T O P
  • By - lust3

MapleLurker

Was there a player on IR?


lust3

Good thinking, but no IR


[deleted]

I’m not sure as I’m not on ESPN, but Pickens does need to go to the one who bid $27. There may be backlash, but it’s documented that you can see what he bid. It’s the right thing to do.


lust3

Yeah once I substantiate why this happened, I’ll assign players based on what should’ve happened. Fortunately the league has been cool about this, and I can make it right


nothingmeansnothing_

Do you have a max roster size set based on positions?


lust3

Are you referring to position caps? We do not have those. Otherwise I believe the max roster size is just the amount of bench & starting spots


lust3

Thanks to a commenter suggestion I got on the phone with ESPN support. They were quick to respond, friendly and helpful! They confirmed that because the player had an outstanding 3 for 2 trade offer, he was unable to make a claim using the empty bench spot. This has apparently been a long-standing feature (or bug) on ESPN. Now comes the tricky part: what to do about this? Any advice as to how to proceed?


Vots3

Explain the situation to the league and that ESPN confirmed this is what happened, and propose giving Pickens to that owner. Doesn’t sound like you’ll have much or any objection.


FrazzaB

You can explain the situation fully and make a judgment or put it to a league vote. You either leave it as is, or with the FAAB bid info, manually correct the Waivers and FAAB amounts.


md24

Move to sleeperbot. ESPN should not have let him put in that claim. I would give it to him and subtract FAAB.


thisguy161

Sorry, I think this is more a player issue than ESPN. You should be aware of the potential moves you are making.


Flat_Finish231

Sounds like he did nothing wrong and the commissioner can manually add Pickens to the team that bid on him and deduct the fab


thisguy161

thats not a "bug" He was trying to add more players than he had open roster spots.


Acekingspade81

A trade OFFER should not lock your players and roster. Whether its a bug or not is debatable. Whats not debatable is this is absolutely silly and absurd. If i offer someone else a 3 for 2 trade. 3 for me, 2 for them, Its not accepted or pending, Its just an offer, My roster should not be treated like I own 3 players. I own 2 until that trade is accepted and processed. A platform treating my roster like I own 3 players is 100% a platform issue.


thisguy161

And if you picked up a waiver claim and filled your roster then the trade wouldn't go through and it potentially messes up things for the player you were offering the trade to if they wanted to accept. The checks and balances worked. It may suck for the player who didnt get Pickens, but it keeps a player who doesnt understand the league mechanics, or is trying to take advantage of them, from affecting other players in the league


Acekingspade81

As it shouldn’t. Absolutely not. Checks and balances? Other platforms allow the trade to also go through and then force the team to make a drop to adjust their roster. This is beyond silly. You dont assume a trade is going to be processed and lock a teams ability to add/drop players through waivers. If this was true, I could sent out a 1 for 3 trade to every team 5 minutes before waivers unlocked and lock every team from being able to add a player. This is an absurd rule.


philatio11

That’s ridiculous. I regularly make three or four 2-for-1 trade offers at the same time to multiple teams. By that logic I would have to empty out my bench “just in case” they all accepted my trade. Also, they should be able to break roster max by picking up a player since they “might” accept my trade. It is the kind of bug that makes me refuse to ever play in a league on ESPN. Absolutely lazy programming and no excuse.


Vots3

Contact ESPN help. Explain the glitch. They can tel you what happened. After that manually fix it


lust3

Thanks - what's the best way to contact them? Any channel you've used to much success?


Acekingspade81

He had an outstanding trade. This is why you need to move platforms.


thisguy161

genuine question. Why is this a platform issue? The player was trying to add more players than they had open spots. That's a player issue.


Acekingspade81

Because no other platform prioritizes a trade offer over a FA acquisition. It wasn’t an extra player. It was a trade he was offered that wasn’t accepted or pending. It was just an offer. A 3 for 2 offer. A trade offer shouldn’t lock your roster, Thats absurd. If i make an offer on Sleeper, It doesn’t assume my roster is accepting the trade before I do. The platform is assuming the trade is going to be accepted before it actually is. It should be the other way around.


Important-Sort4006

Best solution is to use the “sleeper app” next year. Best FF app there is. Updates are a little slow but nothing outrageous.


ellcoolj

I have had an open bench spot, and won the FAAB and got the player. You don't have to drop a player. That is not right.


lust3

Of course it’s not right, I’m just trying to figure out why ESPN’s system did it this way.


Cute-Championship684

Pending trade takes priority over roster spots.


onlevel7

Which is complete bullshit. A trade offer shouldn't take priority over waivers. What's to stop someone from sending out a bunch of 3 for 1 trade offers right before waivers clear to guarantee you get your guy?


Cute-Championship684

What if all the trades are accepted simultaneously?? Think before type sir.


onlevel7

Then I'm happy I got a Justin Jefferson caliber player for my Bengals D/ST, Cole Kmet, and Devin Singletary package.


onlevel7

You accepting that trade?


Cute-Championship684

Umm someone else has to accept your dogshit offer. Think in logical terms. If I have 4 different trades pending involving a one to one player swap. And all.4 of my pending deals are featuring one player. How would a computer program know to not allow all 4 of the same move to go thru? Cmon bro. Be better


onlevel7

We're talking about trade offers taking priority over waivers no?


Cute-Championship684

Jesus C man. U are fuckin dense.


onlevel7

You said pending trade takes priority over waiver claims. I said that you could abuse that system by offering a bunch of 3 for 1 trades, minutes before waivers clear. Because pending offers take priority, all these other teams with pending offers to receive 3 players will lose out on that waiver pick up, allowing me the priority for that waiver claim. I think you're not quite understanding something here.


Cute-Championship684

You would then be blocking yourself from waivers bro. If u send a deal. It's priority over everything on roster. Not very difficult concept to understand. And u think I'm having the issue. Lol You sound dumb.


onlevel7

No, you sound dumb. My pending offer REDUCES my roster spots by 2, therefore not interfering with a FA pickup. Are....you....ok???


Flat_Finish231

Do you have a limit on wrs maybe he had to many wrs on his team already