Fair or Foul?

[tlance]

There is a dispute going on in one of my $ leagues right now. This is a 14 team league, and I have been out of the running for awhile now, so I have no vested interest here.

Team 1 had Jay Cutler as their 1 and only QB. Team 2 loaded his bench with QBs after the benching announcement and Clausen was the only option still available on the free agent list. Team 2 pulled this off without any churning, he simply rostered all of the decent FA QBs (4 total QB adds).

Team 1 is now complaining that team 2 is playing unethically. What do you all think about this?

 

[TREFF]

Ughh.. hate these questions. .

If there's no maximum set number of QB's on the roster, technically he's playing by the rules, using them to get an advantage. .. something I'm generally in favor of. ...

BUT... it's such a DOUCHEY move!

"Legally" fair, ethically, major foul

That's the kind of guy you don't invite next year

 

[tlance]

Would it be different if we were talking about RBs?

I kind of did the same thing to Joe by grabbing Asiata and Randle, all be it on a much smaller scale, but I knew I had nowhere to play those guys.

 

[TKOSpikes]

Total legit move.

 

[TREFF]

Would it be different if we were talking about RBs?

I kind of did the same thing to Joe by grabbing Asiata and Randle, all be it on a much smaller scale, but I knew I had nowhere to play those guys.

I don't think so. There's plenty of RB's that can be played in a pinch who will all play. . There's only 32 QB's that you can reasonably expect to actually take a snap

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Total legit move.

I agree. If it's something you don't want in your league, adjust the rules accordingly. A guy in my league loaded up on all the defenses playing against Jacksonville for the playoffs. If you want to use roster spots risking not having someone to fill in in case of injury and it's within the rules, fair game IMO.

 

[broncosmitty]

That's the risk you take rolling without a backup. I see nothing wrong with rostering players just to keep them out of the competitions hands. (If it was an owner who was out of the running that did it, Id feel differently.)

This is where roster restrictions are a good thing. Usually takes an event like this to bring about rule changes. Same thing happened in my money league years back. (We now have "Team QB's" and roster restrictions.)

 

[Yellow Fuzzies]

I agree with the majority- legit move. Perhaps a max number of rostered QBs would help mitigate this in the future.

 

[averagejoe]

Would it be different if we were talking about RBs?

I kind of did the same thing to Joe by grabbing Asiata and Randle, all be it on a much smaller scale, but I knew I had nowhere to play those guys.

Am I mad? No.
Is it ethical? I don't know. To some it could be a brilliant strategy. To others, it may seem unsportsmanlike. I don't have an answer.

Wil (& by extension, Treff), I do have a complaint. The complaint has to do with the MBBRL playoff teams, the waiver order, and the ESPN defaults. Er go...

FYI, playoff bracket updated.

Tlance is the #1 seed, by virtue of a higher PF than Joe. Tlance hosts wild-card Fuzzies.

Joe hosts Ram.

If tlance was the #1 seed based on MBBRL power rankings, then tlance should have had the 12th waiver wire position. Right? Joe as the #2 seed should have held the 11th waiver position. (Ram was 10th, and Fuzzies was 9th.) Yes? No?

Let me preface it by saying that I know that there is nothing that can be done about it now. And I'm content with how things have worked out thus far. Merely bringing this up for 2015. (Or unless I get crushed by tlance this weekend.)

 

[averagejoe]

One more thing to clarify, Joe (as ESPN's #1 seed) held the 12th waiver position which allowed tlance to grab the RB ahead of him, in case that wasn't clear from above. But Wil changed the seeding based on MBBRL rules. But the waiver order stayed the same.

Sorry, I'm trying to think and type quickly because I need to eat and leave for my game tonight.

Back to tlance's question... Still do not know. I'm really not mad. Really.
I don't think the Packers, Seahawks or Lions feel sorry for the Cardinals having to start Ryan Lindley. But then, again, those teams aren't scarfing up available QB's either.

It's a sly move by the owner to grab the available FA QB. Could be just the opposite for the other owner who did nothing to help the depth on his team.

 

[tlance]

One more thing to clarify, Joe (as ESPN's #1 seed) held the 12th waiver position which allowed tlance to grab the RB ahead of him, in case that wasn't clear from above. But Wil changed the seeding based on MBBRL rules. But the waiver order stayed the same.

Sorry, I'm trying to think and type quickly because I need to eat and leave for my game tonight.

Back to tlance's question... Still do not know. I'm really not mad. Really.
I don't think the Packers, Seahawks or Lions feel sorry for the Cardinals having to start Ryan Lindley. But then, again, those teams aren't scarfing up available QB's either.

It's a sly move by the owner to grab the available FA QB. Could be just the opposite for the other owner who did nothing to help the depth on his team.

That is because the waiver order does not reset weekly. I had priority because I did not use any claim the week before and all the other playoff teams did.

 

[Sam Sportboy]

There is a dispute going on in one of my $ leagues right now. This is a 14 team league, and I have been out of the running for awhile now, so I have no vested interest here.

Team 1 had Jay Cutler as their 1 and only QB. Team 2 loaded his bench with QBs after the benching announcement and Clausen was the only option still available on the free agent list. Team 2 pulled this off without any churning, he simply rostered all of the decent FA QBs (4 total QB adds).

Team 1 is now complaining that team 2 is playing unethically. What do you all think about this?

Would be an expensive move in my money league as each transaction costs $3. With that said I'd say it's a legit move and we have had teams do that in my money league not only to block the other guy but our tie breaker is bench points. I've tried to get that rule changed but so far it's stayed the same.

 

[Chef99]

Dunno why, but it does seem like a douchey move because QBs are involved. That said, I have to go with legit move. A block is a block.

 

[wilwhite]

From page 217 of the MBBRL thread in August:

MBBRL Rules Revisited

• First, don't abandon your team
• Second, keep posting
• Third, no douchey plays (for example, if you're about to face AP who went down, picking up Gerhart on a waiver is legit - but if the team you're facing next week has Aaron Rodgers on a bye and the back-up Eli Manning just got hurt in a Thursday game, don't run to your computer first and do five add/drops to pick up all the QBs). We're all supposed to be good players beating each other straight-up. If you wonder about a move, ask.

So Tlance using his waiver pick in the MBBRL is competitive rather than douchey (especially since he held on to his waiver pick to do it), while that breathless QB grab in his money league is definitely douchey. I imagine the guy madly clicking to take advantage before the other guy gets online, and the scene is awash in douchiness. It's the kind of thing where if he had a wife, and his wife saw him do it and understood what it meant, some of her love and respect for him would die.

But, as others pointed out, the other owner was an idiot for not having a backup - obviously he was doing something else with his roster spots. Given that, complaining that the first guy is being unethical is also kinda douchey.

Feels like those cases of smokers versus Big Tobacco. Couldn't root for either of them.

 

[tlance]

Wil once again had all the answers. Thanks!

 

[leftypower]

I agree with the majority- legit move. Perhaps a max number of rostered QBs would help mitigate this in the future.

Yep, that would certainly help. I think the guy grabbing QB's was actually pretty smart, and the one who needed a QB but didn't jump out and grab one was pretty dumb. There are really no other 'defensive' moves an owner can make in fantasy other than to limit the other guys options. That said, I wouldn't have done it simply to avoid depleting my roster of other position options.
Take the QB out of the equation and it is similar to the one team having Julio and the other grabbing Douglas. Smaller scale, but really the same thing. .... a move we all would make.

 

[TREFF]

Yep, that would certainly help. I think the guy grabbing QB's was actually pretty smart, and the one who needed a QB but didn't jump out and grab one was pretty dumb. There are really no other 'defensive' moves an owner can make in fantasy other than to limit the other guys options. That said, I wouldn't have done it simply to avoid depleting my roster of other position options.
Take the QB out of the equation and it is similar to the one team having Julio and the other grabbing Douglas. Smaller scale, but really the same thing. .... a move we all would make.

That's not the same thing at all in my mind. This guy guaranteed a zero for his opponent. There aren't 20 other QB's who will play this week. Grabbing Douglas in front of your Julio owner only forces him to go get Andre Holmes, or Charles Johnson, or Jarvis Landry, or any other if a dozen WR's, all of which are absolutely going to play, most of who will catch 3-5 passes if not more. This Cutler owner doesn't even have an option available who will even take a single snap.


I do agree about the dumb/smart parts though, but I still stick to it being an utterly douchebag move, even if it is the smart play and perfectly legal.

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The dude that's gonna win my league picked up 3 Defenses with great matchups right before the playoffs and then the rest of the field was sitting there with their thumb up their ass and shitty Defensive matchups.

By the 2nd half of the season you should be building depth so that this doesn't happen later on. You're gambling by rolling with the minimum amount at any position.

 

[Jack_John_Mark]

Having a backup QB by the midway point is just plain and simply a must.

 

[Chef99]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The dude that's gonna win my league picked up 3 Defenses with great matchups right before the playoffs and then the rest of the field was sitting there with their thumb up their ass and shitty Defensive matchups.

By the 2nd half of the season you should be building depth so that this doesn't happen later on. You're gambling by rolling with the minimum amount at any position.

But there's a difference between planning ahead and the scenario Tlance is talking about...