Protected Lists for Draft

[Blueman]

I don't mind the protected list, for the same reasons that Mindz has pointed out - ie. it is a way to keep the contenders in check.

I would like to consider a vote to remove unprotected players from the draft, and institute a waiver priority.

I agree if u mean one draft with the reserves as part of the FA pool. Last place teams can then get a good pick and first dibs on players not kept.

 

[BG]

I was thinking that all unprotected players are effectively released to the FA pool and can then be added via waiver priority.

 

[Blueman]

I was thinking that all unprotected players are effectively released to the FA pool and can then be added via waiver priority.

yup ok, I like this. It gives the worst teams first dibs on players added back into the FA pool which I like.

 

[Volcanologist]

yeah, if we're going to keep doing that then the bottom teams should benefit first.

and I really think the "keeps the contenders in check" thing is pretty much nonsense. losing bench guys here or there isn't keeping anything in check.

but if the group votes for it then so be it.

 

[MindzEye]

I wouldn't vote for that personally, but I wouldn't freak out as long as it was treated like the MLB Rule 5 draft of sorts where the owner who drafts that player can't trade the player for a year, and if he demotes or releases the player, the previous owner gets first dibs.

 

[Deckie007]

I wouldn't vote for that personally, but I wouldn't freak out as long as it was treated like the MLB Rule 5 draft of sorts where the owner who drafts that player can't trade the player for a year, and if he demotes or releases the player, the previous owner gets first dibs.

I would dig that.

 

[TimHorton]

Agreed with Deckie via Mindz

 

[MindzEye]

Agreed with Deckie via Timmy

 

[Montana]

I wouldn't vote for that personally, but I wouldn't freak out as long as it was treated like the MLB Rule 5 draft of sorts where the owner who drafts that player can't trade the player for a year, and if he demotes or releases the player, the previous owner gets first dibs.

Yeah, it's a bad idea to change it.....but if for some reason we make the mistake of changing things....this would be the only way to do it.

...but even then, we'd ostensibly be making a more complicated and more convoluted system, to "fix" one that isn't broken.

 

[Habspatrol]

I agree with Timmay but not Deckie and I'm kinda up in the air on Mindz.

 

[Blueman]

While the mlb rule 5 is nice in theory, I doubt it would be viable to manage. If u drop the player they should be fair game IMO. This will help the lower tier teams the most.

 

[MindzEye]

Yeah, it's a bad idea to change it.....but if for some reason we make the mistake of changing things....this would be the only way to do it.

...but even then, we'd ostensibly be making a more complicated and more convoluted system, to "fix" one that isn't broken.

Yeah, I'm still with you on this. The draft is fine.

 

[axlsalinger]

Yeah, it's a bad idea to change it.....but if for some reason we make the mistake of changing things....this would be the only way to do it.

...but even then, we'd ostensibly be making a more complicated and more convoluted system, to "fix" one that isn't broken.

This.

It does help to keep the top teams in check (at least a tiny bit), and creates tough decisions. Tough decisions can be annoying, but they are also part of the fun in fantasy sports. Extra strategy is a good thing.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.