Response to E-mail about future of this league

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:12 am

I was keeping my opinions to E-mail responses to Greg and Tom, but since a public forum was created....

Any post-draft changes made to either eligibility or flex options give "undeserved" advantages and/or disadvantages to owners that didn't base or did base their draft strategies on the rules and conditions in place at the time of the drafts.

Keep it the same or start over.
It really is the only two fair options to all.

Glenn

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:14 am

Originally posted by Highlander:
I can understand the argument that some people passed on certain players due to position lists, but do not think it is unfair because we all had to deal with the same issue. No one was singled out, we all dealt with it. I vote for keeping this thing going, just change the lineup configuration to more players in the flex position. Come on guys, lets keep this going. Teams in the later slots were much more affected by this change, specifically because of Bosh and Gasol. If you had an early pick, you weren't taking these players in the 1st round, and you weren't getting them in the 2nd. Bosh and Gasol see a significant spike in value due to their current Center eligibility, yet many (myself included) passed on one or both of these players due to them only being eligible at Forward.

Highlander · Post by **Highlander** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:20 am

I drafted very late, 11th and was not affected koq

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:37 am

I don't think this is just a first or second round issue.
How many people drafted a center mid-round because the list of "eligible" centers were growing short?
How many people drafted a fourth guard or a fourth forward before a better player at a different position where they believed they had their starting spots covered because of the rules in place at the time?

This affects the entire draft and shouldn't be taken lightly as to the change in the dynamics of the contest.

Glenn

Purple Helmets · Post by **Purple Helmets** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:39 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:
I was keeping my opinions to E-mail responses to Greg and Tom, but since a public forum was created....

Any post-draft changes made to either eligibility or flex options give "undeserved" advantages and/or disadvantages to owners that didn't base or did base their draft strategies on the rules and conditions in place at the time of the drafts.

Keep it the same or start over.
It really is the only two fair options to all.

Glenn I agree with this...although am disappointed if we would have to draft again. But any changes to what we drafted by to me is not fair. You can't change things midstream. I summed up my thoughts in my earlier post in this thread.

menobrown · Post by **menobrown** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:22 am

Originally posted by Purple Helmets:
For example, I drafted Deron Williams with pick #10. Had I know Chris Bosh had dual C/F eligibility at that time, I would have drafted him. And taking him would have altered my second pick...and so on.

Not trying to be argumentative with you but how did you and others now know the position eligibility? E-mails were sent out prior to the draft informing people that Bosh was a C.

Now I said in another post and will say again several times in the draft I did not have time to look up a player or just assumed incorrectly. For instance in the 4th round I picked Paul Pierce when I assumed he was F. Had I known he was a G I'd have chosen another player but I'm willing to live with what I picked. I guess I just don't understand how so many people did not know the eligibility positions. It was pain drafting trying to figure out who was who but we all went through the same thing and I for one am willing to live with the player eligibility as listed when we started the draft even though I made a few mistakes with regards to player eligibility.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:26 am

Originally posted by menobrown:
quote:Originally posted by Purple Helmets:
For example, I drafted Deron Williams with pick #10. Had I know Chris Bosh had dual C/F eligibility at that time, I would have drafted him. And taking him would have altered my second pick...and so on.

Not trying to be argumentative with you but how did you and others now know the position eligibility? E-mails were sent out prior to the draft informing people that Bosh was a C.[/QUOTE]Sorry, you're right. I had Bosh as a Center on my spreadsheet. It was Gasol that was supposed to be a Forward, but he's now a Forward-Center. I would have taken him in the 2nd round if he were eligible at Center.

751542 · Post by **751542** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:50 am

to me , the simplest solution would be to add 2 flex positions. i was affected positionally as well and can live with my decisions. i want to do the league(i feel we ALL have put in valueable time already) and do NOT want to redraft. that would be a nightmare trying to get everyone together again. it is what it is...lets move forward and rectify this situation...RT for 3!!!

Milkman Dead · Post by **Milkman Dead** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:54 am

My vote is to go with choice A (3-F, 3-G, 1-C, 5 Flex), but to remove the dual eligibility recently given to the guys who are now considered F/C.

So... everyone is only eligible at ONE position, and those are the positions sent out to everyone before the draft, but now we start 3 forwards, 3 guards, 1 center, and 5 utility. Teams will have a lot more flexibility this way, without changing positions post-draft, which I don't believe is right.

Nothing will make EVERYONE happy, but given the options, I believe this is the fairest and easiest thing to do.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:14 am

I knew that there would NOT be a consensus of opinions on this matter, but I thought we could all find a middle ground on this. Now I'm not so sure we'll be able to do that. Some folks have made it known they will not continue if any changes are made and that is the option I've allowed them to make. Under those circumstances, it wouldn't be feasible to go forward with all five leagues and the overall prize pool.

Most of the responses have been for a little flexibility at G-F, but NOT AT CENTER. I've heard that enough and I understand why. I get that and honestly we have tried our best to make the center eligibility now as fair as possible. We can't mess with that.

So there are two options now, knowing that drafting over is just impossible with 60 different folks:

a) Keep everything the same. No changes to current format

b) 3-F, 3-G, 2-C, 4-Flex for starters each week

Let's see some feedback on these two options now and make a decision tomorrow. Thanks all.