JD Fantasy Hockey 2005

[Jeff]

In some ways, I like the cap.  In others, I dislike it.   

I can go either way, but I really don't want the league to turn into a mess because some people abuse the system by constantly adding/dropping players to ensure that they have someone playing every night...

I've been in leagues where guys used 50% of their roster to constantly add/drop players so each and every night they had 4-5 players playing which really gave them an edge to those who like their roster and try to to shake it up too much.

Like I said, I can go either way on the cap though.  Perhaps if we drop the cap, we consider setting some limit to the maximum number of transactions that you can make through out the season?

Jeff

[Morgbug]

The number of transactions can be limited.  The other solution has already been mentioned: a longer waiver, say 4 days.  That would prevent flipping players on a daily basis.  Plus you may end up losing a guy on waivers or may not get a guy you request because of the priority of the waiver wire.

Just as a note: the cap is currently set at 82 games (this was visible in the league settings prior to starting the league) but the MAXIMUM I can set games to is 100 - adding 18 games only, so there still is a cap, it's just higher. 

It's far less strategic and more based on the whims of the schedules and the like.

This is a good point though the counter is that you would have to adjust your personal roster to take advantage of it.  Of course this is where the drafting strategy argument then comes in. 

The Spawn/Winnipeg league is also capped at 82 games (no, I'm not the commish there).  The league settings for that league are here click me.  I'll say this much: I'm glad we stayed away from PIM, it's having a dramatic effect on that league.  Damn Canadians and they're goon hockey.

[Jeff]

The number of transactions can be limited.  The other solution has already been mentioned: a longer waiver, say 4 days.  That would prevent flipping players on a daily basis.  Plus you may end up losing a guy on waivers or may not get a guy you request because of the priority of the waiver wire.

As long as we take steps against constant flipping (either a max on transactions or a 4-day waiver wire), I have no problem raising the cap to 100 games if that is the highest we can go...

[Holographic Elvis]

How on earth would opening up the thing to unlimited games increase the amount of strategy involved?  It reduces the amount of strategy - you just plug everyone that you can in every night.
 
It also could screw a lot of stuff up - say you've got a bunch of Right Wingers, and none of them play on a given day - you're just out of luck - but if someone else's team just happens to have a favorable schedule where their Right Wingers don't have coinciding days off - advantage them.

It's far less strategic and more based on the whims of the schedules and the like.

Besides, as always - we didn't draft with this in mind.  I'd have drafted somewhat differently if we were doing this.  I might not have drafted to fill starting spots in the middle rounds.

This is a lot like when you wanted to add a flex position to the Football league last year part way into the season.  At first I didn't see what the big deal was, figuring - hey we all drafted the same so the rule change would affect everyone the same but it doesn't work that way - people might have drafted 3 top tier RB's with their first three picks that year knowing they could plug an extra one in.  It's like re-dealing a poker hand after the bets are on the table and if we were playing for money (thank God we're not) everyone would be furious at the mere suggestion of something like this.

You can still only put in 2 of each position (and 4 Dmen) on any given night.  How is it any different if you remove or raise the cap # Rob?  It's not as if we are adding starting spots. 

You're right.  If none of your RWs are playing one night and all 3 of mine are you are at the mercy of the schedule.  Again, how is that any different than it is right now?  What does that have to do with the cap?  Again we aren't adding starting spots. 

Tell me how you would have drafted differently.  Seriously, tell me.  I'm very curious to see how your strategy would have changed.  The starting spots aren't changing so you still had to fill out a complete roster. 

Face it guys, the argument against the cap is as silly as the cap itself.

[Rob]

You're right.  If none of your RWs are playing one night and all 3 of mine are you are at the mercy of the schedule.  Again, how is that any different than it is right now?  What does that have to do with the cap?  Again we aren't adding starting spots. 

Because as it stands right now, I've got plenty of days in the future to make up for situations like that - if there is no cap, and such a scenario occurs, then that's the end of it, so-and-so got extra games.

I'm very much against removing the cap so far after the draft.   I'm more open to the idea of raising it a little bit to give Back-ups added worth - then there actually is some added strategy involved if you only get a few changes to use so and so and you need to use those extra games wisely.

[Rob]

Congrats to Mikey for a 13 point jump last night.  That's got to be a record so far for a single night.

I believe Jeff scored 19 one night.

[Holographic Elvis]

You're right.  If none of your RWs are playing one night and all 3 of mine are you are at the mercy of the schedule.  Again, how is that any different than it is right now?  What does that have to do with the cap?  Again we aren't adding starting spots. 

Because as it stands right now, I've got plenty of days in the future to make up for situations like that - if there is no cap, and such a scenario occurs, then that's the end of it, so-and-so got extra games.

I'm very much against removing the cap so far after the draft.   I'm more open to the idea of raising it a little bit to give Back-ups added worth - then there actually is some added strategy involved if you only get a few changes to use so and so and you need to use those extra games wisely.

If Brent raises the cap to 100, how is anyone gonna get extra in the long run?  Do you guys even know what it is you're arguing for?  And you totally validated my argument against a cap by saying "I've got plenty of days in the future to make up for it."  That goes to what I was saying about teams sitting back and loading up on games at the end which is why we need to extend the waiver period.  We should have just made this a head to head league.  Obviously a points based league doesn't work for various reasons here at JD.  With so many bench spots, we should have avoided the points free-for-all league and just gone head-to-head. 

[Rob]

Raising the cap by 18 games allows you to get some Bench players in - hence, extra games.  Pretty simple.

Whatever validation you may feel you have gotten from me, you're entire argument for getting rid of the cap is invalidated by the fact that you're bringing up what is a subsantial change 2 weeks into the season.  This is a pre-draft conversation, plain and simple.  Like I said before, if we had any money on this and you suggested a change of this magnitude, the conversation wouldn't even be entertained.

[Jeff]

Congrats to Mikey for a 13 point jump last night.  That's got to be a record so far for a single night.

I believe Jeff scored 19 one night.

Saturday, Oct 8th -

and, actually, it was 20 points.   

3A - J. Thornton (Bos - C)
2A - S. Koivu (Mon - C)
3A - M. Recchi (Pit - LW,RW)
1G, 1A -M. Hossa (Atl - RW)
1G, 2A - W. Redden (Ott - D)
1G, 1A - B. Stuart (SJ - D)

1W - E. Nabokov (SJ - G)
1W, 1SO - D. Hasek (Ott - G)

Forwards = 15 pts
Goalies = 5 pts

Total = 20pts 

[Morgbug]

Ah, never mind, I'm getting my leagues mixed up

[Holographic Elvis]

Raising the cap by 18 games allows you to get some Bench players in - hence, extra games.  Pretty simple.

Whatever validation you may feel you have gotten from me, you're entire argument for getting rid of the cap is invalidated by the fact that you're bringing up what is a subsantial change 2 weeks into the season.  This is a pre-draft conversation, plain and simple.  Like I said before, if we had any money on this and you suggested a change of this magnitude, the conversation wouldn't even be entertained.

A change that apparently others are in favor of and even our commish seems to think it ain't a bad idea.  Gasp!!!   

So basically what you're saying is that bench players are pointless, that we shouldn't even have them?  You have guys on your roster for a reason: to use them.  Try whatever form of math works for you.  I guarantee you everyone is using their bench players right now anyway.

[Rob]

Last time I counted, the voting was 3-2 to leave it the way it was with Jeff saying he could go either way.

[Holographic Elvis]

Last time I counted, the voting was 3-2 to leave it the way it was with Jeff saying he could go either way.

Oh my bad, 1 vote difference!   

I just find it hilarious that people are basically against using their bench players in a point-based free-for-all league.

[Scott]

I'm for the Max game limit...

I'm also sick of people bitching about the rules after the game starts

[Holographic Elvis]

I'm for the Max game limit...

I'm also sick of people bitching about the rules after the game starts

I'm sick of rules not being clearly laid out in their entirety for all to see before we start anything.  I'm not blaming Brent mind you, but we spent so much time discussing the rules and there was no mention of a max on games.  For whatever reason, this is the only site where I've had issues with the fantasy leagues.  I never have this problem at Spawn and maybe it's because everyone there has done a league before.  Bottom line, why have so many guys on our bench if we basically can't use them?  We all voted to expand the rosters and I voted in favor of that thinking there was no cap on games.

If the games stay capped at what they are at, I vote we shrink the rosters down.  No point in having a deep bench if you can't use it.