"Taxi Squad"

[wilson]

What purpose do they serve? Wouldn't it be better to just to open up the roster?

[hoos89]

Adds another layer of strategy. Kind of depends how you set it up...for instance they're clearly very useful in contract leagues where you don't have to assign a contract to a player on the taxi squad. If non-playoff rookie draft order is determined by points possible, it can be a place for rebuilding teams to stash production, making taxiable players more valuable to them. Helps promote trading.

[Dynasty DeLorean]

https://forum.dynastyleaguefootball.com ... 5&t=183876

[derekhiny]

Agree with above, as far as adding another strategy element and forced trading. We have a 9 player taxi, which is designated by each team at the beginning of the season. Every taxi player is given a draft round tender for trading purposes. 3 players given a 4th, 3 players given a 5th, and 3 players given a 6th (we have 6 rounds to our rookie draft each year). We then allow other teams to poach your taxi players during the season, by making a claim based on the draft tender you assigned to that player. If player is claimed by another team, you may either let the player go for the designated compensation, or you can choose to keep the player. But in order to keep him, you must move him to your active roster. Which will in all likelihood will force you to drop someone from your active roster to create the space necessary to promote said taxi player. It's nothing earth shattering, but it does create a fun wrinkle.

[FantasyFreak]

What purpose do they serve? Wouldn't it be better to just to open up the roster?

My opinion, YES!

The league I commish uses potential points as a draft decider, and we do not have a taxi squad. We have a roster size that allows people to have enough space to house plenty of rookies. Taxi squads can and do get used to hide potential points in a lot of cases, even if it's not malicious. I have seen multiple leagues get very heated over this situation, and I myself actually left a league because the commish was trying to manage my taxi squad for me a few weeks into the year, and he continued to do it all year. As a rebuilder, I wanted to house a max roster plus taxi, and he wanted me to promote taxi players that played decently for a few weeks. In that league, we could only roster the rookies we drafted on taxi, so I was essentially giving up roster space to promote them for a marginal increase in production, that was not even guaranteed going forward. Some people would put a guy like Barkley on a taxi and press for the 1.01 if they are not a contender.

There is really no real need for a taxi squad in my opinion, it causes more problems than it solves from my experience. Just have a deep roster limit. If you decide on a taxi, don't police it, it's not your job or right as a commish to decide who should be promoted, as long as the player qualifies to be on taxi, it's the owners prerogative, but as I said, it gives the option of stashing obvious starters such as Barkley for a guy who wants to tank for another good rookie pick.

[sloth8u]

Agree with fantasyfreak and op here. I see no reason for them in non contract leagues. The only purpose is to stash production in hopes of a better pick. Additional roster spots allows all league members to roster whomever they want (not just young guys), and prevents owners from leaving productive players taxi'd.

Edit: i am seeing leagues open up the taxi where guys can go back and forth now. Im a big fan of this setting as long as owners are forced to put productive players on active roster if moves can be made. If allowed to keep stashing production....not a fan.

[FantasyFreak]

Agree with fantasyfreak and op here. I see no reason for them in non contract leagues. The only purpose is to stash production in hopes of a better pick. Additional roster spots allows all league members to roster whomever they want (not just young guys), and prevents owners from leaving productive players taxi'd.

Edit: i am seeing leagues open up the taxi where guys can go back and forth now. Im a big fan of this setting as long as owners are forced to put productive players on active roster if moves can be made. If allowed to keep stashing production....not a fan.

Ultimately, why not just expand the roster the same number of spots the taxi holds? What purpose does it serve to move guys back and forth? Again, a commish forcing guys to move a guy off of taxi leads to problems, because it's a subjective matter to what production and a productive player is. There are no hard lines in the bylaws on this so it can't be enforced without problems.

[hoos89]

Agree with fantasyfreak and op here. I see no reason for them in non contract leagues. The only purpose is to stash production in hopes of a better pick. Additional roster spots allows all league members to roster whomever they want (not just young guys), and prevents owners from leaving productive players taxi'd.

Edit: i am seeing leagues open up the taxi where guys can go back and forth now. Im a big fan of this setting as long as owners are forced to put productive players on active roster if moves can be made. If allowed to keep stashing production....not a fan.

I'm of the opinion that allowing for production stashing adds another layer of strategy that helps owners slingshot out of a rebuild and cycles the league a little better. Rewards owners who plan long term. Makes taxiable players more valuable to rebuilding owners and helps facilitate trades. I don't see why it's inherently a bad thing.

[FantasyFreak]

Agree with fantasyfreak and op here. I see no reason for them in non contract leagues. The only purpose is to stash production in hopes of a better pick. Additional roster spots allows all league members to roster whomever they want (not just young guys), and prevents owners from leaving productive players taxi'd.

Edit: i am seeing leagues open up the taxi where guys can go back and forth now. Im a big fan of this setting as long as owners are forced to put productive players on active roster if moves can be made. If allowed to keep stashing production....not a fan.

I'm of the opinion that allowing for production stashing adds another layer of strategy that helps owners slingshot out of a rebuild and cycles the league a little better. Rewards owners who plan long term. Makes taxiable players more valuable to rebuilding owners and helps facilitate trades. I don't see why it's inherently a bad thing.

Not starting your best players is inherently a bad thing to league integrity in my experience. It's essentially legalized tanking, which I don't want in the league I run, personally. Plenty of ways to get out of rebuild mode without losing on purpose. That's just the way I do it. I understand what you are saying, I have just had too many cases of negative issues with taxi squads in the past.

[MrUbuto]

In my league taxi squads are potentially unlimited. As long as the player was drafted in the first 2 rounds and has never been activated they can stay there for 2 years.

Makes rookie picks extra valuebale.

[sloth8u]

Agree with fantasyfreak and op here. I see no reason for them in non contract leagues. The only purpose is to stash production in hopes of a better pick. Additional roster spots allows all league members to roster whomever they want (not just young guys), and prevents owners from leaving productive players taxi'd.

Edit: i am seeing leagues open up the taxi where guys can go back and forth now. Im a big fan of this setting as long as owners are forced to put productive players on active roster if moves can be made. If allowed to keep stashing production....not a fan.

I'm of the opinion that allowing for production stashing adds another layer of strategy that helps owners slingshot out of a rebuild and cycles the league a little better. Rewards owners who plan long term. Makes taxiable players more valuable to rebuilding owners and helps facilitate trades. I don't see why it's inherently a bad thing.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

If your opinion is that owner X lands 1.1 because he's stashed gurley, zeke, lenny, and barkley on his taxi....i just wont be able to understand that setting/rule and how leaguemates find that acceptable.

I see it, ive done it....but saying that its good for the league, and facilitates trades is nearly laughable imo. I'll mention it here as i did when parting ways from a league a few yrs back. If you want to tank...trade your players to an owner who wants to play them, dont leave them taxi'd. Maybe the team wouldnt be crap if an owner was actually trying to win games.

To each their own when it comes to the taxi, but as already mentioned....there is no way to gauge who should or shouldn't be there properly---> which leads me to favoring additional roster spots rather than taxi.

[hoos89]

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

If your opinion is that owner X lands 1.1 because he's stashed gurley, zeke, lenny, and barkley on his taxi....i just wont be able to understand that setting/rule and how leaguemates find that acceptable.

I see it, ive done it....but saying that its good for the league, and facilitates trades is nearly laughable imo. I'll mention it here as i did when parting ways from a league a few yrs back. If you want to tank...trade your players to an owner who wants to play them, dont leave them taxi'd. Maybe the team wouldnt be crap if an owner was actually trying to win games.

To each their own when it comes to the taxi, but as already mentioned....there is no way to gauge who should or shouldn't be there properly---> which leads me to favoring additional roster spots rather than taxi.

There aren't many leagues where it would be possible to stash all those players. There are (or should be) restrictions on who can be stashed and for how long. It's something you have to plan out for multiple years. Not to mention that there is a cost to it that many are not willing to pay (i.e. your team performs worse in the near term). And it absolutely facilitates trades. Anyone who is planning to use the taxi squad in that way should be willing to pay a premium for a taxi eligible player. It's different than tanking in the sense that anyone can just not start their best players at any time, but once promoted a player is not eligible to be demoted again, and you can't just demote a new player to taxi squad mid-season. I'm generally in favor of rules that reward long term planning, and I think this does.

E: This just seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument. In reality nobody is going to get a taxi squad that stacked, and any owner with all those players would be trying to compete.

[WhatWouldDitkaDo]

In my main league, we use a three-player practice squad, and players can be stashed for up to three seasons. Only players selected in the rookie draft or traded from another practice squad are eligible. This gives a bit more value to late-round picks like the 3.12, since a team would have potentially wasted practice squad roster spots if they have no draft picks.

[Maximus891]

Agree with above, as far as adding another strategy element and forced trading. We have a 9 player taxi, which is designated by each team at the beginning of the season. Every taxi player is given a draft round tender for trading purposes. 3 players given a 4th, 3 players given a 5th, and 3 players given a 6th (we have 6 rounds to our rookie draft each year). We then allow other teams to poach your taxi players during the season, by making a claim based on the draft tender you assigned to that player. If player is claimed by another team, you may either let the player go for the designated compensation, or you can choose to keep the player. But in order to keep him, you must move him to your active roster. Which will in all likelihood will force you to drop someone from your active roster to create the space necessary to promote said taxi player. It's nothing earth shattering, but it does create a fun wrinkle.

Thats a great wrinkle, I like it

[sloth8u]

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

If your opinion is that owner X lands 1.1 because he's stashed gurley, zeke, lenny, and barkley on his taxi....i just wont be able to understand that setting/rule and how leaguemates find that acceptable.

I see it, ive done it....but saying that its good for the league, and facilitates trades is nearly laughable imo. I'll mention it here as i did when parting ways from a league a few yrs back. If you want to tank...trade your players to an owner who wants to play them, dont leave them taxi'd. Maybe the team wouldnt be crap if an owner was actually trying to win games.

To each their own when it comes to the taxi, but as already mentioned....there is no way to gauge who should or shouldn't be there properly---> which leads me to favoring additional roster spots rather than taxi.

There aren't many leagues where it would be possible to stash all those players. There are (or should be) restrictions on who can be stashed and for how long. It's something you have to plan out for multiple years. Not to mention that there is a cost to it that many are not willing to pay (i.e. your team performs worse in the near term). And it absolutely facilitates trades. Anyone who is planning to use the taxi squad in that way should be willing to pay a premium for a taxi eligible player. It's different than tanking in the sense that anyone can just not start their best players at any time, but once promoted a player is not eligible to be demoted again, and you can't just demote a new player to taxi squad mid-season. I'm generally in favor of rules that reward long term planning, and I think this does.

E: This just seems like a bit of a slippery slope argument. In reality nobody is going to get a taxi squad that stacked, and any owner with all those players would be trying to compete.

While my example is extreme... You see that it emphasizes that taxable guys, maybe shouldn't be on the taxi.

How do you address if someone is promoted? Can guys be demoted? Is there a "nursing home" where its ok to disregard my productive vets in hopes of a good pick? All can be avoided with a simple roster expansion.