Just want to get a consensus on whether we should allow cut players during the FA draft to be immediatley draftable or if they should go into the WW pool.
WW pool. Seems weird to give an edge to someone who drafts right after someone making dumb cuts.
bungle613 wrote:
aaawall91 wrote:Thrifty makes valid points. I'm not opposed to the drafting of players cut during the draft
I have to think you mean you are now on the side of NOT being able to draft players cut during the draft.
Yes, thrifty makes good points. The counter?
During our rookie draft, the situation changed as the draft progressed. Rumors, reports and OTAs deluged us with info. Thomas Jones and Leon Washington held out, Matthew Stafford was at one point nearly a starter, as was Josh Freeman, Westbrook had surgery again, Le'Ron McClain moved back to FB... FF trades up, back and out of the draft. Players were perceived to have fallen in the draft and some scrambled to scoop them up. If I make a bad drafting decision, the person behind me can reap the reward. If the person ahead of me cuts someone who is better than who I think is the best remaining FA, I should be able to take advantage of that as well.
Kareighuis wrote: Yes, thrifty makes good points. The counter?
During our rookie draft, the situation changed as the draft progressed. Rumors, reports and OTAs deluged us with info. Thomas Jones and Leon Washington held out, Matthew Stafford was at one point nearly a starter, as was Josh Freeman, Westbrook had surgery again, Le'Ron McClain moved back to FB... FF trades up, back and out of the draft. Players were perceived to have fallen in the draft and some scrambled to scoop them up. If I make a bad drafting decision, the person behind me can reap the reward. If the person ahead of me cuts someone who is better than who I think is the best remaining FA, I should be able to take advantage of that as well.
The underlined portion.
Yes you shoudl be able to take advantage of that. But if I am in front of Team B, and i pass because the remaining FA are guys i don't think will improve my roster, and then Team B cuts a guy that is better than somone on my roster, a guy I would have drafted had Tema B not already had him rostered, I am pissed if Team C drafts him next.
All teams have a shot at all FA. When you cna draft a guy who just got cut, not everybody had the same shot at him. Draft position is different, value falling etc... This is me making a decision b/c somebody was ON A ROSTER. I should not be punished, for these reasons.
1. I was picking first, so my team was worse. 2. I passed because the remaining FA are guys I don't think provide any more upside than the guys I have already. 3. Then a guy got cut. This was not an issue in the rookie draft, we couldn't draft guys who were cut b/c they weren't rookies.
Look, if you are right behind the owner that makes a bad cut, great. But then a team that is farther back in the order gets to upgrade their team even more b/c of an owner's bad decision? No. Simply no. If you want players cut DURING the draft to be draftable, then I think the people before should get to say, "wow, I would have taken that guy over a) the guy I took or b) pass my turn." It simply is not a fair way to deal with it.
Fourth and Inches (Dynasty) Zealots: 4, 39, 56 Cafe Very Special Forces (Dynasty) General Manager Wannabees Frozen Tundra (Dynasty)
Kareighuis wrote: Yes, thrifty makes good points. The counter?
Yes you shoudl be able to take advantage of that. But if I am in front of Team B, and i pass because the remaining FA are guys i don't think will improve my roster, and then Team B cuts a guy that is better than somone on my roster, a guy I would have drafted had Tema B not already had him rostered, I am pissed if Team C drafts him next.
All teams have a shot at all FA. When you cna draft a guy who just got cut, not everybody had the same shot at him. Draft position is different, value falling etc... This is me making a decision b/c somebody was ON A ROSTER. I should not be punished, for these reasons.
1. I was picking first, so my team was worse. 2. I passed because the remaining FA are guys I don't think provide any more upside than the guys I have already. 3. Then a guy got cut. This was not an issue in the rookie draft, we couldn't draft guys who were cut b/c they weren't rookies.
Look, if you are right behind the owner that makes a bad cut, great. But then a team that is farther back in the order gets to upgrade their team even more b/c of an owner's bad decision? No. Simply no. If you want players cut DURING the draft to be draftable, then I think the people before should get to say, "wow, I would have taken that guy over a) the guy I took or b) pass my turn." It simply is not a fair way to deal with it.
This is true, but there is no perfect way of doing it. If you set it up to be leaning one way its leaning away from someone else. As you say that if team b picks up a player that makes his team better then team c picks that player up with the thought of making his team better and team a don't get a fair chance at that same player then team a can always trade position with team c-d-f- or g. Plus who ever team c drops will be available to the next and not team b. It all comes out in the wash. I went back to last year and added up all the waiver's i put in on all my teams it was 32. I got two of them. I do not have the top teams. The waivers went to owners that sit at the puter all day as i am working and i don't see them until after they are taken. This is not fair either but its what i accept and play with. Its part of the overall game. If you make the rules to favor one guy the others getthe down fall. Simply there is no perfect way. Make a ruleing and lets move on.
I'm going to give this debate until Saturday to get resolved. If no one else chimes in it will be cut players go into the waiver wire pool. I have PM'd everyone who has not voted on the topic.
Kareighuis wrote: Yes, thrifty makes good points. The counter?
Yes you shoudl be able to take advantage of that. But if I am in front of Team B, and i pass because the remaining FA are guys i don't think will improve my roster, and then Team B cuts a guy that is better than somone on my roster, a guy I would have drafted had Tema B not already had him rostered, I am pissed if Team C drafts him next.
All teams have a shot at all FA. When you cna draft a guy who just got cut, not everybody had the same shot at him. Draft position is different, value falling etc... This is me making a decision b/c somebody was ON A ROSTER. I should not be punished, for these reasons.
1. I was picking first, so my team was worse. 2. I passed because the remaining FA are guys I don't think provide any more upside than the guys I have already. 3. Then a guy got cut. This was not an issue in the rookie draft, we couldn't draft guys who were cut b/c they weren't rookies.
Look, if you are right behind the owner that makes a bad cut, great. But then a team that is farther back in the order gets to upgrade their team even more b/c of an owner's bad decision? No. Simply no. If you want players cut DURING the draft to be draftable, then I think the people before should get to say, "wow, I would have taken that guy over a) the guy I took or b) pass my turn." It simply is not a fair way to deal with it.
This is true, but there is no perfect way of doing it. If you set it up to be leaning one way its leaning away from someone else. As you say that if team b picks up a player that makes his team better then team c picks that player up with the thought of making his team better and team a don't get a fair chance at that same player then team a can always trade position with team c-d-f- or g. Plus who ever team c drops will be available to the next and not team b. It all comes out in the wash. I went back to last year and added up all the waiver's i put in on all my teams it was 32. I got two of them. I do not have the top teams. The waivers went to owners that sit at the puter all day as i am working and i don't see them until after they are taken. This is not fair either but its what i accept and play with. Its part of the overall game. If you make the rules to favor one guy the others getthe down fall. Simply there is no perfect way. Make a ruleing and lets move on.
Waivers should not be contingent on "sitting on your computer". We had a lockout period for waivers and the teams with worse records got first crack. You actually got 4 claims accepted, I had 5. Not sure where you found the total attempts made.
There have not been enough compelling arguments to make me change my mind about the cut players so unless some votes get in here for it to happen, it won't pass.
It is just doesn't make any sense to me to allow a dropped player ot be instantly added. I have never played in a league that allowed it. Why would we allow it during the FA draft when we don't allow it during the regular season?
Well first of all i only show 2 and i did not look at which league they were in, both could have been this one. But that is not the meaning of my statement. Maybe i was not clear in how i put it down but what i am saying is no way is perfect. If you change it you need a overwhelming reason because what ever you change will hurt someone else. React causes reaction. Right now i have no idea how anything is being done and i am starting to not care. I'll sit back and not say anything (because its always critized if its different)and try to see how it is later.
redfox33 wrote:Well first of all i only show 2 and i did not look at which league they were in, both could have been this one. But that is not the meaning of my statement. Maybe i was not clear in how i put it down but what i am saying is no way is perfect. If you change it you need a overwhelming reason because what ever you change will hurt someone else. React causes reaction. Right now i have no idea how anything is being done and i am starting to not care. I'll sit back and not say anything (because its always critized if its different)and try to see how it is later.
Not criticizing you at all Red, please don't take it that way. I just looked up your claims and 4 were processed for our league. We're not changing anything really, just figuring out how to do it for the first time.
I am being more lenient then I usually would be for a couple reasons. IT is a dynasty league so it is the long haul. Both myself and all of you kind of got left with this league without everything being thought through as we are experiencing now.
My position is that cut players will not be draftable unless a majority vote for it. I am just allowing that process to work. I think you and Thrifty (for one) would prefer to just have decisions made and move on, not a good way to do things in a dynasty league but I understand hy you want it. Most times I would like to do that myself.
This will be over in another day. Bare with me (us)
Kareighuis wrote:If I make a bad drafting decision, the person behind me can reap the reward. If the person ahead of me cuts someone who is better than who I think is the best remaining FA, I should be able to take advantage of that as well.
Look, if you are right behind the owner that makes a bad cut, great. But then a team that is farther back in the order gets to upgrade their team even more b/c of an owner's bad decision? No. Simply no. If you want players cut DURING the draft to be draftable, then I think the people before should get to say, "wow, I would have taken that guy over a) the guy I took or b) pass my turn." It simply is not a fair way to deal with it.
Yes, and if it goes by waiver, the teams with the higher priorities, such as myself, Joey7, and yourself, will have a competitive advantage. Some would call that an unfair advantage.
redfox33 wrote:There is no perfect way of doing it. If you set it up to be leaning one way its leaning away from someone else. As you say that if team b picks up a player that makes his team better then team c picks that player up with the thought of making his team better and team a don't get a fair chance at that same player then team a can always trade position with team c-d-f- or g. Plus who ever team c drops will be available to the next and not team b. It all comes out in the wash. I went back to last year and added up all the waiver's i put in on all my teams it was 32. I got two of them. I do not have the top teams. The waivers went to owners that sit at the puter all day as i am working and i don't see them until after they are taken. This is not fair either but its what i accept and play with. Its part of the overall game. If you make the rules to favor one guy the others getthe down fall. Simply there is no perfect way. Make a ruleing and lets move on.
Redfox is right- there is no way to make it completely level. It will lean slightly one way or another. I can come up with ways that make it rather even for all parties, but I keep running into another consideration I believe is central- simplicity. We could set up a 100$ waiver money thing, but that personally seems unnecessarily complicated. As LS2 said-
LS2throwed wrote:I'm also HEAVILY in favor of the blind bidding waivers that flea flicker implented this year, 100$ budget most likely, when you run out you can't claim anymore, I think that would be a great addition versus the traditional rolling waivers.
For whatever it's worth, we're talking about end-of-the-benchers, like Muhsin Muhammad and Peyton Hillis.
Instinctive wrote:I was picking first, so my team was worse.
Can we get a thread up that lists the FA drafting order? I was under the impression Joey7 would go first, since his team went 0-13 in 2008.
Bungle wrote:Joey Seven will be first on the clock.
My personal tally of who have voted for "players cut during the FA draft are immediately draftable"- Yes- Kareighuis, Redfox, LS2throwed No- Bungle, Instinctive, thriftyrocker, mikus and then there's aaawall- it seems he's voting no... and yes.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by bungle613 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:22 pm 
