detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 So, I'm in a league (not commish, mind you) where you get 20 moves for free and then they cost $2 each. One team, who is no longer in play-off contention had used his 20 moves but had a kicker, Akers, who was questionable for this week. The only reason it mattered was that he was playing one of two teams fighting for the last playoff spot. He basically said, he had no incentive to pay for the extra move but would otherwise have done so because he recognized he was involved in a game that mattered. Note, this doesn't effect my team in any way. I clinched two weeks ago and don't even have much of an opinion over who I'd even want to face among the teams vying for the last spot. We decided to grant him a free move but am curious about it going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satelliteoflovegm Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I would have publicly told him doing the right thing should be incentive enough and hopefully peer pressure would take over from there. I floated the idea to offer free moves to non-playoff teams for this reason and the league was pretty vocal against it. Saying now those teams can for free pick up other key players playoff teams may need. I wouldn't have done what your league did but instead hoped he was compelled to act properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 I would have publicly told him doing the right thing should be incentive enough and hopefully peer pressure would take over from there. I floated the idea to offer free moves to non-playoff teams for this reason and the league was pretty vocal against it. Saying now those teams can for free pick up other key players playoff teams may need. I wouldn't have done what your league did but instead hoped he was compelled to act properly. That's exactly how I feel and sent out an e-mail to that effect. The funny thing is, we used to have it so you paid for every move and just recently switched it to 20 free and then you pay. For some odd reason, this change is what is being scrutinized. Obviously, this exact same issue would have come up had we still done it the old way. As far as how we handled it, I don't see much issue with it. It's not like he got anything useful out of it. He's out of it anyway, so great, now a precedent has been set that, if you're eliminated and absolutely need to make a move that you don't want to pay for, the league will just let you do it. It's sort of a better version of what you proposed. Free moves for eliminated teams without the bit about them poaching plum FAs. For instance, if you qualify for the free moves bit (you've used all 20 and are eliminated), you don't get to participate in priority waivers but can pick up players for free during first come, first served period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think leagues with 'per transaction' fees naturally create this problem, and I really dislike them for that reason. These leagues create a significant disincentive to actively manage your team if you get eliminated from contention. I'm in a baseball pool with such a fee and we run into this problem every August as teams start dropping out of the race. I think the cons of this format far outweigh the pros. Just my 2 cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tford Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Create a fine for submitting an incomplete lineup that is greater than the transaction cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 We charge $2 for every transaction and have one free move. We have some guys who spend like drunken sailors and other owners who only make 3-5 moves every year. I've never heard of a case where somebody didn't add a player to cover a hole because they didn't want to spend the money. Heck, its $2, we're all big boys with jobs now (not starving college kids). I think allowing free moves like that sets a dangerous precedent, but I think your league handled it pretty well. Oh, and as far as the pros and cons, our roster move money (usually $200-300) is split by the high scoring teams (1st-50%, 2nd-30, 3rd=20). This year the highest scoring team in our league missed the playoffs, but will still get a nice $125 or so payout. Without that, we'd probably have to work the high scoring team into the playoffs otherwise these scenarios could make them feel screwed out of the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Keeper, dynasty or redraft? If it's a redraft then you may want to revise the rules so that any fees are waived for owners that are out of contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 We charge $2 for every transaction and have one free move. We have some guys who spend like drunken sailors and other owners who only make 3-5 moves every year. I've never heard of a case where somebody didn't add a player to cover a hole because they didn't want to spend the money. Heck, its $2, we're all big boys with jobs now (not starving college kids). I think allowing free moves like that sets a dangerous precedent, but I think your league handled it pretty well. Oh, and as far as the pros and cons, our roster move money (usually $200-300) is split by the high scoring teams (1st-50%, 2nd-30, 3rd=20). This year the highest scoring team in our league missed the playoffs, but will still get a nice $125 or so payout. Without that, we'd probably have to work the high scoring team into the playoffs otherwise these scenarios could make them feel screwed out of the money. And what is that precedent? That the next time a team who is eliminated and has used up their free moves has an injury at the type of position where we often don't keep back-ups (basically K or maybe TE), they'll want to do the same thing? Is that really so bad? Am I missing some way this could be exploited or turn south? That is not a rhetorical question. Of course, I would love for this to just be handled under the "don't be a dick" rule and just have owners continue to field a complete team as a matter of pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 And what is that precedent? That the next time a team who is eliminated and has used up their free moves has an injury at the type of position where we often don't keep back-ups (basically K or maybe TE), they'll want to do the same thing? Is that really so bad? Am I missing some way this could be exploited or turn south? That is not a rhetorical question. Of course, I would love for this to just be handled under the "don't be a dick" rule and just have owners continue to field a complete team as a matter of pride. I only meant allowing free roster moves, and maybe went overboard saying it was dangerous. Haven't given it enough thought to come up with it could be exploited. I suppose if it is a keeper league, it could be argued you're allowing a team add talent that could benefit them next year for free, while others have to pay. But you did also say they cannot do this through waivers, only free agent players so that reduces the issue some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grogansghost Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I wouldn't like to have one team get an exemption of the agreed upon rules just so another team has to face a tougher match-up. Granted, I'd also be pissed if I was the team on the playoff bubble that might get bumped out because one guy had blown through his 20 free moves. That's why I think I'd prefer bidding on free agents or some other way to encourage owners to be smart/economical about their ww moves rather than having a penalty. The league agreed to a rule that would restrict/discourage having more than 20 moves and that's what happened...until they changed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 We give out 5 free and then charge $5 after that. We have never run into this problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 I only meant allowing free roster moves, and maybe went overboard saying it was dangerous. Haven't given it enough thought to come up with it could be exploited. I suppose if it is a keeper league, it could be argued you're allowing a team add talent that could benefit them next year for free, while others have to pay. But you did also say they cannot do this through waivers, only free agent players so that reduces the issue some. Well, given how it played out, dude had to appeal to the commish to let him make a move. It's not a free-for-all once you're eliminated. I know if I was the commish in that case, I wouldn't let him do so unless he would potentially have an incomplete roster. Especially in a keeper league. So this would not be about improving his roster, per se. Just getting a warm body to fill out a starting line-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) I wouldn't like to have one team get an exemption of the agreed upon rules just so another team has to face a tougher match-up. Granted, I'd also be pissed if I was the team on the playoff bubble that might get bumped out because one guy had blown through his 20 free moves. That's why I think I'd prefer bidding on free agents or some other way to encourage owners to be smart/economical about their ww moves rather than having a penalty. The league agreed to a rule that would restrict/discourage having more than 20 moves and that's what happened...until they changed it. But bidding on waivers only affects priority waivers. At least as I understand it, and in the one league I've played in that used it, once the waivers process and players are awarded to the highest bidder, subsequent moves are free. So, that does nothing to change how many moves you make, just how many coveted players you put in a claim for. I also think that the team facing a "tougher" match-up by virtue of actually having to play a complete opponent is getting less screwed than another team vying for the same play-off spot possibly getting beaten out because another team got an easier path. Edited December 3, 2012 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Create a fine for submitting an incomplete lineup that is greater than the transaction cost. there's your answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I've been in leagues with small benches where a owner will just take a zero if they have a stud kicker (if there is such a thing) rather than having to lose him or a more valuable bench player during a bye week. I think it's kind of similar here. The fact that Akers wasn't officially ruled out, released, and/or put on IR I think adds that a transaction, free or charged, should not have been required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 there's your answer i thought about that, but where do you draw the line. What about a game day scratch? Some dude sets his lineup, goes camping, and now gets popped for a fine as well as maybe loses a game he wouldn't otherwise because a Bill Bellchick is a dick and hates FF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think some people are being unreasonable. If your out of the playoffs and you get charged per transaction then why in the world would you continue to invest in it. Doesn't make sense. I'm completely out of it in one league and continue to change my lineup to try and win, but I'm not paying for anymore transactions. If you want to fine me for not playing a kicker because he got hurt, good luck in ever getting that money. Sorry, just being honest. I agree that a competitive team needs to be put in place every week, but I don't agree that they should be forced to continue pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faceplant Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I've been in leagues with small benches where a owner will just take a zero if they have a stud kicker (if there is such a thing) rather than having to lose him or a more valuable bench player during a bye week. I think it's kind of similar here. The fact that Akers wasn't officially ruled out, released, and/or put on IR I think adds that a transaction, free or charged, should not have been required. I'm with cdrudge on this one. If he's not required to post a full lineup then why would he reach into his pocket? You could argue that its only $2, but then why have a $2 charge in the first place? There's nothing you can do about it this year except put a rule in place next year so people are more aware of this type of scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I think some people are being unreasonable. If your out of the playoffs and you get charged per transaction then why in the world would you continue to invest in it. Doesn't make sense. I'm completely out of it in one league and continue to change my lineup to try and win, but I'm not paying for anymore transactions. If you want to fine me for not playing a kicker because he got hurt, good luck in ever getting that money. Sorry, just being honest. I agree that a competitive team needs to be put in place every week, but I don't agree that they should be forced to continue pay for it. This. My suggestion would be that as soon as you reach the trade deadline, you could shift all add/drops to free at that point. That won't help this year but it might in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelsosi Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) I think some people are being unreasonable. If your out of the playoffs and you get charged per transaction then why in the world would you continue to invest in it. Doesn't make sense. I'm completely out of it in one league and continue to change my lineup to try and win, but I'm not paying for anymore transactions. If you want to fine me for not playing a kicker because he got hurt, good luck in ever getting that money. Sorry, just being honest. I agree that a competitive team needs to be put in place every week, but I don't agree that they should be forced to continue pay for it. This. The old "don't be a dick" rule doesn't apply if you're expecting people to shell out transaction fees after being eliminated. Especially true in a redraft league. Transaction fees are silly IMO. If you're worried about people making excessive transactions, put a weekly cap on transactions. If you want an extra prize pot, just build it into the entry fee. Transaction fees just create problems in my experience. Edited December 3, 2012 by nelsosi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 i thought about that, but where do you draw the line. What about a game day scratch? Some dude sets his lineup, goes camping, and now gets popped for a fine as well as maybe loses a game he wouldn't otherwise because a Bill Bellchick is a dick and hates FF Game day scratches would not be fined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 3, 2012 Author Share Posted December 3, 2012 Game day scratches would not be fined So, Brian Griese trips over his dog on Saturday and is out. Dude camping still adds insult to injury. More and more, I'm actually inclined to agree with those who recognize a guy should have to keep paying to play if he's out of it. There's the adage, throwing good money after bad and this is a perfect example. When you're beat, you're beat. So, all in all, I guess the comish stepping in and letting a guy in that situation make a free move is the best solution with the least amount of BS attached to it. Hell, at least he had the courtesy to make some noise about the situation and bring it to our attention. He could have just done nothing and made the team he wasn't playing but was hoping he'd win make a stink of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 detlef, I'm curious, do you think the majority of teams in your league would be opposed to spending the $2 for the roster move in this situation. We don't usually have a problem with teams tanking in our league, and the rosters are deep enough that most owners have a backup K, TE (even D). I understand the throwing good money after bad point. And don't think the solution of your commish was wrong. Its just another exception to the rules and if handled properly is not going to be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) You mean people here just throw money at something that provides absolutely no return whatsoever? Really? Because that's exactly what you are asking a team that has no chance of making the playoffs to do. I'm not quite sure how this was not foreseeable when the decision was made to charge for transactions. Why wouldn't the team(s) that stood to benefit from the kickerless team contribute their money to buy a FA kicker? At least that would make some sense. Would that be acceptable by the league? Edited December 3, 2012 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 So, all in all, I guess the comish stepping in and letting a guy in that situation make a free move is the best solution with the least amount of BS attached to it. Hell, at least he had the courtesy to make some noise about the situation and bring it to our attention. He could have just done nothing and made the team he wasn't playing but was hoping he'd win make a stink of it. But playing devil's advocate, what if the free transaction team won due to the points the free transaction gave him. The losing team, presuming that they are still in the hunt, gets a loss due to the handout given to the team with no chance. What if instead of a kicker, it was a QB, say Russel Wilson who had a 30+ point week. That could have easily been the difference between a win or loss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.