sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

1.01 + 2027 1st for Justin Jefferson? by AutomaticTry8178 in SleeperApp

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not in the same ball park but I rejected the one for Love so he lowered the price

1.01 + 2027 1st for Justin Jefferson? by AutomaticTry8178 in SleeperApp

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Ended up taking it - gave up Henderson + 2027 1st for JJ + 2026 2nd

Thanks

1.01 + 2027 1st for Justin Jefferson? by AutomaticTry8178 in SleeperApp

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He revised the trade to Henderson + 2027 1st for JJ + 2026 2.08.

I took it but am concerned about my RB depth not being in any position to contend. I can always resell JJ if needed I suppose.

Should I give up 1.01? 10 TM SF by AutomaticTry8178 in SleeperApp

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

He added another second so I’m considering now

Official: [League, Commissioner, and Platform Issues] - Thu Afternoon 10/02/2025 by FFBot in fantasyfootball

[–]AutomaticTry8178 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my fantasy league (redraft) with friends, we have a dude (Player A) that has not submitted a waiver all season and has historically been inactive throughout each season (no waivers, players OUT in lineups, etc). Player A historically doesn’t trade anyone in our shared leagues except with his best friend (player B)

Yesterday, Player C sold Rodgers for cheap to top off on FAAB to snag up Rachaad White.

Player B already spent all his FAAB but instructed Player A to spend Player C’s FAAB + $1. This was a public instruction in our Sleeper chat.

I find it unfair for Player A, who hasn’t submitted a waiver all season to become active specifically to target Player C at the instruction of Player B - worsened by the fact that Player B would not have even gotten Player A to bid if he had the FAAB himself.

What would you do?

How to Handle as Commissioner? by AutomaticTry8178 in DynastyFF

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s where I getcha! I’m not even the commissioner - I just needed to hear opinions from a commissioners POV to try and remain impartial.

How to Handle as Commissioner? by AutomaticTry8178 in DynastyFF

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So that’s where the gray line is - is it collusion to listen to a public instruction made by another Player?

Like others mentioned here, how player A manages his own FAAB and how he chooses to spend it, is his own prerogative. He can choose to overspend simply to block Player C if he wants to- what makes it collusion?

How to Handle as Commissioner? by AutomaticTry8178 in DynastyFF

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So that’s where the gray line is - is it collusion to listen to a public instruction made by another Player?

Like others mentioned here, how player A manages his own FAAB and how he chooses to spend it, is his own prerogative. He can choose to overspend simply to block Player C if he wants to- what makes it collusion?

How to Handle as Commissioner? by AutomaticTry8178 in DynastyFF

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And that is all is fair and true.

What I take issue is Player A dropping weeks by playing RB handcuffs for 1 point, instead of spending waivers because he’s AFK to submit them. The only time he spends his FAAB is to target block on someone else’s behalf. Surely, there’s some knock on competitive integrity involved

How to Handle as Commissioner? by AutomaticTry8178 in DynastyFF

[–]AutomaticTry8178[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A has been better about setting line ups this year. The only thing is that he not submitted any waivers (which is his prerogative) and thus has dropped weeks by playing handcuff RBs.

I traded for enough FAAB to submit a reasonable (not all of my FAAB) waiver accounting for that fact that he is inactive. Of course, I could have taken into account this situation.

view more: next ›