Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Flyman75 said:

 

League vote, which may change next year...or may go to a majority vote given privately to the commish rather than Yahoo's required 4 votes given anonymously. The Yahoo system is a joke, but giving the commish all the veto power is a bad idea, imho. Gives the commish too much power...and can put a good, honest commish in a bad spot if you have a divided league.

 

The veto this year was the first one we've had in a few years...I can think of only two in our seven years of existence. The one that was griped about (but not vetoed) was a case of a rebuilding team wanting to trade a star player with an expiring keeper status. He offered him up to the league as a rental player for a keeper, and finally got an offer 2-3 days later. He took it and a few owners griped, fussing about collusion and calling the two owners "shady". Finally one of them posted screenshots of their conversation leading up to the creation of the trade offer and the agreement to that trade, which proved no collusion and nothing shady took place. That seemed to shut everyone up. I'm pretty sure one of them won't be back next year. 

 

I don't think its a collusion issue.  So many of the guys that got players from the team were saying things like "he offered me more ridiculous (meaning too good) deals so I thought this was a little more fair.  That type of analysis should never happen in a competitive league, particularly if the guy offering sweetheart deals is already tanking.

 

Someone who is tanking loses the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There was a post on Fangraphs about this very subject earlier this week. Basically a guy trying to upgrade his keepers for next season sent a big package of strong players to the top team in exchange for a younger player with big upside (Y. Moncada). This was the only offer he received after notifying the entire league that he was willing to make this type of deal and getting no response other than the one offer he received and accepted. Of course, the rest of the league members weren't too happy so the author was wondering if he was in the wrong.

 

Half the responses to that post seemed to blame the league rules for being lax regarding these types of trades and the other half blamed the owners who sat on their hands while the opportunity was there to strike a deal. Hardly anyone seemed to fault the person dumping all the good players other than saying that he probably could have tried holding out for more or not overpaid quite so heavily when the guy dealing Moncada probably would have budged eventually. Still, at some point you run the risk of getting nothing and if you aren't in the hunt then who cares if you gave up 5 guys you can't keep for 1 strong keeper?

 

For me, I think a keeper league needs to have active owners who aren't scared to trade in order to be successful unless you have policies in place that discourage bottom feeder teams from selling. This is the fun of keeper leagues. The two leagues I run always have a robust trade market around the trade deadline and keeper deadline with buyers and sellers and there is a market at work where the sellers will get multiple offers from the contenders and not be forced to accept the only lousy offer they receive. It's no different than real baseball where the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, etc. give up future assets for immediate upgrades and if the Red Sox make a move then the Yankees better make a move too.

 

So, I think it's up to the commissioner to determine what type of owners he has in the league. If it's more of a set-it and forget it/waiver wire league then you probably should put some policies in place to limit deadline trades because there will inevitably be one guy who will feast and aggravate everyone else. On the other hand, if you have a lot of guys who enjoy trading they will realize that they need to start working those phones before the trade deadline and be ready to make some moves because winning the trade deadline will become another important component of winning the league.

 

Edited by TedStriker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I thought of a while back to address the equal opportunity issue was to have accepted offers post for a minimum period of time before being processed by the commissioner.  During this time, other owners could contact either party to make a better offer for the players on one side or another.  If either side accepts one of those offers, the original offer is canceled.  This makes it impossible for anyone to complain about someone who sold too low, because everyone had a chance to make offers and knew a deal was going to happen, but it does create a situation where the manager who does the work of getting to a mutually acceptable deal could end up losing out to someone who just sits around and tries to outbid everyone else when the deals are posted, which might irk people who believe that those who do the hard work of finding trades should get the rewards.

 

The only dynasty league I'm in has very active traders, so I don't think I'd want this kind of scheme, but in a scenario where you have a few guys who can't put in that kind of effort, maybe something like this would help avoid these lopsided deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

One thing I thought of a while back to address the equal opportunity issue was to have accepted offers post for a minimum period of time before being processed by the commissioner.  During this time, other owners could contact either party to make a better offer for the players on one side or another.  If either side accepts one of those offers, the original offer is canceled.  This makes it impossible for anyone to complain about someone who sold too low, because everyone had a chance to make offers and knew a deal was going to happen, but it does create a situation where the manager who does the work of getting to a mutually acceptable deal could end up losing out to someone who just sits around and tries to outbid everyone else when the deals are posted, which might irk people who believe that those who do the hard work of finding trades should get the rewards.

 

The only dynasty league I'm in has very active traders, so I don't think I'd want this kind of scheme, but in a scenario where you have a few guys who can't put in that kind of effort, maybe something like this would help avoid these lopsided deals.

 

I like this idea but limited to rebuilding teams only.  Not sure how one could structure that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeper deals, IMO, still need to be within the realm of fairness for this season though.

 

We had a deal a couple years ago.  It's a 14 team, keep 3, and some guy who was out of it was trying to acquire Bryant.  He traded like 6 good, starting caliber players, or something like that.  He essentially just threw in extra players, because, "why not?".  The league went nuts and it was vetoed.

 

One of those deals where both teams benefited, but it was still a bad deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tonycpsu said:

One thing I thought of a while back to address the equal opportunity issue was to have accepted offers post for a minimum period of time before being processed by the commissioner.  During this time, other owners could contact either party to make a better offer for the players on one side or another.  If either side accepts one of those offers, the original offer is canceled.  This makes it impossible for anyone to complain about someone who sold too low, because everyone had a chance to make offers and knew a deal was going to happen, but it does create a situation where the manager who does the work of getting to a mutually acceptable deal could end up losing out to someone who just sits around and tries to outbid everyone else when the deals are posted, which might irk people who believe that those who do the hard work of finding trades should get the rewards.

 

The only dynasty league I'm in has very active traders, so I don't think I'd want this kind of scheme, but in a scenario where you have a few guys who can't put in that kind of effort, maybe something like this would help avoid these lopsided deals.

 

Yea, I don't think I'd appreciate that rule.  I did the leg work to get a deal done only for it to serve as an advertisement to the league that player is available?  Kind of flies in the face of fair negotiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dodgers said:

I don't play public leagues but would have no problem doing this in them. If they say it is against the rules then they need to put something in place to stop it. Is espn or yahoo going to come into each public league and somehow reverse all the moves so they are not on waivers? lol. I can see how some people that are not into fantasy as much or as competitive see it as bush league but in my leagues we all do whatever we can to win. If it was illegal then our system would not be allowed to even have it happen in the first place. 

 

Here is another smart thing to do imo. Years ago I played in a weekly league and rosters would lock for the week 5 minutes before the first game of the week. I would drop 3-4 guys 6-7 minutes before the week locked to grab different guys for that week knowing nobody else will be on top of it that quick. Once the new week locked all players were FA again so I grabbed all of them back 30 seconds later when the week locked. Some could call that bush league also I guess but I call it being good at fantasy.

The system is a good LM who keeps all his owners playing by the rules stated.... in public leagues I have to believe anything goes unless you have an owner who would get in touch with the site- complains and maybe that site might do something but I have to believe they don't care much and won't bother changing what happen...

 

I play in private league that has a LM in place who has ethics and cleans up owners who like to circumvent the rules like impeding/cycling players.

 

smart thing? that s--- doesn't fly in ESPN or league that I am a part of.... all my leagues have --- lock times at individually at scheduled gametime and waivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I've got one that just came up.  We're in our playoffs in my 14 team keeper.  There's a team, who any time they don't make the playoffs, they scoop up a couple young guys on the off chance they might be a keeper.  He picked up Buxton a few days ago.  It's a keep 3, so Buxton probably isn't a keeper, but I guess I can kind of see it if he just goes on a tear the rest of the season.  So, I didn't say anything.

 

Now, he's picked up Dan Straily and I suspect he's doing that just to mess with us (we're all friends in this league).

 

My question is, do you guys lock rosters for non playoff teams, or just go ahead and let a guy continue to manage his roster, even though he's not playing for anything anymore?  It's ESPN, so technically he is still playing someone, although the results have no impact on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 89Topps said:

Ok, I've got one that just came up.  We're in our playoffs in my 14 team keeper.  There's a team, who any time they don't make the playoffs, they scoop up a couple young guys on the off chance they might be a keeper.  He picked up Buxton a few days ago.  It's a keep 3, so Buxton probably isn't a keeper, but I guess I can kind of see it if he just goes on a tear the rest of the season.  So, I didn't say anything.

 

Now, he's picked up Dan Straily and I suspect he's doing that just to mess with us (we're all friends in this league).

 

My question is, do you guys lock rosters for non playoff teams, or just go ahead and let a guy continue to manage his roster, even though he's not playing for anything anymore?  It's ESPN, so technically he is still playing someone, although the results have no impact on anything.

we don't freeze moves and if he's still playing someone who's to say he can't adjust his roster

 

I think you're stuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, XxxOilOverloadxxX said:

we don't freeze moves and if he's still playing someone who's to say he can't adjust his roster

 

I think you're stuck

 

I don't think there's even a way for me to lock a specific team from making transactions.  I would have to go in and manually drop anyone he picked up, which I don't particularly want to spend my time doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, XxxOilOverloadxxX said:

ya I think you just hate to eat it

 

doesn't sound like a big deal anyway

 

No, not a big deal.  Straily had a nice start today though.  I wasn't going to stream him, but not sure about the other active teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

Ok, I've got one that just came up.  We're in our playoffs in my 14 team keeper.  There's a team, who any time they don't make the playoffs, they scoop up a couple young guys on the off chance they might be a keeper.  He picked up Buxton a few days ago.  It's a keep 3, so Buxton probably isn't a keeper, but I guess I can kind of see it if he just goes on a tear the rest of the season.  So, I didn't say anything.

 

Now, he's picked up Dan Straily and I suspect he's doing that just to mess with us (we're all friends in this league).

 

My question is, do you guys lock rosters for non playoff teams, or just go ahead and let a guy continue to manage his roster, even though he's not playing for anything anymore?  It's ESPN, so technically he is still playing someone, although the results have no impact on anything.

You know Mr. @89Topps I play exclusively on ESPN and that site has consolation playoffs that do not lock out any teams.

I always been a big proponent when playoffs start you allow managers to manage their own teams. In all my years playing you will find some owners who love to keep making moves to the end, while other owners quit and start looking at fantasy football.

 

Do you remember the Squad leagues (baseball, football & basketball) the LM had it in the constitution if your team is eliminated you stop making moves.....So if that isn't in your rules I would let the dude keep doing what he is doing.

 

I though keeper leagues the draft order is determined after the season ended... and ESPN looks at the consolation bracket to determine 1st, 2nd picks etc..

Edited by shakestreet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, shakestreet said:

You know Mr. @89Topps I play exclusively on ESPN and that site has consolation playoffs that do not lock out any teams.

I always been a big proponent when playoffs start you allow managers to manage their own teams. In all my years playing you will find some owners who love to keep making moves to the end, while other owners quit and start looking at fantasy football.

 

Do you remember the Squad leagues (baseball, football & basketball) the LM had it in the constitution if your team is eliminated you stop making moves.....So if that isn't in your rules I would let the dude keep doing what he is doing.

 

I though keeper leagues the draft order is determined after the season ended... and ESPN looks at the consolation bracket to determine 1st, 2nd picks etc..

 

In our league, the non playoff teams go into a lottery for next year's draft.  So the consolation bracket means nothing.

 

I guess you're right though; if he wants to keep managing his team, I shouldn't stop him.  Better than a guy checking out a month ago cause his team was out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the owner should be commended for his playing his team to the end.  I always do no matter the standings.  I hate quitters and respect someone like that who just keeps playing.  Congrats to him. 

I'm totally 100% against locking out teams from making moves.  Way to encourage owners to leave.  Let the owners play.  That is the whole point of fantasy sports.  To play the game they love.  Don't discourage people from still playing.  Encourage them.

And if it is H2H you damn well want them to play and not ghost their team especially if some of your opponents who are making the playoffs are playing against them.  But even if it is roto, struggle to the end and maybe move up a place or two in the standings.  Try and keep improving right to the end.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

I think the owner should be commended for his playing his team to the end.  I always do no matter the standings.  I hate quitters and respect someone like that who just keeps playing.  Congrats to him. 

I'm totally 100% against locking out teams from making moves.  Way to encourage owners to leave.  Let the owners play.  That is the whole point of fantasy sports.  To play the game they love.  Don't discourage people from still playing.  Encourage them.

And if it is H2H you damn well want them to play and not ghost their team especially if some of your opponents who are making the playoffs are playing against them.  But even if it is roto, struggle to the end and maybe move up a place or two in the standings.  Try and keep improving right to the end.

I agree wholeheartly ....

 

I know ESPN has a consolation bracket but yahoo locks non-playoff teams. Is this true or is there a setting on yahoo that allows for a consolation bracket for the losers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

I think the owner should be commended for his playing his team to the end.  I always do no matter the standings.  I hate quitters and respect someone like that who just keeps playing.  Congrats to him. 

I'm totally 100% against locking out teams from making moves.  Way to encourage owners to leave.  Let the owners play.  That is the whole point of fantasy sports.  To play the game they love.  Don't discourage people from still playing.  Encourage them.

And if it is H2H you damn well want them to play and not ghost their team especially if some of your opponents who are making the playoffs are playing against them.  But even if it is roto, struggle to the end and maybe move up a place or two in the standings.  Try and keep improving right to the end.

 

To clarify, we're in the playoffs, this isn't the regular season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, 89Topps said:

 

No, not a big deal.  Straily had a nice start today though.  I wasn't going to stream him, but not sure about the other active teams.

 

We have an unwritten rule that the teams in the consolation brackets don't pick up guys. Like you we have a lottery so the bracket means nothing. I think what your manger is doing is in poor taste, but not illegal obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

To clarify, we're in the playoffs, this isn't the regular season.

Said it before if you aren't in the playoffs then they start little late to be improving your team. After the season is over the nonplayoff teams have a chance at improving then, preferably a week after the playoffs but any playoff team is barred at that time from making moves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 89Topps said:

 

To clarify, we're in the playoffs, this isn't the regular season.

So what? The guy still has to be able to improve his keepers. Why should only playoff teams be able to pick up potential keepers?

Even if he's just trying to win the consolation bracket, again so what? It's not up to you to make him stop caring so that you can have first dibs on the waiver wire. Anyone he picks up is still unavailable to everyone. not just you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

League drama in h2h playoffs? Shocking!

 

Non playoff teams should absolutely be able to pick up scraps for those streaming in and out hitters/pitchers in keeper set ups. I’d call it a bit of a check and balance so rules aren’t exploited as much or at least a price is paid (which should be in h2h playoffs. There is no honor among foolish set ups and you play to win and clown the system).

 

There is no cure for h2h wackiness but it sure can be fun and heartbreaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, 89Topps said:

Ok, I've got one that just came up.  We're in our playoffs in my 14 team keeper.  There's a team, who any time they don't make the playoffs, they scoop up a couple young guys on the off chance they might be a keeper.  He picked up Buxton a few days ago.  It's a keep 3, so Buxton probably isn't a keeper, but I guess I can kind of see it if he just goes on a tear the rest of the season.  So, I didn't say anything.

 

Now, he's picked up Dan Straily and I suspect he's doing that just to mess with us (we're all friends in this league).

 

My question is, do you guys lock rosters for non playoff teams, or just go ahead and let a guy continue to manage his roster, even though he's not playing for anything anymore?  It's ESPN, so technically he is still playing someone, although the results have no impact on anything.

Maybe this is leaning towards solved but I also don't see a problem with what he is doing. Besides giving him a chance for keepers, making positions difficult to acquire in the playoffs can affect the trade market going forward. If anybody objects to how much difficulty they're having finding pitching, for example, maybe they should have been more aggressive at the trade deadline. This policing of the free agent pool can be beneficial going forward. There's more than one reason for him to keep managing his team as he is and I actually commend him for it; I am out of my dynasty playoff race and am behaving similarly.

Edited by Hanghow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fiveohnine said:

So what? The guy still has to be able to improve his keepers. Why should only playoff teams be able to pick up potential keepers?

Even if he's just trying to win the consolation bracket, again so what? It's not up to you to make him stop caring so that you can have first dibs on the waiver wire. Anyone he picks up is still unavailable to everyone. not just you.

 

I was simply clarifying in response to this part of Big Bat's post, "And if it is H2H you damn well want them to play and not ghost their team especially if some of your opponents who are making the playoffs are playing against them".

 

We're not talking about an owner "ghosting" their team once they figure they're out of it, which impacts regular season records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...