David sees a different problem, and believes it is the utter opposite of what I said.
In the end, I think you want every team trying to do well, even if that team is no longer in contention. It makes for a more lively and competitive race at the top of the standings if the teams at the bottom are still fighting, however hopelessly. (Why should a good player on waivers be free to the top teams late in the year when that same player would have drawn lots of bids early on?)To some degree, I can understand David's argument. However, I disagree with its basic premise.
When I have a contending team, what I find FAR more frustrating is when a team at the bottom has completely stopped paying attention and THAT has an impact on the race. (Say, they're not even bothering to replace a bunch of DL'd players, which leads them to lose ground to a contending team in counting-stats categories.)
Why should a good player on waivers be free to the top teams late in the year when that same player would have drawn lots of bids early on?I'll have to restate my basic premise. I don't believe that every player in the free agent pool should be "free" to the teams at the top of the pile. I do believe, however, that teams at the bottom of the pile have absolutely no vested interest in players who are Roto free agents next year or who would have salaries that make them prohibitively expensive for a non-contender.
When I have a contending team, what I find FAR more frustrating is when a team at the bottom has completely stopped paying attention and THAT has an impact on the race. (Say, they're not even bothering to replace a bunch of DL'd players, which leads them to lose ground to a contending team in counting-stats categories.)This rationale sounds like someone who is upset because there are mosquitoes buzzing around his head but not so upset about the malaria those mosquitoes might be carrying.
Which of these events impacts the race more: a team not replacing his injured Bobby Crosby with Marco Scutaro in mid-August, or that same owner dumping Magglio Ordonez, Joe Mauer, Dan Haren and Joe Nathan to your closest competitor in mid-June?
Give yourself a point if you answered the dump trade in mid-June. Yes, it's a trifle annoying when the guy who dumped stops replacing injured players on his team and you lose a point here and a point there as a result. In reality, though, that team "lost" those points when he gave away half his offense on June 15. The players he dumped had most of the impact on those "lost" stats; the injured players he's not replacing are more the final catalysts officially pushing him into the second tier.
And, if you've played in a competitive league long enough, you come to expect this. You know that if six teams dump, chances are that the worst team in the running will finish with 7 points in HR and 7 points in RBI in a 12-team league. You can bank on it.
David concludes:
The best way to avoid collusion issues is for the teams at the bottom to 1) make strategic moves for next year. 2) continue to compete for this year, so long as it doesn't interfere with #1.I once again don't agree. #1 is obviously paramount for a non-contender. #2 doesn't matter.
Why should a team that's packed it in compete for this year? The owner of that team has already committed to not competing. His only goal is next year. This year is worthless.
And, again, if you believe that non-competitors doing nothing hurts your league (which you have every right to believe), you should lobby hard against dump trades and make it as difficult as possible to make those types of trades. You might even want to consider starting over every year. Dump trades do far more damage to the final standings then inattentive owners can ever do.
3 comments:
We have a rule where you can keep your FAAB acquisitions next year. This has kept 'out of it' teams interested and plucking players all year long, not to mention increased the prize money. Next year there could be a lot of $1 keepers, but in reality most are thrown back.
I mentioned this in an earlier post, but I like the idea of either forcing teams to keep guys FAABed over a certain amount, or paying a penalty if they don't. Teams in contention will gladly suffer the extra fee; teams out of the running will typically think twice before throwing more money into the pot for a player they are simply going to throw back into the pool at year's end.
Hey Mike...
I think I half-agree with you. As you know, in our league, the 10th place team gets the 1st draft pick, and I see nothing wrong with working to improve your team to play for 10th place. Even if that wasn't the case, I don't see anything wrong with playing for pride either, but I agree that the emphasis should be on building your team for next year.
Here's an example:
When Teixiera came over, two teams had the most FAAB - a team in the running and a team towards the bottom. They both had about 80% of their FAAB left. The lower team had Teixiera if he wanted him, but I think bidding his max would have been bad form, because it would prohibit him from picking up speculative free agents for the rest of the season. However, I'd have no problem at all with him spending, say, $50 on him, even if this was the highest amount of FAAB left in the league and would guarantee getting him - because he'd still have a lot of money left over to gamble on some September call-ups.
And like David said, the race for 1st is just as likely to be impacted by teams being inactive as being active - you don't know which way it's going to end up.
Now, I'm with you in practice - if I'm out of it and I dumped, I don't care if I finish in last or in 7th (with the exception of the draft pick order). But I can't fault any team for trying to finish as high as possible - nobody wants to finish last, after all.
Post a Comment