PhillyArena Forums
MSNBC Community => Fantasy NBA League => Topic started by: Reality on December 20, 2007, 12:38:04 PM
-
So whats going on after 25 games?
Somebody want to post the records.
-
Rank Team W-L-T Pct GB Last Week Waiver Moves
1. jerry lewis 49-26-2 .649 - 8-3-0 5 7
2. Wolverine's Gunners 43-33-1 .565 6.5 7-4-0 11 10
3. Columbia Penguins 42-33-2 .558 7 8-3-0 7 11
4. Basketball Jihad 40-33-4 .545 8 4-7-0 3 11
5. Vienna Visionaries 42-35-0 .545 8 3-8-0 4 17
6. Derek's Team 40-34-3 .539 8.5 8-3-0 1 38
7. Norwegian Fjords 40-34-3 .539 8.5 7-4-0 10 14
8. Archangel United 35-40-2 .468 14 4-7-0 2 23
9. Ted's Bricklayers 34-43-0 .442 16 3-8-0 12 15
10. Genghis's PolarBears 31-45-1 .409 18.5 3-8-0 9 6
11. Westside Warriors 28-48-1 .370 21.5 8-3-0 6 3
12. The Supes 28-48-1 .370 21.5 3-8-0 8 2
-
I think Skander jinxed me when he said my team should make the playoffs!
-
now what are the records.
-
1. jerry lewis 74-45-2 .620 - 2-9-0 5 7
2. Derek's Team 66-51-4 .562 7 7-4-0 1 52
3. Wolverine's Gunners 66-53-2 .554 8 3-8-0 11 19
4. Vienna Visionaries 65-55-1 .541 9.5 7-4-0 4 28
5. Basketball Jihad 63-53-5 .541 9.5 6-5-0 3 17
6. Columbia Penguins 58-61-2 .488 16 5-6-0 7 16
7. Westside Warriors 57-62-2 .479 17 6-4-1 6 4
8. Archangel United 57-62-2 .479 17 4-7-0 2 37
9. Genghis's PolarBears 56-64-1 .467 18.5 9-2-0 9 7
10. Norwegian Fjords 54-63-4 .463 19 4-6-1 10 18
11. Ted's Bricklayers 53-66-2 .446 21 8-3-0 12 22
12. The Supes 43-77-1 .360 31.5 4-7-0 8 2
-
update please Fantacy geeks.
And who had Yao?
Grant Hill?
Kurt Thomas?
SuperManu?
Who has/will have Brent Barrdog?
-
Derek has Yao
Caleb (Wolv) has Grant Hill
SuperManu belongs to Tim (Penguins)
Kurt Thomas is free agent actually.
Brent isn't good enough to be on a fantasy team. ;D
Records:
1. jerry lewis 123-84-2 .593 - 8-3-0 10 14
2. Wolverine's Gunners 121-85-3 .586 1.5 9-2-0 11 48
3. Archangel United 109-95-5 .533 12.5 10-1-0 7 55
4. Derek's Team 108-95-6 .531 13 7-4-0 12 82
5. Vienna Visionaries 107-100-2 .517 16 3-8-0 6 55
6. Genghis's PolarBears 105-103-1 .505 18.5 7-4-0 8 10
7. Basketball Jihad 99-103-7 .490 21.5 8-3-0 1 24
8. Westside Warriors 100-107-2 .483 23 2-9-0 2 4
9. Columbia Penguins 98-106-5 .481 23.5 3-8-0 3 23
10. Ted's Bricklayers 99-108-2 .478 24 4-7-0 5 29
11. Norwegian Fjords 92-111-6 .455 29 4-7-0 9 25
12. The Supes 72-136-1 .347 51.5 1-10-0 4 2
-
I'm stoked. I just picked up Arenas. I'm going to have another interesting decision on my keepers next year (Yao, Iguodala, Iverson, Arenas, Josh Smith). It's a shame two of them are currently injured, but thems the breaks.
-
I'm stoked. I just picked up Arenas. I'm going to have another interesting decision on my keepers next year (Yao, Iguodala, Iverson, Arenas, Josh Smith). It's a shame two of them are currently injured, but thems the breaks.
Uh ... I'm pretty sure Arenas is ineligible to be kept. No years left, unless I'm mistaken.
*EDIT*
Yeah, he can't be kept next year. Just checked eligibility.
-
Yup.
Arenas has 0 years and is ineligible to be kept.
Yao Ming, J. Smith, and Iguodala have 1 more year if they were kept this summer.
Iverson would have 2 years if he were kept this summer.
------------------
Still a heck of smorgasbord to choose from.
-
I'm stoked. I just picked up Arenas. I'm going to have another interesting decision on my keepers next year (Yao, Iguodala, Iverson, Arenas, Josh Smith). It's a shame two of them are currently injured, but thems the breaks.
Uh ... I'm pretty sure Arenas is ineligible to be kept. No years left, unless I'm mistaken.
*EDIT*
Yeah, he can't be kept next year. Just checked eligibility.
He can not be kept by the person who drafted him or if he was traded durring his "holding" period. Picking a guy up on waivers should reset his eligibility if I'm not mistaken.
-
Yup.
Arenas has 0 years and is ineligible to be kept.
I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.
-
I don't think so WOW.
A player's eligibility follows him around EVERYWHERE. Team to team to Free agency. We came up on this issue when I traded Derek T-Mac, remember?
-
I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.
Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.
-
We came up on this issue when I traded Derek T-Mac, remember?
Traded NOT picked up off waivers. Like I ALREADY posted, eligibility applies to drafts and trades IMO.
-
I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.
Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.
IMO it does. Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.
-
well, this is something we're going to have to vote on come offseason. Considering WHY the keeper eligibility rules where put in place, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be eligible. Keeper eligibility was setup to keep the following from happening:
1) People who have a good set of keepers to remain dominant for years
2) To restock the great players availability to the league.
Considering 1 doesn't apply (his original team can no longer benefit, either by his services or by players received in a trade), and he was just made available to the entire league. Clearly, the rules previously set (which only covered trades, NOT waived players) need to be voted on and updated. I save up my waiver priority for just the right reason. I haven't used it once this year. I used it under the assumption that a waived player can be kept.
-
well, this is something we're going to have to vote on come offseason. Considering WHY the keeper eligibility rules where put in place, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be eligible. Keeper eligibility was setup to keep the following from happening:
1) People who have a good set of keepers to remain dominant for years
2) To restock the great players availability to the league.
Considering 1 doesn't apply (his original team can no longer benefit, either by his services or by players received in a trade), and he was just made available to the entire league. Clearly, the rules previously set (which only covered trades, NOT waived players) need to be voted on and updated. I save up my waiver priority for just the right reason. I haven't used it once this year. I used it under the assumption that a waived player can be kept.
IMO that is why people like Joe V saved theirs in the past as well. There is a possibility of collusion if you trade away a keeper player while you have top priority if the recieving team then waives a keeper knowing the other team can pick him up. I doubt people in our league would do that though.
-
With Adam being new, I don't know if he would've dropped Arenas (who he acquired in a trade this season) if he knew someone ELSE could keep him.
-
That is why I haven't dropped Wade...I figured if you dropped the player someone else could sign him just to have the ability to keep him.
-
I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.
Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.
IMO it does. Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.
Sure you do. It's on the Managers page.
I could go in either direction on this question, because of just how unlikely it is to come up - a keeper being waived.
-
IMO that is why people like Joe V saved theirs in the past as well. There is a possibility of collusion if you trade away a keeper player while you have top priority if the recieving team then waives a keeper knowing the other team can pick him up. I doubt people in our league would do that though.
Actually, the reason I saved my eligibility was to make sure that I'd have top crack at a guy I really wanted in the event he was dropped, not because I wanted to keep said player. Then again, I've generally got better players than will be available on waivers.
Personally, I do not think Derek should be punished for what amounts to a very savvy move by him. And were a person to try to use the waiver wire to get around such a thing in a trade, the trade would get vetoed by the league. And a player cannot claim his own waived player, so there's no issue there.
However, there is a risk. I could drop a player, have someone else claim him, and then trade for him, and that would reset his eligibility. It makes no sense that Norwegian could trade for Arenas in the off-season, and have his eligibility reset.
I propose the following:
1) A player claimed from WAIVERS - not free agency - can be kept for a maximum of ONE off-season by any player OTHER than the player who waived him. Players acquired through the draft or through free agency can be kept for a maximum of two off-seasons.
This is truly a unique situation, complicated by Arenas's injury and his status as an ineligible keep by Norwegian, but I can see similar situations arise in the future. Caleb also ran into this situation a couple of years back with Amare Stoudemire, but because of the injury list, he kept him the entire time. The injury list, however, no longer exists.
I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers. Where does the line get drawn?
Personally, I'm in favor of siding with Derek on this one, since he kind of got screwed the last time around on the Tracy McGrady situation. At some point, cleverness needs to be rewarded.
-
I disagree if Arenas was picked up off waivers.
Being dropped doesn't all of a sudden switch a player's keeper eligibility, dude.
IMO it does. Collusion is alot less likely because you don't know who has the highest waiver spot at any given time.
Sure you do. It's on the Managers page.
I could go in either direction on this question, because of just how unlikely it is to come up - a keeper being waived.
Sorry, that is not what I meant. If you and I had wanted to do a collusion waiver it would not work since Bods would have been ahead of me on the waiver priority and there is no guarantee that he would ever give it up.
-
I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers. Where does the line get drawn?
IMO that is not something somebody in our leage would do but if the waiver happened at the same time you had top priority then we would probably cry foul and you would have to drop TD and the guy you acquired in the trade. That should be deterrent enough.
-
I'd be interested in hearing how people would react if I were to trade Tim Duncan at a time he's no longer eligible for me to keep, the other manager drop him, and I come back and claim him on waivers. Where does the line get drawn?
IMO that is not something somebody in our leage would do but if the waiver happened at the same time you had top priority then we would probably cry foul and you would have to drop TD and the guy you acquired in the trade. That should be deterrent enough.
You misunderstand.
Let's say Duncan is disappointing me, and I trade him to you, presumably because I'm out of the playoffs, and you're in them and can use Duncan. You give me a young player with eligibility - in effect, selling your soul for the championship this season.
It's a month later, and Duncan goes down with a season-ending injury. You're in the playoff picture, so you drop Duncan, since he won't be back, and the roster spot is valuable during the playoff drive. You were going to lose him anyway at the end of the season, after all. I just happen to be top waiver pick, and I claim Duncan off of waivers. Is his eligibility reset for me? If not, WHY NOT?
I see that as being the EXACT SAME CASE as Derek's case now. I'm just curious as to how other people would see it, especially when it involves a player who, thanks to three separate drafts, I've now had every year that the league has been in existence and that many people would consider the best player in the NBA.
Personally, I see things the way Derek sees them; Arenas *WAS*, in essence, offered to every other person in the league. I think his eligibility is re-set. However, I can also see the two teams with the top two waiver priorities each dropping their star players, claiming the other team's star player, and resetting their eligibility that way, and I would STRONGLY disapprove of that.
The unwritten rule for the league is "Play to enjoy, not to dominate." And an unwritten side rule is the rule of respect. The problem is that sometimes, we need the rules spelled out to prevent folks from doing what I described in the last paragraph, and in that regard, I do support spelling out exactly what the rules are - and I do expect the rules to be FAIR. In this case, I see BOTH cases being fair.
Here's the interesting question: if Arenas had not been claimed immediately, and had become a free agent, and a week later, Norwegian claimed him back - would his eligibility be reset? I say yes.
We need to just clear it up a bit more. I think it's a relatively trivial argument, but one that does need to be answered.
-
Whatever it is? Set it in stone.
Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:
player <----> eligibility (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)
I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.
-
Whatever it is? Set it in stone.
Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:
player <----> eligibility (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)
I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.
Nope.
-
Whatever it is? Set it in stone.
Apparently I lack MASSIVE comprehension because the entire time I always thought it was as geniusly simple as:
player <----> eligibility (NOT SEPARABLE BY ANY MEANS)
I thought so that we could by pass the what if's, in case's, what have you's, weird situation's, etc.
While that WOULD have been, as you so accurately describe, "geniusly simple," the fact of the matter is that we weren't genius enough to do it at the time. Would have been nice to, but Derek and WayOut are correct in their interpretation that we DID NOT do it.
-
Uhhhh ... sorry ... but I'm with Skander on this one ...
Maybe it's that it's St. Patrick's Day and I'm wasted out of my mind at 3 o'clock ... but once we establish a "rule" ... it's absolute.
Am I wrong in thinking this???
A player has two total seasons of eligibility after being drafted ... there are no exceptions.
Again ... if Adam would have realized this ... he may not have dropped Arenas. I know *I* wouldn't have ... if anything to keep him out of the hands of opponents as a possible keeper.
-
The problem is the "rule" has never been established. We have half the league running under the assumption that a dropped player CAN be used as a keeper, and we have had people who have held onto injuried players just so others couldn't use him (wk) as well. We have never defined waived players anywhere, ever.
-
The problem is the "rule" has never been established. We have half the league running under the assumption that a dropped player CAN be used as a keeper, and we have had people who have held onto injuried players just so others couldn't use him (wk) as well. We have never defined waived players anywhere, ever.
I don't have a dog in this fight so I will go with whatever you guys decide but my understanding was anyone picked up off of waivers can be kept the max amount of years.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight so I will go with whatever you guys decide but my understanding was anyone picked up off of waivers can be kept the max amount of years.
Appreciate the input Michael Vick. :P
-
two interesting questions:
1) why was Arenas not on the "can't cut" list after being the #5 player league wide last season. Guys of that calibre do get special protection usually from exactly that happening what had happened now.
2) Arenas was in his 2nd year being keeper, so next year he would have joined the regular draft pool. I believe that should be considered as well when making a decision of his keeper eligibility, and IMHO he should be available for the draft.
(and no, I do not consider a player put on the waiver wire for a day or two "made available to the league". It's basically a matter of your curent waiver priority, so just a handful of teams even had a chance of picking him up ... and they had to be there at the right time with the right prio)
just my 2 cents ...
-
1) We don't have a "can't cut list" in our league.
http://basketball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/nba/8244/settings
Can't Cut List Provider: None
Can't cut lists aren't really for keeper leagues, nor are they really good for leagues where people return every year (which the majority of our members do). They're for people who go "ah, I'm losing anyway, I'm going to drop my whole team kthxbye". We've never had that problem here, so it makes no sense to restrict ourselves in case we get into a championship game and have a player whom we have no intention of keeping who's injured wasting a roster spot because of an arbitrary list yahoo puts out.
2) Being in waiver is a part of the league. When you look back at why the 2 year limit was instituted, it was put in place so people who got top of the line keepers (the KG's, at least before this year, LeBron's, Dirk's, etc) didn't dominate years on end. It wasn't so much to increase the funness of the draft. Being only a select handful of teams with the opportunity to grab him doesn't change in the draft. If for some unforeseen reason Chris Paul would enter the draft next year, the person unlucky enough to get the 12th pick (or, even, the 2nd pick) isn't going to have a fair chance to get him.
It's very possible that the decision made in this instance is different than the rule change going forward. Getting this right going forward and established IMO is the most important so we can deal with it if/when it happens in the future and everyone is on the same page.
-
So is it over and how did the thing turn out?
-
It's me and atom2030 for the whole enchilada, God help me. Starting Tomorrow and going to next Wednesday.
-
ok, but this might open up a dangerous precedent. Any team having a player in his 2nd (=last) year of "keepability" could waive him in a pre-arranged "deal" - it can't keep him anyway - with any waiver pickup restoring his keeper eligibility.
-
ok, but this might open up a dangerous precedent. Any team having a player in his 2nd (=last) year of "keepability" could waive him in a pre-arranged "deal" - it can't keep him anyway - with any waiver pickup restoring his keeper eligibility.
IMO we don't have those type of people in the league plus this is a no-money league. I've played in real money fantasy leagues and the rules are a bit stricter but this is a fun league with people we know for the most part. IMO we do not need to make a rule change but I will not argue if we do.