|
|
Post by bengoavs on Aug 4, 2006 3:47:42 GMT -5
The overall idea is to limit FA moves to create a more balanced and fair competition. It's a very reasonable rule that exists in many leagues and maintains sportsmanship.
My idea would be to limit it per week while others prefer per year. The main advantage of per week limitation is that one could use all of him moves in one week (playoffs) and win the championship in a very lousy way.
Let's see your votes. The specific numbers will be discussed later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 4, 2006 6:58:21 GMT -5
as ive said, the FA pool wont be littered with talent after all the drafts. for a person to give up their prospects or regulars just so they can stream a bunch of less than talented players doenst seem logical. not only that, but a better way to do it would be to lock the rosters during the playoffs and you roll with the team you have, sort of like in real life.
a set amount of moves all year isnt unreasonable, i personally just dont think itll be that big of a deal but i can see the concern. streaming players, etc.
as far as weekly number of moves, there is no way. its too constricted. i think we have a group of guys here who wont ruin the credibility of the league by foul play.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Aug 4, 2006 10:33:09 GMT -5
as ive said, the FA pool wont be littered with talent after all the drafts. for a person to give up their prospects or regulars just so they can stream a bunch of less than talented players doenst seem logical. not only that, but a better way to do it would be to lock the rosters during the playoffs and you roll with the team you have, sort of like in real life. a set amount of moves all year isnt unreasonable, i personally just dont think itll be that big of a deal but i can see the concern. streaming players, etc. as far as weekly number of moves, there is no way. its too constricted. i think we have a group of guys here who wont ruin the credibility of the league by foul play. Agreed. Just look at the names that we are drafting now, I can't see how there will be many roster worthy players on the FA list. If people are willing to drop some of the people that make their active roster for the minimal talent left, they risk losing the better player that they dropped. |
|
|
|
Post by adimutu on Aug 4, 2006 17:10:06 GMT -5
i agree with ben. i think we need to make a limit per year. And if in the final week one player has 100 moves for example then he can use them all. Its not cheap because he saved his moves throughout the season and still managed to make it to the finals. And there are still some big names that could have a very big impact on the season (hasek for one). And i personally dont agree with players that keep switching their players all season. I also dont feel that locking the rosters come playoff time because then luck becomes a much bigger issue. Some players may be resting based upon whether or not their team has qualified for the playoffs and some players may be injured but theres nothing that can be done.
doing week by week moves also isnt a bad idea but I prefer the yearly so that teams that make less moves can have that advantage later on.
just my 0.02$
|
|
|
|
Post by bengoavs on Aug 4, 2006 19:35:28 GMT -5
50 moves per season. If it won't make a big change - fine. It can't hurt that's for sure.
We got 4 votes for now - Phil, Dave, Derrick and me, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark - Bruins on Aug 4, 2006 22:12:55 GMT -5
For H2H leagues, I think a roster limit is good since it prevents someone from constantly adding/dropping each day based on who is playing. I think 50 is too arbitrary. If anything, we should base FA moves per week. Perhaps no more than 2 or 3 moves per week? It would be a lot more easy to track such movement as opposed to a total max.
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Aug 4, 2006 22:52:11 GMT -5
50 moves per season. If it won't make a big change - fine. It can't hurt that's for sure. We got 4 votes for now - Phil, Dave, Derrick and me, right? Actually Derrick was against it. |
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Aug 4, 2006 22:54:51 GMT -5
For H2H leagues, I think a roster limit is good since it prevents someone from constantly adding/dropping each day based on who is playing. I think 50 is too arbitrary. If anything, we should base FA moves per week. Perhaps no more than 2 or 3 moves per week? It would be a lot more easy to track such movement as opposed to a total max. I disagree. Its far easier to track a season max then a weekly max. You can just put in a season max as one of the yahoo settings and it keeps track for you. Weekly you would have to monitor it yourself. I just don't see how there will be that much talent available to stream players. We already have a high number of players and deep rosters, so there won't be too much talent available and people won't drop players they intend on keeping. It doesn't matter to me either way really, I just don't see the need for a limit. |
|
Andrew
Second Liner
25%
Posts: 320
|
Post by Andrew on Aug 4, 2006 23:23:58 GMT -5
There is minimal talent available out there in the FAs, especially late in the season. If someone wants to take a gamble on them it won't make much of an improvement for their team and could hurt their keeper list but hey, that's up to them in my opinion. 50 per year sounds good, as it is a keeper league I see no reason we should exceed 50 (and it is more easily tracked than weekly).
I am in agreement with Ben.
|
|
|
|
Post by bengoavs on Aug 5, 2006 4:18:17 GMT -5
Derrick was the one who came up with the 50 games idea actually.
Since I come from ESPN league, is there an option in yahoo to limit the games per week just like the yearly limitation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 5, 2006 15:48:33 GMT -5
This is open for debate, but what doesnt need to happen is posting on the main page of the site promoting this cause until we have throughly discussed it....take it down.
as far as a limit goes. i dont have a problem either way. a limit wont hurt me, nor should it anyone. there wont be enough talent to stream...and if there is, and a team is willing to drop the players they drafted then its your gain right? if they choose to ditch their starters or whatever for waiver fodder then thats their choice. "win" now - loose later. its sort of the same concept of drafting proven players vs. drafting young.
simply put : there isnt a need for a limit, but if thats what everyone wants it wont bother me.
one thing i will say is that there definitely wont be a set number of weekly transactions. there are just too many things that can go wrong in any given week. if anything, itll be yearly at 50 or whatever the number is decided on; with the possibilty of rosters being locked during the playoffs. thats open for debate as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by patriot0103 on Aug 5, 2006 16:22:43 GMT -5
Derrick was the one who came up with the 50 games idea actually. Since I come from ESPN league, is there an option in yahoo to limit the games per week just like the yearly limitation? Whatever. I just saw you say 4 votes for it, and Derrick's second post made it seem he was against it, so I simply stated that. It really doesn't matter to me, I don't see any issue either way. |
|
|
|
Post by gopenguins on Aug 5, 2006 17:34:20 GMT -5
I don't see what the necessity for a limit is to be honest. I don't see a lot of GMs abusing this as although there will likely be a surprise or two a la Prucha, I dont see there being many players who will end up not being drafted in some way. Sure there may be some aged vets, but I expect those to be at a minority (some GMs might sign these if their anticipated rookies end up down in the AHL etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by bengoavs on Aug 6, 2006 0:01:06 GMT -5
I put it on the main page to add some interest, since the forum was half dead. But as you wish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick - Senators on Aug 6, 2006 2:29:55 GMT -5
I put it on the main page to add some interest, since the forum was half dead. But as you wish. its not the fact that it was up, it was that the wording made it sound like the rule had already been finalized. i dont mind something like "ongoing discussion about FA limits in the forum, vote now" or anything like that that is left up to speculation. a few people asked me about the "finalized rule" when nothing had been finalized ye...so you can see my concern. |
|
|
|
Post by Robyn - Flames on Aug 6, 2006 9:44:26 GMT -5
I understand exactly what Pittsburgh is saying. Let's say on the last night of the regular season (last night of our playoffs), I decide to drop all my players in favour of guys that are playing that night in order to win some categories and thus the championship. First of all, I would be losing many superstars in order to win this season and I would certainly lose many of them to waivers. This situation really doesn't apply in a keeper league like it does in a single season H2H league.
So, If a GM wants to make 10 trades a week, why would we argue with that? They'd only be picking players that no one else wants to claim. A big part of the yahoo league is your ability to play the waiver wire throughout the season. We will all have one or two guys that get's injured or just plain sucks (guys like Ottawa and Boston may have a few more...) so a GM's ability to pick up a decent replacement can determine their finish in the league.
There is nothing wrong with the existing rule. We don't need to limit roster moves per week or year. It takes time to claim a guy off waivers and any GM that just trades his whole roster every day is going to run into problems (Yahoo has the waiver period to prevent this situation!).
Stop getting your knickers in a knot and keep on drafting players that I don't have on my list. Except the Bruins, you dick...hehe.
|
|
So exciting.
You better make that pick or trade it! I'm excited to see if we can use up all the draft picks this year.