Dreams And Dwightmares

2018 Commissioner's Corner

Recommended Posts

On 9/15/2018 at 1:35 AM, Rainyy said:

 

It would be more helpful if you told us the exact language of this rule so we can tell you whether or not your interpretation was reasonable.  That's what this is really about.  If a rule was poorly drafted - i.e. subject to multiple reasonable interpretations - then there should be change to the rule and equitable relief to those who were harmed.  

 

As to your question, you seem to have purposefully spoken on others' behalves.  But it seems like others shared your opinions (based on what you're telling us).  

 

You should inform your (moronic) commissioner that whether you speak for another or not is a red herring.  Either there are ambiguities in the language or not.  

 

All the more reasons why you should share the rule with us.  

 

Here you go boss.

So how would you all interpret the following rule? Please keep in mind that the site we use for this is MFL.

The Rule:
"Transition Tag 
1. Owners will be able to transition tag one player per season, per team. 
2. Prior to the start of RFA, owners must place a dollar amount on a transition player. This can be whatever amount the current owner is willing to spend to retain the player. 
3. At the start of RFA period, other owners will have 48 owners to match this amount plus 25% (rounded-up) 
4. If no bids are matched, player will go back to original team at the owner's assigned bidding price. 
5. If the offer is met, plus 25% (rounded-up), the player goes to the new team at the new bidding price. 
6. Additionally, the new owner also must immedietaly sign that player to a new contract and pay Dynasty Dollars for each year as follows: Player may only be given a maximum of 3 year contract, with each year costing $3. Max $9"

Previous Example:
So an owner who transition tagged Alex Smith wrote "Tag Smith at $6," and then said, "$11, 14, or $17 to match."

Questions:
How do you interpret this rule? Is it an auction/bidding system, a matching system, or something else? Does the the first team to match get the player, or can somebody bid after a player has been matched and increase the price?

In the event that it is a bidding system, where do you apply the 25% kicker? Do you apply it to the tag price (to the $6 number on Smith), or do you apply it to each individual bid that is made on the player (so if someone bids $12, then the total price they pay will be $12 + (12/4) + 3(number of years signed for))? Using the previous formula, if somebody wanted to sign the player for three years, then it would be $12 + $3 + $9 = $24. Accordingly, if the bid was $14, then it would be $14 + $4 ($3.5 rounded up) + $9 = $27. If you apply it to the tag price of $6 for Smith, you get $8 ($6 + (6/4) = $8). So does that mean $7 would be an invalid price to pay for Alex Smith?

Keep in mind that this is how the rule has been disclosed to the league the past few years and nobody has actually increased the bid on a match until this year. In fact, the commissioner was the one to match the tag for Alex Smith, and nobody came in with a price increase. Also assume that the intent of the commish and drafters of the rules are unknown.

Need help. Thanks.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the lone star said:

 

Here you go boss.

So how would you all interpret the following rule? Please keep in mind that the site we use for this is MFL.

The Rule:
"Transition Tag 
1. Owners will be able to transition tag one player per season, per team. 
2. Prior to the start of RFA, owners must place a dollar amount on a transition player. This can be whatever amount the current owner is willing to spend to retain the player. 
3. At the start of RFA period, other owners will have 48 owners to match this amount plus 25% (rounded-up) 
4. If no bids are matched, player will go back to original team at the owner's assigned bidding price. 
5. If the offer is met, plus 25% (rounded-up), the player goes to the new team at the new bidding price. 
6. Additionally, the new owner also must immedietaly sign that player to a new contract and pay Dynasty Dollars for each year as follows: Player may only be given a maximum of 3 year contract, with each year costing $3. Max $9"

Previous Example:
So an owner who transition tagged Alex Smith wrote "Tag Smith at $6," and then said, "$11, 14, or $17 to match."

Questions:
How do you interpret this rule? Is it an auction/bidding system, a matching system, or something else? Does the the first team to match get the player, or can somebody bid after a player has been matched and increase the price?

In the event that it is a bidding system, where do you apply the 25% kicker? Do you apply it to the tag price (to the $6 number on Smith), or do you apply it to each individual bid that is made on the player (so if someone bids $12, then the total price they pay will be $12 + (12/4) + 3(number of years signed for))? Using the previous formula, if somebody wanted to sign the player for three years, then it would be $12 + $3 + $9 = $24. Accordingly, if the bid was $14, then it would be $14 + $4 ($3.5 rounded up) + $9 = $27. If you apply it to the tag price of $6 for Smith, you get $8 ($6 + (6/4) = $8). So does that mean $7 would be an invalid price to pay for Alex Smith?

Keep in mind that this is how the rule has been disclosed to the league the past few years and nobody has actually increased the bid on a match until this year. In fact, the commissioner was the one to match the tag for Alex Smith, and nobody came in with a price increase. Also assume that the intent of the commish and drafters of the rules are unknown.

Need help. Thanks.

 

This is a terribly constructed rule.  Just dreadful.  You have every right to complain vehemently.  Let me summarize numerous problems, all of which you should suggest raising to the commissioner (if I seem to get a strange satisfaction from all of this, it's because I am an attorney):  

 

(1) The contract does not contemplate what happens if multiple owners match a Tag + 25%.  The rule is literally written to address two scenarios:  (a) No one matches, and the original owner retains the player at the Tag price; or (b) Owner X matches + 25% and gets the player at that price (and then must also subsequently pay dynasty dollars).  But what about Owners Y and Z?  What if they are also in the equation?  If X, Y, and Z all match $8 on a $6 Tag, the Rule gives zero guidance whatsoever for how to resolve this issue.  None.  For this reason alone it is garbage.  

 

(2) Confusion in the words "match" and "bid."  These words are mutually exclusive.  Matching, by definition, refers to a fixed price equal to the tag price.  So, if I Tag a player for $12, matching that price would be $12.  The 25% kicker will operate to raise that price by an additional $3 to $15.  

 

So in a matching system, there is literally only one input to consider:  the Tag price.  A player tagged at $12 can only be acquired for $15, or else revert to his team at $12.  

 

A bidding system is an entirely different can of worms.  Now you're in a universe where a player could be priced at really anything above his Tag price.  The rules don't seem to contemplate a bidding system at all, and offer zero guidance for what it would look like.  This is problematic because it seems like some owners seem to be operating under the assumption this is a bidding system.  

 

The lone mention of "bid" is sloppy:  "if no bids are matched."  This phrase doesn't even make sense in the context of the rule.  Not only is "bid" undefined, but it is introduced randomly.  What the commissioner probably meant to say was:  "if the tag price is not matched."  But this sloppiness only serves to confuse.  

 

(3) As I read the Rule, the 25% kicker applies only to the Tag price.  I do not think it is reasonable to read the Rule as applying the 25% to the total amount, including the dynasty dollars contract.  

 

(4) I also read the Dynasty Dollars contract as applying as a condition subsequent to the matching.  In other words, the Dynasty Dollars aren't considered in whether a player is successfully matched.  Once an owner has matched, they then must pay this price.  But that price does not factor into the matching process itself.  

 

Tl;dr:  My reading of the Rule is quite simple:  A player sets a Tag price.  Another owner may only match that Tag price +25% to acquire that player.  The rule is terrible because it does not contemplate what happens if there are multiple matches for the same player.  Nor does the rule contemplate any kind of a bidding system.  So if that's what the commissioner intended, then you're in trouble.  You're in wild west territory and there is zero structure to guide you.  

 

Hope this was helpful.  Cheers. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rainyy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 11:41 PM, Rainyy said:

 

Keep in mind that we are on a fantasy football forum.  This is not a representative sample of the average fantasy player.  

 

To the average person, this is a children's game and a way to have some light fun.  As such, I hope folks here have the self-awareness to realize that contesting these things - even if justified - can across as extremely petty.    

 

Really, this whole thing is entirely dependent on who is in your wife's league, whether she cares what they think about her, and what they're like.  

 

I will echo what some other folks said:  pick your battles.  This seems like a joke league for fun.  It's probably not worth complaining about.  

 

There is also a distinction between incompetence and willful cheating.  This seems more a case of the former:  people unfamiliar and not serious about fantasy not really understanding what is taboo amongst more experienced players.  That also militates against causing a stink.  

 

 

 

I think some part of this is right.  I would agree that the league is a bit of a joke and they are playing for fun BUT they are also playing for money.  To me if there's a monetary prize, all things should be equal. 

 

I don't think the LM and girl who did the transactions were cheating, I think they are amateur players and don't understand why that was wrong in most peoples eyes.

 

I wouldn't play in the league but she does so I'm helping but also using it as a teaching platform.  This was a good lesson as to why you address something before its to late.  She was annoyed she lost due to the move and I think if the same scenario went down again she would pipe up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

 

Is this an ESPN league or Yahoo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, oresteszero said:

 

Is this an ESPN league or Yahoo?

Yahoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

 

You should be able to do whatever you want with your lineup as long as there is no collusion involved

 

Would piss me the hell off if the commish forced me to drop guys in that situation

 

If you really want to do something I think having him add some money to the pot would be best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CooL said:

Yahoo.

 

Not sure about Yahoo, but for ESPN you dont have to have starters for any positions, really. You will just be missing out on the potential points per position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, oresteszero said:

 

Not sure about Yahoo, but for ESPN you dont have to have starters for any positions, really. You will just be missing out on the potential points per position.

Well, yeah, same in Yahoo.  The issue is that the league is saying it's not fair that this guy isn't trying to be competitive.  I think it's mainly because his opponent is widely thought of by the rest of the league as being the smartest and the best, so that's causing the commotion.  It's obviously the guy's right not to mess up his roster for possibly a one week fix.  I've read of leagues before where people say there league rules are that you have to field a complete lineup.  I know it's not a Yahoo or ESPN hard stop if you don't have a complete lineup.  Just was wondering for people that do have this rule, what happens if the owner isn't able to have a complete lineup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

 

 

We have a rule that forces you to start a complete lineup, which I don't necessarily agree with since sometimes it's strategic.  If you don't, the commish will put your best ranked players in for you (mind you, this almost never happens).  If you had to actually drop players, your lineup would just be left as is.  We don't really have a penalty for it, but you would eventually be kicked out of our long time league if it wasn't just a one time mistake.  

 

Generally somebody notices it and forces the issue with more than enough time to correct the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

 

None of my leagues require a full starting lineup, I think that's a silly rule and makes leagues more rigid.  I have played weeks without a kicker in previous years due to not wanting to drop a bench player (Elliott saga last year, had 4 DAL RB's at one point).  I usually check to see if there are any K's playing on Sunday or Monday night that are on the waiver wire and if my match is close and/or I feel like I need the points for the W then I can go and swap a player for a K then, but if I'm getting blown out or blowing the opponent out then there's no need and i get the benefit of keeping that bench player.

 

I think in most leagues that do have a rule to that effect its to keep dead teams/owners out of the league.  At least it gives them an excuse to remove an owner if he/she fails to field a lineup each week.  In this case it sounds like the owner is active and gave you a response right away as to what he is doing.  I don't know if I would do it but If there wasn't a rule in place to start the season then tell your league mates to move on. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.

We have 3 IR spots in our league so these issues don't come up, would highly recommend trying to get those for next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Flynfiesta6 said:

 

None of my leagues require a full starting lineup, I think that's a silly rule and makes leagues more rigid.  I have played weeks without a kicker in previous years due to not wanting to drop a bench player (Elliott saga last year, had 4 DAL RB's at one point).  I usually check to see if there are any K's playing on Sunday or Monday night that are on the waiver wire and if my match is close and/or I feel like I need the points for the W then I can go and swap a player for a K then, but if I'm getting blown out or blowing the opponent out then there's no need and i get the benefit of keeping that bench player.

 

I think in most leagues that do have a rule to that effect its to keep dead teams/owners out of the league.  At least it gives them an excuse to remove an owner if he/she fails to field a lineup each week.  In this case it sounds like the owner is active and gave you a response right away as to what he is doing.  I don't know if I would do it but If there wasn't a rule in place to start the season then tell your league mates to move on. 

 

 

Yeah, the owner is not a deadbeat owner.  We've had deadbeat owners in the past where everybody asked for a guy to be removed the following year because he wouldn't make bye swaps, injury swaps, etc.  This guy clearly is making a decision not to screw up his team for just one week.  I mean, how unlucky is it to have three starters all declared out on Friday?  I think the league is upset because they really wanted to see his opponent start out 0-3.

 

1 minute ago, sneer said:

We have 3 IR spots in our league so these issues don't come up, would highly recommend trying to get those for next year.

I've always thought the IR spot was a crutch.  I could see maybe increasing the number of bench spots, but I've read about too many issues of people abusing that IR spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CooL said:

Yeah, the owner is not a deadbeat owner.  We've had deadbeat owners in the past where everybody asked for a guy to be removed the following year because he wouldn't make bye swaps, injury swaps, etc.  This guy clearly is making a decision not to screw up his team for just one week.  I mean, how unlucky is it to have three starters all declared out on Friday?  I think the league is upset because they really wanted to see his opponent start out 0-3.

 

I've always thought the IR spot was a crutch.  I could see maybe increasing the number of bench spots, but I've read about too many issues of people abusing that IR spot.

 

I think 3 is way to many but it would depend on your roster size.  We have 1, I think its a good thing to have as it doesn't force you to make league changing decisions in September. 

 

How do people abuse it?  I know in the past on ESPN you could still transact with an ineligible player in your IR spot but that's changed now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CooL said:

Yeah, the owner is not a deadbeat owner.  We've had deadbeat owners in the past where everybody asked for a guy to be removed the following year because he wouldn't make bye swaps, injury swaps, etc.  This guy clearly is making a decision not to screw up his team for just one week.  I mean, how unlucky is it to have three starters all declared out on Friday?  I think the league is upset because they really wanted to see his opponent start out 0-3.

 

I've always thought the IR spot was a crutch.  I could see maybe increasing the number of bench spots, but I've read about too many issues of people abusing that IR spot.

 

I think as long as he has a player in every starting position, it's his prerogative.   Whether they are injured or not.   I think the intent of the rule is to avoid people hording players and not rostering a kicker for example. 

Edited by K197040

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, CooL said:

I'm curious how many of you have leagues where you must start a valid lineup, and what the penalty is for that if you don't.

 

There is an owner who has Dalvin Cook, Jay Ajayi, and Jack Doyle.  All of them were declared OUT today.  The guy has high upside WRs on his bench, Bilal Powell (who he didn't play last night), TJ Yeldon, and no backup TEs.  He's already posted that he is just going to take the loss.  He'll plug in Yeldon, but he's not going to  attempt to replace the second RB or a backup TE.  His opponent, a three time league winner who has started out surprisingly 0-2, is really happy.  The rest of the league wants to see this champ start out 0-3 so they are making a big deal of it.

 

We don't have any rules that says you have to start a complete lineup.  So if this guy wants to sacrifice this week because he doesn't want to lose his roster depth because he finds winning impossible having to replace three starters, then that should be his prerogative, right?  But for people that have this "must have valid lineup", how does that work?  What happens if you don't?  Is there a penalty?  Do you get a 0 for the entire week?  Is there a cash penalty?  Does the commish force moves to be made? Just curious how such a rule would be enforced.


 

If the lineup is invalid as in a blank RB/WR spot, because someone forgot or refused to do lineup, the commish would go in and put the highest projected players in the right spot to avoid an easy win. In 15 years in this league, this has happened once and it was a "mistake" lol

 

Now, as long as you have the right positional players in the right place whether on a bye or not or injured, an owner can do what they want.

 

HOWEVER,

 

Just like your league, this owner would feel the full force of angry league-mates. I would be upset. It's not a league rule and we have never felt that we have ever had to put it into league rule but this has happened maybe once 7-8 years ago and that owner is no longer in our league. Owners like that normally don't last.

 

In your case, unfortunately, you can't do anything except question the integrity of the player. For 2019, I would definitely work with your league to set up a rule. It doesnt have to be a penalty. Maybe an extra IR spot or something. We also have weekly and yearly point incentives and points are first tie breakers in playoff spots.

 

You will learn quick to maximize your lineups every week.

Edited by nonstopfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CooL said:

Well, yeah, same in Yahoo.  The issue is that the league is saying it's not fair that this guy isn't trying to be competitive.  I think it's mainly because his opponent is widely thought of by the rest of the league as being the smartest and the best, so that's causing the commotion.  It's obviously the guy's right not to mess up his roster for possibly a one week fix.  I've read of leagues before where people say there league rules are that you have to field a complete lineup.  I know it's not a Yahoo or ESPN hard stop if you don't have a complete lineup.  Just was wondering for people that do have this rule, what happens if the owner isn't able to have a complete lineup.

 

Can you post his entire roster?  Assuming 6 bench spots, he has Ajayi, Cook, and Doyle on the bench.  Plus Powell who he didn't play and Yeldon.   I'm curious what the composition of the team is, because I don't like it.  What if I don't care about setting my lineup the last week of the regular season and take an L for my buddy to make the playoffs?

 

I don't mind bad decisions, but I don't like people intentionally giving up on a week ever, especially on a Thursday.

 

Considering this is Yahoo, he could cut any of those players after they have played.  He could easily cut Powell, Yeldon, or Doyle.  Who else does he have filling out his roster?  Yeldon might not even play on Sunday.

 

edit - You also said he has high upside WR lying around.  Why wouldn't he be trying to manufacture a trade right now?  What if Ajayi and Cook miss multiple weeks? Is he going to just roll out Powell and Yeldon next week?  Doyle didn't practice all week AND they signed a dude from the PS.  Could be a multi-week injury there. 

 

What happens next week if all those guys are out?  Will he try to field a lineup?  If I was that opponent next week I'd be asking why he decided to try that week and not the one prior. 

Edited by Sternes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Flynfiesta6 said:

 

I think 3 is way to many but it would depend on your roster size.  We have 1, I think its a good thing to have as it doesn't force you to make league changing decisions in September. 

 

How do people abuse it?  I know in the past on ESPN you could still transact with an ineligible player in your IR spot but that's changed now...

14 team league and very shallow benches and we play IDP so 3 is almost needed so that way people aren't forced to play open spots or have to drop someone. As far as abusing it im not sure either- minus that Bell has put him on IR and as he is designated as "out". No one has made a stink or deal about it and that is a flaw that is out of my hands as commish

Edited by sneer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sneer said:

 

14 team league and very shallow benches and we play IDP so 3 is almost needed so that way people aren't forced to play open spots or have to drop someone. As far as abusing it im not sure either- minus that Bell has put him on IR and as he is designated as "out". No one has made a stink or deal about it and that is a flaw that is out of my hands as commish

 

Yeah that makes sense if that's how many teams and bench slots you have. 

 

I guess I don't see the problem with the Bell situation.  I get that the slot is labeled IR but in most cases the players that are slotted there have the OUT designation and its nice to not have to drop someone due to a late scratch.  All teams have the same option to use it so I don't understand why its so frowned upon to use it to your advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sternes said:

 

Can you post his entire roster?  Assuming 6 bench spots, he has Ajayi, Cook, and Doyle on the bench.  Plus Powell who he didn't play and Yeldon.   I'm curious what the composition of the team is, because I don't like it.  What if I don't care about setting my lineup the last week of the regular season and take an L for my buddy to make the playoffs?

 

I don't mind bad decisions, but I don't like people intentionally giving up on a week ever, especially on a Thursday.

 

Considering this is Yahoo, he could cut any of those players after they have played.  He could easily cut Powell, Yeldon, or Doyle.  Who else does he have filling out his roster?  Yeldon might not even play on Sunday.

 

edit - You also said he has high upside WR lying around.  Why wouldn't he be trying to manufacture a trade right now?  What if Ajayi and Cook miss multiple weeks? Is he going to just roll out Powell and Yeldon next week?

I don't want to post his entire roster because I don't want to expose him, as I believe some of my league mates read these forums as well.  Yeah, he probably has one too many WRs.  He's got Edelman, Gordon, and two others.  Yeldon.  Baker.  But who he rosters is his choice.  The intent of this post wasn't to have everybody offer how they would manage the guy's roster, make add/drops, etc.  I was trying to see how a commish would handle a team obviously giving up for the week.  Not because he is disinterested.  But because he was beset by three injuries to three starters.

 

It's a 14 team league.  Not a lot of tight ends lying around on waivers too, so he's not going to cut Doyle because the next best thing is ... Ricky Bobby Jones?  Yuck.  He doesn't want to cut Powell because he's actually serviceable.  I think he was banking on Cook and Ajayi to obviously play.  And now he's stuck because Yeldon probably won't even play.  So he has to find two playable RBs and a TE.  He could cut Yeldon but really not much on the wire, and I think he wants Yeldon in case of a Fournette injury again.  I think it just seems undoable so he's choosing to stay pat.

 

I don't like the thought of having the commish micromanage a roster.  Most of us wouldn't roster 7 WRs, but it's a PPR league, and two of them are Gordon and Edelman.  We don't have position limits like some leagues, so that's his choice.

 

A few season ago we had a owner that just kind of checked out towards the end of the season.  The guy lost a matchup in week 13 that allowed his opponent to get into the playoffs, and the guy that just missed the playoffs was pissed.  But seriously, what can you do?  We do have a season and weekly point winner incentive, but that's not going to get everyone interested all the time.

 

Will explore the idea of what happens with invalid lineups next year.  I like the idea of charging a penalty that gets added to the pot.  But that's tough to enforce after all the dues are already paid.  Maybe the offending team loses some FAAB?  I don't think you can force roster moves to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flynfiesta6 said:

 

None of my leagues require a full starting lineup, I think that's a silly rule and makes leagues more rigid.  I have played weeks without a kicker in previous years due to not wanting to drop a bench player (Elliott saga last year, had 4 DAL RB's at one point).  I usually check to see if there are any K's playing on Sunday or Monday night that are on the waiver wire and if my match is close and/or I feel like I need the points for the W then I can go and swap a player for a K then, but if I'm getting blown out or blowing the opponent out then there's no need and i get the benefit of keeping that bench player.

 

 

Agreed. For instance, I currently have no kicker, TE, and am short an IDP. :lol: I regularly do it early in the season to have a longer WR and RB bench and see how guys are working out and being used. This is the furthest I’ve ever taken it (usually I just go without a kicker until we get close to the playoffs). My philosophy is that matchups are usually not decided within 10 points (which is a good day for a kicker in my league), so you’re likely going to still win or lose either way. If it looks like it will be close, then I target a couple players playing on Sunday night or Monday who I can swap in last minute if needed.

 

What about the points I’m missing out on? No problem - I’ll get a better waiver priority that way. And if I wind up actually losing a couple games along the way, so be it. I’m willing to take that risk to have a longer bench and more certainty about what’s going on, especially early in the season.

Edited by kraftwrk_5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owner in question should have known that Ajayi and Cook would be out; reports were flying around and neither one practiced at all.  But he took a calculated risk that one of Cook or Ajayi would play, so left Powell on the bench rather than lose out on a possibly better performance.  The risk did not pay off, but it was his ti take imo.  And he is perfectly valid in stating that he's trying to manage his roster for the long term.

 

Doyle, on the other hand, is not very good, and his QB is not very good.  He should drop Doyle for a free agent TE.  But if he truly believes Doyle is actually good and should be held on to, he is entitled to his wrong opinion and should be able to act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, CooL said:

I don't want to post his entire roster because I don't want to expose him, as I believe some of my league mates read these forums as well.  Yeah, he probably has one too many WRs.  He's got Edelman, Gordon, and two others.  Yeldon.  Baker.  But who he rosters is his choice.  The intent of this post wasn't to have everybody offer how they would manage the guy's roster, make add/drops, etc.  I was trying to see how a commish would handle a team obviously giving up for the week.  Not because he is disinterested.  But because he was beset by three injuries to three starters.

 

It's a 14 team league.  Not a lot of tight ends lying around on waivers too, so he's not going to cut Doyle because the next best thing is ... Ricky Bobby Jones?  Yuck.  He doesn't want to cut Powell because he's actually serviceable.  I think he was banking on Cook and Ajayi to obviously play.  And now he's stuck because Yeldon probably won't even play.  So he has to find two playable RBs and a TE.  He could cut Yeldon but really not much on the wire, and I think he wants Yeldon in case of a Fournette injury again.  I think it just seems undoable so he's choosing to stay pat.

 

I don't like the thought of having the commish micromanage a roster.  Most of us wouldn't roster 7 WRs, but it's a PPR league, and two of them are Gordon and Edelman.  We don't have position limits like some leagues, so that's his choice.

 

A few season ago we had a owner that just kind of checked out towards the end of the season.  The guy lost a matchup in week 13 that allowed his opponent to get into the playoffs, and the guy that just missed the playoffs was pissed.  But seriously, what can you do?  We do have a season and weekly point winner incentive, but that's not going to get everyone interested all the time.

 

Will explore the idea of what happens with invalid lineups next year.  I like the idea of charging a penalty that gets added to the pot.  But that's tough to enforce after all the dues are already paid.  Maybe the offending team loses some FAAB?  I don't think you can force roster moves to be made.

 

I can see the angle you are coming from.  I still disagree.  What is he going to do next week if all those guys are out again?   Doyle is almost certainly out multiple weeks as they signed some dude off the PS.  They are calling his injury week-to-week.  Ajayi could be a multi-week injury.  Cook I believe didn't practice at all just did workouts on the side.  He might be out too more than this week.  Who is he going to start next week?  Powell and Yeldon?

 

I like that the roster has not restrictions, however, can he play 7 WR?  What is the point of hoarding them if he can't field a starting lineup?   This is coming from a guy hoarding WR in my own league, but I still have a full starting lineup.  If I didn't have a TE or a RB I'd be shopping for one ASAP.

 

What is his plan to do when all of them are healthy and/or active?  It just seems very odd to give up on a week this early and do nothing, especially with the names being thrown around, and seemingly making no adjustments other than praying really hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sternes said:

 

I can see the angle you are coming from.  I still disagree.  What is he going to do next week if all those guys are out again?   Doyle is almost certainly out multiple weeks as they signed some dude off the PS.  They are calling his injury week-to-week.  Ajayi could be a multi-week injury.  Cook I believe didn't practice at all just did workouts on the side.  He might be out too more than this week.  Who is he going to start next week?  Powell and Yeldon?

 

I like that the roster has not restrictions, however, can he play 7 WR?  What is the point of hoarding them if he can't field a starting lineup?   This is coming from a guy hoarding WR in my own league, but I still have a full starting lineup.  If I didn't have a TE or a RB I'd be shopping for one ASAP.

 

What is his plan to do when all of them are healthy and/or active?  It just seems very odd to give up on a week this early and do nothing, especially with the names being thrown around, and seemingly making no adjustments other than praying really hard.

I'm not sure why he didn't play Powell this week, because it sounded like Ajayi was out.  He's probably hoping Cook comes back next week to play along with Powell.  This also was before news came out that Doyle would be injured for several weeks.  To that point, I see this morning that he just swung a trade to get OJ Howard, so at least he's good in the tight end department.  I suppose he could play Yeldon this week or drop him for some other satellite back of the moment.

 

As I said in the beginning, not wanting to get into a deeper discussion of roster management because that's up to every person to decide for themselves.  I've always read of leagues where you "must start valid lineup", but now I've learned that there really isn't any real enforcement that can be done it seems.  Certainly not from a platform perspective, other than the platform forcing you to obviously put the right players into the right positions.  But it can't make you not be able to submit a lineup if you don't have every spot filled with somebody who will actually score points at the position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 9:26 AM, Sternes said:

 

I can see the angle you are coming from.  I still disagree.  What is he going to do next week if all those guys are out again?   Doyle is almost certainly out multiple weeks as they signed some dude off the PS.  They are calling his injury week-to-week.  Ajayi could be a multi-week injury.  Cook I believe didn't practice at all just did workouts on the side.  He might be out too more than this week.  Who is he going to start next week?  Powell and Yeldon?

 

I like that the roster has not restrictions, however, can he play 7 WR?  What is the point of hoarding them if he can't field a starting lineup?   This is coming from a guy hoarding WR in my own league, but I still have a full starting lineup.  If I didn't have a TE or a RB I'd be shopping for one ASAP.

 

What is his plan to do when all of them are healthy and/or active?  It just seems very odd to give up on a week this early and do nothing, especially with the names being thrown around, and seemingly making no adjustments other than praying really hard.

 

It makes sense when you consider it's a 14-teamer. There's just not much on the wire, and occasionally you do have to cross your fingers and hope. Chances are, if he drops a guy they'll get picked up and he'll get burned. I'd like to see if people have made him trade offers to take advantage of his situation/help him out. Also, he now has a week to sort out the team and look for trades...which it seems like he's done already. Doyle is "almost certainly" out multiple weeks. Ajayi "could" be a multi-week injury. Cook "might" be out too more than this week. It's all unknown, and a matter of opinion/conjecture, and if you've drafted guys you're obviously going to be pretty attached to them. He gambled and got burned, but it sounds like if he'd been playing somebody else that week people wouldn't have cared as much.

 

It boils down to the bottom line - do you think that the guys you play with are genuinely trying? It sounds like he is. We eventually ditched one guy in our league because he rostered his favorite team's players to the point where it was severely detrimental to his line-up and meant he agreed to imbalanced trades. We wouldn't ditch a guy if he failed to fill a team for one week due to injuries, although it could be taken on a case-by-case basis. I think it's more problematic if you don't fill a roster due to bye weeks, since you know those before you've even drafted.

 

Having him put a bit extra in the pot seems like a good call, although you probably need to get that in the league rules for next season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Loading...