Do you guys waiver block your opponent?

[BigBawseRoss]

As long as you're not add/dropping to lock them on the WW (which I would consider a douche move) then it's fine.

This was my immediate thought as well. Doing this is abusing what the waiver lock is intending. If you have the space on your roster and hold them, then it’s fair game in my opinion.

LOL i'll waiver lock the piss outta you to win a game. if you arent breaking a rule and you are being smart and using the system to your advantage its all groovy

[skip]

As others have said, provided you have the roster room (while a bit of a douche move) to carry all of them then that's fine. If you are adding/dropping each player to lock them onto the ww then it isn't. I've seen that done and also had the commissioner go in and unlock the players, which is what I expect him to do.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

I think it's fine as long as you're not churning, as others mentioned. I will say though that I'm not sure it's worth it. I feel like karma has made this kind of strategy backfire before where he is then forced to pick up like Niles Paul, who will randomly score 2 TDs.

[M-Dub]

I think it’s a perfectly valid and smart strategy, but if you’re in the championship game and really have so many droppable players that you can afford to cockblock your opponent seven times over, I’m guessing your rosters are way too big.

In my case it’s in a four player keeper league so I can drop guys like Paul Richardson (for example) and it won’t affect me.

Ah. In that case it’s on your commish for not setting any positional limits. I’m not in favor of positional limits in a true dynasty league, but I think this situation illustrates why they’re a good idea in a 4-keeper or redraft league. Hell, if your opponent needed a kicker, you could drop every non-starter/non-keeper on your roster and hoard 7-8 kickers if there’s no repercussions. Same with D/ST. I don’t blame you for doing it and I’d do the same thing myself in your shoes, but if I was your opponent, I’d be lobbying hard for positional limits next year. Haha.

[skip]

Ah. In that case it’s on your commish for not setting any positional limits.

I haven't played in a redraft in a number of years but am this season and I hated that the commissioner put in positional limits. After looking at this particular issue, I understand why they should be considered. The one I'm playing in they are too restrictive (5 WRs when we start 3 of them, for example).

[Pullo Vision]

As long as you're not add/dropping to lock them on the WW (which I would consider a douche move) then it's fine.

I wouldn't do that anyway since it's a douche move, but we have a bylaw that says any player you pick up has to be on your team until the following weeks waivers. No roster churning allowed.

I'm fine with the strategy itself, but unclear about this point. Once you pick up a player, you MUST keep them on your roster until next round of waivers? Or, if you cut them before the next round, they are unlocked for anyone to pick up?

[RB6]

It's a dick move but acceptable. It can backfire though, like mentioned above. I was cockblocked on the waiver wire in a redraft a few years ago (2012). I lost RG3 to injury, then my opponent churned out the top remaining QBs. I picked up Russell Wilson and he went off. Turned out to be his breakout game. I think he had 3 rushing TDs vs BUF.

[Lotto4Life]

Ah. In that case it’s on your commish for not setting any positional limits.

I haven't played in a redraft in a number of years but am this season and I hated that the commissioner put in positional limits. After looking at this particular issue, I understand why they should be considered. The one I'm playing in they are too restrictive (5 WRs when we start 3 of them, for example).

I was in a league several years back where you could only roster one more than starting requirements at each position. However, you could roll over a player's score to the next week if he had a bye.

It was the only league I've played in that had a coach position.

[joeday]

As long as you're not add/dropping to lock them on the WW (which I would consider a douche move) then it's fine.

I wouldn't do that anyway since it's a douche move, but we have a bylaw that says any player you pick up has to be on your team until the following weeks waivers. No roster churning allowed.

I'm fine with the strategy itself, but unclear about this point. Once you pick up a player, you MUST keep them on your roster until next round of waivers? Or, if you cut them before the next round, they are unlocked for anyone to pick up?

Correct. You can't pick up then drop just to lock players.

[scorpion]

I wouldn't do that anyway since it's a douche move, but we have a bylaw that says any player you pick up has to be on your team until the following weeks waivers. No roster churning allowed.

I'm fine with the strategy itself, but unclear about this point. Once you pick up a player, you MUST keep them on your roster until next round of waivers? Or, if you cut them before the next round, they are unlocked for anyone to pick up?

Correct. You can't pick up then drop just to lock players.

Piling on this sentiment. I actually have a league rule preventing this add/drop blocking nonsense. As "douchey" a move it may be in general, it's a fair strategey and the onus is on your competitor to sort his roster out. GL to ya.

[Reljac]

As others have said, adding players is defensive and good strategy, but churning to lock players on waivers is unethical.

[Plank]

I have in the past, but as time has gone on, I've been less concerned with such a strategy, I prefer just to build a solid team and outscore everyone no matter what they do, let them scramble to try to keep up ..

I say all this, but imagine if someone has a Kicker going MON and goes IA, and I'm only winning by 5, better believe I'll pick up the back-up if I get to the news first .. (:

ie, Greg Zuerlein going on IR, and Rams picking up Sam Ficken is a good example heh