RotoGuru Football Leagues & Standings View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread Self-edit this thread Index of Forum Topics Baseball Forum   Baseball Leagues   Baseball Standings   Grand Slam Baseball Golf Forum Soccer Forum Football Forum   Football Leagues   Football Standings   Aussie Rules Basketball Forum   Basketball Leagues   Basketball Standings   Market Madness Hockey Forum   Hockey Leagues   Hockey Standings Auto Racing Forum General Fantasy Sports Politics Gaming and Entertainment Simulation Sports Horse Racing Computer Daily Blurbs Forum Developments Forum Standards Other Football Pages Support a Sponsor RotoGuru Store RotoGuru Hall of Fame Self-Edit GuruPatron Validation RotoGuru Blurbs     NFL Schedule     Sortable Stats     This week's points     Player Lookup     Assimilator Matt G's Gurupie Chat Room Football News     Sporting News     Kafenatid.net     KFFL     RotoTimes     RotoWorld     RotoWire     Two Minute Warning     WeeklyProjections.com Scoreboards     ESPN     NFL.com     Yahoo! Game sites:     Football Pickoff     TSN Football     CBS Sportsline     Fanball Commissioner     Onion Fantasy Football     RotoHog     Sandbox     Yahoo Football     Yahoo Football Plus     Yahoo Survival Football 0 Subject: RG Keeper 14 2010 Regular Season Discussion Thread Posted by: Mötley Crüe - Dude [439372011] Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 14:18 Let's keep the rules discussion in the other thread (Draft Thread link). As a reminder, waivers are going to be run tomorrow (Monday 5 September) at noon ET for the first time. The waiver priority order is the reverse of the draft selection order. Free agent claims on a first-come, first-served basis will begin at 3 PM ET the same day. At that point anyone not already rostered will be available for pick up at any time until the start time of the player's NFL game. It appears MFL allows transactions up until kickoff--rather than 5 minutes prior--but I'd recommend not testing that capability if you know what I mean. Since we're using another new system this year, it's really important that you communicate with the Commissioners (me and legge) and the rest of the league regarding your intent if you aren't allowed to do something at the league website. As long as you post in this thread or e-mail one of us by the appropriate time, we can retroactively fix things. Also, if you encounter any problems that you believe are based on some kind of setting I created, let me know and I'll look into it. MFL is extraordinarily flexible, but with all of the options come lots of chances to mess up. I may have done so multiple times. Don't be afraid to speak up about it. Good luck to everyone. Bring on the season. 1 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 14:20 Right, Monday, 6 September is of course what I meant for the waivers tomorrow. 2 Athletics Guy       ID: 537571719       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 14:33 Does MFL allow us to put in separate lineups for each doubleheader? I can only seem to make one for the week. 3 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 14:40 No, you use the same lineup for both. 4 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 20:18 I just threw Montario Hardesty on Injured Reserve. Jerk. 5 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 20:33 The commissioner account should be locked out during the season (well at all times really) unless a change needs to be made. This is just something commonly done in the MFL leagues since that account has control over everyone's teams and can preform actions as them as well as peek at draft or waiver queues. You can change it under Abilities Setup. The setting is viewable under the league bylaws as well. Commissioner Lockout: No, the commissioner still has the ability to view pending owner-initiated transactions. 6 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Sun, Sep 05, 2010, 20:57 OK, Bonka, good suggestion. I made the change. 7 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 13:38 bump 8 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Wed, Sep 08, 2010, 16:36 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'm all for making the commishes job as painless as possible. That deadline for the previous week's scoring changes seems reasonable. Hopefully MFL handles this without need of intervention by the commish. The last thing I'd like to see is changes being made weeks later. If a "Vrabel" type TD slips by them then it should be manually adjusted, but I think MFL caught everything last year. 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. MFL allows changes right up until scheduled gametime. I'm OK with that too. No muss, no fuss. Just reread the rules again. Looks like we're allowing partial line ups and bye week players in line ups. Saw this discussed in previous year's threads. The only objection I saw regarded the potential possibility of hoarding players that might be potential keepers for next year. Is it worth punting DL points to do something like this? Probably not worth it early on, but once you have been locked into the 9th or 10th position later in the season (No playoffs, no toilet bowel) it might. Just looking for last minute clarification before the season starts. 9 Guru       ID: 330592710       Thu, Sep 09, 2010, 18:10 MFL does have an option to automatically process retroactive scoring corrections. Those are almost always done on Thursdays, IIRC. 10 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Sun, Sep 12, 2010, 11:36 OK, I'll set the scoring corrections to run automatically then, and the language in the rules will be modified to allow for petitioning of the commissioner if some kind of scoring anomaly occurs that doesn't wind up getting picked up by the MFL corrections. The RIFC has amended its rules to allow partial lineups (see this thread). Under the new rule, a manager may elect to submit a lineup that does not contain all of the lineup requirements and still score points. In each instance not related to keeper rules, we've maintained the same rules as RIFC. Not many of the RIFC rules have a large effect on the keeper aspect of this league, but I think this one may to an extent. In the Keeper 14 league, allowing managers to set incomplete lineups would allow for managers to maintain large numbers of potential keepers on their bench at the expense of the starting lineup. To me, there's no question that this should be allowed because it's a managerial decision essentially. There's not much point in excessive hoarding because you won't be allowed to keep more than 6 players in the ensuing draft anyway. But I wanted to get this out there to hear what other managers think. Is this something I can just add to our rules because RIFC is using it, or do some of you have some heartburn with it? 11 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Sep 12, 2010, 13:01 I voted against it in RIFC and I don't think it should be allowed here either. It's actually worse here than in a redraft league. Not only can you sit players just because they happen to play Sunday/Monday night to protect a lead, but you can also just not start players to throw games after you're eliminated from the playoffs to assure they're in the bottom 4 for a shot at the top picks next season, not to mention possibly change playoff seeds for other people. If there's something in the rules that prevents this that I forgot, then fine, but if not, this is kind of a serious problem. I'd imagine people here wouldn't throw games like that, so it shouldn't be a big deal if partial lineups are allowed, but you never know. 12 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Sun, Sep 12, 2010, 13:24 Hoarding of players does not necessarily have to impact keepers for next year. It could impact the current season if at towards the end of the season a team is locked into the dead zone (9th or 10th place). That manager could field an incomplete line up just to keep a player out of the already shallow ww/free agent pool for the sole purpose of having that player on his roster the next year to keep or trade to another team for a draft pick upgade. I do think that this walks the fine line of the spirit of the rules and while I would hope that no one in this league would resort to that tactic, it's currently legal. I have no real strong feelings about this curently one way or another and do not foresee myself doing something like that. I'm just trying to look at all the angles, but I'm fine with whatever the league decides. Just another reason I'm not a big fan of having a dead zone. Admittedly foolish in a redraft league, maybe not so much in a keeper. 13 Da Bomb       Donor       ID: 487112814       Sun, Sep 12, 2010, 15:49 I have no problems with the rule. As for sitting players to protect a lead, I feel that, however rare it may be, is all part of the strategy. Even so, if full roster lineups are mandatory, a manager can just pick up a 3rd string QB and that will basically be the same thing as leaving the roster slot empty. A reason I am in favor of partial lineups is the small chance that, for example, every DST is already rostered. I don't feel a manager should be forced to make a trade to fill that DST slot if his first one is on a bye. 14 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Mon, Sep 13, 2010, 03:31 I was just thinking it would be nice to have a different schedule next year and not have the same one every single year. Legge and Guru both come out of the gates strong and it would be nice for a change to maybe get those guys when some of their studs have a bye week vs always playing them week 1 or even on the same weeks. 15 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Sep 13, 2010, 12:54 Well uh, my team put up a stinker. 16 Guru       ID: 330592710       Mon, Sep 13, 2010, 13:33 TB [14] Huh? We play every team twice, and the other matchup between you and me is week 8, which is my biggest bye weekend. I'll be missing Ray Rice, Roddy White, my regular kicker, Justin Tuck, Keith Bulluck, and the Balt defense. That's probably the ideal week to face me. Second, I'm not sure what you characterize as "coming out of the gate strong", but I'm currently 32 points behind you, and I'll need a big output from Rice and the Balt defense to catch you. It possible, but I like your chances - esp. since Weddle should get you some points as well. So I'd say you have no gripe. 17 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Mon, Sep 13, 2010, 16:15 Just struck me as odd that I always get you and Legge in week one and always the same combos for every week. More of an observation than a gripe, but now that you mention it I suppose I should have reviewed the entire schedule. Either way, was just thinking it would be nice to see something different. 18 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 21:48 I just realized that I can't pick up Legedu Naanee because of the following rule: No manager may drop a player and then pick the same player up again as a waiver claim in the same week. Every team in the league shall have an opportunity to claim the player before the manager who dropped him can pick him up again. It seems more restrictive than we intended--I remember that rule being designed to prevent someone from dropping a player and then using #1 waiver priority to re-acquire the player as a FA, making the player worth a 24th round pick. All we needed to do was require the player to keep the same keeper position if the same manager re-acquired the player in the same week he was dropped. This decision won't be made before noon tomorrow (and my priority is too low to get him anyway), but I'd like to adjust it moving forward. I can't think of a reason to penalize the previous owner just because he had bad timing in dropping a player. 19 Da Bomb       Donor       ID: 487112814       Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:07 Agreed. Should we also begin voting on the other proposed rule changes? 20 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:43 Every team in the league shall have an opportunity to claim the player before the manager who dropped him can pick him up again. Since Naanee was dropped at "Sun Sep 12 10:41:07 a.m. CST 2010", no team has had a chance to pick him up due to our waiver rules. All 13 managers must have the opportunity to claim Naanee which won't happen until waiver claims are processed Wednesday. IMO, the earliest MC could legally be able to pick up Naanee is the 2nd rd of the waiver claims. 21 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 23:29 I agree, the rule should be changed as stated. 22 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 04:19 I just noticed this on the league monthly calendar, and it might need to be fixed. This is set for Wednesday and might not allow any FCFS even though they're set up to start at 3: No Waivers Allowed starts at 3:00 p.m. 23 Guru       ID: 330592710       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 08:57 The calendar had two things scheduled for 3pm ET - No waivers allowed, and FCFS waivers. I just deleted the "No waivers allowed" element. I don't know what would have happened if two conflicting things were scheduled to start at the same time. 24 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 17:37 In post 74 of this thread, Da Bomb proposed the following language be amended to our rules: Draft picks in rounds 1 through 5 may only be traded one month leading up to the keeper declaration date and during the draft itself each summer. I've added a poll to the MFL league page for you to vote on this issue. Please do so at your convenience. The vote results will be binding. I'm going to use this as a test run for the poll feature on the website to gauge its convenience. 25 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 18:10 voted 26 Guru       ID: 330592710       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 18:20 Question: Let's take my team as an example. If I keep the same five offensive players next season, four will require a #1 pick, and the other will require a #2. So, under our current rules, I forfeit my picks in rounds 1-5. Suppose we enact this new rule, and then I trade away my first round pick 30 days prior to the draft (which I assume is also prior to declaring my keepers.) Does this restrict who I can keep? Or does it mean I can keep all 5 and now forfeit my picks in rounds 2-6? If it's the latter, then what has the rule change accomplished? Perhaps this is already addressed in the rules. If so, pardon my ignorance - I'm easily confused in my advancing years. I thought this was a significant issue in the general discussion, however. 27 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 18:55 Yeah, I was going for the low-hanging fruit first. We need to get to all of those complex issues still. Of course, if we enact this change to the rules, we'll need to address the scenario Guru mentioned. I think we're approaching scenarios where we're going to have to make changes to how we assign keeper slots to players. We may have to start being more restrictive moving forward. I'd rather go the other way, but let's see what happens. Guru, in the case you hypothesized, my instinct is to require you to forfeit picks 2-5 to keep your choice of 4/5 of those players, and then you would also have to let one of them go. But that's under the current paradigm. If we come up with something different, my reaction might change. 28 Da Bomb       ID: 508161517       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 18:58 My belief is that with the draft only about a month away, you should have a good idea of who you are going to keep. If you trade a first round pick and end up keeping that first round player, you really have no pick to trade at all. I think that if you do trade a first round pick, you therefore need to forfeit that player. Perhaps that needs to be added to the rule. 29 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Wed, Sep 15, 2010, 21:08 It may be restrictive, but just like deciding on your keepers--difficult choices must be made. As someone directly affected by this rule this year, I initially wanted to change it. However, upon further review, I like it the way it is. I just had to get the best deal I could for Randy Moss, an extra 6th and 7th rounder. No big whoop on paper. Where I feel like I benefitted most was getting rid of my last 2 picks. In this case, a 19th and 20th, as I kept 4 players that cost me last round picks. So my final round pick was my 18th rounder--when the total overall player pool was deeper. I don't recall all the specifics, but I was picking the last player on my roster while others still had 6 or more picks yet to be made. 31 Guru       ID: 330592710       Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 11:22 If we are going to amend the keeper rules per MC's "instincts" in [27], then why limit trading to one month in advance? If a team knows with a fair degree of certainty in the prior season that he won't be keeping his first rounder, why shouldn't he be able to part with it in the prior season - especially if we end up moving toward a system that requires having multiple 1st round picks in order to keep multiple first round keepers. However, if we don't end up amending the rules per [27], then there are some crazy implications of approving this change. I guess I'll support the current proposal, with the caveat that if it passes and other rules changes are not implemented, we need to revisit this again. 32 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Thu, Sep 16, 2010, 17:37 I can't see ever voting to not being able to keep your top 6 players for your first 6 picks no matter what other changes we make. Obviously, if you trade away one of those top picks you are limiting yourself on keepers, but if you have picks 1-6 and have 6 players that cost a first round pick, you should be able to keep them. 33 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 10:51 The poll asked Should the rules be amended to allow trading of draft picks in rounds 1 through 5 beginning 1 month prior to keeper declarations? The results indicated 9 for and 5 against, so the rules will be amended to allow for the trading of draft picks in rounds 1 through 5 in the month leading up to keeper declarations. Now, Guru: in [31] above you mentioned some implications that would need to be addressed. Could you please elaborate? I assume you mean that we need to make explicit what I stated in post [27]. Namely that people who trade picks in rounds 1 through 5 will not be allowed to keep players from those rounds like they have been able to up until now. For example, you can't roll down the keeper requirement for a 1st round player to the 6th round. We should cut it off at round 5 as we have done all 4 years. 34 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Sun, Sep 19, 2010, 20:01 That's one of the Best weeks I have ever had. Wacka wacka wacka. 35 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 11:04 In [18] above we discussed amending the rules to allow managers who drop a player to pick the player back up in the same week with the caveat that the player's keeper status would not change for that manager. I've added another poll to the league website for us to vote on this. If anyone is confused by the wording, I apologize--I kept butting up against character limits. If you need further explanation of what we're discussing changing, please contact me and I'll try to straighten you out. 36 Guru       ID: 330592710       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 11:43 [33] Yes, something along those lines. But it's more complex that that, I fear. Suppose I have 4 keepers who all require a 1st round pick. My other keepers require picks in much later rounds. What happens if I trade away my 1st round pick? What happens if I keep my 1st round pick, but trade away my fourth rounder instead? If I had all of my picks in rounds 1-4, then those four keepers would require forfeiting those four picks. Should the new rule state that I mush have those four picks available to be able to keep all four players? If so, what if I trade away a second round pick, but pick up an extra 4th rounder? What if I trade away pick 1.01, but get back 1.14 in return? What if I trade away 2.01 and 4.01, and get back two 3rd round picks in return. The devil's in the details, I suspect. But as we saw this year, these types of situations will emerge. 37 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 13:20 When we started to formulate the rules for this league back in 2007, I nominated a keeper process that would require forfeiting picks at the beginning of the draft to keep players. I think we're headed that way in some respects. We've always treated the first 5 rounds of the draft differently. I think one way to solve these questions Guru asks is to tie drafted players to the specific manager's picks in the draft. I hate that concept. It's appealing because it's easy to do, but other than being easy, I can't think of a reason why it is favorable. If a manager acquires a player in trade, what is that new player's keeper requirement? We have to make a bunch of caveats for situations like that and I doubt we'll have strong majorities agreeing with any one option. I'd like to see as much individual freedom for managers as possible, without allowing any significant holes for dishonesty. My opinion remains that if a manager trades away one of his high picks, he's going to lose the ability to keep a player requiring a high pick. We're not going to bump 1-5 down to 2-6, or to 1, 2, 4, 5, 6. The onus needs to be on a manager to sacrifice a keeper if he sacrifices the corresponding draft pick and has no replacement pick. 38 Guru       ID: 330592710       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 15:10 Fair enough. Not trying to be argumentative here, but let's assume that I still have my 4 first-round keepers, and I still have my picks in rounds 1-4. Suppose I then trade to pick up an extra 1st round pick. Do I get to use that in Round 1? Or will my forfeited picks now be 1-1-2-3? 39 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 15:57 My interpretation of the intent of the rules in that situation is that you should give up four 1st round picks to keep four 1st round players, but you don't have the right picks, so you give up the closest thing: 1-1-2-3 in that case. Not much incentive to trade for a 1st round pick, is it? 40 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Sep 20, 2010, 16:51 If you weren't allowed to use a lower pick (ie 2nd round pick for a 1st round keeper) there would be reason to trade for 1st rounders. That being said, this is another issue which was discussed somewhat before and I'm sure will be discussed separately at some point. Easier to do 1 thing at a time unless 2 or more things are tied in together that closely. 41 boikin       ID: 532592112       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 12:11 not to throw a compete monkey wrench into the system but what if i want to keep my 4 1st round picks and i trade my second round pick for a player do i give up 1-3-4-5? 42 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 17:29 No, you can't keep 4 first rounders in that instance. You'd have to let one of them go. Not to mention you'd have to maintain a pick in the proper round in order to keep the player you acquired via trade. 43 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 17:35 I'd think that if you have four keepers all designated round 1 and you only have picks 1,3,4,5 you would only be able to keep one of those picks for your first round pick and not be allowed to keep the other three. 44 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 18:53 Waiver wire order doesn't match reverse order of the standings 45 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 20:08 Challenger, [44]: Guru made a ruling about this earlier today in RIFC. Waiver priorities are typically set as the reverse of the standings order. However, this year, we have HTH record as the second tiebreaker for standings... HTH makes sense for the fulls season standings, when schedules are balanced. It makes no sense after two weeks, however. Therefore, I made an executive decision to base our weekly waiver priorities on the following ranking: 1. W-L record 2. Points for 3. HTH This generates a better ranking for waiver priorities, even though it will not necessarily correspond with the reverse order of the posted standings. That comes from Post 53 in this thread. I've adjusted our league to match those settings. 46 Mötley Crüe       Dude       ID: 439372011       Tue, Sep 21, 2010, 20:17 TB, [43]: the rules address how we assign keepers at the beginning of the draft. If there are two or more players that achieve first round keeper status, they may be kept in exchange for forfeiting the same number of picks at the front of the draft. Keep 3 first round players, forfeit the first 3 picks. Keep 5, forfeit the first 5 picks. On the other hand, that doesn't jive with what I said in [37] above. It makes sense to codify that this rule only applies to picks from the first 5 rounds. If you trade your 2,3,4, and 5 you shouldn't be able to keep multiple 1st rounders in exchange for a 6th or 7th. Does it make sense to limit the rule above in italics to only the first 5 rounds? I think that was our original intent. This is the kind of stuff teleconferences were invented for. This piecemeal stuff makes it hard to address everything. 48 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Sep 22, 2010, 16:06 I got a text showing waiver claims and have no clue how I got Michael Bennett in a 2nd claim. I must have clicked his name on accident because I certainly wasn't drinking last night. 49 Mötley Crüe       ID: 468162217       Wed, Sep 22, 2010, 18:16 TB, your Raiders crush is showing. 50 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Sep 22, 2010, 19:23 Probably, Raiders win a game and I am out of control. 51 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Fri, Sep 24, 2010, 14:26 In case people don't check the trade bait, I do have some guys I'm willing to part with if anyone needs someone to plug in at RB or WR. Would probably trade them for a guy at the same position plus a little draft bump next year in the mid round depending on the difference between the players involved. 52 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 16:40 Trade announcment # Bonka will give Tolbert, Mike SDC RB Clayton, Mark STL WR # To Chall's Bad Boyz for Stewart, Jonathan CAR RB Gaffney, Jabar DEN WR 53 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sat, Sep 25, 2010, 17:12 I'm not sure if we can get this done for tomorrow. We would have had a trade done last night, but my emails to Challenger went to his junk folder. 54 Mötley Crüe       ID: 23841269       Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 10:41 Sorry, fellas: there's a 24-hour waiting period for protests of trades. With Carolina playing at 1 ET, Stewart will be locked into Challenger's roster already. This trade will be processed after MNF this week, barring protests. 55 Mötley Crüe       ID: 23841269       Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 12:46 I just had to reverse Beezer's transaction picking up Maroney from yesterday. The waiver claiming system wasn't operating correctly and mjd had put in a claim for Maroney. I think waivers are set up correctly now, but if anyone experiences any difficulty or thinks something is wrong, please let me know. 56 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 18:20 Figures, bench Maclin last minute and he goes off. Just another crap week for my team. Guess I'm in for a huge week next week following this pattern. 57 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Sun, Sep 26, 2010, 22:58 I had the top 2 guys this week and actually managed to start one of them. 58 Mötley Crüe       ID: 398152716       Mon, Sep 27, 2010, 17:17 MFL waivers are giving the RIFC fits. I'm going to see what they do and then try to match it in our league, but for right now, I recommend being extra judicious when making waiver claims. What I mean by that is try to keep records of what you do, in case we have competing claims and I have to try to make a decision and apply it manually. To be clear, this only applies to players that are cut and then go on waivers. It does not apply to the waiver claim period that runs on Wednesdays at noon. That claim has gone off without a hitch each week, to the best of my knowledge. 59 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 00:11 this only applies to players that are cut and then go on waivers. I haven't even found a way to file these claims. Yet, ever free agent pickup I do says it's a waiver claim while other managers pickups show they're free agent claims. 60 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 02:09 Should be able to go to For Owners > Waivers to put in claims for locked players. Hopefully Guru and I get the waiver situation figured out tomorrow. I did just email him with a completely new plan to see if he'd like to try that since the current one is a bit messy. 61 Mötley Crüe       ID: 398152716       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 07:05 Trade in post [52] is approved and processed. 62 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 16:27 A couple of free agent moves were processed this afternoon by Oaktown. When I saw that, I updated the waiver calendar to eliminate that possibility. I assume the commish will want to reverse those premature pickups that slipped through. 63 Mötley Crüe       ID: 328392816       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 17:39 Whee. Yeah, I'll reverse those transactions. So, have you guys figured out what the right settings should be, Guru? 64 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 17:50 Bonka has been doing most of the tinkering. I have no idea whether we have it right yet or not. But I think this league is now consistent with the current RIFC settings. 65 Athletics Guy       ID: 537571719       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 18:30 I just saw the transactions on my email. I was just making waiver claims. No idea how the players were added to my roster already. I must have did something wrong because my other waiver claim is still there. 66 Athletics Guy       ID: 537571719       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 18:34 Now it won't let me put in a claim for the 2 players I just tried to acquire. 67 Mötley Crüe       ID: 328392816       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 18:45 AG, I just unlocked them. Try it again. 68 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 18:55 AG's roster is correct. Both Wimbley and Berry are already back on his team. 69 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 19:53 What we have set up for RIFC should work for most cases, but like programming, you need to test for wacky things too. Since it's not easy to test this stuff out, we have to just wait and see until something bad happens. If the current system doesn't hold up properly, I have another setup in mind that should be a little better and/or more flexible. I'm only really concerned with how the system handles things on the weekend in regards to if players are rewarded outside of the scheduled locked player waivers. 70 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 21:22 I'm hurting at RB this week so Lance Moore is on the block for an RB upgrade. 71 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 16:23 When a player is dropped from a roster, the player will go on waivers for 48 hours. At the end of the 48 hour period, if any team has placed a claim on the player, the team with the highest claiming priority will receive the player. If no claims are submitted, the player becomes a free agent at that time. If a player is dropped within 48 hours of his game freeze, he may not be claimed until the following week's free agent claiming process. (From our bylaws) Yesterday, I dropped Fred Taylor during the waiver claims, yet, IAC was able to acquire him today. What is up with this??? (Yes, I know IAC dropped Taylor, but that's not the point) 72 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 17:30 What's up with that is that waiver settings are still not working properly. I'll have a look at that and make sure it stops. MFL is better than Fanball was from the manager's POV, but so far it's been tough for me to set up. 73 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Thu, Sep 30, 2010, 18:03 The settings on the league page are correct, so I'm not quite sure why it allowed Fred Taylor to be picked up. One thing you should all be made aware of, though, is that MFL only allows waivers to be run on dropped players at 3 AM, x-number of days after the player is dropped. It's not going to be possible for us to maintain the "48-hour" period anymore. It's just not an option, for some strange reason. What the RIFC did was set it up to run waivers on dropped players for 24 hours, plus whatever extra time it takes to get to 3 AM after that. So if a player is dropped right now (Thursday afternoon) a waiver assignment would occur 3 AM on Saturday morning. I think the easiest thing to do is to shorten the amount of time dropped players are on waivers. I've implemented that in our league as well, to match RIFC. With the current settings, dropped players should be on waivers somewhere between 24 and 48 hours. I can't get to exactly 48. We could go to between 48 and 72. But I think that's a bit excessive. But none of this explains why Fred Taylor (and all of the other waived players from yesterday afternoon) are available for immediate pickup. Bonka, any thoughts on why the players waived yesterday at noon are available already? 74 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 13:55 How long were the players set to be locked for? If it was only 24 hours, then they unlocked. If it was 48 hours, then I don't know. I haven't seen any players unlock early, so I'd assume it was just set to 24 hours. Maybe Guru changed the settings to match the RIFC and bumped it from 48 to 24. 75 Doug       ID: 426422715       Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 09:27 On that note, according to the website Garrard was supposed to run as a FA at 3am today, but appears he did not (even though waivers don't lock until 5am). 76 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sun, Oct 03, 2010, 10:06 Doug, take a look at post [73]. Garrard was dropped after 3 AM on Saturday, which means he won't be available until 3AM on Monday--but that's part of next week so he won't be available to for pickup until the Wednesday noon waiver process. 77 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Oct 04, 2010, 23:40 Well, I was right. Seems like I alternate good and bad weeks. 78 The Beezer       ID: 477382511       Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 00:54 Why couldn't I have caught you on a bad week? :) 79 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 19:18 The first couple weeks and in my AA league, when I wanted to set up waiver claims I could just sort through players and then click on "Add" where it says Free Agent - Add and then it put them in my claim order. Now I get the message: Free Agent Moves Not Allowed Now According To Your League Calendar. Now the only way I have found to set up claims is to go to For Owners/Waivers and then scroll through the list of names. It is made somewhat easier by selecting position first, but still not as simple as just clicking on the Add. Was this something that changed because of the problems? In my AA league it is still the easy method of clicking add and I don't think we've had any problems with waiver claims. 80 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 20:59 That happens because we have Tuesday waivers followed by dropped player waivers. The settings weren't correct initially, and players who were supposed to be on waivers after being dropped were dumping into the FA pool. At least, I think that's what is going on. I am pretty sure things are set up correctly now. By the way, Tom, if you want another method for linking to the waiver claims page, click "Add Player" on the lefthand side of the screen when you go to our league homepage. 81 Guru       ID: 330592710       Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 12:56 There should be an "Add Free Agent" link on the left menu. That will allow you to top add/drop transactions for any player not subject to waivers. Dropped players are now subject to waivers, and claims can be placed by using the "Add Player" link. All trading is locked out for the 3 hours following Wednesday's full waiver processing. 82 Doug       ID: 426422715       Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 11:50 Re: 76, on Saturday when I was looking, the website showed that he was waiver would run at 3am Sunday. *shrug* Just showing bad info I guess. 83 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 13:12 I'm off to a good start for my bad week with Finley limping off the field then taking the cart. 84 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 10:30 Yeah this is kind of crazy, so far I alternate with bottom and top 3 scores. I imagine I may break the rotation with another bottom 3 score with no Finley, Calvin Johnson, or Owens this week. 85 leggestand       ID: 451119710       Tue, Oct 12, 2010, 17:13 Lynch is on the block, and I am looking for a WR. Nothing special, but someone better than Walter or Golden Tate could make the deal work. I could also trade Jamaal Charles, although my price would be higher. 86 boikin       ID: 532592112       Wed, Oct 13, 2010, 16:13 leggestand, ill hear offers for WRs 87 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Oct 17, 2010, 22:24 This just blows my mind. Looks to be another top 3 finish to keep this roller coaster ride moving. 88 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 10:41 Looks like scoring changes are going to change 1 game outcome while almost swapping 2 others. 89 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 19:38 Are our scoring adjustments automatic or do we have to request them? I've been assuming that it was on auto pilot, but I've been wondering why MC has made no comments on them. Thanks for the heads up Bonka. 90 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Thu, Oct 21, 2010, 19:46 It was posted a while back that we were setting them to be automatic, but that doesn't seem to be the case. 91 TB       ID: 219152217       Fri, Oct 22, 2010, 18:15 If a trade was approved between 2 teams today, would it go through before Sunday games? 92 Guru       ID: 330592710       Fri, Oct 22, 2010, 18:29 It should, as long as there are not enough protests to put it to a league vote. 93 Guru       ID: 330592710       Fri, Oct 22, 2010, 18:32 [89] They are not currently set up to process automatically (in this league), but I don't know if that's intentional or not. 94 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Fri, Oct 22, 2010, 18:34 I just ran the scoring changes. Forgot to do it yesterday. Sorry for the delay. On the trade questions: there's a 24-hour period for managers to protest. As long as less than 3 managers protest the trade in the 24 hours following the trade, the trade goes through. If we get three protests, then it's held up another 24 hours and wouldn't be processed in time for this week's games. 95 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Oct 24, 2010, 23:39 Finally going to break that top and bottom 3 score streak, although I'm still going to lose both games this week, keeping my lose 2 win 2 streak going. Wierd season so far. 96 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Mon, Oct 25, 2010, 21:24 IAC was nice enough to leave Britt on the bench but wasn't kind enough to do the same for McFadden. :) 97 Da Bomb       Donor       ID: 487112814       Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 00:11 As it stands right now I beat IAC by less than two Jason Witten yards. Watching the last couple Dallas drives was brutal. 98 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 00:15 Well, you get to sweat it out until Thursday's stat corrections now too. 99 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 11:40 Since we are now using the same hosting system, I figured I'd run the same analysis that I do for the RIFC. The top chart shows the average points per slot by position. The bottom chart shows the total points by position over or under the average for that position. Thus, while the top chart shows per-player averages, the bottom chart multiplies the differences by the number of slots per position, which appears in the top table. For example, Bonka has been getting 10.9 pts on average for each WR. Since we start three WRs, and since the league average is 8.8 for a WR, he is realizing an extra 6.2 pts for his WR trio (10.9-8.8)*3 [subj to rounding] For teams that start two tight ends, the WR data includes one TE for that week. 100 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Tue, Oct 26, 2010, 23:04 I don't remember ever seeing the standings this close this late into the season. 10 teams are either 8-6, 7-7, or 6-8. 101 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 17:14 I'd like to see a rule implemented next year (especially in the actual RIFC leagues) where when a player is acquired via waivers or free agency, he is locked onto that team roster for one week. Earlier this year I grabbed RB Michael Bennett in an oops move and I should have been forced to keep him for one week. In my AA league, one guy this week has already picked up and dropped three players who are all now on waivers. 102 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 17:50 Yeah, I was thinking about that. I think Fanball used to allow those players back into the FA pool right away--something about them being picked up and dropped in the same week I believe. There may be a rule setting that accomplishes this, but I haven't found it yet. To me, that's a better solution than forcing people to keep players they don't really want. 103 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 17:54 From the game site: The NFL has changed a stat from a play in Sunday's Bills-Ravens game, so Fitzpatrick now has 382 passing yards instead of 374, BuffaloBills.com reports. Analysis: Fitzpatrick's fantasy day was such a surprise that it keeps on giving three days after it actually happened. Usually I would dump a guy like Fitz after Manning's bye, but 1) there is nobody available screaming for me to get, 2) I am anticipating a 2 for 1 trade where I will have an open slot to pick up the player I don't want anyway, and 3) Man this league loves scraping the bottom of the QB barrel with 33 QB's currently rostered. That means trade value and Momma says to sell high. So Fitz is available for your soul or first-born child or maybe an upgrade on my fantasy team. 104 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 17:56 Agreed MC, I prefer that option as well. Would be nice if it was just a simple setting change that could be implemented. 105 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 18:08 TB, how did you beat me this week? Your RB's are God awful. [103], I see at least one team with no QB this week. Might want to offer something to that guy. 106 TB       ID: 219152217       Wed, Oct 27, 2010, 22:13 70 points from IDP + another 40ish from WR/TE + The Demi-God Ryan Fitzpatrick (who is available for trade, in case anyone missed that post) was last weeks recipe. Hopefully this weeks recipe will include some Jamaal Charles. With Legge accepting the trade, my biggest need is a WR/TE who doesn't have a week 9 bye for Fitzpatrick. 107 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Thu, Oct 28, 2010, 16:18 Stat changes need to be put through, couple things got swapped for big players, although I don't think any matchups will change. IAC vs Da Bomb is real close and has scoring changes, but it looks like the outcome won't change. 108 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Thu, Oct 28, 2010, 20:49 I sent the stat changes through and no outcomes were changed this week. There is also a trade between leggestand and TB. They neglected to announce it themselves, so I'll do it here. TB will give Edwards, Braylon NYJ WR Gonzalez, Tony ATL TE to Leggestand for Charles, Jamaal KCC RB I'll process this tomorrow evening barring 3+ protests. legge, you'll need to clear out an extra roster spot because the system won't allow you to have 25 active players on your roster. 109 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Fri, Oct 29, 2010, 14:57 The trades can be done completely on MFL. Just set it up to post a poll for each trade. That way people can have it set to email them when new polls are created and they can then vote yes/no on the trade. 110 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Oct 31, 2010, 03:03 Damn you Snoop, I thought I could grab Laurinaitis after he unlocked. Can't believe he was dropped to be honest. 111 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Oct 31, 2010, 15:01 Figures, he blows up and I'm playing you with him in your lineup. 112 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Mon, Nov 01, 2010, 19:21 Laurinaitis - I dumped him because I was tired of seeing him week-end and week-out standing by the pile after the play was over congratulating whomever made the play. Just goes with the rest of my year - Shoulda coulda woulda. Ya, I have a winning record now, but it would have been so much better if I had followed my actual plans/ideas. But then again, if I'd followed my ideas, I'd be on the sidelines with Taxman. 113 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 00:14 And my up and down season continues. This is pretty amusing. 114 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 20:58 The RIFC recently experienced a problem where a manager cycled through a bunch of players deliberately to have them stay on waivers so they couldn't be picked up on Sunday before gametime. Just so there's no confusion in this league, that type of move is not allowed in the Keeper League. I can't imagine anyone in our league doing it, but I'm just going to say it once for the record. Guru is working out final language for implementing a rules amendment to codify this, but in the meantime we're leaving that kind of thing behind. To clarify: you are more than welcome to hold whatever players you can pick up at any position in order to keep them away from other teams. What is not going to be allowed is picking up and dropping numerous players consecutively for the purposes of forcing many FA's onto the waiver wire. If anyone has any comments on the issue, please feel free to post them or e-mail them to me privately if you like. 115 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Tue, Nov 02, 2010, 22:46 I've got 3 QBs (Roeth, Stafford, and Vick) that are bye-free and producing. I'd like to pick up some good players that were drafted in later rounds and/or draft picks. No one on my roster is untouchable so make me an offer! 116 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Sat, Nov 06, 2010, 15:16 Tough Matchup this week. The Win/Loss leader facing off against the Points For leader. In week 1, I woulda given Guru the definite advantage; not sure how to call this week though. 117 Guru       ID: 330592710       Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 12:08 Barring a massive blowup by Hines Ward and the Pitt defense, it looks like I'll prevail this time around. It feels to me that I always seem to win these regular season matchups, and then fizzle in the playoffs. 118 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 15:55 It'd would take a little recap'ing on my part, but I think I had the best regular season score since the inception of this league, but I've rarely fared well in the playoffs (losing at least once to Guru). 119 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 19:19 There were some rule changes proposed as we began the draft season this year that we never settled. I think it's been long enough that those hung out there so here are the big ones I noticed from [135] of this thread. 1. Look at how many first round picks a manager should be allowed to keep. This also would apply to keeping players that require a lower draft pick when managers don't have one available (i.e., if you keep a first rounder, second rounder, and 2 third rounders--currently you are allowed to forfeit your 3rd & 4th round pics to keep those two 3rd rounder players). For reference, here is boikin's post 98: I think we should revise the rule that you can give picks in back of the round, i.e. MC giving up a third round pick to keep a second round player and giving up a second round pick for a first round player. If you want to keep two first round players then you need to have two first round picks. 2. Requiring managers to sacrifice their original pick in a round to keep a player from that round. For reference, here is the relevant part of TB's [56]: I'd like to see a rule where if a team wants to select a keeper, they must have their original pick in that round for the keeper slot. So if they trade draft picks, even swap same round picks, they cannot keep any player designated from that round. I'd like to bring both issues to a vote by the end of next week. I think these proposals would modify our league in fundamental and significant ways. Because of that, I encourage everyone to spend a few minutes thinking about the way things would change if we pass them. Thanks. 120 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Nov 08, 2010, 19:50 There's overlap between both changes that could be a problem. If we require you to have say 3 1st round picks to keep 3 1st rounders, we can't do it if we also require you to have your original pick in that round to keep someone. 121 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Tue, Nov 09, 2010, 17:36 Just spitballing here. No real strong feelings about any of them. Also trying to look at any prospective changes from all angles including any potential unintended consequences. If we need more than one first round pick to keep multiple first round players, we're going to need to be able to acquire more first round picks and that can only be accomplished by trading for them. Regardless, given the above options, managers will be faced with tough choices. On the other hand, more valuable players will be available via the draft which will certainly provide more league wide parity. 122 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 08:18 Trade Announcement: Mötley Crüe gave up: Smith, Steve CAR WR TB gave up: Fitzpatrick, Ryan BUF QB 24 hour period to protest begins at the time stamp of this message. 123 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 18:26 When we started this league, my thoughts were that it would be fun and challenging to use RIFC rules and league parameters in a keeper setting. My experience with keeper leagues is that the truly exciting aspects of them (at least for me) derive from being rewarded by being diligent or skilled enough to find true sleepers that quickly rise to the level of productive NFL players. In other words, I have always been keen to gather up as much young talent as I can. My roster generally reflects this at any given time. My style as commissioner is to promote this type of behavior from every manager. I realize this isn't necessarily to my benefit as a manager, but I find the league more challenging when everyone is trying to scoop each other on sleepers. I'm against the proposal to change the keeper format to require managers to forfeit picks from the exact round a player was drafted in. I prefer the rules currently in place because they allow managers to have more freedom to choose when a player should be let go. Often these players will have been cultivated for several seasons and kept as low round draft picks before they hold significant value. If a manager is fortunate enough to have 2 or more players develop in this way, I believe that manager should be rewarded for drafting that player in later rounds and holding him on the roster until the player is worth a round 1 pick. NFL conditions ensure that most players eventually degrade in skill and fantasy value (often significantly) in a short period of time. Players like Peyton Manning and Randy Moss are exceptional. Most players come and go so quickly they are forgotten unceremoniously. I don't want to use this type of tool to enforce roster parity. I don't think it's necessary on top of the other things we already do like the non-snaking draft and 5 offensive player limit on keepers. I have some things to say about the proposal to require the manager to use his own pick (or next lowest pick) to keep a player. I'll put it in another post when I have time. 124 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Fri, Nov 12, 2010, 21:05 If you want to promote getting talent before they break on to the scene, I think keeping things the way they are is a bad way to do it. There's currently no reason to keep a solid late round guy next season over one of your multiple 1st round picks who are perennial studs. But if owners aren't allowed to blindly keep their top players year to year, that solid guy who costs a 24th rounder (someone like Hillis currently) has a lot more value when you can't keep say AP and CJ because you don't have 2 1st round picks. And then it compounds because guys like AP/CJ would be available. So if you nailed a lot of picks and actually have 1st round pick to use in the draft, you can possibly grab AP/CJ. In general there'd be more top guys being redrafted, which places more emphasis on getting those up and coming players outside of the first few rounds. This should hopefully make sense. 125 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 09:42 The trade in post [122] has been processed without comment from the league. [124] There's currently no reason to keep a solid late round guy next season over one of your multiple 1st round picks who are perennial studs. I don't agree. Keeping one or maybe two 1st round picks works for a while but eventually those players (who are usually RB's) will fade. I had Turner and MJD coming into this season and opted to keep one and trade the other for this very reason. I elected to keep Bradshaw as a 5th rounder instead, and I think there is ample encouragement to keep later round RB's over 1st round guys that will begin to decline usually within 3 years of achieving first round ADP. As an example, here's the first round of the inaugural draft in this league: 1. Tomlinson 2. S-Jax 3. Addai 4. Gore 5. Larry Johnson 6. Peyton Manning 7. Reggie Bush 8. Willie Parker 9. Maroney 10. MJD 11. Shaun Alexander 12. Brian Westbrook 13. Rudi Johnson 14. Benson In 2008, 9 of those were kept. In 2009, 7 of them were kept. This year the number kept is down to 4 (Manning, S-Jax, MJD, and Gore). The current set-up encourages managers to dump high draft picks that do not play at an ultra-high level for a long time. The NFL machine continually chews up and spits out outstanding players like Rudi Johnson, Shaun Alexander, Brian Westbrook, and Larry Johnson. Our keeper-round-division rules really do promote focusing on young players that are not drafted or rostered. With the ability to keep only 5 offensive players next season, Bonka, I'd lean towards keeping Hillis with a 24th round pick rather than DeAngelo Williams with a 1. Especially with another solid RB getting kept with a 2 (Wells). Williams has not lived up to his first round slot--or even the second round pick it would take to hold him since you have Megatron as well. And though you may want to keep 3 RB's, this will start to hurt the rest of your roster; balance in keepers is important. Probably not a consensus position by any means. But a viable strategy in my view. 126 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 12:13 See, that's my point, if you look at my team, I have I think (without looking) 5 guys that would eat up my first 5 picks. DWill, Megatron, JStew, Schaub, and Wells. If I kept Hillis over one of these guys, I'd gain a 5th round pick from it, which is ok but hardly anything special. I'd be better off keeping all those guys for my first 5 picks since they're all better than Hillis who may not even have the starting job next season. I'm actually stretching the truth here just a bit since I'm not real high on at least 2 of those top 5 guys, but I think you can see my point. I don't really get your example either, you still ended up keeping guys with your first 5 picks. Anyways, I have to run right now and don't have time to explain what I mean at the moment. Maybe I'm the only one who sees what I'm talking about. 127 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 12:53 I see what you're talking about. To me, though, it's just not desirable to force a manager to release players that would require first round picks and take away the option of which one he wants to keep between DWill and Hillis. If we push through a new rule like the one suggested, you either have to trade for another first round pick or release DWill or Megatron. Just because those guys cost 1st round picks doesn't mean they're worth that much either. To me, let the manager decide and make the decision. Hillis may not be worth a 1 or any pick in the first 5 rounds. But he's definitely worth a 24 and probably even a 5 or 6. As you also mentioned, one or both of those Carolina backs are likely to slide in 2011. There are tons of variables that go into the decision making process. I would argue that these early round picks aren't worth nearly as much as the group seems to value them. The players can be much more valuable, especially if they are late round picks. I don't think there's a wrong answer, but there is a preference issue. How much parity do we want? Do we want more high-level players thrown back into the available draft pool, or do we want to let fewer managers accumulate a lot of great players hopefully through deft management and not just through luck (i.e., not drafting the guy who gets hurt)? I prefer the second. 128 Guru       ID: 330592710       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 20:42 Here are a couple of issues that I see with our current framework: 1. I currently have 5 keepers who are ganging up as first round keepers. If I decide to release any of those guys, I only regain a 5th round pick (on the margin). So my decision for each player is only based on the keeper value as a 5th rounder. This makes it very hard to consider releasing one of those players - until they are worth less than a 5th rounder. 2. Because of this, I think the free agent player pool is light on players who would normally have value in the top few rounds. Forcing me to have enough 1st round picks to keep all of them would make the keeper decision more difficult, and would no doubt cause me to release some earlier than I do now. That would improve the quality of the F/A pool. But I don't like a system that forces me to have to acquire picks via trade in order to keep a player. It seems like there should be a more direct way to accomplish this that doesn't depend on the trading whims of the other managers. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it seems as though the primary issue today occurs mostly for teams with multiple players who command first round status. Without giving this a lot of thought (meaning that it may be that I'm suggesting a stupid idea), how about this? If you release a player who requires a first round pick, then you get to reclaim your 1st round pick - regardless of your other keepers. If you release two first rounders, then you would reclaim your 1st and second rounders. In my situation, assume that I have Frank Gore, Reggie Wayne, Aaron Rodgers, Ray Rice, and Roddy White all as first round picks next year. Under the current rule, I can keep them in return for sacrificing my first 5 rounders. If I decide to release any one of them, then I only recover a 5th rounder. Under my proposal, if I release Gore, I recover my first round pick. Keeping the other four would sacrifice my picks in rounds 2-5. Maybe the rule could apply to picks in the first two rounds, rather then just the first round (i.e., releasing a 2nd rounder recovers a 2nd round pick, regardless of other keepers.) The reason I propose this is that it's less severe than requiring multiple first rounders (which may or may not even be available, since in any year, there are likely to be more than 14 players who command a first round pick), and it allows a manager to decide about a player's worth based on his own draft round equivalent - without regard to other keepers on the team. Under the status quo, will I be likely to release one of my top five next year? Doubtful, since I'll only recover a 5th round pick. Under this new proposal, would I release any? Candidly, I don't know - but it becomes a much more interesting decision, and depends much more heavily on whether I have good keeper options in the later rounds. 129 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 22:08 Under that proposal I doubt you'd drop any player from the group of 5 you're talking about, Guru. If your team merely goes 4-4 to finish the season, you'll still clinch the best record in the league and either the 13th or 14th pick in the 2011 draft. The available pool of players going into next year's draft is likely to consist of rookies; good RB's and WR's; and some very good TE's and QB's. Isn't Reggie Wayne probably worth more than any of that? I think he probably is, and if you let him go, you may not get him back at 1.13. Also, doesn't it seem like Guru's proposal is a way to consolidate even more talent on the rosters of very strong managers' teams? If Guru drops Reggie Wayne and gets a shot to draft one of next year's top rookie RB's, how does that help the available player pool? It really just sets up a refreshment system for teams with a lot of high level keeper players. I'm not completely opposed to that rule change, but I think the rules we have in place now are preferable. 130 Da Bomb       ID: 508161517       Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 23:29 Plus if a player does have a sharp decline and doesn't become keeper worthy, the manager would be compensated with a 1st round pick, which wouldn't seem right. 131 TB       ID: 219152217       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 00:15 I like the way our keeper rules are now. The only issue I have is where someone trades their draft pick spot for a lower same-round draft pick slot, knowing they will be using that spot for a keeper, and essentially saying F-you to all the managers who would have picked between those places. This is why I said someone should have to use their own draft pick spots for keepers, but not to the point that it now requires a bunch of first round picks to keep players. If that was the case, we should just become a redraft league. 132 Doug       ID: 411040141       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 02:41 The first 5 rounds issue aside, I feel VERY strongly that the "give up a pick for a player" rule should be in your original slot for that round or the next earliest pick. That's how the rule was interpreted last year. For some reason that wasn't consistently applied in the same way this season and I think it was a real violation of the spirit of that rule... have to admit it still kinda bothers me when I think about it (which isn't often, just when discussion of it comes up in this forum, which admittedly I don't check very often this year). 133 Doug       ID: 411040141       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 02:43 The "use your exact pick" rule is too strict imo... discourages trading. As long as you can use your next earliest pick instead, it shouldn't be a problem. Again, this is how I thought the rule was already being applied last year. 134 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 02:49 I prefer the keeper rules the way they are and consider my team a test case to see if I can sucessfully rebuild my team from scratch into a viable contender in a reasonable time period. I tend to agree with 129 and 130 that this change would just allow the rich to get richer. 135 Guru       ID: 330592710       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 08:06 Hypothetical question. Under our current rules, suppose I trade away my third round pick to another team. Can I still keep my top five players (each worth a 1st rounder)? If so, what picks do I give up? 1,2,4,5,6? I'm guessing that I can't keep all five - but is that in the rules? 136 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sun, Nov 14, 2010, 10:54 Guru, I don't believe it's in the rules specifically. Here's the pertinent portion of the rules: If there are two or more players that achieve first round keeper status, they may be kept in exchange for forfeiting the same number of picks at the front of the draft. Keep 3 first round players, forfeit the first 3 picks. Keep 5, forfeit the first 5 picks. I see that there was not a lot of foresight applied in writing this passage. The "first 5 picks" could be construed in multiple ways. Moving forward we'll definitely need some rewording to specify the intent of these keeper rules. I read through the customized rules yesterday and there are several instances of this type of thing. Much of it relates to the differences between Fanball and MFL. I think it's too much to vote on, to be honest. What I might do is re-write it this offseason to reflect the way we have been operating and send out a track changed Word doc for everyone to see the differences. In the meantime, this discussion is important in shaping the objectives that we want codified. 137 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Nov 15, 2010, 23:56 Never thought I'd lose to Beezer with the lead I had. Yikes. At least I split games after that beating from Vick. 138 leggestand       ID: 451119710       Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 09:39 Not much to add, but I agree with Doug's posts 132 and 133. It's the easiest and fairest way to not make a dramatic change. 139 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Tue, Nov 16, 2010, 18:39 Bonka, I had written off any chance of coming back in that game. I went to bed Sunday night contemplating a fire sale to get guys for next year, and I woke up this morning in a playoff spot. Crazy season. 140 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 07:11 Smart pickup of Stafford. Easy decision for a keeper in 2011, if there's football. 141 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Fri, Nov 19, 2010, 13:54 Yeah, was glad sitting on the #2 waiver slot that long actually paid off. Doing it elsewhere for weeks and likely won't have anyone worth picking up. Helped that my team was solid enough I didn't have to make any important moves. 142 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Mon, Nov 22, 2010, 19:49 Aaaaaaand the fire sale is back on. Roethyvzcyafger Ochocinco Wake Any of these guys available for good keepers, keeper upgrades, and/or draft picks. 143 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 18:37 Has the trade deadline passed?? Looked at the website calendar and didn't find it mentioned. (Just going by RIFC) 144 Mötley Crüe       ID: 45927710       Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 18:45 The trade deadline is 12 noon EST on the day before the first game of NFL Week 13. This year that translates to Wednesday 1 December at noon ET. 145 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 18:50 Never mind...it's Noon EST next week. If all else fails, read the rules. 146 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Wed, Nov 24, 2010, 22:53 Trade announcement: The Beezer gave up: Big Ben leggestand gave up: Larry Fitzgerald 147 Mötley Crüe       ID: 45927710       Fri, Nov 26, 2010, 10:27 The trade in [146] has been processed without comment from any league members. 148 Mötley Crüe       ID: 45927710       Tue, Nov 30, 2010, 22:53 Guru posted this in the RIFC thread and it's applicable to our league as well. Time to refresh memories about our special league rules for the playoffs, which start after week #13. Championship bracket 8 teams Top 6 W/L records are seeded 1-6 Top remaining total points are seeded 7-8 Teams with equivalent W/L records are seeded based on head-to-head first (regardless of the number of teams), then total points. Bracket is fixed (no reseeding after each round) Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) and team defenses may not be added for any reason during the playoffs. Free agents at these positions will be locked out after the final regular season game. You may drop a player at one of these positions, but once dropped, that player cannot be added later. Players at the other positions (TE, PK, IDP) may be added or dropped according to normal regular season guidelines, subject to playoff claiming priorities, if applicable. Following the final regular season game, priorities will be reset based on playoff seed, with the top seed getting the top priority. Thereafter, throughout the playoffs, priorities will again adjust only when a claim is awarded. If a playoff game ends in a tie score, the team with the better seed shall advance. Teams which are not still active in the Championship playoffs may not make any transactions - adds or drops - even if they are still competing in a Consolation bracket. Finally, only players on your roster as of the end of Week 13 (after the 6 DEC MNF game) and remaining on the roster throughout the playoffs are eligible as keepers for next season. 150 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Wed, Dec 01, 2010, 20:57 Challenger, no team is lacking a TE. Managers are allowed to carry whatever roster configuration they want during the week. And although we never completed the debate about partial lineups (posts 10-12 above), I'm leaning towards it being allowed based on the fact that the RIFC went ahead with it. Despite my earlier remark that allowing partial lineups will affect keeper decision making, it's not a per se rule regarding keepers. The effect is indirect--it tends to encourage teams that aren't going to be in the playoffs to pursue more keeper options at the end of the season. All along this league has been intended as a mirror of the RIFC, so I need a pretty good argument to consider ignoring the partial lineup rule. 151 Da Bomb       Donor       ID: 487112814       Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 20:55 Surprised Steve Smith, NYG was dropped. That looks to be an easy last round keeper for Bonka. 152 TB       ID: 219152217       Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 21:22 Was he ever a free agent or just claimed from waivers after being dropped? I'm pretty sure we made a rule about waiver claims keeping the same draft position. 153 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 22:57 Only players that go on NFL IR would keep the same draft position if they were subsequently waived in our league. Steve Smith (NYG) will require a 24th round pick to keep in 2011. Bonka's going to have a hard time deciding who to keep next season, between Stafford, Smith, and some of the early round guys. 154 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 13:00 Yeah, I do have too many guys to keep. But having options is never a bad thing. I'll be looking to deal before the season starts :D 155 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 06:50 Playoff seedings have been assigned and the brackets are posted on the league homepage. I also updated the waiver priority order, but for now it appears the 6 teams not in the championship bracket still have the ability to make claims. Not sure if there's a way to change that so I'll just remind GoatLocker, boikin, Beezer, TB, leggestand, and AthleticsGuy to please not make anymore waiver claims. Bonka and Guru: any advice on making that change? 156 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 10:04 You can revoke add/drop right for the non-playoff teams. That is done in the franchise abilities setup page. Restriction on adds for QB, RB, WR, and Def must be manually monitored, however (as far as I know). 157 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 11:18 I believe the seedings are wrong. Here is how I see it 1) Guru - 22-4 2) IAC - 17-9 3) Bonka - 16-10 4) Chall - 15-11 (Wins HTH 2-0) 5) Da Bomb - 15-11 6) mjd - 14-12 7) Doug - (PF = 1802.98) 8) MC - (PF = 1763.28) This is based on records for 1 thru 6 with HTH as 1st tie breakers and "Points For" for 7 & 8 158 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 12:48 Looks like the system does not have HTH specified as the first tiebreaker. Not sure why. Probably an oversight. 159 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 13:32 The only ones I'm seeing right are 1,7, & 8 160 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 20:19 That's weird. Maybe I looked at the standings before they were updated this morning--I mean I have people totally out of order based on their W/L %. My apologies. I think it's squared away now. 161 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 22:46 Wow, that's quite a group of managers with me out of the playoffs. Hard to feel too bad at missing when you see names like that in the consolation bowl with you. Congrats to the top 8. 162 Doug       ID: 411040141       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 23:39 I'm amused to see that Legge had a few more PAs than I did and way fewer PFs... using our averages he lost by 11.6 per game and I won by 7.7 per game... a 19.3 PPG difference... yet we wound up with the exact same record. :) TB also had a 9.4 PPG differential advantage over Legge but wound up with a worse record. It's all about distribution and variance in H2H, lol. 163 Doug       ID: 411040141       Tue, Dec 07, 2010, 23:48 Remind me what our playoff pickup rules are... particularly at non-skill spots? My DB is doubtful for this week, I'd like to get a replacement but don't want to violate rules. I'm going to go ahead and put in a claim for a replacement DB... we can always correct it if I wasn't supposed to. 164 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Wed, Dec 08, 2010, 07:02 Lifted from the Guru: Players at the primary skill positions (QB, RB, WR) and team defenses may not be added for any reason during the playoffs. Free agents at these positions will be locked out after the final regular season game. You may drop a player at one of these positions, but once dropped, that player cannot be added later. Players at the other positions (TE, PK, IDP) may be added or dropped according to normal regular season guidelines, subject to playoff claiming priorities, if applicable. Following the final regular season game, priorities will be reset based on playoff seed, with the top seed getting the top priority. Thereafter, throughout the playoffs, priorities will again adjust only when a claim is awarded. The initial priority list for waivers in our league: 1. Guru 2. IAC 3. Bonka 4. Challenger 5. Da Bomb 6. mjd 7. Doug 8. MC 165 TB       ID: 219152217       Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 01:44 My team had no stamina, finishing 1-9 the last 5 weeks. It's getting a makeover for next season. Keepers: Jamaal Charles, Pierre Thomas, Mike Williams (TB WR), and IDP T.J. Ward Probably keeping 2 of these: Vernon Davis, Jacoby Ford, or Ryan Grant. I do need to know what keeper Grant would cost. Trading or dumping: Everyone else, to include Manning and Moss. 166 Guru       ID: 330592710       Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 16:39 Not a good week for Aaron Rogers to get knocked out in the first half. Ugh. 167 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sun, Dec 12, 2010, 19:46 Those 2 Hightower TDs are real cool garbage scores. How was this game not over like 45 minutes ago? Could end up losing in the playoffs to the team I absolutely destroyed the previous week. 168 TB       ID: 219152217       Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 04:09 lol 169 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 21:21 Well, looks to be the end of my season. Great week to put up a dud. Gotta love fantasy football where it's not a surprise that the 2nd highest scoring team on the season gets beat by the 3rd lowest, almost a 21 ppg difference. Hopefully next year I actually get to start my RB keepers since DWill and Wells were completely useless this season. 170 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 22:58 Looks like MC's and Guru's matchup will be coming down to the wire. Not surprising since MC has Vick, and Guru has been the leader all year. Should be interesting. 171 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 22:59 woops... my bad, forgot which league MC had Vick in. ;) 172 Guru       ID: 330592710       Tue, Dec 14, 2010, 10:10 Any number of things could have probably pushed me over the top this week. Aaron Rodgers' injury was the obvious killer. But I still could have prevailed if I had started the AZ defense instead of Baltimore. The biggest irritation is that I picked up AZ a few weeks ago with the expectation that I might very well start them this week and next. Baltimore had been faltering at that time, and the matchups looked more favorable for AZ, which had actually been scoring better than Baltimore. But then AZ had a bad stretch of several weeks, and Baltimore picked it up. So after stewing over the decision for awhile, I decided to go with the team that brought me to the dance. I would also have pulled it out if I had started Marcedes Lewis instead of Tamme. That was essentially a coin flip. After going 0-2 in week #1, I steamrolled to a 22-2 record over the next 12 weeks. I figured I was about to run out of gas. 173 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Tue, Dec 14, 2010, 12:31 Goes to show you that once you make the dance anything can happen. Just making the playoffs exceeded the expectations for year 2 of my rebuild from scratch team. Looks like one of my rookie RBs is finally showing some potential. My low scoring average is a reflection of the youth of my keepers. I was the higher seed in 2 other league playoffs and got hammered in both. 174 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 23:39 Looks like a pretty tough call in the other matchup of the semi's. ADP vs Briggs and CHI D... this one could go either way. 175 Challenger       Sustainer       ID: 481126818       Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 19:46 Peterson out, Gerhart in! At least Farve is playing and hopefully he can take the pressure off Gerhart. While this is a setback, I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that my PK, Carpenter, miss 4 fg's (48,48,53, & 61) which would have meant 18 fantasy points. Afterall, he was in Miami and not in Buffalo and a couple of weeks ago he did hit a 60 yarder. 176 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 20:30 Wow, yeah, that is a pretty odd scenario. If you end up winning, the handcuff of Gerhart might be your smartest move of the year! 177 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Tue, Dec 21, 2010, 06:48 Looks like GoatLocker has won a pretty solid victory in the Toilet Bowl and will have the first pick in the 2011 draft. Congrats to GL! 178 GoatLocker       Leader       ID: 060151121       Tue, Dec 21, 2010, 09:15 Nice to have something good come out of this crappy season. 179 I_AM_CANADIAN       Donor       ID: 01361448       Tue, Dec 21, 2010, 09:46 Hmmm. Looks like I'm facing off against MC in the Finals. Hopefully he'll be too distracted managing his RIFC team (which also made the finals) to be much competition over here. Seemed like every skill position player that I had went off this week. Hopefully they still have something in the tank for the Finals. Time to go giv'em a Pep-Talk. 180 I_AM_CANADIAN_out       ID: 501162418       Sat, Dec 25, 2010, 22:59 Just wanted to verify... that fumble recovery by Breaston tonight will probably get adjusted later in the week? It's not showing up in live scoring... it's easy to tell... since he did nothing else on the scoresheet. 181 Guru       ID: 330592710       Sun, Dec 26, 2010, 08:15 [180] - No. The scoring rule is fumble recoveries from opponent. Breaston recovered his own team's fumble. 182 I_AM_CANADIAN_out       ID: 501162418       Sun, Dec 26, 2010, 15:12 Ah I see. Also wondering... what does the effect of moving the Eagles/Mini game from Sunday to Tuesday make, if any? Will it still be reflected in week 16 scoring? I would think so, but I'd rather be sure. 183 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sun, Dec 26, 2010, 17:54 To the best of my knowledge, it is still a Week 16 game. I don't see how it could be anything else. It should just extend the championship game another night--keep some suspense going and all that. If there's any left at that point. 184 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 09:52 Congratulations are in order for I_AM_CANADIAN. He won the Championship of this league by scoring nearly 150 points this week, following up efforts of 175 and 180 the previous 2 weeks. These scores were not unique to his playoff run as he scored north of 150 points 5 times during the regular season as well. Although my team advanced to the final, I never really felt like I had a chance to win the whole thing before this week (anyone can win in a 1-game playoff). I suppose I should apologize for depriving the league of the fireworks we could have expected if RotoGuru's team had met IAC's in the finals. But that would downplay the role luck played in the playoffs this year as it does every year, and I can't feel badly about that. Maybe next year, Guru. In the meantime, the gauntlet is thrown down. IAC and I have each won 2 championships in this league. The rest of you have some catching up to do. I hope to see some fresh meat, uh, blood atop the heap at some point next year. 2011 draft order will be 1. GoatLocker 2. Beezer 3. boikin 4. TB 5. leggestand 6. Doug 7. Athletics Guy 8. Mötley Crüe 9. mjd 10. Da Bomb 11. Challenger 12. Bonka 13. Guru 14. I_AM_CANADIAN We have some more business to settle with rule changes. I plan to bring things up this week. when I get a moment I will recap all of the discussed changes that we need to vote on. Trading is once again allowed. You may trade anyone on your roster not picked up after Week 13 (6 DEC)--in other words, players available to be kept. I'll put a new spreadsheet together this week showing who each team still has available to them to work with. You may also trade picks in rounds 6-24 of the 2011 draft only. MFL.com allows the ability to do so on the trades page. Thanks to everyone for your participation. This league provides excellent quality competition and I think it's getting stronger each year. Da Bomb and mjd made the playoffs this season, and Bonka took over a middle-of-the-road team and wound up dominating during the regular season. These are some of newer managers and I think they've all made strong additions to an already strong league. Even boikin improved somewhat and nearly won the Toilet Bowl. I imagine it's going to be very tough to stick around the top of the league again in 2011. 185 I_AM_CANADIAN       ID: 211154298       Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 10:27 WOOHOO! My first football championship at a high level in Rotoguru. Since I won AAA to make it up to the RIFC (05?), and since joining this Keeper league (07?), I've won quite a few regular season championships, but have never been able to get enough outa my teams in the playoffs to make it all the way. The FA/Waiver wire played an important role in getting me the depth to make it here. Some of the most important pickups: Tramon Williams - Week 1 - #5 Scoring DB Law Firm (Green-Ellis) - Week 3 - #14 Scoring RB, luckily didn't need to play much behind SJax and McFadden. Vincent Jackson - Week 5 - Almost single-handedly won me my 2nd playoff round. David Garrard - Week 5/7 - #12 Scoring QB - Played when I was too chicken to see Cutler go. On the wire this year, I avg'd approx. 3 moves per week. Most of these were IDP/TE/QB moves... trying to fill wholes most of the time as my QBs/IDPs always seemed to need tweaking... as far as TE goes, I just found their was a TON of depth on the wire, and just wanted to hoard them all to myself. :) Two players that I'd like to thank who out-performed their draft positions significantly for me... once again: Devin Hester, and Mike Thomas. Thanks to everyone who made this year really fun. Thanks to MC for continuing to manage this league, and for giving me a good challenge. 186 I_AM_CANADIAN       ID: 211154298       Wed, Dec 29, 2010, 10:30 Retraction? I didn't realize I won-out this league once already. Sweet! Quick Question to MC... I know Fanball used to log all our previous history... do you have the old info from them? Regular Season Records specifically. 187 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Thu, Dec 30, 2010, 17:14 IAC, I think I brought 2009 stats to MFL when we moved over, but unfortunately, I don't think any of the previous seasons were saved. I remember that you won the league in 2007, I won it in 2008 and 2009, and you won again this season. I know we lost a lot of stats from those old seasons. One of the sacrifices of swapping websites. I have some draft data from those seasons. I think you guys have all of those spreadsheets from past drafts, but if you'd like another copy, I can dig them out. As far as the discussion about making changes to managers' abilities to keep multiple players on the front end of the draft, these are the three options I see initially. 1. Require a manager to sacrifice the exact round pick or earlier for a player in order to keep the player (in practice, this would eliminate the ability to keep more than one first round pick). 2. Reduce the current allowance in which a manager could keep up to 6 first round keepers by sacrificing picks 1 through 6. This reduction could allow only X players to be kept in this manner, where X<6. In Guru's case, instead of being able to keep all 5 of Rodgers, White, Wayne, Gore, and Rice, Guru could choose to hold X number of those. The idea here is to gradually reduce the number of players that can be kept at the front of the draft each year until we reach a number that the majority can live with. 3. Make no changes to the current rule. So, I think this covers the spectrum of what could be done. If you want to comment please do, but also let's get a poll of your preferences from the three choices above in order from greatest to least. My preferences in order from greatest to least are 3,2,1. 188 GoatLocker       Leader       ID: 060151121       Fri, Dec 31, 2010, 09:12 My gut feeling is that it is so hard to change things at this point in time without undoing what players have done so far. And would just ruin this as a keeper league. My preferences in order from greatest to least are 3,2,1. 189 Athletics Guy       ID: 537571719       Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 18:43 My preferences would be in the order of 3,2,1 as well. 190 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Sat, Jan 01, 2011, 22:32 Agreed with GL so I too will vote 3,2,1. 191 TB       ID: 1001623       Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 04:16 Same as everyone else. Not sure why this continues to be part of the rule change discussion when the problem is swapping same round draft picks for a team to move "up" while the other team is using that round as a keeper. If we don't change the loophole, I have the 4th pick and will swap 1st rounders for peanuts. 192 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 14:06 I'm rebuilding based on the current rules, so I concur with 3,2,1. 193 Guru       ID: 330592710       Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 14:18 3,2,1 I agree with TB that we need to define how traded draft picks will integrate with forfeited picks for keepers. 194 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sun, Jan 02, 2011, 14:42 Yeah, we get to that issue next. Looks like the one being discussed currently is pretty cut and dried among half the league. 195 leggestand       ID: 451119710       Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 08:50 I vote 3. 196 I_AM_CANADIAN       ID: 4311192917       Mon, Jan 03, 2011, 09:31 #3 then #1. I think. 197 boikin       ID: 532592112       Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 16:33 Same as everyone else. Not sure why this continues to be part of the rule change discussion when the problem is swapping same round draft picks for a team to move "up" while the other team is using that round as a keeper. If we don't change the loophole, I have the 4th pick and will swap 1st rounders for peanuts. these are the same issues, how can anyone say stay with the current rules for 1st round keepers but then say you after to have your "actual" round pick. these are contradictory, clearly giving up a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th round picks for a 1st round player is not your actual 1st round pick. #4 all picks given up are in back, just like they would be with a first round pick. 198 Mötley Crüe       ID: 108312919       Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 17:00 Please check your e-mail. I sent out a quasi-important note today. Thanks. 199 GoatLocker       Leader       ID: 060151121       Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 09:11 Haven't heard anything since MCs email. Any feels for what we are doing here. I don't have the time to step up, or I would. Cliff 200 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 20:24 Would be nice to see what's going on. If it comes down to it, I'm sure 1 or 2 of us would take over duties to keep it going. I'm also sure most people don't want to unless absolutely necessary. 201 Challenger       ID: 345562218       Sat, Aug 06, 2011, 21:48 Same here. I currently have the time, but don't know what's going on. 202 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Sun, Aug 07, 2011, 10:52 I'm in, but unable to assume commish duties. I certainly have time to discuss the of tying up any loose ends from our rules issues from last year, if that still needs to be addressed. 203 I_AM_CANADIAN       Sustainer       ID: 01361448       Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:08 I definitely can't commish, and was really unsure if the league was going to continue on. I'm on the fence about whether or not I can afford to have another Fantasy team to manage this year. Keep me in the loop should you decide to go ahead with the league. Thx 204 Guru       ID: 330592710       Mon, Aug 08, 2011, 11:18 I'm also unavailable to commish - and had resigned myself to this league folding after the total lack of response to MC's email several months ago. If it goes forward, I'm still in - but we did have some sticky issues to resolve about potential changes to keeper rules. We've also generally followed the RIFC scoring rules. If the RIFC votes to eliminate the team defense this year (not assured, but plausible), it is probably unfair to institute that here - at least immediately - as a keeper league, unless no team plans to keep a defense. 205 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 15:51 I think the most time consuming part is figuring out what rounds players can be kept in. If each team did their own without cheating (or maybe if everyone was assigned their own and 1 other team to check), it'd be a lot easier for someone to take over the commish position. All that's left after that is the rule discussion really, and that's a league wide thing. 206 mjd       Leader       ID: 501381415       Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 16:23 I like that idea (205). Hate to see the league fold. I dropped out of one of my redraft leagues so I could devote more time into this one. 207 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 18:00 Yeah, I'd like to keep this going as I only just joined last year and like the spot my team is in at the moment. If it comes down to it, I'll likely spend time going over rosters so we can keep this alive, but I'd really prefer if we were able to do it with teams handling their own plus possibly one other so we have a checking system. 208 TB       Sherpa       ID: 031811922       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 00:21 Figuring out keepers is easy. The hardest part about being commish is dealing with trades and fixing wire waiver crap. I am in for another season and will commish if nobody else will sep up and take it. I can put together the keeper list from last season this weekend, but that becomes even easier once we announce keepers. Here is what we need to do. 1) Figure out when our keeper date is? 2) Announce keepers 3) Set a draft date and start the draft Our rules should match RIFC, so if they make any changes we should mirror them. I honestly can't remember anyone ever keeping a team defense, but even if someone has in the past, does anyone see that happening this season? To make the league even easier to commish I suggest we just continue to adopt RIFC rules and that's it. For anything crazy that comes up, we should just ask ourselves WWGD. Now you should just feel bad for immediately knowing what the acronym means. 209 taxman       SuperDude       ID: 029463114       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 00:40 Not privy to MC's e-mail last Feb. However if there is a an opening in the RG Keeper 14, I would like back in. For those of you who don't know the reason I dropped out of the league last year, it was due to the trade made by the then Commish of the league. IMO the trade was detrimental to the competitive balance of the league. With the commish involved in the trade, I CHOSE to resign from the league, rather than be a league nuisance. I believe (an unwritten) duty to a league by a Commish is to maintain a competitive balance for all the managers thus any trade by the commish should receive the consent of the entire league. That was not the case last year and I chose to not participate further under the MC leadership. Bottom line, I would like back in and in conjunction, would act as commish for at least the upcoming season. This is a tough league to commish, due not only to complex rules and history, but also due to managers in the league. I'll be the first to acknowledge I am not a gifted commish, but I can promise a diligent season long effort and appreciate all suggestions/corrections incurred. To do so would require someone to provide me with 2010 draft and trades affecting this year. I know time for getting this league up and running is short, but I think ongoing controversy could be minimized by expounding on a few rules setting keeper compensation (lost draft picks) and then choosing keepers by August 20, conducting a draft the following 10 days. 210 Da Bomb       Donor       ID: 487112814       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 11:04 I'd still be in. Not sure if there is an opening yet as MC didn't resign from the league, just as commish. 211 Doug       ID: 23731011       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 12:03 I'll be in if we are able to continue the league. I'd even let Taxman co-manage my team. :) 212 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:43 If we do continue with another commish, I would be able to co-commish to handle stuff on the MFL site mostly since I seem to know my way around more than most. I also agree in following RIFC rules. I don't think anyone keeps DEF and they should just be dropped as RIFC is doing. 213 Guru       ID: 330592710       Wed, Aug 10, 2011, 13:57 MC did say he would return back in February. But he has already withdrawn from the RIFC this month (as defending champ), so we should not assume anything without updated confirmation. 214 Mötley Crüe       ID: 597211121       Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 22:22 I'm going to play, I just don't have time to be the Commissioner. I think TB would make an outstanding Commissioner and I am throwing my full weight behind his candidacy. Bonka should also be taken up on his offer to act as MFL Executor/Vice-Commish. Couldn't ask for a better crew to run this ship. 215 Athletics Guy       ID: 05231519       Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 23:15 I'm glad to see the league is still going to continue. I hadn't heard anything since MC's last email (many months ago), so I figured it might have been over. 216 I_AM_CANADIAN       ID: 450482421       Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 00:50 Ah my arch-nemesis, MC, has decided to return. Considering we each hold 2 tittles in this 4 year old league... I think I may just have to return also, to make sure that he doesn't get the "upper-hand". ;) 217 I_AM_CANADIAN       Sustainer       ID: 01361448       Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 08:18 Any news from Legge? I believe he was the one that was building the xcel file with the round picks in the past? 218 Challenger       ID: 345562218       Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 19:37 I've worked up the roster sheet and forward it to TB and Bonka. I started this Tuesday but was shut down by the weather. We lost power due to hurricane force winds. (96 mph is what I heard, equal to a catergory 2) Funny, we personally had no ill effects from the scary F5 tornado (winds over 150 mph) that passed within 3 miles of here a week after Joplin was hit. This F5 also passed within 3 miles of my Mom's house!! I've always feared if she gets hit we would also. Just fits the normal tornado track. 219 Challenger       ID: 345562218       Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 00:31 Based on the playoff seedings and not the final standings, I come up with this as the draft order: 1) GoatLocker (Toilet Bowl Champion) 2) Beezer 3) Boikin/skeepers 4) TB 5) Legge 6) Athletics Guy 7) MC 8) Doug 9) mjd 10) Da Bomb 11) Challenger 12) Bonka 13) Guru 14) IAC (Champion) Agree? 220 Bonka       Sustainer       ID: 019742310       Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 01:12 Looks good to me. I guess we need to make sure everyone is on board again and find replacements if not. I don't think everyone has checked in this thread yet, although we do have a good number. 221 The Beezer       Dude       ID: 191202817       Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 14:57 I'm up for another year. I can't leave a team in this sorry a shape to someone else. RotoGuru Football Leagues & Standings View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread Self-edit this thread Index of Forum Topics Baseball Forum   Baseball Leagues   Baseball Standings   Grand Slam Baseball Golf Forum Soccer Forum Football Forum   Football Leagues   Football Standings   Aussie Rules Basketball Forum   Basketball Leagues   Basketball Standings   Market Madness Hockey Forum   Hockey Leagues   Hockey Standings Auto Racing Forum General Fantasy Sports Politics Gaming and Entertainment Simulation Sports Horse Racing Computer Daily Blurbs Forum Developments Forum Standards Other Football Pages Support a Sponsor RotoGuru Store RotoGuru Hall of Fame Self-Edit GuruPatron Validation RotoGuru Blurbs     NFL Schedule     Sortable Stats     This week's points     Player Lookup     Assimilator Matt G's Gurupie Chat Room Football News     Sporting News     Kafenatid.net     KFFL     RotoTimes     RotoWorld     RotoWire     Two Minute Warning     WeeklyProjections.com Scoreboards     ESPN     NFL.com     Yahoo! Game sites:     Football Pickoff     TSN Football     CBS Sportsline     Fanball Commissioner     Onion Fantasy Football     RotoHog     Sandbox     Yahoo Football     Yahoo Football Plus     Yahoo Survival Football Post a reply to this message: Name: Email: Message: Click here to create and insert a link Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)

---

Viewing statistics for this thread
Period	# Views	# Users
Last hour	1	1
Last 24 hours	2	2
Last 7 days	4	4
Last 30 days	11	10
Since Mar 1, 2007	15380	2290