Ok. This is the perfect place for this. I can't respond on the message board from work. So lets move it here.
I'm ok with charging for the add/drops. If anything it increases your stake in your team and the reward for picking well. In my opinion, the only reason to be upset about unlimited add/drops is the fact that you may not have the same opportunities to utilize the system. If I add someone to my team and drop them later all it does as far as I can tell is send you to needless emails that said I did it. Sorry for the inconvenience. If you want to win in this you have to take advntage of every opportunity you have. I can assure everyone that no move anyone has made this season was born out of frivolity given we paid to play. Obviously we all think we know something and we're all trying to build the best team we can. So if we want to retroactively begin charging $1 for add/drops..thats cool. I'll pay it. Reckon I owe a cool dub.
And James....we draft because we need a team to start with which becomes our core....we shuffle players in and out week to week based on our need for replacements (byes/injuries), our percieved potential for a player to break out, or a players non-performance. If I have an empty slot on my team. I'm going to fill it with the best player I can....if only to keep you from picking him up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I'm not sure what triggered this post, but I think we should pay for add/drops. I thought that was already the case, why would we have to go and retroactively do anything?
Regarding the last comment by Jason and how we are not communist
Alas, are we not self governed, and therefore transition authority to those in power? In this situation, the loudest is the most powerful as the passive work to improve there own situation. It is the capitalist like Ross and AK who are the true capitalist as they do not draw attention to their smart moves, while James tries repeatedly and loudly to change the system to support his luck and maintain the status quo. He work to secure the working class teams Untitled and ITSTOMANYLETTERSTOPUTINSPACES a position below those who were in the right place at the right time. Classic Communist. I say we continue to suppress this new age Bolsheviks revolution!!!
And no, Colin, the commissioner smartly squashed that add/drop charging bullshit. Check you e-mail on the dialog regarding this.
Okay guys... I'm definitely NOT saying that we should retroactively pay for add/drops.. and Colin, up to this point, we HAVEN'T been paying for add/drops. What I AM saying is that NEXT YEAR, we should definitely pay for them. I think those types of transactions should have a pay to play type feel. It's not like I'm trying to protect the add/dropper.. I'm trying to make it fair for the whole league. If you, Sheldon, need a RB, then I'm assuming you'd pay the dollar to get him. But if I can pick up all the major running backs without paying for them, KNOWING you'll have to trade me at a loss to get one, then it's not really fair. I should at least pay the same price for making that kind of move.
AND I'LL SAY ONE MORE TIME.. I DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.. BUT I DO WANT TO AFFECT NEXT YEAR'S SYSTEM!!! (Call me a Communist ONE MORE TIME...)
Maybe I just don't get it so somebody is going to have to break it down for me.
The way I see it..
What difference does it make if we both have the same opportunity to pick up the same people (which we do regardless of whether or not you take advantage of it). If anything being in the lead disadvantages you and makes it less likely you'll be able to pick up top free agents because your place in the waiver order is down the bottom.
I think James' point is moot because having to pay for add/drops won't make the system any more or less fair. If anything it would make things unfair for those who couldn't afford it (I'm speaking generally...I'm sure we all could afford it)
I'm sure AK has a record of how many add/drops we've all done. He cna let us know and we cna pay up around week 17. I think its a good idea because it makes the pot bigger. Only makes it more likely people stay involved. The stakes is high like de la soul playas.
No Chris, it makes it more likely that those who are no performing well up to that point to become disengaged as they now are penalized for making a move. They will see the entry fee as a sunk cost and therefore cut their losses up to that point. If you study strategy, this is a consistent behavior. The more and more they have to pay just to compete the less likely they are to.
AK, I hope this helps you on the SDA project.
And there will be no changes in the rules for this year, so stop trying Chris.
Dont you guys have anything CONSTRUCTIVE to do? I'm just contemplating this.
I'm real mad that Sheldon is drawing parallels to the Bolshevik Revolution and how this led the founding of the Soviet Union.
It doesnt matter because I'm about to be collecting my money anyway at the end of the season.
KISS THE RINGS BITCHES!
Okay, I have to make one more comment.... Let's be serious.. the only reason you continue to add/drop is cuz you think you STILL can win.. so the idea of paying for that hope (a dollar for dudes with jobs..) shouldn't be an issue. So I dont' think charging a fee would cause people to cut their losses, cuz if you're cutting your losses after 4 weeks, you shouldn't be in this to begin with.. this part of the season is about making the playoffs.. you dont' have to be undefeated to do that...
Of course Kamal had absolutely nothing "constructive" to hadd to the debate.
I feel like, given we all know each other, this debate shouldn't be looked at with such broad views ideals. We're not setting this up for a random population of people. This is the We da Best crew. For the most part, however its set up people are gonna pretty much stay involved. HOwever the generalized analysis based on free market/communist systems was interesting enough to read.
My problem is with JAmes' flawed viewpoint that frequent add/dropping is unfair and that charging $1 for it would somehow reduce it. I wouldn't go that far left and call him a communist but judging by his willingness to "tax" the free agent markets you could definitely call him a liberal. What makes me a liberal as well is the fact that I don't believe it would have a negative impact on the market.
I'm so mad that I can't embed youtube clips on this blog, the Soviet National Anthem was going to be classic. FUCK!
Here's how charging has a negative impact: I will not spend any money this league at this point.
I'm not giving up, but I feel I can't make better moves then I did this week and it got me nothing. I now need to ride out this roster and the 0 wins it has netted me. I will still add and drop if I need to replace injuried players, but I would not do that if I have to pay for it.
And yeah that might add up to about $15 by the end of the season and that is not an amount that would break me, but I only throw money away on strippers. My utility for adding or dropping a player is much lower than a dollar.
As I have stated before, Carson Palmer is syphilis to my team. He has had too solid weeks against teams that no one would start him against and 3 disasterous weeks against middle tier opponents, and has a nagging elbow injury. He may come back, but I can't ride that train anymore, I need wins.
I made moves to pick up a solid QB in McNabb and a backup who plays the worst def in the league during McNabb's bye week. I didn't need syphilis, I mean Palmer.
Also, I had to respect Chris's negoitation skills on this. After the ridiculous trade offer that got him banned, he asked me what I wanted. I told him the Saints DST, knowing he would have to get them from Nate and thinking that that would end the conversion right there. This man went out and gave up Darrin Sproles, the #4 RB, to get the #1 DST to get the #25 QB. You have to respect the grit and determination and the cajoles of a man willing to take a chance that this guy will make a comeback.
And yeah, the 81 points is definitely a fluke, but the Saints scored 36 points the previous week. I believe in trends, you engineers should feel me on that.
I can respect the pickup of the Saints D, because like all other Defenses in this league, they're scoring more then they should. But to trade a potential #1 QB for a defense that will score as much as the Detroit Lions this week to me just doesn't make a lot of sense. Sure, Carson Palmer has been bad, but he's on the rise, while Donovan (to my chagrin) has been struggling. If it were me, I would've held onto Palmer, since you didn't make much of an upgrade on Defense. But that's just my opinion. We'll see how it plays out.
#1 QB Palmer on my team = 3 losses, one week injuried and one solid performance that would not have won the week for me. I can't wait for him to turn around anymore, I need to win now.
Post a Comment