I apologize for deleting all that stuff about waivers. I was getting seriously frustrated with circular debate. For once and for all, here is what Omar wanted to say, in his words:
i draft John Smith (no more pat burrell) with my 4th round pick
he sucks and i drop him after a month
he is on the trash heap for MONTHS (not a day or 10 seconds)
i pick him up in september
i want to keep him (as a 27th round pick)
under the simple system, since he was on my team to start the year i
would lose a 4th round pick, not a 27th round pick.
thats double jeopardy. we are treating making bad picks like crimes
so i am going to keep the lexicon going. i got punished once (not
getting a good player in the 4th round) so why am i getting punished
AGAIN the next year.
Everybody who feels like answering, answer, but keep it in the comments section so people can still see the poll and vote (only six people have voted, as of last check. i know me, moacir, omar, carter and i'm assuming saud and andy voted... whet, czap, ben, cardarelli?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
How many times a year does someone suck SO much as your high-round pick that you outright cut them, then they get SO good later in the season that you not only want them back but want to KEEP them for the next year? I don't think it's that often. Anyway, to answer your question, it's not double jeopardy. It's *single* jeopardy. What you're calling double jeopardy is actually just a desire to be *rewarded* because your high round pick sucked. You want something for free (the ability to keep what you once thought was a high-round guy in the 27th round) because that same guy turned out to not be worth the pick. Your question is hard to answer because one, it's not that clearly stated (or punctuated), and two, you're making some assumptions that I don't agree with (that making a bad pick consitutes a formal punishment, that 'double jeopardy' is the ne plus ultra of fantasy sports legislative oversight failures). My short answer: A) Every time this VERY RARE thing happens to another GM, you stand to gain by being one of the nine GMs who can keep John Smith as a 27th round, not a 4th rounder. B) This is fair, and not a over-harsh punishment of a bad pick, because allowing someone to keep a guy whose talent they wildly overestimated at the 27th round is a reward -- hardly bare, minimal justice.
I respectively concur with everything the above gentlement stated.
I want to extend his final point just a little. Omar, you are basically questioning the entire keeper system which we already voted on. Maybe you disagreed with it, I don't know how you voted. But, if we accept that drafting well equals, to use your terminology, double benefit, than there is nothing inconsistent with double jeopardy for a bad pick.
I've always been in favor of what you say, Moacir, I think it got defeated via poll though. It makes more sense in terms of "fairness" to have all drafted players from one year carry their draft rating for the entire year. You'll get no argument from me on that.
moacir's issue is the same as me. i don't have a problem with what we voted on, i have an issue with something that RESULTED from what we voted on. My solution (some logging of add/drop) does not throw the baby out with the bathwater as cater suggests. you do make a good point about the double benefit v. double jeopary and for the most part im fine.
i think moacir/pete realize what im talking about and my solution is not to throw out what we voted on but instead to realize it has flaws. i acknowledge it is rare but its still an issue. thats it.
word on the street is ben is out of town so his vote might not come for a few das.
Is this too obvious, or am I missing something?
Why not have everyone announce their keepers, and in the first 5 rounds, everyone picks their keepers. THEN start the draft, business as usual? The new people (I'm assuming its just me?) can choose from the team of the person they are replacing, or they can choose to keep a high pick (which of course they are NOT allowed to take from the declared keepers). Of course, not keeping a keeper is also an option for the older folk who don't like any 5 of their old players, or want to change things up, whatever.
Is that too simple of a plan? Is there some subtlety here that I am missing? I think its that some people want to keep picks that would otherwise be in the lower rounds, but in that case, pick em up whenever you see fit. The variability is part of the game, if you really want to keep say CoCo-Crisp for novelty value, and is worth a 25th round pick, but he gets taken by someone else in the 24th, offer a trade.
I guess I am assuming you want to pick the 5 best guys in your team, or some number of them. It would work if everyone announced WHO they would pick up. If you guys don't mind a little bit of complexity, you can say this person has "reserved" this player in the first 5 rounds (or ranked according to round), and no one is allowed to pick them up until that round is over. If the guy changes his mind and sees someone else that is more desirable, he picks him up and frees the other player.
Ok, I am realizing how complicated you guys have made this thing, but i think my suggestion works out the issues that Omar has.
saud, saud, you have no idea how complicated this is.
someone already posted (somewhere) how the keepers issue works. my problem was a 1 off issue that may or may not come up.
I like Saud's plan a lot, because I want my team to get better every year while retaining people I like. If I am smart/fortunate enough to get a good, lasting 1st round pick, I don't want to lose my 1st round pick the following year just to retain them. I want to keep him and then see who I can get in the first round (out of who is available after everyone else has claimed their keepers) to complement him. That's the appeal of keepers -- to build the perfect beast over a few years.
Post a Comment