Lucky17's Yahoo! Points Hoops League: 2014 Offseason: Post Lottery

[Gainesville Celtic]

Gainsville... I'm still trying to grasp your point.  I'll walk through it in my head.

I'll use Toine Boy's as an example.  He finished with 174 missed games.  His average player score was 15.5.   So he receives a penalty on his points where 174x15.5 is added to his adjusted points.   Despite that penalty, his pick was still projected 1st.    I guess what you're saying is that instead of multiplying by 15.5, it should be the league-wide average player score of 25.4.

yes, this is what i'm saying.

If teams know they're gonna get 25 points for a game they missed at the end of the year -- and they're trying to bottom out for a better pick then using the (higher) league average encourages them to at least set their lineup with guys like Phil Pressey or Tony Allen or whoever.

Being active and setting their lineups is all I think we can legislate. In a deep dynasty league like this sometime you gotta blow it up, but I at least want 20 GMs who are scouring the waiver wire, looking to trade, etc. It makes for a more dynamic league.

Really, though, it's not going to make much of a difference at all either way.   We do have a rule in place that makes a bigger difference... it's the 75 missed games rule.  That rule says that if you miss over 75 games, your pick is ineligible for the top 3.  So Toine's boy, for instance, finished with an absurd 174 missed games... it would make his #1 projected pick ineligible for the top 3.  Same with MMSB and his 164 missed games.   There's actually 5 lotto teams this year that finished with over 75 missed games... TB, MMSB, Jacks, Kwhit and Dirty Digglers.... The rule is supposed to penalize them by making them ineligible for a Top 3 pick.  Unfortunately, we have a loop hole in place that says if you trade the pick to a different team, the penalty doesn't carry over.  So in the case of all 5 teams, they all traded their picks away and thus all 5 picks associated with those teams are still eligible for a top 3.

right... and i think that 75 games rule with the loophole means that those picks are now MORE valuable in a trade AND there's the added incentive to keep tanking if/when you traded that pick.

At the end of the day maybe none of this matters.

On the one hand I don't think the current "adjustment" system does anything to discourage missing 100+ games. (and I've layed out the math for why).

On the other hand, with or without a better adjustment system, the teams missing 100+ games are NEVER going to compete in this league b/c (like the real life Sixers) they'll never be able to amass enough good players just by being bad for long enough. They can try, but it won't work.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Also, something is whacky with your table.   Using 25.4 as the average would make very minimal difference.   A couple teams swap places (I move from 4 to 3.  Lovetotrade moves from 2 to 1.  Juggs stays 3rd, but BARELY... since he's still receiving a penalty)   WEbskins is picking 7th either way.   http://i.imgur.com/IAudwOA.png

No there's nothing whacky with my table. I've zeroed out all penalties for teams missing fewer than 50 games b/c I don't think they should be penalized (as I've laid out). This rewards teams --- from 1st to 20th place -- for not missing more than 50 games.

(the first 2 columns are flipped from your table... sorry for making that more confusing)

That Bellevue (missing 53 games) and #Lovetotrade (missing 38) move up -- b/c teams missing 174(!) and 164(!) each dropped a spot -- is logical and a good outcome, because the 2 more active teams benefitted -- by staying relatively still points-wise while the other teams moved alot.

But you're right, the reality is that teams fared about as well in either system. Teams missing 75+ games lost the following draft slots:

Team-based adj.: 0, 1, -2 (actually moved up), 0, 1, 5
League-based adj: 1, 2, -2 (actually moved up), 0, 1, 5

We can't control year-to-year what totals teams end up with --- there's some luck and variance in whether teams lose 1 or 4 spots (based on how bunched up a group of teams will be). all we can do is create a system that makes internally logical sense.



But like i said above,... At the end of the day maybe none of this matters. Teams who miss a lot of games are always gonna be bad and will have less opportunity to get good than active teams.

que sera, sera....

[LarBrd33]

Also, something is whacky with your table.   Using 25.4 as the average would make very minimal difference.   A couple teams swap places (I move from 4 to 3.  Lovetotrade moves from 2 to 1.  Juggs stays 3rd, but BARELY... since he's still receiving a penalty)   WEbskins is picking 7th either way.   http://i.imgur.com/IAudwOA.png

No there's nothing whacky with my table. I've zeroed out all penalties for teams missing fewer than 50 games b/c I don't think they should be penalized (as I've laid out). This rewards teams --- from 1st to 20th place -- for not missing more than 50 games.

(the first 2 columns are flipped from your table... sorry for making that more confusing)

That Bellevue (missing 53 games) and #Lovetotrade (missing 38) move up -- b/c teams missing 174(!) and 164(!) each dropped a spot -- is logical and a good outcome, because the 2 more active teams benefitted -- by staying relatively still points-wise while the other teams moved alot.

But you're right, the reality is that teams fared about as well in either system. Teams missing 75+ games lost the following draft slots:

Team-based adj.: 0, 1, -2 (actually moved up), 0, 1, 5
League-based adj: 1, 2, -2 (actually moved up), 0, 1, 5

We can't control year-to-year what totals teams end up with --- there's some luck and variance in whether teams lose 1 or 4 spots (based on how bunched up a group of teams will be). all we can do is create a system that makes internally logical sense.



But like i said above,... At the end of the day maybe none of this matters. Teams who miss a lot of games are always gonna be bad and will have less opportunity to get good than active teams.

que sera, sera....

Probably none of it will matter.  Also the lotto can wreck plans.  I've actively tanked to try to get two top 4 picks... I have the #1 and #4 projected picks... but come next week, I could be looking at the #4 and #7 picks.  Last year the team with the 9th worst record won the draft.  So yeah... ultimately it might not make a difference.

I will say, I disagree with you on the idea that only teams who miss "excessive" games should be penalized.  Whether it's 1 game or 174 games, I think adjusting the standings for draft purposes is a good idea.  I think most of the teams that missed under 30 games could have reached 902 if they wanted to... the teams towards the top deliberately leave bad players on their bench so not to taint their average player score.  The thought is that they want to make the most of their 902 games... but if they inadvertently fall short by gaming the system like that, it's perfectly reasonable for them to be slightly adjusted based on the missed games.  And really we're talkin about the difference between #18 and #19.  Really don't think that makes a difference.

Thinking out scenarios in my head, I will say that changing the multiplier to be league-wide average player score does make some logical sense.  That would theoretically close the Russell Westbrook loophole where a team benches their best players to keep their average player score low.  As-is, it does indeed incentivize teams towards the bottom to fill their roster with terrible players to keep their average player score low.  But here's the thing... even if you switch the multiplier to league-wide average, it isn't going to stop teams towards the bottom from playing bad players.  I guess it would add them a little more motivation to fill out their roster and keep their missed games lower, but they'd still be incentivized to fill out their roster with bad players.   Interestingly enough, I'll use myself as an example.  This year, I came very close to exceeding 75 missed games and I owned my pick.  In-fact, I was so concerned about exceeding 75 missed games, that I offered up my own pick + another pick to Kevin for the MMSB pick he owed.  MMSB and myself were pretty close to each other... My thought was that Kevin could get a free pick out of my suffering... since the 75 missed games wouldn't carry over to him if he owned the Bellevue pick.   Kevin turned me down... I tried my best to cycle in bad players daily and ultimately got under 75 missed games, but in the process I ended up raising my average player score higher than MMSB.   I finished with 19.95 as my average player score.  MMSB finished with 19.62.   My pick is projected 4th.  The MMSB pick is projected 3rd.   What's interesting is that if we used the league average (24.5) as the multiplier, my pick would be projected 3rd and MMSB's would be projected 4th.  So the point is, a rule that would be put in place to stifle gamesmanship like my own (purposely trying to keep my average player score low) would actually have helped me in this instance.  Lol.   

Counterpoint to all of this... obsessive players will always find a way to game the system.  I'm fine with it.  I've seen a couple players actively make use of loopholes.  If they are putting in that kind of effort, so be it.  Good for them.  I love the competitive spirit.   

[hpantazo]

LOL at using my team as an example. No one should use my PTS league team as an example for anything, because I have no idea what I'm doing! I've tried multiple strategies (I had a team with Kobe, Duncan, ZBo, and Wade vs this years all out rebuild, and teams in between) and always land in the bottom half of the league every year regardless!

In terms of tanking, I purposefully traded away my 1st before the season began and never tried to re-acquire it, so you shouldnt use my team as an example for tanking either, LOL.

Bottom line, the lottery screws up any of these pick projections, and on top of it, rookies themselves are like lottery tickets, many of them don't work out. Nothing worth getting bent out of shape over. This league is supposed to be fun, not an over analyzed, hyper competitive constant argument over projected draft positions that may not even happen.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Bottom line, the lottery screws up any of these pick projections, and on top of it, rookies themselves are like lottery tickets, many of them don't work out. Nothing worth getting bent out of shape over. This league is supposed to be fun, not an over analyzed, hyper competitive constant argument over projected draft positions that may not even happen.

Great points Hpantazo... Totally agree (and have made the same points re lottery and picks at diff points)

I was debating these points almost as math/logic problems.... I'm ultimately cool w whatever bc I'll always try and get as many points as possible.

Ubuntu y'all!

[byennie]

#2 - We should maybe consider stricter penalties in general for missed games.   Jacks and TB, for example, did not attempt to field a competitive team this year.  They played within the rules of the league, but they filled their roster with D-league talent and injured players.   150+ missed games is obscene.   Think about this in context of the real NBA.   The Lakers and 76ers sucked this year, but neither team was allowed to say "well we have a bunch of injuries and our rookies are in the d-league... so we're only suiting up 3 guys tonight".   Having stricter penalties for missed games would force a team like Toine Boy's to make tough choices and say, "[dang]... while I like having guys like Dario Saric, Noah Vonleh, Perry Jones and James young on my team... I also need to field a team of NBA talent.  I need to either trade some of these guys or cut them to sign someone who is actually playing games"... It would be a big change, though... since right now an accepted way of rebuilding in this league is hyper-tanking where you fill your entire roster with injured guys and long-term prospects.

I'm not going to go and trade Ricky Rubio, Terrence Jones, Tony Wroten, Jared Sullinger, etc from a rebuilding team in order to amass more games played. It's not tanking when I'm out there trading for LeBron James trying to upgrade my team. You can't fill your team with injuries, it just happens, and it would be ludicrous to have to trade them away. If anything Yahoo should have some injury slots on the roster so you can fill your lineup.

That said, I generally have no problem with incentivizing people to use their games played. But when you're in a league with 200+ keepers, it's not feasible to stop people from holding prospects. My guys averaged 25+ points, but I had a ton of injuries. I shouldn't have to go scoop up a guy averaging 15 on the waiver wire to fill a slot.

I do agree about the top-3 loophole. Not sure the perfect way to fix it, but those are offseason discussions we can definitely continue. Also I'm open to general lottery reform, but it's always a massive challenge to find something that is definitely better than what we have.

[LarBrd33]

I know I wrote a lot in the last two posts, but I was putting that stuff out there for folks to think about.   

To be clear, I am in no way trying to shame TB, Jacks, myself, etc.   I think the system as-is works pretty darn well.   I think adjusted standings works.  I dont' mind if people find loopholes.  I don't really care that active participants exceeded 150 missed games.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not pushing for stricter penalties.  I'm just saying if some folks are concerned about excessive missed games, it might be something to look at.

I'm also totally fine with the current Missed 75 game rule.  I've said a few times that adding a couple footnotes to that rule (where if a team is projected to miss 75+ games trades the pick, the penalty carries over to the new team) might be beneficial, but I personally don't really care.   I traded for Toine Boy's pick this year when he had well over 100 missed games.  I have no personal moral dilemma here. 

I do think it's probably a good idea not to over-complicate the rules any more than they already are.   So I'm sympathetic to the reality that adding all sorts of footnotes on a mildly obscure rule like the 75 missed games might have diminishing returns.

[byennie]

I know I wrote a lot in the last two posts, but I was putting that stuff out there for folks to think about.   

To be clear, I am in no way trying to shame TB, Jacks, myself, etc.   I think the system as-is works pretty darn well.   I think adjusted standings works.  I dont' mind if people find loopholes.  I don't really care that active participants exceeded 150 missed games.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not pushing for stricter penalties.  I'm just saying if some folks are concerned about excessive missed games, it might be something to look at.

I'm also totally fine with the current Missed 75 game rule.  I've said a few times that adding a couple footnotes to that rule (where if a team is projected to miss 75+ games trades the pick, the penalty carries over to the new team) might be beneficial, but I personally don't really care.   I traded for Toine Boy's pick this year when he had well over 100 missed games.  I have no personal moral dilemma here. 

I do think it's probably a good idea not to over-complicate the rules any more than they already are.   So I'm sympathetic to the reality that adding all sorts of footnotes on a mildly obscure rule like the 75 missed games might have diminishing returns.

I know you like to brainstorm out loud and I don't really take offense, but you *did* say that Jacks and TB "did not attempt to field a competitive team" and missed an "obscene" number of games. So, it forces people to at least clarify if not take offense.

You seem to clean up the statement by saying that you don't mind of other people taking advantage of the rules, but that doesn't really help when other folks don't feel they are or have any desire to do so.

In any case, thanks for putting up the adjusted standings. It should be a fun offseason.

[LarBrd33]

Also while we're taking about rules...

I just want to throw my opinion out there about offseason trades.   Here's our rules as-is:

22. Trades must be confirmed via PM or email by both parties to Lucky17, both during the offseason (when Yahoo! league pages are unavailable) and during the season.

23. Trades may not include draft picks that are more than one full year/season into the future.

Rule 22 seems to permit the commish to open up offseason trading at any time that's convenient for him.  I assume he'll open it up in the next couple weeks after the lotto placement is finalized.   

We had debate earlier in the year about Rule 23 and (after reaching out to Luck17) came to the consensus that it means you can't trade 2016 draft picks until after the 2015 NBA draft.  Can't trade 2017 draft picks until after the 2016 NBA draft.  Can't trade 2018 draft picks until after the 2017 NBA draft. 

The NBA Draft is on June 25th.  Our draft probably will not be until September/October.  Which means from June 25th->September/October we'd be permitted to trade our 2016 draft picks.   

Seeing as it doesn't really make much of a difference, I'd vote to allow trading 2016 picks as soon as the commish opens up offseason trading.  If the commish opens up offseason trading next week, technically I think we're supposed to hold off on trading 2016 picks until June 25th... but since I suspect people already have hush/hush deals in place involving 2016 picks, we might as well just give the green light on that as soon as offseason trading opens. 

[LarBrd33]

I know I wrote a lot in the last two posts, but I was putting that stuff out there for folks to think about.   

To be clear, I am in no way trying to shame TB, Jacks, myself, etc.   I think the system as-is works pretty darn well.   I think adjusted standings works.  I dont' mind if people find loopholes.  I don't really care that active participants exceeded 150 missed games.  That doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm not pushing for stricter penalties.  I'm just saying if some folks are concerned about excessive missed games, it might be something to look at.

I'm also totally fine with the current Missed 75 game rule.  I've said a few times that adding a couple footnotes to that rule (where if a team is projected to miss 75+ games trades the pick, the penalty carries over to the new team) might be beneficial, but I personally don't really care.   I traded for Toine Boy's pick this year when he had well over 100 missed games.  I have no personal moral dilemma here. 

I do think it's probably a good idea not to over-complicate the rules any more than they already are.   So I'm sympathetic to the reality that adding all sorts of footnotes on a mildly obscure rule like the 75 missed games might have diminishing returns.

I know you like to brainstorm out loud and I don't really take offense, but you *did* say that Jacks and TB "did not attempt to field a competitive team" and missed an "obscene" number of games. So, it forces people to at least clarify if not take offense.

You seem to clean up the statement by saying that you don't mind of other people taking advantage of the rules, but that doesn't really help when other folks don't feel they are or have any desire to do so.

In any case, thanks for putting up the adjusted standings. It should be a fun offseason.

Yeah, I saw Harry's response and realized he might have taken it the wrong way.  I said both teams played within the rules.  On a scale of 1-10 on how upset I am about how those teams fielded their roster... I'm at a 0.   I did the same thing the last two years... filled my roster with prospects and injured players so that I could help my draft position and my long-term future.   

When I say they didn't field a "competitive team", it's basically true.  If this league had a really strict rule that said, "Either finish with less than 75 missed games or you're out", I'm pretty confident that we wouldn't have seen teams finish with 130+ missed games this year.  Trades would have to be made.   High-potential rookies currently playing in the d-league would need to be cut to sign the Udonis Haslems and Chris Andersons of the world.  You'd have to do your best to fill out the roster with guys who were actually playing.  If you had too many injuries, you'd have to make changes. 

I don't personally think a rule like that is necessary.  I don't think it would be productive.  Gotta give the bottom-tier teams a shot at improving and forcing them to dump Tyler Ennis for Jason Terry would be kind of lame.  Forcing someone to trade injured Paul George for pennies on the dollar, because of a staggering amount of missed games wouldn't be any fun.     

Just wanted to point it out so folks could think about it.  I didn't take Gainsville's original post as being upset either... I think he was just throwing out some ideas. 

[hpantazo]

No worries, I was not upset about any posts, just found it pretty amusing that my team was being used as an example for anything, especially tanking, since I managed to screw that up too.

I agree with LB33's idea that trading 2016 draft picks should basically open as soon as any official offseason activity opens up, it will help keep track of trades, and if people want to trade during that early offseason window, they are taking big gambles, as there are many unknowns about the following NBA season , free agents, rookies, NBA trades, etc, so they may as well be allowed to take the risks and we can have some interesting action.

I also agree with byennie that a DL slot or two would help, as it makes no sense to ditch prospects or talented but injured vets to pick up scrubs off the waiver wire in our league. I know Yahoo has DL slots in our celticsblog baseball 7 keeper league , so maybe it's possible to work in a slot or two in the PTS basketball league as well. In MLB, there is an official DL listing for players though, which makes it easier to keep track of when guys are eligible for the DL slot or not. Basically when they are off the DL list in real life, they are off in Yahoo, and you are forced to take them off the DL slot when updating your lineup.

When I really went for it one season with Kobe, Wade, Duncan , Zbo and others, all those guys ended up missing a ton of games so a couple of DL slots would have made a huge difference, and may have kept me from jumping into a full rebuild.

[indeedproceed]

I have a better than average understanding of how adjusted standings currently works... and even after reading your post twice, I'm still not totally getting you.   Help me understand what your issue is.

For example, you say: 

"It doesn't make sense that a team like the Juggernauts LOSES a draft spot after finishing 3rd"

Why doesn't that make sense?

Ubuntu had 27761.05 points with 901 games played.  Average player score of 30.81
Juggernauts had 27039.00 points with 875 games played.  Average player score of 30.90

Ubuntu finished 2nd in total points.   Juggs finished 3rd in total points.

So your question seems to be, why does the Juggs pick get penalized (effectly making it 2nd to last as opposed to 3rd to last)?

He missed 27 games.  Multiply his 27 games by his average player score of 30.90... it adds some points and penalizes his draft pick.   

I understand the *MATH* of why and how Juggs is being penalized... I just think it doesn't make any sense.

We shouldn't be penalizing missing games --- we should penalize for missing TOO MANY games. (And we can decide collectively what TOO MANY games is... 1, 50, 75, 100...)

IMO the problem is not that any team falls short of the 902 max. The problem is owners who are missing an *excessive* amount of games -- either by not setting lineups b/c they're absent or not setting them on purpose (to get a better draft pick).

(BTW, I don't include "don't have enough good players as a reason to not set a lineup" b/c if you fall in that boat you should still be setting a lineup AND working the waiver wire or making trades to get better players.)

And so since I think the problem is teams missing excessive games (say more than 50-75 games), it just strikes me as a flaw in the system that a team like Juggs who finished 3rd and missed a handful gets penalized while a number of teams who missed 100+ games didn't. (And look, i benefit (mildly) from Juggs being penalized... but i still think it doesn't make sense).

He probably ended up getting 27 missed games, because he refused to waste his active roster spots on weaker players.  So, he ends up facing the penalty...

Without getting too much into gameplay theory in this league (and how i manage my roster), i think it's totally legit for a team to miss 25-50 games or so in a year AND still be active and trying to win or finish as high as they can.

I was trying my best to max out my games to catch Pitts. But that meant planning for who would play when throughout the season. And as it got down to the last few weeks, some of my guys got injured or the schedule didn't allow, say, 3 PGs to play into 2 PG spots.

So IMO there has to be SOME wiggle room.

Without getting into a needlessly complex solution, what if this kind of solution:

Team Games Missed/Per Game Penalty/Maximum Penalty
0 thru 20   +10 PPG   +150pts
21 thru 60   +15 PPG   +750
60 thru 100   +25 PPG   +1750
101+       +40 PPG   N/A

[LarBrd33]

I have a better than average understanding of how adjusted standings currently works... and even after reading your post twice, I'm still not totally getting you.   Help me understand what your issue is.

For example, you say: 

"It doesn't make sense that a team like the Juggernauts LOSES a draft spot after finishing 3rd"

Why doesn't that make sense?

Ubuntu had 27761.05 points with 901 games played.  Average player score of 30.81
Juggernauts had 27039.00 points with 875 games played.  Average player score of 30.90

Ubuntu finished 2nd in total points.   Juggs finished 3rd in total points.

So your question seems to be, why does the Juggs pick get penalized (effectly making it 2nd to last as opposed to 3rd to last)?

He missed 27 games.  Multiply his 27 games by his average player score of 30.90... it adds some points and penalizes his draft pick.   

I understand the *MATH* of why and how Juggs is being penalized... I just think it doesn't make any sense.

We shouldn't be penalizing missing games --- we should penalize for missing TOO MANY games. (And we can decide collectively what TOO MANY games is... 1, 50, 75, 100...)

IMO the problem is not that any team falls short of the 902 max. The problem is owners who are missing an *excessive* amount of games -- either by not setting lineups b/c they're absent or not setting them on purpose (to get a better draft pick).

(BTW, I don't include "don't have enough good players as a reason to not set a lineup" b/c if you fall in that boat you should still be setting a lineup AND working the waiver wire or making trades to get better players.)

And so since I think the problem is teams missing excessive games (say more than 50-75 games), it just strikes me as a flaw in the system that a team like Juggs who finished 3rd and missed a handful gets penalized while a number of teams who missed 100+ games didn't. (And look, i benefit (mildly) from Juggs being penalized... but i still think it doesn't make sense).

He probably ended up getting 27 missed games, because he refused to waste his active roster spots on weaker players.  So, he ends up facing the penalty...

Without getting too much into gameplay theory in this league (and how i manage my roster), i think it's totally legit for a team to miss 25-50 games or so in a year AND still be active and trying to win or finish as high as they can.

I was trying my best to max out my games to catch Pitts. But that meant planning for who would play when throughout the season. And as it got down to the last few weeks, some of my guys got injured or the schedule didn't allow, say, 3 PGs to play into 2 PG spots.

So IMO there has to be SOME wiggle room.

Without getting into a needlessly complex solution, what if this kind of solution:

Team Games Missed/Per Game Penalty/Maximum Penalty
0 thru 20   +10 PPG   +150pts
21 thru 60   +15 PPG   +750
60 thru 100   +25 PPG   +1750
101+       +40 PPG   N/A

That's an interesting idea...  penalties based on amount of games missed.    Might be a bit time consuming to do the math on that and to keep track of it throughout the season, though since you'd have to manually look at each team and do the math individually... unless you made some elaborate if/then formula in a spreadsheet. 

I went ahead and did the math out of curiosity.   I used your sliding scale, but skipped the "max penality".

http://i.imgur.com/9VbANWa.png

As expected, it punishes teams who miss too many games.

So TB moves from 1 to 3. 

MMSB moves from 3 to 5.

Dirty Digs moves from 6 to 8.

One thing of note... In all three of these methods (current adjusted standings, the 25.4 average player score multiplier, or your sliding scale multipler), the Top 5 is still the top 5 in some order (lovetotrade, Bellevue, Toine Boys, Lucky Strikes, Make Me Some Bacon)... and in all three methods, Webskins is still projected to pick 7th.   So again when you consider that we're all basically at the whims of the lotto, it doesn't matter.

One potential complication that could arise from this method...   I trade you my pick when I have 50 missed games.  I then sabotage the pick by exceeding 100 missed games... the multiplier skyrockets and you end up getting a pick that receives a heavy penalty.   So yeah... it would probably do more harm than good.
 

[indeedproceed]

The whole concept of sabatoging picks is like one of those things that shouldn't need to be addressed because people shouldnt be jerks,  but it might 'need to be addressed' because...well you know

[yall hate]

I'm not smart enough to talk about the games missed math calculations so I will leave that to others.  I always thought adjusted standings only impacted certain teams, not all.  But my eyes tend to glaze over when it is discussed, so I leave that to the rest of the league.

I saw a few people mention DL spots.  I am VERY opposed to that --- and I believe it has been discussed and shot down before.  This is a huge league, the waiver wire is not devoid of players, but at times it can be bare.  If we further expand (already large) rosters, we simply further deplete the prospective talent on the waiver wire.  [and since everytime this comes up, someone suggests a "n/a" spot for d-league guys or euros ---- this also is a terrible idea, in my opinion].