MaveROCK
My feedback
8 results found
-
14th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Great idea!
MaveROCK
supported this idea
·
-
6th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
How has this idea not garnered more support? Terrific idea!
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Yahoo!,
Any thoughts on this suggestion?
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Yes, yes, yes! I have been wanting this for YEARS! In my leagues, there is always at least 1 or 2 transactions where Owners/GMs would like to make multi-team trades and it's just not possible with the current set-up. We have done it numerous times by sending parts of the trade at a time, but that is super cumbersome and takes twice as long for the GMs to get their final pieces of the deal...
To me, this feature is nearly a must...it's as important as Draft Pick trading when that was introduced.
MaveROCK
supported this idea
·
-
2nd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous,
Thank God you don't work for Yahoo! caused you'd be fired by now. People are referencing ESPN or CBS because they are far superior to Yahoo! in some aspects - it is not to show adoration for them or belittle Yahoo!, but rather to help our preferred fantasy sports destination improve in all areas of the game and keep players here.
Come on...use some common sense.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous,
I'm a Commissioner in 3 leagues and I still track Keepers via spreadsheet. However, some people have real, full-time jobs and it's difficult to micro-manage a FANTASY league 365 days a year...we are simply asking for better tools to make lives easier.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Yahoo!,
Any thoughts on this suggestion?
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Absolutely necessary...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
B,
You are a genius, my friend...we need to get into a League together! I'm currently Commissioner of 3 leagues for hockey and football. Contact me if you're interested in joining any of them...
(I think this is the same person that I've shared numerous threads with)
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
As an update, I just completed a pre-season trade in my Keeper League with another Owner, but I was forced to notify the rest of the League via text message and then MANUALLY update the Draft Order by swapping the appropriate Draft Picks. It's a lot of hassle for a very simple feature...
So, has there been any traction on this?
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
This is essential! I'd been wanting Draft Pick Trades forever and then it was finally available; however, it seems severely flawed that they would not be allowed BEFORE or DURING a Draft being conducted!
Draft Pick Trades (any trades for that matter) completed prior to the Draft would be subject to the same rules as in-season trades...
-
3rd ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Here's a great topic on the subject:
MaveROCK
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Jose - Nobody is implying that this should be a Yahoo! Default Setting or that EVERY LEAGUE needs to impose limits. However, it works best in some Leagues and Commissioners around the world would find value in having this as an OPTION.
If you don't like limits, then don't sign up for a league that has them...and most other sites do, in fact. CBS has them. ESPN has them. Nobody cries.
The whole point of having a "Commissioner" is to police the teams that refuse to police themselves - we should have ultimate power to enforce any guidelines that help improve the league or maintain competitive balance. You want Commissioners to "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players" when in reality, that's an impossible feat. You know how a Commissioner can "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players", though?
Limits.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - I agree. It would work in either scenario!
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
Also, if you're drafting an RB that has a high likelihood of being cut from a roster entirely (as your 3rd or 4th RB), then you're doing something very wrong!
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Some GMs will select and/or pick-up 5-7 RBs that aren't even starters...generally, the term is "hand-cuff" players, but many of these guys aren't even back-ups to the Owner's starter. And, the only advantage it has for that particular Owner is a monopoly on a crucial position, whereas if there were a limit that player might be available to another Owner if his starter gets injured...
Prime example(s): Maurice Jones-Drew was a Top 5 RB going into last season and his ADP was at worst a 2nd Round Pick (due to holdout concerns). So, many people drafted Rashad Jennings just to have him "in case" MJD missed a few games, but in reality had no plans of actually inserting him into the starting lineup. What happened? MJD played on opening night, but nobody dropped Jennings because they didn't need to...it was better having him as an RB5 than a back-up Kicker, right? Well, MJD gets hurt and misses the rest of the season...now, the Owner who wasted a high pick on him has no chance to replace his injured player with a legitimate starter.
Another one, Ahmad Bradshaw (Mr. Glass) was drafted as an RB2 for many teams, but he's injury-prone so other GMs who know that decided to draft David Wilson or Andre Brown as their RB5/RB6 with no intention of ever playing them. Ahmad Bradshaw suffered through another injury-prone season, but the GMs who drafted him were left out in the cold because Bradshaw's replacement was already on a roster from Day 1...
How is that fair or strategic advantage? If there was a limit on the amount of players per position, GMs would actually have to make tough choices between using up their 5th and final RB spot on a legitimate player now or saving it incase they need to pick-up an injury replacement later. You know, GMs would have to actually be "strategic" instead of "hoarding" a prime position with 0 intention of ever playing that player...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options.
By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Can you all PLEASE talk some sense into the idiots that have posted in this thread:
People are actually suggesting this option would make Yahoo! fantasy football worse...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Suggested Default Roster Position Limits:
QB - 3
RB - 5
WR - 6
TE - 3
K - 3
DEF - 390% of GMs would never even notice there was a Position Limit on their roster...in Standard Leagues, there is no need to have more than 5 RBs on one roster at any given time. Even if every Owner carried the max, that's 50 RBs that are taken!
At that point, you're holding onto pure back-up RBs in the off-chance their starter gets hurt...GMs need to be more active on the Waiver Wire, rather than relying on Draft Day to hoard every possible worthwhile RB over the course of a season.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Jim - Very good point! However, easily solved...as a Commissioner, Yahoo! limits you to which settings can be edited Pre-Draft Only or All Season.
For instance, I can change the League's Trade Deadline all season, but I can only remove a Roster Position Pre-Draft. I'd presume that Roster Limits would only be editable Pre-Draft...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Adding a second QB slot or reducing the bench is never going to solve the true problem - hoarding players. People need to stop finding convoluted solutions to a simple problem.
In 90% of Leagues (even with Default values), GMs would never feel the effects of this change, but why shouldn't private league Commissioners have the option? People are so averse to change that they freak out and cry - nobody is saying to force this limit onto EVERY league. We just want the option...some leagues probably won't even use it.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
None - Exactly!
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
James - As noted before, I entirely disagree with the "hand-cuff" philosophy and I've had plenty of success avoiding it. Although, that is an entirely different discussion that is irrelevant...
Owners implore the "hand-cuff" method in leagues where RBs are scarce...they are in deep trouble if their starting RB gets injured because the Free Agent pool is shallow (most likely due to GMs hoarding RBs). However, by imposing a limit that reduces the scarcity of RBs, which ultimately reduces the need to "hand-cuff" your starter...
If you don't have to panic or worry about finding a replacement RB for your injured starter, wouldn't you rather use that spot on a player who might actually contribute to your team's points on a weekly basis? I would.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Refer to my previous breakdown:
Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF
RBs Per Team: 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 46 RBs? REALLY? 3 teams carry 6 RBs? Extreme. I'm not advocating setting a 3-RB limit, but 4 or even 5 is more than sufficient.
Let's say in my League, I set a 4-RB limit (double the starting positions)...that means only 8 more RBs would be available and only 5 teams would be affected.
Now, in any league with a W/R/T Flex Position, I'd say a 5-RB limit is a good setting...in that case, only 3 additional RBs would be available and only 3 teams would be affected.
Would that severely alter the League? No. It would, however, free up a few more players at a very important, but scarce position and promote competitive balance. It would also reward GMs who are active, which is a great benefit.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - So, let me get this straight...you're against the "Roster Limit" option because it favors more active Owners?? Do you see how flawed that is?
Also, as I've stated before, there is NO REASON for more than 40 total RBs to be rostered at a given time. Even with time-shares, there are generally 40 relevant RBs at any given time...some more so than others, obviously. So, yeah...do a little work. Do your research. Find the guy more likely to play and roster him. Don't keep Marcus Lattimore on the roster incase Gore and Hyde die in a plane crash...even with day-to-day injuries, having 4 RBs on your roster is PLENTY over the course of a season. I always carry 3 RBs and I've never had a problem.
Are you desperate? Are your Top 3 injured/on a BYE? Drop your 5th WR. Drop your 2nd DEF. Drop your 2nd QB. Drop your Kicker. I just gave you 4 solutions to your dire problem...or better yet, make a trade! Be active.
In your scenario, that guy "sitting with his computer in his lap ready to pounce on whatever RB looks promising for the next week" still exists. Except, he has 6 RBs on his roster and nobody else can get them...yet he only starts 2 RBs each week. Does that seem fair?
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Jose - Don't be an idiot. 2-QB Leagues are terrible and simply do not work. Adding additional roster positions in hopes that it alters a GMs philosophy is a juvenile and contrived solution.
To be honest, making that statement and being adamantly against change at all shows a much more stubborn and "already set their minds that they are right" mentality.
Nobody is implying that this should be a Yahoo! Default Setting or that EVERY LEAGUE needs to impose limits. However, it works best in some Leagues and Commissioners around the world would find value in having this as an OPTION.
If you don't like limits, then don't sign up for a league that has them...and most other sites do, in fact. CBS has them. ESPN has them. Nobody cries.
The whole point of having a "Commissioner" is to police the teams that refuse to police themselves - we should have ultimate power to enforce any guidelines that help improve the league or maintain competitive balance. You want Commissioners to "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players" when in reality, that's an impossible feat. You know how a Commissioner can "cause their managers to draft a different mix of players", though?
Limits.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - You are incorrect. In fact, I am 100% taking into account the injury-rate of RBs in my analysis...
However, I disagree that each team needs to have a stable of 3 "injury-replacement" RBs on their active roster because odds are that 90% of those guys will never actually be used in their starting lineup. Unfortunately, for the teams that do suffer a season-altering injury to one of the most crucial positions in the league, they are out-of-luck if they didn't "guess right" or hoard RBs at all because the FA pool is completely depleted.
Additionally, in my League there is much more balanced scoring than most - there isn't a single FB scoring more points than a starting WR. And, majority of the time a timeshare RB scores less than a starting WR. However, there is a common philosophy of "you need 10 RBs to win a fantasy football championship!" and many people go overboard with it.
In regards to adding a second starting QB, you weren't serious about that, right? First of all, a change like that would have an EXTREME impact on the complexion of the League. Second of all, I have tried a 2-QB system previously (2003) and it simply doesn't work.
Why should a Commissioner be forced to alter their League Settings to a clearly inferior method to hopefully alter a GMs roster philosophy? It's a very convoluted solution to a simple problem...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
I haven't been here in awhile, but let me respond to some of the comments made to my earlier posts...
Anonymous - No, I do not follow the "hand-cuff" philosophy. I don't know about you, but I don't draft a player anticipating he'll be injured. As I stated previously, though, injuries do happen and under the current rules it's nearly impossible to find an adequate replacement from the Waiver Wire because teams are hoarding back-up RBs (nearly 10 total!) throughout the league. Why would somebody want to take up a perfectly good roster spot on a guy who will never play unless somebody else breaks their leg? "Hand-cuffing" is and always will be a flawed strategy - I want to use that valuable spot on a player who actually sees game action on a regular basis. I'm not sure if you know this, but the Free Agent pool is actually a tool designed to hold replacement players...in the event of injury or poor production. Why diminish its worth?
In 9 seasons, I have made the Championship game 5 times and finished Top 2 in the Regular Season 4 times...yet I have never implored the "hand-cuff" strategy. It's unnecessary.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Klondike,
You know what happens when you ASSUME, right? You make an *** out of U and ME...so, I wouldn't go around assuming. Everybody is entitled to join or not join a league based on their preferences - why shouldn't somebody on the other side of the spectrum have the right to their own preferences then?
QBs are most valuable in my leagues from a sheer points standpoint, but most teams only roster 2 QBs. Why? Well, because of the starting roster positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF. Pretty standard. And, based on your "theory" that would mean players would load up on QBs (since they're more valuable), but have a balanced amount of RBs and WRs. In fact, in my leagues, RBs and WRs are valued nearly equally, yet people hoard RBs over WRs...
Unfortunately, what you're not realizing is that it has NOTHING to do with fantasy league "value" and everything to do with real-world scarcity. I cannot control the fact that most teams have ONE primary RB and some teams have TWO serviceable RBs on the roster at any given time, while most teams have TWO primary WRs and THREE or FOUR serviceable WRs on the active roster. Therefore, WRs are nowhere near as scarce as RBs, which means teams don't feel the need to hoard them in case their starting WR gets injured. However, GMs tend to hoard RBs (even back-ups, as mentioned below) in the off chance that their already scarce starting RB gets injured...there's no strategy in that and it doesn't "hurt" the team because that bench position would be filled by a guy who'd probably never enter their starting lineup anyway.
Additionally, limiting the total RB slots to 4 wouldn't "hurt" anybody either...it would simply allow for more readily available options via Waiver Wire and if a team's starting RB gets hurt, they'd have replacement options without having to hoard one for the entire season. Also, nobody said the limits would be static - it would be entirely upto the Commissioner running the league and Yahoo! could even default it to something extreme like 6 or default to NO LIMIT. It wouldn't change anything for majority of Yahoo! leagues unless the Commissioner felt it was necessary.
People are averse to change and I understand that, but simply being a stubborn idiot and saying, "I don't like that!" because you've never used it before is asinine. It's definitely no reason to prevent the OPTION of letting others use a given feature...I can almost guarantee that you'd barely notice it in any league unless the Commissioner was obviously abusing the feature, but at that point it's probably not a league you wanna be part of regardless.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Here's a breakdown of the issue in that same league...
Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, FLEX (W/R/T), TE, K, DEF
RBs Per Team: 3, 4, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 4So, in a 10-team league, there are 47 RBs that are owned - does that seem fair and balanced? On average, each team owns nearly 5 RBs (4.7)! Considering each NFL team starts 1 RB and a small minority will timeshare 2 RBs at most, that means there are roughly 32-40 legitimate fantasy RBs available. However, with 47 RBs being owned in a league that means there's AT LEAST 7-10 back-up RBs being hoarded, which is ridiculous!
In theory, even if the Position Limit at RB in this league was set to 4 it would affect 5 out of 10 teams. Furthermore, this would ensure that there would be at least 8 more RBs available for those teams or the rest of the league via the Waiver Wire and I'm willing to bet they'd be, at best, borderline options...at least there would still be options available, though.
Nobody is saying roster positions should be limited to only the starting positions, but it does help ensure a more robust Free Agent pool to have Roster Limits - even if it's only 5-10 more players at a given position. It forces GMs to actually make tough decisions and be SMART about their roster moves, rather than simply hoard an RB "in case" he becomes relevant...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Examples of "hoarded" RBs in my 10-team league:
Benny Cunningham (StL - RB)
Roy Helu Jr. (Was - RB)
Bernard Pierce (Bal - RB)
Montee Ball (Den - RB)
Bobby Rainey (TB - RB)
Joique Bell (Det - RB)
Jacquizz Rodgers (Atl - RB)Should ANY of those players be on an active roster? Probably not. However, if somebody's primary starter suffers a career-ending injury, the Waiver Wire is very slim because even the borderline players are being hoarded on rosters already!
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
As I stated before, ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options. By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
For all the dolts clamoring that this is unnecessary or limits "strategy" in hoarding players (asinine in and of itself), you need to realize that this would be a Commissioner option and it wouldn't limit the roster positions so much that it's impossible to be strategic or even have adequate contingency plans. It would be set (just as regular roster positions are) to help prevent unnecessary hoarding of players at crucial positions and would be upto the Commissioner how tightly or loosely to restrict GMs...
I've been playing fantasy football on Yahoo! since 2003 and I run 3 leagues per season every year as a Commissioner - I never miss a Live Draft and am super competitive throughout the entire season. However, injuries are a major part of this game - if I drafted my roster for balance (sufficient back-ups at each position) and my starting RB was injured (example: LeSean McCoy for much of last season) mid-season, I would have ZERO options on the Waiver Wire because Bryce Brown was being hoarded for 8 weeks (along with numerous borderline/back-up/timeshare RBs)!
Also, for those who say it's a great strategy for trade that's not necessarily true because often times GMs ask WAY too much for their players in trade, which actually makes trading near impossible.
Lastly, some people mentioned that "hoarding position players will hurt the team in question because they'd be weak at other positions" and that is flat out not true. In order to give the ENTIRE LEAGUE a decent-sized bench to ensure they can build a solid roster with adequate back-ups, there are more than enough slots for an Owner to ditch a back-up TE, K, or DEF and simply stock up at RB. How does that hurt him if they never start their back-up TE, K, or DEF and their starter doesn't get hurt? Limits are simply to ensure GMs don't hoard crucial positions - again, at the Commissioner's discretion. If you don't like it, then don't set it for your league - there's no reason to exclude an OPTIONAL setting simply because you'd never use it or don't want to be limited.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Hmm...those ******** are "s t r i n g e r".
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Anonymous - What is a more valuable 3rd ******** to you...QB, RB, WR, TE, K, or DEF? In fantasy football, of course, where 3rd ******** means the back-up to your top bench player at a given position (QB3, RB4, WR5, etc.)...(Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF).
Most GMs would say RB4 has the higher value and could care less about QB3 or WR5...now, add a Flex and RB5 becomes even more valuable than those, which is exactly why guys hoard RBs. It does not make their roster suffer to hoard an RB4/RB5 instead of a WR5 cause there are far less RBs that see action than WRs! It's far easier to find an injury replacement for WR via Free Agency cause they're not being stock-piled.
And, my whole point is that you wouldn't be able to fill an injury hole with your 5th RB cause you wouldn't have one when other teams roster 5 or 6 RBs! Luckily, though, there'd be more options at RB available via Free Agency cause there'd only be 40 RBs taken MAX (in a 10-team league) with a position limit of 4...as opposed to 50-60 RBs taken without a position limit.
Besides, it would be an option to have position limits...the Commissioner could choose not to impose one and life would go on as it is now. Limitless.
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Clark - It's not just about issues during the draft. Some GMs will select and/or pick-up 5-7 RBs that aren't even starters...generally, the term is "hand-cuff" players, but many of these guys aren't even back-ups to the Owner's starter. And, the only advantage it has for that particular Owner is a monopoly on a crucial position, whereas if there were a limit that player might be available to another Owner if his starter gets injured...
Prime example(s): Maurice Jones-Drew was a Top 5 RB going into last season and his ADP was at worst a 2nd Round Pick (due to holdout concerns). So, many people drafted Rashad Jennings just to have him "in case" MJD missed a few games, but in reality had no plans of actually inserting him into the starting lineup. What happened? MJD played on opening night, but nobody dropped Jennings because they didn't need to...it was better having him as an RB5 than a back-up Kicker, right? Well, MJD gets hurt and misses the rest of the season...now, the Owner who wasted a high pick on him has no chance to replace his injured player with a legitimate starter.
Another one, Ahmad Bradshaw (Mr. Glass) was drafted as an RB2 for many teams, but he's injury-prone so other GMs who know that decided to draft David Wilson or Andre Brown as their RB5/RB6 with no intention of ever playing them. Ahmad Bradshaw suffered through another injury-prone season, but the GMs who drafted him were left out in the cold because Bradshaw's replacement was already on a roster from Day 1...
How is that fair or strategic advantage? If there was a limit on the amount of players per position, GMs would actually have to make tough choices between using up their 5th and final RB spot on a legitimate player now or saving it incase they need to pick-up an injury replacement later. You know, GMs would have to actually be "strategic" instead of "hoarding" a prime position with 0 intention of ever playing that player...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
I agree. ESPN allows this functionality...it helps to prevent a guy from stockpiling a crucial position and depleting the depth of other teams.
I can see the concerns, but it's upto your Commissioner to ensure it still allows GMs to be strategic. For instance, 4 RBs would be PLENTY for a team (2 starting RBs and no Flex), but many GMs will roster 5 or 6 RBs; thus, limiting other teams RB quality and depleting the Free Agency options. By default, it would work best if the limit was set to 2-3 more than the necessary amount per position (i.e. Starting Positions: QB, RB, RB, WR, WR, WR, TE, K, DEF - Position Limits: 3 QB, 4 RB, 6 WR, 3 TE, 3 K, 3 DEF).
-
9th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Dawg - Draft Day Trades could be monitored/approved by the Commissioner, as I'd assume the League Commissioner would never miss the day of his league's Live Draft...
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
This would be an awesome idea! I'd been wanting Draft Pick Trades forever and then it was finally available; however, it seems severely flawed that they would not be allowed BEFORE or DURING a Draft being conducted!
Simple version:
Allow ONLY an even number of Draft Picks to change teams via trade (standard Draft Pick Trade rules)Advanced Version:
Allow an even number of Draft Picks (standard Draft Pick Trade rules) along with Keepers or already drafted players to change teams via trade (Awesome Version!)In either scenario, as Sam mentions, the Draft would need to pause (30 seconds) for Commissioner to approve (or Owners to vote) the trade and then reset the clock to allow the new team time to make their selection. Auto-drafters would automatically approve and if time expires before Owners vote, trades are approved.
Draft Pick Trades (any trades for that matter) completed prior to the Draft would be subject to the same rules as in-season trades...
MaveROCK
supported this idea
·
-
6th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Yes! Both ideas below would be awesome! I have been a Commissioner of many leagues and on a few occasions we have orchestrated a "three-team trade" within the current rules. However, it is EXTREMELY tedious and a major pain in the butt! Unfortunately, it's cumbersome because no matter what one team has to wait twice as long to get their player (Trade A must process before Trade B can even be proposed before it's accepted and processed) and it's not easy to compare stats/assess what a team is receiving or losing in a three-team trade.
Fantasy Hockey League Example:
Team A Receives: A. McDonald, G. Landeskog, M. St. Louis, J. Eberle, and S. Varlamov, Team A Trades: J. Thornton, J. van Riemsdyk, A. Ovechkin, P. Kessel, and C. Price
Team B Receives: J. van Riemsdyk, A. Ovechkin, P. Kessel, and C. Price, Team B Trades: G. Landeskog, M. St. Louis, J. Skinner, and S. Varlamov
Team C Receives: J. Thornton and J. Skinner, Team C Trades: J. EberleWe had to complete this with 3 separate trades; unfortunately, A. McDonald wasn't even part of the agreement, but in order to make the initial swap between Team A and Team C we needed to include SOMEBODY because we could not complete a three-team trade. Team C was only trading one player and receiving two players in return, but those two players were on separate teams. Terrible.
Also, if a team decides to back out midway through a three-team trade, the already-processed trades can become grossly unfair.
MaveROCK
supported this idea
·
-
1st ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
I've been in leagues like this before and I'm kinda torn on the stat. On one hand, PIMs in real-life hockey are actually a detriment to the team whose player takes a penalty, which I agree should make them a punishment rather than a reward in fantasy hockey as it is in real hockey. However, everybody in the NHL takes penalties (even Ryan O'Rielly) and it does not seem fair for EVERY player in the NHL to be punished on a weekly basis. As well, using PIMs as a cumulative "positive" category opens the player pool up by allowing many more players to have some type of quantitative value that would either be greatly diminished or non-existent if the PIM were to be a negative stat.
A change like this would DRASTICALLY alter the landscape of Yahoo! Fantasy Hockey, though. It would change the value of nearly every player in the league and some players' value would be dramatically reduced (Corey Perry comes to mind immediately, as does Hartnell). Players like O'Rielly and St. Louis would actually see their value increase exponentially, whereas Hartnell and Phaneuf would lose massive value because they often take a ton of PIMs. Also, you would lose the need for a "specialty" player in the PIM category (for instance, one guy in my league drafted Sean Avery every single season for his PIMs alone and this happens quite often for at least one or two teams drafting an NHL tough guy for the category domination).
Personally, when I came from ESPN (who used PIMs as a negative) to Yahoo! it was a major culture shock for me and I was not very happy. However, over the years I am very pleased with PIMs being a "positive" category because it adds another dimension to the stats and gives value to players outside of the pure offensive guys. I don't think it's a good idea having negative categories in fantasy sports because quite frankly, how many fantasy owners want to be PUNISHED in a fake sport? It is a game afterall and we're here to score points, not lose them.
Obviously, the +/- stat comes to mind, but the fundamental difference there is that it's not STRICTLY a punishment...players have the ability to contribute in a positive manner. I would be hesitant to add any negative-only stat categories because it would probably be more frustrating than exciting or fair...imagine being that Owner who LOSES because Hartnell took a 2-minute tripping minor by taking down Crosby on a breakaway. You'd be more frustrated by LOSING points on the last day than by your opponent GAINING points to beat you in the Championship...
In my opinion, if your League is unsatisfied with the way PIMs are a reward rather than punishment, I would suggest your League remove it from the weekly statistical categories entirely. If something is a negative, then it shouldn't be included...that would at least solve your issue of losing the Championship on the last day because the opponent received a major penalty.
-
3rd rankedMaveROCK
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment MaveROCK
commented
Well, the only problem with this is roster size limitations...in order for this to work, the Draft would need to maintain fewer slots than the active roster size or else teams that DON'T return a Draft Pick would be drafting more players than their active roster can actually hold.
How has this idea not garnered more support? Terrific idea!