Extra roster spot for playoffs?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:23 am

Greg,
Have you decided whether to allow teams to add an additional roster spot for the playoffs? Since there is no more free agency this should be a good thing

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:28 am

It's a worthy question. I have not added this to the rules yet as I actually forgot about this discussion from last year, but it's worth thinking about again. I see pros and cons to both sides, so let me sit on this a bit.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:42 am

Greg, when giving consideration to this proposal, please address the following point:

Since all 14 teams in each league have some sort of a post-season (Playoffs or Consolation), therefore they all must get the extra roster spot(s). Would you consider it fair if in League A, a Playoff Team will be able to win a bid on a "Larry Johnson 2004" for a couple of bucks because of lack of interest by other teams, meanwhile in League B, all potential Playoff Teams will lose out on a bid for "Larry Johnson 2004" because that league's season-long basement dweller decided to wake up and bid all it's remaining bidding bucks on "Larry Johnson 2004" as a final attempt to simply to screw the Playoff contenders or some other ridiculous or even malicious motives?

Unless you can completely solve the potential problems this option creates, I believe allowing the extra roster spot(s) is opening a Pandora's Box. It creates potential for an unlevel playing field, something that needs to be avoided as much as possible. This may work well in individual leagues but not when you have 25+ leagues with independant bidding scenarios.

moyer1313 · Post by **moyer1313** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:42 am

I agree with Nag'.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:00 am

nag - your post is full of hot air. a cellar dweller can bid on the "larry johnson 2004" whether there is an extra spot or not.

Nag' · Post by **Nag'** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:14 am

GG, you can continue to be argumentative just for the sake of it, or you can actually make a constructive suggestion to solve the potential problems, which I believe you case truly needs to go forward. I'm betting you choose door #1.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:43 am

Originally posted by Nag':
GG, you can continue to be argumentative just for the sake of it, or you can actually make a constructive suggestion to solve the potential problems, which I believe you case truly needs to go forward. I'm betting you choose door #1. i wasn't trying to argue. your post has no merit. the same "problem" you posed CAN happen whether there is an extra roster spot or not, i.e. a cellar dweller can bid on the "larry johnson 2004" whether there is an extra spot or not. care to comment on that?

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 3:13 pm

I say we keep it how it is. No need for an extra roster spot IMO, as everyone has some "baggage" they can let go.

Anyhow Gekko, it worked well for you without the extra player the first time. I understand you want to make this change, but I personally don't think it makes a bit of difference either way, so why create a "potential" problem.

Remember the guy last year who bid on 5 QB's or something like that just so the other guy wouldn't get one (and he was clearly out of the playoffs?) That is the "Pandora's box that Nag was referring to (if I got it correctly?)

Just my opinion, but I like it how it is!

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:13 pm

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
I understand you want to make this change, but I personally don't think it makes a bit of difference either way, so why create a "potential" problem. what is the potential problem? please state a problem that would be created due to adding an extra roster spot only for the playoffs. i don't believe you can find one. nags example is flawed as that can happen with or without an extra roster spot. thanks.

Originally posted by BillyWaz:
Remember the guy last year who bid on 5 QB's or something like that just so the other guy wouldn't get one (and he was clearly out of the playoffs?) That is the "Pandora's box that Nag was referring to (if I got it correctly?)it's called Pandora's BS. if i'm out of the playoffs i can bid on 5 QB's whether there is an extra roster spot or not. maybe there should be a little kiddie MB that people have to use and then they can graduate to "The Main MB" once they make a certain number of intelligent posts?

BillyWaz · Post by **BillyWaz** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:59 pm

Gekko,

I realize they could STILL bid on someone if they weren't in the playoffs, but the chance to "screw someone over" one more time increases.

Again, I'll give you that it could happen ANYTIME, but my main point is that adding a roster spot isn't that significant for me. It is kind of like saying, "hey, why don't we all have a logo on our standings page this year?" Isn't going to make a word of difference in the outcome of the game, and I don't feel adding a roster spot will either.

As far as a good reason why adding a roster spot SHOULDN'T be allowed.....

How about everyone who has signed up so far is under the impression that you CAN'T pick up an extra player because it isn't in the rules when they agreed to play in this contest? My opinion is it won't make a world of difference, but it may make a difference for many others.

You can be the "squeaky wheel" on this one Gekko, but no reason to throw insults at Nag and I just because we don't agree with you.