Thursday, March 21, 2013

Haves and Have-nots

This post will be a bit more topical. I don't know how many other league owners truly read all the other team blogs, but I at least pop in from time to time to see what's up with the other teams. Hopefully this will get seen.

I'll be up front. I think most of the changes to the league since the previous year have been good. I spent a lot of last year wondering about how to create value for defensive players within the BSL and our illustrious commissioner answered the call of duty before I even asked. I think those rules are going well. I have little to complain about except for the current condition of my team, for which I really only have myself to blame. There's one niggling issue that's bugging my about the current league setup though. I'm not sure I have a perfect fix available, or even an imperfect one, but I'd like to begin a discussion.

The new roster setup (15 players, 11 starters, 3 subs, 1 reserve) is pretty excellent all around and the expanded roster makes sense to include defenders (who are still under-represented in the BSL) however, the way the reserve rule has been implemented has resulted in what looks, to me, to be an issue. There are currently 12 BSL teams and 19 MLS teams. If you consider that not every MLS team has a top-notch starting keeper we're suddenly looking at a pretty tight supply of decent keepers who will get steady minutes. This problem is amplified by the way some teams have setup their rosters. Several teams are using the "reserve" slot to essentially horde a solid MLS level keeper. They never see play unless the first choice has a bye week. Essentially this reserve keeper serves two purposes. 1) Make sure you still have a top level keeper in case your first choice guy gets hurt. Go ask Colorado's Matt Pickens what that's all about. It happens and it make sense to prepare. And 2) make sure that a good percentage of other BSL teams you play against don't have the same solid keeper you do. This strikes me as an issue that needs solving.

Let me be clear. Nowhere in the current rules does it say this is forbidden. I'm not calling anyone a cheater. I'm simply suggesting that this feels a bit more like gaming the system than I'm comfortable with (perhaps similar to the totally legal but discouraged use of last minute bids on bidding wars). I have no clear suggestion on how to solve this problem and asking teams who are participating in this practice to voluntarily drop their second keeper gets tricky too. I just think we should have a civil discussion. Am I the only one seeing this or am I making some sense? Anyone have any ideas? Or am I just being whiny? Let me know in the comments.

7 comments:

  1. I think owning the rights to two goalkeepers is as much of a gamble as it is a hedge. You are essentially forfeiting the ability to use the reserve slot for a short term injury. Consider also the owners of Sean Johnson or Nick Rimando, whose goalkeepers will be away a good portion of the year. Besides, the number of regular starting keepers well exceeds the number of teams in our league, so everyone has a fair chance of obtaining one regular starting keeper.

    If I have any concern with the present rules, it's that defenders don't earn value for what they do in real life, i.e. defending. I don't necessarily have a solution for that, but it's worth considering.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The clubs that have multiple "quality" goal keepers do so because they drafted keepers earlier in the draft, meaning they put greater value on them very early. It boils down to strategy and how much value is placed on that position. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with someone securing a backup if that was their intention.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read all post on everyone's sites. Some people don't write anything but I still check once in a while. I see just traded for a back up keeper. Just takes some back and forth dialog sometimes to get a trade done because everyone wants to get value for their trade naturally.

    ReplyDelete
  4. These are all fair comments. I suppose my issue, more than anything, is that this Reserve spot makes it easier than ever to just keep a quality keeper sitting around. I disagree with Second City that you're forfeiting that slot for a short term injury. If the injured player is more important to your squad than your backup keeper, you just drop him and problem solved. Honestly, even last year this was too easy to do in my opinion, since you just put your backup as your never used 3rd sub.

    Also, I feel like the difference between a "regular starting keeper" and a keeper that's going to earn more than a point or two over the course of a season is pretty large. This is obviously all just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The 3rd sub and the reserve are kind of the same, but ultimately when players are missing for nat team duty, we need to have places to put them. Just my 2 cents

    ReplyDelete
  6. By the way,, have you thought about a possible 2 for 1 trade?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just to weigh in...
    I drafted Gruenebaum as my starter in a fairly average position in the draft. I took Troy Perkins toward the end with the idea of using his high point total from last year in order to flip him in a bidding war. Then, the no goalkeepers rule was made up on the spot and I found myself with 2 goalkeepers. Now Perkins and Montreal are playing surprisingly well, but Gruenebaum has been too good in recent years to just cast him aside or trade him for anything less than value. Plus, I find that matching up goalkeepers against weak offenses is actually a very fruitful endeavor. I don't think it's unfair in the slightest and there are still starting goalkeepers that are unowned.

    ReplyDelete