I guess a better question to ask is - which system do you prefer, and which, if any, would you refuse to play in?
I get that, but from what I understand that’s the exact opposite of what a dynasty league is. That’s what I’m confused about.
I don’t see it as being the opposite. I mean - recycling players either way is counter to the idea of a dynasty league. Our proposals different in terms of which players are being reycled - the best (currently most productive, highly drafted) or worst (lower drafted prospects).
To me, dynasty leagues are more about the long term. I mean - it’s about keeping Adrian Peterson for years too, but the more interesting part to me is finding your future starters and seeing how they develop. So if we’re going to change the dynasty format in order to a partially recycled format, I like the idea of preserving the projects over the high expectation picks. It’s a preference thing, but it IMO preserves the spirit of the league better.
That’s a textbook definition of what a keeper league is. Consider the HHM league: You can only keep a maximum of 3 players in a given year, you can’t keep anyone you drafted in the first three rounds, and keeping a player incurs a two round penalty.
That means nobody ever keeps a superstar unless they drafted him late while he was still a nobody. For example, somebody (I think Weirddave) drafted Antonio Gates and another stud at the end of the draft during their rookie season, then next year and the year after reaped the rewards for spotting such quality talent.
You can’t draft a quality player in the 6th and then keep him unless he progresses to the point where he’s a third round prospect; keeping him in the fourth is pointless if he’s a fourth round prospect or worse. So the whole point of keepers is to find the hidden gems late. The only players that ever get kept, in fact, are hidden gems.
If that’s the angle you want to emphasize, just do a regular keeper league. It seems strange to try and make a dynasty league that maginalizes the dynasty aspect while emphasizing the keeper league aspect. It’s my understanding that dynasty leagues are basically the opposite of keeper leagues.
My proposal is a low maintenance dynasty league. Yours is a high maintenance keeper league. Either is fine, but I’ve been confused for much of this thread because I thought the idea was to do a dynasty league.
In this case, your proposal for a many-keepers league doesn’t have the mechanism whereby players you keep cost you a higher round than you’re drafted in. It’s just that you keep 50-60% of your roster with no regards to draft position. So people are always going to have to keep their most productive players and dump all but the most ready to break out prospects.
By contrast, in my proposal, the 12th-25th pick in your initial draft are yours indefinitely if you want to keep them. So half your first roster is yours indefinitely, and another 5 rounds are yours for 3 years. That’s a potential 18 players you have on your roster for at least 3 years. Like a dynasty league, the majority of your roster is made up by players from your first draft.
I still don’t see how it’s high maintenance. Either league requires the commish to set up the draft with a ton of keepers. In my system, I’m looking at previous draft lists and rosters to determine who’s a keeper, whereas under your proposal I’m waiting on everyone to declare their keepers. I don’t see either system as substantially more work, except that my system may have more effective keepers from year to year so I’d have to enter more data.
Exactly. As far as I can tell from poking around on the web and from your OP, that’s exactly what a dynasty league is.
Your proposal doesn’t let you keep first rounders at all, or maybe only once if I misunderstood it. (One year means no keeping; keep once = two years.) The distinguishing characteristic of a dynasty league is to keep the best players. The defining characteristic of a keeper league is to keep the most promising prospects.
I understand that you’d rather emphasize the promising prospects. That’s totally fine; I dig it quite a bit in the HHM league and agree that it’s cool. I’m just having a case of douches about the semantics of it. I really don’t know why I can’t let it go; I’m kinda annoyed at myself. But what you’re advocating is contrary to what you wrote in the OP, which is what I crafted my suggestion after.
Ah, I think I see the problem. In my system, you look back at an owner’s previous season final roster and copy & paste his entire roster to the thread as elgible keepers. Give them a month or so to do whatever trades they like, then have them declare who they want to keep.
Your way, by comparison, will require that you start with their final roster. Go through each player, one by one, checking to see if this manager drafted them. If so, go back and check the previous season, see if this manager drafted them then. Keep going back until this manager didn’t draft them. Now you know the original draft round this player was taken and how many years he’s been kept, so you can identify based on a lookup by round whether or not this player has expired yet.
Note that even after you find the round they weren’t drafted in, this may not be the original draft they were taken in. They could have traded for that player, so you’ll need some sort of offsite data to keep track of that. Or you could make an educated guess based on draft round, since dynasty keepers will fill the final rounds.
This all has to be done individually for every single player on everyone’s final roster. It is orders of magnitude more work for the commish than my proposal.
Right.
I disagree with this. With a dynasty league, you keep your entire roster, stars, projects, everything. So what you post is a false dichotomy.
Additionally, I don’t view keeper leagues as keeping the best prospects. You keep breakout players - players who had low expectations that year and were drafted late but blew up and became productive.
Dynasty leagues (and my proposal) are much longer-minded. You’ll keep players who didn’t break out this year, but who you think may some day, or who will at least become productive players. It may take 2 or 3 years, as opposed to a keeper league where whoever you keep was productive that year.
Well, yes, my proposal is different in the OP because there were people here who didn’t like the idea for a dynasty league and were proposing contract systems to generate some turnover. So I created a new proposal that would keep some of the better elements of a dynasty league (long term thinking, deep rosters, keeping your projects) with a mechanism that would make drafts more exciting and give teams a better chance to dig themselves out of the bottom. It solves (or at least amoreliates) the two biggest concerns, which were that no turnover would lead to consistent bottom feeders and that the subsequent drafts would be boring and short.
So it’s different from a dynasty proposal but features some of the same benefits. I think our difference here is just that we have a different emphasis on which aspect of dynasty leagues that interest us. You seem more focused on keeping a group of productive, current players together and I’m more long-term oriented. I don’t think either of us is wrong, just different emphasis.
I was going to attack it from the other direction. Since in year 2 I know that the first and second rounders are eligible, then I just go through the year 1 draft results for season 1 and 2 and remove them from active rosters.
Players will always expire in however many years after they were drafted, regardless of whether they were traded or waived - so if I look at year 1’s third round, I know that all of those players would expire in year 3. The only thing that will change a player’s contract is if they were flat out cut (and not picked up on waivers), and I can just keep a seperate list for that.
Again, I’m looking at the draft list and looking forward, rather than looking at the individual player and looking back.
You may be right, it may be more work than I’m anticipating, but I’d have all offseason to do it, so I’m not worried about it.
Fair enough / understood / makes sense / oh now I gotcha (whichever response makes the most sense for each point) on all counts.
Like I said, I would be happy to play out with any of the proposals covered in post 53 (and others in the thread that sounded fun and interesting but logistically complicated and I’m not sure we have the level of FF commitment available on these boards to really make full use of them).
It may be that we end up just going with the originally proposed dynasty league, since that’s what most of the people who posted interest early in the thread were willing to sign up for. And I’m still cool with that too. Especially if we can get some really active people together and there are plenty of trades.
Well, good news. Originally Yahoo only let drafts be schedule through Sep 7. Since that’s the day the keeper league drafts, and the previous few days are a holiday weekend, I thought we were going to have to cram the draft for this league onto the previous thursday. But since yahoo now allows us to schedule on the 8th and 9th, I’m going to suggest this league (we’ll have a league, whatever format it becomes) drafts on Tuesday, Sep 8 at 9pm eastern. Does that pose a problem for anyone who’s probably going to join us?
Canel the 8th from the last post.
I went ahead and created a league to hold a draft date (currently Wed Sep 9 at 9pm eastern). We have time to resolve the league type/rules issue, and someone else can commish if they want, I just wanted to reserve the time slot because if you don’t get them early the good draft times get booked.
The Big League currently is set to draft for Sep 8, so Sep 9 is really our only option if we want to draft post-final cuts and not on the holiday weekend.
We should probably do what we can to imbue the project with forward momentum (like reserving a draft date; good idea, Beef). Perhaps send out invitations to a few of the people who’ve said they’re down for any setup, for example.
I won’t be home till tomorrow afternoon, and may or may not get a chance to check in before then.
I’m not sure we’ve gotten anywhere positive overall on the alternate idea discussions - I don’t think more people were interested in the alternate proposals than a simple dynasty league.
I’ll probably start the recruitment thread within a day - so if there’s anyone who wants to chime in with any ideas, or any new people with interest, feel free to post. I’m hoping we can recruit at least 10 good candidates, ideally 12, but even if we end up only with 8 people interested it’d still be an interesting league.
I went ahead and created the league recruitment thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11465444
I’ll start sending out PMs to people who’ve expressed interest with the league information. I’ll start with people I know to be reliable, and for people I don’t know it may take longer.
If anyone who proposed alternatives but didn’t want to do a straight dynasty league has changed their mind, please speak up in the other thread and I’ll get you in.