Official 2007/2008 PF.com Fantasy Hockey Talk Thread

[jammertime]

I REALLY hate Tatering. ESPECIALLY during the playoffs. If you want any chance of winning against your opponent that is Tatering, you have no choice but to do it as well.

It completely explodes the roster that got you there and leaves 100 guys on waivers at any given time.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, just voicing my 2 cents. Unless there's a reasonable transaction limit in place for next season, I think I'm going to have to sit out next season. It really sucks all enjoyment out of it for me.

(Wow, this post really sounds negative, whiny and ultimatumy. That wasn't my intention at all!)

[Darth Tater]

Originally Posted by jammertime

I REALLY hate Tatering. ESPECIALLY during the playoffs. If you want any chance of winning against your opponent that is Tatering, you have no choice but to do it as well.

It completely explodes the roster that got you there and leaves 100 guys on waivers at any given time.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, just voicing my 2 cents. Unless there's a reasonable transaction limit in place for next season, I think I'm going to have to sit out next season. It really sucks all enjoyment out of it for me.

(Wow, this post really sounds negative, whiny and ultimatum. That wasn't my intention at all!)

I can understand how you feel. I honestly see both sides of the issue and don't want anyone to leave over a setting.

I'll probably end up being Commish next year, although I'll happily defer to anyone else who wants it. But if I am Commish, for sure I'll put a limit on the moves. No more than 65...I do want people to have roster flexibility, and to be able to "Tater" now and then, but it should eliminate the playoff problems. If enough people think 65 is too many, we can lower it further a bit.

So if a guy sucks and Taters early to get in, he won't get far. If he's good and needs to Tater later...so be it. Is that reasonable?

[jammertime]

Originally Posted by Darth Tater

I can understand how you feel. I honestly see both sides of the issue and don't want anyone to leave over a setting.

I'll probably end up being Commish next year, although I'll happily defer to anyone else who wants it. But if I am Commish, for sure I'll put a limit on the moves. No more than 65...I do want people to have roster flexibility, and to be able to "Tater" now and then, but it should eliminate the playoff problems. If enough people think 65 is too many, we can lower it further a bit.

So if a guy sucks and Taters early to get in, he won't get far. If he's good and needs to Tater later...so be it. Is that reasonable?

Who am I kidding, I'm a fantasy whore. I'm sure I'd be playing next season either way, especially since hockey is probably my favourite fantasy game.

In a perfect world (for me), I'd like to see 40 -50 max moves. But I'm sure that's a bit low for most people's liking. Fifty moves would work out to an average of about 2 moves per week (assuming a team goes all the way to the finals). Exactly half of our current teams would be under a 50 move limit as of right now (with Roscoe just slightly over with 55 moves).

I find that the lower the cap, the more strategy that is involved. "Do I use one of my moves for short term gain", "Do I use them early to try and get a strong start", "Do I save them for the playoffs", "Do I hang on to some in case of injury", "Do I hang on to a few incase someone I really like gets dropped" etc. etc.

Our current league is really polarized as far as # of transactions goes. Four teams are well over 100 moves, while 5 teams are under 50. Number of moves isn't a factor in standings either, with 2 of the +100 teams in the top of the league, and 2 at the bottom.

I smell a poll coming on!

I'm sure I'm in the minority in my thinking, but that's ok. I'm Canadian!

[Darth Tater]

Originally Posted by jammertime

Who am I kidding, I'm a fantasy whore. I'm sure I'd be playing next season either way, especially since hockey is probably my favourite fantasy game.

In a perfect world (for me), I'd like to see 40 -50 max moves. But I'm sure that's a bit low for most people's liking. Fifty moves would work out to an average of about 2 moves per week (assuming a team goes all the way to the finals). Exactly half of our current teams would be under a 50 move limit as of right now (with Roscoe just slightly over with 55 moves).

I find that the lower the cap, the more strategy that is involved. "Do I use one of my moves for short term gain", "Do I use them early to try and get a strong start", "Do I save them for the playoffs", "Do I hang on to some in case of injury", "Do I hang on to a few incase someone I really like gets dropped" etc. etc.

Our current league is really polarized as far as # of transactions goes. Four teams are well over 100 moves, while 5 teams are under 50. Number of moves isn't a factor in standings either, with 2 of the +100 teams in the top of the league, and 2 at the bottom.

I smell a poll coming on!

I'm sure I'm in the minority in my thinking, but that's ok. I'm Canadian!

No more than 55. Fair enough Cannuckian? Just remind me next year...

[roscoe36]

Bill is the commish. Why can't he set his roster right again?

I'm willing to be understanding of his mistake to preserve the integrity of the championship...

[Darth Tater]

Originally Posted by roscoe36

Bill is the commish. Why can't he set his roster right again?

I'm willing to be understanding of his mistake to preserve the integrity of the championship...

It crossed my mind earlier, but I think to be fair to everyone the Commish (me) can't get involved when somebody makes a mistake. It would be different, if say, his wife got mad and released all of his players. But something like this...we all make mistakes throughout the season. This one is of a different nature, but I just feel that the commish getting involved would be wrong.

Personally, I'm not going to pick up any of his players. Not because I'm a nice guy, but because I have nothing to play for. So why bother? I can't expect people playing for something or with high waiver priority to feel the same way. If an individual feels it's wrong to grab a guy Bill dumped, then he can pass on the waiver, or even try to get everyone to agree not to touch them. I wouldn't feel right asking people to do that under the circumstances. I'm not even sure Bill would want any "special" treatment.

I'm not trying to be cold. I feel bad about it. When I saw that I was like "Oh Sh.." But I do want to be fair, so I think staying out of it, for me, is best.

[roscoe36]

Oh yeah, you're the Commish. I forgot.

Bill is screwed.

and Tater'd.

[jammertime]

Live by the Tatering, die by the Tatering I say!

I feel bad for Bill, but not bad enough to not use my #2 waiver position to take a stab at one of the best players in the game. After all, I am in the middle of a battle for 3rd place!

Now if there was a transaction limit in place this season, this would have never happened....

[Darth Tater]

I was one doggone week away from getting through a rookie commish controversy-less season!

[bezeach]

Originally Posted by Darth Tater

It crossed my mind earlier, but I think to be fair to everyone the Commish (me) can't get involved when somebody makes a mistake. It would be different, if say, his wife got mad and released all of his players. But something like this...we all make mistakes throughout the season. This one is of a different nature, but I just feel that the commish getting involved would be wrong.

Personally, I'm not going to pick up any of his players. Not because I'm a nice guy, but because I have nothing to play for. So why bother? I can't expect people playing for something or with high waiver priority to feel the same way. If an individual feels it's wrong to grab a guy Bill dumped, then he can pass on the waiver, or even try to get everyone to agree not to touch them. I wouldn't feel right asking people to do that under the circumstances. I'm not even sure Bill would want any "special" treatment.

I'm not trying to be cold. I feel bad about it. When I saw that I was like "Oh Sh.." But I do want to be fair, so I think staying out of it, for me, is best.

I didn't know the finals lasted two week either. Then when I recently found out that it did, I saw Bill let go of all his great players. I don't think it's fair to use them, so I think I will pick them up on waivers (if no one else picks them up) and drop them right then without using them so nobody gets to use them.