alexgaddis Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 So you're saying Clarence Moore is now available in your league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 WOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) Actually, I stand corrected, he was active weeks 2 and 5, not week 3 as you claim, so it looks like we both need to do our research before we open our pie hole. Â http://football17.myfantasyleague.com/2006...?L=37496&P=7589 Weeks 1,3,4,6 Moore was inactive and listed as OUT in MFL, which is a violation of our rules. Â Â Â many teams don't announce their inactives until right before the game, therefore they would not be listed prior to the game on mfl, only injured players are listed that way. Edited October 24, 2006 by Bring Back Pat!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 many teams don't announce their inactives until right before the game, therefore they would not be listed prior to the game on mfl, only injured players are listed that way. Â Â Don't let that fact stand in the way of a good beating about the head and shoulders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Note to self: Avoid dynasty leagues at all costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 So you're saying Clarence Moore is now available in your league? Â Â You touch Clarence Moore and you're pulling back a nub, boy. He's mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutch Oven Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 In the future, please perform all Cleveland Steamers in private. Â Thanks, Â Management Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) I think its safe to say Clarence Moore has never received so much air time on a fantasy message board as he did today Edited October 24, 2006 by whomper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crispirons Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 my question for the peanut gallery, would you as an owner, make multiple trades that force you to put in a lineup of backups, even if you were "rebuilding"? would you not even consider that you are making your team a bye week for the rest of the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 You had me at OK...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatman Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 WOW Â Â Yeah. Â Note to self: Avoid dynasty leagues at all costs. Â Â They are actually a lot of fun. This is an extremely competitive league and I think that is part of why this is such a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 would you not even consider that you are making your team a bye week for the rest of the league? Â Personally, yes. However, I only play in redrafts and keepers so I don't pretend to fully and properly understand the dynamics of a dynasty league. It seems to me inevitable though that remaining competitive and building for the future are sometimes mutually exclusive in a dynasty. Let's face it, even in a keeper league there are times when you have to trade away good starters for next year draft picks. Only redrafts offer no reason at all to be uncompetitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Since you went public with this, I will not use a PM to answer..... Â You have overstepped. Â Not one thing said by anyone here will alter a thing. Their input is not required nor wanted. Take this back to the forum it belongs in. Â Â +5,381 Â Wise man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Â They are actually a lot of fun. This is an extremely competitive league and I think that is part of why this is such a debate. Â I know, I've lurked in that particular forum on occasion because it seems to be generally considered one of the foremost BOTH leagues, quite aside from the cast of characters which is...um....very interesting to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 After reading this thread, as God is my witness, I will never again make fun of a woman for talking about shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 my question for the peanut gallery, would you as an owner, make multiple trades that force you to put in a lineup of backups, even if you were "rebuilding"? would you not even consider that you are making your team a bye week for the rest of the league?   THat is a hard question.  Now, would I trade away a player with one year left to get value? Yes.  Would I do it repeatedly? Yes  I didn't really see any trades where keggerz gave away a non 1-year player that would start for him in one of the so called "goose-egg" spots.  It is the ultimae question of how much are you willing to give up in order to be sure to get some value for someone.  His is a very legitimate strategy, though perhpas taken to an extreme. Of course, I have not yet been in a position in a contract league where so much of my team was down ot a 1-year contract, so I can't say for sure if given the similar situation, I wouldn't do the same. I am in a dynasty league where last week I had to start Kurt Warner at QB as McNair had been injured and my other options were Rodgers or Cutler and McNair was injured. I had been unable to land a starter via trade, and as we have deep rosters, there was not a single starting QB available in free agency. I chose to start the QB I felt was most likely to actually get PT, even though chances were none of them would.  Now, his decision to not bring players up from the DTS makes sense. If he does that, as noted it does make them more difficult to trade with contract years, and even if he has no desire to trade them, and playing on the assumption that you can not add to (ie, extend) contracts on players, to promote them not only costs him the years he assigns to those players, but also costs him two years as he would use that up on them this year and not be able to add that back to the contract next season.  All have essentially agreed that even with those players, he would still have a poor team, so why would he give these guys say 10 year contracts this year, which get knocked to 9 year deals at the end of this season, which he can not add back to those players, and at the same time eats up all of those years on thosetwo players that could be used on players acquired in the upcoming offseason where he could spread the years across more players theoretically providing him with a better team for many years?  So, IMO, the holding back of the DTS players is the proper strategic move, as it makes sense to see what he is able to acquire next offseason before allocating that much contract time. THe trades he made on a case by case basis are all fine and likely the correct strategic move.. moving players with one year and thus no value after the current season for something of value in the long term, however, the immediate affect of not having a starting QB is a situation I would have tried to do more to avoid, but can't fault him too much for not wanting to give up something of any long term value for a 1 year average QB, if that was even being made available to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Kegs, while keeping those players on your taxi squad is technically legal, it's sort of legal in the Bill Clinton "what is the definition of sex" type of a way. I can understand wanting to protect contract years, but it just doesn't seem fully above board. IMO, you have an obligation not to become a weekly bye for the rest of the league. I have no idea how the league would legislate such a thing. Â One more time, reminded why I avoid leagues in which Sarge plays: everything always ends up spilled all over the front lawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I would have tried to do more to avoid, but can't fault him too much for not wanting to give up something of any long term value for a 1 year average QB, if that was even being made available to him.  fwiw I was offered warner during RFA and I passed, glad I did  also an update I just traded one of those DTS PLAYERS...  Keg sends: AJ Hawk DTS, Jon Alston DTS Team Coffee sends: Abdul Hodge DTS, Jason Campbell DTS JJ Arrington(5yrs), 6th round rook in 2007(Phanton Anarchy) & $2  this trade is a perfect example of why i didnt activate hawk earlier...if i had given Hawk a 6, 7 or 10yr deal this deal would have been next to impossible to do...  my view is I get a LB that should end up starting at MLB next yr in GB and a QB that is the future in Wash(that is still to be decided but I think Jason has a very good shot to be the heir to that job) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 (edited) Personally, yes. However, I only play in redrafts and keepers so I don't pretend to fully and properly understand the dynamics of a dynasty league. It seems to me inevitable though that remaining competitive and building for the future are sometimes mutually exclusive in a dynasty. Let's face it, even in a keeper league there are times when you have to trade away good starters for next year draft picks. Only redrafts offer no reason at all to be uncompetitive. Â Â So, then, S_T_F_U. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Edited October 24, 2006 by Hugh 0ne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 I think its crap. He's not fielding a competitive team and thats wrong... But, its his money, his team. Just look at what the Arizona Cardinals have done for the past few decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 After reading this thread, as God is my witness, I will never again make fun of a woman for talking about shoes. Â Â LMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbmcdonald Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Kegs, while keeping those players on your taxi squad is technically legal, it's sort of legal in the Bill Clinton "what is the definition of sex" type of a way. I can understand wanting to protect contract years, but it just doesn't seem fully above board. IMO, you have an obligation not to become a weekly bye for the rest of the league. I have no idea how the league would legislate such a thing. Â One more time, reminded why I avoid leagues in which Sarge plays: everything always ends up spilled all over the front lawn. Â Â I join BcS with him....I ended up joining 32homARRRRRRS, just to even out the sillyness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 So, then, S_T_F_U. Â Typical New Yorker. :oldrazz: Â The question was whether I would consider the impact on other teams of becoming an effective "bye". I would but then again, maybe I would do what Keg has done, I dunno. Maybe all he could see in the future was an endless sea of losing seasons with no hope of getting better. Again, dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 And to think PnH used to be considered such a clusterflock... Poor ole HoP's head would explode in Fusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.