Would appreciate some fantasy advice.

[Diomedes]

I have two keeper teams, aged 4 years each now.  10 team league, 17 players on each team.  Each off-season we have to drop at least 7 players, but you can only keep so many players of such and such a salary, etc, so the way it works out each year is that people are forced to drop good players.  A free agency period of bidding fake money--which accumulates on a regular schedule adjusted for team performance, is depleted by transactions, etc.--follows.  Any of your players who's salary is simply expiring is considered an RFA, and you can match the winning bid to keep him (if you choose).  Any player you cut outright goes to the highest bidder; you have no claim to him.  Obviously, you try not to cut guys, so you can have the option to match.  But that can get expensive.  Sometimes it's time to just cut a guy go, because he's not good enough, or because keeping him would mean you would be forced to cut someone else who you won't consider losing (like Donovan in my case).   

Anyway, I have to make some decisions.

In the first team, I have lots of cash and my question is at RB:
I already have Travis Henry and Curtis Martin locked up.  Tiki is bound for RFA, but I will likely spend the money to keep him.   That makes three starters, assuming Henry gets the gig he wants, all of whom can be dangerous.  My question really is about the fourth.  I can afford to save one (but not both) of the following, and wichever one I protect would be inexensive (thinking towards 2006, and considering the considerable decrement that keepting Tiki will cause):
Dominic Rhodes
Michael Pittman
Do you think I should keep one over the other? 
Or maybe just let them both drop?  If I let them both drop, I could restrict Todd Pinkston instead.   My recievers are not great.  All but one of them are RFAs: Burress, S.Moss, P.Price, J. Morton, Pinkston are all RFAs.  Only Justin McCariens is locked up.  I'll be resigning Burress unless his bids run way high, but not the others.  They are too expensive to keep, and not worth matching for, I think.  Morton and Pink are the only two I could keep for the same price as Rhodes or Pittman, so Pink is the only reciever I'd consider retaining if I didn't keep one of the RBs.  As I said, Donovan is my QB.  The double points wouldn't hurt, especially if I play Pink in the flex spot.


In the other league, I have only a moderate amount of cash to spend when FA begins, so keep that in mind.  Because I don't have lots to blow, the question here is simpler:  I think it would be cheaper to hang onto one of these than to replace them with FA, but which to keep? Steve Smith or Rudi Johnson?  I suppose neither is also an option, but it would really strip my team. 

My other RBs are:
locked up - Corey Dillon
RFA - Curtis Martin, TJ Duckett
Salary note: I couldn't keep Martin instead, but I could keep Duckett.

My other WRs:
locked up - Larry Fitgerald, Drew Bennett
RFA -  Todd Pinkston, Tyrone Calico, Nate Burleson
Salary Cap note:  I could keep any of these three instead of Smith or Rudi

Deadline for submitting my cuts is tomorrow at noon.  Any thoughts/advice?

[hbionic]

Oh, that type of fantasy. 

[Zanshin]

Is there a deadline to make these moves?  Waiting to do it makes sense to see how thing shake out, if possible.

The first scenario is tough because you can't know how Rhodes/James will play out in Indy.  But I think Rhodes is also an FA, and if he lands elsewhere, I can't see him locking up a #1 role.  But in Tampa all signs point to Gruden taking a RB (Williams would be my bet) with the first pick.  On top of that, Garner is also there.  Unless there's an injury, I can't see Pittman being a major factor there.  Now, he could be released or traded, but until you knew what his role would be he wouldn't have a TON of value.  Still I think I'd keep Pittman over Rhodes if you had to make a choice now.  I don't think either one of them will have a major impact for you, though.  I'd say drop both if you had a more attractive option...but I don't think Pinkston is really all that attractive, either.

On your second point, I'd go with R. Johnson.  Solid RB who you know will tote the bulk of the carries and get the TDs.  S. Smith is good, and nice to have...but I'll take a sure-thing RB over a productive WR anyday, particularly one coming off an injury.

[Diomedes]

Is there a deadline to make these moves? Waiting to do it makes sense to see how thing shake out, if possible.

Yeah, it was the day after I posted this thread, as I said at the time Mr. McGoo.    Obviously, I should have made the post with more lead time.

The first scenario is tough because you can't know how Rhodes/James will play out in Indy. But I think Rhodes is also an FA, and if he lands elsewhere, I can't see him locking up a #1 role. But in Tampa all signs point to Gruden taking a RB (Williams would be my bet) with the first pick. On top of that, Garner is also there. Unless there's an injury, I can't see Pittman being a major factor there. Now, he could be released or traded, but until you knew what his role would be he wouldn't have a TON of value. Still I think I'd keep Pittman over Rhodes if you had to make a choice now. I don't think either one of them will have a major impact for you, though. I'd say drop both if you had a more attractive option...but I don't think Pinkston is really all that attractive, either.
On your second point, I'd go with R. Johnson. Solid RB who you know will tote the bulk of the carries and get the TDs. S. Smith is good, and nice to have...but I'll take a sure-thing RB over a productive WR anyday, particularly one coming off an injury.

Thanks for the comments. 
In the first league, I kept matching rights to Pittman.  I don't know what will happen with TB, but the guy has been successful there when he's played and catches very well, so even if Garner and a rookie are in the mix, I think Gruden will give him the ball at least often enough for him to be a fantasy reserve with a chance to produce.
In the second team, I did as you suggested and hung onto Rudi.  Trouble is, he may sit out the year.  But in the end, I had to make the same judgement you did:  always keep a solid RB if you possibly can.

Once again, thanks for reading, thinking about this convoluted example, and posting.
I agree with you, because I decided to keep Rudi Johnson.

[Zanshin]

It was the last line of your thread.  Clearly, I don't have that sort of attention span...and I'd venture I have one of the best of the bunch here .  I'll chalk that up to your unrealistically lofty expectations for folks on this board.