Straight Dope Message Board

[Really Not All That Bright]

Well, damn. I would have given you more than that for Gurley. 51

[Ellis Dee]

Depends how his knee holds up. 52

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Depends how his knee holds up.

I figure it's a risk for sure, but in my mind a proven all Star is worth any 2 draft picks. 53

[Ellis Dee]

Actually, thinking back to the playoffs, he got benched at halftime for sucking after successfully coming back from the injury the previous week. So that's not great.

They did resign the backup and draft another RB in the 3rd round this year, but it's a change of pace back so maybe that means nothing. Or maybe it's RBBC time.

I don't know. I'd be happy if I had him, but I don't know how much more I'd pay for him than was paid. Probably a little more, but probably not a ton more. 54

[Overly Sentimental]

Somebody please remind me how post-draft players work? Everybody goes on on waivers? How do waivers work? Is it a FAAB thing? 55

[SenorBeef]

All players go on waivers for 2 days and are won by FAAB bids.

I think I explained our trade balancing procedures last year to the new players, but draft trades have to balance out in terms of both players ending the draft with 25 players total.

So, for example, if you're trading Gurley for nothing in 2019. So it ends up being that Dale will finish the draft with 24 players, and Overly will finish the draft with 26 (if he uses all his current draft slots). Obviously that doesn't make sense, so there's an easy solution. Overly can't use his last round draft slot anyway (because he's now using it to keep Gurley), so we send his last pick over to Dale, who now has 25 spots. And everyone has 25 draft slots and is in balance again.

Similarly, next year he's sending you two draft picks, and in return for that, you'd have to send him your last 2 draft picks. It may seem like you're losing something, or throwing in something "extra", but you're not - you wouldn't use those draft picks. Because let's say you have picks in rounds 1-5, but then you get Overly's picks in rounds 1 and 3. Now you have picks in rounds 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 but you only have 5 player slots to fill (your roster is at 20 and needs to be 25) - in that case you can only draft players with 1 1 2 3 3 and you can't use 4 and 5. So those end up going to Overly to balance it out.

Hope I explained that correctly. It makes sense. 56

[Overly Sentimental]

Cuts:
Tyrod Taylor
Smallwood
Mostert
Javorious Allen
Parkey
Seals-Jones

Pick:
1.04 Darrell Henderson, Jr. LAR- RB 57

[Really Not All That Bright]

Oooo, that's dirty. 58

[Ellis Dee]

Faster would be better... 59

[Omniscient]

Hi folks, back from my trip and recovered from an illness. What do I need to do to get caught up here? I assume I need to put together a quick cut list? 60

[Omniscient]

Omni's Cut List.

1. Andrew Luck, QB, Ind
2. Mitchell Trubisky, QB, Chi
3. Kyle Lauletta, QB, NYG
4. Blake Bortles, QB, LAR

5. Tarik Cohen, RB, Chi
6. Sony Michel, RB, NE
7. Elijah McGuire, RB, NYJ
8. Ito Smith, RB, Atl
9. Jordan Wilkins, RB, Ind
10. Chase Edmonds, RB, Ari
11. Alex Collins, RB, Bal

12. Julio Jones, WR, Atl
13. Adam Thielen, WR, Min
14. Kenny Golladay, WR, Det
15. Robert Woods, WR, LAR
16. Golden Tate, WR, NYG
17. Chris Hogan, WR, Car
18. Danny Amendola, WR, Det

19. Kyle Rudolph, TE, Min
20. Gerald Everett, TE, LAR
21. Mike Gesicki, TE, Mi
22. Mark Andrews, TE, Bal
23. Jake Butt, TE, Den

24. Ryan Succop, K, Ten
25. Randy Bullock, K, Cin

26. Chicago, DEF, Chi
27. Kansas City, DEF, KC

If my math is correct that's 5 picks for me. Question, I'm keeping Luck just in case there's a change of heart and Alex Collins who remains an injured FA and thus isn't formally on IR, can those guys be placed on the IR now allowing me to make picks now with those roster spots? If not, I'll probably need to drop Collins too. 61

[Omniscient]

Actually, now that I think about it, I'll just cut Collins. Overly optimistic to think he'll be valuable going forward at this point. 62

[Hamlet]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

I'm keeping Luck just in case there's a change of heart and Alex Collins who remains an injured FA and thus isn't formally on IR, can those guys be placed on the IR now allowing me to make picks now with those roster spots? If not, I'll probably need to drop Collins too.

I tried to get an extra pick last year after Marqise Lee went on IR after the 3rd preseason game. It didn't happen. 63

[dalej42]

I’d be willing to trade 1.05, this pick. Otherwise, I’ve made my mind up and won’t delay the draft too much longer. 64

[Really Not All That Bright]

*TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT*

Jules Andre receives:
Tyreek Hill, WR, KC
2019 Round 3 pick

RNATB receives:
Leonard Fournette, RB, Jax
2019 Round 2 pick 65

[Overly Sentimental]

Question: are you allowed to draft players on the IR directly to the IR spot, making them your 26th or 27th player? 66

[Ellis Dee]

I'm leaning toward no, because that essentially creates a free draft pick that other people don't get.


Here's an updated draft order, which includes the trade just posted by RNATB. I don't see any cuts for Retro; he said he posted his cuts "online", meaning he PMed a commissioner, maybe? Anyway, I penciled him in for 5 picks as a placeholder.



1.01 Petey - Josh Jacobs, RB, Oak
1.02 Beef - David Montgomery, RB, Chi
1.03 Justin - Miles Sanders, RB, Phi
1.04 Overly - Darrell Henderson, RB, LAR
1.05 dale -
1.06 Omni -
1.07 Gaffer -
1.08 Retro -
1.09 RNATB -
1.10 Hamlet -
1.11 Jules -
1.12 Ellis -

2.01 Petey -
2.02 Beef -
2.03 Justin -
2.04 Overly -
2.05 dale -
2.06 Omni -
2.07 Gaffer -
2.08 Retro -
2.09 RNATB -
2.10 Hamlet -
2.11 RNATB -
2.12 Ellis -

3.01 Petey -
3.02 Beef -
3.03 Justin -
3.04 Overly -
3.05 Jules -
3.06 Omni -
3.07 Gaffer -
3.08 Retro -
3.09 Jules -
3.11 Jules -
3.12 Ellis -

4.01 Petey -
4.02 Beef -
4.04 Overly -
4.05 dale -
4.06 Omni -
4.07 Gaffer -
4.08 Retro -
4.11 Jules -

5.06 Omni -
5.08 Retro -
5.11 Jules -

6.06 Omni - 67

[RetroVertigo]

Sorry, my cuts:

Sam Bradford
Kevin White
Rishard Matthews
J'Mon Moore

Which should give me 3 picks. 68

[Justin_Bailey]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

Here's an updated draft order, which includes the trade just posted by RNATB. I don't see any cuts for Retro; he said he posted his cuts "online", meaning he PMed a commissioner, maybe? Anyway, I penciled him in for 5 picks as a placeholder.

Page 1 says Jules doesn't have pick 1.11 anymore. We might need to update again. 69

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

I'm leaning toward no, because that essentially creates a free draft pick that other people don't get.

Well not to throw rocks, but if Beef gets to leave a player on IR on his roster (Crowell I think) just because he was already rostered and IR'ed, doesn't that amount to the same thing? 70

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Overly Sentimental

Well not to throw rocks, but if Beef gets to leave a player on IR on his roster (Crowell I think) just because he was already rostered and IR'ed, doesn't that amount to the same thing?

I think Beef needs to cut him if that's the policy we're going with. 71

[Justin_Bailey]

Agreed. The rule has always been you exit the draft with 25 players. Not 25 players and however many you can stuff on IR. 72

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

Agreed. The rule has always been you exit the draft with 25 players. Not 25 players and however many you can stuff on IR.

Personally, I think we should go the other way. The point of IR is to be able to keep a player you like long-term, but still let you have a chance to win short-term. If you have to give up everybody on your IR at the beginning of the season, that sort of defeats the purpose. I propose we be allowed to leave the draft with 25 + 2. 73

[Really Not All That Bright]

That's why we have 25 roster spots. 74

[Ellis Dee]

Good point about Crowell; I didn't really notice that implication at the time. I tend to agree with the idea that everyone leaves the draft with 25 players.

Fixed pick 1.11 and gave Retro 3 picks:


1.01 Petey - Josh Jacobs, RB, Oak
1.02 Beef - David Montgomery, RB, Chi
1.03 Justin - Miles Sanders, RB, Phi
1.04 Overly - Darrell Henderson, RB, LAR
1.05 dale -
1.06 Omni -
1.07 Gaffer -
1.08 Retro -
1.09 RNATB -
1.10 Hamlet -
1.11 dale -
1.12 Ellis -

2.01 Petey -
2.02 Beef -
2.03 Justin -
2.04 Overly -
2.05 dale -
2.06 Omni -
2.07 Gaffer -
2.08 Retro -
2.09 RNATB -
2.10 Hamlet -
2.11 RNATB -
2.12 Ellis -

3.01 Petey -
3.02 Beef -
3.03 Justin -
3.04 Overly -
3.05 Jules -
3.06 Omni -
3.07 Gaffer -
3.08 Retro -
3.09 Jules -
3.11 Jules -
3.12 Ellis -

4.01 Petey -
4.02 Beef -
4.04 Overly -
4.05 dale -
4.06 Omni -
4.07 Gaffer -
4.11 Jules -

5.06 Omni -
5.11 Jules -

6.06 Omni - 75

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Overly Sentimental

Personally, I think we should go the other way. The point of IR is to be able to keep a player you like long-term, but still let you have a chance to win short-term. If you have to give up everybody on your IR at the beginning of the season, that sort of defeats the purpose. I propose we be allowed to leave the draft with 25 + 2.

IRs help you stay in the game during the current season without requiring you to drop a starter-quality player just to avoid empty roster slots on gameday. In the offseason you can make long term strategic decisions about cutting low end players without worrying about this coming week's games.

I'd love to stash Luck, believe me, but I don't think that means every team gets to pick a player who's recovering from an injury the previous season or preseason in addition to 25 extra players. I think we can agree that the Luck situation is probably the most extreme example of this type of thing, maybe with Bell's holdout last year being in the discussion, but neither player gets tagged with an "IR" label so we don't benefit? 76

[Jules Andre]

The issue about stashing someone on IR during the draft is not a balance issue; it's a mechanical one. We can't exit the draft with more than 25 players, so nobody technically has IR spots until the draft is finalized. For the same reason as why we eventually got rid of the supplemental draft, it's needlessly complicated to implement and the alternative is what generates interesting choice. If someone is on IR and you want to keep them, it takes up a roster spot at the expense of a pick until after the draft, and then you have to compete on the first week's waiver wire. So the choice, as manager, is whether that stash is worth competing for a late round pick in a FAAB system. Otherwise, it is a free draft pick that carries all sorts of additional rules clarifications to deal with (is a retired player on I.R.?).

For the record, I didn't get picks for the one (or two?) player(s) I had on IR during last year's draft, either. 77

[SenorBeef]

Dale sent me a PM around 11am that he was ready to pick but listening for trades - unfortunately he seems to be gone at the moment. I sent him a PM that we've got to get this thing moving. If you're actively working out a trade, that's fine to take a little longer, if there's nothing serious going on we're going to have to make picks sooner. And yes, I realize that I was the first one to be late.

We'll be fine, we always are, but sometimes we need a little prodding. 78

[SenorBeef]

On the IR issue - I thought we'd worked something out last year, but apparently we didn't, and I have to go back and double check, but it sounds like no one has ever gotten credit for an IR player in our drafts based on what you guys are saying. In that case, I want to cut Crowell, to be clear. If that's what we've been doing (forced to keep or cut players who were on IR before the draft) then obviously I'll do that. But maybe we should open the discussions again for next year.

It's kind of a record keeping issue, though. Like, you're already being screwed by having a player you own go on IR during preseason before the draft - I don't feel like it's necessary to add to that by making someone decide whether to drop the player or lose a draft pick. We already have IR slots built into the league to help out owners who suffer IR players like this - it's just sort of a mechanical/record keeping/yahoo issue that the IR slot doesn't open up until after the draft. We could easily institute a workaround rule, like we drop that player before the draft (giving the player an extra spot out of their 25) and then that player could re-add the IR'd player to their roster after the draft and stick them in their IR slot.

Obviously I'm not going to try to benefit from something we haven't established, so this would have to be a rule for next year. But it seems reasonable to me. 79

[Ellis Dee]

I hear what you're saying, and it is just a matter of a minor work-around to make it work with what yahoo lets us do, but for that same reason I'll vote no. Any amount of extra bookkeeping is no bueno. Simpler is better. 80

[SenorBeef]

Also, since everyone seemed to be on board with returning to default kicker scoring, and people objected to the idea of getting rid of kickers entirely, I think for this year we'll just re-adjust to default kicker scoring. Does anyone object to that? If so, we can have formal votes about what to do, but that seemed to be a middle of the road solution. 81

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

4.01 Petey -
4.02 Beef -
4.04 Overly -
4.05 dale -
4.06 Omni -
4.07 Gaffer -
4.11 Jules -
-

Just as a note, unless I did my math wrong, I'm not picking in the fourth round. I cleared an extra spot to add Gurley. 82

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

Also, since everyone seemed to be on board with returning to default kicker scoring, and people objected to the idea of getting rid of kickers entirely, I think for this year we'll just re-adjust to default kicker scoring. Does anyone object to that? If so, we can have formal votes about what to do, but that seemed to be a middle of the road solution.

What is default kicker scoring, and how is it different compared to what we've been using?

Originally Posted by Overly Sentimental

Just as a note, unless I did my math wrong, I'm not picking in the fourth round. I cleared an extra spot to add Gurley.

Yep, my bad. Next time we update it we need to remember that. 83

[Jules Andre]

I think the work around is a little more complicated than it seems because, in the NFL, players don't always go on I.R. right away. And since you can't go on Yahoo's I.R. unless they are on the NFL I.R., the timing gets wonky and ripe for uncertainty or abuse. If someone is hurt and on PUP, does that count as IR? If you draft someone on IR (or on PUP), where does the "extra" pick come from? At the end of the draft? Because we already got rid of the supplemental draft for exactly this reason. Does Andrew Luck count as being on IR? What if someone gets hurt but doesn't go on I.R. right away, can you "gamble" on them being added and say you want to call dibs on them going to your I.R. slot, free up a draft pick... and then what? What if they got better?

It's just not a good system, in my eyes. 84

[Jules Andre]

Originally Posted by Overly Sentimental

Just as a note, unless I did my math wrong, I'm not picking in the fourth round. I cleared an extra spot to add Gurley.

You were picking in the 4th round, but that pick has to go to Dale to balance out the trade's roster slots. But, you're correct otherwise, and thanks for the catch.

Edit: Another really important note about your Gurley trade: Future trades are a locked-in commitment. So, you're moving two picks next season (1st and 3rd), which means you are now absolutely required to cut at least 3 players next season (more if you end the season with someone on I.R. and have more than 25 players). There's always been a sort of verbal understanding that if you trade a future pick, and don't end up having that pick, the other team gets the next best pick. Just something to remember going into next season. 85

[SenorBeef]

Alright, I hate to crack the whip, but Dale has been on the clock since 10:30 last night (pacific). He chimed in at 11:30 this morning to say he would make the pick soon, but he's been on a couple times then (I sent him a PM) without a pick. I'm gonna say 2 more hours, unless someone steps in and says they're close to completing a big trade with dale or something. 86

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Jules Andre

You were picking in the 4th round, but that pick has to go to Dale to balance out the trade's roster slots. But, you're correct otherwise, and thanks for the catch.

Edit: Another really important note about your Gurley trade: Future trades are a locked-in commitment. So, you're moving two picks next season (1st and 3rd), which means you are now absolutely required to cut at least 3 players next season (more if you end the season with someone on I.R. and have more than 25 players). There's always been a sort of verbal understanding that if you trade a future pick, and don't end up having that pick, the other team gets the next best pick. Just something to remember going into next season.

So the first part of this says Dale gets an extra pick this year because he's one slot light after the trade. I get that.

I don't really think I understand the second part of this though...why would I "[not] end up having that pick"? 87

[SenorBeef]

Originally Posted by Ellis Dee

What is default kicker scoring, and how is it different compared to what we've been using?

That's strange. I thought we added a point to every successful kick (1 more than yahoo standard scoring), but actually looking at our scoring we do not. It's just the standard yahoo scoring for field goals made. The difference is that we have a penalty for misses. -3 for 0-19, -2 for 20-29, -1 for 30-39, and -2 for a missed PAT. I was thinking of the all-pro league, I think, where I added some score to longer kicks.

So, hmm, do we want to return the scoring to default and get rid of the penalties, or keep the penalties and just reduce a missed PAT to -1 instead of -2 because of the change in PAT distance? 88

[Jules Andre]

Originally Posted by Overly Sentimental

So the first part of this says Dale gets an extra pick this year because he's one slot light after the trade. I get that.

I don't really think I understand the second part of this though...why would I "[not] end up having that pick"?

If you traded away your 1st and 3rd next season, but then next year you decided not to cut anyone, there wouldn't be any picks to give to dale to satisfy the swap. Say, you only cut two players. You wouldn't have a 3rd to send to dale, so he would get your 2nd round pick in that case. Best that you just consider it mandatory to cut 3 players next offseason.

Another note, dale has to send two picks back to you so that the trade is even, so it's something dale needs to think about as well. He could end up losing a ton of value next season if he doesn't cut enough players.

If it sounds confusing, it is. These types of trades have never been "1 asset this year for multiple assets next year" as far as I remember in this league's history. So this uncharted waters, in a way. Part of the reason the rule about trades having to be balanced is to avoid "gotchas" in future years. 89

[Jules Andre]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

That's strange. I thought we added a point to every successful kick (1 more than yahoo standard scoring), but actually looking at our scoring we do not. It's just the standard yahoo scoring for field goals made. The difference is that we have a penalty for misses. -3 for 0-19, -2 for 20-29, -1 for 30-39, and -2 for a missed PAT. I was thinking of the all-pro league, I think, where I added some score to longer kicks.

So, hmm, do we want to return the scoring to default and get rid of the penalties, or keep the penalties and just reduce a missed PAT to -1 instead of -2 because of the change in PAT distance?

I vote for just changing the missed PAT penalty to -1, certainly. There's no rationale for it being higher than the exact same kick that just happens to be not post-touchdown. 90

[Justin_Bailey]

TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT

JB's Gusterrhoids gets...
2019 1.05

Warner’s Brothers gets...
JB's Gusterrhoids‘s 2020 1st Round Pick 91

[Justin_Bailey]

So with the next pick...

1.05 Kyler Murray, QB, ARI 92

[Omniscient]

That makes things simpler for me.

1.06 Justice Hill, RB, Bal 93

[SenorBeef]

Wow. I wondered, given that 2020 is supposed to be significantly better than 2019, if Dale was deliberately punting 2019 to have a deep investment in 2020 and I guess that's what's going on. That's definitely a radical strategy, the sort of thing I like to see people try. 94

[Omniscient]

Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey

TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT

JB's Gusterrhoids gets...
2019 1.05

Warner’s Brothers gets...
JB's Gusterrhoids‘s 2020 1st Round Pick

That's not really a equal trade....opportunity cost and all. I suppose I see the logic, but without any certainty it won't be 1.12 it's a hell of a risk with a 1-year delay in the payout. 95

[dalej42]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

That's not really a equal trade....opportunity cost and all. I suppose I see the logic, but without any certainty it won't be 1.12 it's a hell of a risk with a 1-year delay in the payout.

I’m not done dealing and I didn’t need a QB and I didn’t want the most obvious WR to take at this point. 96

[Overly Sentimental]

Originally Posted by Omniscient

That makes things simpler for me.

1.06 Justice Hill, RB, Bal

Justice Hill sounds like it ought to be the name of a 19th century lawman.
That said, I had hoped he'd hang around a lot longer. 97

[Ellis Dee]

Originally Posted by SenorBeef

So, hmm, do we want to return the scoring to default and get rid of the penalties, or keep the penalties and just reduce a missed PAT to -1 instead of -2 because of the change in PAT distance?

I prefer keeping the penalties except removing the PAT miss penalty altogether. My logic is that for a FG at the PAT distance, if you miss one and make one, you net a total of +1 point. (+3 for making one, -2 for missing one.) If you make one miss one on a PAT: +1 for making one, 0 for missing one, for the same +1 total.

Thus, my argument to remove the PAT miss penalty altogether, which I've been championing since last year's thread. I think I had a bunch of people agree with that at the top of this thread. So far I see only two people agreeing to it being -1 for missing a PAT. 98

[Ellis Dee]

This is good being at the end of a page, giving me a free practice run before the new page. I believe this is correct. It includes the last two picks, but also all trades to this point. Specifically:

1) dale gets Overly's 4th round pick to even out their trade
2) dale gets Justin's 3rd round pick to even out their trade

Both are examples of simply sending over your last pick to even things out. Interestingly, Justin will finish his 3-pick draft by 2.03, with the first two coming in the first 5 picks. Nice!

If this is correct, anyone can copy and paste the list below onto the new page. If there are errors, let's try to get them fixed before the new page.



1.01 Petey - Josh Jacobs, RB, Oak
1.02 Beef - David Montgomery, RB, Chi
1.03 Justin - Miles Sanders, RB, Phi
1.04 Overly - Darrell Henderson, RB, LAR
1.05 Justin - Kyler Murray, QB, Arz
1.06 Omni - Justice Hill, WR, Bal
1.07 Gaffer -
1.08 Retro -
1.09 RNATB -
1.10 Hamlet -
1.11 dale -
1.12 Ellis -

2.01 Petey -
2.02 Beef -
2.03 Justin -
2.04 Overly -
2.05 dale -
2.06 Omni -
2.07 Gaffer -
2.08 Retro -
2.09 RNATB -
2.10 Hamlet -
2.11 RNATB -
2.12 Ellis -

3.01 Petey -
3.02 Beef -
3.03 dale -
3.04 Overly -
3.05 Jules -
3.06 Omni -
3.07 Gaffer -
3.08 Retro -
3.09 Jules -
3.11 Jules -
3.12 Ellis -

4.01 Petey -
4.02 Beef -
4.04 dale -
4.05 dale -
4.06 Omni -
4.07 Gaffer -
4.11 Jules -

5.06 Omni -
5.11 Jules -

6.06 Omni - 99

[Ol'Gaffer]

Pick made and added to list. I added a round 5 pick for me as well.

1.01 Petey - Josh Jacobs, RB, Oak
1.02 Beef - David Montgomery, RB, Chi
1.03 Justin - Miles Sanders, RB, Phi
1.04 Overly - Darrell Henderson, RB, LAR
1.05 Justin - Kyler Murray, QB, Arz
1.06 Omni - Justice Hill, WR, Bal
1.07 Gaffer - N'Keal Harry, WR, NE
1.08 Retro -
1.09 RNATB -
1.10 Hamlet -
1.11 dale -
1.12 Ellis -

2.01 Petey -
2.02 Beef -
2.03 Justin -
2.04 Overly -
2.05 dale -
2.06 Omni -
2.07 Gaffer -
2.08 Retro -
2.09 RNATB -
2.10 Hamlet -
2.11 RNATB -
2.12 Ellis -

3.01 Petey -
3.02 Beef -
3.03 dale -
3.04 Overly -
3.05 Jules -
3.06 Omni -
3.07 Gaffer -
3.08 Retro -
3.09 Jules -
3.11 Jules -
3.12 Ellis -

4.01 Petey -
4.02 Beef -
4.04 dale -
4.05 dale -
4.06 Omni -
4.07 Gaffer -
4.11 Jules -

5.06 Omni -
5.07 Gaffer -
5.11 Jules -

6.06 Omni - 100