one last thing -- re: money league

[Mark - Bruins]

I'm sorry, but i couldn't just let the "money league" topic close out with derrick's final two posts:

...and just to leave you with something to chew on.
You claim having multiple teams doesnt hamper your performance but the Top 3 finishers in the NAFHL playoffs only have one team in one keeper league. coincidence? tricky tricky.

beautiful argument. that logic is flawless, oh wait, oops, I think I found a crack. i just think its ironic that you're referring to a manager -Paul, who was only in 1 keeper league that I know of- that ended up quitting the league. also, last i checked Derrick, you were in 2 keeper leagues last year (that one of them folded doesn't take away the fact you had at least 2 teams last season with the expectation they were both keepers). plus, the league champion was a replacement for another GM that was only in 1 keeper league, too. don't forget the #3 regular season team, Andrew's Toronto, was managed by a person in at least 2 keeper leagues. so i guess that people in only 1 keeper league are always better than managers with two teams, eh?

also, i think you grossly underestimate how some GMs built their team. *cough*jesseandme*cough* we were both in more than one keeper league last year (and probably this year, too). take a look at our rosters today and tell me you don't think either of us has at least a chance at being top 3 in the playoffs? Not every team in the league can be a rag-to-riches story, but you're selling our two teams short.

PS
its not about the "winning" vs "losing" teams wanting a side league. its about the actual logistics of a money league with current rosters.

can you honestly tell me its worth it for a "bad team" with only 1 or 2 star players to put up $10-$20 per year for a *chance* to get $20 once in the 3+ years it'll take for them to turn their team around and just finish 3rd or 4th? unless you drastically reduce the $ prize for the top 2 teams (which I have a feeling *some people* will not want to do) and give more money to like the 5th & 6th (or even 7th/8th) place teams, I'd be willing to wager money this league will probably go under within a year or two, max.

Are you honestly going to tell me your team and Nos's will automatically suck or that you'll trade away all your "star" players and suddenly not finish in the top 3 for at least the next 2 or 3 years (more likely 4 or 5 years)? I'm not bitter or jealous (both of you probably put a lot of effort into building your teams and I say good job), I'm just realistic. I think I have a good team that can be very good someday soon, but I don't think anyone can give me a compelling argument that will change my mind that this league won't be dominated by Ottawa and San Jose for the next few years (note: Crosby, Heatley, Thornton, and Luongo all getting the ebola virus isn't a good argument). could it just be a coincidence that you two are pushing the whole "no side league/nafhl money league" the most?

lets consider if this league does become a money league.
1) if you thought calls for veto were bad before, just wait until you see what kind of an uproar will occur if a lopsided deal goes down now that money is involved.

2) even if its not official policy, i'm sure nos's idea about selling franchises could become a black market idea for selling players for money, especially if a manager is about to quit this league (they don't have to say their quitting until they actually do a trade to get some money back). why not make a phony one-sided trade and sell the last star player or two on your team if you're just going to leave the league at the end of the season and not get anything in return?

3) as nos so eloquently put it, not every drafts a "loser," but in the end someone has to be last place, right? whats that person's incentive to stay in the league if they don't feel they have a chance at winning anytime soon? if a "bad team" does leave the league, how likely are you to find someone willing to put up $10-$20/year for team with only 1 or 2 quality players that has a slight chance at moving up from 12th to 10th in the standings? are you going to eliminate the team and absorb the players in a dispersal draft? if so, i doubt thats healthy for any league and how many teams have to leave before the league finally doesn't work?

personally, i could care less about the above mentioned reasons not to do a keeper league (i have my personal reasons not to do it) because i believe i would have a good chance at getting 3rd or 4th place in the playoffs. i'm just pointing out the most glaring flaws with the current open-minded proposal of starting a money league that is happy to listen to new ideas but unwilling to accept criticism or change in any way.

[patriot0103]

Spot on with everything Mark.

Derrick, don't give me this bullshit about my side league idea being bias. That in itself is flawed considering

1) I said I'd be willing to participate if we made it a money league.
2) Your statement about the top 3 being only 1 league GMs is the most bias shit I've ever seen. It's flawed left and right, because it's not only untrue, but go through the rest of the GMs. In fact it is coincidence if anything. Some of my keepers I finished well, some I did not. You're telling me I sucked, because I was in more than 1? PLEASE. It's fairly obvious if you look over my draft last year, I drafted for the future to put together a dynasty type team, as oppose to now. I was willing to sacrifice a year. That doesn't mean I'm a bad GM, because I'm in a few leagues. That argument is ridiculous.

Trying to turn a free keeper into a money league just doesn't work. If I knew it would be a money league last year, my strategy would have been different. I suggested a side league, because at least then you know what you're getting into in the draft. You act like it's so difficult to manage one other team on yahoo with default type settings. You're that oppose to most of the GMs in this league doing that? Laughable, but whatever I don't care anyways.

Mark said:

i'm just pointing out the most glaring flaws with the current open-minded proposal of starting a money league that is happy to listen to new ideas but unwilling to accept criticism or change in any way.

Spot on again. Go ahead though, leave us with something else to chew on and lock it so you know you get the last word.

I was one of the one's willing to participate, but this isn't a fair method, won't work, and wasn't gone about the right way...so now I'm a "no" for making it a money league. I'm confident mine will do well, but it's not fair to other teams.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

Some of these responses make it seem like a money league is being forced upon us here. That simply isn't the case. I, for one, am all about making this a money league. To me, it merely drives the competition and provides incentives to improve one's team in ways that may not lend themselves to a "free" league. I have talked about making this a money league on several occasions through IMs and I can only imagine others have done so as well to the point that I'd say every manager has heard of and toyed with the idea themselves. All Nos did was make a post with a preliminary plan of how it COULD be done in the board discussion thread of the keeper league's offseason, the exact place and time discussions like this should take place.

Again, did you purposely draft a losing team? Nobody should want to redraft their team.

No one drafts a loser to be sure, but losers are created nonetheless. Maybe players don't perform as expected, get injured, or what have you. The fact is that just because one doesn't draft a loser, doesn't lead into no one wanting to redraft their team.

I understand why someone might not want to lay money with a team they currently have. Theres no problem there and if someone doesn't want to do it, then we'll keep things business as usual. That is what Derrick meant and the way I feel as well. He is opposed to a side league for the same reasons I am, with a few additional ones. A side league with many if not all of this league's managers would naturally take away from the league we have created here. One will naturally spend more time or be more willing to spend whatever amount of time is necessary on his/her money league team perhaps at the expense of this "free" league. He doesn't want to risk that happening.

With that said, different people have differing abilities when it comes to managing their time between leagues. Some people can be in many many leagues and be more than active in each one. Some people cannot. Its the individuals job to determine what he/she can handle. I myself am in 2 $100 baseball keepers that require a lot of attention but they didn't distract or keep me from my responsibilities for this league.

My problem is with people that check the forum every once and awhile, vote in an untimely manner, and ask the questions that Derrick mentioned in a previous post. Which league are you talking about? What team are you again? I'll have to see who I have in that league. As long as nobody is doing that I'm fine with a "free" league. Adding a monetary incentive I feel would help eliminate those types of managers.

But, it obviously doesn't seem like a good idea at this time so this thing really needs to die. Let's make the league we have a productive and enjoyable one.

[Hawks]

Obviously it is not a good time to consider switching this league over and that's fine with me, though I did think it was a good idea, and a chance to add an extra dimension to the league. You say you would have drafted differently for a money league...how so? If you're in this league, you're goal should be to win...regardless of whether or not there is a cash reward. I just feel like a couple managers took way too much offense to something that was just an idea being thrown out there. It obviously is not working out so I see all the bitching, whining, moaning, and insulting others is pointless and uncalled for.

[Andrew]

The side league idea isn't a bad idea, but Derrick and Nos are right about that. To have all the same managers in a side league would cause confusion for sure (there's already some confusion with some people) and the idea of a money league wasn't for the top teams to make a dollar off of the losing teams like it might seem, but just to drive up the competition like Phil was saying.

Turning a keeper league into a money league is very difficult to do after the first season, because any lower ranked team has to raise an eyebrow at why that's being pushed more now than before (especially why it's being pushed by higher ranked teams). I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and it's good to see Derrick's response "to throw away an otherwise fun, healthy, growing league for a few bucks....im not in to."

[patriot0103]

hockeystar3712 said:

You say you would have drafted differently for a money league...how so? If you're in this league, you're goal should be to win...

Because I drafted young, took chances on prospects, and was willing to sacrifice a year or two to try and build a young future dynasty that would be a strong contender thereafter. If I had money on the line since year 1, I would have went with a more conservative approach, took less chances, drafted more proven talent...and tried a more "win now" approach while worrying about the following season and team age in the offseason.

Either way, I don't see hoe either show a lack of trying to win. I still tried with the roster I had season 1, but my approach overall was different, since I was confident the league would be around for a while.

[Hawks]

Thats cool and I never accused anyone of a lack of effort. I just thought it was a bit rediculous when it turned from a suggestion to, oh its just the "winning" teams wanted to make some money. That's all, and as said, if it wasnt agreed upon by the whole league, then it wouldnt happen.

[Derrick - Senators]

im not going to argue with people who choose to read only what they want to read. once again i say, it doesnt matter. It doesnt matter what you say to me, it doesnt matter how many threads you recreate, and it doesnt matter how much you complain. This league will not and can not be a money league (unless certain people have a drastic change of heart and every manager is compliant). End of story, drop it. it is said that the "winning teams" are gold digging and that "losing teams" arent getting a fair shake but yet the "losing teams" cant seem to let the idea go. go ahead start another thread, keep fighting a losing battle. I dont even understand what you are arguing. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A MONEY LEAGUE.

take a look at our rosters today and tell me you don't think either of us has at least a chance at being top 3 in the playoffs?

haha.