25.03.2020, 18:44
Since I'm co-commish my response requires two perspectives, mine as a commish and mine as an owner. Sorry that it will mean a wall of text:
Commish response/opinion:
1. What is the actual problem with the current scoring system? I understand the benefit but I'm not sure why I see this specific idea should be considered without an actual problem. Please realize this will be the hardest point to agree on since the league was purposefully created to not reward RBs for receptions in an effort to keep the RB value from being inflated beyond that of other key positions.
2. This is technically possible and doesn't impact the actual point distribution so it's only about how this impacts player value, if at all.
3. This is technically possible and would require owners to understand the new waiver system and be on-board with a more involved way of claiming players. This definitely requires more thought than the current waiver system and doesn't create parity for the weak vs. the strong, but it evens out the opportunity so that it's an engaged waiver market as opposed to a simple predetermined order based on standings and matchup luck.
My opinion as an owner:
1. I'm fine either way, but I fear that RBs are already at a premium in our league and this will make RB movement via trades or free agency even more limited than it already is. Anything that encourages player hoarding makes it tough for me to see the good sides of the proposal.
2. This seems like a luxurious problem, the TE position is amazingly weak and I think this only encourages people to corner the market by holding on to more than one good TE throughout the season, making the waiver wire void of bye-week and injury replacements due to a lack of options (it was already hard enough last season to find a viable TE, if more people had two TEs rostered this would become nearly impossible). As stated previously I feel that hoarding also disproportionately inflates the value which negatively impacts the trade market.
What I like about our current system is that I feel it encourages the owner to consider their positional depth due to the small bench size, and then choose where they can sacrifice quantity vs. quality for bye weeks, injuries, etc. That example you gave (Spatzen with two top TEs) allowed for another owner to engage in trade talks and ultimately win the championship due in large part to his acquisition of Ertz. With the new proposal there would be less reason for Spatzen to shop Ertz, and the inflated value would raise the costs, thus making trades less likely. Currently, you either have a top tier TE, or you're taking your chances on the multitude of lottery ticket TEs out there. With this proposal, I feel we'd see those few mid-level TEs kept on benches "just in case", less waiver options, less trades of fair value, ultimately less of the good things and more of the bad things.
Ultimately my opinion as an owner is similar to the first response I provided: anything the discourages trading because it encourages hoarding and inflates the value of one position is the opposite direction I'd want in a league.
3. FAAB is definitely interesting for me and allows successful teams to still compete for the top free agents, when possible. I think our current waiver system is "fine" but I have enjoyed my experiences with FAAB so I wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. But this is definitely a system that requires more involvement than our current waiver system.
Commish response/opinion:
1. What is the actual problem with the current scoring system? I understand the benefit but I'm not sure why I see this specific idea should be considered without an actual problem. Please realize this will be the hardest point to agree on since the league was purposefully created to not reward RBs for receptions in an effort to keep the RB value from being inflated beyond that of other key positions.
2. This is technically possible and doesn't impact the actual point distribution so it's only about how this impacts player value, if at all.
3. This is technically possible and would require owners to understand the new waiver system and be on-board with a more involved way of claiming players. This definitely requires more thought than the current waiver system and doesn't create parity for the weak vs. the strong, but it evens out the opportunity so that it's an engaged waiver market as opposed to a simple predetermined order based on standings and matchup luck.
My opinion as an owner:
1. I'm fine either way, but I fear that RBs are already at a premium in our league and this will make RB movement via trades or free agency even more limited than it already is. Anything that encourages player hoarding makes it tough for me to see the good sides of the proposal.
2. This seems like a luxurious problem, the TE position is amazingly weak and I think this only encourages people to corner the market by holding on to more than one good TE throughout the season, making the waiver wire void of bye-week and injury replacements due to a lack of options (it was already hard enough last season to find a viable TE, if more people had two TEs rostered this would become nearly impossible). As stated previously I feel that hoarding also disproportionately inflates the value which negatively impacts the trade market.
What I like about our current system is that I feel it encourages the owner to consider their positional depth due to the small bench size, and then choose where they can sacrifice quantity vs. quality for bye weeks, injuries, etc. That example you gave (Spatzen with two top TEs) allowed for another owner to engage in trade talks and ultimately win the championship due in large part to his acquisition of Ertz. With the new proposal there would be less reason for Spatzen to shop Ertz, and the inflated value would raise the costs, thus making trades less likely. Currently, you either have a top tier TE, or you're taking your chances on the multitude of lottery ticket TEs out there. With this proposal, I feel we'd see those few mid-level TEs kept on benches "just in case", less waiver options, less trades of fair value, ultimately less of the good things and more of the bad things.
Ultimately my opinion as an owner is similar to the first response I provided: anything the discourages trading because it encourages hoarding and inflates the value of one position is the opposite direction I'd want in a league.
3. FAAB is definitely interesting for me and allows successful teams to still compete for the top free agents, when possible. I think our current waiver system is "fine" but I have enjoyed my experiences with FAAB so I wouldn't be opposed to such an idea. But this is definitely a system that requires more involvement than our current waiver system.
Trophy Case
IDFL 2015, 2017, 2020
NSFF 2018, 2022