Position Limits

[Deez Nutz]

I'm the commissioner of league that's going on it's 4th year. Some people are complaining that I should place restrictions on the number of players an owner can keep at a certain position on their 15 man roster. The issue came up because a certain owner had 7 RBs at one time for a 3 weeks. The complainers said that because of this they had no decent RBs to grab on the waiver wire. Our rosters consist of 9 starters (1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR, 1TE, 1K and 1 DST) and 6 reserve players - 15 players total.

 

I, personally, don't want to place restrictions because I feel that that can be that owners strategy to limit RBs on the waiver wire. I also feel that an owner might value RBs more than WRs, therefore, that's why he has so many. Also, he can use them as trade bait.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Do you have Position Limits in your leagues?

[theprofessor]

I'm the commissioner of league that's going on it's 4th year. Some people are complaining that I should place restrictions on the number of players an owner can keep at a certain position on their 15 man roster. The issue came up because a certain owner had 7 RBs at one time for a 3 weeks. The complainers said that because of this they had no decent RBs to grab on the waiver wire. Our rosters consist of 9 starters (1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR, 1TE, 1K and 1 DST) and 6 reserve players - 15 players total.

 

I, personally, don't want to place restrictions because I feel that that can be that owners strategy to limit RBs on the waiver wire. I also feel that an owner might value RBs more than WRs, therefore, that's why he has so many. Also, he can use them as trade bait.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Do you have Position Limits in your leagues?

 

I have always placed roster restrictions in the leagues I commission. IMO, it is the best way to keep everyone interested during the year as there is always quality players on the waiver wire. It is also a great way to generate revenue during the year as everyone usually is very active in free agency.

 

We charge $2.00 per pick up and also have a 24 hour blind bid period each week with "real" money. All of the money we generate through free agency gets paid back to the owners as we use this money to reward the high scoring team each week. Our normal payoff for the high score of the week is between $70-$80. Great way to keep everyone involved for all 17 weeks!

[CrimsonGhost]

Never restrict how many players a team can hold. It takes away from the game.

[Big Country]

I am vehemently opposed to position limits.

 

Let your owners manage their team the way they see fit. If that means hoarding 7 RBs, then so be it, if an owner needs an RB, they can either work a trade or search for a deeper player on the WW. That guy holding 7 RBs meant better players at another position were available on the WW. In larger leagues, it can mean hoarding QBs so you have trade bait when someone inevitable goes down.

 

I repeat, let your owners determine how to best build their teams and to hold on to what they perceive as providing them with the greatest value.

 

prof - do you also charge for trades? If so, then the same principle applies, encourage trading as well as WW pickups, even more fun and greater participation and interaction between owners. Both actions will build the transaction pot, encourage participation and keep owners interested.

[Savage Beatings]

If an owner stacks up at one position, then he most likely is going to be thin at another position. When that happens he probably eventually needs to look at trades involving one of more of those deep positions. It usually all works out in the end without the need for a Commissioner to step in and impose artificial limits. I'm always in favor of more freedom for the owners to run their teams as they wish. As you pointed out, it allows for more strategy (like limiting other owners' options).

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm the commissioner of league that's going on it's 4th year. Some people are complaining that I should place restrictions on the number of players an owner can keep at a certain position on their 15 man roster. The issue came up because a certain owner had 7 RBs at one time for a 3 weeks. The complainers said that because of this they had no decent RBs to grab on the waiver wire. Our rosters consist of 9 starters (1QB, 2RB, 2WR, 1RB/WR, 1TE, 1K and 1 DST) and 6 reserve players - 15 players total.

 

I, personally, don't want to place restrictions because I feel that that can be that owners strategy to limit RBs on the waiver wire. I also feel that an owner might value RBs more than WRs, therefore, that's why he has so many. Also, he can use them as trade bait.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Do you have Position Limits in your leagues?

 

So that means the same owner would only have 1 bench spot allotted to all of his other positions... That seems like a fair trade-off to me, since when byes/injuries roll around, he either has to dump RBs, or take a 0.

 

But all that aside, it shouldn't be the leagues' place to tell someone what positions they must have on their roster... Well, other than leaving all FAs on on waivers until a certain day of the week. I would say that would be the one and only means I would use to prevent hoarding, since everyone gets equal opportunity according to your waiver spot...

 

But as for you all restricting the owner from doing that, then the others owners should pick up a few extra RBs first, before he does... Simple as that.

[cdrudge]

The issue came up because a certain owner had 7 RBs at one time for a 3 weeks. The complainers said that because of this they had no decent RBs to grab on the waiver wire.

How did said team come up with 7 RBs? Not that it really matters as long as everyone else had just as much opportunity as he did.

 

If the whinerscomplainers would have drafted better or at least managed their teams better, maybe they would have had more depth at RB and they wouldn't have to scrounge around for a 3rd string RB. The only exception to this is someone who unfortunately gets devastated by multiple players going down with significant injuries during a short period of time. Even then, it's part of the game.

[Bronco Billy]

Absolutely no limits by position. An owner stockpiling one position has to weaken their roster at other positions. It is then up to owners to come to agreements through trades in order to attempt to sort the situation out. This is part of what makes FF great fun.

 

However, if your league would prefer removing one of the more enjoyable aspects of the game, by all means create more rules to protect whiny owners.

[Riffraff]

Not a big fan of cookie cutter rosters. Let the owners play the way they want to.

[Deez Nutz]

Thanks everyone . . . .great points. As a commissioner, should I just say I'm not changing it? Or should I hold a vote? What would you do if you were commissioner?

[Bronco Billy]

Thanks everyone . . . .great points. As a commissioner, should I just say I'm not changing it? Or should I hold a vote? What would you do if you were commissioner?

 

How many owners are whining? If it is one or two, ask them to drum up more support and you'll entertain creating a rule. If it is more than that, a discussion prior to a rules vote would be appropriate.

 

In either case, give them a link to this thread and let them read it.

[MikesVikes]

I've never had roster limits in any league that I've been in. Also if one owner has 7 rbs or not, there probably isn't any decent RBs on the waiver wire regardless. If a good RB wasn't on his roster it probably would've been on someone elses instead anyway. But you have small rosters, it shouldn't be too hard to find a player that's not on one. Like everyone else said, the guy with 7 RBs is probably not doing himself any favors even if it's for 3 weeks.

Edited August 23, 2010 by MikesVikes