Question on keepers

[Joe Vancil]

Ziggy,

My proposal is that a keeper can only be kept two off-seasons, regardless of who is kept him, starting this past off-season.  I also propose that we exclude Lamar Odom and Tracy McGrady, since they were acquired before anyone knew this was going in.  Trades do not affect keeper eligibility in any way from here on out - a player traded or traded for does not gain nor lose eligibility.

Any player going through the draft - in other words, not being kept during the off-season - can be kept for two off-seasons.

The 24 players I listed earlier - except for McGrady and Odom - have one-year of  keeper-eligibility left;  they must then go through the draft.


                                                              Joe
 

[Guest_Randy]

I'd also like to see us put a limit on the number of adds/drops that we can make in a season.  I don't mind getting beat in a week by a GM who has a better team but a GM who simply fills his line-up by adding dropping players in order to add more "games" in order to give him a 4 or 5 player advantage in a week, IMO, is just ridiculous.  It's one thing when a GM does this because he is DOWN 6 games but when a GM simply knows that the only way he is going to win is to add players and gain a four or five player advantage in a week, IMO, we have done away with the concept of putting together a team and it's simply trying to play more players than your opponent.  This type of FNBA stuff ISN'T what I enjoy or desire -- and frankly, it's no longer about who has the best team anymore, is it?  It's simply about putting more players on the court.  Why?  So at the end of the season you can say "I didn't have the best team but I managed to put more people on the court just so I could win?"  That's NOT being a FNBA GM, IMO.  

I DO understand adding and dropping players -- but just to add games, IMO, is VERY weak!

[WayOutWest]

While I'm not a fan of that type of GM'ing, I don't think that's going to change.  It's not fair to teams who have a weak line-up or limited "star" players.  I don't have the time nor inclination to spend alot of time trying to win by having more players but I'd vote against changing this rule.

[Guest_Randy]

Well, first, when I came into the league, I had ZERO idea that this type of thing was allowed.  This doesn't happen in the real NBA -- and it's rather stupid, IMO.  If it was someone who was trying to get even in games (for instance, Joe has a 6 game advantage on me this week) I'd understand -- but that's not the case -- if my team isn't good enough to beat you, I'll simply play more players than you do.  That's really weak -- and it takes away a great deal of the "fun" of trying to put together a great team, IMO.

[Derek Bodner]

alright guys, we need to bring this up to a vote.

[WayOutWest]

alright guys, we need to bring this up to a vote.

I'd like to vote for no whinning!

[ziggy]

I personally would like to see us change from head to head to rotisserre style next season.  I know this will sound like sour grapes, but I have had it with head to head.  I was in the finals for the 3rd year in a row, and for the third year in a row I lost a significant number of games to "injuries" in the final week.  Same thing has happened in other leagues as well.  In 5 head to head I have been in the finals 4 times, and in the 3rd place game the other.  In each case in the final week I lose 7-10 games each week for players who sit meaningless games, with no for knowledge that they will be sitting.  This year it was 7 games I scheduled, and 9 total games where non-IL players sat.  It is frustrating to play the entire season doing your best to try and win, and get to the finals, and they have guys you think will play not play.  Injuries are part of the game, and I have had my share of injuries.  I lost my 3rd and 4th round picks (Artest and Randolph) for most of the year.  I lost Ben Wallace in the final week in the first year.  That is the game.  To lose games when healthy players take a day off is a different deal.

It is equally frustrating that guys like Dan Gadzuric who is on the roster for 2 games total play a significant role in determining the championship.

I don't want to take anything away from Derek, Joe, or ittkssequels titles.  They won them fair and square, but I just don't want to do this again.  If it is head to head again, then I think I am going to pass.

[WayOutWest]

Are we really goning to start this bullshit again?

I admit I dislike the add/drop game people play, I don't have time anymore to particpate at that level, but those were the rules going in and I think it's bullshit to try and change the rules now.

If people are going to pull the "or else" card then fuck it, shut this shit down already.  I can find tons of other things to do with my time that are 100X more beneficial to me personally.

[Derek Bodner]

I don't think changing to a rotisserie league will solve that problem ziggy.  Might lessen it, but that's a risk you have to take.

Actually, I'm going to see if next year there isn't a way that we can change the league to end 2-3 weeks before the end of the regular season to avoid things like having to guess who will be playing.

But, I don't see many people agreeing to completely changing the format.  And I'm not going to bend the league to keep one person, even though I love ya Ziggy.

Anyway, right now we have 2 votes that need to come up.  How keeper eligilbility is determined on whether we should have a limit on add-drops.

[Joe Vancil]

Well, I've said my piece many times, so I'm prepared to vote.

My suggestion is that Keeper Eligibility is defined as follows:

1)  A keeper may only be kept for two consecutive off-seasons, regardless of which manager did/does the keeping.

2)  Due to the unforseen nature of this change, a player who was traded DURING THIS SEASON has two off-seasons of keeper eligibility, even if he was a kept player last year.  (The prime examples here are Tracy McGrady and Lamar Odom.)

(My rationale:  It's not fair for Duncan/Garnett/Nowitzki to be traded for each other to get around the keeper rule.  It's also not fair for managers making a deal not knowing the consequences of that deal.)
-----
My vote is AGAINST limiting roster moves - UNLESS the roster is expanded to 15 or 16 players, with no additional games added.  If the roster is expanded and the format kept, then I vote in FAVOR of limiting roster moves.

(My rationale:  To lessen the impact of significantly fewer games at one point in the season and significantly more in another point of the season, expanded rosters prevent the need for roster moves to find a player to fill and empty day;  the chances that you've got someone on your roster for that day are increased.  Also, I believe trades will increase, as marginal players actually start to have value for managers.  After all - why try to trade for Shane Battier when I can pick up Morris Peterson from the waiver wire?)
 

[Ted]

1. Let nature take it's course. No limits on keepers. It's more realistic. The Spurs don't have to put Tim Duncan in the draft every two years, why should Joe? If Joe trades Tim for LeBron, he gets to keep LeBron (no Joe, that's not a trade offer). Besides, I just don't care if Joe gets to keep Tim Duncan for the rest of his life. I suspect that I'll get tired of even LeBron eventually and will want to trade him. Does that have to be forced on me?

If we have to have limits. I'd go with Joe's proposition, although I think the whole keeper thing is needlessly complex. Let's just blow up the whole league each year rather than having an interminable constitutional convention every off-season. Does this have to be a democracy? Dabods, can't you just go a little Pinochet on us?

2. I vote FOR limits on roster moves. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's the fact that Dan Gadzuric gave someone the championship. Maybe it's the fact that I just won the championship in my other league by being the only person in the league adding and dropping on a daily basis over the last month and not really feeling all that satisfied with the win. My advantage wasn't unfair under the rules, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily fun for me to win that way either. Maybe I just don't have time for this to be that important to me. Whatever. I don't really care I guess.

[ziggy]

Are we really goning to start this bullshit again?

I admit I dislike the add/drop game people play, I don't have time anymore to particpate at that level, but those were the rules going in and I think it's bullshit to try and change the rules now.

If people are going to pull the "or else" card then fuck it, shut this shit down already.  I can find tons of other things to do with my time that are 100X more beneficial to me personally.

I have held my tounge for a long time WOW, but fuck you asshole.  I knew the rules, and I ain't complaining, and my main complaint ain't Gadzuric.  If you don't like my opinions I could care fucking less.  I said what I said, and I stand by it.  I am not trying to hold the league hostage, if the rest want head to head then so be it.  I got no hard feelings, I just will choose not to play.

[WayOutWest]

If you don't like my opinions I could care fucking less.

That really hurt ziggy.  You not caring about what I care about, OUCH!

Fantasy leagues that don't involve money are a stupid queer waste of time.  The league is more about the people in it than winning for me.  That being said I do my best with the time I have to participate and be competitive but if it's going to get this serious it's going to suck.  

Change the rules or I'm going home is bullshit, reminds me of the Drom drama last year.  It's not about our group having fun anymore, I doubt it's going to get better.

[Ted]

From a week-to-week standpoint, I think Head-to-Head is FAR more interesting. It breaks the game up. Otherwise you're basically in a fantasy baseball points league, which, IMO, is the epitome of fantasy sports HELL.

[Joe Vancil]

Having not played in a true rotisserie-style league before, I might have some marginal interest, but truth-to-tell, I like the format we have.  I'm playing a particular person each week - it give a real feel of competition.  I end up checking in on a day by day basis...refining strategy...changing directions when needed - oh...I'm closer than I thought I would be in steals, so should I use Rafer Alston as my Utility rather than Drew Gooden and try to steal the category...plenty of free-throws made, but I need more rebounding...is it time to play Okur instead of Rip Hamilton...and on a day by day basis, it's a more competitive feeling.  Skander rips me for not playing the "best of the best" players every day, but given my track record, I think I'm doing pretty good.  So while I might be interested in doing rotisserie, I wouldn't want to stop doing head-to-head - especially with this group.

And for what it's worth, Ziggy, the league wouldn't be the same without you.  When it comes down to success, you've finished 2, 4, and 3 in the regular season, and that only trails my 1-3-1, and you've finished 2-2-2 in the playoffs, and that's tops, even though you've not finished number 1.  Heck, you're the freakin' Yankees, and it's not costing you any money!

We've matched up 6 times, and I know of 3 losses against two wins (and I think I lost the other, but I'm not sure..I don't remember my season record against you last year), so, in a lot of ways, you're the measuring stick I measure my team against.  Oh, granted, I have a lot more fun beating up on Skander (It's fun!  Everybody should do it!) - or, at the minimum, trying, but that's a special case.

Stick around.  The frustration is part of what makes victory so sweet.