Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Burt the Butcher
And it also would have allowed a team like Preds, who lost the #1 RB of 2006 for half the season, to be more competitive and maybe regain that 0.75 points that cost him the championship. Seems like a good thing to me. Well, not the getting Preds into the playoffs thing, but the competitive thing.....
|
I just don't buy the argument of allowing something because it allows teams to be more competitive. If that is the justification, then why do we have limited rosters, salary caps, limited developmental rosters where we are forced to cut rookie picks every year, etc etc? All of these things are challenges that are directly contradictory to the argument of allowing teams to all be competitive.
If allowing poorly managed teams, or teams hurt by injuries, to compete is justification for anything, then lets expand the rosters. Then we can all have as many players at a position we want. If I don't sign any good RBs, then I can just sign 20 of them and see if 1 of them works out. Why not get rid of the salary cap, and just have free pickups. Then anyone can pick up anyone, and the bad teams can just pick up the mid season breakout players for free. That would help teams be more competitive. Why not have huge developmental rosters so we can keep all of our rookie picks, and then when our active roster craps out, at least someone we've drafted should be able to help.
Of course this is all sarcasm, because we have all of these things in our league because the present a
challenge for teams to manage a competitive roster. We only have 4 out of 12 teams going to the playoffs because we want to reward the best of the best. We don't play for money, because we are playing for pride and bragging rights. We want this league to be difficult, and letting teams start whatever combination of players they want flies directly in the face of that.