|
Post by volcano on Oct 31, 2011 7:22:12 GMT -5
I have to agree with Riot, i don't like any of the options.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 31, 2011 12:18:10 GMT -5
I refuse to vote. Two adds? Come on. Yes I see where you're going, but if someone is going to dump a player where a team can actually obtain him, I don't see anything wrong with it. The league is setup for pitchers to fail anyway, so if they want to stream, I say all the power to them.
I see where you're going with this, trying to mimic the playoffs, but limiting an owner's moves is just plain ole grumpy and takes out the fun in this league. I understand your point but a roster freeze in some form is going to happen. We will not allow streaming to decide the title game again. We can't, not for the long term health of this league. With that, we think the 3 options that are up for vote are the fairest ones that were discussed, and thus we want to decide which one to implement. We welcome all ideas, but frankly, the discussion has been open on this for quite a while and at some point we have to get moving on this issue. All I can say is not voting is your right but frankly one of those 3 options is going to happen next season. You may not be thrilled with them but since one of them is going to happen, I would want to vote for the one that I like best even if I'm not entirely thrilled about any of them, but that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 31, 2011 13:41:53 GMT -5
So playoff teams that need to replace an injured player...can't keep the player picked up nor do they keep the rights to the player they needed to drop? How is that fair? Either the team should be able to keep the player picked up or he should have rights to pick up the dropped player....now we are penalizing a team for MAKING the playoffs.
This whole topic is beyond frustrating.
I can't bring myself to vote for any of the options yet...and I've been ruing on this for weeks now. While streaming in players is garbage, it does come with it's own set of penalties (the players don't perform as you are gambling). Locking the roster takes managing your team out of your hands.
Since the issue is 97% about streaming in SP's in the playoffs....can't we work something into the rules that enforces the SIX game start limit and NOT lock our rosters?!!? Seeing as ESPN can't do it, surely we can come up with a 2 or 3 week system to enforce it during the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by volcano on Oct 31, 2011 14:19:10 GMT -5
So playoff teams that need to replace an injured player...can't keep the player picked up nor do they keep the rights to the player they needed to drop? How is that fair? Either the team should be able to keep the player picked up or he should have rights to pick up the dropped player....now we are penalizing a team for MAKING the playoffs. This whole topic is beyond frustrating. I can't bring myself to vote for any of the options yet...and I've been ruing on this for weeks now. While streaming in players is garbage, it does come with it's own set of penalties (the players don't perform as you are gambling). Locking the roster takes managing your team out of your hands. Since the issue is 97% about streaming in SP's in the playoffs....can't we work something into the rules that enforces the SIX game start limit and NOT lock our rosters?!!? Seeing as ESPN can't do it, surely we can come up with a 2 or 3 week system to enforce it during the playoffs. Being told what to do is not how i roll! With that being said, if this is a dictators league, i want out. I have never been involved with a dynasty league that has rules in place to penelize managers for making mistakes (losing draft picks), and is about the dumbest thing i seen. I am still upset about the way "upper managment" treated me on the Jake McGee demotion. This is basically the last straw for me. I will devoted my time to a new league that is run better, and more willing to listen, rather than tell how it is. GOOD LUCK
|
|
|
Post by broadstreetbomberz on Nov 1, 2011 13:43:55 GMT -5
"We do not want the finals decided by which team got the hottest pitching off the waiver wire the final week of the season. We want the team who has built their team the best to win."
The last two years NO TEAM has won more games then The Broad Street BOMBERZ. I welcome the Complete roster freeze.
BOMBZ Away.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Nov 1, 2011 13:59:28 GMT -5
I refuse to vote. Two adds? Come on. Yes I see where you're going, but if someone is going to dump a player where a team can actually obtain him, I don't see anything wrong with it. The league is setup for pitchers to fail anyway, so if they want to stream, I say all the power to them. I see where you're going with this, trying to mimic the playoffs, but limiting an owner's moves is just plain ole grumpy and takes out the fun in this league. I'm not entirely sure how you can say pitchers are setup to fail, considering the huge numbers they can put up on any given night. I agree that there are some flaws in the system that I hope to address, but setup to fail? I can't say I agree with that. I've said it before, the main issue with me is twofold. First, I despise streaming, plain and simple. Want to talk about taking the fun out of the league, let's talk about the championship being decided not by smart drafting, trading, and team building, but by the adding of a ton of pitchers on the last day to maximize stats. That, in my mind, isn't fun and takes any and all enjoyment out of the league for me. Even as a spectator I was enjoying the hell out of our championship matchup, right up until the last day when both teams maxed out their SPs. At that point I simply stopped caring who won, and that's a shame. Secondly, there is something inherently wrong in my mind about a league where you keep all of your players from season to season, where the emphasis is on building your team through the draft and via trades having it's playoffs and championships decided by free agent adds. Both of our finals participants have worked hard to put together very good teams that include very high caliber players, and yet the championship was decided not by Halladay or Lincecum, but by a bunch of guys that weren't even on their respective rosters at the start of the matchup. That just seems wrong to me, and doesn't reward the team building a league like this should be about. Being told what to do is not how i roll! With that being said, if this is a dictators league, i want out. I have never been involved with a dynasty league that has rules in place to penelize managers for making mistakes (losing draft picks), and is about the dumbest thing i seen. I am still upset about the way "upper managment" treated me on the Jake McGee demotion. This is basically the last straw for me. I will devoted my time to a new league that is run better, and more willing to listen, rather than tell how it is. GOOD LUCK A dictator's league? If this is how you feel then I don't know what to say, other than maybe you should PM me so that we can discuss you problem with the league privately. As far as being "willing to listen," one has to first speak up before he can be listened to. I'm open to suggestions, but for the month that this thread has been here for people to voice their opinions, NOBODY HAS HAD ANYTHING TO SAY. If that's me not listening, than I guess I'm guilty as charged.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Nov 1, 2011 14:10:14 GMT -5
So playoff teams that need to replace an injured player...can't keep the player picked up nor do they keep the rights to the player they needed to drop? How is that fair? Either the team should be able to keep the player picked up or he should have rights to pick up the dropped player....now we are penalizing a team for MAKING the playoffs. This whole topic is beyond frustrating. I can't bring myself to vote for any of the options yet...and I've been ruing on this for weeks now. While streaming in players is garbage, it does come with it's own set of penalties (the players don't perform as you are gambling). Locking the roster takes managing your team out of your hands. Since the issue is 97% about streaming in SP's in the playoffs....can't we work something into the rules that enforces the SIX game start limit and NOT lock our rosters?!!? Seeing as ESPN can't do it, surely we can come up with a 2 or 3 week system to enforce it during the playoffs. It is frustrating, on multiple levels, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. In my mind a roster freeze is the best and fairest way to go about doing that. I get what you're saying about a roster freeze taking managing the team out of your hands, but I prefer to look at it a different way. Over the course of the offseason and during the season you ave been building the best team you possibly can, and that includes your starting lineup as well as your bench. Come playoff time a roster freeze will force your team to sink or swim based on the work you put in leading up to the playoffs. Personally I think this would result in a truer champion being crowned, one who would be rewarded for succeeding on the principles that this league was built on. That's just me though, and I'm open to other options. I would love a hard cap on pitcher starts, not just in the playoffs but during the season as well. My problem with manually enforcing it is the same problem I have with anything that Ed or I have to do manually, the more we do ourselves, the greater the risk of human error, and I'd hate to have the championship messed up because of me. It's an idea I'm open to though.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Nov 2, 2011 11:27:41 GMT -5
I get what you're saying about a roster freeze taking managing the team out of your hands, but I prefer to look at it a different way. Over the course of the offseason and during the season you ave been building the best team you possibly can, and that includes your starting lineup as well as your bench. Come playoff time a roster freeze will force your team to sink or swim based on the work you put in leading up to the playoffs. Personally I think this would result in a truer champion being crowned, one who would be rewarded for succeeding on the principles that this league was built on. That's just me though, and I'm open to other options. So what we're saying is, we want to play the playoffs under a different set of rules then how we got to the playoffs. Part of this idea of building your team, and a LARGE part may I add, is picking up a player off the waiver wire who is the hot hand at the time. At times, teams stream in an extra starter or 3 in attempts to get a much needed win. These actions, which is what we are saying are so detrimental to our playoffs, are happening in the regular season...which impacts our playoffs! Teams can squeak into the playoffs or knock teams out because they picked up a hot hand or start 8 SPs that week. It's part of playing fantasy baseball. I hate streaming of SPs, I really do. It cost me a championship this year, but if it's allowed all year...why are we trying to change the rules for the most important time of the year. If you manage your team well enough to know which 8 starters to stream in and out over the course of the playoffs....heck, that's pretty impressive. Our point system is setup that you aren't normally rewarded by streaming, because the SPs that you are streaming are of mediocre quality at best and it's a major gamble. One bad start (looking at you Lester) and you lose 40-50 points. If we had a farm team that allowed us to store MLB players on it and we could callup and demote guys then I'd be 100% fine with a full roster freeze, with the understanding that my roster also includes my farm team of MLB starting players. Otherwise I can't see how a full roster freeze OR a system that penalizes me for having an injury is at all fair to the teams that actually make the playoffs...the ones who in theory have managed, traded, added/dropped the best during the season.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Nov 2, 2011 13:28:25 GMT -5
I get what you're saying about a roster freeze taking managing the team out of your hands, but I prefer to look at it a different way. Over the course of the offseason and during the season you ave been building the best team you possibly can, and that includes your starting lineup as well as your bench. Come playoff time a roster freeze will force your team to sink or swim based on the work you put in leading up to the playoffs. Personally I think this would result in a truer champion being crowned, one who would be rewarded for succeeding on the principles that this league was built on. That's just me though, and I'm open to other options. So what we're saying is, we want to play the playoffs under a different set of rules then how we got to the playoffs. Part of this idea of building your team, and a LARGE part may I add, is picking up a player off the waiver wire who is the hot hand at the time. At times, teams stream in an extra starter or 3 in attempts to get a much needed win. These actions, which is what we are saying are so detrimental to our playoffs, are happening in the regular season...which impacts our playoffs! Teams can squeak into the playoffs or knock teams out because they picked up a hot hand or start 8 SPs that week. It's part of playing fantasy baseball. I hate streaming of SPs, I really do. It cost me a championship this year, but if it's allowed all year...why are we trying to change the rules for the most important time of the year. If you manage your team well enough to know which 8 starters to stream in and out over the course of the playoffs....heck, that's pretty impressive. Our point system is setup that you aren't normally rewarded by streaming, because the SPs that you are streaming are of mediocre quality at best and it's a major gamble. One bad start (looking at you Lester) and you lose 40-50 points. If we had a farm team that allowed us to store MLB players on it and we could callup and demote guys then I'd be 100% fine with a full roster freeze, with the understanding that my roster also includes my farm team of MLB starting players. Otherwise I can't see how a full roster freeze OR a system that penalizes me for having an injury is at all fair to the teams that actually make the playoffs...the ones who in theory have managed, traded, added/dropped the best during the season. If there was some way that I could 100% eliminate the streaming of SPs in the regular season I would. Unfortunately short of manually checking every matchup to make sure nobody has taken advantage of the ESPN soft cap on GS I don't see how I can go ahead and do that. However, just because I can't fix the entire problem doesn't mean I have to simply accept not fixing any of the problem. Yes it's a problem in the regular season, but it's an even larger issue in the playoffs, when the stakes are that much higher. I agree that a system that allows the sometimes adding of players for whatever reason doesn't treat everybody equally, which is why I'm not 100% behind the idea. A full on roster freeze would treat each team equally, and every team would have to then win or lose based on the strength of the roster they have at the time, and not based on the arbitrary adding of three or four SPs on the last day of the matchup. You say that adding a player from the waiver wire is an important tool that is at each owner's disposal during the season, which is true enough, but so is trading. Why then is a trade deadline fair but an add deadline isn't? You say that if MLB players were allowed on the bench then you'd be OK with a roster freeze? So if I added five bench spots you'd be fine with a roster freeze that would force you to use your bench if you had injuries? The question then becomes how many spare parts do you feel you need in order to justify the roster freeze? Maybe the problem is the scoring system. In a more traditional 5x5 league we probably wouldn't have this problem (although Ks and Ws would still be positively impacted by streaming). I'll admit that it was somewhat experimental when I came up with it, but in general I thought it worked out well. Unfortunately I can't drastically alter it at this point in good conscience without completely blowing up the league. I'd prefer not to do that, which leaves us with trying to come up with another solution. Look, I'm open to suggestions, and if anybody can come up with an idea that prevents the streaming of SPs deciding the league while at the same time doesn't overly penalize teams for injuries I'm all ears. I will not, however, allow another championship to be decided by the abuse of a loophole that ESPN will not allow me to close. Believe me when I tell you I've contacted them about it, but so far it hasn't translated to any changes.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Nov 2, 2011 14:05:33 GMT -5
Let me o a little further with this. When the idea was brought up about a roster freeze, the big complaint was what if there is an injury? Shouldn't a playoff team be allowed to field a competitive team even in the face of injuries? I think Jim and I both were willing to compromise on this issue, hence the options I proposed. Both options give playoff teams a way to add players in the face of injuries. Now I read that really some feel that's not enough. Let me say that i agree with Jim 1000% on this. Streaming in the playoffs cannot be tolerated. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not, but it is a compromised one. I am all for finding a middle ground but people simply saying no to this and not trying to find solutions, in my mind, is also unfair and unacceptable. This thread has been open since 10/10 and the vast majority of conversation on this topic has been between Jim, Randy and I. I have sent out many emails to everyone informing and reminding them that this was being discussed and still there was no activity. I'm more than a little frustrated at the fact that after weeks of this being available to be discussed, its only after the vote goes up that complaints begin to surface. All that being said, I have a few problems with the said complaint about the options that are available.
First, I would love to make the 6 gs a hard cap. I really would. So tell me how to do it. A manual cap is out of the question, and here's why. If someone does go over the cap limit I am forced into a particularly bad position. First, If a guy starts say 8 pitchers on a day, which pitchers points get subtracted? The lowest, highest? Also, if I am not available on a Monday or Sunday night and cant get to the scoring change until say Tuesday, are we really ok with the idea of someone thinking they have won a playoff round only to find out mid week they in fact they lost? What if the reverse is true? What if someone thinks they have lost and thus doesnt check the league that week. If they in fact had won, we could have a team with players not playing in a playoff match. Is this better than what has been put up for vote? Not to mention, if I cant get to this until Tuesday, what do we do with the points gained on Monday, or more importantly not gained, by the team that thought they lost and didnt set a lineup?
Regarding regular season streaming, I ask again, tell me how to eliminate it reasonably and well do it. I hate it. I wish we could put every player in the waiver wire on 2 day waivers permanently but we can't. So I challenge people to instead of simply saying they don't like whats being proposed to come up with a legit idea to fix it. This is what we are trying to do right now. Regarding post season Streaming, you can't honestly compare 3 weeks to the 20 + weeks we play in the regular season. With the exception of maybe the final week of the regular season, there is no real reason for teams to mass stream, thus it hardly happens. On top of that, When teams do stream in the regular season, EVERY team get a fair crack at picking up any players that have been dropped. Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that we leave things status quo. The reality is that the majority of the teams not in the playoffs check out after the regular season. Meaning that there is not a fair crack at these players for all teams. Heck, we can't get owners to voice their opinions on rule changes. So can we honestly expect that these dropped players are going to be looked at and potentially given the fair chance to add them by non-playoff teams? I mean, even when the league is emailed and prompted to get involved in rule change discussion people seem to have a hard time actually getting involved. i for one am not willing to assume that they will be active enough post regular season to keep the competitive balance here fair.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Nov 2, 2011 14:11:25 GMT -5
Well, I guess it's done then. I am more against the hard freeze than I am the streaming.
I'm really the only one griping, so go on and do what you are going to do. This is too frustrating for me to continue to fight.
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Nov 2, 2011 19:26:30 GMT -5
i got an easy answer. lets port the league over to yahoo. you can set pitching limits there. and it works great.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Nov 7, 2011 15:38:43 GMT -5
Ok, over the weekend Jim and i talked, and in an attempt to come to some resolution on the Roster Freeze issue, and since outside of Randy we're not getting much feedback in terms of suggestions on how to implement it, Jim and I have come up with a couple other options that we can discuss. Keep in mind, the streaming of players in the playoffs as it stands can not and will not be allowed to continue. that being said, as we have stated all along, we are open to discussing ways to handle this. To date we havn't gotten much in terms of a real legitimate, working solution hence the 3 options that are currently up for vote. With that heere are a couple more options, in general, that we discussed.
1) Hard add cap for the entire regular season and/or the playoffs
This is very similar to option B currently up for vote but we would be willing to discuss how many adds a team could get. In addition, there would be no rule forcing teams to drop the added players after the playoffs.
2) Playoff teams would be required to submit their roster each round of the playoffs
Each team, on the first day of the playoff round, would be required to submit their roster for that round. Each team would be permitted to add or drop whomever they wanted on that day, but would not be permitted to make any adds from the waiver wire after that day.
Let me say again that Jim and I are trying, VERY HARD, to compromise on this but the status quo is not an option. On top of which, I do not want to take responsibility for managing a manual start cap. Its just a situation I don't feel comfortable with. We are very willing to discuss other options that anyone would have provided it actually does something to stem the tide of streaming in the playoffs. Also, the league should keep in mind that while we are very willing to compromise, participation from everyone else is a must. If this goes another 2 weeks and we get no substantive feedback, we would be forced to go ahead with the first vote which is currently tied 1,1,&1 however Jim has yet to vote on it. We really want to get this resolved so we can move on to other policy changes and more importantly, the entry draft. Hopefully we can get this settled in the next couple of days and get back to the fun stuff like drafts and trades. ok, PLEASE fire away your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Nov 7, 2011 16:03:28 GMT -5
Has changing to another provider been discussed? As hungover heros said, some other services actually enforce the starts limit. That could be a pretty easy solution to ending streaming. 2) Playoff teams would be required to submit their roster each round of the playoffsEach team, on the first day of the playoff round, would be required to submit their roster for that round. Each team would be permitted to add or drop whomever they wanted on that day, but would not be permitted to make any adds from the waiver wire after that day. I think I would vote for this IF, a team is allowed to replace an injured player via the waiver wire, knowing that the injured player would be on the DL and not available for the rest of that round. That being said, a team would still need to retain ownership of the player picked up. (ie: not forcing me to drop the player I picked up but rather I need to get back to the 25 man roster limit when applicable.) Still every option impacts a team ability to manage their team within the confines of fantasy baseball. It's taking a very valid and obnoxious issue (streaming SPs) and putting a tarp over it where a band aid is needed. If we are going to tell people to submit anything, they should submit their starting rotation for the week. Streaming is the issue, then let's fix that and stop over thinking it.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Nov 7, 2011 16:27:56 GMT -5
It has. It's simply not something that we are prepared to do going into next season. That's not to say that in the future it would be out of the question. Jim and I would want to test any new site out for a season to get a feel for the interface, options, etc before we ported anything over to someplace else. This just can't be done before the start of next season.
First off, in my own opinon, I'm ok with letting a team place an injured player on their dl or LTIR. I am not in favor of setting up a separate list in the playoffs for just playoff teams so they can keep extra injured players and players picked up in the playoffs. If you want to keep a player picked up in the playoffs, then place the injured player on your dl or ltir. If both are full, then I'm sorry but you have a decision to make. I would be ok with adding a list for playoffs teams to store their injured players IF after the playoffs the players you added were then forced to be dropped from your roster. I don't think it's fair to allow playoff teams to have it both ways. playoff teams shouldn't get the right to make these adds and then trade these players after the season. as for not over thinking this and submitting just a rotation, like I posted above, I have 2 issues with this.
First, I'm not prepared to be put into a situation where I am making scoring changes on Tuesday which affect the previous round's playoff matchup. Just can't agree to that.
Second, while pitching streaming is the focus of the rule change, position player streaming is no more acceptable than pitcher streaming. We want to, to the best we can, eliminate streaming. We would want teams to submit a total roster for each round, not just a rotation, much like they do in MLB. If an injury where a player was placed on an MLB dl happened during that week I could see allowing teams to replace that player. But again, teams would have to place that player on the dl if they wanted to retain their rights.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Nov 7, 2011 16:47:00 GMT -5
First off, in my own opinon, I'm ok with letting as team place an injured player on their dl or LTIR. I am not in favor of setting up a separate list in the playoffs for just playoff teams so they can keep extra injured players and players picked up in the playoffs. If you want to keep a player picked up in the playoffs, then place the injured player on your dl or lrir. If both are full, then I'm sorry but you have a decision to make. That's all I've been saying all along. Don't punish me for having an injury. If I put a guy on an open DL spot and need to pick up a replacement: 1. LET ME PICK HIM UP! and 2. don't force me to drop anyone. At some point I'm going to have to drop someone, because you can't trade or add/drop with an active player in the DL spot. If I have an injury, I should be able to fill that spot without having to drop anyone unless I don't have the DL room for my injured player. If I don't have the room for the DL'ed player, of course I have to make a decision...that's MANAGING my team! That's all I want to do, is manage my own team within the context and rules of fantasy baseball and not have management restrict how I manage my team in the playoffs versus how I manage during the regular season. I'm still not a fan of being limited in managing my team at the most critical time, but I know this is a losing battle. I'm the only one being a real squeaky wheel, so just get the vote done and let the chips fall where they may. We've lost one owner already, I'm sure we'll lose at least one more, maybe 2 with this dramatic change (roster freezing)...but at least you'll have soldiers falling in line with the machine.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Nov 7, 2011 16:52:06 GMT -5
Just want to clarify a couple points real quick.
I am open to the possibility of changing to yahoo or somebody else, but that is a big decision that I'm not going to make right away. I have no problem setting up a kind of shadow league on another site and checking with that to see what I think. That isn't going to solve any problems this upcoming season though.
As far as the season GS limit goes, the thought process behind it is that the redundancy of both a 6GS weekly cap and a 132GS yearly cap (6*22 matchups) wouldn't add any real additional restrictions, and would simply be reinforcing the restrictions already in place. If you get 9 starts in week one, somewhere along the line you're going to get screwed and only have a 3GS week. This comes with it's own issues though, which I will get into later, since I'm REALLY trying to keep this short, lol.
The add cap would be something similar to what I have in place in my hockey league. It is hardly overbearing, but it's very presence seems to make guys think twice about constantly adding and dropping players. In fact I don't think I've had any of my owners hit the cap since it was put in place, save one owner who makes a conscious effort to use every add possible.
As far as the other ideas you've thrown out, I have a couple thoughts, but I'm going to hold off for now in the hopes that we get some other voices in the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Nov 7, 2011 17:03:35 GMT -5
Well under those conditions I think I could get behind this new option. We're not trying to punish anyone for winning, but we are trying to keep a competitive balance throughout. I 'll wait a couple of days to do anything, but if one of these new options is something more people can get behind, we can take down the other vote and add these new options to the current ones for a new vote. I just want to hear (hopefully) what others are thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Beanbaggers on Nov 7, 2011 22:53:30 GMT -5
Sorry for the late arrival on this debate. If my 2 cents are still worth anything, I would say while I can't stand streaming ("can't stand" probably is a strong enough phrase "despise" might be a more fitting word - regular season or playoffs, not much of a difference in my eyes), I do prefer it vs. not having the flex as a manager to make adjustments in the playoffs. The piece about this that bothers me more than playoff streaming is the access playoff teams have to September call ups vs. the rest of the league. It's almost an extra reward for teams still in the mix during the playoffs and thus a penalty to the teams that need those called up players most. While I could live with most of the options thrown out, my preferences would have a couple components: * Any player picked up after the season ends (when most owners stop paying attention and no longer have add/drop rights) are dropped at the end of the playoffs (period) * Owners, at a minimum, should have the right to pick up a player for anyone placed on DL (I'd prefer a little more flexibilty to adjust rosters more than simply picking up someone for an IR guy, especially since many young pitchers are placed on artifical innings caps anyways which impacts our playoffs, but I could live with that being a fact you have to plan for if you are in a playoff hunt. If we are to have hard caps to adds during the playoffs... my preference would be to have in addition to unlimited pick ups for DL guys, 1-2 adds per playoff week) That's my take anyways, and Randy... I appreciate you being a voice for those of us who prefer some flex when it comes to managing our teams in the playoffs. Especially for those of us who have been off the radar for the last month or so
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Nov 14, 2011 14:01:49 GMT -5
Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. I've been hella busy with work this past week. I think what Mike says here describes how I feel perfectly. I'm ok with playoff teams having some flexability to make moves in the playoffs but my preference was to keep them from being able to keep the players they added simply because I feel it penalizes the non-playoff teams who don't get the same crack at these hot players. That being said i think/hope we've come up with an option that answers Randy's concerns. With all that in mind here is what I think we'll do next.
I am going to take down the old poll/vote and replace it with a new one that includes the option we most recently discusssed. I am also still going to put the other options back up and which ever option win well will win and be implented for next season. I really think it is the most fair thing to do at this point. Once this issue is settled we'll be moving on to the entry draft.
|
|