Rules Discussion: Keepers January 10, 2008
Posted by nerf20 in Rules, Rules Discusssion.trackback
There has been a long discussion about keepers and there is now a proposed rule change that would limit keepers.
Proposal:
keepers can be kept for one year after they appear on an owners roster
example:
2007 dave obtains ronnie brown for 1 point
for 2008 ronnie brown would cost 6 points
for 2009 he would be ineligible to be kept
Thoughts?
KEPPERS SHOULD HAVE NO LIMIT ON A OWNERS ROSTER.. IF THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO PICK-UP A GUY AND GET A BARGAIN ON HIM THROUGH FREE AGENCY THEN GOOD FOR HIM. THAT OWNER TOOK UP A ROSTER SPOT FOR HIS TEAM WITH THAT PLAYER.. SO IF HE ENDED UP PAYING 1,5, 10. WHATEVER HE PAID- WHY PENALIZE THAT OWNER FOR TAKING THAT CHANCE ON A PLAYER.. AND IF AN OWNER WANTS TO KEEP A PLAYER FOR 1-3-5 OR EVEN 7 YEARS WHO ARE WE TO TELL HIM THAT HE OR SHE CAN’T KEEP HIM.
I am going to use the comments from Pop’s on another rule discussion to illustrate my point.
“HIS (doug’s) PREVIOUS STATEMENT ABOUT NOT BITCHING IS THE RIGHT ONE/ IF AN OWNER WANTS TO DROP A PLAYER AND TAKE A CHANCE THAT HE/SHE CAN PICK HIM UP LATER FOR LESS THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND AVAILABLE TO ALL OWNERS/ CARLOS AND DAVE DID A FINE JOB MANAGING THEIR TEAM ROSTER AND SHOULD BE COMMENDED NOT RIDICULED. NOR SHOULD WE PENALIZE SMART ROSTER MOVES.
I SAY STOP BITCHING/ THE RULE IS OPEN TO ALL AND IS A FINE ONE/ USE IT TO ITS FULLEST”
I concur for this rule discussion as well. If Dave was “did a fine job” managing his team roster and he “should be commended not ridiculed. Nor should we penalize smart roster moves” than I ask if limiting keepers to one and done isn’t a penalization.
I view it as a penalty. Why? Let me tell you.
Every season I grab a player in the draft who might pan out or who might not pan out. This year it was Dwayne Jarret (bad move), last year, it was Joey Addai (good move). I suffered through a year when Addai was a platoon. I used him this year and he did very well, he might even become a top 5 RB of the future, then again he may be a bust within a year… ala Domanick Davis (who I kept before).
I took the chance on Addai. Sujal took the chance on Frank Gore and Adrian Peterson in successive years (sucks to be you at keeper time Suj), Dave has taken a chance on a number of guys this year, Carlos took a chance on Portis, Josh took a chance on LJ last year (bad move) and why should any of these guys be thrown back if they get good. They were good roster moves that for some of us were made with some thought about future years down the line.
Part of the fun of NERFL is finding a diamond in the rough and having him pan out. As Josh and I can attest, LJ and the aforementioned Davis (who changed his name to Williams) turned into busts overnight. Oh well, it was the risk we take.
But if we are going to claim it’s a good roster move when they are on IR and they shouldn’t be penalized, why would we ever penalize a good or “smart” move that was made with the intent of the future?
In my opinion, if you get a guy and want to lock him up… so be it. If he’s a success, we will commend you…. if he’s a bust like Maroney for 50points, we will ridicule you… BUT we should never tell you how to run your team.
This proposal much like the IR proposal is much ado about nothing… more like sour grapes than anything else.
I LIKE THAT RULE IT MAKES THING INTERESTING IF THE SAME GUY DOES NOT OWN A PLAYER FOR MORE THAN 3 YEARS TOTAL . IR POSITION ON THE TEAM WOULD BE NICE ALSO. AND ALSO ADD A NOTHER PLAYER TO THE ROSTER SO THAT 5 PLAYERS OR AN IR PLAYER FOR THE ADDITIONAL 5TH PLAYER..
I am against any limit to keepers, as I have stated above BUT I would move that this proposal is extremely limiting and in effect ruins a personally fun aspect of fantasy football for me (and I surmise, others as well); The aspect of finding a diamond in the rough.
Therefore, I would amend this rule from one and done to a minnimum of three and done…. and even then, I would still be opposed but at least if it passed, somthing, I as a long time owner could fathom as even remotely fair.