Discussion in 'Fantasy Football Forum - Message Board' started by HaroldSeattle, Jun 29, 2015.
Would love to know about this offer.
I bet the exchange would be very interesting.
Sure, I'd love to know about it too! Who needs PMs, anyway?
It could have been about the grand-daughters soccer practice ..... or .....
Okay, I was just trying to come up with a way to be able to make more draft picks without having to drop guys like Jamaal Charles who I have no idea is even going to be on a team next year since it's April. I honestly just thought that it would make the draft more fun because everybody could draft more players. But, if others think that is part of the "strategy" in fantasy football in making those difficult decisions on draft day, then I withdraw my objection. #1 is fine with me, I won't vote for #2 because Treff and Lefty's opinions arguing the other side are far stronger than my opinion arguing for it and I respect both of them enough that I would much rather it not pass, because it passing is going to upset them a lot more than it not passing is going to upset me, #3 makes no sense whatsoever because it would be a freaking nightmare to police. You'd have to constantly check on everybody's rosters to see who can make add/drops and who can make trades etc. and that's not something I would wish on any commissioner.
Pretty much in agreement with the bold. I'm for expanded roster on a temporary basis, just so you can let the smoke clear a bit. However I'm just not passionate about it enough to battle for it.
yep for me its not even about the expanded roster, its baout can i drop a kicker temporarily till i decide b/w 2 rb's , my roster would always be legal by game day, guess its all in how you look at it
That being said i dont care, and do whatever, because im not dying over one option
Personally, I won't be particularly 'upset' no matter what happens - - as I stated recently - I really don't care at this point - I just want everyone operating from the same play-book. .....
A true vote at this time is probably going to be difficult - so many guys involved in baseball we are likely missing a majority.
Thinking out-of-the-box (Milk would be proud), how would the provision of a 'protected player' sound ? Perhaps expand the pre-season roster by one (19) with that spot reserved for one player who is NOT on a current NFL team. Several people have them - that would allow you to 'bank' that player until the regular season.
Said player would have to be declared by the team prior to our draft. As a result, the requirement for a legal line-up (at least one at every starting lineup position) by the end of our draft would remain. The roster size will be reduced by that one spot one week prior to the official NFL season.
Lets just stick to #1. Easiest on the Commish and honestly I think its the most straightforward option.
Honestly it wouldn't be that bad at all on fantrax, in the commish tools, on the team permissions page, there's a series of boxes for each team, add, drop, waver claim, trades... I'd simply have to uncheck the boxes until says owner asked me to reset it once he made his decision.
So it's a totally viable option, as it stands from a policing standpoint
Based on above my vote is for #3 given the three options.
Please ignore my post #1405 as it would allow some to do something others cannot. As I said, I really don't care how we do it as long as we all understand the how.
But I honestly do see very valid reasons for temporarily expanding the rosters by one. I think pretty much every team has that one guy that is in limbo at this time. I very well may have argued against it in the past, but am on-board with it now since it allows a bit of flexibility. Plus it really doesn't do away with the tough decision, only pushes it back a few months. ..... Going to 19 roster spots with a cut back to 18 a week before the season puts us all on the same playing field as well. ....
If we expand I vote for a deadline to have legal rosters. Granted the locking of moves likely polices that for us but I like the idea of having a date.
Well we've already voted against a hard expansion, so if that issue wants to get brought up next offseason were can revisit then.
If we go ahead and allow the compromise option, that deadline would be set as the same as the lineup deadline, week 1
OK then if that's completely off the table - option 3 for me. Do we need to do a poll of the 3 option proposed or is someone keeping a count? 1 and 3 seem to have the most support. Think the discussion portion is pretty much done.
On a lighter note - schedule is out and it appears they did away with the week 13 bye. ...
Given our less than a week timeline, no already set rules for or against this type of thing, plus only like 5-7 of us really paying much afternoon at this point..
Does anyone see a problem just making option 3 a declaration for this year, and we can set out in stone one way or the other next season?
Or do we need a quick vote?
Screw it, the vote is safer.
In my lunch break I'll get one set up and a mass email sent out on fantrax
My one concern is people like Ram and Bar that arent very active right now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it either so please dont take it as an admonishment. Just saying that I want to make sure everyone is aware of everything.
Yea no worries, must everyone usually responds to the fantrax refill and comes in to vote.. plus everyone needs a little alarm clock to get into things anyways. I mispoke earlier, our timeline is roughly two weeks since were waiting a week after the draft too start ours
I just want to make sure we've got something set instead of getting into another situation where one owner does something in a grey area that irks another.
And my apologies to Bandit, who brought this issue to my attention a month ago. I had a busy couple days, didn't get too out, then completely forgot about it until I saw Lefty's post yesterday
Separate names with a comma.