A look at 10 signs your fantasy game could use some work... 


Register to read more ...


#15 finminer 2014-07-29 01:23
I'm a bit late to the party, but I want to add my opinion that vetoing trades is for losers. If you have to veto trades, you don't have good owners; and if you do allow vetoes, then vetoing for any other reason than collusion is downright immoral.

I agree with all these points, but I will throw in one other thing - not owner specific but league specific. I won't join a league that does not have some sort of mechanism for player turnover. If you don't have this, then savvy owners take advantage of naive owners and teams get stacked. The naive owners inevitably get frustrated because they can't make headway, and they quit. It destroys the competitiveness of the league.
#14 LawMan 2014-07-22 12:24
Great article, nailed all 10 points in my opinion.

rockachop your attitude towards vetoing is terrible, you need to realize it's designed to prevent collusion and is NOT a tool to let you try and prevent others from improving their teams.

With respect to non-payment my league has a great and simple rule. If your league fees are not paid before the draft starts you lose your 2nd round pick. Simple, concise, and a significant deterrent to ensure everyone pays up. It's never had to be enforced because everyone pays the week before the draft.
#13 butch 2014-07-20 15:45
its too bad Gudas disappeared in the playoffs
#12 SteelCity14 2014-07-20 10:28
EXCELLENT article! #7 is SUPER annoying to me. I agree with that totally. Just joined a super active offseason dynasty league 5 months ago and am in love with it! Great article Dobber, kudos!
#11 rockachop 2014-07-19 13:45
Quoting rob2kx:
Rockachop: Your post made me cry a bit inside. That was an awful read.

no need to cry, it's only fantasy hockey. :P
#10 Axeman33 2014-07-19 06:21
LOL! Good stuff right here. Thanks for the saturday morning smile.
#9 patch 2014-07-19 02:22
I know you saw the backlash coming, but I also disagree about vetoing trades. Pengwin7's point is right-on. You gotta differentiate between leagues where all GM's are well-informed and perhaps people you know and random or public leagues. If a GM is the beneficiary of three 2-for-1 trades over the course of a season on the order of Bozak and Koivu for Malkin as provided in the article, he/she can become an almost insurmountable "super-team" compared with the rest of the league. An ability to veto trades is the only recourse you have to preventing this kind of hegemony through unbalanced trades.
-2 #8 rob2kx 2014-07-18 20:05
Rockachop: Your post made me cry a bit inside. That was an awful read.
#7 5hole 2014-07-18 18:55
2 championships in 5 years ( dynasty) while usually always in the top 5 of 14 and I'm the last to pay my dues...lol.

Walked into playoff pool without even pen and paper while everyone had laptops and links to fricken nasa! Took down the 1k pot!

Wish I could be in your pool!
#6 rockachop 2014-07-18 18:27
I disagree somewhat with the vetoing of trades.
Consider this argument when using Yahoo! Fantasy Hockey:

When two GM's make a trade, (usually) they both believe the trade benefits their respective teams. Well, my goal in fantasy hockey is to win, and making opposing teams worse when they try to get better is just another strategy on the road to victory.
The only thing I can do to try to prevent my competition from getting better, is to veto.
In my league though, the veto percentage is pretty high, at 75%, so it makes sense to veto from my perspective.

All this being said, I do agree that rip-off trades are allowed, while collusion is NOT. If you can take advantage, do it, or else someone else will.

Anyone else agree?

You need to login to post comments. Registration takes 5 seconds. See link at top left under "home"