2012 Battle of Sports Forums

hamncheese · Post #141 » by **hamncheese** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 5:09 pm

I'm ok with IR's in keeper leagues, but not redraft. With issues I've seen in the FFL when we had it, I'm not in favor of it here.

Redhopeful · Post #142 » by **Redhopeful** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 5:13 pm

hamncheese wrote:I'm ok with IR's in keeper leagues, but not redraft. With issues I've seen in the FFL when we had it, I'm not in favor of it here.

What happened?

hamncheese · Post #143 » by **hamncheese** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 5:34 pm

Redhopeful wrote:
hamncheese wrote:I'm ok with IR's in keeper leagues, but not redraft. With issues I've seen in the FFL when we had it, I'm not in favor of it here.

What happened?

Various things with IL players being picked up by other managers or managers making moves while not dealing with their IL players. It's self-policing but with a deep league, it's hard to keep track of what's a reasonable pick up. (In a normal league let's say you see GWall on the FA list, you know he's likely on someone's IL. Harder to figure out if it's Zaza Pachulia for example.)

There was also a specific instance in the championship matchup last season where the manager who had Diaw on IL was long out of it, but still Diaw though healthy was on the IL. One manager picked up Diaw for the championiship week and by a few percentage points, won the championship. When it was pointed out Diaw should not have been on that manager's team, all the stats were recalculated to find the other manager should've won, which was acknowledged. (And, I remember this specifically because I was the other manager.) Of course, it's still unknown who would've won because someone other than Diaw would've been picked up.

hamncheese · Post #144 » by **hamncheese** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 5:38 pm

And that brings up another point about the IL. The only penalty we had for leaving a player on IL that shouldn't be was locking the manager from moves. Near the end of the season, if your team is out of it, it's unlikely to see players taken off IL which starts to restrict the pool of players that active managers can choose from, which makes a difference in a deep league.

writersblock · Post #145 » by **writersblock** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 6:17 pm

I thought this league had no IL.

hamncheese · Post #146 » by **hamncheese** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 6:37 pm

writersblock wrote:I thought this league had no IL.

It doesn't. Red was just suggesting to make an addition. I was just explaining why I was opposed.

writersblock · Post #147 » by **writersblock** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 7:15 pm

hamncheese wrote:
writersblock wrote:I thought this league had no IL.

It doesn't. Red was just suggesting to make an addition. I was just explaining why I was opposed.

Yeah, and I don't think Gokce, er Curtis, would approve it anyway. So we're probably safe.

sabonis · Post #148 » by **sabonis** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 7:59 pm

no IL thank u. it brings lots of complications.

and even if everybody wants to have it, we cant add it this year, the draft has already started, many people made their choices without IL in their mind.

Redhopeful · Post #149 » by **Redhopeful** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 8:17 pm

Wow, shame so many have had problems. If implemented better, I feel it'd be a nice addition but guess that will have to wait for another time. For instance, once a player starts playing games again, the manager would have until a given date/time in rostering him again. If not, that manager loses him and he's an eligible FA. Plenty of other ways too but it does involve a very active Commish and/or assistants.

writersblock · Post #150 » by **writersblock** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 8:21 pm

Redhopeful wrote:Wow, shame so many have had problems. If implemented better, I feel it'd be a nice addition but guess that will have to wait for another time. For instance, once a player starts playing games again, the manager would have until a given date/time in rostering him again. If not, that manager loses him and he's an eligible FA. Plenty of other ways too but it does involve a very active Commish and/or assistants.

I don't think it's the feasibility of an IL, we've all played with one. It's that it inevitably leads to problems (and often has) and we're better without it.

hamncheese · Post #151 » by **hamncheese** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 9:12 pm

Redhopeful wrote:Wow, shame so many have had problems. If implemented better, I feel it'd be a nice addition but guess that will have to wait for another time. For instance, once a player starts playing games again, the manager would have until a given date/time in rostering him again. If not, that manager loses him and he's an eligible FA. Plenty of other ways too but it does involve a very active Commish and/or assistants.

Yeah, that's the thing. It does require constant monitoring and making of decisions. Suppose some like Lebron was left on IL too long and his manager goes AWOL, you don't necessarily want to make Lebron available to the manager with the highest waiver priority. It wouldn't be fair. And it's also hard, even with the best intentions, to cover rules for all situations. Something happens that you don't anticipate and inevitably someone gets in a huff. And usually, the larger the league, the more likely that will happen. Even with 16 diligent managers like this one, I could almost bet that something would happen during the course of the season to upset someone if we did implement an IL.

Post #152 » by **Curtis Lemansky** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 10:03 pm

IL at the end does more harm than good. Trust me Red, you dont need that kind of headache in your life

Post #153 » by **Curtis Lemansky** » Thu Sep 6, 2012 10:14 pm

Seattle and Dcdoorknob, could you sign up on yahoo please?

Rounders Block · Post #154 » by **Rounders Block** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 9:44 am

RB trades: 40, 57, 72
Curtis trades: 30, 62, 94

RB's new picks: 30, 62, 89, 94
Curtis' new picks: 35, 40, 57, 67, 72

I'll make my selection after Curtis confirms.

Post #155 » by **Curtis Lemansky** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 10:36 am

Rounders Block wrote:RB trades: 40, 57, 72
Curtis trades: 30, 62, 94

RB's new picks: 30, 62, 89, 94
Curtis' new picks: 35, 40, 57, 67, 72

I'll make my selection after Curtis confirms.

Confirmed.

Post #156 » by **Curtis Lemansky** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 11:55 am

League schedule is customized...

writersblock · Post #157 » by **writersblock** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 1:54 pm

Um, did SoTex just make one of his 2 picks and leave?

dcdoorknob · Post #158 » by **dcdoorknob** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 2:03 pm

writersblock wrote:Um, did SoTex just make one of his 2 picks and leave?

He didn't make either of his 2 picks. He made one for Buser. He's currently OTC for his 2 picks.

writersblock · Post #159 » by **writersblock** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 2:07 pm

dcdoorknob wrote:
writersblock wrote:Um, did SoTex just make one of his 2 picks and leave?

He didn't make either of his 2 picks. He made one for Buser. He's currently OTC for his 2 picks.

So he basically made 1 of 3 picks and then left? That's rich. 8-)

So-Tex · Post #160 » by **So-Tex** » Fri Sep 7, 2012 3:52 pm

writersblock wrote:
dcdoorknob wrote:
writersblock wrote:Um, did SoTex just make one of his 2 picks and leave?

He didn't make either of his 2 picks. He made one for Buser. He's currently OTC for his 2 picks.

So he basically made 1 of 3 picks and then left? That's rich.

Hey, I'm not doing anything that's not within the rules or within reason...maybe stretching things a little, but within the rules.