Originally posted by Flubber
Thats my thought
Move Cleary to IR -- no move
Add Patrick Sharp to replace Cleary -- 1 move
A week later decide to drop Cleary since its a long injury and is just added stuff on your player list -- 1 move
Instead of the above-- Drop Cleary and add Sharp-- 2 moves
I'm not CERTAIN but I am pretty sure that is how it goes-- I seem to recall seeing my moves go up by TWO every time I replaced a player
Since it didn't matter last year I didn't pay that close attention. But if we are contemplating restrictions, we should know what they are. If I am right, 40 moves would mean really only twenty switches which may sound like a lot but is less than one player switch a week-- I just want to make sure we understand what the restrictions mean . . .
I am still trying to get at what people are trying to protect. I can understand a distaste for churning I guess but too strict a limit frankly means that what I would call more active management is curtailed. Is it that people want managers to have to pretty much stick with their drafted players?
Its the playing of hunches, or deciding to pick up a player for a week because they play LA and Tampa Bay-- or deciding to dump a player because they struggled. . . . thats the fun and interest for me. and yes that includes noticing that all my 3rd right winger's games are on nights when the two RW ahead of him play as well-- and then picking up someone new
IIRC I essentially permanently dumped 3 or 4 of my drafted players-- and I want to be free to do that again. Part of the fun of this for me was taking a wild hunch by drafting a Bobby Ryan and seeing how it goes (or making the TERRIBLE ERROR and drafting Ray Emery) but then being able to easily pick up someone else-- I have looked at "draft and live with it" type pools and frankly I would find that boring-- I like the idea that I CAN easily fix my drafting mistakes, that I can garner advantage by noticing and picking up a streaky player at the right time (and dumping him at the right time), that I can compensate for injury somewhat.
The very reason that I liked this league was that all that was possible. Did I churn? The only time I had that going on was when I had a rotation going on RW of Kovalev, Sharp and Kane IIRC but that got "corrected" pretty quick when two of those guys got snapped up and then I used Cleary a few times. But even goofing in not keeping Kovalev is part of the fun for me. It was like dang "he took Kovalev" even as I cursed him in my mind
The only other big churn element was my desperation moves on the last day of close playoff races. I think I added 4 or 5 players each time (16-20 moves? total ). If people don't like that type of move I could understand it but thats why I thought a weekly limit on moves was better (assuming a limit is needed/desired)--
Last year I was surprised how passive many of the managers were (its not a criticism ast all as our regular season leader was the most passive, mainly because he drafted so freakingly well-- but I was surprised). But knowing the setup, I had assumed from the outset that people would be pretty active. I also thought there might be more banter than there was. But I was wrong on both accounts and while no one has been completely blunt about it (that i recall anyway) , I get the sense that some people must find how I played the league last year "wrong" or at least not in the spirit of the league.
I will play with whatever restrictions people want but IMHO if you restrict things too much , you turn the league into something --at worst where the draft is everything-- BORING-- but at least something where following hockey closely to try to gain tactical advantage becomes moot-- Isn't that part of the idea of a pool like this?-- to encourage our interest and make the games even more interesting to us?
Sorry to rant and glad to get it off my chest. AS always contrary opinions accepted and even welcomed.