Submitting an incomplete lineup

[Bier Meister]

1) i do not like leagues that charge for add/drops.. i don't believe that money should act as a deterrant for any owner.

 

2) my opinion on blitz' situation:

 

he is not tanking. he is trying to win. this is not a case of an apathetic owner. granted, he decided to only carry 1 te (i think). nonetheless, i do not believe he should have to drop a better player to fill 1 (likely insignificant) starting lineup spot....for a week... and pay out of his pocket to do so. by doing so he hurts his team for the duration of the season. it also throws a decent player onto the ww (something that i see as disruptive to the league).

 

maybe those teams impacted by this can pay the transaction fee for him or work out some type of trade? but i do not believe he should have to spend $$ on picking up a pos te for 1 week.

Edited November 4, 2008 by Bier Meister

[gbpfan1231]

Grits - Idea for you.

 

Take the time you spend making the idiotic 3.5643567 posts and get a side job. Then you can afford the $5.00.

 

What happens if you played a dude that ended up beating you by one point and the TE you would have chosen would have scored 2. That other dude gets a win he should not have and then that does change the dynamic of other teams in your league. I guarantee that if you were on the losing end of that deal you would not be happy.

 

Bottom line. You joined the league so play until the end.

 

Not sure why I posted this because I think he has me on ignore anyway.

[MikesVikes]

Grits, you need to squeeze a littler harder in your leagues.

[Sprtfan]

If it was a QB it might be different, but $5 for a TE that would have almost no chance of changing the out come of the game seems to be ok to me.

[Big Country]

So, in a slightly related subject, what about if th situation where a DTS ( a developmental squad).

 

In this particular league, we can carry a developmental squad where the players do not count against your cap, but they can not be started. If they are placed on the active squad, you must both cut an active player to make room for them and then assign a contract amount to them.

 

The team I took over this year is mediocre at best. I am floating around .500 on the season, with no real legitmate shot to win the league.

 

On my DTS I have Jerod Mayo and Eddie Royal, both of whom would likely be weekly starters for me if I were to start them, but neither of whom would provide enough of an improvement over my current starters to give me a significant edge in the potential outcomes of my games.

 

So, is my obligation as an owner to activate these players at the expense of currently active players and at the cost of available contract years to make my team marginally better this year with potentially significant long term detriment, or should I do what I feel is best for my team in the long term and keep these players on DTS for this season so that I can potentially hold them longer as active players in future years?

 

 

 

As to the situation at hand, I am with bier in that I do not like "real" money to come into play for transactions as it generats situations like these. I can completely understand the feelings Grits has about not wanting to throw money away on a wasted team. IMO, it is not tanking (not like he is starting scrubs over starters at all positions, sounds like he is putting forth the best possible lineup with what is available) it is cost mitigation. In fact, I can say that I am not sure how I would manage my team given this situation, it would probably come down to the actual amount of the cost.

 

This is also one of the reasons I advocate for "Toilet Bowls" with a financial payout (usually the buyin) in redraft leagues so that all teams have a good motivation to remain as competitive as possible, and for keepers either a toilet bowl for the highest pick the following season or at least a lottery so there is no motivation to not perform at your best week in and week out.

[detlef]

the you too are not very good at making points, since (ETA) ALMOST every poster here except you feels the right thing to do when accepting an invitation to play in a league is to field as competitive a team as possible, regardless of whether, as you state above, "a guy who history shows has a very slim chance of helping your team".

 

Brent Celek was a starting NFL TE last week....why on earth would he have not taken a flier on him in an offense that throws the ball 60+% of the time?

 

And no, "one could NOT make an argument that it wouldn't be worth $5"......the money is irrelevant. When you sign up for a fantasy league, you read the rules, and know that every FA move is $5, and that you are expected to make moves to field the most competitive team possible, whether you are 9-0 or 0-9.

 

What you are saying is that, as teams become eliminated from contention, its OK for the integrity of the league to slip further and further into the abyss, since those eliminated teams should be excused from maintaining that integrity. That's weak....and a league I would never be associated with.

#1 Straight up, each and every player should be entitled to determine if whatever waiver move they are making is worth the cost of doing so. Not have some punk ass tell them what they have to do. This can manifest itself in a number of ways.

 

1) Waiver moves could be free but you may not have anyone on your roster that you want to waive and you simply don't feel that there's a guy out there who has a good enough chance to score you enough points to release a good player into the pool.

2) Like every other form of gambling (let's not forget that is what we're doing) that the cost of said move is not worth the chances of getting any production. This is a decision that every good gambler must make. Is the next card worth me calling. Obviously if there is essentially no chance at all of winning the hand (in this case the league) then the answer is quite obviously no. Whatever the cost of picking up that player is not worth the price.

 

It's really not that hard to see.

 

You can bring up all the Brent Celeks you want and, perhaps since you seem to have some homer info, you saw that coming. However, forgive the rest of us for not seeing that breakout game on the way considering the fact that his previous best performance was 28 yds and dude hasn't found the endzone once all year. Naming random guy who come out of nowhere doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of a random waiver wire TE being worth the money to pick up is very little when you look at it through unemotional eyes.

 

Oh, and if we're "reading the rules" then it is either against the rules to start a guy who's not playing or it is not and whether you think it's because the guy has given up or, perish the thought, simply messed up should not matter. So, despite the fact that I am an active manager and, actually would not blow off starting any position regardless of my standing. Were I to come across a league that mandated starting a full lineup every week I would remind the gentlemen that this is, in fact a game, that they needed to get a life and remember that this is, in fact, a game and not an excuse to tell other people how to bet. Because that is exactly, 100% what you are advocating. Telling someone how to bet their money.

[skylive5]

So, in a slightly related subject, what about if th situation where a DTS ( a developmental squad).

 

In this particular league, we can carry a developmental squad where the players do not count against your cap, but they can not be started. If they are placed on the active squad, you must both cut an active player to make room for them and then assign a contract amount to them.

 

The team I took over this year is mediocre at best. I am floating around .500 on the season, with no real legitmate shot to win the league.

 

On my DTS I have Jerod Mayo and Eddie Royal, both of whom would likely be weekly starters for me if I were to start them, but neither of whom would provide enough of an improvement over my current starters to give me a significant edge in the potential outcomes of my games.

 

So, is my obligation as an owner to activate these players at the expense of currently active players and at the cost of available contract years to make my team marginally better this year with potentially significant long term detriment, or should I do what I feel is best for my team in the long term and keep these players on DTS for this season so that I can potentially hold them longer as active players in future years?

 

Dynasty leagues where contracts are assigned and where there is a DTS are a different kettle of fish and are not subject to the rules/reasonings for bye week players of lesser leagues.

 

As to the situation at hand, I am with bier in that I do not like "real" money to come into play for transactions as it generats situations like these. I can completely understand the feelings Grits has about not wanting to throw money away on a wasted team. IMO, it is not tanking (not like he is starting scrubs over starters at all positions, sounds like he is putting forth the best possible lineup with what is available) it is cost mitigation. In fact, I can say that I am not sure how I would manage my team given this situation, it would probably come down to the actual amount of the cost.

 

This is also one of the reasons I advocate for "Toilet Bowls" with a financial payout (usually the buyin) in redraft leagues so that all teams have a good motivation to remain as competitive as possible, and for keepers either a toilet bowl for the highest pick the following season or at least a lottery so there is no motivation to not perform at your best week in and week out.

 

They are called money leagues. (Not to be confused with so called money leagues because of the fees to have a team.) They generate money for weekly pots and various awards at the end of the season. If you don't like "real" money leagues then by all means stay away from them ..... however, those that do like them should play by the rules and within the spirit of competition.

[femmefootball]

Would anyone care if the situation was that he was in the playoffs guaranteed and just didn't want to pick up a TE for the week? Would he still be 'obligated' to make his team the best?

 

PS

#1 Straight up, each and every player should be entitled to determine if whatever waiver move they are making is worth the cost of doing so. Not have some punk ass tell them what they have to do. This can manifest itself in a number of ways.

 

1) Waiver moves could be free but you may not have anyone on your roster that you want to waive and you simply don't feel that there's a guy out there who has a good enough chance to score you enough points to release a good player into the pool.

2) Like every other form of gambling (let's not forget that is what we're doing) that the cost of said move is not worth the chances of getting any production. This is a decision that every good gambler must make. Is the next card worth me calling. Obviously if there is essentially no chance at all of winning the hand (in this case the league) then the answer is quite obviously no. Whatever the cost of picking up that player is not worth the price.

+1

Edited November 4, 2008 by femmefootball

[Grits and Shins]

Last week my TE scored a zero ... based on Huddle projections he was going to score a zero.

 

I made a decision last week that it was not worth $5 to attempt to upgrade at that position with a TE off of waivers. How is that substantively different than making a decision this week that it is not worth $5 to get a scrub TE off of waivers. The team I play this week is the top team in the league and averages 20+ more points per game than my team. Can somebody point me to the TE on the waiver wire that they anticipate will make up for the 20 point differential in our average team scores? Should I have been required to make a move last week in the spirit of being competitive?

 

I always carry only 1 TE and 1 PK and when the time comes I make the necessary line up moves to cover their bye week. That is the way I operate in this league. This is my worst year in this league and the first time I find myself in this position. It is not unprecedented for owners in this league to take a zero for their TE or PK, we have one owner in particular that likes to employ this strategy for his bye weeks when those bye weeks are after week 5 (when transaction fees increase from $1 to $5).

 

If I were to make a move it would not be making a desireable player availabe ... I would drop my current scrub TE and acquire a TE that I intended to start the remainder of the year.

[Grits and Shins]

So, in a slightly related subject, what about if th situation where a DTS ( a developmental squad).

 

In this particular league, we can carry a developmental squad where the players do not count against your cap, but they can not be started. If they are placed on the active squad, you must both cut an active player to make room for them and then assign a contract amount to them.

 

The team I took over this year is mediocre at best. I am floating around .500 on the season, with no real legitmate shot to win the league.

 

On my DTS I have Jerod Mayo and Eddie Royal, both of whom would likely be weekly starters for me if I were to start them, but neither of whom would provide enough of an improvement over my current starters to give me a significant edge in the potential outcomes of my games.

 

So, is my obligation as an owner to activate these players at the expense of currently active players and at the cost of available contract years to make my team marginally better this year with potentially significant long term detriment, or should I do what I feel is best for my team in the long term and keep these players on DTS for this season so that I can potentially hold them longer as active players in future years?

 

 

 

 

This is also one of the reasons I advocate for "Toilet Bowls" with a financial payout (usually the buyin) in redraft leagues so that all teams have a good motivation to remain as competitive as possible, and for keepers either a toilet bowl for the highest pick the following season or at least a lottery so there is no motivation to not perform at your best week in and week out.

 

I see no reason to activate players from your DTS to make your team incrementally better this year at the sacrifice of future contract years. It is part of the game in dynasty leagues to manage current and future contracts.

 

We do have a toilet bowl with a financial payout (minimum). Obviously I will be in the toilet bowl and will have to win 3 games in a row to claim the small prize.

[The Holy Roller]

Each owner should run his team as he sees fit. As long as he is not breaking any league rules what's the problem? Sounds like some league rules need tightening up. If it's an integrity issue, well, we all know that Grits is top drawer.

[i_am_the_swammi]

#1 Straight up, each and every player should be entitled to determine if whatever waiver move they are making is worth the cost of doing so. Not have some punk ass tell them what they have to do. This can manifest itself in a number of ways. Are we really going to get into name-calling, just because I disagree with you?

 

1) Waiver moves could be free but you may not have anyone on your roster that you want to waive and you simply don't feel that there's a guy out there who has a good enough chance to score you enough points to release a good player into the pool. A valid point...but Grits has alraedy told us his current TE is a dud who gets zero points every week. But I'll take your hypothetical, and take it a step further....if Grits was 9-0, would he make the move? of course he would. this argument isn't about that issue....its about the cost associated with it.

 

2) Like every other form of gambling (let's not forget that is what we're doing) that the cost of said move is not worth the chances of getting any production. This is a decision that every good gambler must make. Is the next card worth me calling. Obviously if there is essentially no chance at all of winning the hand (in this case the league) then the answer is quite obviously no. Whatever the cost of picking up that player is not worth the price. It's really not that hard to see.What you are completely failing to see is that in fantasy football, you are "gambling' within the confines of a league. This is not wagering on a poker hand in which you are not ethically or morally bound to consider the fate of others at the table. In fact, the exact opposite is true...the goal of poker is to win when you have the best of it, and preserve your chips when you don't. The argument at hand here is whether "preserving your chips" is of higher priority than the integrity of the league. You don't seem to think that fielding the best potential team possible affects the integrity of the league, whereas I do.

 

 

You can bring up all the Brent Celeks you want and, perhaps since you seem to have some homer info, you saw that coming. However, forgive the rest of us for not seeing that breakout game on the way considering the fact that his previous best performance was 28 yds and dude hasn't found the endzone once all year. Naming random guy who come out of nowhere doesn't change the fact that the likelihood of a random waiver wire TE being worth the money to pick up is very little when you look at it through unemotional eyes. The Brent Celek example was the first that came to mind, only because it was the most recent...not because he is an Eagle. The point of the example was to show that any active player has more of a chance, however small you think it may be, of scoring more than one who is on a bye-week.

 

Oh, and if we're "reading the rules" then it is either against the rules to start a guy who's not playing or it is not and whether you think it's because the guy has given up or, perish the thought, simply messed up should not matter. So, despite the fact that I am an active manager and, actually would not blow off starting any position regardless of my standing. Were I to come across a league that mandated starting a full lineup every week I would remind the gentlemen that this is, in fact a game, that they needed to get a life and remember that this is, in fact, a game and not an excuse to tell other people how to bet. Because that is exactly, 100% what you are advocating. Telling someone how to bet their money.Yes, when you enter a league, you are being told the rules, and what is expected of you to participate...if that means telling you what you need to spend money in order to field the best line-up, then yes, I guess I am advocating telling you what rules you must follow in order to be in the league. I think every league has rules of costs associated to play.

 

 

Everyone has the right to choose to be in their league, or to not be in it. My argument comes down to this: if you read the rules beforehand, and willingly agree to participate in a league where every move is going to cost $5, then you are binding yourself to that. I think it goes without saying that everyone should, in good faith, field the best possible line-up.

 

In Grits' scenario, he has already told us that his current TE is a dud...replacing him with another dud is of no consequence, other than the $5. But a dud who IS playing certainly has a better chance of scoring than a dud who isn't playing.

 

Maybe he can request a vote on the matter next year...I can certainly see his dilema, and it probably happens often in leagues that charge a fee for transactions.

 

But since he already bit the bullet and decided to participate in a league that charges for FA pick-ups, the $5 is a cost of "doing business" that I feel he needs to incur in order to keep the integrity fo the league in tact.

[Grits and Shins]

Next year, that league should impose a $10 fine for each bye week player you start

 

Won't happen ... I once tried to get the league to implement a rule where the loser would always kick in $5 to his opponent that week. It failed miserably ... this league wants absolutely nothing to do with fines. Additionally several teams have chosen to start bye week players in the past. This league has a strong belief that owners should manage their own teams.

[skylive5]

Next year, that league should impose a $10 fine for each bye week player you start

 

In my long time local it was $5 for a bye week or "out" player in the lineup. In anything but a Dynasty league that is the way it should be in my opinion. Field a full lineup each and every week or go someplace else. But then that is just me and not anyone else I know.

 

Blitz has finally come out and said that others in his league do the same thing and so it appears he is doing nothing against the rules. So there should be nothing more to be said about it I guess.

[i_am_the_swammi]

In my long time local it was $5 for a bye week or "out" player in the lineup. In anything but a Dynasty league that is the way it should be in my opinion. Field a full lineup each and every week or go someplace else. But then that is just me and not anyone else I know.

 

Blitz has finally come out and said that others in his league do the same thing and so it appears he is doing nothing against the rules. So there should be nothing more to be said about it I guess.

 

+1

 

Interesting league that lets owners do whatever they want with their teams with no rules regarding fielding a full team....I bet it gets very interesting come Week 11-13, when a number of teams have already been eliminated.

 

I guess if everyone goes into it knowing you could potentially be screwed by an owner who has given up, then its an equal playing field for everyone.

[Grits and Shins]

 

 

Just starting some trouble today?

 

 

No ... just initiating a discussion. Why should a team that is out of it be required to pay transaction fees to pick up players to cover off weeks ... unless the league wants to waive his fees?

[detlef]

Everyone has the right to choose to be in their league, or to not be in it. My argument comes down to this: if you read the rules beforehand, and willingly agree to participate in a league where every move is going to cost $5, then you are binding yourself to that. I think it goes without saying that everyone should, in good faith, field the best possible line-up.

 

In Grits' scenario, he has already told us that his current TE is a dud...replacing him with another dud is of no consequence, other than the $5. But a dud who IS playing certainly has a better chance of scoring than a dud who isn't playing.

 

Maybe he can request a vote on the matter next year...I can certainly see his dilema, and it probably happens often in leagues that charge a fee for transactions.

 

But since he already bit the bullet and decided to participate in a league that charges for FA pick-ups, the $5 is a cost of "doing business" that I feel he needs to incur in order to keep the integrity fo the league in tact.

I'm actually responding to something you put into my quote, not this. You have implied that I don't feel that I should always field the best team that I can despite the fact that I've mentioned more than once that I personally would fork over the money to buy the TE and field a team. The difference between us, it seems, is that I'm not going to go around and tell someone how to run his team. And yes, I think doing so is a "punk ass" move. That isn't calling you a punk ass per se, rather calling someone who feels they need to tell a guy who's go no chance of wining that he needs to continue to bet for your benefit is a punk assed move. And yes, it is much like poker in precisely the way you mention. I'm guessing Grits plays in many leagues. If he continues to pour money into losing teams that lowers his over all take on those teams that do win. Sounds pretty much exactly like not staying in bad hands longer than you should.

 

Again, we're not talking about tanking the season. We're talking about putting up money to pay for a player that might be barely worth the investment even if you had a chance at the dough. This is something that you can't logically deny. 9 times out of 10, the guy he picks up will account for about 2% of his teams production on the week.

 

Trust me, I understand your point. I also understand that whomever the Titans (I think) beat out for the last play-off spot a few years ago because they played Indy who was resting all their starters likely felt pretty pissed about it. However, it simply was not worth it to Indy to risk their best players just some other team would have a fair chance. That's not their problem. Their problem is to manage their team in whatever manner does best by them. Within the rules. Again, if you want to make a rule that says you need to start a complete line-up or you pay a fine or are kicked out of the league, so be it. But don't say it's "implied" when it quite obviously isnt.

[Grits and Shins]

Require it to keep it competitive?

 

But these things need to be clearly stated for any individual league in advance.

 

The team I play this week averages 20+ points more per week ... I don't believe that any TE available on waivers will make my team more competitive.

 

Or maybe stated another way ... there may be a tight end available on waivers that could make my team more competitive but the odds of selecting that particular TE from the waiver pile are slim to none.

[Double Agent]

wheres your powder blue and ur niggar friends

 

Will someone ban this fool already?

[gbpfan1231]

The team I play this week averages 20+ points more per week ... I don't believe that any TE available on waivers will make my team more competitive.

 

Or maybe stated another way ... there may be a tight end available on waivers that could make my team more competitive but the odds of selecting that particular TE from the waiver pile are slim to none.

Why does your Tight End need to make up the whole 20+ points. Your QB scores 9 points above his average and his QB scores 9 points below his average and your new TE scores 3 points now you win.

 

You are choosing to start a TE that has no chance at points. If you can't afford the $5.00 then don't join the league.

[Jrick35]

This all comes down to the same thing that all of these types of posts come down to.

 

If what you are wanting to do is covered within your league rules then do it, if not then don't.

 

In my local, there is no rule that says you MUST field a full team but we do have a rule that says if you don't then you forfiet.

[Big Country]

A valid point...but Grits has alraedy told us his current TE is a dud who gets zero points every week. But I'll take your hypothetical, and take it a step further....if Grits was 9-0, would he make the move? of course he would. this argument isn't about that issue....its about the cost associated with it.

 

IMO, that would depend on how far ahead in the playoff race he was.

 

If he has already secured a playoff spot, and the bulk of prize money is in the Superbowl and not in regular season standings, then I would find it a very reasonable strategy to not pay an extra $5 for a minimal return. I'd rather minimize my investment and maximize my return. Throwing more money into the pot for essentially the exact same chance at earning back 50%, or whatever the winner's share is, is a bad investment, and, depending on roster size, if it means he must cut a potentially valuable player for the playoff push (say an RB handcuff or a WR with strong matchups, etc.), he may in fact be hurting his team's chances to win the league more by acquiring a one week TE than he would by taking the zero for the position for that given week.

 

Now, if he were in a tight race for a playoff spot, then strategically it may make more sense to pay the $5 for any potential help from the TE as that could significantly improve his chances at making the playoffs, thus significantly improve his shot at winning the league (ie, the difference between being in the playoffs and out of them). So, if at either extreme of the standings, there are strategic and financial reasons to not make the move, if in the middle and fighting for a spot, there are more compelling reasons to make the move.

 

IMO, this shows that, in the case of being way ahead in the standings, it does make sense to look to the future, even in a redrafter (to sky's point about a dynasty/keeper league having a different set of acceptable rules).

[Roadkill]

Lets look at this from a different angle.

 

Does starting/fielding the best team also include your bench ?

 

Twice this year I had to choose between starting a bye player ,or drop players I was not willing to do to pick up a one week rental. Of course this was the positons that can get you some points or none at all, defense and TE. This was Owens in week 2 and the Bears week before last.

 

What was on my roster at the time doesn't matter. It was my opinion to stand pat and roll the dice. I didn't start the best line up, bet held onto the better roster.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Roadkill

[i_am_the_swammi]

Lets look at this from a different angle.

 

Does starting/fielding the best team also include your bench ?

 

Twice this year I had to choose between starting a bye player ,or drop players I was not willing to do to pick up a one week rental. Of course this was the positons that can get you some points or none at all, defense and TE. This was Owens in week 2 and the Bears week before last.

 

What was on my roster at the time doesn't matter. It was my opinion to stand pat and roll the dice. I didn't start the best line up, bet held onto the better roster.

 

I understand why you chose to do what you did....makes pefect sense from a strategy standpoint.

 

However, what was unfair to your leaguemates was that you fielded a team that was, on paper, not as strong as it could have been to defeat your opponent that week.

 

Perhaps the roster limits need to be increased to accommodate a back-up for the position in question? Or roster limits be put in place to limit the number of players hoarded at one position, so as to almost require you to have enough players to field a full team each and every week.

 

Whatever rule adjustment needs to be made, and there could be many, I think most leagues have rules that you be required to field a valid team.

 

To upset the competitve balance of a given week of head-to-head action because you can't decide whether to drop a #6 RB or a # 5 WR is just not worth it., IMO. And it certainly isn't fair to others who are relying on you to compete in any given week.

[Grits and Shins]

So I'm losing by 30 points ... even had I picked up the top performing free agent TE this week, Keller, I still lose the game.

 

Now .. what are the odds that I actually would have picked Keller from the free agents ... would you have?