|
Sent a trade offer.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
I have found another hole in our taxi squad rules  Ok so I have multiple rookie QBs. Suppose two different owners each try to steal a QB off my squad: how can I keep both? It's impossible to start two QBs, so I can't. But in the spirit of the taxi squad rules, an owner ought to be able to defend from steals by starting players. Three potential approaches: -Leave as is. Put two QBs on your taxi squad in the same week, and you could lose one. -Special rule just for QBs (the only roster slot always limited to just one starter): can't have 2+ QB steal attempts in the same week -More generic rule: no owner can be subjected to 2+ steal attempts per week, period (currently, you can't have the same owner trying to steal 2+ from you per week, but owners can gang up on you) I'm starting to lean toward the third option, personally. It really sucks to have to start 2 or three marginal rookies in the same week just to defend them, plus wiping out roster slots to do it, but the alternative is all your good taxi guys get ripped off in like week 2. If the third option is too big of a change to make today, then I prefer the second over the first... but I'm the one most affected by this issue, so I am biased. Of course, another of our commissioners is presently subjected to two steal attempts this week, so the third option would immediately benefit him! This is why we should work out rules in advance of the regular season, but these taxi squad rules have really confounded me. We just didn't see this kind of activity last year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
I vote number 3. Clearing space for this is hard. I had to drop 2 guys I wanted to keep. drat you all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
I'd vote for option one. If you have startable guys on your taxi squad, they should be valid targets. Don't want to start them? Trade them. Point is, taxi squad players are intentionally at risk. If other teams think they are startable, you can trade or defend them. If they are startable, but not as good as your starters or fills, then you have a good team. Celebrate it by losing a player. I have structured my team with this in mind. Taxi squad players are at risk, so I have long term players there and more likely impact players / replacement level players sitting on my roster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Yeah, that's true. My fault for drafting two linebackers and expecting them to grow for 6 weeks instead of having injuries force them to start. It definitely shouldn't be a ' only for position xxx' rule because two linebackers sucks too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Yeah, that's true. My fault for drafting two linebackers and expecting them to grow for 6 weeks instead of having injuries force them to start. It's not even (really) bad for you. Your roster is probably better, but certainly not worse. And given that we have 24 slots for 12 starters, it's not like we don't have bench space. (Though it may hurt your depth for this specific week) My only concern would be tanking combined with taxi squad. There's probably not a world where trubisky is startable this week. If I wanted to steal him for long term gains, how does that compare to intentionally losing games for picks? There should be a lot of leeway, of course, but it's an interesting question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Yeah. Our rules say you get to balance long-term concerns with short-term ones, and only prohibit deliberately sabotaging your team - not your specific week's performance. I don't think intentionally tanking a season is very beneficial. At best, you finish in the bottom four, and get a top four rookie pick, but it's randomized between the top four, and I'm not sure how super valuable that one or two high picks will be. You're certainly giving up on finishing in the money. Second best I guess would be tanking the season but shooting for a consolation tournament victory; if you can manage that, you finish out only $5 on the season, but are stuck with a late pick, so why would you do that? For owners doing rebuilding, though, the benefit of grabbing a promising rookie may easily outweigh the cost of finishing out of the money this year (if you don't feel you have a shot at a top-3 finish anyway), and losing a single week doesn't necessarily lose you the whole season. There's a huge amount of variance in fantasy football, so slotting in one bad player on purpose doesn't even guarantee you a loss. All told, I think it's obvious that grabbing a promising rookie that you have to start in one of your FLEX positions is worth it unless you have nobody on your regular bench you are willing to drop. If you have a rookie you can demote, the cost is even lower. But this goes both ways: it's also not that horrible to protect your taxi rookie by starting him (or keeping him off the taxi squad in the first place). If you had high draft picks, you were probably bad last year and had roster space anyway, right? And if your team is so stacked you can't figure out someone to dump, well, working hard to get high draft picks may not be worth it because you won't be able to protect the good rookies anyway. Or, spend your high draft picks on project players, guys who are injured at the start of the season but may be great next year, that kind of thing? That said: it's reasonable to have a rule against intentionally tanking any given match. Tanking one match gives your opponent that week a "free win" which is unfair to the rest of the league that had to play you when you were trying to win. We don't have such a rule on the books, but we could have one if we wanted. It's notoriously hard to enforce, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:Stealing Watson from leperfishy. I'm officially stating before the 48 hour deadline that I'm keeping and starting Deshaun Watson. He starts tonight and I will make roster moves as appropriate to get him on my lineup before the game starts. Teemu you have about 2 more hours to get back to me on trade offers before I am out of time and have to do something else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm officially stating before the 48 hour deadline that I'm keeping and starting Deshaun Watson. He starts tonight and I will make roster moves as appropriate to get him on my lineup before the game starts. Trade me Cutler instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
what part of "alllll the quarterbacks" are you having trouble with? poo poo I want QBs on other people's teams still I missed Mahomes and didn't have enough slots to get Beathard ...OK I'll trade you Cutler for... uh... jesus christ, why are all your good players too expensive, drat, yeah it's pretty tough to propose a trade here
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
I am just trying to save you cap space so you can start Watson. And MY guys are expensive? Yours are ridiculous, I can't even offer you a trade without blowing both our caps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Nah you have some excellent cheap guys, but you'd never trade one for Cutler. Like, your salary for Devonta Freeman is ridiculous but you're not giving him up. I'm assuming you wouldn't deal doug martin or adam theilen. And uh... I think the rules officially disallow you trading me TJ Watt, even though I'm the one that tried to steal him, which is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Just drop smith already. Save the headache of 'yeah but he is playing the browns so he should put up 25." *Smith goes 11 for 30, 145yds and 1 int* Edit: may not have been the browns but I legitimately ran this exact same scenario four times last year. Double edit: if he puts up 25+ again this year I will put $20 to a charity of someone's choosing. If he puts up 4x sub-10pt games you put up $20 to a charity of my choosing. * This wager is open to any one person in the league. It is about my certainty of him not being worth starting. Spermy Smurf fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Sep 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Yeah I have Smith because I think there's like maybe a 5% chance that he's suddenly a changed QB this late in his career and is gonna throw long bombs every game, and a 95% chance that he isn't. But that 5% chance is worth it because I'm all-in this year in securing a couple of good QBs for my dynasty team and I'm willing to leave no stone unturned. I may be forced to drop Smith but I'm not taking that bet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
everything worked out in the end, teemu showed up and we made a deal
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
I think we gotta talk taxi squads when we talk rules. Do we allow people on taxi squads to sit there for 2 years? Another league does this and it makes sense. Has anyone actually promoted someone on their taxi to the bench just before the draft? Everyone just dropped and cleared space, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Our taxi rules currently say NFL rookies only, so nobody was allowed to keep anyone on their squads going into the draft. We have the MFL setting for that turned on, so MFL is enforcing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
I think his question was more 'Would it make sense to expand taxi squads such that rookies or sophmores could go on them / only rookies could go on them, but they could stay through the sophmore season'. I may be putting words in his mouth, but that could be interesting to me as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Yeah. In real life football, taxi squads can have veterans on them. I would be OK with a change to the squad truly being a "well, we're paying you, and we can promote you at any time... but other teams can totally take you and we have to promote you to stop it" thing. It would let us stash perennial backups, guys who spent their entire rookie year injured, poo poo like that. I'm also fine with them being for rookies only, because most of the time, those are the real big question mark "is on a team but could be a bust but maybe not" type of guys. So either way is good with me, I guess. We clearly need to revisit the theft rules, in particular the timing issues. I'd probably propose something like: all taxi squad theft announcements take place on mondays and tuesdays (for players starting thursday), and thursdays-fridays (for players starting saturday-sunday-monday), beginning just after the first week's games and ending just before week 13s games. You always get minimum <x> hours to decide whether to defend the steal or not, and then no later than a specified time before gametime, you have to make roster adjustments. We're thinking about how many steals you can have directed against you/direct at others/etc. and we should hash that out too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Zauper posted:I think his question was more 'Would it make sense to expand taxi squads such that rookies or sophmores could go on them / only rookies could go on them, but they could stay through the sophmore season'. Spermy Smurfs 3rd account in this league spotted. Basically taxis past week 4 are useless barring a few injuries. No one even had a taxi squad past week 10. Ok, they might have had one but none of them were kept.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah. In real life football, taxi squads can have veterans on them. I would be OK with a change to the squad truly being a "well, we're paying you, and we can promote you at any time... but other teams can totally take you and we have to promote you to stop it" thing. It would let us stash perennial backups, guys who spent their entire rookie year injured, poo poo like that. I'm also fine with them being for rookies only, because most of the time, those are the real big question mark "is on a team but could be a bust but maybe not" type of guys. My personal opinions: 1) The 'theft' window should be the same regardless of when players are playing -- by Thursday night (absent waivers), I should be able to set my lineup for next week if I'm on vacation/travel/whatever. A) Theft window -- theft requests must be in by 12 noon on Tuesday, and can be initiated as early as 12 noon on Monday. B) The stealee has until Thursday 12 noon to determine if they will promote and play or let the theft occur. They can have an additional x hours to make the necessary roster adjustments. 2) Each person may only rob from another person's taxi squad once per week, but each person can be targeted for their entire squad. 3) Only rookies may be demoted to the taxi squad, but players can stay on the taxi squad indefinitely. (it can't be used for IR storage unless the rookie got injured while eligible). Same eligibility criteria (can never have been started) applies. So a guy like Washington could be stashed there until he's startable (or a team thinks he's startable), which really lets the taxi squad be used better for development rather than immediate returns. Theoretically could expand the taxi squad a bit if we were doing that. Zauper fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
the bengals cantnot gently caress me. Of course im up against clowney, of course.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:the bengals cantnot gently caress me. Of course im up against clowney, of course. At least your opponent isn't starting Foreman, who appears to have overtaken Miller for the starting job? Touch count is odd so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
they need to use miller to block a little because right now they're getting stacked boxes when he's on the field but it is concerning
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:they need to use miller to block a little because right now they're getting stacked boxes when he's on the field but it is concerning Ah, gotcha. (I'm watching the boxscore, not the game, so..). Also, should we have like, some kind of chat place instead of just chatting in here? Or is this okay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
chat here is fine, im usually in the fantasy gdt too, I watch from the living room with just my kndle usually so I could do a discord or slack or something too, it's all good
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Well I'm pretty OK with 17.7 from Deshaun. Miller's 10 points is less good, he's clearly in a full blown time share and ugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well I'm pretty OK with 17.7 from Deshaun. Miller's 10 points is less good, he's clearly in a full blown time share and ugh. Super fun to go through 3 quarters of just 4 points from Hopkins until they remembered the "Just Chuck it at Nuk" playbook.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Bengals' secondary got beat up, and, texans started keeping pressure off of deshaun better. But yeah, nuk got himself free a lot more at the end of the game, too. Also lol everyone was all "dalton will bounce back this week you'll see" and I'm like naw
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Power's back on, praise be! Time to neglect the family in favor of fantasy football!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Hallelujia, preach it brother!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
I believe my waivers did not process correctly. My first bid was $2 on fuller (dropping wallace), my second was the timmons bid (also dropping wallace). No one bid on Fuller, so I should have gotten him?quote:Blind Bid Waiver Request
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Yeah the previously processed waivers report doesn't show the fuller bid at all. Is anyone else missing any bids?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah the previously processed waivers report doesn't show the fuller bid at all. Here's a uh... thing? That waiver didn't process (to your point), it still shows on my page as being entered on Thursday. Fuller was dropped at the same time as Timmons, so it's not a lockout issue -- you'll notice the time matches the time in my prior post. 
Zauper fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Alright. I will file a ticket, because this is the second time MFL's new waivers code has hosed up. I can also manually fix the waiver, but I want to give MFL a chance to investigate first. I will definitely fix it by this evening so you have a chance to set your lineup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Alright. I will file a ticket, because this is the second time MFL's new waivers code has hosed up. He (Fuller) is injured and not playing this week, so it's not a concern for this weekend's roster. Ideally it would be settled by say Monday so I can have it in mind for the next waiver cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
OK. I filed a ticket, typically they take a full day to respond, so just don't start Timmons either and you should be OK.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK. I filed a ticket, typically they take a full day to respond, so just don't start Timmons either and you should be OK. I have a theory for what happened, though I don't see it spelled out in our rules (and it looks as though there might be an option for it on the commissioner side; "Answer: You can enable this setting on the For Commissioner > Setup > General Add/Drop Setup and choose the option: "Prevent Owners From Making FCFS Waivers/Free Agent Moves Between Kickoff of that player's game and the end of the last game of the week?" ) -- Houston played Thursday. I, knowing fuller was out and adding him based on the Wednesday drop, didn't care and tried to add him. Because his team had already played this week, he is/was still locked, and thus I was unable to add him. Our rules don't say anything about preventing players from being added via FAAB after their game that week has been played. It's not a big deal either way if that's an unwritten rule or whatever, but I'd be pretty certain that's the behavior.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Ohhhhhh. I didn't notice but yeah, that's precisely what happened. That setting is turned on. OK I just turned it off, and updated our ticket. I'll manually fix the waiver, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
-turned off commissioner lock -dropped Timmons, added Fuller -Set Fuller's salary to $2 -Subtracted $1 from Titoon's FAAB dollars -turned on commissioner lock Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:02
|
|