Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Messing with your opponents


Hilts

Recommended Posts

I don't want to get into my league specifics with the players or anything, but let's say there's an owner in your league who is short a certain position as they're hoarding some of these recent injury situations and waiting for clarity until later in the week. An owner who is in his division but not actually playing him this week is picking up and dropping players at that missing position off the ww before Sunday with the sole purpose of 'locking' them into a waiver period and ultimately leaving the first owner without any players to pick up and he will be forced to take a goose egg in what should be a very close matchup.

I think it's an interesting strategy but I admittedly question the sportsmanship of it. (Note I am neither team in this scenario and it largely leaves me unaffected). What are people's thoughts on stuff like this? If you're a fan, what other tactics are there that you implement?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hilts said:

I don't want to get into my league specifics with the players or anything, but let's say there's an owner in your league who is short a certain position as they're hoarding some of these recent injury situations and waiting for clarity until later in the week. An owner who is in his division but not actually playing him this week is picking up and dropping players at that missing position off the ww before Sunday with the sole purpose of 'locking' them into a waiver period and ultimately leaving the first owner without any players to pick up and he will be forced to take a goose egg in what should be a very close matchup.

I think it's an interesting strategy but I admittedly question the sportsmanship of it. (Note I am neither team in this scenario and it largely leaves me unaffected). What are people's thoughts on stuff like this? If you're a fan, what other tactics are there that you implement?

We have rules dedicated to prevent this type of roster churning.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

doesn't the other team (the first owner) have the same opportunity to pick up players? 

 

eta - I do not agree with this strategy and have never used it or seen it used in my leagues. I don't get even how it works since the other owner has the same opportunity to pick up players.

Edited by JoeSteeler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call that strategy the "Tony Soprano".

I get the lack of sportsmanship argument, but it's not really limiting anyone. The issue is that Team A is deliberately making the decision to hold slots open on his roster; no one's forcing him to do it. If he really needed to get a K or DST or whatever, he could do that at any time.

Incidentally, I've never used this strategy as brazenly as described here, but a few years ago, during Peyton's record-breaking season, I was fortunate enough to face his owner when the Broncos were on bye. My QB was coming off his bye the previous week, and I waited until late in the week to drop my fill-in (Alex Smith) so that my opponent couldn't use him. I thought I was being pretty clever ... until he went out and picked up Foles the week of his 7 TD game. #karma

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

Speaking broadly, I don't think forcing players to locked should be allowed or even considered a strategy. And it doesn't just hurt the one owner.

If the ww period passed (where everyone had a chance to grab whoever), then it goes to open wire. At that point I think many (most?) leagues require the 'dropped' player to have been held a day if they're subjected to the ww (ie you can't pick up and immediately drop or they won't end up on the ww). How does that hurt others? Everyone can see it happening. It takes several days to hoard all those guys and drop them, plus they're cutting actual fringe talent to do this.

Who is this hurting beyond just that one owner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zftcg said:

I call that strategy the "Tony Soprano".

I get the lack of sportsmanship argument, but it's not really limiting anyone. The issue is that Team A is deliberately making the decision to hold slots open on his roster; no one's forcing him to do it. If he really needed to get a K or DST or whatever, he could do that at any time.

 

:goodposting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeSteeler said:

doesn't the other team (the first owner) have the same opportunity to pick up players? 

Exactly. This is why I'm not understanding the criticisms of it being low class (though I myself even questioned the sportsmanship of it). If the players are all available to everyone, what's the problem? Both owners made a decision they felt was going to be in their best interest to improve their chances of making the playoffs. They aren't colluding. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hilts said:

If the ww period passed (where everyone had a chance to grab whoever), then it goes to open wire. At that point I think many (most?) leagues require the 'dropped' player to have been held a day if they're subjected to the ww (ie you can't pick up and immediately drop or they won't end up on the ww). How does that hurt others? Everyone can see it happening. It takes several days to hoard all those guys and drop them, plus they're cutting actual fringe talent to do this.

That's a good point. Depending on how deep their bench is, the team hoarding all those guys is risking the loss of valuable contributors (especially early on in the bye season).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hilts said:

Exactly. This is why I'm not understanding the criticisms of it being low class (though I myself even questioned the sportsmanship of it). If the players are all available to everyone, what's the problem? Both owners made a decision they felt was going to be in their best interest to improve their chances of making the playoffs. They aren't colluding. 

I could see if the other owner was going to be out of the country (or otherwise unavailable) until Saturday or Sunday and everyone knew it. Then it would be pretty low to churn the players since he has no opportunity to pick someone up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JoeSteeler said:

I could see if the other owner was going to be out of the country (or otherwise unavailable) until Saturday or Sunday and everyone knew it. Then it would be pretty low to churn the players since he has no opportunity to pick someone up

That is a good point I had not considered. I think in most scenarios where someone is going with the "Tony Soprano" this would not be the case. But I agree that would be a bs move in a casual league (super ultra sharkhawk leagues everything not clearly against the rules is probably fair game).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm in a couple leagues that use blind bidding and waivers all the time. It solves a lot of problems like that plus it's more enjoyable as it requires more strategy in your FA decisions. Traditional FA add/drop is basically a race to the keyboard.

We need to start doing this. Tired of the keyboard/phone race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hilts said:

If the ww period passed (where everyone had a chance to grab whoever), then it goes to open wire. At that point I think many (most?) leagues require the 'dropped' player to have been held a day if they're subjected to the ww (ie you can't pick up and immediately drop or they won't end up on the ww). How does that hurt others? Everyone can see it happening. It takes several days to hoard all those guys and drop them, plus they're cutting actual fringe talent to do this.

Who is this hurting beyond just that one owner?

Yes, everyone had a shot to put in a waiver claim,but you take away their right to pick up some players that would have been free agents between Wed/Th (whenever claims processed) til game time.. Maybe they weren't available for whatever reason. Maybe the need wasn't there yet, i.e. a mid-week injury. I agree that the 1st player is taking a risk hoarding players, but it should be related to someone legitimately beating him/her to a free agent and not a cheap maneuver like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JoeSteeler said:

eta - I do not agree with this strategy and have never used it or seen it used in my leagues. I don't get even how it works since the other owner has the same opportunity to pick up players.

To address this specifically, let's go with an example (this is not my league's example for players or even positions). Team A decides to hold Morris, Blue, Mack, and both of the Eagles guys (yes, in a ww system they'd never get all that but let's pretend for a moment to get an easy example). By Sunday they'll cut a couple of these guys. Maybe Lamar is back to starting so Blue gets dumped. Maybe Brieda won't miss any time, so Morris goes. Whatever. But by holding all these options until that point, they don't have enough bench depth and have to carve up part of their starting lineup. Let's say they've been streaming quarterbacks. They dropped their qb and currently have nobody slated to start. No big deal, as they can grab whoever just before the games. There are lots of options. But his division opponent, team B, notices team A's matchup with team C is going to be a close one. So team B slowly starts picking up 1-2 qb's each day and dropping them the next day so the qb's will be subjected to the ww and unavailable until the following week. 

Team A and everyone else can see what's happening. This is a strategy that takes a few days to fully implement - if team A doesn't do anything about it until it's too late, what's the problem? If team B picks up the best matchups and works their way down the list so team A gets stuck with a lesser option, what's the problem? Team A made a choice when they weren't forced to. Team B isn't hurting the league - in fact by cutting their fringe talent they might be helping some people. If team A loses, that greatly helps team B's chances of winning the division. 

Where's the poor sportsmanship or lack of class?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a transaction fee so using that strategy would be very costly in our league so I've never had to deal with it.  We have no formal rule against it but as commissioner if I saw someone sign and cut players repeatedly I would put a stop to it.    Maintain your roster anyway you like but locking others out from players on the WW is bush league and not cool at all.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hilts said:

To address this specifically, let's go with an example (this is not my league's example for players or even positions). Team A decides to hold Morris, Blue, Mack, and both of the Eagles guys (yes, in a ww system they'd never get all that but let's pretend for a moment to get an easy example). By Sunday they'll cut a couple of these guys. Maybe Lamar is back to starting so Blue gets dumped. Maybe Brieda won't miss any time, so Morris goes. Whatever. But by holding all these options until that point, they don't have enough bench depth and have to carve up part of their starting lineup. Let's say they've been streaming quarterbacks. They dropped their qb and currently have nobody slated to start. No big deal, as they can grab whoever just before the games. There are lots of options. But his division opponent, team B, notices team A's matchup with team C is going to be a close one. So team B slowly starts picking up 1-2 qb's each day and dropping them the next day so the qb's will be subjected to the ww and unavailable until the following week. 

Team A and everyone else can see what's happening. This is a strategy that takes a few days to fully implement - if team A doesn't do anything about it until it's too late, what's the problem? If team B picks up the best matchups and works their way down the list so team A gets stuck with a lesser option, what's the problem? Team A made a choice when they weren't forced to. Team B isn't hurting the league - in fact by cutting their fringe talent they might be helping some people. If team A loses, that greatly helps team B's chances of winning the division. 

Where's the poor sportsmanship or lack of class?

See, I think it's poor sportsmanship because Team B is going out of their way to sandbag Team A, but I also don't really have a problem with it because it's self-regulating. It's not just that B is dropping fringe talent, it's also that they're orienting their roster decisions around something other than what gives their team the best chance for victory. That will almost certainly come back to bite them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zftcg said:

See, I think it's poor sportsmanship because Team B is going out of their way to sandbag Team A, but I also don't really have a problem with it because it's self-regulating. It's not just that B is dropping fringe talent, it's also that they're orienting their roster decisions around something other than what gives their team the best chance for victory. That will almost certainly come back to bite them.

Are they, though? In many leagues, winning your division gives you a bye week in the first round of playoffs. Can't it be argued they're orienting their roster decisions around what gives their team the best chance for victory, but they're just focusing more on the long term and less on the short term?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some sites have it where if a guy was picked up off the waiver wire that week and then dropped before kick off, they wouldn't be in waivers again. Just straight to FA. But some sites don't. Exploiting poor coding in a website for an advantage is not a strategy. It's Belichekian level cheating.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BearsFan4Life said:

Our league is set so that if you pick someone up and drop them the same day, they remain a free agent.  A player has to be on your roster for a day before they can be dropped to go on waivers.

Yes, this is what's being discussed. This is how most leagues are set, I think. At least in my experience. So it's fair game in your mind because the players are held for a day with the sole purpose of screwing another owner (but improving their playoff odds), but if it was same day add/drop it would be not ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Are they, though? In many leagues, winning your division gives you a bye week in the first round of playoffs. Can't it be argued they're orienting their roster decisions around what gives their team the best chance for victory, but they're just focusing more on the long term and less on the short term?

Maybe, but I think it's getting too cute. To put it another way, I wouldn't do it with my roster, and not just because of the sportsmanship. I think it's a dumb strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hilts said:

To address this specifically, let's go with an example (this is not my league's example for players or even positions). Team A decides to hold Morris, Blue, Mack, and both of the Eagles guys (yes, in a ww system they'd never get all that but let's pretend for a moment to get an easy example). By Sunday they'll cut a couple of these guys. Maybe Lamar is back to starting so Blue gets dumped. Maybe Brieda won't miss any time, so Morris goes. Whatever. But by holding all these options until that point, they don't have enough bench depth and have to carve up part of their starting lineup. Let's say they've been streaming quarterbacks. They dropped their qb and currently have nobody slated to start. No big deal, as they can grab whoever just before the games. There are lots of options. But his division opponent, team B, notices team A's matchup with team C is going to be a close one. So team B slowly starts picking up 1-2 qb's each day and dropping them the next day so the qb's will be subjected to the ww and unavailable until the following week. 

Team A and everyone else can see what's happening. This is a strategy that takes a few days to fully implement - if team A doesn't do anything about it until it's too late, what's the problem? If team B picks up the best matchups and works their way down the list so team A gets stuck with a lesser option, what's the problem? Team A made a choice when they weren't forced to. Team B isn't hurting the league - in fact by cutting their fringe talent they might be helping some people. If team A loses, that greatly helps team B's chances of winning the division. 

Where's the poor sportsmanship or lack of class?

While I generally agree that roster churning to lock others out is poor sportsmanship, so is loading up all the available RBs until the last minute, which also blocks everyone else.  It seems to me that Team A is just getting a little of his own medicine thrown back at him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s unfortunate that a league has owners that would require the need for a rule that restricts owners from these types of actions.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.  There something to be said for ethical and fair behavior, but I’m wondering if that’s just too old fashioned for our current times.  Damn shame.  It’s just a game.  Nobody should be playing for money they can’t afford to lose that might remotely make that kind of behavior understandable, though still not excusable.

 

I’ll step off my soapbox now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

It’s unfortunate that a league has owners that would require the need for a rule that restricts owners from these types of actions.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.  There something to be said for ethical and fair behavior, but I’m wondering if that’s just too old fashioned for our current times.  Damn shame.  It’s just a game.  Nobody should be playing for money they can’t afford to lose that might remotely make that kind of behavior understandable, though still not excusable.

 

I’ll step off my soapbox now...

The question isn't so much whether you find it unethical/immoral/etc, but why

When I saw it, my first reaction was to think it's unsportsmanlike. But after thinking it over I found myself at a loss to explain WHY I felt it's unsportsmanlike. If all owners have a fair chance to grab the players, that's not being unfair. If you can't 'blitz' through the ww and add/drop a million guys at once but instead need to hold them a day in order to 'lock them' on the ww, then again I think that's not unfair, as it's putting real talent in the pool and putting the potentially affected teams on notice they need to make an adjustment. What about this is unethical or unfair behavior? Is it a move I'd make? Probably not, as I value the players on my team and would rather gamble on a lottery ticket or two instead of doing this. But for the life of me I can't actually explain why I feel it's a poor move. There's no reason for me to actually feel this way if I look at the facts.

I'm wondering if the real reason I disliked it is simply because it's not something I'm familiar with, and new things are uncomfortable and even a little bit scary. Just because something breaks tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's unethical or unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

espn sort of has safeguards to prevent roster churning. the player has to be on the roster i believe 24 hours otherwise if he is dropped too soon he skips waivers and immediately is a free agent again.

 

roster churning although technically permitted by websites, is obviously not well received... and in my opinion, karma bites the churner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hilts said:

The question isn't so much whether you find it unethical/immoral/etc, but why

When I saw it, my first reaction was to think it's unsportsmanlike. But after thinking it over I found myself at a loss to explain WHY I felt it's unsportsmanlike. If all owners have a fair chance to grab the players, that's not being unfair. If you can't 'blitz' through the ww and add/drop a million guys at once but instead need to hold them a day in order to 'lock them' on the ww, then again I think that's not unfair, as it's putting real talent in the pool and putting the potentially affected teams on notice they need to make an adjustment. What about this is unethical or unfair behavior? Is it a move I'd make? Probably not, as I value the players on my team and would rather gamble on a lottery ticket or two instead of doing this. But for the life of me I can't actually explain why I feel it's a poor move. There's no reason for me to actually feel this way if I look at the facts.

I'm wondering if the real reason I disliked it is simply because it's not something I'm familiar with, and new things are uncomfortable and even a little bit scary. Just because something breaks tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's unethical or unfair.

 

Really?  You can’t figure out why?  You’re adding players that you have no intention of rostering only to prevent every other owner in the league from adding them, and that seems perfectly ethical to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

Really?  You can’t figure out why?  You’re adding players that you have no intention of rostering only to prevent every other owner in the league from adding them, and that seems perfectly ethical to you?

Have you ever grabbed a ww guy you have no intention of starting, but merely hoarding on the roster? 

And yes, I can't figure it out if it's under the conditions I specifically mentioned. Every single owner has the opportunity to grab the players. Most don't care because they're good to go. Any owners who aren't good to go are choosing to endanger their odds by themselves hoarding a position. And due to most (if not all) websites requiring you to hold a guy 24 hours to prevent the insta-churn, everyone can see it happening over a couple days and is able to easily prevent it if they so choose.

Edited by Hilts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hilts said:

Have you ever grabbed a ww guy you have no intention of starting, but merely hoarding on the roster? 

 

 

Completely different situation and intent.  Not even remotely similar.

I think I’ll refrain from further discussion on this.  We clearly don’t see things similarly and it only frustrates me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bronco Billy said:

 

Completely different situation and intent.  Not even remotely similar.

I think I’ll refrain from further discussion on this.  We clearly don’t see things similarly and it only frustrates me.

Cool, ignore that first part but feel free to address any of the second part which you've just angrily dismissed twice now. It kind of feels like you're making my point. It just makes us angry and we don't care to discuss how it's actually unfair, because when we start to explore the details it's hard to defend it as actually being unfair. Because it isn't. It's just breaking traditions, but unconventional doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or bad. I went through the same thing at first so I understand where you're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hilts said:

Cool, ignore that first part but feel free to address any of the second part which you've just angrily dismissed twice now. It kind of feels like you're making my point. It just makes us angry and we don't care to discuss how it's actually unfair, because when we start to explore the details it's hard to defend it as actually being unfair. Because it isn't. It's just breaking traditions, but unconventional doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong or bad. I went through the same thing at first so I understand where you're coming from.

 

It’s pretty simple.  Some people can’t access their FF site when players become available.  Some people choose not to for some very good reasons.  You’re okay with other owners taking advantage of that to add players they have no intent of rostering more than enough to make those players unavailable to all other owners that week.  I disagree with behavior as completely unethical.  We are at odds that clearly are not going to be resolved and I prefer not to get into a prolonged back-and-forth about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think doing this is circumventing the intent of the waiver process which is to give everyone fair opportunity to acquire players when in need.  The team that is purposely churning the players is artificially increasing waiver times for the sole intent to prevent other teams from having the opportunity to get a player if something happens between the waiver period and game day (i.e. - late week injury that is not expected).  The team that is waiting until later to get further information regarding a set of players (RB's in the example provided up above) is not churning the pool purposely to prevent teams from acquiring players they may need.  This team is holding players he may use in an attempt to gather more information before dropping the less appealing option out of need for a different position.  This is not purposely circumventing the intention of the rules.

 

My second biggest pet peeve as a commish is teams purposely trying to circumvent the intent of a rule because of some loophole that wasn't specifically identified when the rules were being created.  I don't mind being creative to find advantages (exploiting a scoring rule for example) but I can't stand owners that know an intent of the rule and find a way to go around the intention of the rule to gain advantages.  Typically it only happens once and then the loophole is closed but the fact someone is trying to go around a rule when they know the purpose of it is very frustrating as a commish.

 

The biggest pet peeve is not paying the franchise fees on time.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bronco Billy said:

 

It’s pretty simple.  Some people can’t access their FF site when players become available.  Some people choose not to for some very good reasons.  You’re okay with other owners taking advantage of that to add players they have no intent of rostering more than enough to make those players unavailable to all other owners that week.  I disagree with behavior as completely unethical.  We are at odds that clearly are not going to be resolved and I prefer not to get into a prolonged back-and-forth about it.

This is a good point that was brought up earlier. If it's a casual league and you're grabbing players when you know the other owner hasn't had time yet, I agree that's some bs. But if the other owner has grabbed players, but they chose to ignore their trouble spot in order to load up on another position? Let's say they grabbed a bunch of ww rb's but dropped their streaming qb (substitute your own positions/players if another scenario is easier). Right now they have no qb. By Sunday they're planning on cutting someone to stream a guy. Well...they've clearly had multiple opportunities to improve their issue have chosen to ignore it. And with most sites preventing insta-churn, they can see what's happening. Yet they choose to do nothing. Still unfair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hilts said:

I don't want to get into my league specifics with the players or anything, but let's say there's an owner in your league who is short a certain position as they're hoarding some of these recent injury situations and waiting for clarity until later in the week. An owner who is in his division but not actually playing him this week is picking up and dropping players at that missing position off the ww before Sunday with the sole purpose of 'locking' them into a waiver period and ultimately leaving the first owner without any players to pick up and he will be forced to take a goose egg in what should be a very close matchup.

I think it's an interesting strategy but I admittedly question the sportsmanship of it. (Note I am neither team in this scenario and it largely leaves me unaffected). What are people's thoughts on stuff like this? If you're a fan, what other tactics are there that you implement?

In both of my leagues we have a rule against this. We do not consider it a strategy - we consider it “roster churning”, and have deemed it unethical & cheating. 

We have the same rule in my fantasy baseball league. 

Very surprised your (or any) league allows this. 

ETA: another thing that helps is a $5 add/drop fee. Wanna add/drop 20 guys? Thanks for the $100 in the prize pool. 

Edited by Hot Sauce Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Insein said:

We need to start doing this. Tired of the keyboard/phone race.

Even just a use it or lose it WW priority system is better. 

e.g. you have 7th priority. You don’t claim anyone, 5 guys above you to - then you have 2nd priority. If you use it, you drop to 12rh priority, etc. 

literally anythjng is better than an 06:00 AM dash to the computer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a rule designed to prevent such a thing. A BB or FCFS add can't be dropped until the next week. One caveat is the added player can be dropped if the replacement is started that week. The caveat is there to allow teams to fill a starting K or idp spot if one of their starters gets hurt later in the week.

 

I'd highly recommend implementing a rule. Our rules evolved over time. It's difficult to capture every scenario in the rules from the get-go.

 

Since there are no rules to prevent in this case, this is where the commish comes in and has to make a judgement call and I believe he should disallow these transactions as they clearly are not in the spirit of fair competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Even just a use it or lose it WW priority system is better. 

e.g. you have 7th priority. You don’t claim anyone, 5 guys above you to - then you have 2nd priority. If you use it, you drop to 12rh priority, etc. 

literally anythjng is better than an 06:00 AM dash to the computer. 

Well we do have that for my main league. Rolling waiver order. This other league my friend asked me to join, you can make add/drops in game. Didn't know that the first 2 weeks. Dumb setup but I'm exploiting it now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

In both of my leagues we have a rule against this. We do not consider it a strategy - we consider it “roster churning”, and have deemed it unethical & cheating. 

We have the same rule in my fantasy baseball league. 

Very surprised your (or any) league allows this. 

How does your rule address this?

I agree every league should have a ww process. First come first serve is fine after the waivers run, but it's bs to have a league that allows someone sitting on the couch watching Sunday games to have a massive edge if an injury pops up over someone who has work/school/church/etc and can't sit there. I'm still in a couple leagues that don't have ww and it takes some of the fun out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some owners will look for any way to take any strategy or smart moves by owners out because it hurts them personally, never wanting other owners to take account for making sure that it dont happen to them so we want to protect them with rules so they dont have to do any extra work but set a lineup. Sportsmanship? Football teams run trick plays, fake punts, onside kicks and wildcat formations? Sometimes having tricks and a unique strategy works. If a guy doesnt want to cut a player for one he needs to set lineups, thats his fault. I would pick up and drop too if it helped me get the win. Winning is the point, isnt it? Dont like it, pick up the players before the other guy can do his strategy.

With technology and everyone cutting out strategy that they deem that "they dont like" has completely made this game about all luck and no skill or strategy, what so ever. At least back a few years ago some strategy worked before everyone had the same info at their finger tips. Where is the skill? Guessing which guy to play? Everyone uses the same draft sheets as the whole community uses the same info, no such things as sleepers anymore everyone knows about everyone. Just such a strange game anymore that no one wants anyone to have a leg up because of their strategy or they thought of something you didnt. I love the idea of people coming up with new ways to win, instead it looks like all we want is people who set lineups. Sounds like fun and something we need a million sites devoted to.

Edited by tackle for loss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drinkin Buddy said:

We have a rule designed to prevent such a thing. A BB or FCFS add can't be dropped until the next week. One caveat is the added player can be dropped if the replacement is started that week. The caveat is there to allow teams to fill a starting K or idp spot if one of their starters gets hurt later in the week.

 

I'd highly recommend implementing a rule. Our rules evolved over time. It's difficult to capture every scenario in the rules from the get-go.

 

Since there are no rules to prevent in this case, this is where the commish comes in and has to make a judgement call and I believe he should disallow these transactions as they clearly are not in the spirit of fair competition.

I think this is an excellent rule. 

But regarding the second part, how is it unfair if all owners, including the owner who is potentially affected, have plenty of opportunities to address things but they choose to ignore it? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hot Sauce Guy said:

Even just a use it or lose it WW priority system is better. 

e.g. you have 7th priority. You don’t claim anyone, 5 guys above you to - then you have 2nd priority. If you use it, you drop to 12rh priority, etc. 

literally anythjng is better than an 06:00 AM dash to the computer. 

My long-time family league (no money, just bragging rights) has open waivers. You can add or drop a player at any time, with no waiver period, with only one exception: If a player is in your starting lineup, you have to wait until Monday morning to drop them. 

It's the dumbest system, but the league has had the same rules forever and no one is particularly interested in changing it. And to be honest, as one of the more active members I probably benefit from the current setup.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hilts said:

This is a good point that was brought up earlier. If it's a casual league and you're grabbing players when you know the other owner hasn't had time yet, I agree that's some bs. But if the other owner has grabbed players, but they chose to ignore their trouble spot in order to load up on another position? Let's say they grabbed a bunch of ww rb's but dropped their streaming qb (substitute your own positions/players if another scenario is easier). Right now they have no qb. By Sunday they're planning on cutting someone to stream a guy. Well...they've clearly had multiple opportunities to improve their issue have chosen to ignore it. And with most sites preventing insta-churn, they can see what's happening. Yet they choose to do nothing. Still unfair?

What about a team that has something happen unexpectedly to their starting QB at the last minute who now has no waiver wire options because some jerk churned the entire free agent list?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr. Octopus said:

What about a team that has something happen unexpectedly to their starting QB at the last minute who now has no waiver wire options because some jerk churned the entire free agent list?

Why should the owner who suffered the injury avoid blame for not having a backup?

In the draft season, we constantly see people touting the need for depth. It's mostly at running back, but not entirely. Why is it player A's fault if player B didn't build a roster with better depth? 

Edited by Hilts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hilts said:

I think this is an excellent rule. 

But regarding the second part, how is it unfair if all owners, including the owner who is potentially affected, have plenty of opportunities to address things but they choose to ignore it? 

A couple of years back we had a team not address their backup QB until week 7 when their starter was on a bye. By that time there were few starting QBs available. His opponent grabbed the last QB on ww and he tried to scramble to make a trade but couldn't make it happen. He took a donut at QB and a loss. The league was fine with this result since it was the owner's fault for not addressing earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Drinkin Buddy said:

A couple of years back we had a team not address their backup QB until week 7 when their starter was on a bye. By that time there were few starting QBs available. His opponent grabbed the last QB on ww and he tried to scramble to make a trade but couldn't make it happen. He took a donut at QB and a loss. The league was fine with this result since it was the owner's fault for not addressing earlier.

This is different than someone purposely churning the waiver pool to prevent someone from getting a player they need.  Your example is the overall league strategy of everyone keeping backup QB's.  If your league does that then you need to make arrangements to do the same to protect yourself.  This is not purposely going around the intent of a rule to hose someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...