Non playoff teams locked out from making a waiver claim

[Bronco Billy]

I actually do not think this is a bad rule for waiver claims only. Or at least some derivation of it. Here's why.

In 2016, I had a team that was going from worst in 2015 to first in 2016. Dominated the regular season, got the #1 seed, but I lost 3 TE's to injury in 3 weeks heading into the finals. Charles Clay was on the waiver wire, and I put in a claim for him for $5. Was outbid by $1 by a non-playoff team who happened to be good friends with my championship game opponent (my opponent had $0 blind bid dollars left). I spent the whole week practically begging the commish to revert the waiver claim because the team involved was not in the playoffs, and that it was obvious collusion, etc. Commish was good friends with the two guys involved and refused.

Ended up taking a zero at TE and losing the title game by less than one point. Clay put up 19 points in that week 16. The non-playoff team was run by an industry writer (I really couldn't stand the guy anyway) who should have known better. Four weeks after the season, he dropped Clay and admitted to me that he did it intentionally, but it was because he had my first round pick for the next year, and wanted to make that pick one spot better, not to help his buddy. Which was bullshit. Said he didn't think it would make that much of a difference. It was a dickhead move that cost me $400.

I'm always of the mindset that the teams who are playing for $ should have priority on waiver claims over those playing for scraps. Non-playoff teams should be allowed FCFS only during the playoffs.

What prevented you from dropping an end-of-the-bench scrub and adding a TE a week or two earlier when you started running thin at the position. Not sure this fits collusion more than the nonplayoff owner being a bit of a **** knowing you were in a bad spot, but it seems to me that you were at least partly responsible for your situation. Also, doesn't your league have conditional waivers where you can load multiple players into a FA slot in the event you are outbid on the first guy(s) on your list? Or a FCFS period after FA bids are awarded each week? If not, perhaps your league ought to consider either or both to prevent this kind of thing.

As to dynasty leagues shutting out non-playoff teams from waivers during the playoffs, either all teams should have equal access to all FAs or there should be a moratorium for all teams over the same period. Dynasty leagues roster for periods well beyond a 3 week playoff period and some teams having access to players that other teams don’t is a clear flaw in the system giving the express domain of dynasty leagues. That makes no sense and should have been addressed much earlier.

The commish interjecting and then waffling back and forth about awarding the player would seem to indicate that he owes the league an open explanation to his actions, and possibly be held accountable.

[Mephistopheles]

I had four TE's on my roster - one was Gronk, the other 3 all got hurt in week 14 and 2 in week 15. How many TE's you thinking I should have been rostering?? Final score was like 202 to 201, BTW, so it's not like I completely dropped a deuce in the title game.
Clay was the only healthy starter on the waiver wire, he was dropped the previous week so I could not pick him up. The next best TE was Ryan Griffin - who actually made more sense for the rebuilding non-playoff team because he was younger, and whom I picked up to start but he put up a zero.
Second, there's a difference between waiver wire and FCFS. My position is that the playoff teams should have priority in the waiver wire only (blind bids) - i.e. if a playoff team and a non playoff team bid on the same player, the playoff team should get the player. If a playoff team deson't bid or the player passes through waivers - in other words, I'm not smart enough to put up a waiver claim - he's free game in FCFS. We actually set this up in one of my leagues a couple years ago, and have not had a single complaint.
In my case, the playoff team - which had $0 remaining BB dollars - essentially got an extra $6 of BB money from his buddy, the non-playoff team. The non-playoff team admitted the collusion (but only after it became obvious when he dropped Clay after the season) but tried to frame it as a "draft position" move. Which doesn't make sense because he essentially admitted that he intended to influence the outcome of the title game.

[ericanadian]

We had a similar rule where only playoff teams could access the waiver wire, but we also froze the rosters prior to the playoffs and any waiver moves during the playoffs were reversed after the playoffs giving everyone an opportunity to grab those players for long term purposes. I didn’t really even care for that setup, but its better than just giving playoff teams sole access to the waiver wire.

[Bronco Billy]

I had four TE's on my roster - one was Gronk, the other 3 all got hurt in week 14 and 2 in week 15. How many TE's you thinking I should have been rostering?? Final score was like 202 to 201, BTW, so it's not like I completely dropped a deuce in the title game.
Clay was the only healthy starter on the waiver wire, he was dropped the previous week so I could not pick him up. The next best TE was Ryan Griffin - who actually made more sense for the rebuilding non-playoff team because he was younger, and whom I picked up to start but he put up a zero.

Second, there's a difference between waiver wire and FCFS. My position is that the playoff teams should have priority in the waiver wire only (blind bids) - i.e. if a playoff team and a non playoff team bid on the same player, the playoff team should get the player. If a playoff team deson't bid or the player passes through waivers - in other words, I'm not smart enough to put up a waiver claim - he's free game in FCFS. We actually set this up in one of my leagues a couple years ago, and have not had a single complaint.

In my case, the playoff team - which had $0 remaining BB dollars - essentially got an extra $6 of BB money from his buddy, the non-playoff team. The non-playoff team admitted the collusion (but only after it became obvious when he dropped Clay after the season) but tried to frame it as a "draft position" move. Which doesn't make sense because he essentially admitted that he intended to influence the outcome of the title game.

Yes, I know the difference between BB and FCFS, thanks. Why isn’t your waiver wire set up as either conditional of FCFS following BB or both to specifically avoid this type of situation, which is foreseeable? In any case, I fundamentally disagree in a dynasty environment that any team should have an advantage beyond their control over any other team in acquiring players at any time, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree there. Players have exhibited breakout characteristics very late in the season before and non-playoff teams should not be restricted from acquiring them when playoff teams are not. IMO.

As to the collusion part, you did not post previously about the details, which now that you have I can agree that there is definitely evidence to support. The league should hold both owners accountable (either forfeiting winnings/draft positions the following year if it is a very friendly league or expulsion if it is not). Again, IMO.

[OhCruelestRanter]

IIRC this was once a default setting on Yahoo. I wouldn't be surprised if sites that are primarily used for redraft have this setting- in redraft you should absolutely lock people out once they're eliminated from meaningful contention.

[Mephistopheles]

Why isn’t your waiver wire set up as either conditional of FCFS following BB or both to specifically avoid this type of situation, which is foreseeable?

Can you please clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean here.

There was an FCFS after BB - which was where I picked up Ryan Griffin. It was not avoidable, as the guy bid $6 to my $5 on Clay, so I had to pick up Griffin, the only other really viable TE in FA, in FCFS, and he put up a zero.

What flared my radar about this was not only the bid of $6, but also, if I were a rebuilding team, I would have rather had Griffin who was 24 years old at the time and had shown out, than Clay who was 31 and had bad knees. There were only 4 teams who should have been interested in Clay (the title game teams and the 3rd place game teams), and 3 of them had $0 BB left. I should have been able to bid $1 and win the bid but I bid $5 because there were no other players I was interested in, and no carryovers so there was no point in bidding less.

There was a $400 prize difference between 1st and 2nd as well. I'm sure that factored into his decision.

[sloth8u]

all teams should be able to add guys via bb/waivers/fcfs. the issue with the op is that a league setting caused the issue. while its a bummer that you missed out on a guy you wanted....id much rather the correct setting be in place going forward.

if i understand correctly....you had the opportunity to add him aswell or how did 1 owner add him but you could not? it seems he and others must have been locked and then suddenly unlocked? if thats the case, the league should have been notified....but again...would they not go through bb or waivers?

[PTW32]

Why isn’t your waiver wire set up as either conditional of FCFS following BB or both to specifically avoid this type of situation, which is foreseeable?

Can you please clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean here.

There was an FCFS after BB - which was where I picked up Ryan Griffin. It was not avoidable, as the guy bid $6 to my $5 on Clay, so I had to pick up Griffin, the only other really viable TE in FA, in FCFS, and he put up a zero.

What flared my radar about this was not only the bid of $6, but also, if I were a rebuilding team, I would have rather had Griffin who was 24 years old at the time and had shown out, than Clay who was 31 and had bad knees. There were only 4 teams who should have been interested in Clay (the title game teams and the 3rd place game teams), and 3 of them had $0 BB left. I should have been able to bid $1 and win the bid but I bid $5 because there were no other players I was interested in, and no carryovers so there was no point in bidding less.

There was a $400 prize difference between 1st and 2nd as well. I'm sure that factored into his decision.

I don't see any evidence of collusion.

He bid 6 dollars bc you had 5 and thats how much he needed to get him over you and the other teams that may have want him.

Just bc the TE was old doesnt mean a rebuilding team can't want him. Maybe he picked him up and hoped to flip him for a draft pick, when he couldn't he dropped him.

Or maybe he picked him up just to keep him away from you. Sure his intention was to influence the champtionship game. But if that result is in the best interest of his team (moves his draft pick up 1 spot) that isnt collusion.

Hell maybe his buddy asked him to do it and it just happened to also help him. That would be collusion but thats a really hard thing to prove.

[RB6]

Why isn’t your waiver wire set up as either conditional of FCFS following BB or both to specifically avoid this type of situation, which is foreseeable?

Can you please clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean here.

There was an FCFS after BB - which was where I picked up Ryan Griffin. It was not avoidable, as the guy bid $6 to my $5 on Clay, so I had to pick up Griffin, the only other really viable TE in FA, in FCFS, and he put up a zero.

What flared my radar about this was not only the bid of $6, but also, if I were a rebuilding team, I would have rather had Griffin who was 24 years old at the time and had shown out, than Clay who was 31 and had bad knees. There were only 4 teams who should have been interested in Clay (the title game teams and the 3rd place game teams), and 3 of them had $0 BB left. I should have been able to bid $1 and win the bid but I bid $5 because there were no other players I was interested in, and no carryovers so there was no point in bidding less.

There was a $400 prize difference between 1st and 2nd as well. I'm sure that factored into his decision.

I don't see any evidence of collusion.

He bid 6 dollars bc you had 5 and thats how much he needed to get him over you and the other teams that may have want him.

Just bc the TE was old doesnt mean a rebuilding team can't want him. Maybe he picked him up and hoped to flip him for a draft pick, when he couldn't he dropped him.

Or maybe he picked him up just to keep him away from you. Sure his intention was to influence the champtionship game. But if that result is in the best interest of his team (moves his draft pick up 1 spot) that isnt collusion.

Hell maybe his buddy asked him to do it and it just happened to also help him. That would be collusion but thats a really hard thing to prove.

And Clay wasn't 31 then. He's 31 now. So, I'm not buying the age argument.

To me, this looks like a shrewd pickup to ensure a higher draft pick. Dick move, sure. Rule breaking, not at all.

[moishetreats]

Respectfully, I think that we've all jumped on the "this-is-worst-thing-ever-in-fantasy-football" bandwagon here.

First, it hardly is. Poor judgment? Maybe. Unwise decision? Maybe. Worst thing? Hardly.

Second, we reallllllly don't have all the info. In truth, based on the OP's post, this doesn't seem out of whack. The Commish made a setting at the beginning of the year which he admitted was unwise. Fine. No Commish is perfect, and he acknowledged that it should be changed. Props to the Commish.

Next, he couldn't simply award Scott to the OP. Maybe other eliminated teams tried to put in bids, too. In fact, giving Scott to the OP would have been the most irresponsible of the options; it could have opened a massive killer hornets' nest.

It's also possible that he couldn't change the rule right away because the waiver week had already begun but he WAS able to change it for the following week before waivers started.

Bottom line, there really only seems to be one issue here at all: communication. Had the Commish emailed the league when OP first reached out to him, explained why the rule was in place, that it couldn't be changed right away, and that he would change it for the following week (or put that to a vote), then this is all mitigated.

An unwise rule was in place, and you didn't Scott. So be it. The question then is the communication process for how and when to change the rule, not how to reverse things for you to get the guy that you wanted. I'm not trying to be crass -- just my perspective!

[Bronco Billy]

Why isn’t your waiver wire set up as either conditional of FCFS following BB or both to specifically avoid this type of situation, which is foreseeable?

Can you please clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean here.

Sure. Conditional bids allow you to use one FA slot to set up bids for multiple players by priority.

For example, with TEs, you could put this list together for one FA slot:

Charles Clay $5
Ryan Griffin $3
Maxx Williams $2
Jace Sternberger $4

Then when BBs are processed, if another team beats your $5 bid for Clay, then Griffin would move to the top of your TE list, and if someone else bid $4 for Griffin then Williams would move to the top of your list, ad infinitim until you run out of TEs on your list. Priority goes from top to bottom, not by the amount bid. If you wanted to select 2 TEs from the list, then you would repeat the list with a second FA slot (but you could remove Clay since he would be redundant on the second slot).

mfl has had the capability of using conditional BB FA picks for about 15 years now. Our league has used it since our inception 20 years ago, but we had to add text in the comment section before conditional bid capability to list additional players for the 1 slot and the commish (me) would have to filter through manually.

Our waivers are BB and are run Wednesday nights. Then any players not awarded on BB are eligible for FCFS for the cost of a minimum bid up until that player’s game starts.

This allows for teams to react to late injury news and fill a starting roster slot in the event that injuries and bye weeks cause a team to not have a startable player on their roster at a position.

Does that explanation make sense?

[MFundercover]

Respectfully, I think that we've all jumped on the "this-is-worst-thing-ever-in-fantasy-football" bandwagon here.

First, it hardly is. Poor judgment? Maybe. Unwise decision? Maybe. Worst thing? Hardly.

Second, we reallllllly don't have all the info. In truth, based on the OP's post, this doesn't seem out of whack. The Commish made a setting at the beginning of the year which he admitted was unwise. Fine. No Commish is perfect, and he acknowledged that it should be changed. Props to the Commish.

Next, he couldn't simply award Scott to the OP. Maybe other eliminated teams tried to put in bids, too. In fact, giving Scott to the OP would have been the most irresponsible of the options; it could have opened a massive killer hornets' nest.

It's also possible that he couldn't change the rule right away because the waiver week had already begun but he WAS able to change it for the following week before waivers started.

Bottom line, there really only seems to be one issue here at all: communication. Had the Commish emailed the league when OP first reached out to him, explained why the rule was in place, that it couldn't be changed right away, and that he would change it for the following week (or put that to a vote), then this is all mitigated.

An unwise rule was in place, and you didn't Scott. So be it. The question then is the communication process for how and when to change the rule, not how to reverse things for you to get the guy that you wanted. I'm not trying to be crass -- just my perspective!

Then why did he immediately say I was still entitled to claim players in this league, but was locked out due to technicality? Why did he change the rule for the following waiver period? Why didn't any other owners come forward if they were trying to claim Scott? Should I be expected to screen cap every transaction?

Dumb perspective any way you slice it.

[killer_of_giants]

Then why did he immediately say I was still entitled to claim players in this league, but was locked out due to technicality? Why did he change the rule for the following waiver period? Why didn't any other owners come forward if they were trying to claim Scott? Should I be expected to screen cap every transaction?

Dumb perspective any way you slice it.

he should have just acknowledged the error and change it for the following season, OR should have made sure every non-playoff team knew they could bid "out of platform" to the commissioner and that he would take care of the bidding results.

the half-baked solution he took probably ended up being like he didn't correct the error altogether, unless some major pieces were added via waiver during the fantasy playoffs, so i wouldn't be too pissed off.


in general, every team should be allowed to bid whenever they like. you can't spunk your FAAB, maybe get into the playoffs because you did, and then complain when some other teams not in the playoffs outbids you.

[Bronco Billy]

What do you think about this? I know it's just a game, but to me this is the worst thing I've ever seen in a fantasy football league. Should Scott have been moved to my roster? Should I trade a 3rd for him now? If Sanders gets injured and Scott plays well, and it costs me the season, I'm requesting a refund on leaguesafe.

You and the rest of the league have a much bigger problem to worry about than where Scott is rostered. You’ve got a commish who unilaterally modifies rules midseason. That’s a huge red flag and a reason to pull out of the league immediately. If nothing else, it’s reason to remove the commish and have someone else take on the responsibility. Then let the league discuss and vote on what to do about Scott.

If you decide to stay and you think the league can resolve this amicably, then surrendering a 3rd for Scott is not the worst thing in the world - but that means you have to be at peace with what happened previously once the league discusses how to handle stuff like this in the future and let it go.

I believe that just letting it play out with what you think is some kind of insurance policy on your investment in the event that Scott plays a meaningful role in deciding the outcome of the league is pretty much as bad as what the commish did. Either resolve the situation now and live with the outcome, or leave the league.

[Cult of Dionysus]

Did the guy try to trade Clay to you before the title game? Did you try to trade him for it.

Were you on bad terms with him. If so, pick-up Clay out of spite towards you would NOT amount to collusion.