Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: Trading picks/Playoff roster moves

[Roy H.]

Makes sense.

And I put forward that if anyone fails to make their decision by the new date our erstwhile commissioner should just make best-judgement cuts.

Unless we want to go so far as to replace anybody who misses the deadline?

I was thinking that I might solicit opinions from the rest of the league in the event that I am forced to make some difficult decisions.

Anyone who misses the deadline will certainly go into the season with a strike against him. And with a compressed season, I think two strikes is grounds for replacement.

I think this fair, in a shortened season we should expect a certain amount of participation.

True, although I'm not necessarily in favor of a bright line rule here.

For instance, last season, toward the beginning of the year, Lucky checked in on me multiple times about my inactivity.  I wouldn't call it a warning, but it was definitely a reminder that I needed to get on the ball.

In my case, I'd had my honeymoon, and was swamped at work.  Fantasy basketball was an afterthought, and honestly, it should have been.  I don't want to see a GM who has been a member of the league for three or four years get booted just because he goes through a stretch (even if it's multiple months) where they're absolutely swamped.  I think you have to look at the totality of circumstances, and the GM's history.  If somebody has been a good GM for a few years, I think we should cut them some slack, even if they're not as active as we might like.

Of course, who knows?  Maybe the league would be better off if Lucky was a bit more of a heavy-handed totalitarian, booting the future league champion.

[Roy H.]

So, with three weeks until cutdown day, are there any rule changes we should discuss / put up for a vote?

[hpantazo]

Makes sense.

And I put forward that if anyone fails to make their decision by the new date our erstwhile commissioner should just make best-judgement cuts.

Unless we want to go so far as to replace anybody who misses the deadline?

I was thinking that I might solicit opinions from the rest of the league in the event that I am forced to make some difficult decisions.

Anyone who misses the deadline will certainly go into the season with a strike against him. And with a compressed season, I think two strikes is grounds for replacement.

I think this fair, in a shortened season we should expect a certain amount of participation.

True, although I'm not necessarily in favor of a bright line rule here.

For instance, last season, toward the beginning of the year, Lucky checked in on me multiple times about my inactivity.  I wouldn't call it a warning, but it was definitely a reminder that I needed to get on the ball.

In my case, I'd had my honeymoon, and was swamped at work.  Fantasy basketball was an afterthought, and honestly, it should have been.  I don't want to see a GM who has been a member of the league for three or four years get booted just because he goes through a stretch (even if it's multiple months) where they're absolutely swamped.  I think you have to look at the totality of circumstances, and the GM's history.  If somebody has been a good GM for a few years, I think we should cut them some slack, even if they're not as active as we might like.

Of course, who knows?  Maybe the league would be better off if Lucky was a bit more of a heavy-handed totalitarian, booting the future league champion.

I fully agree with this. While it is important to check on any innactive gms, those who have already established themselves as active gms should have some cred when fantasy bball takes a backseat to life or work or both, as sometimes it should.

[Lucky17]

So, with three weeks until cutdown day, are there any rule changes we should discuss / put up for a vote?

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

2. Trading future picks on draft day: currently, it's not allowed. I am not in favor of a change, but others have expressed some desire to allow for trading a draft day pick for a future pick.

[hpantazo]

So, with three weeks until cutdown day, are there any rule changes we should discuss / put up for a vote?

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

2. Trading future picks on draft day: currently, it's not allowed. I am not in favor of a change, but others have expressed some desire to allow for trading a draft day pick for a future pick.

regarding #1, I'm fine either way, although I'm leaning towards 2 moves per week

for #2, I'm fully behind allowing the trading of future picks on draft day

[Lucky17]

As for addressing inactivity, I fully agree that RL should take precedent. However, all GMs have the ability to designate a co-GM. And it's not difficult to set a lineup days, if not weeks, in advance. At the very least, an email or post to the league board would go a long way to alleviating my concerns when suspecting a GM has gone inactive.

In Roy's case, I sent the email because I don't play favorites. Of course, I had no substantive fears that Roy had checked out of the league; I knew he'd, at the very least, let me know if he could no longer play.

My philosophy: the integrity and quality of play in any fantasy league suffers when even a single team's GM has gone inactive. It gives a team an easy win, week to week, and also removes players from the pool of possible trade targets for more active managers. And, of course, it begs the question of tanking, which all of us, I think, can agree is a detriment to the league.

[Roy H.]

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

I like having only one.  Why not a compromise?  One move per week for any player, and another move in the case of injury only?

I mean, what's the need, other than injury, for guys to stream players in during the playoffs?  Allowing 2 moves per week allows up to 8 guys who weren't contributors during the season at all to be the difference maker in a playoff series.  This punishes deep teams, who don't want to cut their bottom 2 players to stream, while rewarding teams that attempt to game the system.  Where's the fun in that?  It just seems against the spirit of fantasy sports / a keeper league, where it's all about building a great team for the long haul.

2. Trading future picks on draft day: currently, it's not allowed. I am not in favor of a change, but others have expressed some desire to allow for trading a draft day pick for a future pick.

I think that trading the next year's pick on draft day should be allowed.  Typically, the two biggest periods of trade activity are the trading deadline and draft day, so I think giving GMs a little more ammunition is good.  However, I agree that there shouldn't be trades allowed before the current draft (basically, picks can never be traded more than one year into the future).

My thought is that if draft picks are allowed to be included in trades at all other times after the draft, then extending that privilege to the actual day of the draft is harmless.

I'd recommend we change the rule, and see how it goes at next year's draft.  By that time, we will have replaced any inactive managers, so the Ted Stepian rule should be of less importance.

[barefacedmonk]

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

I like having only one.  Why not a compromise?  One move per week for any player, and another move in the case of injury only?

I would go with no moves during the playoffs with injury to a player being the only exception.

[fairweatherfan]

So, with three weeks until cutdown day, are there any rule changes we should discuss / put up for a vote?

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

2. Trading future picks on draft day: currently, it's not allowed. I am not in favor of a change, but others have expressed some desire to allow for trading a draft day pick for a future pick.

I think one move per week is fine in the playoffs, although as Roy suggested, maybe allow a one-time injury exception (you can replace one injured player during the playoffs without using your roster move).  To insure the player is legitimately hurt, they have to have missed one full game before the exception can be used.

Trading future draft picks is something I'm completely for, as long as it's one season in the future.  Maybe start allowing them 1-2 days before the draft so they don't have to be last-second deals.

[hpantazo]

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

I like having only one.  Why not a compromise?  One move per week for any player, and another move in the case of injury only?

I would go with no moves during the playoffs with injury to a player being the only exception.

the only part about an inured player exception that I'm unsure of is how easy it is to implement in in yahoo without having Lucky be responsible for processing every such move. I guess that's up to the commish though.

[Roy H.]

Two come to mind:

1. Cap on roster moves during the playoffs: currently, it's one per week. With the compressed schedule, I wonder if two per week might be better?

I like having only one.  Why not a compromise?  One move per week for any player, and another move in the case of injury only?

I would go with no moves during the playoffs with injury to a player being the only exception.

Yeah, I'm fine with that.  I definitely prefer fewer moves over more moves.

[Lucky17]

Birdman/GC, check your PMs.

[hpantazo]

first post lockout deal is awaiting commish's approval, 2nd one may be in the works

[hpantazo]

first post lockout deal is awaiting commish's approval, 2nd one may be in the works

2nd one is done, pending approval of the 1st one

[barefacedmonk]

first post lockout deal is awaiting commish's approval, 2nd one may be in the works

2nd one is done, pending approval of the 1st one

Wrong thread.