Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm tired of having this fight each year. I'm willing to give up HFA, but I want to get a few other roster related rule changes in return.
So here's my proposal for the Great Compromise of 2013.
Drop HFA
Reduce Roster Size by 3 or 4 players
Reduce the amount of Keepers by 1-2
Possible waiver wire
Possible IR reform
Possible position limits
These are not demands. This is a negotiation. Start arguing.
I would vote for getting rid of HFA altogether no argument here.
If you do position limits, I think that would automatically entail a reduction in roster size. If you can only have 6 RBs and 6 WRs then it might cause someone to stash the next highest point total position which would probably be LBs. Even QBs would all be gone because you have extra spots. There would be no one to pick up on bye weeks or with an injury. So I think if one is going to be passed, then we have to pass both. To be honest, Im not sure I like either one. I enjoy the freedoms of a bigger roster and the ability to have however many I want at each position.
I think reducing the keepers by 1 or 2 could be a good idea. Maybe ease it back one, to see how it goes. If all are happy then maybe drop the second the following year. I know that I have made moves this offseason based off of us keeping 7 each year. I would propose that if this is something we decide to do, then we vote it in now to go into effect in 2014.
I have said many times that I like this league for its differences. Having no waiver wire is one of the things I do like. Its first come first serve and that's cool. I understand not everyone is as into it as others and some go to games etc. I wouldn't be hugely disappointed either way although I prefer it as it is. We could put it to a vote and see what happens.
Im puzzled as to what IR reform you are wanting to make. I know we have had problems the past few seasons with suspended players being placed on IR by team owners. Is this the part of the IR you are speaking of or something different?
Another way to tweak the keepers is to put a cap on them. Instead of having a player "for life", what if we put a three year cap on how long you could keep someone? Then that player has to go back into the pool, or you would have to do some sort of trade so that he just doesn't hit "free agency" without you gaining something. It would be like the Jets-Revis situation this offseason. Do you just let the guy go or do you trade him and get some value for him.
wolfe wrote:Anti-hoarding measures. I think it would give other teams an opportunity to get players.
Not trying to be difficult, just playing Devils advocate for a moment. Everyone has the equal opportunity to "hoard" players. The first come first serve is the beauty of this league. Get your players quick and stash them away. They may not be there when you go looking for them!!
If we have to make a change of some sort, I think Jeff's proposal is at least on the right track and not too extreme.
So is this discussion dead in the water? We have had three people weigh in on it since it was posted several weeks back. No one else has added their suggestions or opinions. Would be nice to have this worked out before draft day so we wouldn't have to waste time debating it before we started drafting.
I don't like position limits but I understand the reasoning behind it. Ill vote with the majority (or as always, against whatever the midget is for).
I always hoard rb's bc you never know when someone will get hurt and I'd rather have the new starter instead of other teams. I'm still holding out hope that kevan Barlow and Lamont Jordan are seen as the talent they are!