimes do even more devious things to people you know, trust & love, particularly your "bros", just to get  bragging rights or a sick burn edge. Think of all the stupid and highly uncool #### you did with, and to, your "bros" back in high school and college (magic marker drawings on the face of the guy who passed out first, anyone?).  Assuming they are still tight my guess it gives them friendly argument fodder at the bars for years to come. Even better if the guy who roster churned doesn't make the playoffs and the other one does.

I'm going to say that in this specific, very narrow circumstance that Bro Supercession applies and therefore Chaka approves!

I have spoken.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Neil Beaufort Zod

Footballguy
It is and it isn't - this one goes under the "letter of the law/spirit of the law" kinda thing. 

Ethically it's probably ok. They didn't just churn through FAs to lock them up. 

But practically speaking it's still a dbag move. lol 
I think this one's fine. The guy didn't churn; he actually added three kickers to his roster, and ditched three pieces of his depth to do it. Those guys are now gone and he has the three kickers until waivers run again. I don't see the problem there. 

The first example is abhorrent. This is just paying a heavy price (taking on four kickers) in order to try and win a game. Seems fine to me. 

 

Neil Beaufort Zod

Footballguy
It goes beyond just making a rule and documenting it.  This is a case where you have to reverse the damage, not just say oh well, it wasn't in the rules so I must allow it.  It's situations like this that separate the good commissioners from the bad ones.

When it comes to league integrity not everything is black and white and sometimes judgement calls must be made for the betterment of the league.
Agree completely. The whole "if it's not specifically in the rule book you have to allow it" is a trash philosophy. The commissioner exists to right a wrong like this. 

If someone doesn't like it, THEY can propose a rule to allow it, or leave the league. But you have to give the commish some teeth to avoid things like this. Otherwise, you have to allow it for the rest of this season and the playoffs. 

 

sushinsky4tsar

Footballguy
Agree completely. The whole "if it's not specifically in the rule book you have to allow it" is a trash philosophy. 


By your standards, Air Bud would never get to hoop in competitive youth basketball.

But yes, as far as fantasy football, commish needs to immediately rectify.   Allow the other team to select any of the kickers of their choosing and adjust scoring if need be.   If it came to light after it was too late, I actually think awarding the top score from that group of kickers is a warranted and a just punishment.

I would also recommend that the rest of the league take turns cyber-bullying this guy for the next week.

 

OU#1

Footballguy
CBS can be setup to prevent this?  Inquiring commissioners want to know.  Using FAAB

 

Flash

Footballguy
Sounds like each man has his own line, where strategy becomes cheating -- which is normal. I would group the churning idea along with something like trying to take advantage of other managers by offering trades in the immediate minutes after major news comes out, without telling the other guy about the news. Sure, it verifies that you have greed, and people can stop wondering whether or not you are actually Jesus. But it's within the rules, until you make a rule. When the Rams did that fake return a number of years ago -- in which they pretended one guy was lined up to catch the ball, but the ball was headed the other direction to a different guy -- was that exploiting a loophole? Was it despicable/unsportsmanlike? Was it cheating?
You're something else.

 

Flash

Footballguy
Sounds like each man has his own line, where strategy becomes cheating -- which is normal. I would group the churning idea along with something like trying to take advantage of other managers by offering trades in the immediate minutes after major news comes out, without telling the other guy about the news. Sure, it verifies that you have greed, and people can stop wondering whether or not you are actually Jesus. But it's within the rules, until you make a rule. When the Rams did that fake return a number of years ago -- in which they pretended one guy was lined up to catch the ball, but the ball was headed the other direction to a different guy -- was that exploiting a loophole? Was it despicable/unsportsmanlike? Was it cheating?
How old are you?

I'm guessing by your attitude and the way you think, you're around 15-17?

 

Football Jones

Footballguy
Real simple solution to this. Sure, you can try to **** over your opponent (I have no problem with that), but you have to keep any pickup at least through the week.

It stops the nonsense.

 

Chaka

Footballguy
How old are you?

I'm guessing by your attitude and the way you think, you're around 15-17?
There is no need to make it personal. You are two people who simply disagree. No big deal.

I would normally oppose these shenanigans but it's two college buddies. That absolutely changes the dynamic. It's a subplot from The League: Pete churns on Ruxin, Kevin doesn't want to make a ruling so they set up a stupid contest to decide and everyone makes fun of Andre. The End.

This isn't the First Council of Nicaea, let friends do what they want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Flash

Footballguy
There is no need to make it personal. You are two people who simply disagree. No big deal.

I would normally oppose these shenanigans but it's two college buddies. That absolutely changes the dynamic. It's a subplot from The League: Pete churns on Ruxin, Kevin doesn't want to make a ruling so they set up a stupid contest to decide and everyone makes fun of Andre. The End.

This isn't the First Council of Nicaea, let friends do what they want.
You're right and I apologize. I get so frustrated by people skirting the rules in anything. I'm old school. Live your life without taking shortcuts is my motto.

Oh and GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
I would normally oppose these shenanigans but it's two college buddies. That absolutely changes the dynamic. It's a subplot from The League: Pete churns on Ruxin, Kevin doesn't want to make a ruling so they set up a stupid contest to decide and everyone makes fun of Andre. The End.
disagree. It makes it worse. If he’d F over his college buddy with a Busch league unethical move, he’d F over everyone. 
 

ergo he shouldn’t be commish. 
 

no one on the League would make that move. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobbyLayne

Footballguy
I picked up Case Keenum on waivers Tuesday, solely to prevent my opponent from grabbing him.

My intent was to drop Keenum before kickoff Thursday, but I forgot to do it and now I'm stuck with dead weight on my roster. :bag:


That’s a legit block. Part of the subscribers WW report is potential block pick ups to keep them away from that week’s opponent.

 

Chaka

Footballguy
disagree. It makes it worse. If he’d F over his college buddy with a Busch league unethical move, he’d F over everyone. 
 

ergo he shouldn’t be commish. 
 

no one on the League would make that move. 
Are you joking? Rewatch it. The only ones from The League who wouldn't make that move is maybe Andre, because he would never think of it, and Josh Cribbs.

 

Neil Beaufort Zod

Footballguy
For people who think it's okay since there's no rule against it...you realize people can do this every week for the rest of the season? Someone can go in, claim and drop every player in the free agent pool and literally freeze all transactions for two days. They could go in every Friday afternoon and basically end all transactions for the week right then and there. 

Is that really how the league should be played the rest of the season? I think you know the answer. 

 

 

Hot Sauce Guy

Footballguy
Are you joking? Rewatch it. The only ones from The League who wouldn't make that move is maybe Andre, because he would never think of it, and Josh Cribbs.
Taco would never make that move, and he’s the only honorable one. 

Regardless, I don’t base morality on what the characters on the league would do. 

 

Dacomish

Footballguy
Are you joking? Rewatch it. The only ones from The League who wouldn't make that move is maybe Andre, because he would never think of it, and Josh Cribbs.
And there was literally a whole segment where one picked up and dropped every Team Defense in an episode just so another didn't have one to play that week....I think it was Ruxin who did it to Jenny. 

 

Miles

Footballguy
CBS can be setup to prevent this?  Inquiring commissioners want to know.  Using FAAB
Bumping this ... cause I'd like to know too! An inside connection to one of the major site's games described their mechanism to prevent the situation as "abuse prevention." Typically those types of things are not configurable (for obvious reasons). Assuming its not, my suggestion is a league rule addendum. What do folks think of 
"Waiver churning (using add/drop with the express purpose of converting a player's status from FA to Waivers) is not permitted. To convert a player from FA to Waivers, a player must be rostered through the site's Waivers processing time (typically around 2:45am ET). An inadvertently converted player may be claimed by an owner with a note to the league or commish."

 

JohnnyU

Footballguy
Agree completely. The whole "if it's not specifically in the rule book you have to allow it" is a trash philosophy. The commissioner exists to right a wrong like this. 

If someone doesn't like it, THEY can propose a rule to allow it, or leave the league. But you have to give the commish some teeth to avoid things like this. Otherwise, you have to allow it for the rest of this season and the playoffs. 
By the way, I like your avatar.  That was the best Superman movie.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top