But are free agent dollars really the most fair as opposed to worst goes first?

[Jackass]

"So what I am seeing in all the waiver wires I have is that the great teams that had little needs in early weeks have a ton of FA cash."

 

That's the benefit of drafting a good team.

[irish]

While I do like the FABB, I think calling any other way a joke a little harsh.

One of my leagues still does the worst gets first waiver and it's pretty fair and fun.

 

 

I just think to hand anyone the #1 position to cherry pick FAs without any competition is a ridiculous and outdated system. It's like playing Turtle Graphics in the midst of today's technology.

[DMD]

"So what I am seeing in all the waiver wires I have is that the great teams that had little needs in early weeks have a ton of FA cash."

 

That's the benefit of drafting a good team.

 

 

Or avoiding injuries that are unforseen and unpredictable.

 

Here is the most fundamental question to answer - what is a waiver wire for? What is the goal in having one and how is that best addressed?

[IrishPride]

I guess in my opinion the WW is supposed to be for competitive balance and to avoid the guys who sit by their computers waiting for an injury/situation? I know all you guys have been around for a long time, remember when we all started and there was that guy? Every week he seemed to snatch all the nuggets as they happened (Real time)? So a system was put into place to address that situation. Then as people figured ways around that, the FF GODS built a better mouse trap? Now that everything in our lives that we enjoy has become complicated, we all adjust and succumb to the changes (Fanasy Football Evolution). Hopefully our society doesn't figure out how to complicate opening a beer bottle or can?

[Jackass]

Or avoiding injuries that are unforseen and unpredictable.

 

Here is the most fundamental question to answer - what is a waiver wire for? What is the goal in having one and how is that best addressed?

 

 

Injuries are part of the game. NFL teams don't get any compensation when someone gets hurt. They have to build depth to allow for injuries just as fantasy owners do.

 

Waiver wire is another tool to build a winning team. There's the GM role of drafting and playing the waiver wire. And then there's the coach role of making the lineup decisions. Fantasy football would not be as fun without it - although i guess there would be a lot more trades.

[faceplant]

Injuries are part of the game. NFL teams don't get any compensation when someone gets hurt. They have to build depth to allow for injuries just as fantasy owners do.

 

 

Sure. But NFL teams roster tons of players from their own system. Practice squad and everything. FF is much more limited, as it should be.

 

And as far as waivers go, if I'm not mistaken, the NFL does have a system in place where the worst team gets priority on a waived player when multiple teams put in a claim. How is this any different?

 

Look, I like being on top when I'm lucky enough to not have injuries, draft a couple of sleepers that pan out, and sit atop the WW with either the number one slot because I never pick anyone up, or the most amount of money because I haven't had to grab a player. The point is, I recognize that I'm there because of a significant amount of luck.

And if it's not luck, then someone please provide a list of which star players will get injured during what week of the season before it starts so we can recognize greatness.

[flemingd]

Or avoiding injuries that are unforseen and unpredictable.

 

That's not the issue. The issue is overspending early on, being wrong, and having to do it again. Instead of dropping 25% of budget on Jeremy Hill in week 2, drop 2% on Justin Forsett and get by. Make a trade. Offer Cam for Cutler and Bradshaw, get laughed out of the room, and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

Waivers don't fix being wrong. If you suck, you suck. All waivers do is keep giving you outs if you keep sucking. Which brings up the other point:

 

Here is the most fundamental question to answer - what is a waiver wire for? What is the goal in having one and how is that best addressed?

 

 

This is indeed the fundamental answer. I've been telling my homer league for 10 years "first, we need to decide who we want to be as a league". Because it's a homer league, and we're all friends, we have purposely crafted our rules to allow teams the maximum chance to compete, fix problems, not get screwed by unforseen stuff, and just stay engaged as long as possible. And yes, we do waivers specifically for that reason. In a truly competitive situation, it's a complete failure. The only thing it gives us is yet one more way for a guy to pull a BS move, win something, and talk honda about it for 10 years.

Edited November 1, 2014 by flemingd

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

All waivers do is keep giving you outs if you keep sucking. Which brings up the other point:

 

 

 

In a truly competitive situation, it's a complete failure. The only thing it gives us is yet one more way for a guy to pull a BS move, win something, and talk honda about it for 10 years.

 

This x100

 

If you wanna bail the dude out that drafts Kap in the 1st cuz he's a 9ers fan and Seattle's D in the 4th cuz 'theyre the legion of boom baby'! then by all means run your waivers worst to 1st... and punish the teams that draft well. Maybe punish isn't the best word...how about restrict them from improving their team, which no one can convince me worst to 1st doesn't do.

 

If you want to have a league of players that like to compete, that like to spend time researching for a FA that may strike gold, especially later in the season, BB is the only way to play

 

 

[chester]

Ideally for me, an auction each week would be great.

 

Way too impractial.

[Jackass]

Sure. But NFL teams roster tons of players from their own system. Practice squad and everything. FF is much more limited, as it should be.

 

And as far as waivers go, if I'm not mistaken, the NFL does have a system in place where the worst team gets priority on a waived player when multiple teams put in a claim. How is this any different?

 

Look, I like being on top when I'm lucky enough to not have injuries, draft a couple of sleepers that pan out, and sit atop the WW with either the number one slot because I never pick anyone up, or the most amount of money because I haven't had to grab a player. The point is, I recognize that I'm there because of a significant amount of luck.

And if it's not luck, then someone please provide a list of which star players will get injured during what week of the season before it starts so we can recognize greatness.

 

To me, it doesn't matter that the NFL teams can roster more players. In fantasy everyone in the league is playing with the same rules and roster size.

 

NFL teams do have the rule of worst to first, but, because of your first point, this only comes into play for marginal players so has a minimal impact.

 

Of course there's luck in who gets injured but that's the way it goes. Part of building a good team is building one with depth. Also, the waiver wire is not just to replace injuries. Often it's to replace underperforming players.

[Judge Smales]

While reading this thread was wondering if anyone has a Hybrid system that uses BB and someone giving more money to a teams budget for every loss.

 

Thought it might make things a bit more interesting if you possibly give a team 5% of the season budget for each loss. We use BB and won't go back to any other system, but I agree it is not a perfect system.

[Gopher]

This x100

 

If you wanna bail the dude out that drafts Kap in the 1st cuz he's a 9ers fan and Seattle's D in the 4th cuz 'theyre the legion of boom baby'! then by all means run your waivers worst to 1st... and punish the teams that draft well. Maybe punish isn't the best word...how about restrict them from improving their team, which no one can convince me worst to 1st doesn't do.

 

If you want to have a league of players that like to compete, that like to spend time researching for a FA that may strike gold, especially later in the season, BB is the only way to play

So which is it? Are you smarter than the guy who is drafting Kap in the first round? Or, does worst-to-first waivers put you (if you're hypothetically at the bottom of the priority list) at such a disadvantage that you can't overcome it (even though the guys ahead of you don't know what they're doing)? In other words, if the guy drafts Kap in the first, he's likely going to jump all over the wrong waiver wire player as well. If he drafts terribly, he's going to pick up the wrong players, as well. So, what's the big fear? You're either going to keep winning (and stay at the bottom of the list), or lose (and move up).

 

And, it's not like winning teams don't get to participate in waivers. Even when I'm at the bottom of the list, I can more often than not get somebody from my top 2-3 targets (just like I would if I spent enough in BB). Different teams have different holes to fill, and there are very few weeks where the top waiver wire player is unanimous.

 

Again.... it's a matter of preference, and I enjoy both/all forms of waivers. But, to claim that BB is the only way to go is just as silly as saying any league without PPR is a joke. There's nothing wrong with either option.

[Gopher]

This notion that worst-to-first waivers somehow rewards bad fantasy owners is ridiculous. Let's face it... If they suck at drafting, they suck in general. They draft a terrible draft, get the top waivers pick, and screw that up too. Or, they pick up somebody decent, but it's only a matter of time before that move alone isn't enough to cover all of their weaknesses. Or, that move helps them move up in the standings, but only so far.

 

It's takes someone who knows what they're doing, to win a league through the waiver wire. Bad owners usually can't/don't. Pretty simple.

[stevegrab]

Its clear to me now, DMD is just a bad fantasy player for not having enough depth to cover the injuries/suspensions or spending too much on his early bid for waivers. There's no way that fantasy football could have just dealt him an extra serving of bad luck.

[Dolphin_Akie]

This notion that worst-to-first waivers somehow rewards bad fantasy owners is ridiculous. Let's face it... If they suck at drafting, they suck in general. They draft a terrible draft, get the top waivers pick, and screw that up too. Or, they pick up somebody decent, but it's only a matter of time before that move alone isn't enough to cover all of their weaknesses. Or, that move helps them move up in the standings, but only so far.

 

It's takes someone who knows what they're doing, to win a league through the waiver wire. Bad owners usually can't/don't. Pretty simple.

 

 

I agree, I actually looked at the top waiver pickups in our league and in most cases it wasn't the person who was #1 in waivers who picked these guys up. Plus a lot of players like Denard Robinson and Martavis Bryant were picked up in free agency on a Thursday or Friday as a stash ahead of the weekend and worked out great.

 

People overstate the value of having the top waiver pick as often you just end up with a week one player who returns back to being average like Jordan Matthews or Kirk Cousins.

[DMD]

Its clear to me now, DMD is just a bad fantasy player for not having enough depth to cover the injuries/suspensions or spending too much on his early bid for waivers. There's no way that fantasy football could have just dealt him an extra serving of bad luck.

 

 

 

[faceplant]

I'll stand by the idea that drafting depth also requires luck just as much as drafting starters.

 

I don't know how everyone else is doing it, but I draft based on predictions, assumptions, schedules, injury history, etc. ALL of those things are guesses. If someone here is conjuring up a draft list that had Chris Ivory, Justin Forsett, and Lamar Miller ahead of LeSean McCoy then I'll crawl into the corner.

 

Tell me you passed on Steven Jackson, Devonta Freeman, and Jacquizz Rodgers to take Antone Smith when they were all available IN THE DRAFT, because you know how to draft depth.

 

It's impossible. You're making educated guesses, and sometimes your lucky and sometimes your not. So back to the origin of this thread, I don't think the guy that drafted Peterson should be punished. However, I do think the guy that drafted Demaryius Thomas is getting what they deserve. In worst to first, they are both getting help. In BB, neither of them are getting help.

[tazinib1]

 

clairvoyance.com ? gauranteedfantasyinfo.com ? weknewriceandAPwouldbesuspended.com

 

Not sure what you're alluding to here, especially as it follows the post about the owner drafting AP having bad luck.

 

It's called sarcasm Steve

[Jackass]

It really comes down to whether you believe in capitalism or socialism.

[irish]

This notion that worst-to-first waivers somehow rewards bad fantasy owners is ridiculous. Let's face it... If they suck at drafting, they suck in general. They draft a terrible draft, get the top waivers pick, and screw that up too. Or, they pick up somebody decent, but it's only a matter of time before that move alone isn't enough to cover all of their weaknesses. Or, that move helps them move up in the standings, but only so far.

 

It's takes someone who knows what they're doing, to win a league through the waiver wire. Bad owners usually can't/don't. Pretty simple.

 

 

Disagree. I don't think it benefits all bad owners because, sure, some just couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. However, just because they're bad doesn't mean they should get to cherry pick. BB is the best and fairest way to go.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

So which is it? Are you smarter than the guy who is drafting Kap in the first round? Or, does worst-to-first waivers put you (if you're hypothetically at the bottom of the priority list) at such a disadvantage that you can't overcome it (even though the guys ahead of you don't know what they're doing)? In other words, if the guy drafts Kap in the first, he's likely going to jump all over the wrong waiver wire player as well. If he drafts terribly, he's going to pick up the wrong players, as well. So, what's the big fear? You're either going to keep winning (and stay at the bottom of the list), or lose (and move up).

 

And, it's not like winning teams don't get to participate in waivers. Even when I'm at the bottom of the list, I can more often than not get somebody from my top 2-3 targets (just like I would if I spent enough in BB). Different teams have different holes to fill, and there are very few weeks where the top waiver wire player is unanimous.

 

Again.... it's a matter of preference, and I enjoy both/all forms of waivers. But, to claim that BB is the only way to go is just as silly as saying any league without PPR is a joke. There's nothing wrong with either option.

 

A league without ppr is a joke..

[stevegrab]

 

 

Since I haven't been banned (or shot) I figure you knew I was joking.

 

It's called sarcasm Steve

 

If you say so, I didn't get that, but then my sarcasm meter has been broken a long time.

[IrishPride]

i changed my mind now that I'm tied for 1st and have WW 11, and every sub 500 team is picking up the nuggets......

[HowboutthemCowboys]

See the "AP" thread..page 2 for a perfect example of why worst to first is not good

[Dont Rookie Me........]

The best I have found is a rotation. If you chose a ww you go to the back of the line. Everyone gets a shot a one this way and holding onto one can have its benefits if you are deep, but if you need help you can use it at your disposal.