On the progressive thing, how about a total budget of say 500 mill for 6 seasons (doesn't sound like a lot but most stars have off seasons). Choose any consecutive 6 year period (in advance with total cost). Or we could draft  a total of 25, 28, whatever, players and be allowed a certain number that don't play 6 years. Manage how we want as long as they progress properly.

Could you not have people send you $50 and you send $10 back when Season 2 starts, Season 3 starts, etc. Or could WIS do this (probably not if they forgot we exist)?   

I haven't put a lot of thought into the exact science of the progressive yet. My goal is to keep it fairly simple. First I'd like to see if there is any interest in doing one before we ratify the details. I'd like to go with a steady season to season budget exactly like a cap. If player costs increase then there will need to be releases or trades made between seasons and/or some kind of free agency swap or draft. This might be better than the WW/budget reduction plan since we could control all the changes made outside of the regular season/WIS plans and regulations. We could also add quality players who didn't make the first draft.

I like the way the league is already.....if there are changes I will probably be fine with most of them...I am not into the gimmiky stuff, even the waiver wire I am not crazy about...i enjoy the management aspect the most...the draft anfd of course trades.....
1)yes
2)no
3)no
4)no

My answers would be No to all 4 options. What about a mandatory trade minimum per year...haha? (that was for you chef)

Nice tony...  

Looks like we might be getting rid of the MLers this season. The rest is a little undecided so we will keep chatting on the other issues. I like the idea of having to make a full draft and dealing with all our picks for the duration. We'll probably get more scoring and have tougher managing decisions as well as a more thought having to go into the draft altogether.

Last day for returnees to claim a a new spot uncontested. Tomorrow will be going to my contacts list. Thanks all!

Hey Campbell,

I haven't decided to come back yet, I need to see what changes are made.  I'll have to give up the VIP returnee claim take a chance on getting a spot with the general public haha.

1. def yes-

It is part of why I joined this dynasty in the first place, it's not perfect in how the prospects level up, but I like the idea of drafting prospects, I utilized this aspect of the dynasty fully so that things did happen during the season for my teams, I changed my team considerably from the original drafted team.  We all know the strengths and weaknesses of the prospects, make a prospect strategy accordingly and you can only make your team better.

2. yes-

I like this concept to add more management decisions, and it doesn't take away from the importance of the draft, in fact makes it more important.

 3. No-

  It's a handicap for those who don't have a good drafting strategy, I like this league because the draft has a high value.  If a wide open waiver is voted in I will not join.  A  very limited waiver using players dropped because of  budget decreases could be interesting,  would have to see the details to vote "yes". but I will just vote "No"  for now in principle to the introduction of a waiver wire.

4. No- 

I will sign up if you need owners!

I say yes to ML however start them at a lower setting which will make it much more difficult to build a star defensemen or forward over the 6 seasons.
I will say no to the budget change however I am kind of on the fence about it as it really doesn't make a difference after the initial draft is done unless we implement the waiver wire in which case we may need to revisit the budget discussion.
I say yes to the waiver wire if it is just undrafted players.I am not sure how you can restrict or control it however but I am sure someone knows...
I say no to the progressive league.

Posted by metalmaster on 5/1/2012 2:15:00 PM (view original):
I will sign up if you need owners!

You're in! Thanks for joining metal master glad to have you with us!

Posted by svengali on 5/2/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I say yes to ML however start them at a lower setting which will make it much more difficult to build a star defensemen or forward over the 6 seasons.
I will say no to the budget change however I am kind of on the fence about it as it really doesn't make a difference after the initial draft is done unless we implement the waiver wire in which case we may need to revisit the budget discussion.
I say yes to the waiver wire if it is just undrafted players.I am not sure how you can restrict or control it however but I am sure someone knows...
I say no to the progressive league.

Got you in as yes-no-yes-no. I will look into the lower level MLers but I have found G or lower to not be very useful. VG has been the only group that seems to work for this kind of league. We'll see how the voting goes first. It is a valid question for sure.