Fade2White12 wrote:Guys, sorry about my inactivity.
I just got married in the beginning of June, been out of the country for the last three weeks, and I've gone through two interviews for jobs completely across the country. Fantasy was the last thing on my mind. I may have a few short periods of inactivity over the next few weeks, but not much. I'll be much more active.
No worries man. CONGRATS on tying the knot and good luck on the job hunt.
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:I need offensive help and I need it now. Anyone is available, including major leaguers, minor leaguers, draft picks, and future farm pick ups. I'll continue to throw out offers to you guys, and if you're interested in any of my players, please let me know.
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:I need offensive help and I need it now. Anyone is available, including major leaguers, minor leaguers, draft picks, and future farm pick ups. I'll continue to throw out offers to you guys, and if you're interested in any of my players, please let me know.
Make me an offer.
No helping the defending champ! Simply stand by and chuckle as he bleeds out
I reckon it's about time to bring this up as we're more or less halfway through the season. Are we still thinking that we want further roster expansion entering 2013 as we'd talked about last year? I know we had pretty much decided that once we jumped that we'd make a few piece-wise moves, and after adding a UT, P and BN last year I am thinking that to keep in the theme of that move that maybe we add something like and extra OF, MI and CI or something? Then we could round things out by adding a final OF, P and BN spot in the following season?
Not sure how everyone feels about this, and this is just the initial push to get the conversation started, but I think it makes sense to continue down this road what with it being a dynasty and all - I'd be fine with keeping benches a bit "shallow" if people still want a bit of an FA pool from which to choose, but I also think that getting deeper might mitigate some of the need/effectiveness of the streaming-like moves that are reviled by some in the league. So, without further ado ... discuss ...
WaCougMBS wrote:I reckon it's about time to bring this up as we're more or less halfway through the season. Are we still thinking that we want further roster expansion entering 2013 as we'd talked about last year? I know we had pretty much decided that once we jumped that we'd make a few piece-wise moves, and after adding a UT, P and BN last year I am thinking that to keep in the theme of that move that maybe we add something like and extra OF, MI and CI or something? Then we could round things out by adding a final OF, P and BN spot in the following season?
Not sure how everyone feels about this, and this is just the initial push to get the conversation started, but I think it makes sense to continue down this road what with it being a dynasty and all - I'd be fine with keeping benches a bit "shallow" if people still want a bit of an FA pool from which to choose, but I also think that getting deeper might mitigate some of the need/effectiveness of the streaming-like moves that are reviled by some in the league. So, without further ado ... discuss ...
My preference would be to add more position spots and no more bench spots, and _two_ more pitching slots for this next season if part of the intention is to prevent excessive streaming and to keep the benches from being too deep. If it isn't as easy to bench a prospect you'd like to stash, but has exceeded farm-eligibility, then you're less likely to stash them, keeping the FA pool a little more interesting.
So, for 2013, my preference would be to add P, P, UT, but I'd also settle for adding UT, P, BN.
I understand the argument, and I'm all for adding at least a P spot for sure, but I think we should not, under any circumstance add a third UT spot. I was thinking that a fourth OF would make the most sense - guessing there won't be much support for a second C, which I could go either way on, but maybe we go almost all out and add MI, CI, OF, P and then the next year we could add a fifth OF, one more P spot and maybe one extra bench slot? Thoughts?
WaCougMBS wrote:I understand the argument, and I'm all for adding at least a P spot for sure, but I think we should not, under any circumstance add a third UT spot. I was thinking that a fourth OF would make the most sense - guessing there won't be much support for a second C, which I could go either way on, but maybe we go almost all out and add MI, CI, OF, P and then the next year we could add a fifth OF, one more P spot and maybe one extra bench slot? Thoughts?
Adding another OF spot instead of another UT spot makes sense to me. Adding MI, CI, OF, P would be fine with me.
How do people feel about adding a weekly moves limit to try to curb streaming? I really don't like a limit for the whole season, because I fear that would make the trade deadline less interesting, and it would hurt teams that are near the bottom, because it would be more difficult to try to make some speculative pickups for the following year. However, if we had a maximum of, say, 6 moves per week, that would prevent streaming, but still enable a couple spot starts.
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:How do people feel about adding a weekly moves limit to try to curb streaming? I really don't like a limit for the whole season, because I fear that would make the trade deadline less interesting, and it would hurt teams that are near the bottom, because it would be more difficult to try to make some speculative pickups for the following year. However, if we had a maximum of, say, 6 moves per week, that would prevent streaming, but still enable a couple spot starts.
The only slight drawback to a limit is our farm promotions - it would give a bit of an advantage to someone with no farm players to promote/demote, but probably not enough to make much of a difference. I'd be OK with a 6-8 moves per week limit.
Here's a twist - what would you think about then reducing the number of moves per week for the playoffs? Say 8 during the season and 4 during the playoffs?
A Fleshner Fantasy wrote:How do people feel about adding a weekly moves limit to try to curb streaming? I really don't like a limit for the whole season, because I fear that would make the trade deadline less interesting, and it would hurt teams that are near the bottom, because it would be more difficult to try to make some speculative pickups for the following year. However, if we had a maximum of, say, 6 moves per week, that would prevent streaming, but still enable a couple spot starts.
The only slight drawback to a limit is our farm promotions - it would give a bit of an advantage to someone with no farm players to promote/demote, but probably not enough to make much of a difference. I'd be OK with a 6-8 moves per week limit.
Here's a twist - what would you think about then reducing the number of moves per week for the playoffs? Say 8 during the season and 4 during the playoffs?
Do we know if this is possible to do in Yahoo? I'd be much more in favor of it if we can put that in place in Yahoo, rather than trying to self-police it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Bwanna » Mon Jul 02, 2012 6:12 pm 
