SDMB FF Dynasty League: Year Five

The Game Room
1

Welcome Back! I can’t believe we’re already on Year Five. Barring a last-minute withdrawal everyone is returning for this season, and there’s relatively little housecleaning to be done. We need to agree on cut deadlines and the draft start time, and there were one or two rules proposals floating around last year, but we’re close to being ready. Should be a great season!
2012 Champion: Hamlet (CuteWiddleBunny)
2011 Champion: SenorBeef (Exploding Pancakes)
2010 Champion: Stringer (We Do HGH)
2009 Champion: Really Not All That Bright
2012 Final Results:

  1. Hamlet

  2. furt

  3. SenorBeef

  4. Stringer

  5. Petey

  6. Justin Bailey

  7. VarlosZ

  8. Omniscient

  9. RetroVertigo

  10. dalej42

  11. RNATB

  12. Ellis Dee
    2013 Draft Order

  13. Ellis Dee

  14. RNATB

  15. dalej42

  16. RetroVertigo

  17. Petey

  18. Justin Bailey

  19. VarlosZ

  20. Omniscient

  21. Stringer

  22. SenorBeef

  23. furt

  24. Hamlet
    Archive
    Year One League Thread
    Year Two League Thread
    Year One Trade Log
    Year Two Trade Log
    Notable Waiver Wire Transactions, Year Two
    Year Three League Thread
    Year Three Trade Log
    Year Four League Thread
    Year Four Trade Log
    Proposed Rules Changes

  25. Change trade review from league-wide voting to simple commish approval. Would allow for last-minute trades to be routinely pushed through for the upcoming week. OTOH, there’s always the possibility that I won’t be around for a day or two to push such a trade through, leading to potential inequity when some people get deals pushed through and others don’t (though that should be rare, of course).

  26. Crediting Punt Return and Kick Return TDs to the respective DEF/SPs, instead of just the returner (as it currently stands). Discussion last year starting roughly here (**Ellis **and I had a short back & forth, most notably.)

  27. Allowing the in-season trading of future draft picks. Currently not permitted.

  28. Others?

*** Off-season trading is open.

*** Cut Deadline and Draft start time are TBD. We should all set our own keepers on the Yahoo page, but please post a list of your cuts in the thread here, as well, when the time comes.

*** Good Luck!

2

The #2 pick is officially on the block. Want a stud RB; I am officially rolling with Reggie Bush and “?” as my #1 and #2 now that The Burner has been cut.

3

Proposed Rule Changes:
1.) Yea
2.) Yea
3.) Yea (As long as certain considerations are taken *)
*
1.) We decide ahead of time what happens in the off chance someone leaves the league.

2.) That the deals made are limited to the next years draft picks, and not to a draft five years down the line.

4
  1. Change trade review from league-wide voting to simple commish approval.
    Yes

  1. Crediting Punt Return and Kick Return TDs to the respective DEF/SPs, instead of just the returner (as it currently stands).
    Wary Yes

  2. Allowing the in-season trading of future draft picks
    Big Yes

5

If we allow trading of the following year’s draft picks, and someone did leave the league, the new owner would assume the roster and any draft pick obligations. This league is made up of serious players, no one is going to trade Tom Brady for a backup kicker and an 8th round 2014 draft pick.

We should limit it to trading of the current year and next season’s draft picks. For this year, you can trade 2013 and 2014 picks.

I vote yes on Commish approval for trades.

I’m not big on the change in punt returns and kick returns, but I’d accept the change if the majority wants it.

6

  1. Yea, with the proviso that folks need to be understanding if I happen not to be around one Saturday to push something through. Still try to get trades confirmed two days before game time to be safe if we approve this.

  2. Nay. No one selects their DEFs with a mind to how likely a punt return TD is, so return TDs are, for our purposes, just random statistical noise: unnecessary floating luck. And return TDs have zip to do with Defense; it’s nonsensical to shoehorn one into the other. I know mixing them is standard, so I’m sorry we didn’t have a real conversation about this at the outset of the league, but that it’s traditional is unimportant to me, as such.

  3. Aye. I’d keep it to one draft hence (so, no trading of 2015 draft picks until the start of the 2014 draft or just before), but I think we’re stable enough to allow this.

7

There is zero need for it to be related to defense at all. The roster slot is “defense and special teams.” Blocking a kick doesn’t belong there either if we’re not counting special teams.

I also disagree that return TDs are completely ignored when people value defenses.

As for the others, commish approval is fine by me, and I vote no on trading future draft picks.

8

Is there a particular reason you’re opposed to trading future draft picks? I like the idea because I think it can help trades. Team A is hurting at running back in week 7 with injuries and bye weeks. Team B has got a serviceable RB2 who is usually benched due to Team B’s good RB depth. Team B will take a draft pick for next year rather than a player they don’t really need on their roster and both teams make a good trade. All trades are documented in SDMB threads.

9

Rule change votes:

  1. No. Don’t see the point; this isn’t the type of league where everyone reflexively votes no to keep other teams from getting better. IIRC, we’ve had exactly one trade blocked ever.
  2. Are we crediting them to the returner and the team? Or taking the points away from the returner? If the latter, I vote no. If the former, sure.
  3. Yes.
10

Just on principle. I like to have each season start fresh, as well as easing the transition if someone has to drop out of the league and needs to be replaced.

This draft next month would be less fun, for example, if one or two players had no picks due to trades from last year.

In this league in particular I’m also against it because next year’s draft picks don’t actually exist yet. Let’s say I trade away my top four picks from next year, then when next year comes I only want to cut 2 players. I now have to cut 2 players I don’t want to cut just to have no picks in the draft, leaving me with 2 open spots.

Hey, there’s another reason I don’t like. It will be nigh impossible to balance rosters, with it being virtually guaranteed that teams will either a) finish the draft with open roster spots, or b) be forced to trade away draft picks because they don’t have enough roster spots to physically use all their draft picks.

Is there any way that trading future draft picks doesn’t mess up roster balance, mathematically?

11

Past the edit window:

I was previously mildly against, but now I’m leaning toward strongly against after thinking about it more closely.

Could someone give me a few concrete examples of future pick trades so I can get a feel how it would actually work? You can make up imaginary FF teams if you like in order to protect potential strategy. (ie: Include players that aren’t on that owner’s team in order to make it fully hypothetical, like Ellis’ Fanboys trade Drew Brees for next year’s 1st and 2nd or whatever.)

12

  1. Yes. We’re all serious players and should have the right to run our teams as we wish.

  2. Yes. The argument against “double-scoring” return TDs is ridiculous as passing touchdowns are already “double-scored,” one for the passer and one for the receiver. The position is called “Defense/Special Teams,” so Special Teams get a touchdown for blocking, and returner gets a touchdown for actually returning it.

  3. Thinking about this, the biggest problem is that we don’t have a set number of picks every year. You get as many picks as you have roster spots. I could theoretically trade my 5rd round pick planning to not even cut 5 players, allowing me to trade a pick I don’t actually “have.” Maybe I’m not working this out in my head correctly?

13

  1. Yes, trades should only need commissioner approval. If there is a potential conflict or some kind of obvious inequality, then we can open it up to the league.

  2. We draft D/ST’s not just D, so I think return touchdowns should be included in the special teams scoring.

  3. We lost one owner in four years, I think we can trade future draft picks.

14

Nope, that could be a problem. My feeling is if you trade a future 5th round pick, when that draft comes, you will be forced to have a 5th round pick. If that means you have to cut guys you want to keep, that’s your own damn fault. And if it comes to it, I think the commish should force you to (or do it himself) cut enough players to meet your trade requirements.

Plus, to be honest, I’d be hard pressed to find any value in a future 5th round pick. I guess I’d be willing to give you Beanie Wells or Evan Royster right now for your 2013 5th round pick, though.

15

Could we say that if a 5th Round pick is traded, it is a Conditional Pick where if only 4 players are dropped then it gets bumped up to a 4th Round pick?

16

That sounds good too.

17

Say I decide to go into full rebuilding mode this year. The day before the draft, I trade Larry Fitzgerald to SenorBeef. In exchange, he sends his 1st Rounder this year (12th overall), and his 1st and 3rd Round picks next year (2014).

This year, my draft is straightforward. I drop 4 players. With the loss of Fitz, I must fill five spots in the draft, which I do with my own four picks and the one I got from Beef. Similarly, **Beef **drops 4 players but has 3 spots to fill, but since one of his picks was sent to me everything is simple.

In 2014 it gets a little tricky. I have two extra picks coming to me, and must exit the draft with exactly 25 players. I drop 5 players and get picks in Rounds 1-5, but with extra picks in Round 1 & 3 I have to free up two roster slots by executing numerically unbalanced trades, or by forfeiting those picks (at last resort). Or, I could have agreed to send the overage (my last two 2014 picks, 4th and 5th Rounders as it turns out) to **Beef **as part of the trade to begin with.

Failing that, **Beef **has the opposite complication. He drops 5 players, but with no 1st or 3rd Round picks he only has 3 picks to fill 5 slots. If that’s still the case at draft time, he’s going to have to receive two picks at the tail end of the 2014 draft, after everyone else has made their normal selections. If there are multiple people needing such picks, I guess we’ll just use the draft order in the normal way to select who picks in what order.

**** (But, really, it might just make sense to require that trades involving draft picks be balanced, so that for instance I would have to agree to throw in my last two 2014 picks to Beef, which is no skin off my ass since I couldn’t use them anyway. And of course, I’d take into account that I’d lose my last two picks when deciding what’s fair value in the trade.)*

If, instead of dropping 5 players in 2014, Beef only drops 2, then the 1st & 3rd he was gonna send me becomes a 1st & 2nd. He must drop at least 2 to fulfill his obligation to me, or else make some other acceptable arrangement with me.
Sounds more complicated than it is, especially if we say that trades with draft picks need to be numerically balanced.

18

I’m not super married to my objection to trading future draft picks. Consider me a “soft” nay. But if it’s adopted, I vote for this stipulation to reduce headaches.

Really my objection is based on the idea that trading future draft picks will reduce the excitement of draft time by having some owners with less to care about since they already traded away their high picks the year before. I can envision 3 or 4 owners having traded away next year’s 1st rounder and then there’s much less buzz in next year’s draft thread.

19

Yeah, it is true that it’s better to have as many people as possible taking active part in the draft. In my mind that’s counterbalanced by making the trade market more interesting all year long. For instance, a couple times in the last few years I’ve had to abandon trade talks that seemed promising because the other guy’s roster was all either guys that didn’t really help me or guys that were way above my trade piece in value. Being able to trade a pick could put some of those trades back on the table.

20

The point is that the vote takes a 48 hour period, which means you need to get your trade in by Thursday night or very early Friday for it to work that week. That’s crappy since very often injury news relevant to trades isn’t well known until late in the week, and people have more time on the weekend to negotiate trades. If you have commish approval, you can make a trade on Saturday night or even sunday morning and still have it go through before the games. This is what I’ve been doing in all my leagues and it’s a better system.

Overly harsh, I think. Just tweak the rule to “my 5th round pick or my next highest pick”, so if you only have a first second and third rounder, they’d get your third rounder. That way they have a choice as to whether to cut 5 players or just forfeit a higher draft pick. The guy receiving a pick wins either way - he gets the pick he negotiated for, or a better one. This outcome is better for both sides of the deal.

  1. Commish approval which should be done immediately if there’s nothing unusual or funny about the trade. If there is, it should be put on hold pending discussion in the group. Whether or not the deal goes through shouldn’t depend on whether Varlos happens to be around before that game. Both players should be able to clearly state their intentions and have it retroactively done. As long as they’re both totally clear. IE “I’m trading Adrian Peterson for Blaine Gabbert. I intend to bench Aaron Rodgers this week and use Gabbert in his place” should be retroactively fulfilled even if Varlos isn’t here. Well, assuming my example wasn’t ridiculous, since that would get vetoed.

This allows people the flexibility to work out trades over the weekend and still be confident they’ll get them through without Varlos having to always check in before game time.

  1. I’m ambivalent to this. I’d feel better if perhaps less than 6 points were awarded to the D/ST. I know people traditionally like to say “touchdown is 6 points, so award 6 points” but there’s no real compelling reason this has to be done. Fantasy scoring already has a ton of metrics in which fantasy scoring has no correlation with actual scoring, so the fact that TD=6 for fantasy and real football for a few things is essentially coincidence. So I’d prefer 4 point award to a D/ST for return touchdowns if we do it.

  2. Absolutely, future draft picks are game. I’d support trading even further out than a year, but I realize most people wouldn’t want that for the sake of the possibility of someone needing to get replaced. So trading picks one year out sounds good. I don’t think it’s necessary to balance trades, just make sure that if someone has an empty roster spot after having traded a pick, then they have to pick at the end of the draft, essentially a free agent pickup at that point. If the person receiving the picks fills up their roster too early, then you’re essentially moving one of your picks up and discarding a later pick, and the person on the other end is losing the higher pick and getting a pick at the end of the draft. It sort of automatically balanced, if I’m thinking that through correctly. If you don’t want to discard that later pick, cut more players.