Sign in to follow this  
NavinRJohnson

Urge another owner to use the Waiver Wire?

Recommended Posts

I need one team to win their matchup this weekend in order for me to make the playoffs. Unfortunately, that team's owner doesn't pay much attention and he currently has Ingram as starting RB. I certainly can see Ingram in his lineup this weekend. Is there anything wrong with a gentle nudge, advising him that James White is available on the waiver wire?

 

Since I'm asking, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer. Just wanted to see what you guys think. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah absolutely would do it.

 

In one league we had one guy who would just pick a valid lineup and never use the WW, out of nowhere he picked up David Johnson last week and stunned the entire league. Didnt start him and still lost :fool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fall on the opposite side of this debate - I am 100% against it, using the (as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in these threads regarding trade vetoes), "you have to let other owners manage their own teams" perspective. To me, telling another team to set his lineup is no different, and is borderline collusion - you in essence are "managing" his team. I understand the desire to have a competitive league with active owners, but in this case (and, as many have argued regarding trade vetoes), you have to let it be, and just don't invite them back next year. This probably opens a can of worms in here, but that's how I feel about it...

 

P.S. - this happened to me earlier this season when another owner posted in the league message board to the Commish, to remind my opponent to set his lineup, and I was infuriated, because the same message had not been posted previously when the inactive team played others...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fall on the opposite side of this debate - I am 100% against it, using the (as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in these threads regarding trade vetoes), "you have to let other owners manage their own teams" perspective. To me, telling another team to set his lineup is no different, and is borderline collusion - you in essence are "managing" his team. I understand the desire to have a competitive league with active owners, but in this case (and, as many have argued regarding trade vetoes), you have to let it be, and just don't invite them back next year. This probably opens a can of worms in here, but that's how I feel about it...

 

P.S. - this happened to me earlier this season when another owner posted in the league message board to the Commish, to remind my opponent to set his lineup, and I was infuriated, because the same message had not been posted previously when the inactive team played others...

I went a little crazy in my first post so let me restate my opinion. If the OP is not the commissioner I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact if the OP needs this guy to win I think it would be foolish of him not reach out to this guy and at least remind him to set his line up. If this guy hasn't been setting his line up for weeks than the commissioner should have done something about it a long time ago

Edited by Finn5033
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided you are not the commissioner of the league, I see no major problem with it. It seems a bit underhanded to only bring it up when it benefits you though.

 

If you are the commissioner, then you should have already been doing this after the first week or two of apparent inactivity. As the commish, if you do it now I would have a serious problem with it if I was another player in your league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fall on the opposite side of this debate - I am 100% against it, using the (as has been pointed out, ad nauseum, in these threads regarding trade vetoes), "you have to let other owners manage their own teams" perspective. To me, telling another team to set his lineup is no different, and is borderline collusion - you in essence are "managing" his team. I understand the desire to have a competitive league with active owners, but in this case (and, as many have argued regarding trade vetoes), you have to let it be, and just don't invite them back next year. This probably opens a can of worms in here, but that's how I feel about it...

 

P.S. - this happened to me earlier this season when another owner posted in the league message board to the Commish, to remind my opponent to set his lineup, and I was infuriated, because the same message had not been posted previously when the inactive team played others...

 

I agree with what you say here. I read it as the guy doesn't actively manage his team so would be starting inactive players like Ingram and the OP just nudging him to maybe re-set his lineup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is beyond ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with urging a guy to set his line-up. This is in no way collusion.

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided you are not the commissioner of the league, I see no major problem with it. It seems a bit underhanded to only bring it up when it benefits you though.

 

If you are the commissioner, then you should have already been doing this after the first week or two of apparent inactivity. As the commish, if you do it now I would have a serious problem with it if I was another player in your league.

 

 

I'm not the Commissioner. Also, I don't think underhanded is the correct word. It's a bit shady and I would feel weird doing it, but I don't think it's cheating or collusion. I'm just making a suggestion that he manage his team in this critical time of the year. Maybe it would be better if I just told him that Ingram is out and I didn't bring up a specific replacement.

 

It's really is an interesting dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

You should re-read my post, I admit I went a little crazy with my first post. But no it is certainly not black and white. I don't think he should tell the guy specifically who to pick up and play, but there is nothing wrong with him sending the guy a text to say hey you should set a full line up this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you say here. I read it as the guy doesn't actively manage his team so would be starting inactive players like Ingram and the OP just nudging him to maybe re-set his lineup?

 

But, if he hasn't actively managed his team all season, and all of a sudden, at playoff time, he is told to do so in an attempt to defeat an opponent, how is that fair to the guy he's playing this week?

 

If the owner is truly "inactive" the Commish probably should have found a replacement owner much earlier in the season, IMO, to maintain FAIR competitive balance...but, that also opens a can of worms for all of the teams who potentially defeated the inactive team prior to the takeover...probably best for all involved, just to leave it be and not invite back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

On another note this is not a court of law. We don't even know if the guy will win or lose whether he sets his line up or not. He could remind him to set his line up and it may not matter. I think you are going too far by saying this is cheating. The OP is not in control of this guys team. Reminding him to set his lineup is just that, a reminder not him hacking his account and setting his line up for him. The one thing I would not agree with is the OP specifically suggesting who to pick up and play

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should re-read my post, I admit I went a little crazy with my first post. But no it is certainly not black and white. I don't think he should tell the guy specifically who to pick up and play, but there is nothing wrong with him sending the guy a text to say hey you should set a full line up this week.

The problem is, your original post was just one sentence (which is what I responded to). Anyway, I have absolutely no problem with the Commish consistently posting (or emailing) the entire league as a reminder for teams to set their lineups, as long as one owner is not individually singled out to the benefit of another (as is the case, from what I can tell with the OP). In my main local, it's actually a $5 fine to submit an inactive starting lineup with, after the 3rd instance,you're bounced next season...but that is a written rule within the league by-laws, so it's fair in that everyone knows the expectation, up-front...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note this is not a court of law. We don't even know if the guy will win or lose whether he sets his line up or not. He could remind him to set his line up and it may not matter. I think you are going too far by saying this is cheating. The OP is not in control of this guys team. Reminding him to set his lineup is just that, a reminder not him hacking his account and setting his line up for him. The one thing I would not agree with is the OP specifically suggesting who to pick up and play

I'm just sayin' that if this happens to me (i.e., another team "reminds" my opponent to set his lineup in a specific attempt to defeat me, when such reminders haven't been made for any other match-ups all season), and I lose any money because of it, it would damn sure turn into a court case, as I would probably end up being arrested for assault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, your original post was just one sentence (which is what I responded to). Anyway, I have absolutely no problem with the Commish consistently posting (or emailing) the entire league as a reminder for teams to set their lineups, as long as one owner is not individually singled out to the benefit of another (as is the case, from what I can tell with the OP). In my main local, it's actually a $5 fine to submit an inactive starting lineup with, after the 3rd instance,you're bounced next season...but that is a written rule within the league by-laws, so it's fair in that everyone knows the expectation, up-front...

I do the same thing in my league but it's a $10 fine. If this guys hasn't been setting his line up for some time then it's on the commissioner first and foremost. And if that is the case than I say the other members should have been reminding the guy all season. Sending a text message to this guys that simply says, hey you should set your line up this week, is in no way colluding IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just sayin' that if this happens to me (i.e., another team "reminds" my opponent to set his lineup in a specific attempt to defeat me, when such reminders haven't been made for any other match-ups all season), and I lose any money because of it, it would damn sure turn into a court case, as I would probably end up being arrested for assault...

I can see we clearly disagree on this and that's fine. But even if the guy hadn't been setting his lineup for some time and he gets reminded to do so against me and beats me, than so be it. If my team can't beat the other teams full line up than I didn't deserve to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my own fault that I got Cam Newtoned last week and its come to this. I'm just going to leave it alone.

 

If I was on the other side of this, I'd be bitter if someone inserted themselves into the roster dealings of another team to lessen my chances for a playoff spot. But I bet it's done all the time over the course of the season.....over a beer, by text, whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see we clearly disagree on this and that's fine. But even if the guy hadn't been setting his lineup for some time and he gets reminded to do so against me and beats me, than so be it. If my team can't beat the other teams full line up than I didn't deserve to win.

We will have to agree to disagree. But, you know as well as I do that ANYTHING can happen in the NFL on "any given Sunday." I would agree, that If I'm beaten fairly, then so be it. But, if someone is "reminded" to set their lineup, with the sole purpose of trying to defeat me, when they haven't been told to do so all season long, then I don't consider that fair.

 

Anyway, we can agree that if this has been a recurring problem, them the Commish should have stepped-in long ago, not now, at the most critical part of the season, when one loss means you're done...

Edited by the outlaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's my own fault that I got Cam Newtoned last week and its come to this. I'm just going to leave it alone.

 

If I was on the other side of this, I'd be bitter if someone inserted themselves into the roster dealings of another team to lessen my chances for a playoff spot. But I bet it's done all the time over the course of the season.....over a beer, by text, whatever.

I got Marcus Mariota'd and PHI D/ST'd last week, so I hear ya...I'm now left scrambling for the 4th and final playoff spot in my league this week, myself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're absolutely ridiculous if you can't see that...it's actually pretty black and white if you were in a court of law - "Team A conspires with Team B to "urge" Team B to "set their lineup," in an attempt to defeat Team C, whereby Team B otherwise would not. How is that NOT collusion? Some of you guys really need a reality check, especially when you talk out of both sides of your mouth to suit your own perspective...just sayin'...

 

Having a discussion about what moves should be made and what line up should be set is not collusion. When teams start swapping money and/or players in an effort to defeat a team then you have collusion.

 

By your definition everybody who gives advice to people who ask for advice on who to pick up, trade or start is colluding.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if he hasn't actively managed his team all season, and all of a sudden, at playoff time, he is told to do so in an attempt to defeat an opponent, how is that fair to the guy he's playing this week?

 

If the owner is truly "inactive" the Commish probably should have found a replacement owner much earlier in the season, IMO, to maintain FAIR competitive balance...but, that also opens a can of worms for all of the teams who potentially defeated the inactive team prior to the takeover...probably best for all involved, just to leave it be and not invite back...

 

I guess it depends how inactive he's been as every situation is different. Firstly if the owner has had inactive players all over his lineup during the season then he should have been replaced, leagues tend to have different rules on how to deal with this.

 

We have a guy in our league who never uses the WW (mentioned him in another thread) but mostly just sets a valid lineup based on who he has and generally does badly. Once or twice he forgets and ends up with an inactive player (we have a three strikes and youre out rule) so I wouldn't see any problem in this case for somebody relying on him to win "reminding" him to set a lineup.if you've got somebody whose not changed their team since week 4 and played loads of bye week and IR players for the last 9 weeks then yeah its a different situation but that should have been dealt with/discussed earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if he hasn't actively managed his team all season, and all of a sudden, at playoff time, he is told to do so in an attempt to defeat an opponent, how is that fair to the guy he's playing this week?

 

If the owner is truly "inactive" the Commish probably should have found a replacement owner much earlier in the season, IMO, to maintain FAIR competitive balance...but, that also opens a can of worms for all of the teams who potentially defeated the inactive team prior to the takeover...probably best for all involved, just to leave it be and not invite back...

 

So you are worried about "fair" and "competitive balance" ... does that mean that when an owner becomes inactive you prevent him from becoming active again in the spirit of fair play and competitive balance.

 

Bottom line, field your best team and if it can't beat the best team fielded by another team, regardless of his activity level, then you don't deserve the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Finn - oh, and sorry man, I called you "absolutely ridiculous" in a prior post...I let my emotions get carried away because this situation has actually happened to me (albeit not at playoff time), and I was livid at the guy who did it (when he hadn't suggested it for anyone else). I guess I should have felt flattered that he was threatened enough by my team, and not anyone else's? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Having a discussion about what moves should be made and what line up should be set is not collusion. When teams start swapping money and/or players in an effort to defeat a team then you have collusion.

 

By your definition everybody who gives advice to people who ask for advice on who to pick up, trade or start is colluding.

 

My brother sometimes ask me for advice on who to start in our league, its almost certainly a bad idea to ask me considering my record in that league over the years but not collusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a discussion about what moves should be made and what line up should be set is not collusion. When teams start swapping money and/or players in an effort to defeat a team then you have collusion.

 

By your definition everybody who gives advice to people who ask for advice on who to pick up, trade or start is colluding.

You're wrong. The difference in your example is that Team A is asking for advice, whereby in the OP's circumstance, Team A is having unsolicited advice given to him (i.e.,being "urged" to set his lineup in a blatant attempt to defeat another opponent)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.