Post by Nuggets GM (League Commish) on Dec 18, 2012 17:05:50 GMT -5
This is a rule that I think needs to be examined, and I would like to explore it more here in this thread and get other GM's thoughts. Initially, I thought this rule would balance out any inequities among games played. For example, if one GM had a superstar play 4 games in a given week, versus another GM who superstar played only 3, that that would give the first GM an inherit advantage. And, I think in general when a GM has a roster that simply has more games in any given week, that would give him an even bigger advantage.
But here we are about 7 weeks into the season, and what I'm finding is that there are players buried deep on different teams bench's with no shot of ever playing. Thus, certain players are lost and free agency is quite thin for prospective teams that may want to make some moves. I'm thinking that starting next season that maybe we need to remove the 40 game max rule, and allow owners to play as many players as they like.
Any thoughts?
But here we are about 7 weeks into the season, and what I'm finding is that there are players buried deep on different teams bench's with no shot of ever playing. Thus, certain players are lost and free agency is quite thin for prospective teams that may want to make some moves. I'm thinking that starting next season that maybe we need to remove the 40 game max rule, and allow owners to play as many players as they like.
Any thoughts?
