MBBRL D1 draft/ roster makeup poll

[TREFF]

A potential issue has been brought to our attention.

Can owners drop a kicker or defense, leaving no eligible players at either or both positions, to draft position players in the upcoming (and all future) rookie draft(s), and not carry a kicker or D until the week one deadline? In essence, prolonging making the decision on which position player to keep.

We've got 3 options on the table:

1. a simple yes, they can do that
2. A simple no, bare minimum of a legal starting lineup in the roster at all times.
3. And a compromise. That being, yes we can go without a kicker and/or a DST, and have the extra positional players on the roster up until the week 1 lineup deadline, but doing so will lock the roster until those empty starting slots are full. No adds, no drops, no waiver claims, no trades, not until that kicker or D has been refilled. Thus minimizing any potential advantage of bending the roster limits to only prolonging the decision making process. This adds next to nothing to my duties, as it's very easy to lock those permissions in the fantrax site, so don't let any worries about that affect your vote.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@TREFF

for now on when we have polls make an AMBIVOLENT or DONT CARE choice...

Not that nobody doesn't care, but there are some people that have a much stronger opinion than others... why should someone who doesn't care have their opinions count the same??

with that said, I don't care, but I will vote for the option that allows owners to do whatever they want...

 

[TREFF]

@TREFF

for now on when we have polls make an AMBIVOLENT or DONT CARE choice...

Not that nobody doesn't care, but there are some people that have a much stronger opinion than others... why should someone who doesn't care have their opinions count the same??

with that said, I don't care, but I will vote for the option that allows owners to do whatever they want...

You always have the option of abstaining you know. Everyone's vote counts the same regardless of desire cuz that's kinda how a fair vote works. If anyone truly doesn't care, I would suggest not voting, but perhaps at least chiming in and noting that you don't care

 

[broncosmitty]

I'm at No, but I could be at a compromise.

I wouldn't have got rid of all 11 of my first rounders if I thought I could cut my D and draft another skill position to trade later.

 

[leftypower]

As pointed out during the discussion. My vote goes to #3. .... with no expansion to rosters this yr, seems to be a reasonable blend for those who have decent guys in limbo land (no NFL team) at this stage of the season. .....

 

[TREFF]

I'm assuming Scott Carraway is the co owner with Bandit, correct?

Just a reminder, we're counting one vote per team

 

[leftypower]

I'm assuming Scott Carraway is the co owner with Bandit, correct?

Just a reminder, we're counting one vote per team

That is correct. .....

 

[Chef99]

Dunno what the big deal is here, honestly. In my mind, anyone can be dropped until lineups are required to be filled and locked in.

 

[Chef99]

• HaroldSeattle
• obxyankeefan
• TREFF
• broncosmitty

I'm surprised at you guys.

 

[obxyankeefan]

• HaroldSeattle
• obxyankeefan
• TREFF
• broncosmitty

I'm surprised at you guys.

Chef, To me it has always been a strategy that I don't care for. I have never used it and will not use it. But I do not feel as strongly as Treff does about it.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

• HaroldSeattle
• obxyankeefan
• TREFF
• broncosmitty

I'm surprised at you guys.

Figure we could alway revisit expanding the rosters. Better way to go then having teams drop kickers and such IMO.

 

[Chef99]

Honestly guys, I'm so busy with baseball and concentrating on The Bandit, I dunno if I'm missing something here or not.

My gut says we should all be able to work our stuff until we are required to lock 'em all in.

If I'm misreading things, please let me know.

 

[TREFF]

• HaroldSeattle
• obxyankeefan
• TREFF
• broncosmitty

I'm surprised at you guys.

Just real quick and short, it's purely and simply skirting the rules and a bush league move designed to avoid making a real decision.. amateur hour, and we're all better than that here

 

[Chef99]

And I find myself agreeing with Milk...again!

What is happening with this world?

Next thing you know, someone like Donald Trump could be elected president!

Whoopsie...

 

[averagejoe]

Just real quick and short, it's purely and simply skirting the rules and a bush league move designed to avoid making a real decision.

I'm not part of D1 so I hope you don't mind if I throw in my

I feel that if it were a redraft league, then I agree with Treff that a full lineup should be filled at the draft. That's generally the implied strategy in redraft leagues.

But since this dynasty (and keep in mind that I'm relatively new to the dynasty universe), the players you decide to saddle on your team now could have much longer-lasting affects. That includes perhaps sacrificing a steady kicker for a fringe player.

Even the NFL has "cut down" dates where rosters need to be trimmed and finalized. Seems reasonable that rookie drafts in dynasty resemble the real NFL strategy. With this in mind, since you guys are having a draft 4 months (1/3 of a year) before the actual lineup needs to be set, why not just make your "final" roster date the same day that NFL teams need to have their rosters set at 53?

 

[TREFF]

And I find myself agreeing with Milk...again!

What is happening with this world?

Next thing you know, someone like Donald Trump could be elected president!

Whoopsie...

Even though i disagree. And I disagree with agreeing with Milk, you get cake, because Chef likes cake

 

[TREFF]

I'm not part of D1 so I hope you don't mind if I throw in my

I feel that if it were a redraft league, then I agree with Treff that a full lineup should be filled at the draft. That's generally the implied strategy in redraft leagues.

But since this dynasty (and keep in mind that I'm relatively new to the dynasty universe), the players you decide to saddle on your team now could have much longer-lasting affects. That includes perhaps sacrificing a steady kicker for a fringe player.

Even the NFL has "cut down" dates where rosters need to be trimmed and finalized. Seems reasonable that rookie drafts in dynasty resemble the real NFL strategy. With this in mind, since you guys are having a draft 4 months (1/3 of a year) before the actual lineup needs to be set, why not just make your "final" roster date the same day that NFL teams need to have their rosters set at 53?

Ahh yes, but because they know they need a kicker, and a punter, and a long snapper, they don't cut them to carry a 4th or 5th QB or whatever, even before the cut down day.

No amount of explaining changes the simple truth that it's purely and simply a way to skirt the roster limits..btw, expanding the roster won't change anything, anyone who thinks it's okay with 12, 14, 18 slot limits, is going to think it's okay with 20, 20, 25..so..

It's a black and white, issue through and through to me

 

[averagejoe]

It's a black and white, issue through and through to me

I get what you're saying but that's still just your opinion.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. You know I love you, man.
The Bears didn't sign a kicker (Barth) until 3 days before the 2016 season started.
Maybe it's just my opinion too and I have no business sticking my nose into D1 concerns, but I think it still adds a strategic element to dynasty leagues that emulates the NFL.

I'll but out now.

 

[TREFF]

I get what you're saying but that's still just your opinion.
I'm not trying to pick a fight. You know I love you, man.
The Bears didn't sign a kicker (Barth) until 3 days before the 2016 season started.
Maybe it's just my opinion too and I have no business sticking my nose into D1 concerns, but I think it still adds a strategic element to dynasty leagues that emulates the NFL.

I'll but out now.

Your opinion is always welcome on anything Joe, so never think twice about offering it up. I just don't see out that way, not at all..i don't even see it as opinion. Well, correction, whether it falls in the spectrum of right or wrong is definitely opinion.. but the basis for doing out to start with isn't.. its factual that it's to create extra space for positional players.. which, and this is also factual, is skirting the roster limit rule without breaking it, and that, in my opinion, is way, way, in the spectrum of wrong

 

[Bandit]

I'm assuming Scott Carraway is the co owner with Bandit, correct?

Just a reminder, we're counting one vote per team

Yeah, because I was too close to this topic, I told him to vote whatever he wanted to and I would abstain this time.