Most fair waiver process

[DLF3000]

1) Waivers are suppose to help the worst teams, not the best teams. Remember, in the NFL, the worst team gets the first shot to pick up guys who have to go through waivers.

Yeah, we're probably going to change our standard weekly waiver wire system next year.

If you don't want to use a Blind Bid system, then you really have to modify the standard points-for waiver priority.

This year, its gaps are stupidly obvious.

Since it only counts points scored by the team from starters (the default), the best and deepest teams in the league are getting top priority this year because they've had some bad luck picking starters.

So now one of last year's playoff teams, already very deep... got Jerrick McKinnon at #1 this week. Making them even stronger and deeper?

Meanwhile, my team sucks, has little depth, has a zillion WR injuries, and is especially horrible at RB... but due to hilarious scheduling where my points against is unbelievably low I'm a shocking (and fake) 4-1 - the best team in the league record-wise. Potential points-wise, I'm second from the bottom.

So the whole standard waiver thing is a farce, glad this year zoomed in on its glaring problems in dynasty.

So I've come around to my brother's suggestion last year: do waivers by potential points. That way the truly crappy teams can still get better waiver priority, instead of great but unlucky-starts teams becoming even stronger. Everyone makes bad starts, no reason to reward the powerhouses further if waivers are meant to help the crappier teams build up their roster slightly.

(The caveat is not to do rookie draft order through potential points - playoff finish, record, then actual started points for stays.)

It's funny, I use to think potential points waivers was dumb as hell. But... exhibit A!

[Pac_Eddy]

1) Waivers are suppose to help the worst teams, not the best teams. Remember, in the NFL, the worst team gets the first shot to pick up guys who have to go through waivers.

This is true. However, in most fantasy football leagues with blind bids, we're talking about free agents, not waived players. Those terms are not interchangeable.

In a couple of my leagues, we have worst-to-first waiver claims on dropped players for 24 hours after a player was dropped. Players that made it past the 24 hour window became free agents for the rest of the week, then to blind bidding the following week. I think this is the best dynasty system for waivers & free agency.

In my case, MFL kept screwing it up, so we had to cut that rule.

[Tsunami]

The only problem I have with blind bidding is that it's much too prone to collusion. If some owners know each other outside of the league it's rather easy for them to coordinate, and it creates a huge advantage, and it's impossible to police. It's also a disadvantage to newer owners as each league is somewhat different so it takes a while to become familiar with how much to bid. I like the strategy of continual rolling waivers.

[Valhalla]

1) Waivers are suppose to help the worst teams, not the best teams. Remember, in the NFL, the worst team gets the first shot to pick up guys who have to go through waivers.

A) that first part is an opinion, and not an opinion everyone will agree on. I would say the purposes of waivers are:
1. to help teams accommodate for the ever-changing dynamics of the NFL, including injury and depth chart changes
2. to add another element into the game, thereby increasing involvement/fun

I would NOT add "to help the worst teams, not the best teams" to that list, but that's an opinion.

B) The NFL does not run waivers nearly as frequently as fantasy football (many leagues twice a week). The MAJORITY of free agent acquisitions (especially in-season) in the NFL consists of the players deciding which team to play for, and it's OFTEN the highest bidding team that wins those players over. Waiver priority is much less common for player acquisition. Also, the NFL doesn't need to constantly switch up rosters due to bye weeks, and we do. We call it "waivers" but it's really more of a free agency. The kicker you pick up when your kicker is on a bye isn't someone who just got cut and needs to clear waivers, like in the NFL. He's a free agent. It sounds like your argument is "the NFL does it this way so we should too." If you want fantasy to mimmick the NFL, then actually rewarding the highest bidding team is the way to go.

2) If I takeover a team and have to rebuild, I need to take more shots at finding guys on waivers. If I have a stacked/playoff caliber team, I can be picky and take less shots but spend more on the 1 or 2 guys that might be worth it.

First off, A rebuild will probably be after a different target market than the contenders. A rebuild won't blow money on Chris Johnson or Andre Ellington, but the contenders will. A contender won't as likely jump on the opportunity to spend money on Jonnu Smith, but a rebuild might.

Second, not everyone subscribes to the idea that we should do whatever we can to supplement the bottom dwellers. Personally, if I'm picking up a rebuild roster, I am looking for a challenge, not weekly supplements of allowing me to pick up a guy I simply intend to sell immediately for a future 2nd rounder.

3) If there is that much good talent on the WW, then you need to INCREASE your rosters. It won't matter what waiver system you use when the waiver wire is barren.

So you subscribe to the belief that waivers should be set up to supplement the bad teams...but if there's any worthwhile talent on waivers then rosters aren't deep enough...so you want to supplement the bad teams with more crap? It seems that your ideal league setup beliefs are counter-intuitive.

[sugbear65]

I play in a couple of leagues where the only players on waivers are dropped players. They go on for 48 hours and if are unclaimed go into the free agent pool. Other than that, everyone is open, first come first served. I like this the best.

[Valhalla]

I play in a couple of leagues where the only players on waivers are dropped players. They go on for 48 hours and if are unclaimed go into the free agent pool. Other than that, everyone is open, first come first served. I like this the best.

That makes more sense but I still don't like full FCFS.

[Slackalacker]

I guess it really does come down to personal opinion. I for one HATE blind bids due to a bad first experience. Mainly cause it was a 16 team league, it was my first time, and I never picked anyone up. I am big in trying to acquire the talent before it breaks out but it always sucked to lose a bid by $1 but I also understand the fairness of it.

I figure it's important to maintain some sort of balance/competition in the league from a commissioner perspective. Certain Teams are mad because they aren't getting better even though they are high in scoring, I figure they shouldn't rely on improving their team when one person finally blows up after 6 weeks of sitting as a FA and I'd rather let bad teams have the first opportunity to claim them in hopes their team talent increases and thus better league competition. I hope it would lead to less powerhouses because as a commish I get to deal with finding new owners for teams that want to leave, etc etc. I guess eventually all the weak owners will be weeded out and I can have all great dynasty minded owners but until that happens it is annoying.

[Quinty]

snip

re (a) Like it or not, waivers are suppose to help the worst teams. How many pro leagues give the best teams the first shot?

re (b) Do you have any proof to support anything in that paragraph? I'm going to need more then words like 'not everyone', 'majority', and 'often'.

Some rules I found about waivers:
'When a team releases a player with less than four years of service, they are subject to the waiver process. Normally when a player is released, waivers runs the next day.'
'The process involves a priority list ranking teams for claiming players. From the first day of the league year until the conclusion of Week 3 of the 2017 regular season, the priority is based on draft order. '
'The NFL waiver process is different in that the No. 1 team can claim as many players from waivers as they want, and they retain priority.'
'Any player with at least four years of service that is released is not subject to the waiver process. They immediately become free agents and can sign with any team.'
'However, during the NFL season from the NFL trading deadline through the end of the regular season, vested veterans are also subject to the waiver process. That means any veterans cut after Week 8, which is October 31 this year, will go through waivers along with non-vested veterans. (A vested veteran is a player with four or more years of NFL experience.)'

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/9/1/1 ... rules-2017
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2017/9/2/16 ... wire-works
(I don't have time to go through the official NFL rulebook. If someone else does and any of this is wrong, please correct me).

So, players with less then 4 years experience, and everyone after week 8 (this year) has to go through waivers. Veterans are free agents until week 8.

In other words, the worst teams get the first pick, then it's First Come First Serve. Except, to make it fair for FF leagues, the worst team gets 1 pick per round, not all of the picks until it passes. It not like your 'mimic the NFL' example.

Your answers to (2) If I'm a good team and have a large roster, I would put in a claim for an Ellington or a Jonnu Smith. If I'm a bad team, I'm only targeting the rookie. Helping the good teams by not helping the bad teams is not a good system.

Your answers to (3) Wait, I can't be in favour of large rosters and having the worst teams pick first?

[ericanadian]

We're running weekly inverse of standings and my main issue with it is it's a 16 team league so there's not a huge amount of depth for most teams. When a key player goes down, it can sink the quality of your team by a lot and being at the back of the waiver order can make it impossible to recover unless you hit on a speculative add.

[Valhalla]

snip

re (a) Like it or not, waivers are suppose to help the worst teams. How many pro leagues give the best teams the first shot?

re (b) Do you have any proof to support anything in that paragraph? I'm going to need more then words like 'not everyone', 'majority', and 'often'.

Some rules I found about waivers:
'When a team releases a player with less than four years of service, they are subject to the waiver process. Normally when a player is released, waivers runs the next day.'
'The process involves a priority list ranking teams for claiming players. From the first day of the league year until the conclusion of Week 3 of the 2017 regular season, the priority is based on draft order. '
'The NFL waiver process is different in that the No. 1 team can claim as many players from waivers as they want, and they retain priority.'
'Any player with at least four years of service that is released is not subject to the waiver process. They immediately become free agents and can sign with any team.'
'However, during the NFL season from the NFL trading deadline through the end of the regular season, vested veterans are also subject to the waiver process. That means any veterans cut after Week 8, which is October 31 this year, will go through waivers along with non-vested veterans. (A vested veteran is a player with four or more years of NFL experience.)'

https://www.ninersnation.com/2017/9/1/1 ... rules-2017
https://www.cincyjungle.com/2017/9/2/16 ... wire-works
(I don't have time to go through the official NFL rulebook. If someone else does and any of this is wrong, please correct me).

So, players with less then 4 years experience, and everyone after week 8 (this year) has to go through waivers. Veterans are free agents until week 8.

In other words, the worst teams get the first pick, then it's First Come First Serve. Except, to make it fair for FF leagues, the worst team gets 1 pick per round, not all of the picks until it passes. It not like your 'mimic the NFL' example.

Your answers to (2) If I'm a good team and have a large roster, I would put in a claim for an Ellington or a Jonnu Smith. If I'm a bad team, I'm only targeting the rookie. Helping the good teams by not helping the bad teams is not a good system.

Your answers to (3) Wait, I can't be in favour of large rosters and having the worst teams pick first?

Treating fantasy "waivers" as the NFL defines "waivers" is a mistake imo. We may call the weekly pickups "waivers" in fantasy, but it's actually much closer to free agency.
Where did I say "waivers" should be reversed and help the best teams? Straw man arguments don't hold up. What I said was, waivers are meant to help ALL teams adapt to the changing dynamics of NFL rosters. It's purely opinion whether "waivers" (free agency imo) should help some teams more than others. That's what the seeding in the draft is for. That's what being able to sell a .75 piece to a contender for a $1 pick or two is for. That's what loading up on picks and creating more empty roster spots for speculative adds is for. There are many avenues/advantages a rebuild can take to speed up the rebuild. "Waiver" (free agency) priority doesn't need to be one of them, and IMO it shouldn't be. At the most, you supplement waiver bucks each offseason based on reverse seeding, worst teams getting more bucks. Allowing the rebuilds to have a higher budget allows an advantage, but the other teams still have an opportunity to win a guy in blind bids. If they aren't winning the bid when they have a higher total budget, then the contender that placed a higher bid SHOULD get the guy. Just my opinion.

[Ruggenater]

^ I see FAAB referenced a lot I always assumed it was free agent auction bidding but when I type that out it sounds grammatically poor

FAAB = Free Agent Acquisition Budget

[scorpion]

^ I see FAAB referenced a lot I always assumed it was free agent auction bidding but when I type that out it sounds grammatically poor

I've always known it as an acronym for Free Agent Acquisition Budget

[BigBawseRoss]

i thought blind faab was common knowledge

[moishetreats]

It depends on you want to measure fairness in your league; different leagues will measure it differently.

If you want everything to be fully available equally to all teams at all times, then blind bidding is the way to go. You can do blind bidding the first night and then waivers/first-come-first-serve the rest (thus allowing people to do adds/drops with $0), or you can make it all blind bidding (once you are at $0, then you can't pick anyone up, though you could trade for $).

If you want fairness to be that all teams tend toward equilibrium/parity, then it's the reverse order of standings each week. That allows the weaker teams first crack every week to improve their rosters.

Finally, if you want fairness to rotate, then have players on waivers and have the waiver wire NOT reset during the season. So, when I pick up a player, I then go to #10 on the queue. It adds a different strategy: do I pick up the hot players every week, or do I hold back waiting for the gold player when I happen to be #1?

[Pix]

Firstly, I agree with everything Valhalla said.

Secondly, we're only talking about players whose value increases suddenly due to injury or whatever, because we're all good enough to pick up our sleepers a week or two before they break out, aren't we?

I like the idea of auctions as they give everyone a chance at every free agent. I'm OK with giving weaker teams more $FAAB but getting the earlier drafts picks seems enough of an advantage to me.

But wouldn't it be great if we could do semi-open auctions, rather like eBay? That is:
You enter your maximum bid and the system handles the bidding.
The winning bid is $1 more than the second highest bid.
Everyone can see what the current winning bid is.

For example, for those who don't do eBay auctions:
Team A enters $10 maximum for Bryce Petty.
It's the first bid, so the system bids $1. Everyone can see that the highest bid is $1.
Team B then enters $6 maximum for Bryce Petty.
The system raises Team A's bid to $7. Everyone can see that the highest bid is $7.
Team C then enters $15 maximum for Bryce Petty.
As Team A's maximum bid is $10, the system enters a bid of $11 by Team C. Everyone can see that the highest bid is $11.
The auction ends, and Team C wins Bryce Petty for $11.

Various auction settings could be adaptable, and yes it would have all the same disadvantages as Blind Bid auctions.