| 0 |
Subject: RotoGurupie Keeper 14 2010 Draft Thread
Posted by: Mötley Crüe
- Dude [439372011] Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 07:50
This thread should be used to discuss the Rotogurupie Keeper 14 2010 Draft. |
| 1 | GoatLocker
Leader
ID: 060151121
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 10:43
|
Was hoping to see some more picks and have a better feel for what was going on.
Without it, just threw up a queue for Round 4 only.
If we get to 5 today or my queue is empty, somebody will need to call me.
# is on the MFL site.
This is where not being on Kafenatid hurts, because I could get to it.
Oh well, will make it work somehow.
Have a dentist appointment at 4, so won't be home until 5:00 or 5:30.
|
| 2 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 13:27
|
Since MFL doesn't send out separate texts for queued picks (or keeper picks, I assume), I'm going to try to build a system that will. If it works for this league, I can expand it to all of the RIFC leagues. It just occurred to me how I can do this.
It will also work for emails, as well as texts. One short message per pick. Every pick.
If you are interested, please email me your email address or your text number. If it's a text number, I also need to know what network (i.e., Verizon, ATT, etc.)
I hope to have it ready later today.
|
| 3 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 14:32
|
Haven't played in a keeper league where draft picks were replaced before. So I find myself sitting here wanting to pick while all the top talent is going to fly off the board before I get up.
|
| 4 | TB
ID: 58737918
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 15:03
|
After I make my next pick (4.08) in 9 picks, I don't pick again until the 10th round, while 68 players come off the board. I've been dreading it for a few days now. I will have to see who is available when my pick comes up, but I think I'd be open to swapping that pick and a later round pick for a couple picks in the 6-7 range.
|
| 5 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 16:26
|
TB I might be game for a swap, as I don't have a pick in rounds 3-4-5 and wouldn't mind getting one in there somewhere.
|
| 6 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Aug 26, 2010, 16:34
|
[2] I think I have it set up correctly now. Here is how it will work:
The system will check on draft results every 10 minutes. If there have been any new picks, a separate message will be sent for each pick. The message can go to an email address, or to a cell phone as a text message. The text will simply say something of this format:3.08(TB) Moss, Santana WAS WR [Queue] -Next: IAC's Keeper If it goes to an email address, that text will be in the subject line, and the body of the email will be blank.
If a pick was made from a queue, that will be noted.
If a pick is a keeper, that will be noted
If a team name is longer than 12 characters, then it will be truncated after the 12th
The email will come from K14@rotoguru1.com
If you want to be included on this, send me you email or your cell# (and cell carrier). It's live!
|
| 7 | GoatLocker
Leader
ID: 060151121
Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 09:50
|
Queues are set for Rounds 7/8/9.
If it gets to me in 10, somebody can call my cell, or I'll pick when I get home.
|
| 8 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 12:34
|
Somebody call me and wake me up when we get to the 10th round.
|
| 9 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 18:19
|
I can't see on the mfl site what our active lineup composition is. I had a hell of a time finding our scoring setup but eventually did. I'm guessing there must be some straightforward way to find these bits of info, but I'm not seeing them at first (or second) glance. Any help appreciated.
|
| 10 | TB
ID: 58737918
Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 18:32
|
It's the same as the RIFC format.
Roster
1 QB
2 RB
2 WR
1 WR/TE
1 TE
1 K
1 Team def
1 DL
1 LB
1 DB
3 additional IDP (flex)
9 bench
24 Total
Reports / Rules/ League Bylaws
|
| 11 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Aug 27, 2010, 18:41
|
You can usually find what you're looking for using the links in the top menus - but not necessarily in the left side menus.
|
| 12 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 04:00
|
Just a heads up...I left a queue for round 11, but may not be on before 12:30pm eastern if it gets to the 12th.
|
| 13 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 10:03
|
Wow, 52 picks made yesterday (not including keepers). At this rate, we'll be done by early Tuesday.
|
| 14 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 15:20
|
FYI, I'm out for a few hours, gonna enjoy the Saturday, not sure who I'd pick a round from now yet.
|
| 15 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 16:21
|
The TB suicide watch began when I first tried to make a Q about 8 picks before my 10th rounder. I already can see I am playing for the toilet bowl this year. I just hope I can find enough talent on the WW to get me to that game.
|
| 16 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 16:42
|
It's a long season and crazy things happen. It's pretty hard to be out of contention before the games have even started.
|
| 17 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:19
|
I agree, there is a chance the Lions, Bucs, and Rams all make the play-off this year. =)
It's just been frustrating watching all that talent come off the board, having needs at almost every position. I'm sure I will get lucky and find a gem or two.
|
| 18 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:20
|
There's a lot still out there at the moment. Wouldn't be too worried yet.
|
| 19 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:44
|
I have a queue for my next pick, but if it gets to me in the 15th you'll have to wait until I get back. I have to head out until probably about 8pm eastern.
|
| 20 | Athletics Guy
ID: 537571719
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 17:44
|
Bonka, don't get his hopes up.
TB doesn't have a chance... Much like the Raiders, his season's over before it even started. :)
|
| 21 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 18:02
|
The Raiders will win the AFC West this year. I will put up a Guru Donation wager on that.
|
| 22 | Da Bomb
Donor
ID: 487112814
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 18:05
|
I'm definitely in for that bet.
|
| 23 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 19:57
|
Raiders won't be that bad. Their offense should be improved and the defense might actually be solid. I doubt they'll be worse than Denver and KC, so they could have a shot at the division if the Chargers suck it up.
|
| 24 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:07
|
Wow, both Tates went right in front of me. Should have kept my mouth shut about Brandon, probably would have gotten him here. That really sucks. My whole queue is getting picked off one by one.
|
| 25 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Aug 28, 2010, 22:08
|
I almost took Brandon with my last pick. Was hoping he'd last another round.
|
| 26 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 11:39
|
Well, I'm done for quite a while. Have fun guys. :)
|
| 27 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 16:33
|
So, 20 TE's have been drafted or kept so far. Yeah, this surprises me. I guess we have a flex spot to start a second TE, but I am amazed at how many managers appear to value a second TE on their roster at this time compared to past seasons. I can't remember many instances where anyone has held two TE's outside of legge's drafting of Gates and Clark last year.
6 managers have 2 TE's, and one manager has 3 TE's. 5 managers are going out on a limb with only 1 TE right now. And then there are the 2 suicidals, of which I'm one: we have no TE at the moment. I don't know if there are enough TE's in the NFL to satisfy the thirst of this league!
|
| 28 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 17:23
|
I would have waited on Hernandez, but once I saw Gresham go I figured I couldn't wait (plus like you said, so many TEs were already gone). Gotta just follow the masses on things like this some times.
|
| 29 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 18:56
|
When I took my 2nd TE, I saw equal value there compared to WR (Gonzo vs Ward) with many more WR options down the road, he does fill that flex spot so both can be weekly starters, and it saves me from having to worry about a bye week filler.
|
| 30 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 19:09
|
I only have one this year, but it was great last year to have Gates and Clark. It made it much easier to cover bye weeks and injuries by having the flexibility.
|
| 31 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Sun, Aug 29, 2010, 22:01
|
As one of the guys with 3... one of the reasons I went that way, is this is a Keeper league, and I saw potential for long-term rewards in a guys like, Olsen and Keller.
|
| 32 | GoatLocker
Leader
ID: 060151121
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 09:09
|
The fact that this is a keeper league and the way this group tends to value players makes ADP kind of useless.
If you want a player and don't take them, they will always be gone the next time it gets too you.
Just the way it falls out.
I have queues set for Rounds 17/18/20.
19 is a Keeper.
Probably won't be home until 6 or later tonite.
If by some strange chance it gets back to me, somebody please give me a call on my cell.
|
| 33 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 13:44
|
I'll be gone until probably 4:30 eastern. Left queues for rounds 19 and 20.
|
| 34 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 18:36
|
Hmmm. Going to get a time-out here soon. Beezer hasn't logged on in over a day. Anybody heard anything?
|
| 35 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:11
|
Ugh @ Chung. May have to not play RIFC next year so I can actually grab the guys I want in this league, kind of ridiculous. There's been a few guys I took in RIFC and then see them go shortly after in the AAA leagues and much higher here.
|
| 36 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:15
|
The "style" of my MFL page changed in the past hour (all I did was hit refresh) and is now more difficult to read (lighter text, darker background, harsher on eyes)... just curious did anyone else experience this?
|
| 37 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:16
|
Didn't change for me. You can swap it yourself though, For Owners > Franchise Setup > then click skins on the far right. Can pick what you want.
|
| 38 | Da Bomb
Donor
ID: 487112814
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:26
|
Mine did as well, Doug.
And Guru, great work on your texting system.
|
| 39 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 19:30
|
It changed for me also and I just changed my skin back to what it was, MFL 2010. Course this was after I rebooted because I thought my daughter had messed it up somehow doing her homework. Then it was my turn to pick and I forgot who I was going to draft. Instead drafted the former Pacman on a whim only to find out afterwards he was injured Saturday, twice.
|
| 40 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 20:32
|
Skin changed for me also. I went with a Silver and Black skin this time in honor of this years AFC West Champs.
|
| 41 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 21:05
|
Thanks for pointing me to the right page Bonka. I can read again.
TB, your team logo is very... spherical. It represents a commitment to excellence?
|
| 42 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 21:51
|
My apologies for the delay today. Was stuck in meetings and hadn't realized the draft moved that fast.
|
| 43 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 00:45
|
You know it, Doug!
Have you been checking out the Behind the Shield interviews at Raiders.com?
|
| 44 | Challenger
ID: 2373318
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 09:03
|
Ok guys, I just noticed that Boikin's keeper Justin Forsett has been placed in the 23.14 draft position, MC's traded pick, instead of Boikin's normal 23.02 pick. I don't believe this should be allowed.
Last year there was a question along a similar lines and we allowed it as the actual keeper in question was being selected earlier in the designated round and we felt since the manager of the team had only one pick in that round it really didn't effect any other managers in that specific round.
This is not the case this time as 7 managers are being circumvented. While this is only the 23rd round, this will set a precedent in the future if this is allowed to remain.
|
| 45 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 09:36
|
I pulled up the league rules from last year's Fanball site, and don't see this issue addressed. It should be.
But what should the rule be? If a team has multiple picks in a given round and one is a keeper, then which one should be the keeper pick?
a. The earliest one
b. the last one
c. the team's "normal pick"
d. the keeper's "normal pick" (In this case, Forsett would have been pick 23.14 if he was kept by MC. )
|
| 46 | GoatLocker
Leader
ID: 060151121
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 09:42
|
My thoughts would be a. but that is just me.
I've got queues set for my last 3 picks.
If one of them empties out, and I go on the clock, could someone give me cell phone a call and I'll make a pick.
Number is on the site for those that don't already have it.
Cliff
|
| 47 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:27
|
My thoughts are it should be the team's "normal" pick, or next earliest pick.
So for example if you pick in the 5 slot and trade down to 10 slot in round 22, but want to keep a player you drafted in round 22... then you need to give up pick 22.5 or your next earliest pick. 22.10 would not qualify.
|
| 48 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:31
|
For example, was Eli Manning a 7th round or 8th round keeper for skeepers?
If a 7th rounder, then he should have given up 6.02 not 7.14 (MC's pick)... except he had traded 6.02 as well, so it would have been 5.02.
If an 8th rounder, then I think the right thing was done by making it 7.14 in place of 8.02.
Same deal with McCoy at 8.14 and Crabtree at 9.14
|
| 49 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 10:58
|
Re #45 - C
Re #48 - My 1st thought when I originally saw what Doug is referring to was I had no problem with the way it was done, but I understand what Doug is saying and I am going to mull it over.
|
| 50 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:43
|
Challenger is right that this was discussed last year, albeit on a smaller scale. I have always maintained that C is the fairest and best option.
|
| 51 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 11:44
|
I'll pick in a couple minutes. Had 2 rounds of queues set up, didn't think this many picks would go off based on the slower pace lately.
|
| 52 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 13:35
|
If I go ahead and make my pick now, then round 23 will probably proceed as it's already laid out.
MC generally isn't available during the day, so I doubt if we can get a ruling from him in time. In any event, I just emailed him at his work address (I think) to see if I can get a reaction before plunging on.
|
| 53 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 13:53
|
I just got off the phone with MC. He had discussed this with boiken (skeepers) previously, and MC decided to use pick 23.14 because Forsett was really a 24th rounder. Since Freeney was already boikin's 24th round keeper, he just backed it up the the next earlier available pick, which was 23.14.
MC also agrees that we should have some clearer rules spelled out for these types of situations - but in the interests of time, and the lack of a definitive rule on this, he's going to stick with 23.14 for Forsett.
However, we will want to more clearly define how this type of situation will be handled in the future. It would be a much bigger deal if it related to a much earlier round.
|
| 54 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:16
|
Rules are currently showing the number of starters as "8"
|
| 55 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:26
|
I'm getting the same thing. Aaaaaand we're done - that was a furious pace!
|
| 56 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:29
|
Hey, guys. I just got home and wanted to chime in here. The bottom line is that we don't have a rule to address the situation Challenger described in Post [44]. We obviously need one and I'll present my thoughts on that in a moment. First, though, I want to explain how I came to the decision to allow boikin to keep Forsett with 23.14 instead of 23.02. Forsett was worth a 24th round pick. Boikin was sacrificing his 24th round pick to keep Dwight Freeney. Because of the way we implement the keeper rules, he was required to give up a 23rd round pick for Forsett. The logic behind that rule suggests to me that we're attempting to force an owner to sacrifice something of similar value to what he owes. What is more similar to a 24th round pick: 23.14 or 23.02? 23.14 is adjacent to round 24, and because of this it's most similar to a 24th round pick. So I elected to assign Forsett to 23.14.
The rules currently state the following: Each player chosen in Year X and kept in subsequent years will require a manager to forfeit a draft pick in the corresponding Year-X-draft-round the player was chosen in for the year X+1 draft.
Under this rule, only a draft pick in the given round is required. So we've complied with this rule. But it is arbitrary and we need to define which pick shall be required when there is more than one available.
I am not clear on the logic behind requiring a manager to sacrifice his pick in a round in place of a keeper. I thought the whole point of the displaced keeper pick* rule was just to ensure a manager could keep a player and still give up something of proximate value. There's nothing special tying "his" pick to the kept player--presumably the manager has a different slot in each round this year than he did last year so it's not like you're keeping a player with the exact same pick anyway. In the Forsett example, Forsett was not boikin's player from 2009, anyway, so there's absolutely nothing tying Forsett to any of boikin's picks.
What I believe makes the most sense is to follow the logic we've established with our "displaced keeper pick" rule. Since a numerically lower pick is required to keep two guys in one round, we are valuing the next lowest pick as most similar to the one required for forfeiture. And if a manager has to sacrifice a pick in a higher round, then we're valuing the pick from the next highest round as most similar in value. I think that mechanism should be applied in instances when a manager has multiple picks in a given round.
* For the purposes of this discussion, I'm going to call the following portion of the rules the "displaced keeper pick" rule:
If two players on the same fantasy team are drafted in the same round and then kept, one of them counts as the next lowest (numerically) draft pick in the subsequent draft. If three players on the same team require forfeiture of equal draft rounds to be kept, the owner forfeits that round's pick, plus the two picks from the straddling rounds.
|
| 57 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:37
|
MC, with that logic you just proved then Doug right. Manning, McCoy, and Crabtree should have been taken at the .14 pick one round earlier.
|
| 58 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 18:39
|
I don't think you should ever be able to use a lower draft pick as a replacement for your original pick.
In particular, I think we want to avoid situations where it's like "Oh, you pick in the 2 slot and I pick in the 10 slot... I'll trade up in the rounds you're keeping and it doesn't cost you anything... here's some minor compensation for that". I think that's pretty contrary to the spirit of the rule.
Other keeper leagues I'm in (both football and baseball) you always either give up "your pick or next higher" or else you aren't allowed to keep someone if you no longer own the required pick. I don't like the latter, as it discourages trading picks a season ahead of time, etc... but CLEARLY imo you should never be allowed to use a lower pick than your original for a keeper. Just leads to bad outcomes.
|
| 59 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 21:32
|
I don't think you should ever be able to use a lower draft pick as a replacement for your original pick. Post [58]
So what happens if boikin (with .02 picks throughout the draft) trades out of a given round, and then trades back into it at, say, the 9th slot? You're going to make him give up his .02 pick in the next lower round? To me, the spirit of the rules is that you give up a draft pick from the round where the player was drafted. I have never considered it of great significance which pick in the round is sacrificed. If Eli Manning is a 7th rounder, and you have a 7th round pick, the rules and the spirit of the rules both call for you to forfeit your 7th round pick to keep him. He's not a 6th rounder; he's a 7th rounder. It's clearly against both the spirit and letter of the rules to require a manager to forfeit a 6th (or 5th, or 4th, etc) round pick to keep a 7th round keeper when the manager has a 7th round pick. That's a harsh penalty to impose on a manager as a result of him working out some draft pick trades. It's not what we set out to do when we created the keeper rules in this league. I can't imagine we as a league want to create a situation where you can't use a 7th round pick to keep a 7th round player, simply because you acquired that pick by trade rather than by rights (draft order). That makes no sense to me. So I disagree with both of the last 2 posts, and post [47].
My thoughts are it should be the team's "normal" pick, or next earliest pick. --[47]
We already diverge from this in the scenario where a manager is allowed to burn the pick from the round in question plus the two straddling rounds if 3 players from the same round are kept. That hasn't happened yet in practice (I don't think), but it will as we move forward, likely with rounds 4 or 2. The "next earliest" logic applies when the manager doesn't possess the appropriate round's pick, but when that pick is available then applying the "next earliest" mechanism is excessively punitive and not within the spirit of the rules as I read them.
To maintain some kind of uniformity and fairness, we need to decide what to do when a manager has multiple picks in one round and wants to keep a player from that round. There doesn't seem to be an option that stands out as "correct". As Guru mentioned the options seem to be the earliest pick, the latest pick, or the owner's assigned pick. Guru also mentioned "the keeper's normal pick," but I don't think it's possible to define that in all cases (how do you define a FA acquisition's "normal pick" slot?). Keep in mind that in some cases a manager may not have his assigned pick; if we elect to make that the standard, we'll need to have a caveat for when he's traded the pick away.
I support allowing a manager to keep a player for any pick in the appropriate round round. If a manager has more than one pick in that round, the manager should be allowed to sacrifice the numerically higher pick (e.g., 23.14 rather than 23.02). A 23rd rounder is a 23rd rounder. If a manager keeps a player requiring a pick the manager doesn't have, the next numerically lowest pick should be sacrificed (the Forsett situation above: Forsett should be 24.02, but Freeney is already there, so Forsett slides down to boikin's next lowest pick at 23.14--no matter where that pick came from).
I'd like to hear someone who supports the team's "normal pick" option (C in Post [45] above) give some kind of an explanation as to why that option is desirable over any other. It may be that this is simply an opinion question (I suspect it is) and if that's the case, there won't be a lot of convincing one way or another. But I'm going to get to a vote on it in a day or 2 here. I want to settle this situation once and for all, so we can all go look at TB's team logo some more.
|
| 60 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 21:58
|
Players should be kept using the team's original pick or highest pick in that round if the original pick is gone. Simplest and fairest way to do this. When you get to the earlier rounds, 1.02 isn't the same as 1.14 like 23.02 compared to 23.14.
I also think that players should be kept at their slotted round or better only. A first round player shouldn't be able to be kept as a 2nd rounder. The reason leagues use the keeper for a pick thing is to get top players back in to the player pool for the yearly draft, but allowing someone to keep possibly 6 1st round players defeats that. If you have 2 or more 1st round players and can manage to trade for more 1st round picks to afford keeping them, that's fine.
|
| 61 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:10
|
Boiken knew before your guys big trade that he was keeping his 7-9th rounders. It cost him nothing to swap those picks and sweeten an already imbalanced trade for you. It was within the rules, but I clearly do not think it was within the SPIRIT of the rules. You took advantage of a loophole in the wording to get better draft picks for yourself, while the managers between you guys were bumped back a pick each of those rounds.
|
| 62 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 22:16
|
Double post, but imagine the precedent you set. Let's say I have the first pick in next years draft, but decide to keep Manning and Moss so no pick in 1st or 2nd round. I could just announce that whoever wants to make have the first pick in the draft instead of their designated spot can offer me a trade to swap first rounders and their 10th round pick for my 20th. Again, totally within our league rules, but is it really within the spirit of the rules?
|
| 63 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 09:39
|
Double post, but imagine the precedent you set. Let's say I have the first pick in next years draft, but decide to keep Manning and Moss so no pick in 1st or 2nd round. I could just announce that whoever wants to make have the first pick in the draft instead of their designated spot can offer me a trade to swap first rounders and their 10th round pick for my 20th. Again, totally within our league rules, but is it really within the spirit of the rules?
yes it is, I think people are just protesting now because they did not think about this earlier. think about the real draft how many times do teams give up picks and/or players to move up a few spots?
I also think that players should be kept at their slotted round or better only. A first round player shouldn't be able to be kept as a 2nd rounder. The reason leagues use the keeper for a pick thing is to get top players back in to the player pool for the yearly draft, but allowing someone to keep possibly 6 1st round players defeats that. If you have 2 or more 1st round players and can manage to trade for more 1st round picks to afford keeping them, that's fine.
this does need to be addressed.
|
| 64 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 10:56
|
I very strongly disagree with 59 and 63... we clearly have a fundamentally different understanding of the spirit of the rules in this case.
|
| 65 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 15:01
|
I agree with Doug and TB.
Just as an example, let's say I have three 24th round keepers (as some teams did). I could very easily trade Player B my 23rd round pick for their 24th round pick and Player C my 22nd round pick for their 24th round pick because I was going to lose those spots anyhow. Sure, all of my keepers are in their "appropriate round," but I traded picks away that I didn't necessarily have in the first place as my keepers were taking those spots that I traded. It really feels like gaming the system, as my 22nd round pick was worthless to me, but worth something to someone else - which, again, I don't think falls in the spirit of the league.
But, again, this issue came up last year and I was shot down, but I am glad it is being re-addressed. In a nutshell, my feeling is your keepers should be held in your draft spots. I can't keep a player and have it take up Guru's spot in the draft, it has to take up one of my picks and I should trade accordingly.
Post 82 starts our discussion on this last year for those who want to refresh what happened!
We did come to conclusion that a keeper should take up your next available pick, which technically didn't happen with boikin's 7-9th round keepers (they should of taken 6-8th round picks since he traded those picks to MC), but did occur with Forsett. I still don't like that version of the rule, but that's what we said last year.
|
| 66 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 15:33
|
Not to derail this discussion, but I am trying to set my line-up and continue to get this message:
You Must Select No More Than 8 Starters
Lineup Not Accepted!
I've tried multiple different combos, but it is not letting me set a starting line-up.
|
| 67 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 15:37
|
I just checked bylaws and see the problem:
Starting Lineup Setup
Total Starters: 8 (should be 15)
Number of Starting QBs: 1
Number of Starting RBs: 2
Number of Starting WRs: 2-3
Number of Starting TEs: 1-2
Number of Starting PKs: 1
Number of Starting DT+DEs: 1-4
Number of Starting LBs: 1-4
Number of Starting CB+Ss: 1-4
Number of Starting Defs: 1
Hide starting lineups from all owners until: Never hide starters.
Should owners be allowed to submit players on bye as starters? Yes
|
| 68 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 19:28
|
So, MC needs supporting "C".
Ex:
I have 2 keepers in rd 2 and the 10th pick of each rd. No keeper directly attributed to rd 1. During the season I have acquired a 1st rd pick thru a trade. Turns out that pick ends up being the 1.02 pick. Now if we have the rule "the earliest" in effect, essentially the keeper will have to be inserted in the 1.02 slot and I will being actually selecting in the 1.10 slot instead of the coveted spot of 1.02. Anyone honestly want that?????????
Hence my support goes for "normal pick".
|
| 69 | Challenger
Sustainer
ID: 481126818
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 19:53
|
Bonka,
Here is our original rules discussion thread and maybe you can see how we came up with our rules before redo them.
link
Also, at the bottom of the referred thread is another link where we did more finishing/tweaking.
|
| 70 | The Beezer
Dude
ID: 191202817
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 20:50
|
I agree with boikin and TB's posts in 62 and 63. It bothers me that the same picks are lost whether someone is keeping 5 fifth round picks or 5 first round picks. Obviously, I can't claim to be unbiased given how my team is currently set up so I am just asking for more discussion around this.
|
| 71 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Sep 01, 2010, 21:07
|
The draft is complete and we're going to have a waiver claim period starting Saturday. Waiver claims will be awarded Monday, September 6th. Please don't make any acquisitions of free agents until then. Trades are allowed.
|
| 72 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 10:25
|
I'm one of the teams that currently has a lot of keepers ganged at the front. My keeper picks should have been 1-1-2-3-4, so on the margin, you could argue that one of my 1st rounders was bumped all the way to round 5. On the other hand, if I were to "unkeep" any of them, I would only have regained a 5th rounder. So the current rules really made it absurd for me to consider dropping any of the five - since I would only have reclaimed a 5th round pick.
Assuming I would keep these same five players next year, they would be 1-1-1-1-2 (assuming a 3rd rounder becomes a 1st rounder - I forget how the rounding works). Same situation will apply. If I give up one of them, I'll just get back a 5th round pick.
With that in mind, I approached my draft this year by generally not looking for longer term keeper bargains - since I would be unlikely to have any room to keep any offensive player other than my top 5. I realize that those picks might still have some keeper trade value for me next year, but in general, when evaluating player choices, there were times when I opted to skip a guy who might have keeper value next year in favor of a player who would have better current value for this year.
Consequently, I'm a little bummed to hear that we now might significantly change the keeper rules for next year. I might have drafted a bit differently if I knew that some of my top 5 would probably not be "keepable" next season.
That said, I can certainly understand the concerns - and am willing to try to find a solution. Just recognize that managing a team in a keeper league involves some planning more than a year out, and so changing rules on keeper policy is somewhat like a mid-season rules change, which are generally taboo.
I do, however, agree that the issues TB raises in 61-62 are a loophole that was never intended.
|
| 73 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 11:34
|
Consequently, I'm a little bummed to hear that we now might significantly change the keeper rules for next year. I might have drafted a bit differently if I knew that some of my top 5 would probably not be "keepable" next season.
Guru - I'm confused on how this is being proposed? I am looking back to see where that could occur, but feel like I am missing something?
|
| 74 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 12:01
|
I know that nothing has been formally proposed yet. But some of the ideas being suggested would certainly change forward strategy for my team. (second half of post 60, for example. It's actually not a bad idea - but it would impact teams disproportionately if it were to be implemented now.)
|
| 75 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 12:14
|
I'm at the other end of the spectrum in keeping four 24th rounders. I had a bunch of early picks and consequently was able to snarf up a couple of the highly touted rookie RB. I'm just wondering if this strategy will allow me to rebuild my team into a legitimate contender in the next couple of years.
For every rule or rule change, there are intended and unintended consequences. Sometimes it takes time for these unintended consequences to rear their ugly heads.
Not sure if we want to make any knee jerk reactions, just to close one loophole, only to discover that we unintendedly opened a new one.
This only being the fourth year of this unique format, it may take a little more time to see how things play out before making any major rule changes.
|
| 76 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 12:30
|
Guru has legitimate concerns regarding what I suggested. If we did at some point decide to change the rules to what I had posted, the best way would probably be to implement it over 2 years. The first year limit each team to say 2 or 3 players doubling up in a round and then fully implement the rule the following year.
|
| 77 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 12:54
|
There is no way I would suggest or even agree to changing the rules so that someone couldn't keep their top five picks while using draft picks 1-5 like Guru did this year.
My only problem is the loophole that I gave an example with and the fact that it was exploited. Whatever the final wording is, I don't think someone should be able to trade away their draft round pick for a lower same round pick and use that spot for a keeper. Maybe the simplest answer is that keepers can only be used against the original teams picks. If you trade away your 7-9 round picks for someone elses 7-9 picks, you can't use any of those slots as keeper slots. If you trade for and receive and additional 7th round pick and have two 7th round keepers, you would still have to use your original 6th and 7th round picks as keeper slots and would have the acquired 7th round pick to make a selection.
|
| 78 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:07
|
I certainly can't disagree with that TB.
|
| 79 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:18
|
Maybe the simplest answer is that keepers can only be used against the original teams picks.
Exactly.
|
| 80 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 02:31
|
I think that really limits flexibility... if I trade my 7th round pick for next year during the season, but then wind up wanting to keep a player I drafted in 7th round this year... I'm forbidden? Really? I can't just give up my 6th round pick instead? That seems more than a little odd, and imo will greatly discourage trading that might involve draft pick swaps next year (often used to balance out a trade that's "close" but not quite there).
This is why I think the "original pick or next earliest pick" is better. If I had the 10 slot and now have a different 7th round pick, if it's the 1-9 slot I can still use it for a 7th round keeper. If it's 11-14 slot then I've got to use a 6th rounder (or 5th or whatever I have)... and it's just next earliest... if I have two 6th rounders I'd give up the later of the two in this case (for a 7th round keeper).
This question is imo distinct from the keeping multiple 1st rounders question. However, I would argue that you still must have your a pick available in your original slot (or earlier) for those round 1-5 picks. I can't trade down with the guy who looks like he's gonna win this season to end up in the 14 slot and then use those for my 5 early-round keepers... it's the same principle.
|
| 81 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 02:38
|
I think you misread that. I propose that you can only use your original draft pick slots for keepers, so if you trade away your 7th round pick, even if you acquire another one in trade, you must still use your next highest available pick (assuming 6th) to keep that player.
Also, we should look at modifying that rounds 1-5 rule to rounds 1-6 seeing how we now have 6 keepers vs the five we had when we made that rule.
|
| 82 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 09:03
|
I second what TB said. You can keep 6 players, but they only take up spots in your draft (no using them in other people's draft spots). If you have two 7th rounders, you lose your 7th and 6th round picks (you can't trade your personal 6th round early pick for someone else's 6th round late pick to keep your player there).
|
| 83 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 09:31
|
If you have two 7th rounders, you lose your 7th and 6th round picks (you can't trade your personal 6th round early pick for someone else's 6th round late pick to keep your player there).
that is absurd, why would you want to hand cuff teams so bad and not to mention it takes away advantages teams trying to rebuild.
|
| 84 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 10:56
|
This isn't handcuffing any team, it's preventing the gaming that you and MC did. He got to leap-frog 10 other players in multiple rounds because he used your draft spots, even though you chose to use keepers there. I'd argue that it didn't help your team rebuild whatsoever and you'd have been better off drafting Jahvid Best in that spot, but that isn't relevent to this discussion.
Every team gets 24 draft picks in the draft each season and gets to use 6 of those slots to retain keepers. Once the season ends, next years draft order is already determined and every team's current roster dictates what draft pick is required to maintain that player as a keeper. We can announce it minutes after the championship game. If you want to keep Player X you lose your Draft Pick Y. Any trades that happen after that affect the draft, but not your ability to maintain keepers with your own draft slots.
So as an example, after the season ended last year it was determined that if skeepers wanted to keep Eli Manning, he would lose draft pick 7.02. If he traded away draft pick 7.02, he would have to use 6.02. If he also traded away 6.02, then he would have to use 5.02 and so on.
And to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be worried about having to make a rule like this if you and MC didn't completely abuse it this season and if I wasn't worried about it becoming the norm rather than the exception.
|
| 85 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 11:25
|
Once the season ends... every team's current roster dictates what draft pick is required to maintain that player as a keeper. We can announce it minutes after the championship game. Post [84]
This has never been my interpretation of the keeper rules, and I don't think it's a universal belief among managers in this league. We stipulated up front that you'd give up a draft pick from the appropriate round, not the draft pick you were assigned as a result of your finish in the previous season.
The rules: Each player chosen in Year X and kept in subsequent years will require a manager to forfeit a draft pick in the corresponding Year-X-draft-round the player was chosen in for the year X+1 draft.
I wrote that rule and I meant it to read that way. This league is set up to require managers to forfeit a pick in a certain round to keep a player drafted in that round. If the manager doesn't have a pick in the appropriate round, we then slide down a round. But the intention of those words is clear and always has been to me: you have a pick in the correct round, you can keep the player in exchange for it. No matter whether the pick is N.1 or N.14, and no matter how you acquired the pick. We do not require a manager to forfeit a pick from a different round than the required round if he's in possession of a pick in the appropriate round.
Let's say I have the first pick in next years draft, but decide to keep Manning and Moss so no pick in 1st or 2nd round. I could just announce that whoever wants to make have the first pick in the draft instead of their designated spot can offer me a trade to swap first rounders and their 10th round pick for my 20th. Again, totally within our league rules, but is it really within the spirit of the rules? TB, Post [62]
After considering this a while, I believe there's a big difference in what this hypothetical poses and what actually happened in my trade with boikin. While there is obviously a lot of subjective judgment involved in this analysis (by everyone), TB's example is clearly an unbalanced trade where one team derives a much greater benefit than the other. That's obvious and I don't think I need to go into great detail to show it. However, there's some disagreement about whether the trade boikin and I made was unbalanced. Yeah, 2 managers felt that it was unbalanced enough to protest it. And obviously TB thinks it was unbalanced. But I believe several managers do not think that. I'm not guessing at this. I heard from more than one person who said that it wasn't unbalanced enough to protest. TB's hypothetical presents an example of a trade that is so unbalanced that it would be protested. I would protest it. I would suggest that anyone thinking of labeling a trade unbalanced try to take an objective look at the terms of the trade using the resources at your disposal: ADP, trade calculators, news reports on players. There are many factors to consider and I think your gut feeling is the least important of them.
The league has a mechanism in place to identify trades that are too unbalanced and to disallow them. In the case of my trade with boikin, I allowed 3 days for review and protest before I processed it. There was never enough support to reverse it. I don't think it's as simple as making a blanket statement that it's "not fair" to allow someone to swap picks in the same round and then use the numerically higher pick for the keeper. It may be fair in some circumstances, but in others it may not.
For example, what if we take TB's scenario and modify it a little bit. What if the manager with pick 1.01 swaps with Mr. 1.10, but instead of swapping a 20 for a 10 on the other end, we make it a 3 for a 2 & a 5. In shorthand:
Manager A receives
1.10
2.10
Manager B receives
1.01
3.01
5.01
And then Manager A uses 1.10 to keep the player from last year instead of 1.01. And by the way, there's no way to prevent this even if we pass TB/Doug's suggested rule change because you can't make Manager A give up a numerically lower pick than his 1st rounder--there's no such thing.
|
| 86 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 12:48
|
That wasn't the definition of the keeper rules, but a follow-up to my proposal of what the new keeper rules should be. I'd even suggest that we could modify it and once we know next years draft order we could assign keeper value (ie, Eli Manning value was 7.02) and in order to keep him you must use either your original draft round pick (so if traded to another manager they could still use their current 7th rounder) or higher draft pick to keep him. I had zero problem with the current rule until you guys did the 7-9th rounds as part of your trade this year and I watched it unfold during the draft.
Don't confuse the fact that people didn't protest the trade into thinking they didn't think it was imbalanced. I didn't protest the trade because it wasn't collusion and it didn't severely imbalance the league (ie., an Aaron Rodgers for Derrick Ward kind of trade), but I don't want to see it become a habit. I also didn't realize how rediculous all that pick swapping really was until I watched the draft unfold and saw your team with 19 players while skeepers had 10 at the end of the 13th round.
The example I used was the exact same thing you guys did. Change the numbers around until you think it's a fair trade, but the bottom line is instead of the guy at pick 1.02 getting the first pick in the draft (due to 1.01 keeping his first round pick), the guy from 1.10 is now going to get to use it. I really am interested in how trading 1st round picks (when one guy is using his for a keeper slot) and a 10th for a 20th isn't fair? This really might explain where we aren't even close to seeing your current trade as being heavily imbalanced. The guy giving up 1.01 is basically getting a 10th round pick for his 20th for free. Kinda like you getting a jump from 7.14 to 7.02, from 8.14 to 8.02, and from 9.14 to 9.02 at zero cost to Boikin. The guy getting to jump from 1.10 is getting the first pick in the draft and so its worth swapping a middle round pick for end round pick. Hell of a lot better for him to give that up instead of two more early round picks. Are you seriously trying to use a trade calculator to determine fairness when we are using keepers and have 1st-3rd round talent as 24th round keepers?
And yes, my entire example isn't possible because you can't trade pick 1.01 until keepers have been declared and if I kept Manning, I would have forfeited pick 1.01 already. Funny that, because I just suggested that your players should be designated their draft keeper value and we already do that exactly after keeps are declared. If I have 5 fifth round keepers and choose to keep them all, I lose my 1st-5th picks. Then once the draft starts I trade and collect 3 fourth round picks. I can't all of a sudden slot those keepers into those spots and get my 1st-3rd round picks back.
|
| 87 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 13:11
|
Yeah, 2 managers felt that it was unbalanced enough to protest it. And obviously TB thinks it was unbalanced. But I believe several managers do not think that. I'm not guessing at this. I heard from more than one person who said that it wasn't unbalanced enough to protest.
You've expended lots of energy explaining/justifying this trade. Even in the initial trade post you wrote a very lengthy post. If you really thought it was an even trade and nobody would have issues with it, why did you attempt to pre-empt?
How many trades have we ever had where anyone protested?
Donny thought this trade was so horrible, he left the league. I've been in leagues with him 10+ years. He's not a crazy man who makes rash decisions. Maybe only two people sent in formal protests, but one person actually quit and many people in the league are discussing changing the rules because of the impact of this trade.
|
| 88 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 13:32
|
I must be totally lost because I really do not understand why this trade seems so unfair and I take responsibility for the whole idea of swapping picks in the rounds I planned to have keepers. Look at previous draft results what stand out players were drafted in rounds 10-13? It looks like to me I gave up very little for 2 early round players. Did this trade help out MC, yes but isn't that the point of trades to make both teams better?
|
| 89 | Bonka
Sustainer
ID: 019742310
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 14:15
|
I wasn't here when all this trade stuff happened, but looking back at it, you gave up a lot for what end up being minimal upgrades. Granted you only had 4 guys really worth keeping (Ward, Manning, McCoy, Crabtree) plus maybe Thomas in round 24, but giving up that much draft position really decimates your team, and it can easily be seen in your IDP quality due to lacking all those mid round picks. You traded for a guy in Forsett who's in a bad situation and may never be 'the guy' in Seattle but is still a good value in the 23rd. Turner is a 1st round talent, but you also could have just taken Best or Spiller, who shouldn't touch Turner's production this year, but after giving up that much in the draft, do you really expect to be that competitive this year? Obviously anything can happen and it's pretty easy to make the playoffs in this setup (8 out of 14 teams), but I think you gave up too much.
That being said, trades are only supposed to be shot down when there's obvious collusion or potential for huge league imbalance, which wasn't the case here. But what's being complained about (those pick swaps) could have been left out. In a keeper league, when a team is loaded and is looking to dump extra players, they're not really supposed to get huge value in return. Otherwise the rich get richer but nobody can put a stop to it except the team on the other side of the trades.
All this keeper/pick slotting stuff is a bit ridiculous I think. You're going to end up limiting what people can do who aren't attempting to do what was done here by implementing some of these ideas. I think 2 of the better options are probably:
- Use your original pick or the next highest (in that round or the previous) for the keeper
- Use your original pick, and if that's gone, whatever the highest pick in that round is for the keeper. Then just implement a rule that disallows trades that are clearly swapping picks as was done in the trade that's in discussion.
This whole situation is avoidable by implementing the right rule, it's just hard to figure out what that is without putting limits on people who are trading without the intent of what the rule is trying to prohibit.
|
| 90 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 14:21
|
We need to slow down the debate for a second, as we are getting into an area where we are merging two things:
1. The fairness of the trade. This has been vetted and I think the door is closed. Two people vetoed, others voiced concern, but in the end, the trade was allowed and no one assumes collusion. This issue should be done with and not re-hashed.
2. The implementation/logistics of the trade is what is up for discussion right now. In particular, should you be able to trade picks that are occupied by keepers? As a accurate example that has happened, should I be able to keep Eli Manning, who is sitting in my 7.02 draft spot prior to a trade, and then trade my 7.02 pick for a 7.14 pick and now keep Manning at 7.14?
I think that's it. That's the question. One sides argument is:
"yes, it is still a 7th round keeper and the rules don't discriminate about where in the 7th round I have to keep him."
and the other sides argument is:
"no, the 7.02 pick is taken (by Manning) and you can't trade that pick unless Manning takes up an earlier draft choice (not to anything later than 7.03)."
Isn't this what we are voting on and discussing? There may be some side pieces that need ironed out as well depending on what is concluded on, but that is the main issue (I think) that we need to clean up.
|
| 91 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 14:40
|
I agree. For me the trade is old business and merely being used as an example as to why we need to implement something. Really, I've given all my thoughts on it. Either the majority agrees something needs to be done and we can vote on a proposed change or we go with the current rule and it changes the dynamic for future trading.
|
| 92 | leggestand
ID: 451119710
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 14:46
|
The only thing I can add is that I am in a baseball league that uses the keeper by round style that we use, and that league is on year 8 with no issues on this front as we don't allow keepers to take any spots except your own (i.e. my keepers cannot be held in another owner's draft "line"). That's why I think this is the easiest solution.
|
| 93 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 16:13
|
I personally feel relatively "unaffected" by the deal... but in retrospect it was a deal that felt kind-off "odd".
I have very little Keeper league experience outside of this league however, so maybe I'm being naive?
I find it unfortunate in a way, that the commissh is involved in this. I feel it would be easier to form an opinion if it was just between two "managers".
|
| 94 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 16:28
|
[92] That could add to the strategy of making trades, keeping in mind that if you trade a draft pick, you can't keep the player slotted in that draft pick.
vs
Paying the price if you want to keep that player by forfeiting YOUR next lowest available draft pick.
Really don't like adding/changing rules that might discourage trading, but this will make you think whether it's worth making the trade and losing the pick or negotiating the trade so that you don't lose said pick.
|
| 95 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 17:05
|
[93] I'm OK with commish involvement, because even though MC is the commish, he is also a league member.
Besides, regardless of the outcome of this issue, it's going to come down to a vote by the league.
The trade is a done deal, so even though that was used as an example, it's inconsequential. It just comes down to how we want to procede in the future.
In a vote, would it just take a majority or 3/4 majority to decide this issue?
My head is starting to hurt. I need a drink.
|
| 96 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 17:27
|
[S]hould I be able to keep Eli Manning, who is sitting in my 7.02 draft spot prior to a trade, and then trade my 7.02 pick for a 7.14 pick and now keep Manning at 7.14? Post [90]
See, I don't look at it that way at all. Manning isn't sitting in any particular spot: he's a 7th round keeper. Last year, Manning was drafted at 7.02 only because boikin drafted in the second position of each round in 2009. So if Manning had been drafted in 2009 at 7.03 instead, would there be this assumption that he belongs there this season as well, or would there be a new 2010 assumption that because boikin chooses at 7.02, Manning belongs there? That's not tied to the worth of the player at all, it ties the player's worth to the manager's past performance. How does that makes sense? What if boikin traded Manning to me and I kept him? Why is Manning "worth" 7.02 if boikin holds him, but 7.14 if I hold him? The simple answer is Manning is not worth any specific pick, only a pick from a specific round: Round 7.
If we implemented the suggestion that you must use your "own" pick to keep a player, the 7-9 swap boikin and I did would have required him to sacrifice his 3,4,5 picks to keep Manning (round 7), McCoy (round 8), and Crabtree (round 9). Obviously the trade would not have happened if the penalty for boikin would have been so severe. But I just want to point out the extremity of the consequences to trading if we were to change the rules in that way. Even less objectionable trades could result in such absurd penalties under that modified rule.
The proposed rule change to require one's own pick or the next lowest numerical pick to keep a player is going to have significant and negative ramifications on our league. It's going to restrict trading in ways that no one's considered yet, because people have yet to explore their creative sides. The easiest way to deal with this is not to change the rules and create all of these caveats about when it's OK to do certain things. It's to just protest the trade when you think there's something wrong with it. I'll be the first one to accept the results of a full-blown protest vote.
Are you seriously trying to use a trade calculator to determine fairness when we are using keepers and have 1st-3rd round talent as 24th round keepers? You use a trade calculator on picks only, not on players. Just because Forsett is worth a 24th round pick under our rules doesn't mean his trade value is that of a 24th round pick. When the trade was made, his ADP was around 5.05 (on FFCalculator). You plug that pick into the trade calculator. Not such a difficult exercise. It really sheds a new light on the trade if you bother to look into it. I did a comparison myself after the protests came in and realized boikin actually accumulated more present value than I did. The equalizing factor comes into play when you realize that I would have lost those players (or Bradshaw rather than Turner at least) for nothing.
For anyone who still cares about analyzing the trade, here's a different angle on the 7-9 pick swap:
7.14 and 8.14 are nearly identical to 8.02 and 9.02. If we'd swapped these picks only, I'd have moved "down" two spots for each pick. Then you look at 7.02 for 9.14 and realize that's all that really transpired. I swapped a 9 for a 7, and moved down 2 spots on my 7th and 8th picks. That's what the pick swaps in question amounted to. Would you have been OK, TB, if I'd have just swapped 9.14 for boikin's 7.02?
|
| 97 | leggestand
ID: 11822317
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 18:23
|
From 96 above:
The proposed rule change to require one's own pick or the next lowest numerical pick to keep a player is going to have significant and negative ramifications on our league.
From a post by me last year:
MC and I have chatted, and have agreed with his (and Doug's) interpretation that the spirit of the rule is that if you don't have a spot to keep a player, you sacrifice your next earliest available pick
Two opposite things have transpired, and I think based on what we agreed to last year, we didn't uphold that league rule. And based on the amount of discussions we had last year (and are re-hashing again), I think our rule last year was the right one.
|
| 98 | leggestand
ID: 11822317
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 18:27
|
IMO, this is a very important post made by Doug last year when coming up with our decision:
I just checked in and have to rush off to work, but I assumed I could use the 12th rounder from boikin since it is an equal or better pick than my original slot in that round. If it had been a later pick, then I would have had to move earlier.
Basically, the way I thought about it was that Ruud cost my 12.06... but since that pick isn't available then it costs me my "next best" pick... normally this would be an earlier round, but in this case it's actually 12.02.
|
| 99 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 18:42
|
legge, when you said "you don't have a spot to keep a player," I never agreed that meant you couldn't use a later pick that you traded for, as long as it's in the appropriate round. I appreciate you finding those statements, but they don't provide a solution. Think about it for a second and you'll see there's no conflict in my current statements and what we agreed to last year. Doug didn't have a later pick in the same round in the situation you're referencing.
|
| 100 | leggestand
ID: 11822317
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 19:08
|
Hmmm, I think it's pretty clear. My post last year (an our discussion thereafter) was in direct reaction to Doug's post.
Read Doug's statement, as he said he understood that he would lose his next available pick, no matter which round. And our conclusion was "next available pick," it didn't presume the same round and I don't think it should of. The key words are "next available pick," no exemption based on round picks.
Either way, if you read it one way, and I read it another, then there is a hole that needs to be closed. And that's proably what should be up for a vote.
|
| 101 | Doug
ID: 426422715
Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 23:24
|
Exactly, I even said normally it would be an earlier round... it just happened that I traded up in the same round. Presumption was if I had traded down in the same round that would not have been an eligible pick to sacrifice.
Your "normal" pick is
I don't think it makes much sense for us to have folks trying to trade down picks in every round they intend to keep a player. If I had any sense this would have been remotely permissible I would have been contacting owners with keepers in rounds I did not to try and "trade up" since that would cost them nothing I wouldn't have to pay much, but could leapfrog ahead of other managers. That just seems messy and inconsistent with any other keeper/dynasty league I'm in where you either give up picks to keep players or to avoid salary cap hits or any other function. Your "slotted" pick is considered the MINIMUM cost you pay for the transaction, not the "approximate" cost.
We do have an exception in our league for early rounds where you can forfeit a later pick. I'm ok with that, but even then it needs to be your normal pick or better... this is something we should clarify once we get the first part "standard case" resolved.
|
| 102 | TB
Sherpa
ID: 031811922
Sat, Sep 04, 2010, 03:15
|
Would you have been OK, TB, if I'd have just swapped 9.14 for boikin's 7.02?
Sure, except he didn't have a 7th round pick. It was being used as a keeper slot, so great job pointing out how much you got to move up for a pick that shouldn't have been available.
|
| 103 | Mötley Crüe
Dude
ID: 439372011
Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 10:07
|
I was just reviewing the customized league rules and I found a couple of small issues that affect gameplay this season.
1. Retroactive scoring changes will be allowed if submitted to the Commissioner up until 5 minutes before the kickoff of the 1st game of the following NFL week. Retroactive scoring changes are to be verified by the Commissioner before being implemented.
I think this rule is no longer necessary because the MFL website can automatically update all scoring based on retroactive stat changes by the NFL. Of course, that assumes that the website will work correctly and do what it's supposed to. Bottom line, we should now have accurate stats in accordance with official NFL scoring at all times now, without Commissioner intervention. Do we need to retain managers' abilities to request a scoring change? I'd like to hear from those who've used MFL before about the effectiveness of retroactive stat changes. If I check the box to "automatically apply all stat changes for all weeks of the season as soon as they're available," does that mean there could be changes to Week 1 during Week 4? Not sure we want that. I'd like to just accept all scoring changes available by Thursday mornings and be done with it.
2. Starting five minutes prior to the scheduled start of each NFL game, no player in that game may be dropped, regardless of whether the player is an active or bench player.
Again, MFL appears to allow transactions up until kickoff of the NFL game. Do we want to change this stated rule to accommodate the website's flexibility? If we maintain the 5 minute rule, I'll have to enforce that manually and I can just envision that not going over too well.
|
| 104 | I_AM_CANADIAN
Donor
ID: 01361448
Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 13:37
|
FYI - I think we are using this thread now:
http://rotoguru1.com/cgi-bin/read.pl?board=footst&thread=1027&last=1283738279
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|