Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 05-19-2018, 08:32 PM
Hamlet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
I also did this. Which still makes him the most productive rookie QB.
As I said before: "What is amusing though is that Watson, despite playing in 5 less games, still scored more fantasy points than Trubisky."
  #552  
Old 05-21-2018, 06:12 AM
Stringer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Al Capone's Vault
Posts: 1,396
Some proposals to make this league more competitive and easier to manage.

1. Lower the roster size from 25 to 20. This will make FAAB and trading a lot more interesting I think.

2. Instead of managing the rookie draft where you have to cut down to the number of picks you want, have 2 cut dates. The first cut date before the rookie draft you must get down to at least 20 on the roster. Then we do a 6 round rookie draft where everyone gets the same number of picks and then we cut down again to 20.

3. Do the draft order based on points scored for non-playoff teams, and final finish for playoff teams. I cannot keep track of the way our draft order works at all.
  #553  
Old 05-21-2018, 08:36 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
I vote no on #1, though I'm not opposed to slimming down the rosters slightly.

Instead of #2, why don't we do what the NFL does? Instead of released players going into the draft pool, they go into free agency, and everyone can bid on them with a pre-set budget based on the draft order. Then we have the draft as usual.

Totally on board with #3.
  #554  
Old 05-21-2018, 09:15 AM
Stringer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Al Capone's Vault
Posts: 1,396
The goal of #2 is to significantly reduce complexity surrounding the draft. It eliminates the requirement to swap last round picks, eliminates extra picks for IR designation (schedule the final cut date after the NFL IR date), and gives us a very straightforward draft that is easy to manage on the boards. Any counter-proposal which adds extra drafts or complexity is a total non-starter for me.

I feel very strongly about reducing roster size, I truly hate this league with the rosters at their current size. It is BORING.
  #555  
Old 05-21-2018, 10:00 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
I like our rosters - a lot of leagues have a taxi squad, but we essentially have that built in by simply keeping players you like in the long term on your roster. It's interesting to me to keep a guy you don't think will be too good this year but might be good in a year or two - much more interesting than waiting for that player to break out and then being the guy who snatches him off the waiver wire. But if we were to cut down roster sizes, I think 5 in one year is way too big a jump. It'd be easier to introduce reducing the roster sizes 1 or 2 slots a year for more than one year than to make a big leap like that at once.

I also think our draft of all FA and rookies in one go, filling up as many slots as you have at draft time, is quite elegant. I know you don't like the potential complexities of trading future picks - but we could always get rid of that without totally changing our draft system. We can simply take future draft pick trading off the table to simplify things if that's what people want - and then the drafts aren't complicated at all. We know the draft order and number of players each team is drafting and everyone who isn't on a roster is available.

I can't remember how we do draft order now, I'd have to go look it up. I'm fine with the proposal.
  #556  
Old 05-22-2018, 05:44 AM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
Reducing roster sizes is an adamant, absolute no vote from me. How does this league need to be more competitive? My team has finished 3rd, 10th, 2nd, 12th in the last four seasons. There's plenty of parity to move up and down. And trading needs to be more exciting? I don't have to explain why I, specifically, think that is absurd.

This change would would not only go against the spirit of a dynasty league, but could spoil the competitive balance of the league. Roster turnover is the antithesis of a dynasty league. It's not really a dynasty league if you just pick up and drop players as they become useful, but don't have enough roster space to stash someone for more than half a season. Plus, it's a solution without a problem. Every single season multiple rising star players become available from the waiver wire. Making players more available isn't the issue when players are already plenty available.

I spent two seasons holding on to players like McKinnon and Garoppolo while they did almost nothing. That's what makes a dynasty league fun, not FAAB lotteries. I'm heading into a draft where I might not be able to get even 3 picks. Forcing me to drop 5 more players would be devastating. Reducing roster sizes by 1 would even be a problem.

It sounds like without proposal #1, proposal #2 doesn't work. Our draft is too complicated, as has come up in the past two years, But it's overcomplicated because we don't bother paying attention to the timing of events as they become important. We can solve all the problems by enforcing a calendar and posting results here.

I'm fine with proposal #3.
  #557  
Old 05-22-2018, 10:13 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
FYI, Beef, I will be dropping out of the SDMB leagues except for this one and the All Pro league. I just don't have time for six leagues anymore.
  #558  
Old 05-22-2018, 03:46 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We can simply take future draft pick trading off the table to simplify things if that's what people want - and then the drafts aren't complicated at all. We know the draft order and number of players each team is drafting and everyone who isn't on a roster is available.
If something has to change, and we're voting, that's my vote.

I argued against trading future draft picks, and still don't love the idea but to be honest I don't really mind it anymore. But I view the change of "no trading future picks" as much less harmful to the spirit of a dynasty league than "not enough roster space to stash longterm prospects."

Note: For me personally, I'm trying to calculate just how many years of 1st through 3rd round picks I need to package to trade for the #1 overall pick to acquire Saquon Barkley, so it would very much simplify my life if I weren't allowed to even go down that road.
  #559  
Old 06-25-2018, 10:01 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
We're running out of time to wait for Varlos. I'm going to get the league ownership sorted and start asking around about a possible replacement. If you've got suggestions as to who, feel free to PM me.

I have reasons to suspect he's not permanently gone, which is why I've been waiting for him to make a reappearance, but it hasn't happened yet and we're 2 months from the draft so we're going to have to move on soon.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 06-25-2018 at 10:03 PM.
  #560  
Old 07-02-2018, 07:20 PM
Stringer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Al Capone's Vault
Posts: 1,396
I'm for sure out of this league, sorry everyone. The rules are so bad and nobody wants to change them so it's best if I move on, good luck.
  #561  
Old 07-02-2018, 08:49 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
That's a pretty dick move after you told me you'd play out this year regardless of your rule change proposal.
  #562  
Old 07-02-2018, 09:08 PM
Stringer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Al Capone's Vault
Posts: 1,396
Stuff came up and I'm really disinterested now, sorry you think I'm a dick bro.
  #563  
Old 07-02-2018, 09:42 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
You said your continued participation wasn't dependent on rule changes, and that you wouldn't leave this year. Replacing two people in one year could potentially be tricky, we've only ever done one replacement in the 10 year history of the league. Now you're saying you're "out of the league" because "the rules are so bad and no one wants to change them" - 6 weeks after (and 6 weeks closer to the draft) I first asked if I was going to need to replace you. How is that in any way not a dick move? No one else wanted your massive changes to the rules that you must've known would've been too big to implement in one year even if they were popular, and even though you said you'd play anyway, now you're quitting 6 weeks later because of the thing you said you wouldn't quit over.
  #564  
Old 07-02-2018, 10:57 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
I don’t think massive rule changes are ever good, unless it’s a 100% redraft league. I’d be fine with reducing the rosters one spot, but I’d hope future draft pick trading is allowed. It really isn’t that difficult. The league doesn’t have a ton of trades either.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #565  
Old 07-03-2018, 09:40 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
We've got a pretty good number of trades, but I agree that future draft picks should be tradeable. I'm fine with the current rule limiting it to trades of next year's picks.
  #566  
Old 07-04-2018, 02:44 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
I'm experiencing a weird dichotomy right now, especially after going back and re-reading the previous page, specifically searching for Stringer's name. I like having you in this league Stringer, and will miss you, but I concede that you were pretty clear at the end of last season:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer View Post
Wow an incredible backdoor playoff appearance for the We Do HGHs. I'm pretty sure this is my last year in this league, hoping to go out with a bang.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringer View Post
My heart is less and less into fantasy football with each passing year, [...]

The draft is extremely complicated [...]

The keeper/roster rules in general I think have led to a pretty stagnant league. [...]

Also the commish quit the league and might win in absentia! Just seems like a good time for me to walk away while my team is still good enough to get a replacement owner.
That last one really takes the cake: The commissioner bailed on the league early in the season and he won the championship.


So back to my personal dichotomy: I'm not really into large changes to the league rules, BUT I'd actually be okay with (and pretty excited for) a complete redraft/reset of the league. If that crazy idea were to happen, we could hammer out better rules now that we've seen how they work in practice.

Also, regardless if we do minor adjustments or a wholesale inaugural redraft, losing two players could be handled as simply as switching to a 10-team league with 2 divisions of 5 teams. All players from VarlosZ and Stringer could simply enter the draft.

EDIT: It may be worth pointing out that my team is finally starting to turn the corner from very bad to middle of the pack, so I'm perfectly content to stick with what we have, maybe do some minor tweaking to the rules, then either bring in two more owners or switch to 10 teams and soldier on. That would totally work for me, and I'll be excited for the coming season. But I would be more excited to spend July figuring out new rules for a fresh start, gathering excited owners to participate, and planning out my strategy for a new inaugural draft with a yahoo live draft. Maybe this time I won't sleep through the first five rounds with no pre-ranking!

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 07-04-2018 at 02:47 AM.
  #567  
Old 07-05-2018, 08:40 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
It's not that shocking that he won the league; Beef was updating his gameday roster day-to-day. Granted, he wasn't dipping into the FA pool but from what I recall most of the worthwhile waiver pickups were done by the time he left.
  #568  
Old 07-05-2018, 09:26 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
I definitely don't want to start over - the longer this one can go, the better, I think. But I'd definitely be up for participating in a second dynasty league, especially if there's some sort of change in the way it works that sets it apart from this league.

Cutting down 2 teams if we have to isn't a bad idea, it'd be a one time parity mechanism with the bottom teams getting access to some very valuable players. But I'll be talking to potential replacements to see how that goes. The SDMB isn't as active as it used to be - most of the dedicated fantasy players are already in this league. But there are a few potential recruits I have in mind.
  #569  
Old 07-05-2018, 11:52 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
I like the idea of cutting two teams and releasing their players into the free agent pool, that would add a new twist to this years draft. There'd be some very hard decisions to make about cutting marginal players from your team in order to not only pick up rookies, but also the players from the contracted teams.

I'd be up for a second dynasty league. As of now, I"m down to two only two leagues, this one and a money league that I've been in for also about ten years. This damn night shift makes getting to live drafts almost impossible.
  #570  
Old 07-05-2018, 02:59 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
I can't say I'm thrilled about releasing all of two teams' players into the free agent pool, when my team is finally competitive after years of rebuilding. But it could definitely give the league as a whole a shot in the arm.
  #571  
Old 07-05-2018, 09:50 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I can't say I'm thrilled about releasing all of two teams' players into the free agent pool, when my team is finally competitive after years of rebuilding. But it could definitely give the league as a whole a shot in the arm.


Don’t worry, I’m sure I’ll find a way to screw up drafting the free agents just as well as I screw up drafting rookies!
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #572  
Old 07-06-2018, 04:27 AM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
I think releasing two teams' worth of players is a profoundly terrible idea. The league began as fairly as possible with a draft, and it has been up to the decisions of owners from that point. But that sort of dumb luck to back into free, proven superstars because you happened to be bad at the exact right time would alter the course of the rest of the league forever. Shit, you're telling me all that work I did to make my team better was actually to my detriment? That's a hell of a pill to swallow.

Then we're left with a 10-team league, which are boring and generally worse than 12-team leagues. And you can't ever go back to 12 after contraction. So you find out too late that it makes the end of the bench decision making even worse than it supposedly is now. And you can't ever have another redraft like that to even the chances of the next generation of shitty teams... I hate that idea as much as is possible. It can't be hard to find a couple dedicated owners to take over a championship team and a perennial contender/former champion.

Fuck, even the mere suggesting of such an idea is going to completely fuck up the upcoming season. Nobody will want to trade draft picks now if suddenly they don't have to decide which rookie is the least risky and they can just take a superstar in their prime. Nobody will consider any trade until this clusterfuck gets sorted, and who knows how long that will take? It's July. We haven't even touched on how the rules for the draft need to be straightened out so we don't have a repeat of last year.
  #573  
Old 07-06-2018, 10:48 PM
Justin_Bailey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules Andre View Post
I think releasing two teams' worth of players is a profoundly terrible idea. The league began as fairly as possible with a draft, and it has been up to the decisions of owners from that point. But that sort of dumb luck to back into free, proven superstars because you happened to be bad at the exact right time would alter the course of the rest of the league forever.
I'm sure you're not talking about me here, but that's OK, because you're absolutely talking about me right here.

And I agree with Jules, this is a terrible idea.

Between retirements and regressions, my team is a complete shitshow right now. I am very much expecting to finish #12 this season. But I absolutely don't want to cheat and restock my team with studs with a vanished Varlos and a very frustrated Stringer. That wouldn't be fair to everyone else or myself (I'm pretty proud of the fact that I was one of the few great teams for the entire history of the league even though I never got a championship).

I also can't imagine cutting down rosters by five players and I'm continually baffled by people who find the draft complicated. It's not as straightforward as it could be, but who has which pick has always been pretty clear to me.

Though I will say that whoever suggested that picks need to be "locked in" before the draft starts was right on the money. No more trading last picks. If someone trades too many picks and they don't have enough picks left to get up to 25, too bad, they'll have to do it with FAAB money.
  #574  
Old 07-07-2018, 12:01 AM
RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,682
Rosters should stay where they're at.

I'm indifferent to the future pick trading, but if it means we don't lose a player or two I'm fine with it.
  #575  
Old 07-07-2018, 06:55 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Jules makes a fair point.

Would it be possible to do something similar to an auction "draft" just for the two rosters' worth of players? Everyone gets the same money to use so it'd be even footing for everyone. We could do it in early August or something. (Cursory searching led me to draftysports.com, but I can't tell if it's free or not. Probably not.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin_Bailey View Post
If someone trades too many picks and they don't have enough picks left to get up to 25, too bad, they'll have to do it with FAAB money.
The problem is the other side of that trade. If someone trades away too many picks, that means someone else traded FOR too many picks. That other person won't have enough slots in the draft to actually make their draft picks, nor enough roster slots to physically hold all their draft picks even if we let them get a "free" free agent pick after the draft in lieu of their last pick.

Logistically, that person will absolutely have to drop someone from their roster no matter what, getting nothing in return from it. If I have 7 picks but only 6 roster slots to put them into, I have to drop one of those picks. There's simply no way around that. And if I drop a player instead of a draft pick, then I had 8 draft picks and 7 spots and it's the same issue.

The way we deal with that is to force the other person to include their last pick in the trade. As explained, they can't use that last pick anyway, and at the same time it lets the first player fill all their spots.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 07-07-2018 at 06:56 AM.
  #576  
Old 07-07-2018, 07:55 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
I'd be fine with two separate drafts, one for the free agents and then the regular draft for the rookies.

Also, is there a way the league could continue should we wake up one day and find the SDMB has been shut down? There's always a chance that someone at the new owners of the Reader will develop a case of manageritis and unilaterally shut down the SDMB even though I think we fly pretty far below the radar.

The email address I use with the league is one that I only use for fantasy sports, so I check it daily during football and baseball seasons as well as the month or so leading up to those seasons.
  #577  
Old 07-07-2018, 10:44 AM
RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,682
We should try to replace the two teams first & foremost (provided Varlos doesn't come back). Perhaps looking outside the Board at irl friends.
  #578  
Old 07-07-2018, 03:40 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
We should be able to replace people. Just discussing ideas and contingencies. I sent out some feelers.

Also waiting to hear back from Yahoo support to recover full commissioner access.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 07-07-2018 at 03:44 PM.
  #579  
Old 07-08-2018, 02:29 PM
magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,328
I'd be interested in taking over a dynasty team, though from reading prior pages it seems like there needs to be some streamlining of some of the rules (or at least an easy explanation for a new owner stepping in).
  #580  
Old 07-08-2018, 10:51 PM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,559
Just to offer some instant reactions.

1. Reducing to 10 teams is in fact a irrevocable move and frankly should be only done as a last resort. I would probably advocate for a total reboot if that were the circumstance.

2. The trading situation is totally fucked up in this league. My memory isn't good enough to remember the precise details (and I'm too lazy to reread the thread at this hour) but I do think we need to stop allowing trades of picks altogether. It WAY WAY unbalancing. A stacked team already has a huge advantage due to the limitations of a dynasty, and they can profit from these pick trades in a unfair way.
  #581  
Old 07-08-2018, 11:43 PM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
I think we can clean up the draft pretty easily without changing the actual rules themselves. It really comes down to setting a schedule and actually adhering to it. It seems to me that our draft has a few distinct phases, and I think they need to be handled separately for the draft to go smoothly. Here is my suggested sequence of events:

The first phase is the draft order, which we know at the end of the prior season (2017 in this case). As of this post, we know our draft order, and everyone has 25 theoretical picks in sequence. No trades for 2018's picks (agreed to in 2017), go into play yet because nobody actually has picks right now. At this point it's just an order, but this is an important step because it helps establish where picks go and when trades happen.

The second phase is the cut down phase. We have to set a strict deadline for this, which I guess should be a week before the draft. We want to see some preseason to get a gauge on whether players we still have from last year actually have a role like we hoped. Any trades from the previous season are still binding, so if you have agreed to trade a 4th from this coming draft, you have to cut players to reach that number. No fudging to try to acquire an extra pick this year to then trade to satisfy last year's trade, because that's crooked accountant bullshit. Once the cut phase deadline hits, each team then has their number of picks, which fill into their slots from phase 1, and the actual draft order is established.

Then the trades that affect picks from the new draft activate, and picks get swapped since we now have actual picks at this point. These trades process in the order they were posted in the thread, so if you traded something you didn't actually have, that trade gets voided until it is renegotiated. No fudging on this stuff. There's our final draft order heading into the draft.

At this point the draft starts and you can trade as normal. I don't think we even need a rule that current year's trades have to be balanced. If, at the end of the draft, you have 23 or 24 players, the commish can just assign you bottom of the barrel kickers to fill your roster that you can drop on your own time. But swaps of picks for the next season should absolutely be equal in number, for simplicity. To be fair, I don't know the actual functionality of commissioner tools, so I might just be making some shit up right here that can't be done.

I suggest we drop the bulshit about supplemental picks and IR picks and all that confusing nonsense. If you have to roster someone through the draft even though they are on IR, that is the choice you make for keeping a hurt player who can't help you. If you have someone get hurt after the cut down deadline and before the draft, that's just an unfortunate part of fantasy football. The supplemental draft is really just a bookkeeping process which gives people a chance to save FAAB. But eliminating it forces owners into an interesting choice: do you bid on a replacement for your IR player and spend FAAB before the season starts, or risk losing your flyer replacement after the initial waiver period when it is a free-for-all?
  #582  
Old 07-09-2018, 04:50 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules Andre View Post
I don't think we even need a rule that current year's trades have to be balanced. If, at the end of the draft, you have 23 or 24 players, the commish can just assign you bottom of the barrel kickers to fill your roster that you can drop on your own time.
Again, it's not about the owner with too few picks to fill his roster, it's about his trading partner who has more picks than roster spots to take.

Let's imagine you trade two of your picks to me for one of my picks. Say your 2nd and 3rd for my 1st. Let's also imagine that we both started with 6 picks.

You now have 5 picks and 6 roster spots, while I have 7 picks and 6 roster spots. Your "hole" can be filled with a generic "pick anybody" who you then cut after the draft. My extra pick, though, simply can't be taken. I have to throw it away. If I cut a player to make room, then effectively I had 8 picks and 7 spots to put them in.

The much simpler and less hassle approach is to have me include my last pick (6th rounder in this example) in the original trade. This makes things cleaner and simpler, not more complicated. You no longer have to draft a dummy placeholder who then needs to be cut. I no longer have to throw away a pick. Instead, I throw away my pick by giving it to you as part of the trade.
  #583  
Old 07-09-2018, 08:27 AM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
Let's imagine you trade two of your picks to me for one of my picks. Say your 2nd and 3rd for my 1st. Let's also imagine that we both started with 6 picks.

You now have 5 picks and 6 roster spots, while I have 7 picks and 6 roster spots.
You're looking at this backwards. Say, instead, you look at it like the person getting the 2 and the 3 has upgraded their 6 by forfeiting it. Your hypothetical makes this a bit absurd real-world value reasons, but go with me for a second. They don't have to take that 6th round pick at all. This isn't "throwing the pick away" because you upgraded your last pick by several rounds. And, key point here, you aren't being forced by a needless rule to give free value to a competitor for the sake of bookkeeping.

Instead, what you're really saying here, is that if I were to trade you two nickels for a dime, you must, by law, get a penny back, too. Because you have chosen to see it the way you described, you've added unnecessary complication. How can I prove this is a complication and not as simple as you claim? Because every single year someone forgets this rule and has to be reminded later.

it's just another bookkeeping rule. It isn't required. The reason the actual issue, again, is the person ending up with a hole on their roster, is because the league can't begin with that status. So we HAVE to fix that. We don't have a choice. We can absolutely allow people to forfeit later picks without any complication at all.

Under a different scenario, your reasoning becomes even more tedious and problematic. Such as, for example, someone who wants to trade a 1 and a 2 to someone who only has 2 picks. They would HAVE to send back their own 2 in your example, right? This means, by your suggested rule, a fair trade must be made unfair. That is an extreme example, but it comes up every year in the later rounds. Say I want to move up in the 3rd, and I offer a later 3 and my 4. But the 3 is your last pick. My proposal is likely completely fair, but because of an unnecessary bookkeeping rule, I can't do it.
  #584  
Old 07-09-2018, 12:34 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
I'll weigh in on the pick trading thing later after I've had some sleep, but to be clear Jules, you don't feel as though you're being deprived of anything with the automatic pick swap, right? You're just worried the other guy is getting too much value from the deal? That seems excessively adversarial to me since it's usually a low value pick and it would otherwise simply cease to exist. Do you want to make sure your trade partners don't get a "free" pick?

Anyway, yahoo got back to me. They said if the league was up for automatic renewal (that's the default, but there's no way I can check because I can't see league rules until the league is renewed), then it'll automatically come back up within the next couple weeks. At which point I'll still have co-comissioner status and should be able to run the league. They also said I can contact them again once the league is up to see about getting full commissioner status, but other than league renewal I'm not sure it matters.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 07-09-2018 at 12:34 PM.
  #585  
Old 07-09-2018, 08:45 PM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I'll weigh in on the pick trading thing later after I've had some sleep, but to be clear Jules, you don't feel as though you're being deprived of anything with the automatic pick swap, right? You're just worried the other guy is getting too much value from the deal? That seems excessively adversarial to me since it's usually a low value pick and it would otherwise simply cease to exist.
I provided a couple examples of how that rule is unnecessary and limits possible trade options, especially later in the draft. The person getting the bookkeeping pick doesn't care about it, it's a "low value" throw-in. But, requiring someone to give it away means that they can't later make a balancing trade to recoup the usage of their own, original pick, for example.

When a rule isn't required for the function of the league, adds complication where there needn't be, and doesn't actually add anything... why do we have it? Since multiple people have already commented about how complicated the draft is, it kinda seems like a good time to suggest changes, no?

Quote:
Do you want to make sure your trade partners don't get a "free" pick?
This is disappointing, Beef.
  #586  
Old 07-10-2018, 12:02 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Let's all continue to pretend for the sake of discussion that a 1st is worth a 2nd plus a 3rd. Let's all refer to the current rules as Ellis' way and the proposed change as Jules' way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules Andre View Post
Because you have chosen to see it the way you described, you've added unnecessary complication.
I would argue that my way is simpler and less bookkeeping, and your way adds unnecessary complication for the sake of bookkeeping. Consider the following two examples:

Ellis' way: Jules trades his 2nd and 3rd for Ellis' 1st and last picks.

Jules' way: Jules trades his 2nd and 3rd for Ellis' 1st pick. Jules will be assigned a placeholder selection during the draft, which will be removed after the draft. Ellis' last pick is forfeit.

Which is more complicated with more unnecessary bookkeeping?



One thing to keep in mind is that players work just as well as draft picks, because the issue is to keep the same total number of roster spots. For example: Jules trades his 2nd and 3rd for Ellis' 1st and some scrub kicker Ellis still has on his roster for some reason.

Of course that immediately raises the question: "Why didn't Ellis drop that scrub kicker to get another draft pick?" But that's kind of the whole point of the current rule.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules Andre View Post
You're looking at this backwards. Say, instead, you look at it like the person getting the 2 and the 3 has upgraded their 6 by forfeiting it.
That is exactly how I'm looking at it, actually. By sending my 1st and 6th to you, I have indeed upgraded my 6th to a 3rd at the cost of downgrading my 1st to a 2nd.

Quote:
They don't have to take that 6th round pick at all. This isn't "throwing the pick away" because you upgraded your last pick by several rounds.
If I don't include my 6th round pick in the trade, I can't select it during (or after) the draft. I literally have to throw it away. OR -- and this is a key feature of the current rule -- I can introduce way more complexity by turning around and trading that 6th rounder (which I can't physically use) to Beef in a different trade, also "unbalanced" in terms of number of picks. So now I get some value out of it instead of throwing it away, so of course I have incentive to try to do this.

This can quickly spiral out of control into an absurdly complex knot we have to untangle before the draft can begin. None of that complexity exists if we require balanced trades.

Quote:
Instead, what you're really saying here, is that if I were to trade you two nickels for a dime, you must, by law, get a penny back, too.
I understand the analogy, but the draft is world where everyone MUST have the same number of coins, so in the world of the draft, having to send a penny back is the most logical and elegant solution.

Quote:
We can absolutely allow people to forfeit later picks without any complication at all.
There is another complication: When is that pick forfeited? Before or after the remaining picks are made? If before, we've now added (trivial) value to all the picks after it.

Quote:
Such as, for example, someone who wants to trade a 1 and a 2 to someone who only has 2 picks. They would HAVE to send back their own 2 in your example, right?
Yes, of course. Think of how it plays out otherwise:

A full roster has 25 players. Let's say Stringer wants to keep 23 players so he only gets 2 picks. You want to trade your 2nd and 3rd to Stringer for his 1st. Let's go ahead and book that trade. Stringer now has two 2nds and a 3rd, plus 23 players he really likes who he doesn't want to drop.

What is the result for Stringer in this scenario? He makes two picks in the second round, fills up to 25 players, and then can't make a selection in the 3rd. Do we skip that selection? (Or does he trade it away to try and get some value out of it?)

Let's say we skip it. That means Stringer just turned his 1st round pick into your 2nd round pick and got zero value back from it. This seems unfair to me, but you argue that this is more fair somehow.

Quote:
Say I want to move up in the 3rd, and I offer a later 3 and my 4. But the 3 is your last pick. My proposal is likely completely fair, but because of an unnecessary bookkeeping rule, I can't do it.
If we play out this scenario it ends up the same way. Someone ends up having to just eat a forfeited pick solely to make a trade seem "more fair" on paper.



However, I will concede that it would be most fair if we allow unbalanced trades provided there are enough trades that they all even out in the end. For example:

Jules trades his 2nd and 3rd for Ellis' 1st
Ellis trades his two 2nds (one from Jules) for dale's 1st
Jules trades his 4th and 5th for dale's 4th

Now we all have the correct number of picks, and we've all maximized our value by not being forced to comply with balanced trades. But I would argue against this setup for several reasons:

1) Our league doesn't have a large enough volume of trading to easily ensure all rosters are balanced before the draft.
2) Unbalanced trades during the draft greatly complicate matters, which would slow down the draft a non-trivial amount of time.
3) The above transaction can still actually occur under the "balanced trade" rules by doing a single 3-way trade:
Jules gets Ellis' 1st and dale's 4th
Ellis gets dale's 1st and Jules' 3rd
dale gets Jules' 4th and 5th
  #587  
Old 07-10-2018, 12:15 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
To be clear, I'm actually open to the idea of unbalanced trades. I just wan to minimize confusion and complexity.

If we want Beef to maintain a master list of trades and have him require additional trades for people with unbalanced rosters to get everyone back in balance before the draft starts, I'm fine with that.

My position is that unbalanced trades WILL cause confusion and require reminders no matter what. The current rule resolves this confusion immediately at the point of trade. If we want to defer that confusion until later, say the week prior to the draft, or during the draft, then I'm okay with that. I currently think it would be objectively worse to do that, but I can absolutely be convinced.

I'm not okay with doing the draft with unbalanced rosters. That involves too much complexity and unnecessary bookkeeping, IMO. Regardless of the rules, I want the draft to start with everyone having exactly as many draft picks as it takes to get their roster back up to 25 players.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 07-10-2018 at 12:16 AM.
  #588  
Old 07-11-2018, 02:46 AM
Omniscient is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 17,559
You guys all seem to be quibbling over the economics of the trades.

I have a more fundamental issue. In this league there's no salary cap, no mechanism to enforce any kind of parity. If your team is stacked and you have starters locked in at every position, you don't really need draft picks at all to make your team better. You can simply sell your entire draft for the 1st overall pick. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Sure, the balancing of trades and the trading of future picks exasperates this, but the only mechanism we have for parity is the strong teams drafting at the end of rounds and the weak teams drafting at the top. Trades fuck this up and unlike in the real NFL, there's no free agency and "roster depth" can't offset star talent. There's almost no cost to trading up when your roster is sound.
  #589  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:20 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
If the person trades away the #1 pick, then they think the picks they're getting in return are worth more than it, right? Then by their own judgment they're improving their team that way.
  #590  
Old 07-12-2018, 04:35 AM
Jules Andre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 2,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omniscient View Post
You can simply sell your entire draft for the 1st overall pick. Rinse, lather, repeat.
You can't just call dibs on this and have it work, though. You need a trade partner, and I don't think anyone would really consider a Ricky Williams deal in this league. Mostly because of the balancing trade rule, but also partly because the value just isn't there.

Then there's the bust rate for first picks in this league. Look at the historical first picks, excluding the first year where it wasn't rookies, and last year since it is too soon to know.

1. Ryan Mathews (Phi - RB) - BUST (One good season and one above average season in 7 years)
1. Mark Ingram (NO - RB) - BUST (Had one decent season in his first five, so I'm guessing didn't do anything for the team that drafted him)
1. Trent Richardson (Bal - RB) - BUST (lol)
1. Tavon Austin (Dal - WR) - BUST
1. Bishop Sankey (Min - RB) - BUST (damn it furt...)
1. Todd Gurley II (LAR - RB) - Sad face
1. Ezekiel Elliott (Dal - RB) - So far so good!

That's two hits out of 7. It will likely be 3 of 8 with Fournette having gone first last year, but still. And even counting the top three picks instead of just the first overall, the bust rate is exactly the same. Your suggested cheat code for this league would probably get you sent straight to the cellar.

Quote:
Sure, the balancing of trades and the trading of future picks exasperates this, but the only mechanism we have for parity is the strong teams drafting at the end of rounds and the weak teams drafting at the top. Trades fuck this up and unlike in the real NFL, there's no free agency and "roster depth" can't offset star talent. There's almost no cost to trading up when your roster is sound.
This is an interesting time to make such an argument. You only have to look back one season to find examples that counter your points. I would have likely won this league last season had I not given up Gurley to trade up for the first pick. SenorBeef would have had a great chance to win instead, but he has been playing fast and loose with QB depth for a while and it burned him pretty badly last season. Roster depth absolutely matters in this league because you can't just sign a free agent to replace someone who gets hurt. If that replacement isn't on your roster, you probably won't have one.
  #591  
Old 07-19-2018, 04:44 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Did we want to do any rule changes? If so, we're starting to run out of time to put them up for vote or whatever.

Any news on the new owner front?
  #592  
Old 07-19-2018, 06:14 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
I can’t think of any rule changes, but I think it’s best if we get the new owners in soon. I imagine they might want to make some trades before the draft.

I assume we’ve completely eliminated contraction? There were some pretty strong feelings against it.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #593  
Old 07-19-2018, 07:27 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,271
Sorry, I should be more on top of things. Starting on it today. Got a couple maybes on replacements, pushing for an answer. We won't contract since people hate the idea - we just may end up having to recruit people without as much of a history on the SDMB as I'd like depending on who is interested.

As far as rule changes, let me re-read the discussion and distill it down. I was planning on using the league for voting, but I don't know when it's going to auto-renew.

I had an idea for the new owners. Now both of the owners who are leaving our league actually have pretty good teams (one is the championship roster), so neither new player will have to inherit a crappy team, which is good. But both players will probably prefer Varlos' roster, and I was thinking - feeling as though a team is something you made is a big part of the satisfaction of this league. What if, instead of the 2 new players inheriting one of the old rosters each, we freed up all 50 players from both rosters and had the new owners conduct a 2 team mini-draft out of the combined players on Varlos/Stringer's team, just alternating picks? That way there's no issue of who is inheriting the better team, and the new owner gets a much bigger say in the creation of his team rather than just being handed one. I feel like that would give the new guys a better sense of ownership of their team.
  #594  
Old 07-19-2018, 09:12 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
I’d be fine with them splitting up the players between the two new owners, assuming they can do it quickly.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #595  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:20 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,314
Getting to pick the better of the two teams seems like a good way to get replacements in quickly, though.
  #596  
Old 07-20-2018, 09:43 AM
RetroVertigo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,682
I'm fine with splitting up the two through a draft between the two new owners. Unless someone is saying, I don't care which team I just want to play.
  #597  
Old 07-20-2018, 01:23 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Letting the new owners "draft" the two rosters is a good idea. Not sure if the format matters with only two people. I doubt we could pull off a proper auction for them, so maybe A BB AA BB AA BB... instead of A B A B A B A B... (The former would certainly be more efficient, with each in-thread post selecting two players instead of one.)

I dunno, I haven't analyzed those rosters to know which method would be more fair, but I do know that Odell Beckham is up for grabs.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 07-20-2018 at 01:25 PM.
  #598  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:24 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,506
Here are all 52 players on the two rosters, grouped by position and sorted by their ranking in the Top 200 - Dynasty Fantasy Football Rankings (2018) as of today. I make no claim as to the validity of these rankings, as I've never used that site before. (I just found it with a quick google.)

Quarterbacks
Deshaun Watson, QB, Hou (26)
Jared Goff, QB, LAR (66)
Cam Newton, QB, Car (71)
Matthew Stafford, QB, Det (96)
Carson Palmer, QB, Arz
Tyrod Taylor, QB, Cle

Running Backs
Alvin Kamara, RB, NO (8)
LeSean McCoy, RB, Buf (36)
Duke Johnson Jr., RB, Cle (98)
C.J. Anderson, RB, Car (133)
Giovani Bernard, RB, Cin (169)
Rex Burkhea, RB, NE (190)
Javorius Allen, RB, Bal
Darren McFadden , RB, Dal
Theo Riddick, RB, Det
Rod Smith, RB, Dal
C.J. Prosise, RB, Sea
Jonathan Stewart, RB, NYG
Danny Woodhead, RB, Bal

Wide Receivers
Odell Beckham Jr., WR, NYG (6)
Antonio Brown, WR, Pit (9)
Davante Adams, WR, GB (13)
Sammy Watkins, WR, KC (47)
Josh Doctson, WR, Was (72)
DeVante Parker, WR, Mia (79)
Michael Crabtree, WR, Bal (97)
Robby Anderson, WR, NYJ (104)
Randall Cobb, WR, GB (107)
Emmanuel Sanders, WR, Den (118)
Kelvin Benjamin, WR, Buf (126)
Allen Hurns, WR, Dal (139)
John Ross, WR, Cin (148)
Paul Richardson Jr., WR, Was (176)
Corey Coleman, WR, Cle (193)
Malcolm Brown, WR, LAR
Malcolm Mitchell, WR, NE
Taywan Taylor, WR, Ten
Tyrell Williams, WR, LAC

Tight Ends
Zach Ertz, TE, Phi (43)
Greg Olsen, TE, Car (106)
Charles Clay, TE, Buf
Ed Dickson, TE, Sea
Coby Fleener, TE, NO
A.J. Derby, TE, Mia

Defense / Special Teams
Jacksonville, DEF, Jax
New England, DEF, NE
Tampa Bay, DEF, TB
Baltimore, DEF, Bal
Carolina, DEF, Car

Kickers
Stephen Gostkowski, K, NE (194)
Kai Forbat, K, Min
Giorgio Tavecchio, K, Oak
  #599  
Old 07-20-2018, 04:43 PM
magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,328
Yeah that roster could be split into two decently strong teams I think. Four startable QBs, two first-round re-draft RBs (though it drops off sharply after that), three first-round WRs, etc.
  #600  
Old 07-25-2018, 02:15 AM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,529
Just got my renewal email.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017