Congrats to Martinez on the victory!
League standings basically worked out to overall point totals, which isn't always a guarantee come playoffs and head-to-head. There's a lot of instances someone is buzz sawing all year and gets popped in one bad week. Not so here. Things fell mostly how they did all year.
Team - Season Points - Playoff Finish
Team Martinez - 5102 points (1st) - Champion
Turkeys - 4839 (3rd) - 2nd place
Bull moose - 4889 (2nd) - 3rd place
Benders - 4711 (5th) - 4th place
Winger98 - 4638 (6th) - 5th place
Spartys - 4819 (4th) - 6th place
Good games, all.
Hall of History
2018 - MD Spartys (8-6)
2019 - Benchworth Bull Moose (17-2)
2020 - Team Martinez (10-2)
I'm in!Wondering how early we should try to fill teams and when we should figure out which owners want to come back. Instead of assuming everyone wants to stay in, let's make owners opt back in and go from there.
Alternatively, we could reduce the number of keepers this year and almost use it as a soft reset for the league rather than completely disrupt the balance of power.
Any thoughts on this? Maybe 4 keepers instead of 8?
I think @The Zetterberg Era made a good point previously about the viability of trying to compete if you're behind with so many keepers.
So instead of rolling 11 players (including prospects), it would be 7. Over 10 teams that frees up 40 players in the draft - or 4 rounds worth.
I know this stinks if you're like me and have 10+ viable keepers but I'm trying to think of ways to boost engagement and parity across all the rosters.
But also I'm just not that sympathetic. Again, as a first-year guy, I started with only 6 worthwhile keepers from the previous year, and I mined 3 guys in the draft (Kaprizov, Ekblad, and Sergachev), of which at least 2 will be new keepers for me, as well as 4 prospects (Zegras, McMichael, Tomasino, and Robertson), from which I'll choose 3. Everyone had the same opportunity.
But they didn't.
You started with a team that was really well managed by the league founder. So you had great foundational pieces. TZE and others had to scrape out expansion players, none of which were as good as your dudes.
They did. I was specifically talking about the 7 guys I acquired via the draft and free agency that have the potential to be a part of my keeper core moving forward. Everyone had a shot at those same guys was my point.
Right, but that's kind of a different thing. Having MacKinnon, Crosby, Stone, and Carlson was a boon for me, I completely recognize and acknowledge that, but they are not what we're talking about here, right?
If we are talking about top keeper talent being uneven, like your top-3 or -4 or whatever, that won't change much with a draw-down of the bottom half of everyone's keepers. Now we are just all scrambling to re-fill those 5-8 spots next year, with the top talent still remaining uneven. You'd be better off doing a hard reset of all keepers.
But if we are talking about the 5-8 keeper pieces for every team, which it sounds like we are, then I refer back to my last post.
I'm not opposed to trying to remove unfairness that may be existing, but I'm not convinced that resetting the tier of keepers that everyone has had a shot at improving will get it done. And I'm generally opposed to knee-capping in keeper leagues.
Here's another idea. Maybe it needs some fleshing out, but it's a way to increase parity while not mucking up the work some managers have put in for the future that was based on league rules, as they stood. I think we have an opportunity here with 4 teams being contracted. Perhaps we conduct a "contraction draft" as it were, where struggling teams that were maybe handed a junk team at some point in the past can poach better keepers from the 4 teams being contracted. I haven't looked closely at the rosters of the 4 teams we've discussed, but there must be some real good players among those teams.
I don't think we need an incentive to boost engagement. Either they take responsibility and keep engaged or you don't sign up to the league. My teams hasn't done well and I still keep engaged because I made the commitment. Either find people that can make the commitment without some handout or just disband the league because if were are to keep giving handouts to the bottom dwellers, it will be a never ending process.All of this is fair but in the 3 years the teams that started good have stayed good and the struggling teams are still struggling. In order to boost engagement for everyone and not promise fun in 3 more years, I'm willing to reduce my own cache of players and even things out.
If you aren't, that's fine, but I'm offering my own version of a sacrifice and compromise to help make it more fun for others that have been chilling at the bottom since the beginning.
Your team was one of the better performing teams before you took over, I just want to put that into perspective.
I don't think we need an incentive to boost engagement. Either they take responsibility and keep engaged or you don't sign up to the league. My teams hasn't done well and I still keep engaged because I made the commitment. Either find people that can make the commitment without some handout or just disband the league because if were are to keep giving handouts to the bottom dwellers, it will be a never ending process.
Its simple really. Either you make the commitment or don't join the league. Everyone knows whats in store for a free league like this.This is a non-money free league. I don't think dangling the promise of being good in a few years is enough to keep people setting lineups.
And if the response is between "Either they have fun with it or we disband" I guess I'm trying to avoid the latter.
And I don't see it as a handout to make things more fun for everyone.
Everyone knows whats in store for a free league like this.
Agreed, and I think people who are going missing if things aren't going their way aren't going to have fun regardless so maybe this isn't for them? We need to find owners who are going to engage no matter what or it wont ever work.Yeah, it should be fun and not serious business.
Agreed, and I think people who are going missing if things aren't going their way aren't going to have fun regardless so maybe this isn't for them? We need to find owners who are going to engage no matter what or it wont ever work.
i don't mind that, but my gripe the whole time is at least give managers a proper heads up before making changes like this. this isn't the first time this has happened and its getting rather annoying.Or... rather than "no matter what" we create systems where you can keep your main core of great players for years and years, but those who are behind any given year can bounce back really quickly.