I have just not heard a good reason why somebody with high transaction numbers is a bad thing, and/or a poor manager.
IMO, you should not have an unlimited amount of opportunities to "get it right" with players. If you draft well, you shouldn't have to do too many moves. If you draft poorly and are allowed unlimited transactions, you can take a flyer on every player who seems to catch fire and can therefore have just as competitive team as someone who drafted well. I spend alot of time and research for my draft. I expect to be rewarded for it, not to have it pissed on by some goofball who can take a shot at every player who gets on a good streak. Lastly, everytime somebody suggests limits, you immediately talk as if they said having zero transactions. I'm all for making transactions and bettering your team, but there has to be some rules involved to stop the poor managers from consistently churning the waiver wire to equal the production of your well drafted team. Just my 2 cents.
I don't really understand how a guy who just churns his roster for six months can equal the production of your well drafted team. There is a reason those guys are FA or on the wire, it's because they're not that good. Now if you can find a combination of six OF for one month at a time that equal a Vlad, you've done one helluva job running a team. As long as it's done in 162 games, more power to you. I fail to see how a guy that utilizes the hot bat isn't worthy of beating someone who drafts well.
I know in my main money league we have 162 GP limits and a 1250 IP limit. We also have 26 man rosters. I've grabbed guys like Shelton and Peralta even though I have good players at 1B and SS. They may not even play, but at least they're not on someone else's team and helping him beat me.
I don't see any problem at all with a lot of transactions as long as you have limits on GP and Innings.
Aye. I think the only time I'd have a problem w/ unlimited transactions (assuming there are reasonable limits on IP/GP) is if somebody runs around doing add/drops just to keep useful players on waivers in order to prevent others from making reasonable use of the waiver wire. To me, that's when it becomes rather underhanded and anti-competitive.
Gang Green wrote:IMO, you should not have an unlimited amount of opportunities to "get it right" with players. If you draft well, you shouldn't have to do too many moves. If you draft poorly and are allowed unlimited transactions, you can take a flyer on every player who seems to catch fire and can therefore have just as competitive team as someone who drafted well. I spend alot of time and research for my draft. I expect to be rewarded for it, not to have it pissed on by some goofball who can take a shot at every player who gets on a good streak. Lastly, everytime somebody suggests limits, you immediately talk as if they said having zero transactions. I'm all for making transactions and bettering your team, but there has to be some rules involved to stop the poor managers from consistently churning the waiver wire to equal the production of your well drafted team. Just my 2 cents.
What makes you think that a manager who cannot draft well has the perceptive abilities to find good waiver wire pickups?
If anything, transactions help the teams who have had bad luck more and allow them to replace their injured/colossal bust players with decent replacements. If you drafted the likes of Carlos Beltran, Todd Helton, Scott Rolen, Jim Thome etc you would not be a bad drafter, but transactions allow your bad luck to be mitigated by hard work on the WW.
[b]Bold Predictions:[/b]
Grady Sizemore will have more value than Jason Bay regardless of draft position
Aramis Ramirez in 155 G will hit over .300 40 HR 110 RBIs
Brian McCann will have more value than Jorge Posada regardless of draft position
kingctb27 wrote:I've seen this work for teams in h2h leagues that go on to win the championship.
OK, fine, I overstated that a bad manager could win a league by churning a roster. I'm guilty as charged. However, all of you have stated, "as long as there are IP or GP limits, I have no problems with unlimited transactions." I believe in Stogusmaximus's league, there aren't any limits in IP, GP or transactions. He's made over 100 transactions. What then? There has to be some sort of limit to maintain structure and fairness. I always take my league seriously and when we started out, we had no limits either. I would get home from work, jump on the computer to check on my team and find that 3 or 4 guys (who were in college at the time) had devoured up all the FA's with an ounce of upside. I argued for IP or GP limits for the upcoming year but most of the league had A.D.D. and didn't want to do it. So we settled on a transaction limit. Some type of order is needed.
I could be wrong in what I'm saying but I'll be dead before I realize it.
kingctb27 wrote:I've seen this work for teams in h2h leagues that go on to win the championship.
OK, fine, I overstated that a bad manager could win a league by churning a roster. I'm guilty as charged. However, all of you have stated, "as long as there are IP or GP limits, I have no problems with unlimited transactions." I believe in Stogusmaximus's league, there aren't any limits in IP, GP or transactions. He's made over 100 transactions. What then? There has to be some sort of limit to maintain structure and fairness. I always take my league seriously and when we started out, we had no limits either. I would get home from work, jump on the computer to check on my team and find that 3 or 4 guys (who were in college at the time) had devoured up all the FA's with an ounce of upside. I argued for IP or GP limits for the upcoming year but most of the league had A.D.D. and didn't want to do it. So we settled on a transaction limit. Some type of order is needed.
No trans limit, no IP limit, no GP limit.
8 managers we all work/worked at the same company, playing in a private league. We have playing the same 8 managers for 4 or 5 years now. We are all computer programmers, we sit in front of the computer for 9, 10, 11 hours a day. Why does this mean there is no structure, and no fairness?
Is that a poor draft? I don't think so, not great, but by no means poor.
Look at who I have kept.
V. Guerrero,R. Oswalt,B. Lidge,V. Wells,R. Clemens,R. Sexson,K. Foulke,L. Berkman,C. Carpenter,T. Hafner,A. Jones
Am I a poor manager for cutting bait on Pavano, Lowell, and Rentería?
Am I a poor manager for trading Od. Pérez, M. Morris, and P. Konerko and others for ARam, Mora, Roberts, Turnbow and IRod?
Am I a poor manager for replacing Loretta, and Foulke?
Am I a poor manager for jumping on C. Young, Capuano, Duke, Street, Roberts, and Francoeur?
There are many ways to play this game. Some people prefer to spend the off season getting draft ready, others prefer to play the WW. Some people are "Set and Forget" while others are constantly tweaking. Some people make decisions based on previous years and projections while others play who's hot now. While there are many ways to play, there is one common goal and that is to win.
Last edited by stogusmaximus on Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sultans of Squat wrote:Aye. I think the only time I'd have a problem w/ unlimited transactions (assuming there are reasonable limits on IP/GP) is if somebody runs around doing add/drops just to keep useful players on waivers in order to prevent others from making reasonable use of the waiver wire. To me, that's when it becomes rather underhanded and anti-competitive.
Yahoo at least has fixed this. If you pick up a FA and do not play them, they return to the FA pool.
Sultans of Squat wrote:Aye. I think the only time I'd have a problem w/ unlimited transactions (assuming there are reasonable limits on IP/GP) is if somebody runs around doing add/drops just to keep useful players on waivers in order to prevent others from making reasonable use of the waiver wire. To me, that's when it becomes rather underhanded and anti-competitive.
Yahoo at least has fixed this. If you pick up a FA and do not play them, they return to the FA pool.
Hmmm... Just checked, and it seems you're right about this. Good to see that.
Anyway, given your situation, I guess unlimited transactions, IP and GP would be fine. But even though I too am a programmer and am usually one of the most active owners in my leagues, I'm not so sure I'd want to join a league that has no limits on IP and GP. Even though it's just fantasy baseball, I do prefer more of a purist approach to the game design and structure so that it provides a reasonable/feasible simulation of managing in real life. Without IP/GP limits -- well, it's probably IP limit that matters most in practice -- the game can easily turn into something more like an arcade game than a fantasy simulation, which is probably the real underlying issue that most people here would be complaining about.
by The Loveable Losers » Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:36 am
I would never play in a league with a limit on transactions. I also would never play in a league without a limit on IP/GP (talking roto here). I like the idea that if you want you can dig through the FA list to find gems to play for you for short periods of time when they're hot. I love the idea that you can be speculative with some of your roster spots and try to get the next guy promoted to closer. That's where a lot of the fun of fbb is for me. I can't imagine being limited on how I managed my team.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Big Pimpin » Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:48 pm 
