That's an interesting one. Unfortunately it seems like it would just incentivize bad teams to be bad in a different way, i.e. don't work the waiver wire, dump players that you aren't going to keep for next year but that are producing at the moment, etc. Don't think I'd be a fan personally, but I understand the possible benefit of having it as a feature.
Unfortunately/amazingly, the whole Fleaflicker.com team seems to be... uh, gone, so I wouldn't expect any new features anytime soon. Kinda worried tbh.
My push back to your argument would be that bad teams cant ever get good if they did what youre suggesting they would do.
They would need to punt an entire year , and then acquire a ton of picks or FA's and hit on the majority of them to be competitive the following year, and that is super hard to do. Way more likely that punting all the depth off of their roster to purge points wont help either really, because keeping good players and benching them, they still get penalized for that. So they would have to literally dump the entirety of their good players, and hope to hit on every pick and grab every reasonable FA off the wire to .... finish in the middle? *shrug*
Really just not worth it to even try IMO, and if they still want to donate every year, that would be fine with me
I guess that is true; I revise my commentary: This rule's efficacy would scale up/down depending on how much of each team's roster is kept. If each team has 15 roster spots and you keep 12 then yeah, this effectively guards against tanking. But if you have 15 and only keep 4/5, then once a team is out of the playoff picture they could just decide 'okay, these are my four studs', then try to have a fire sale for the midrange guys.
PwinglesFri 1/14/22 2:34 PM
Its the best anti tanking measure there is, for leagues that are concerned about it.
Our leagues are some of those that are and we would love to see it as an option. Do you have any plans of adding this feature?
DLWTue 1/25/22 3:26 PM
That's an interesting one. Unfortunately it seems like it would just incentivize bad teams to be bad in a different way, i.e. don't work the waiver wire, dump players that you aren't going to keep for next year but that are producing at the moment, etc. Don't think I'd be a fan personally, but I understand the possible benefit of having it as a feature.
Unfortunately/amazingly, the whole Fleaflicker.com team seems to be... uh, gone, so I wouldn't expect any new features anytime soon. Kinda worried tbh.
PwinglesWed 2/2/22 5:00 PM
My push back to your argument would be that bad teams cant ever get good if they did what youre suggesting they would do.
They would need to punt an entire year , and then acquire a ton of picks or FA's and hit on the majority of them to be competitive the following year, and that is super hard to do. Way more likely that punting all the depth off of their roster to purge points wont help either really, because keeping good players and benching them, they still get penalized for that. So they would have to literally dump the entirety of their good players, and hope to hit on every pick and grab every reasonable FA off the wire to .... finish in the middle? *shrug*
Really just not worth it to even try IMO, and if they still want to donate every year, that would be fine with me
DLWMon 2/7/22 4:17 PM
I guess that is true; I revise my commentary: This rule's efficacy would scale up/down depending on how much of each team's roster is kept. If each team has 15 roster spots and you keep 12 then yeah, this effectively guards against tanking. But if you have 15 and only keep 4/5, then once a team is out of the playoff picture they could just decide 'okay, these are my four studs', then try to have a fire sale for the midrange guys.