Most commonly, these teams play spoilers by taking points away in categories they remained strong in, despite the fact that they dumped. Typically, it is the qualitative categories that stay in play for teams that packed it in; a team with a high batting average and zilch in seven other categories knows it isn't going to win, but doesn't necessarily become a bad batting average team just because it caved.
However, sometimes teams at the bottom of the standings play spoiler in a way that seems more than a little shady to the teams still in the running. This happens when non-contenders either:
- make a high FAAB bid on a player who isn't a freeze next year, or
- claim a player on waivers who is in the last year of his Rotisserie contract.
Once the deadline is past, though, there is always a bad taste left in a league's collective mouth when a dead fish claims an option-year player, or puts a $50 bid on C.J. Wilson. It is especially suspicious when Owner A is in last place and has no shot at all of finishing in the money and Owner B is good friends with Owner A and is sitting in 1st place.
This actually happened in my American League many years ago. A father and son each owned separate teams in the league. The son was in a tight race for first. The father was in 9th place and had no realistic shot at finishing in the money. Nevertheless, week after week, Dad kept claiming option-year players off of waivers. This annoyed all of the other contenders to no great end, since they all felt a little upset by the fact that Dad was helping out his son, even if it wasn't a deliberate attempt.
For years, I've never thought of suggesting rules to prevent this kind of behavior. Two years after these suspicious waiver claims, Dad and his boy were kicked out of the league for a collusive trade and the problem went away. It wasn't until this year that a claim was made that made me wonder if there aren't rules that wouldn't fix the problem.
Below are some ways to fix the problem if these are issues for your league as well.
- FAAB: One of two things would work here. Either set a FAAB cap for non-contending teams or force teams to freeze players FAABed over a certain price. Forcing players to be frozen past a certain FAAB price is the way most leagues are set up, and I think would be easier to police.
- Waivers: One option is to change the waiver order after the trade deadline. Make it 6th through 1st and then 12th through 7th, or 7th through 1st and 12th through 8th. However, you probably only want to do this for option-year players only. It's not fair to limit non-contenders who might be trolling for players for 2008.
I can understand the incentive to want to pick first in the minor league draft. Being able to draft Matt Garza or Ryan Braun this spring was certainly more exciting than picking up Nick Adenhart because he was the best player available. A better way putting this is that there is a significant difference between Garza and Adenhart, and teams looking toward next year want to be excited by something.
I would argue, though, that you don't want bottom feeders destroying this year's race in an effort to get the 6th draft pick overall as opposed to the 8th pick. Teams that packed it in knew what they were doing when they flew the white flag. It's one thing to tinker to try and get better players for next year and perhaps move up in the standings as a result. It's another matter entirely when an owner FAABs Shea Hillenbrand or Rick Ankiel at $40 because he wants to finish 9th.
As is the case with a lot of rules, let your own experience be your guide. In most leagues, common sense prevails and teams at the bottom generally don't make moves to screw up a pennant race in progress. Good owners know that next year they'll be in a race, and wouldn't want a team in 11th picking up players just for the hell of it. However, don't be afraid to make changes if this etiquette isn't followed. These types of claims, if made frequently, can be as damaging to a league as the most lopsided of dump trades. In a sense, they are worse, because the team claiming an option-year player can't even argue that he's getting something for next year. Don't let something like this ruin your league if you can avoid it.
3 comments:
Our league includes a reserve draft that rewards owners for finishing higher in the standings. Also, the team that finishes dead last is supposed to buy the beverages in the following spring's draft. Thus, we created incentives for everyone to compete through the end of the season.
Frankly, I like it. In another league, it drives me crazy that some teams stop paying attention to their teams. It's a head-to-head league and the contenders drawing those teams at the end of the season have an advantage over the contenders who played them earlier in the year.
The logic is much the same in roto, just not quite as obvious.
I'd imagine that, in head to head leagues, it's even more important to make sure that bottom feeders maintain some level of interest.
I posted this elsewhere, but perhaps this is the right spot:
In the end, I think you want every team trying to do well, even if that team is no longer in contention. It makes for a more lively and competitive race at the top of the standings if the teams at the bottom are still fighting, however hopelessly. (Why should a good player on waivers be free to the top teams late in the year when that same player would have drawn lots of bids early on?)
When I have a contending team, what I find FAR more frustrating is when a team at the bottom has completely stopped paying attention and THAT has an impact on the race. (Say, they're not even bothering to replace a bunch of DL'd players, which leads them to lose ground to a contending team in counting-stats categories.)
The best way to avoid collusion issues is for the teams at the bottom to 1) make strategic moves for next year. 2) continue to compete for this year, so long as it doesn't interfere with #1.
Post a Comment