I'm in a league in which it is beneficial (in my eyes) to start four starters and three closers in seven pitching spots. I offered a trade last week to someone who needs a closer or two (Mantei is his). He refused the trade (Trevor Hoffman and either Matt Clement or C.C. Sabathia for Pedro). This is a daily FA/Waiver transactions league in which you set your lineup on a weekly basis.
Last night, when I returned from Wrigley Field, where I watched Valverde get the save, I picked up Jose Valverde despite the fact that I have NO intention of ever starting him, only keeping him until Sunday when he will have to be picked up via waivers, not via free agency. The Mantei owner who turned down the trade has top waiver priority, I have second...
Therefore, I've made a strategic move to deny my opponents the ability to get a legitimate closer candidate (I also have Isringhausen, Joe Nathan, and Mariano Rivera). On Sunday, I'll drop both Nathan and Valverde for two starters who will start twice this week. please let me know if I've made a terrible breach of ethics or if I've just made a good strategic move.
"... gas prices are headed through the roof, everyone in the Middle East hates us, Toronto and Seattle are in last place -- happy 1978, everybody!." - Bill Scheft, Sports Illustrated, April 26, 2004
not if you are making a legit roster move. In my league we have a rule that if a player never makes into an active roster before he is released then he is not on waivers but rather part of the free agent pool.
It's a grey area, but as long as you are not purposefully wasting a player on the waiver wire. You should be OK
drocto wrote:Cool, thanks. Would you call it churning that I drop two pitchers each week for pitchers who will make two starts?
No, because you'll actually be starting those pitchers. That type of move is fine.
My understanding of churning is that such an act occurs when you pick up and drop players in a way that is of no benefit to your team other than denying other league members access to them.
"One of the teams represents truth, justice, the American way, and underdogs everywhere. The other represents George Steinbrenner!" - U.S. News and World Reports columnist John Leo on the difference between the Mets and the Yankees.
not churning. if it is an asset to your team why not take them. if you jsut drop them right away to put them on waivers, that is one thing. But hey, you picked up up and could use him.
can be grey I guess, i don;t agree with those who think ti is chruning, but it coudl be perceived that way. It hink of churning as putting all fo the best FA guys on waivers. not keeping a guy for a couple of days and dumping.
drocto wrote:Last night, when I returned from Wrigley Field, where I watched Valverde get the save, I picked up Jose Valverde despite the fact that I have NO intention of ever starting him, only keeping him until Sunday when he will have to be picked up via waivers, not via free agency.
Gretzky, I am not sure how you could read the above quote and not consider it churning. Picking up a FA with no intention of using him and dropping him onto the WW to hamper another owner's access is the very definition of churning IMO.
Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey
Amazinz wrote:Gretzky, I am not sure how you could read the above quote and not consider it churning. Picking up a FA with no intention of using him and dropping him onto the WW to hamper another owner's access is the very definition of churning IMO.
i have heard people call the practice of picking up starters, using them, and then dropping them after they start as roster churning. i guess different people call that practice by different names.
in my opinion it is bad form to pick up a player with the sole purpose of hindering the play of your opponents. since you have valverde, why not try to trade him or another one of your closers instead of just dropping him.