In a keeper league, a team that doesn't make the playoffs still should not be locked out of roster moves should they?

Unfortunately, depending on the folks that make up a league. That may be necessary. I wouldn't do it, but I can see it.

Yes.
Once the playoffs are over you can unfreeze them and allow league-wide acquisition. But gamers have all season to improve their rosters when their teams are alive. They shouldn't be allowed to interfere with a playoff team owner's right to improve his team's chances to win. An owner who is no longer competing should not be allowed to influence the competitive balance of the league.

This rule extends to those playing in consolation tourneys (EXCEPT those tourney's that have a hand in determining the payout, of course). It's good to have pride in your team's performance and awesome that you want to keep playing. But leave the talent pool to those playing for the crown.

I say it depends. In our league the winner of the consolation bracket gets the best odds of a high pick in the next year's draft. It keeps teams playing. Plus, if you are in the playoffs and need a waiver wire guy to start, then you ought to lose.

Shouldn't they be allowed to still make moves since it's a keeper league? I understand it's highly unlikely that players from that late in the season picked off the waiver wire will be a keeper but it's not totally out of the question. They should still be allowed to make moves to improve for next year.

3X-
I made an exception for money leagues, the same principle can be extended to your scenario if you'd like.
In fact, you hit the nail on the head with your first line: It all depends. Many variables, many league formats (although the question is specific to "playoff leagues"). This isn't a particularly "hard line" ethics/rules question. But my particular answer works for me because it falls within the parameters of my basic gaming tenets, which are hard line. In someone else's league I'll game by their rules, their code. But if I'm either making the policy or have a hand in shaping it, the policy I stated above is either my rule or my contribution to the discussion.

BOLD: That sentiment is flawed on a few levels, but I'll point out the obvious: Injuries. I once was forced to start Billy Volek, who was not on my roster prior to the playoffs that season. And I still managed to win.

I understand where you are coming from, but stick with me here:
You are suggesting that simply because it is a Keeper League that an owner who has had all season to decide on whether or not he wants the option to retain a certain current Free Agent Player before the next season be allowed to acquire that player over an active owner who could use that player to compete.
For me the answer is, "No dice". You had all year to both make that move and make the playoffs. You did neither. As soon as the championship is decided, hey, go nuts. But once the playoffs have commenced not all teams are created equal.

Yeah, I can see an eliminated owner acquiring an Injured Free Agent stud. That's cool and in fact I should have addressed that scenario in my other posts as I have in my leagues. But I was aiming for brevity, and that's a struggle enough.

if you are in a consolation bracket you're still in it for something, so you can make moves, the idea behind locking teams isnt so much so they don't pick up players it is so they don't drop all their guys and create chaos

That's never been an issue in any of my leagues and has nothing to do with why I implement the rule.

i've never an issue either but in a highly competitive high stakes league it is better safe than sorry. it is better to be ahead of the problem then getting caught up in it, especially in this case where it takes no effort to prevent it from happening and has no negative results

I disagree with the above poster about teams that need to add a waiver wire player in the playoffs deserve to lose.

I prefer large leagues (16+) that have a waiver wire and roster requirements ie you must have 2 qb's 2 k 2 TE 4rb 4 WR on your roster.

Every year in my two large leagues the last 4 teams make moves every week and a few of them directly factor in on who wins the championship.

To stay on topic I think that even in a keeper league all teams that are disqualified from the playoffs should not be able to add players to their teams.


If I was given that chance I would drop players who were worthless to my team so I can grab players that would help teams I dislike win a championship.

I meant to say I would grab players that would keep a team owner that I dislike from winning a championship if I could.

i dont see what the argument is. you decide things like this before the season starts, and then no one can be angry about how its done. play how you want, just stick to the rules once the draft starts.

Yea, everyone remembers that Billy Volek was fantasy relevant for 3 weeks about 4 years ago. My team was on the other end of that game when I clearly had the best team and a 6 seed came and knocked me off with one insane game(PPComp league which is stupid, but nevertheless). I still hate Billy. But you make a logical point. My main point was that, in situations where the consolation bracket means something, the playoff teams should be well prepared for the playoffs by already having backups on their squads. If they need to pick up a backup, they should be able to, but not at the expense of someone else playing for something. Anyway, I don't think non-playoff teams should be locked out unless they give commish a reason to lock them out(like dropping studs as another player mentioned...doesn't happen in "good" leagues by the way). The commish should give the non-playoff teams something to play for too....otherwise, by week 10 you have 2-3 teams in every 12 team league that might as well quit. If they quit, that can affect playoff matchups/seeding as much or more than a waiver wire add. I think it is vital to the success of any league to keep the entire membership engaged throughout the entire season.

Well said brocious.

NO, they should not be locked out. The team has the same right to improve their team as the teams in the playoffs.

If a team who missed the playoffs has their QB hurt in week 16 or 17 and could miss most of the following season why shouldn't they have the option to pickup the backup who might turn into a keeper for them.

But they are still competing, competing for next year.

But we aren't playing by next year's rules, schedule or draft Murray. We are playing for the current season.
Next season begins after this one is over. Make no mistake- while this season is over from a competitive vantage point for the eliminated owners it is not over for the LEAGUE, as a champion has not been declared.

If one wants the ability to matter, to be relevant during the playoffs, to continue to shape one's roster towards a better future, then one had better make the playoffs. If you fail to accomplish that, well, you've "earned" yourself a little break. You had all year to plan for next year and you'll be free to resume if your market isn't locked following the final game. If the latter is the case, that's a a shame, but it shouldn't break your team.

Maybe it would help you if I put this into perspective: The dominant teams in your league, the owners that did what they were supposed to do and made the post season, they don't get to casually accumulate WW wealth, do they? They don't really have the option to fill their rosters with specs and maybes, next season's 3rd year WRs. They are trying to win in the now. Sure, conceivably they could raid the wire while you sit idly by, helpless. But not only is that a rare occurrence from my long experience (I'm serious, I can't remember when I've seen an active playoff team use the opportunity to hoard- I can't) they earned the right, even if their playoff run was just the luck of the draw, matchup based, an HTH fluke.

Make your moves now.

Fair enough, but what about the admittedly unlikely scenario when there is a breakout toward the end of the season? What if a starting RB had a career-ending injury, and everyone rushed to pick up the backup guy? The managers not in the playoffs would get locked out of a big opportunity.

I realize this is a pretty crazy situation, but I think it illustrates how this is unfair. I would think the very concept of a keeper league should prevent players from dropping anyone good even if they are losing the season. If there was collusion, it could be dealt with just as it would throughout the season. Just my thoughts.

I see no reason to lock non-playoff teams out. If the owners are making non-competitive moves like dropping Tom Brady or something similar, you can lock those owners out. Otherwise, what's wrong with letting a non-playoff team accumulate speculative plays for next season? The playoff teams are awarded by having a chance to win money, the non playoff teams at least get a chance to build towards next season.

If the argument is your worried a playoff team will have a player hurt and not have the backup, well they had all year to handcuff their players.

D-NY,
And again, what you call unfair I call being decided upon through merit. Those teams earned the right to be active, to improve their rosters. It is an unfortunate by-product of that system, I suppose, if you want to think about it those terms. I don't.

There are times and places for rules built around the notion of meritocracy vs. democracy and this is one of them. We are competing against one another. There are not just perks to winning but prices to pay for losing. Not every owner gets a trophy.

I have little left to say on the matter. If you can't see it from my perspective it is not for lack of trying on my part.

I certainly understand the sentiments behind your stand on the issue. But it is my strongly held belief that eliminated teams should not be allowed to influence the competitive balance of active teams. Really, there is nothing more to it. You are mitigating that by claiming your right to own players supercedes that basic tenet. IMO that's a copout. You had your chance. You failed. You will have your chance again. In the meantime, be gracious and sit on your hands and let the teams who could win NOW by acquiring players do so- yes, even if that means you lose out on that breakout RB. Every loss comes at a price.

again, you guys act like this is black or white and there is only one way to do it. you can do either, just make sure the rule is agreed on before draft day and stick to it thereafter. obviously both sides have valid reasons for playing their way. so play your way and dont worry. its not in the realm of bush league either way.

JUST FYI: I stated the same early on, Tricks. My responses are geared, as I stated earlier, to illuminate my own thought processes, the reasoning that goes into my implementing of the rule, the basic fundamental tenet(s) that explain why a lockout is the most logical thing to do.

EDIT- I do think it's bush for eliminated teams to have the power to deprive an active owner, tho. Damn right I do. Totally bush. GL's responses are the exact reasons a BLOCK RULE should be in place.
Doesn't mean I won't respect the rules of someone else's league, though, no matter how silly I find them. That's what coping is all about. Adapt or perish.

BTW- I hope you folks realize that I am weighing evils here. I have sided with what I feel to be the lesser evil.
That's why I earlier cited this area as a very, very large expanse of gray. Our scales are all different and this is NOT a clear-cut right/wrong scenario.

Nice discussion. I agree with a lot of points but have found that in a very good league I commish, keeping every team playing thru week 16 in either the main playoffs, the 1st round loser playoffs, or the non playoffs provides the best experience and value for my league. Takes some interesting scheduling but the end result is well worth it. Our keepers are only available thru the draft in specific slots so it's more just a matter of everyone getting the most fantasy bang for their buck.

Not playing after week 13 sucks.

I'm not buying it.

If the argument is that teams will affect the competitive balance of the playoffs by allowing them to make moves even if they're not in, wouldn't it also stand to reason that any teams eliminated from playoff contention should also be locked out?

Suppose you have a 12 week regular season. One team is just plain bad and starts the season 0-8. At this point they are mathematically eliminated from making the top 4, or whatever cut you have for the playoffs. Would you selectively lock out this team but allow others to continue to make moves? That's patently unfair.

I just can't see how, in a keeper league where your moves today directly affect your moves tomorrow, you would choose to lock out certain teams from making moves. It might be unpleasant for teams making the playoffs, but it's the only way to do things.

(Here, a bit fell flat and no amount of editing will make it any better. So, it's gone now.)



Seriously, since you continued I know exactly what your point is. And it is, without a doubt, completely a non-issue.

For the sake of this argument, let's designate your 0-8 squad Team Zero.
Now,the playoffs have not yet commenced when Team Zero has gotten mathematically eliminated. How in the blazes does that even compare with a Playoff Lockout? The franchise, as unfortunate as it may be, is still in play. The owner has not only the right to improve his team but the duty to ensure the integrity of the league to put forward the finest possible active line-up he/she can field until the date comes that the wheat is separated from the chaff, the sheep from the goats, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The season is not over. Once the season is over, Mark, and Team Zero is officially eliminated as a participant to play any further having not earned the right, he should not have the right to interfere with an active owner's ability to field a competitive team because, as I've said many times before- per my personal beliefs and tenets- Team Zero's owner failed to earn that right.

That my reasoning and rule can be logically carried out to suggest a mathematically eliminated team be restricted from competitive gaming during the regular season? Straw Man, my friend. It really is.

EDIT: Every regular season game for a mathematically eliminated team is a "playoff game". It is the only avenue left for that team to impact the standings.

I see merit in both arguments, and I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer here.

However, I do believe that it's the participant's responsibility to review and be familiar with all league rules before joining. You've accepted your respective league rules if you've signed on the dotted line and ponied up your cash. Punto se acabou.

If you don't like your particular league's rules you have two viable options: (1) "vote with your wallet" by quitting the league in question and joining a new one with rules that better suit your particular viewpoints on fair play or (2) work to have your league's rules changed after the season ends.

Just don't expect to have rules changed during the middle of the season.

There is definitely merit to all perspectives on this. It's bush for someone to c-ckblock a playoff team if they're out of it, but at the same time guys like Brandon Marshall, Willie Parker and Pierre Thomas were for a lack of better term "discovered' in the final few weeks of the regular season. So in any type of keeper or dynasty league there is a competitive inbalance by locking non-playoff teams in those types of leagues that would last into future seasons.

There is really no "right" answer in my opinion, but this is just one of the reasons I really hate mid-season adds. I play in a redraft league, that allows only 3 acquisitions during the year (max trades allowed). As long as a team is still playing for something, i.e playoffs, or constellation games, they have every right to use 1 of the 3 adds they are entitled to give themself the best opportunity to win money. A team that does not have another game on the schedule should be locked in a redraft league, IMO.

So to summarize, my opinion is:

Redraft - Lock teams when they have no more games remaining
Dynasty/Keeper - Free for all, or lock all teams once the playoffs start, its the only way to not disturb competitive balance

There is no set rule on this, but I just think its kind of grimey for teams to be streaming anything during the playoffs, just my personal opinion.

no, it is a keeper league.

redraft, yes.

Like I said before, the goal of a good league should be to have EVERY member engaged for the entire season. That means 1. Give the consolation bracket value(be it next years draft/money/etc). 2. Never lock out your members unless they collude. This same logic applies to trading all season, so it should also apply to waiver wire at the end of the season. Leagues that don't encourage league participation ALL year end up with high turnover, crappy members and little activity. Gotta keep membership engaged all year.

Our league is not a keeper league but we lock rosters for the play-offs and all need to prepare and make sure appropriate back-ups are in place in case of injury.