Long view vs. Short view.

MacGregor is dead-on about the choice. I don't know about you, but Mike's entry sounded like forced diplomacy. I can't say I blame him, really. After reading his take on choices of strategy, the question is whether there really is a choice at all.

In my other dynasty league, I primarily take the short view--not as conservative as Mike in Ironman3--and I have benefitted from acquiring Brett Favre, Corey Dillon, Stephen Davis, and hanging on to Jimmy Smith rather than waiting for Drew Brees, Lamont Jordan, or Santana Moss over the past 4-5 years. I probably have one of the two-highest winning percentages in this league's 5-year, history. The short view is efficient, effective, and sometimes, boring.

Granted, winning is never boring. But winning can fuel the greed to win more and win on a bigger scale. The short view is the wiser method to stay on top. Mike's approach is like the 49ers under DeBartolo after all those years mortgaging the future, and at worst, paying the piper for a year before returning to contender status.

The long view--after thinking about what Mike wrote--is what I've been chasing in this Ironman3 league: My goal hasn't been to win one year at a time, but to hope I can build a team like Art Rooney and Chuck Noll did with the Steelers if the 70's. I want to achieve the kind of status where my competition looks at my team and is in awe of the juggernaut I assembled with draft picks and free agency. I want to wow them with my record of astute draft picks ranging from high profile prospects that lived up to their promise all the way down to the unknown guys off the scrap heap that made good.

In other words, I'm out of my mind.

But I think the long view is appealing for the same reasons people go to Vegas and bet on the long shot to win the Super Bowl. Life is too short to play the best percentages all the time. Embracing risk is an intoxicating rush, and addictive when it pays off. It was inherently more exciting several years ago to have taken the risk on Tomlinson before he became LT2 and some GMs thought he wouldn't be special than to give away the pick for Emmitt Smith.

Same thing now. In some ways it's more appealing for people to take a chance on Reggie Bush before he becomes the Reggie Bush than give away the chance to get him in exchange for a player of currently high value. I tested Mike's theory about this infatuation and the resulting unwise, inflation of rookie values just alst week.

I offered Randy Moss, my second round pick, and Chris Brown for the rights to Reggie Bush. I even presented an option to choose another starting back on my squad. The owner didn't even budge--even at the thought of negotiating a shot at Cadillac Williams or Brian Westbrook. Crazy? Maybe. Maybe not. That's the great part of dynasty leagues. The game isn't just about winning weekly matchups, but winning the art of making good long term choices. Dynasty leagues offer a game within the game.

Those of us that take the long view want to live out the dreamer in our personalities. We want to take wild risks. We want to be Hugh Hefner. That's right, Hugh Hefner! We want to leave behind the success of playing by the numbers and do our own thing. We want to risk all our chips and win so big that we're dating three gorgeous, and brainy, pin-up models half our age by the time we hit 50--and all at the same time!

Okay, maybe the wife or girlfriend put a governor on that dream, but you know what I mean. The long view owners want to be the Hugh Heftner of fantasy football. He wants multiple, big-time talents that causes others to drool over his roster. He wants to be the guy that discovered the Marilyn Monroe of fantasy football.

Like I said, I'm out of my mind.

Then again, so was the guy that quit his job at Esquire to produce a magazine at his kitchen table back in 1953 that would eventually earn him enough success from this publication to have a dormstyle bedroom in a swank, Chicago mansion filled with pin-up models, and a swimming pool for them to join him for late night skinny-dips...

The problem with where I'm going here is Hef took calculated risks. He also worked his tail off to do the job right. So the answer about the Short View vs. Long View may be the question isn't the right one. Maybe it's really about having a broad perspective rather than a narrow perspective.

Mike has a broad perspective about what happens in dynasty leagues. People clamor for the hot, young thing. So Mike, like Hef, gives them the dream, but pockets what they pay in exchange. While these owners are excited about their fantasy draft pick that has yet to produce in reality, Mike is building his roster with riches. I guess it pays to look behind the curtain...