| 0 |
Subject: Auction Keeper League
Posted by: R9
- [2854239] Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 15:23
For a few years now I've wanted to join/start an auction keeper league, but have been hesitant to do so given the complexity of the rules most leagues have. After looking over other auction leagues both keeper and non-keeper, I've seen what does and doesn't work, and have come up with the following as a starting place for discussion. For each setting I discussed why I've decided on this, to help with any debate or recommended changes.
16-20 Teams:
Reasoning - A standard league is 12 teams. In most 12 team leagues, I've discovered that the vast majority of roster moves are WW pickups. Simply put, the league isn't deep enough to require major moves. Outside of the top talent, the rest of the rosters are filled with players who are too similar in value to force trading as an option. When a 80-20-90 OF'er goes down, you can probably find a replacement on the WW who will produce similar stats, so why trade?
The bigger the league the thinner the wire and the deeper the rosters, making trading an enticing option. It also produces more division between contenders and rebuilders, which again encourages trading.
Starting positions:
C
1B
2B
SS
3B
OF
OF
OF
Util
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Reasoning - To create the desired depth stated above, you can either add roster positions like MI and CI, add two starting C's, two Util's, etc. or add more teams. I prefer having more teams as opposed to more starting positions. This is debatable, and I can go either way. For now I'd be in favor of copying G20's recipe for success, but I can be convinced otherwise.
10 bench spots:
Reasoning - Deep benches are good for competitive, but a big reason for me putting 10 here is to accommodate my solution for minor league players. Will be discussed later.
Limits:
162 Games at each position
1400 IP
Reasoning - Fairly standard. The 162 games at each position is to keep the enlarged bench from playing a huge role. Instead it just plays the decent-sized role it is supposed to. Anything larger, like the 170 G20 has, would be abusable by such a big bench, imo.
Categories:
Runs, RBI, HR, SB, OBP or AVG
Wins, Saves, K's, ERA, WHIP
Reasoning - Nothing too different here. I like OBP in G20, but we can decide on this as a league. I would vote against expanding it to 6x6 or 7x7, as I think that starts making things too convoluted. If we want to take a category out and replace it that seems fine, but 6x6 and 7x7 leagues again start making trading more difficult as player values start becoming more different to evaluate for each manager.
Auction:
- 260 salary cap for the auction.
- Once the auction is over, the cap is gone for the year. (So you may exceed 260 in trades, for example.)
- The following year (a week or so before the auction) all one-year contract players are dropped from the roster, and you must be under 260 again, and have enough for 1 for each roster spot you must fill. Failure to do this will result in a penalty. (I'm thinking something really punishing. Something like: All the other managers put forth proposals that force that manager under the cap, and then we all vote on which proposal WE like best. So, if someone proposes you having to drop 5 cheap, young, quality players along with a big contract vet, and after voting it wins, thats what happens. Moral: Don't be over 260 in longterm contracts going into the auction!)
Reasoning - See below. Auction and contracts are intrinsically linked, so I discuss them together.
Contracts:
- After the auction, you decide on a contract for each player: 1, 2 or 3 years.
- During the season, anyone on a 1 year contract may be dropped, with no penalty.
- During the season or off-season, players dropped with a 2 or 3 year contract will cost a penalty in the following year's auction. My first thought would be half the value of the future years remaining on the contract. (Meaning, a 3-year contract has 2 years remaining in the future, and a 2 year contract has 1 year remaining in the future.) So, dropping a 9$ player on a 3-year deal would cost half of 9$ for the next TWO years auctions. Dropping a 9$ player on a 2 year deal would cost you half of the 9$ for the next year's auction. This is all debatable, and I'd like examples and reasonings to find a good equilibrium between punishing the manager for poor contract management while not crippling them.
Reasoning - This is the most difficult part to balance. I had a few things in mind when tinkering with the auction and contracts.
- For starters, I wanted the league to be very easy to manage from a commish/website standpoint. Having to constantly check on salary cap status in-season would be a huge pain, and would curtail trading. I actually didn't see any real value to having the cap be in force during the season beyond wanting to mimic real-life teams. By allowing teams to exceed 260 in-season, the competitive teams can trade for expensive players to try to win it now, and rebuilding teams will find more potential teams for their expensive players. Basically, restrictions on trading = bad, free market = good.
- The one handicap on trading that remains is forcing teams to be below 260 going into the following years auction. All one-year contracts are gone at this point, so the only way a team would be over is if they have excessive long-term deals and then trade for more long-term deals. This is not prohibited, but that owner must them spend the off-season trading/dropping players to get back under the cap, or suffer the penalty mention before. A legit strategy would be trading for tons of high-salaried top players to try and win it all and then trying to firesale in the off-season. Sounds fun to me. :) The fact that a team loaded with longterm deals might not want to trade for another longterm contract player might prohibit some trading, but sound contract management is a part of the process.
- The adding/dropping rules make in-season management for the commishs non-existent. The only requirement is that the league be on a hosting site that keeps track of all transactions for the year. Before the auction, the commish's would then check each teams' start-of-the-year roster and contracts and compare it to the end-of-season roster, and then find out where the (if any) longterm contract players that are no longer on the roster went. If they were dropped the commish's can then alter that teams' 260 budget downwords based on the penalty above (or whatever we end up deciding on). A little work, but off-season commish work is really not an issue.
Minor-league Rosters:
None.
Reasoning - The one other factor I noticed when examing other auction keeper leagues is that inflation/deflation is often a problem. By keeping contracts to a max of 3 years inflation problems go away, as the constant re-adjusting of players values is able to happen as even longterm players reach the auction fairly soon. Leagues with contracts as long as 7 or 10 years faced this issue, where money was tied up all over the league in players who didn't deserve it, resulting in undesirable market (and thus auction) factors. Deflation on the other hand mostly occurred as a result of lots of major bargain contracts emerging from promoted minor league players not having to go through the draft. What would often happen in auction leagues is that minor league players could be kept for 3-5 years after being promoted, often at salaries like 1-3-5 or 1-2-3-10-25. The end result would be lots of bargains, deflating the market, and leaving teams with ridiculous amounts to bid on filling needs for 1-year contract types. Things like Figgins going for 80$ 1-year for example, to a contender filling a 3B need, because he had 10 promoted minor league players all ably filling key positions for as little 1, 2 or 3$ each.
I couldn't find a reasonable solution to this. Anything reducing how long you can keep the prospects for reduces their value. For example, drafting a prospect in a prospect draft and then only being able to keep him one year after promoting him, reduces the value of drafting him to almost nil. (You draft Heyward, watch him grow for 3 years, call him up this year, and now he goes back into the auction? Awful, and thats an example of a top prospect. Imagine the solid-but-not-surefire guys who aren't a top 5 overall prospect.) Trying things like making him a restricted free agent or something in his 2nd/3rd years (you can match the winning bid from the auction) makes things a mess to manage.
So I figured, to keep young players salaries at the deserved level, and to enable managers to speculate on young players (winning Heyward on a 2$ 3-year deal in March 2009 for example, would have been a nice speculative bargain for this year and next) would require the roster space to do so. Having large benches allows managers to do this, but also allows contenders to load up on able vets if they so wish. Adds lots of potential strategies managers can use, but also keeps things really simple for commish management.
So, the large benches add strategy, allow prospects to play a decent role, keep commish responsibilities nil, and eliminate inflation/deflation issues that can ruin a league.
So that’s my proposal. I'm posting this now so any interested managers can post their thoughts, questions, proposals, etc.
My only comments with regards to changes:
1) Keep things simple from a commish standpoint, 2) Keep rules easy to follow/keep track of,
3) Avoid anything that makes trading difficult. (I.E. I need a vet OF, you need a young guy, but we can't make this obvious deal that makes perfect sense for both of us because rule X would mean I'm over the cap, or you don't have enough contracts, or reason X, etc.) Anything else goes.
Hope to see some interested managers! If I can't fill it here I'll head on over to some other boards, but we really do have the best and brightest fanatasy managers here, so I'll give it a nice long while here first. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 227 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 10:22
|
I have paused the auction (I hope) and will check back in a bit later to see if the issues have been fixed.
|
| 228 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 17:29
|
Is the site completely down, or has my access been blocked from work?
|
| 229 | MikeV
SuperDude
ID: 25924115
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 19:09
|
I'm in so I think you are blocked
|
| 230 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 19:59
|
Well thats no fun! Have i won anyone recently?
|
| 231 | dpr
ID: 1990714
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 21:59
|
How is the site for everyone now? It just loads and loads. O have been able to open the homepage but not our particular draft. Anyone?
|
| 232 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:37
|
Same problem here. :( I guess his site update didn't go as planned.
|
| 233 | weykool
ID: 26242134
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:44
|
It seems to be working for me.
Recent picks:
$1 Garrett Jones wiggs
$2 Chris Iannetta wolfer
$3 Jake McGee beebop
$2 Mike Pelfrey wiggs
$3 Miguel Tejada wiggs
$5 Chase Headley youngroman
$1 Fausto Carmona weykool
$3 Tim Stauffer mailedfoot
$5 Frank Francisco Dilligad
$5 Nate McLouth wiggs
$3 Andruw Jones wiggs
$10 Huston Street Fosten
$3 James Loney beebop
$2 Bronson Arroyo Khahan
|
| 234 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:49
|
Yeah, I got in, the website is just slow.
The forums have an update from the admin, saying he can't change anything until tomorrow morning. While slow, as long as everyone can get in ok we should be alright. Beebop, have you been able to get in?
|
| 235 | Boozer
ID: 11653319
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 22:50
|
i still cant get in
|
| 236 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 23:22
|
It says you are logged in, but now the page seems frozen. If I can get in again, I'll pause the auction until he fixes things tomorrow.
|
| 237 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 23:47
|
K, I paused it until after they put in their update tomorrow.
|
| 238 | beebop
ID: 48122118
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 02:02
|
I just got in now, im assuming it will also work better at home too. Im free to start up again ASAP.
|
| 239 | Boozer
ID: 11653319
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 08:38
|
in as well
|
| 240 | Boozer
ID: 307192515
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 12:42
|
not anymore lol, been several hours
|
| 241 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 12:47
|
cant load couchmanager from work or home (one on ie explorer the other on mozilla)
|
| 242 | R9
ID: 2854239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 14:23
|
Yeah, I've still got in paused. I'll be waiting until tonight some time to check back in and see if its running smoothly again.
I'm glad we are ahead of pace, this would've been quite the snafu had we been tied to the clock.
|
| 243 | R9
ID: 2854239
Thu, Mar 17, 2011, 17:38
|
Ok, looks like the server is fully upgraded now, so I'm turning things back on.
|
| 244 | youngroman
Sustainer
ID: 02934823
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 12:04
|
now that my draft seems to end soon, I have a few questions how to proceed:
1. until when do we need to declare the contract lengths?
a) directly after the auction is over
b) on opening day
c) a few weeks (2?) after opening day
2. how will the payments of long-term contracts be calculated.
scenario 1: I sign a player to a $1 3-year deal. if I drop him, do I lose
a) $1 the next 2 seasons
b) $1 only next season
c) nothing at all
scenario 2: I sign a player to a $10 3-year deal. if I drop him I need to pay him
a) $3.33 = $4 in season 2 and 3
b) $6.67 = $7 at once in season 2?
3. how are contract lengths announced?
a) here at the boards
b) mail to a person not managing in this league, nobody would know other players contract lengths.
c) mail to the commish, who needs to be trusted.
I see an advantage for those waiting until the last minute, because they can structure their contracts in a way that they can target specific players in the season 2 draft. for example: Pujols only gets a 1-year deal. everyone knows this. I have also a stud 1B in Ryan Howard and want to target Pujols. so I give Howard only a 1-year contract too, to have more cap-space available for Pujols. If I would not know the length of the Pujols deal I might give Howard a longer contract because he looks to be a good value.
this is mostly a season 1 problem, because if Pujols gets a 2-year deal, I can plan in advance if I end up signing Howard in the season 2 auction.
|
| 245 | dpr
ID: 1990714
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 13:48
|
1) I like the idea of opening day (or the evening before) but any can be done. I will add that the weekend of the 24-27th is very busy for me so a deadline after this period would be appreciated
2.1) You would have a .5 charge in each of the remaining seasons.
2.2)This would be a $5 charge for each year.
To add, once all fines are totalled we either round up or round down, I forget which but it is listed in the constitution. So if these were the only 2 cases you would lose either 6 or 5 depending.
3) Good point about waiting and possible solutions. We could also say you could change them so if I guy announced releasing pujols early, he could then go back and switch after baiting people into suboptimal decisions.
|
| 246 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Fri, Mar 18, 2011, 14:24
|
dpr, we aren't using decimals, but rounding up. So in the case of a $1/year 3yr contract you would lose $1 each year.
hmm, reading over t his I think we need clarification.
If you have 2 players at $1/year for 3 year deals and drop them both, do you have to pay $2/year or just $1?
|
| 247 | dpr
ID: 1990714
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 00:00
|
Thats what i meant by the .5. You round up the total. Or in that case there is no rounding. You lose $1. So we are using decimals, we just round them before the auction. I had asked this question earlier and I know R9 put it in the constitution.
|
| 248 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 01:58
|
Good questions YR. My answers:
1) Ideally, I'd like for us to have a week or so to think it over. So I think we'll make the deadline a week after we are set up. Shouldn't change too much, and weather it becomes April 1st or April 7th doesn't really change much long-term.
2) The way I set it up in the constitution is that you lose half of the player's value in the remaining seasons. So in your examples:
scenario 1: You would lose 0.5$ in each of the next two years.
scenario 2: You would lose 5$ in each of the next two years.
We round UP, but we first add up all decimaled amounts before rounding up. So if you were to drop both of these players this year, you would lose 5.5$, rounded up to 6$. If you were to drop TWO 1$, 3-year players and the 10$ 3-year player, you would lose 0.5 + 0.5 + 5 = 6$.
So there is room for strategic manipulation if you think things through and keep track of your add/drops of contracts.
It also hasn't come up yet, but I think in each off-season everyone can have the chance to 'drop' players and their contracts still, with the same penalties for doing so. In other words, you don't have to have dropped the player before the last day of the regular season; right up until the pre-auction deadline you can do so.
3) Good points, and I like the idea of a neutral 3rd person collecting them in an e-mail account, and then maybe mailing them to me/posting them after the deadline. I'm open to suggestions on nominees. Maybe Guru will be open to helping.
|
| 249 | weykool
ID: 7230191
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 02:30
|
R9 should send his contracts to Guru so they are locked in and then R9 could collect them for the rest of the league.
|
| 250 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 06:02
|
I personally do not mind if contracts are emailed to R9 directly. In another league i am in with nerfherders, we all send him contracts, fa's, etc and there has never been a problem. Then on a given date, all the contracts are announced.
I think there has to be an element of trust involved.
|
| 251 | Khahan
ID: 373143013
Sat, Mar 19, 2011, 10:00
|
I don't see this as too different from posting keepers in keeper leagues. There is an element of strategy to wait and see who others post. But most keeper leagues do just post their lists.
I'm fine with either, but it just seems that simply giving us a deadline and leaving it up to each manager to choose when they post their contracts here is the easiest solution.
And nothing is locked until that deadline, just like keepers. Say we pick April 8th as the deadline. I can post my contracts then go back and make alterations if I feel necessary w/out any penalty until April 8th.
Or we could do the email thing and put all the work on R9 to post them!!!
|
| 252 | R9
ID: 2854239
Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 19:13
|
Sent out an email dealing with the waiver order and a couple other details. Everything is set up on Yahoo and all non-purchased players are on waivers.
I'll decide on the method we'll use to post contracts, but the deadline for submitting them will be 1 PM EST on Thursday, March 31st.
|
| 253 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Fri, Mar 25, 2011, 20:35
|
my team looks good. thanks r9.
|
| 254 | Donkey Hunter
ID: 441162516
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 11:18
|
1 $17 Brian McCann C-ATL
1 $14 Kendry Morales 1B-LAA
2 $17 Martin Prado 2B/3B-ATL
2 $21 Adrian Beltre 3B-TEX
3 $9 Starlin Castro SS-CHC
3 $3 Freddie Freeman 1B-ATL
1 $1 Edgar Renteria SS-CIN
3 $25 Matt Kemp OF-LAD
3 $40 Carl Crawford OF-BOS
3 $21 Jacoby Ellsbury OF-BOS
2 $17 Andre Ethier OF-LAD
2 $18 Jayson Werth OF-WSH
1 $9 Jonathan Broxton RP-LAD
1 $19 Dan Haren SP-LAA
1 $13 Jonathan Sanchez SP-SF
3 $3 Rafael Soriano RP-NYY
1 $2 Jair Jurrjens SP-ATL
1 $1 David Hernandez RP/SP-AZ
3 $2 Ivan Nova SP/RP-NYY
1 $1 Sergio Romo RP-SF
1 $1 Johnny Damon DH/OF-TB
3 $1 Phil Coke SP/RP-DET
3 $1 Jamey Carroll SS/2B-LAD
3 $1 Lucas Duda OF-NYM
3 $1 Scott Cousins OF-FLA
1 $1 Daisuke Matsuzaka SP-B
|
| 255 | weykool
ID: 15240251
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 17:15
|
- The one handicap on trading that remains is forcing teams to be below 260 going into the following years auction. All one-year contracts are gone at this point, so the only way a team would be over is if they have excessive long-term deals and then trade for more long-term deals. This is not prohibited, but that owner must them spend the off-season trading/dropping players to get back under the cap, or suffer the penalty mention before. A legit strategy would be trading for tons of high-salaried top players to try and win it all and then trying to firesale in the off-season. Sounds fun to me. :)
I would like to bring this up for discussion now and see if this rule cant be tweaked.
The problem I am having with this is the allowing of trades during the off season.
I think it opens up too many doors for abuse.
Lets take DH's team as an example:
If DH is out of contention a manager in contention could propose to trade a couple of decent prospects in exchange for Crawford, Kemp, and Ethier and then make a deal to trade them back during the off season for a few scrubs.
I have no problem with a manager making bold moves to win it all this year, but I do have a problem if there are no penalties for doing so.
It seems if manager ends up over the cap AFTER all the expiring contracts are removed he should be required to pay the 50% penalty for dropping a long term contract.
This would also add to the strategy of trading for expiring contracts.
Using DH again there would be good trade value in a Haren, Morales, or McCann because those contracts would be off the books the following season.
|
| 256 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 18:07
|
If DH is out of contention a manager in contention could propose to trade a couple of decent prospects in exchange for Crawford, Kemp, and Ethier and then make a deal to trade them back during the off season for a few scrubs
This is something that is potentially a problem in ANY keeper league. Simply put that would be an example of collusion and I suspect R9 would deal pretty harshly with it.
I have no problem with a manager making bold moves to win it all this year, but I do have a problem if there are no penalties for doing so.
The penalty for making too many bold moves to win it all is potentially being over the cap and not being able to offload players in time.
I think the issue we'll most have to watch for is dumping. For example, if I'm at $295 roster value going into the offseason, I should not be able to simply send out Adrian Gonzalez to another team for say $1 Jamey Carroll.
That issue and the issue you are bringing up shouldn't be prevented by rules because any rule we put into place will eventually block a legit trade from happening. I think the better question to ask is what kind of trade review/veto system do we have? Is it majority vote? Purely commish review? 75% vote? etc.
|
| 257 | wiggs
Leader
ID: 04991311
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 19:11
|
Is there a limit or minimum amount of contract years required, or is it just your preference?
|
| 258 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 20:04
|
No limits or minimums. If someone wants to run out all 1-year deals and redraft their entire team next year (or trade for some 2 or 3 year deals, etc.) that is a perfectly fine strategy. On the other hand if someone else likes their team so much that they want everyone signed for 3 years, likewise, go for it. I expect to see lots of stuff in between those extremes, but to each their own.
|
| 259 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 20:39
|
It seems if manager ends up over the cap AFTER all the expiring contracts are removed he should be required to pay the 50% penalty for dropping a long term contract.
I think this could be a serious drain on trading, and I would rather not impose restrictions like this unless it becomes obvious that it is neccessary.
Weykool: I have no problem with a manager making bold moves to win it all this year, but I do have a problem if there are no penalties for doing so.
I'm not sure why there should be off-season penalties here. If DH is out of it in June and wants to trade me Crawford, I'm sure he will exact a high price in whatever it is he wants in return. Why would I then be punished further in the offseason? Balancing current and future needs is what all of us will decide on. I don't want to punish anyone for making astute moves...
The only legit purpose for your rule would be to punish people employing your trade-and-return scenario. And as Khahan pointed out, that is blatant collusion. We don't need a rule to prevent that (certainly not one that also hurts legit trading) because anyone engaging in obvious collusion will not be welcomed back. Nobody likes cheaters.
-------------------------------------------------
The trade review system; I have it set in Yahoo as Commish review. I very much dislike systems where anyone can annonymously vote to veto a trade two managers have worked out between themselves.
So here's what we'll do. If two or more managers have an issue with a trade, and have stated as much publicly in our thread, it will trigger an immediate review by me. If the complaints seem valid (and I may ask for some outside input from other league commishes and such on this) I'll call a league vote, where 10 managers (2/3rds) voting publicly against it would be required to deny it.
I will say this though. If a trade gets vetoed, its because its either incredibly unfair or is clearly circumventing the rules in an obvious and unethical way. In either case I would examine how that happened, and either rule changes and/or manager changes may take place. In other words, its something I would take very seriously, and is something I don't really expect to happen often (or at all). We seem to be a pretty dedicated and fair group.
|
| 260 | weykool
ID: 15240251
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 21:16
|
10 out of 14 managers (I would assume the two involved in the trade are for it) Seems a bit much.
It has been my experience that out of 14 managers at least 4 of them will say "You should never vote to overturn a trade unless there is collusion".
How you could ever possibly prove collusion is never mentioned.
Collusion is cheating...how can you prove cheating unless you have access to private E-Mails?
If 4 out of 10 would never vote to overturn a trade no matter how lopsided, it seems to me that if 7 of the remaining 10 thinks the trade is out of line my guess is it is out of line.
And yes.....I agree that if you vote against a trade it should be a public vote.
|
| 261 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 21:34
|
... there is so much speculation and random numbers in your post I'm not sure what to say. ;) Maybe this league has 7 of your 'never veto' types, or maybe we have 1 or none. We could also have alot or none of the type who are 'i veto everything i dont like'. 2/3rds requirement is pretty standard for alot of leagues though.
|
| 262 | weykool
ID: 15240251
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 22:00
|
A public Yahoo league only requires 3 out of 12 or 25%.
10 out of 14 is 71%.
It has also been my experience that Guru managers are much more astute than your average public manager and for the most part are extremely hesitant to veto trades even when there is some "imbalance".
I think we need to trust the managers in this league to use restraint, but at the same time 10 votes pretty much ensures almost anything goes.
|
| 263 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 22:07
|
We have 16 managers. 2 would be involved in the trade leaving 14. 7 is 50%. 8 is a simple majority and 10 is a 2/3. why not split it and go with 9?
|
| 264 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 22:39
|
Alot of Guru leagues have no league voting for trade vetoes at all, because of the fact you mentioned; most of us are far more astute managers then you'll find in a typical Yahoo public league. They simply use commish intervention when it is needed.
and for the most part are extremely hesitant to veto trades even when there is some "imbalance".
That fits me to a T, and I would hope also fits the majority of us here. We will not be vetoing a trade because some think it is imbalanced. Most trades are. If two managers come up with a deal they both like, are not violating any league rules and are not being unethical, it will go through.
but at the same time 10 votes pretty much ensures almost anything goes.
Thats the key word, and you are correct. Almost anything will be ok, assuming the two key things I mentioned above are observed.
|
| 265 | mailedfoot
ID: 1321138
Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 08:21
|
Are trades allowed prior to contract deadline?
|
| 266 | R9
ID: 2854239
Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 14:53
|
Sure. I could definitely see trade opportunities between teams that value players differently contract-wise.
The only (probably and hopefully rare) scenario I could see being an issue; you make a trade pre-contracts on March 30th, and then both teams submit their contracts on the 31st with their new players. The trade then gets vetoed by the league on, say, April 1st. In this scenario, the players would be returned and the teams would have a time extention to decide on contracts for the returned players.
|
| 267 | dpr
ID: 1990714
Tue, Mar 29, 2011, 20:20
|
Something that we may hopefully do not have to deal with fora few years but it is always better to have a policy in place.
How will we deal with replacing managers? With our setup there seems to be a few options that we could have. I think the important thing to discuss is whether the new manager would inherit the new managers cotracts or start from scratch. It would be unfortunate to join a league and be stuck with the previous managers poor judgements. With our format, having the new manager start from a clean slate would be possible (I would wager that by year 3 a good number of us would take a reset if we could). Personally, I would like to see the new manager have the option to retain the roster they were given or to release all there players and start from scratch in the auction. Thoughts?
|
| 268 | beebop
ID: 34030216
Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 05:25
|
I think just keep what you get. The contracts are not that long, so it should not be too long for that manager to pretty much start from scratch anyway.
I do not feel strongly either way though.
Just so I am clear, I can just pick up anyone I want at anytime right now to fill that last roster spot?
|
| 269 | weykool
ID: 15240251
Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 07:18
|
I dont think a full reset would be warranted but perhaps a 1 time waiver of the 50% penalty for dropping any players?
|
| 270 | R9
ID: 2854239
Wed, Mar 30, 2011, 15:40
|
beebop, yep, now that every player has cleared waivers, pickups and drops are the same as always.
I think we can handle any replacement managers on a case-by-case basis, but I like the idea of either taking the team as-is or starting completely fresh. I think allowing them to ditch some contracts but not all could be too powerful.
|
| 272 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 07:47
|
A little confused on trades. It looks like we have a trade time of 2 days. Mailedfoot and I made a trade on the the 30th. We've had the 31st and the 1st go by. Here we are in day 3 and the trade is still pending.
|
| 273 | R9
ID: 2854239
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 01:09
|
Apparently I have to athorize its acceptance. Not sure why. I'm going to check to see if that can be waived. As long as the 2-day waiting period is there, I see no reason for trades not to go through immediately.
|
| 274 | dpr
ID: 1990714
Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 19:38
|
man I have 4 hitters on the DL, the starting lineup is getting very ugly.
|
| 275 | weykool
ID: 7348811
Wed, Apr 13, 2011, 20:44
|
#273
I am commish for a hoops league that uses commish review with a 2 day trade reject time.
I dont think the day you make the trade or the day the trade is processed counts.
In addition the 2 day waiting period may not have started until the league actually started (April 1).
We will have to wait and see what happens on the next trade.
|
| 276 | R9
ID: 2854239
Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 05:11
|
274, I think we need bigger benches. ;)
275, Good to know. Yahoo replied to my email by saying it should have happened automatically, so maybe it would've gone through a few hours after I pushed it.
|
| 277 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 07:42
|
thats kind of a lot of waiting for a trade. I can understand if people make a trade at 11:30pm then that day shouldn't count. But there are scenarios where a '2 day trade review' time can stretch into 4 days. The day its made, 2 full days, then the day its processed. I'll often make trades with another move (an add/drop or something) planned. That can make it frustrating.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|
|