Non playoff teams locked out from making a waiver claim

[OhCruelestRanter]

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.

I assume it was post any trade deadline.

[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.

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?

Got it...they did have that but none of it would have made a difference because Clay was the only real pickup option and I picked up Ryan Griffin in FCFS. But he put a zero on the board.

[Johnny Canuck]

I'm assuming the rule not being changed immediately wasn't for some nefarious means.

Guessing the claim for Boston Scott, came after the weeks games had been played, and the rule just couldn't be changed mid week. Hence, why the commish could change it the following week and correct the mistake.

That said, I don't think you can just take Scott off another team, regardless of this peculiar issue. Can't penalize the other owner for something that was out of their control as well.

I wouldn't make a big thing about it, it was a mistake that was corrected. Stuff happens.

if you really want Scott then trading a 3rd is fine (I know some of us still have rookie fever, but 3rd rounder hit rate is super low), and honestly Damien Harris would likely be a guy most would cut to make space for Scott (so trading him isn't a big issue either).

[Plank]

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.

I like this, wish I had thought of it in one of my Leagues ...

[dustyroads]

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.

This was my biggest take away as well tbh. The situation with Scott is the most prominent to you because you're directly involved, but taking a step back, having a commissioner just change a rule midseason, especially after being notified by a league member that the bad rule in place just negatively effected them, is terrible. At the very least there should have been a timeout and discussion with the rest of the league members.

I'd address that issue first and foremost, come to a resolution (imo changing commissioners), and then after it's recognized a major mistake was made there everyone should be able to better comprehend and make a decision on the specific issue with Scott. What a cluster****... If this isn't a friends league where you know all these people, I'd be out.

As an aside, I don't see how any dynasty league can ever restrict some owners from making waiver claims when others in the league can. Everyone starts with the same FAAB $$$ and portioning that out across a league year is a major strategy, regardless of who makes the playoffs and who does not. The whole point of dynasty is it's constantly running, you may have owners who are purposefully rebuilding their teams sacrificing making the playoffs and a shot at winning money to increase their chances in future years. To not allow them to pick up players just because they didn't make the playoffs goes totally against the point of a dynasty league IMO. If you are heading into the playoffs, not carrying depth at positions in case of injuries, and didn't properly budget yourself to make a pickup in case of emergency... that's either taking a known gamble/risk or just being a poor owner.

[FantasyFreak]

This guy is not fit to commish IMO. Especially with an answer like that. Missing the point of integrity to the rules. It doesn't matter if it's Scott or Saquon. The rules are in place for a reason. You should't change them mid season, and you shouldn't reduce a complaint an owner has to the quality of player involved being deemed not important, that's besides the point. Now, as stated above, if one team is allowed to make waiver claims, they all should be, so it's a bad rule, but the rule should not be changed the way it was. This won't be the last issue you have in this league with a commish that deals with issues this way.

[AussieMate]

To put it simply,
Your commish is an idiot.
That rule should be changed in the offseason.
You shouldn't get Scott as he was picked up fair by the league rules at the time.
I would have a conversation about not changing rules midseason and leave if he thinks he did the right thing.
And the most important point, don't let it ruin your day, it sucks, it's done, rosters shouldn't be altered.

[Lincoln18]

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.

I would also pick up a player if it meant helping my draft stock by 1 position. I don't think that is bullcrap at all. With that owner having something vested in that game makes it even more probable. If your exact scenario played out and that owner didn't have your future 1st I would then think collusion (probably not get there since owners change their minds on players a lot) and bring that forward because he picked up a player in dynasty and dropped him 4 weeks later after a good game.

I disagree that playoff teams should have priority on claims in dynasty leagues. This would give them an advantage over the rest of the league if someone breaks out in the playoffs and they are given priority over non playoff teams or eliminated playoff teams.

Yep. Nothing wrong with this tactic. This is why you don’t run out of faab or make cheap claims.

[Mephistopheles]

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.

I would also pick up a player if it meant helping my draft stock by 1 position. I don't think that is bullcrap at all. With that owner having something vested in that game makes it even more probable. If your exact scenario played out and that owner didn't have your future 1st I would then think collusion (probably not get there since owners change their minds on players a lot) and bring that forward because he picked up a player in dynasty and dropped him 4 weeks later after a good game.

I disagree that playoff teams should have priority on claims in dynasty leagues. This would give them an advantage over the rest of the league if someone breaks out in the playoffs and they are given priority over non playoff teams or eliminated playoff teams.

Yep. Nothing wrong with this tactic. This is why you don’t run out of faab or make cheap claims.

Except I didn't "run out of FAAB or make a cheap claim"
I had the 2nd most FAAB in the league. My opponent had zero, his buddy (out of the running) used his blind bid $ to bleep block me. My opponent effectively got $106 FAAB where the rest of the league (including me) got $100. He could not have done that bleep block without his eliminated buddy.
When the guy that I lost to in the title game left the league, he admitted to me that the guy told him in advance about it but he thought he was joking. When the claim happened, he claimed he told the guy to just give me Clay and the guy told him, just keep your mouth shut till after the Commish pays it out and get your $. So he did. I asked him if he paid the guy any $ and he refused to answer. So I'm pretty sure some $ exchanged hands there and the whole draft pick thing was just bullshit.

[mgscott]

Except I didn't "run out of FAAB or make a cheap claim"
I had the 2nd most FAAB in the league. My opponent had zero, his buddy (out of the running) used his blind bid $ to bleep block me. My opponent effectively got $106 FAAB where the rest of the league (including me) got $100. He could not have done that bleep block without his eliminated buddy.
When the guy that I lost to in the title game left the league, he admitted to me that the guy told him in advance about it but he thought he was joking. When the claim happened, he claimed he told the guy to just give me Clay and the guy told him, just keep your mouth shut till after the Commish pays it out and get your $. So he did. I asked him if he paid the guy any $ and he refused to answer. So I'm pretty sure some $ exchanged hands there and the whole draft pick thing was just bullshit.
[/quote]

One league I play in has a rule that if you pick up a FA player after a certain deadline, I think when the playoffs start, you have to keep that player into the following season. Makes an owner think twice about frivolous pick-ups or at least gives them a penalty for doing so. This may deter something like this as that owner wouldn't have been able to drop Clay right after the season as he obviously didn't really want him.

[Mephistopheles]

The leagues where I put this rule up for vote, I proposed 2 options. Either the playoff team making the protest has to start the player in all remaining games regardless and keep him for one year, or has to drop the player back into the waiver pool after his last playoff game, to be bid on in week 17 and 18. Both leagues chose option 2. Also, it's not automatic, it has to be protested by the playoff team. It's happened one time in 3 years in the two leagues.

In this case, I would have gotten Clay but then would have had to start him, then put him back in the pool for the week 17 and 18 waiver runs where everyone would have had a shot at him.