Desperation vs Long Term

[averagejoe]

My fantasy season is not going well. If it was even going slightly as planned, I may not be typing this. Anyway, some of the leagues that I'm in have a short bench. And let's face it, some guys that were drafted, you just need to hang on to.

But other guys are expendable. Problem is, I've already jettisoned the "expendable" guys so I could add more long term players.

The second problem is that the "long term" players are not getting as involved. An injury to the starter would speed things up (not that I'm wishing injury on anyone), but the sporadic usage is creating an even bigger bench dilemma.

Do I release the "long term" guys to add a few short term (i.e. "desperation") players which may only be good for a week or two?

Am I the only one having this issue?

 

[Xponentialchaos]

That's always a big dilemma for me too.

The thing is, my goal is to win the whole thing, not just to do slightly better than crappy. So for that reason, with all things equal, I'd lean more toward the long-term investments. Of course, as much as I hate to always say this, it depends on the situation. If you're finding yourself in a hole but you can see some of your guys stepping up for the rest of the year, then a short-term band-aid might be just what you need until those guys get going.

 

[wilwhite]

For me it depends on how big the payoff could be and how likely it is. Gronkowski is worth it because his payoff is high and the likelihood of the payoff is high. I had high hopes for Zac Stacy, but his payoff wouldn't be so high, and the likelihood is lower than Gronk's.

Guys like Bryce Brown or Pierce who can't possibly win the starting job, whose roles won't increase without injury, are easy drops to me.