Dynasty league activity, or lack therof (1 Viewer)

[ConnSKINS26]

I would never stay in a league with inactive owners who basically just draft guys and hold them forever while setting their lineups every week. That's why I commish or co-commish every league I'm in, I replace those types of owners.

What if they win every year?

That type of owner doesn't win much of anything.

You're right, not if they get kicked out of the league.The least active owner in our league won this year. He always has all of his picks each year. Rarely trades. This year, he won, led by ODB, Bell, and Antonio Brown, all players he drafted and held. Lucky? Maybe, but he would not have had a chance in your league.

There are more ways to build a team than by trading. I'd view a league run by you where you have to actively make trades just as restrictive and suffocating as a league where you have positional limits. Both stifle creativity and strategy in building a dynasty. You ought to rethink your views.

I believe my previous post above on this matter should explain it, but you've misinterpreted what I said. You're taking my comments on trade activity and my comments on league activity, and my comments on how I commish, and connecting dots that aren't there. They were all separate points in the same thread, and that's my fault.

--I boot owners who are inactive.

--I don't necessarily think an owner has to make tons of trades to be considered active, but have seen a correlation over the years: the bottom level teams rarely are the teams that are active in trade talks, trying to improve.

--that personal opinion, that it's extremely difficult to be a great dynasty owner without utilizing your ability to trade, is just that--a personal opinion, and as commish I wouldn't boot someone because they disagreed, if they were active in the league otherwise.

 

[Zdravko]

I wish the leagues I don't commission had the same approach as ConnSKINS. It does take some courage for a commissioner to do so. I have no problem with politely asking dormant owners to make room for someone who fits the mold of the league better. If you think about it for a second, it actually works better for everyone involved. Most importantly, it prevents the active core owners from losing faith and moving on.

Who is talking about forcing you to do trades? In my most active league, there is an owner who has made a whopping total of 3 trades in 3 seasons. League average is probably 15-20 per team over the same period. That same owner also very rarely sends out any offers. Yet, no one would say he is dormant deadweight. Everyone appreciates his funny comments in the chat and the threads. He is always quick to respond to anything in his inbox, no matter how lopsided. He would always explain his reasoning, which mostly comes down to ownership bias. While I often disagree with his views and sometime find his zealous belief in his own roster absurd, I hold tremendous respect for him and just invited him to join a new league for crazy traders.

So - to ConnSKINS point - no one is trying to force you make trades you don't like. It's not about the trade activity; it's about activity, period, and about showing some courtesy and respect to your leaguemates. If you are not up for that, then isn't it better that you stick with basic redraft or find leagues that fit your activity profile better?

 

[ghostguy123]

--I don't necessarily think an owner has to make tons of trades to be considered active, but have seen a correlation over the years: the bottom level teams rarely are the teams that are active in trade talks, trying to improve.

For the most part in every league I have been in, the teams who never trade are middle of the pack teams (not a good place to be), and the teams who trade a lot are either elite or horrifically bad.

If those middle of the road teams are not bettering themselves from the weak teams, then others will.

But I definitely agree that non-active owners are bad, but as you said, being active doesnt mean you have to make trades.

 

[pizzatyme]

Someone in one of my leagues introduced us to groupme.com It's a great site for chatting as a group as well as sending PMs. We have 2/3 of the league active on it and you can get texts while you're not at your computer.

 

[GregR]

People should definitely discuss what they are looking for in a dynasty league in terms of offseason activity before forming or joining one. Some want a year round active league, others don't.

When my friends and I were younger we'd have probably preferred more of a year round league. Where we are at in our lives now, I think the vast majority of the league likes having downtime and being able to take a break.

It fits well with it being a salary cap / contract league, since our vet auction is the equivalent of free agency. And it's such a high point I think most everyone prefers not having offseason waivers, so the vet auction is a big deal.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think it's ever fair to boot some one from a dynasty league - unless they are really a true detriment to the league (pot stirrer, collusion, extremely abrasive, etc.).

Just not being as active as one would like (by any definition) isn't exactly fair when you consider that dynasty is often times a long term "investment". What if a guy paid in his fees for X many years with a more long term goal in mind. So when his team starts taking shape, he gets booted because he doesn't post on the message board a lot or doesn't make as many trades as the commissioner would like?

Does he get any past league fees returned as well? In a redraft you're paying your fee for that immediate season. In a dynasty it's more of a grey area.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I don't think it's ever fair to boot some one from a dynasty league - unless they are really a true detriment to the league (pot stirrer, collusion, extremely abrasive, etc.).

Just not being as active as one would like (by any definition) isn't exactly fair when you consider that dynasty is often times a long term "investment". What if a guy paid in his fees for X many years with a more long term goal in mind. So when his team starts taking shape, he gets booted because he doesn't post on the message board a lot or doesn't make as many trades as the commissioner would like?

Does he get any past league fees returned as well? In a redraft you're paying your fee for that immediate season. In a dynasty it's more of a grey area.

Disagree 100%.I'm not looking out for individual owners, I'm looking out for the league as a whole.

I think of it this way: You aren't buying in to your individual dynasty roster, you're paying the buy-in to join a larger experience that everyone contributes to.

I'll boot anyone who detracts from the experience the rest of the league is paying for. That includes the things you're talking about (collusion, abrasiveness, etc.) but also includes activity level.

I'm perfectly fine that not everyone feels the way I do about this...like-minded owners will eventually end up in the leagues that are right for them, in the same way that players tend to eventually gravitate towards the owner who values them most in a dynasty league.

It's just a different thought process. You see it as someone paying for the right to do whatever (within the rules) with their roster. I see it as someone paying to be a part of the league, and that league has a certain vision that the commish is responsible for cultivating.

My owners enjoy the hell out of my leagues, and there are other owners who enjoy a different league mind-set.

I will say this--I will always return the buy-in of anyone who doesn't finish the season they've paid for. I always try to make necessary replacements in the offseason, before buy-ins are due.

 

[Amused to Death]

I don't think it's ever fair to boot some one from a dynasty league - unless they are really a true detriment to the league (pot stirrer, collusion, extremely abrasive, etc.).

Just not being as active as one would like (by any definition) isn't exactly fair when you consider that dynasty is often times a long term "investment". What if a guy paid in his fees for X many years with a more long term goal in mind. So when his team starts taking shape, he gets booted because he doesn't post on the message board a lot or doesn't make as many trades as the commissioner would like?

Does he get any past league fees returned as well? In a redraft you're paying your fee for that immediate season. In a dynasty it's more of a grey area.

Disagree 100%.I'm not looking out for individual owners, I'm looking out for the league as a whole.

I think of it this way: You aren't buying in to your individual dynasty roster, you're paying the buy-in to join a larger experience that everyone contributes to.

I'll boot anyone who detracts from the experience the rest of the league is paying for. That includes the things you're talking about (collusion, abrasiveness, etc.) but also includes activity level.

I'm perfectly fine that not everyone feels the way I do about this...like-minded owners will eventually end up in the leagues that are right for them, in the same way that players tend to eventually gravitate towards the owner who values them most in a dynasty league.

It's just a different thought process. You see it as someone paying for the right to do whatever (within the rules) with their roster. I see it as someone paying to be a part of the league, and that league has a certain vision that the commish is responsible for cultivating.

My owners enjoy the hell out of my leagues, and there are other owners who enjoy a different league mind-set.

I will say this--I will always return the buy-in of anyone who doesn't finish the season they've paid for. I always try to make necessary replacements in the offseason, before buy-ins are due.

So are you saying you want owners who are "insanely trade happy"? If an owner went 2 years without making a trade but is otherwise very active and successful, would you boot them? What does "insanely trade happy" mean as you posted previously?

 

[ConnSKINS26]

I don't think it's ever fair to boot some one from a dynasty league - unless they are really a true detriment to the league (pot stirrer, collusion, extremely abrasive, etc.).

Just not being as active as one would like (by any definition) isn't exactly fair when you consider that dynasty is often times a long term "investment". What if a guy paid in his fees for X many years with a more long term goal in mind. So when his team starts taking shape, he gets booted because he doesn't post on the message board a lot or doesn't make as many trades as the commissioner would like?

Does he get any past league fees returned as well? In a redraft you're paying your fee for that immediate season. In a dynasty it's more of a grey area.

Disagree 100%.I'm not looking out for individual owners, I'm looking out for the league as a whole.

I think of it this way: You aren't buying in to your individual dynasty roster, you're paying the buy-in to join a larger experience that everyone contributes to.

I'll boot anyone who detracts from the experience the rest of the league is paying for. That includes the things you're talking about (collusion, abrasiveness, etc.) but also includes activity level.

I'm perfectly fine that not everyone feels the way I do about this...like-minded owners will eventually end up in the leagues that are right for them, in the same way that players tend to eventually gravitate towards the owner who values them most in a dynasty league.

It's just a different thought process. You see it as someone paying for the right to do whatever (within the rules) with their roster. I see it as someone paying to be a part of the league, and that league has a certain vision that the commish is responsible for cultivating.

My owners enjoy the hell out of my leagues, and there are other owners who enjoy a different league mind-set.

I will say this--I will always return the buy-in of anyone who doesn't finish the season they've paid for. I always try to make necessary replacements in the offseason, before buy-ins are due.

So are you saying you want owners who are "insanely trade happy"? If an owner went 2 years without making a trade but is otherwise very active and successful, would you boot them? What does "insanely trade happy" mean as you posted previously?

That was a separate point entirely, just a theory I have as to why some leagues see more trades than others.

Totally separate from any point I've made about owner activity, as my previous posts explain.

 

[Cjw_55106]

As long as guys are responding to trade offers and voting in polls in regards to rules and such, I dont care how "active" they are.

However, letting trades expire because you dont want to log into the league page is lame.

 

[pizzatyme]

As long as guys are responding to trade offers and voting in polls in regards to rules and such, I dont care how "active" they are.

However, letting trades expire because you dont want to log into the league page is lame.

This is where I sit. Unless there are by-laws which state minimums as far as participation goes, why boot someone who pays their dues and manages their team?