Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on Oct 21, 2015 21:42:28 GMT -5
I'm normally an anti-tanking advocate, as believe we should all strive to put forth the best team we could for league integrity. But at the same time see 'judgement calls and subjective opinions' do present their issues also. There are lots of permutations and reasons for one to sit a supposed 'Best Player' in the minors at the start of the season, including - age, potential declining performance, high cap hit, injury risk, team's roster depth etc. These are all valid and factor into the strategic lineup process. Often it is better to have a wait and see approach early in the season, particularly with older players, whose decline can be rapid - to see how they start the season and then roster them when they perform - that is a fine strategic approach in my view. Similarly with injury prone players, some would be very dangerous to roster at the start of the season - but at the back-end of the season and towards the playoff stretch run, that's another matter - risk declines substantially then. Again, plenty of strategic elements at play.
Don't believe we should micro-manage to too large an extent, as a big part of the fun in our league is to have different GM's be allowed to apply their own strategies for their own reasons - think that is a key element to consider, when one succeeds to demonstrate to others an 'I told you so' bravado.
Key issue I raised last season was with a team who took over a mismanaged team and decided to tank - that created an imbalance in scheduling like Buffalo/Seals referred to that could affect the standings and playoff races. That should be addressed, but those should be pretty rare cases where teams are taken over mid-season.
Still, given all this, think we should consider some hard-fast rule in place regarding 'Best Players' - perhaps agree on a Fantasy Point Level of 'Must-Roster' players (similar to Yahoo's can't drop players) - eg. at previous year 3500 FP (or other agreed upon number) and greater (perhaps reached for 2 or more years previously to demonstrate consistency). Believe these are generally accepted players that should be rostered, regardless of cap - and if a team cannot roster, they should be traded. This could potentially address part of the league balance issue in which top teams supposedly hoard top players in the minors. I let go Datsyuk this season for probably lesser value than he should get as part of this as he is still elite when he dresses, but didn't see an opportunity to roster him and felt the risk he presented was to high, so felt obligated to trade him, even at a lesser value - was actually fine with that. In terms of trading for 3500+ players during the season and burying them in the minors - perhaps we limit that to a specific time period, perhaps only shortly before the trade deadline for those teams 'Going for it'. Fine with that also, but believe trading for a prime asset early and burying them for the entire season is a bit of a waste though. These are high impact players that should be rostered and be given a chance to make an impact during the season on teams' standings. I enjoy seeing these prime assets turn the tide in close match-ups.
Don't believe we should micro-manage to too large an extent, as a big part of the fun in our league is to have different GM's be allowed to apply their own strategies for their own reasons - think that is a key element to consider, when one succeeds to demonstrate to others an 'I told you so' bravado.
Key issue I raised last season was with a team who took over a mismanaged team and decided to tank - that created an imbalance in scheduling like Buffalo/Seals referred to that could affect the standings and playoff races. That should be addressed, but those should be pretty rare cases where teams are taken over mid-season.
Still, given all this, think we should consider some hard-fast rule in place regarding 'Best Players' - perhaps agree on a Fantasy Point Level of 'Must-Roster' players (similar to Yahoo's can't drop players) - eg. at previous year 3500 FP (or other agreed upon number) and greater (perhaps reached for 2 or more years previously to demonstrate consistency). Believe these are generally accepted players that should be rostered, regardless of cap - and if a team cannot roster, they should be traded. This could potentially address part of the league balance issue in which top teams supposedly hoard top players in the minors. I let go Datsyuk this season for probably lesser value than he should get as part of this as he is still elite when he dresses, but didn't see an opportunity to roster him and felt the risk he presented was to high, so felt obligated to trade him, even at a lesser value - was actually fine with that. In terms of trading for 3500+ players during the season and burying them in the minors - perhaps we limit that to a specific time period, perhaps only shortly before the trade deadline for those teams 'Going for it'. Fine with that also, but believe trading for a prime asset early and burying them for the entire season is a bit of a waste though. These are high impact players that should be rostered and be given a chance to make an impact during the season on teams' standings. I enjoy seeing these prime assets turn the tide in close match-ups.
