SDMB Fantasy Football DYNASTY League: Year 15

The Game Room
1

Welcome to year 15, where everything stinks and nothing makes sense. This will be a shorter starting thread, but there is one major proposal to go over.

League dates

Preseason begins: Thursday, Aug. 3rd (Hall of Fame game)

Final roster cuts: 12:00p ET Monday, Aug. 28th

2023 Dynasty rookie draft opening day: 12:01p ET Monday, Aug. 28th

NFL opening day: Thursday, Sept. 7th

2022 Final Results
  1. Peteys (PeteyPart2)
  2. Exploding Pancakes (SenorBeef)
  3. Moridwon (Hamlet)
  4. HungryHungryHaruspex (Jules Andre)
  5. Formerly Sentimental (Spiritus_Mundi)
  6. Warner’s Brothers (dalej42)
  7. The Great Old Ones (Ol’Gaffer)
  8. JB’s Gusterrhoids (Justin Bailey)
  9. New York Fanboys (Ellis Dee)
  10. No Use For A Name (Retrovertigo)
  11. Ides of Martz (Omniscient)
  12. Nine Inch Neils (RNATB)
Hall of Champions

2022 Champion: PeteyPart2
2021 Champion: SenorBeef
2020 Champion: Jules Andre
2019 Champion: Hamlet
2018 Champion: Ellis Dee
2017 Champion: VarlosZ
2016 Champion: SenorBeef
2015 Champion: VarlosZ
2014 Champion: Stringer
2013 Champion: VarlosZ
2012 Champion: Hamlet
2011 Champion: SenorBeef
2010 Champion: Stringer
2009 Champion: Really Not All That Bright

Points Leaders by Year

(Including weeks 15-16)
2022: Jules: 2244.04
2021: SenorBeef: 2016.78
2020: Jules: 2131.96
2019: Hamlet: 2190.75
2018: Hamlet: 2204.75
2017: RNATB: 2095.71
2016: Petey: 2018.97
2015: VarlosZ: 2183.64
2014: Stringer: 2177.27
2013: SenorBeef: 2132.81
2012: Stringer: 2095.83
2011: Stringer: 2229.75
2010: Stringer: 2167.03
2009: Hamlet: 2207.00

2023 Draft Order

The following draft order includes these trades from during the draft and season: Trade One

1.01. Nine Inch Neils (RNATB)
1.02. Ides of Martz (Omniscient)
1.03. No Use For A Name (Retrovertigo)
1.04. New York Fanboys (Ellis Dee)
1.05. JB’s Gusterrhoids (Justin Bailey)
1.06. The Great Old Ones (Ol’Gaffer)
1.07. Warner’s Brothers (dalej42)
1.08. Formerly Sentimental (Spiritus_Mundi)
1.09. Warner’s Brothers (dalej42) (via HungryHungryHaruspex)
1.10. Moridwon (Hamlet)
1.11. Exploding Pancakes (SenorBeef)
1.12. Peteys (PeteyPart2)

2.01. Nine Inch Neils (RNATB)
2.02. Ides of Martz (Omniscient)
2.03. No Use For A Name (Retrovertigo)
2.04. New York Fanboys (Ellis Dee)
2.05. JB’s Gusterrhoids (Justin Bailey)
2.06. The Great Old Ones (Ol’Gaffer)
2.07. Warner’s Brothers (dalej42)
2.08. Formerly Sentimental (Spiritus_Mundi)
2.09. HungryHungryHaruspex (Jules Andre)
2.10. Moridwon (Hamlet)
2.11. Exploding Pancakes (SenorBeef)
2.12. Peteys (PeteyPart2)

(So on according to cuts)

NOTES:
HungryHungryHaruspex gets Dale’s last pick.

This is your heads up that if you are involved in the above trade(s) to make sure to cut enough players so that your last pick isn’t a 1st or 2nd.

Previous Threads

Year 14
Links to old threads

The only rule change proposal I can remember was to remove the “last pick” rule for balancing pre-draft and draft-day trades. This has always been a rule no one likes, and it is a pain in the ass. But it has been described to me as a necessity since I joined this league, so I don’t actually know how removing it will function in a practical sense. As far as I can see, this is a question of whether the pain in the ass is spread throughout the league as it is now, or focused on the two people who manage the league. I don’t know which is better or worse.

Well, have at you, you lot of scum

2

Let’s get rid of it. The whole point of this league structure is that everything is self-correcting, so let’s just let it self-correct. If I trade away two of my guys for one of your guys, that just means I gain a new last draft pick to fill my roster hole and you lose your last draft pick, which just disappears.

3

Second vote for GET RID OF IT.

Everyone makes their cuts and gets that number of picks. What they do with them after that is between them and the fantasy gods.

4

Didn’t understand why it was a rule last year. Don’t understand why its a rule now. Get rid of it.

5

It’s actually a solid and elegant rule and it’s weird to me that people have such a negative reaction to it. If we get rid of it we’re just going to go back to what we used to do which is fill the last empty slot with a random cut player. I don’t have time to rehash the whole thing now but I’m sure I made a big post or 3 explaining it in old threads.

But I don’t care that much so I don’t care if we got back to the old way. Rosters have to be 25 to end the draft no matter what. But I vote to keep it as is.

Thanks Jules for starting the thread. I’m currently in icy strait point Alaska only getting a cell phone signal after taking a slightly terrifying suspended tram to a mountain top.

6

I remember last year or maybe the year before, Omni was roasting marshmellows by a fire at a vacation lakehouse. You guys in this league are living your best lives.

7

That’s not quite what we’re changing it to. In fact, that’s closer to what we’re changing it from. Last year is the perfect illustrative example: Hamlet traded away two guys for one, which meant he also got his trading partner’s last pick to keep things even. This was required because it was after the deadline when the picks had already been created.

The reality meant that Hamlet ended up getting a much worse pick back than he was expecting, because it was his trading partner’s last pick instead of a new natural last pick of his own. With this rule change, he would instead get a new natural last pick instead.

No, it’s self-correcting. I was one of the guys strongly on the side of making trades be even because of exactly what you describe here, but that doesn’t end up being the case. That’s why I have switched sides.

Once again using Hamlet’s example from last season, after the trade, his trading partner loses his last pick because they just acquired two players but only sent away one. That’s no problem from a commissioner’s standpoint; instead of assigning it to Hamlet, simply slot in the second acquired player into that last pick.

Meanwhile, on the Hamlet side (the one who loses a player), they now only have 24 players + draft picks. So simply give him a brand new last pick in his natural order, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

I don’t recall the exact details, but I’m pretty sure it was something like Hamlet was only drafting three guys originally, so after trading away two guys and bringing only one back, he expected to be drafting a fourth guy in the fourth round. But it was his trading partner’s last pick he got back, which ended up being like in the 7th round or something noticeably worse. Thus the impetus to making this rule change.

EDIT: One of the circumstances that made this extra frustrating, IIRC, is that Hamlet asked about doing the trade before roster cuts and we (me, maybe?) advised to wait and do it after cuts. Then after the cuts he was understandably wondering why he was advised to wait, since if he did it before the cuts he would have picked his fourth player in the fourth round instead of the 7th. So we (me?) kind of accidentally screwed him over with that.

The tldr version of this rule change is that trading is now handled the same way after roster cuts as before. Any roster size imbalances that result from trades will now be handled the same way as cutdowns. If your roster size is too small you get a new draft pick, if it’s too big you lose one.

8

It’s a really awkward and bad idea to generate new picks and adjust the draft order in the middle of a draft. Why should someone picking at the top of a round suddenly find themselves an extra pick or two later in the queue because some other manager executed a trade? I actually don’t know how this would be implemented in practice. The Yahoo draft results interface is a disaster, and every single year there is a problem managing trades and getting everything balanced. Would the commissioner have to manually move every single pick down a spot to compensate for this magically generated new pick that was conjured from nothing in the middle of a draft? I’m not doing that, if so.

9

No, every slot is either an open draft pick or a kept player. No picks are ever truly created or destroyed.

10

I can’t play with this until the draft is actually opened and people have announced cuts, but I have a suspicion it does not actually work the way you are saying. Moving a player on a roster, who exists in a slot in a round from 1-25 (say, round 16), to another player’s roster does not mean that suddenly a slot in round 3 opens up. I won’t get into it since I can’t test it to be sure. But here is what I do know for sure.

Let’s say I am sitting at round 4, pick 1 with my next pick. Hamlet started the draft with 2 picks, 1.10 and 2.10. He has made his picks. We’re sitting at 3.09, and I’m looking at the draft order and getting excited. There is only 3.09, 3.11, and 3.12 before I get to pick, and I want one of four players. Suddenly Hamlet makes a 2 for 1 trade completely unrelated to any draft picks. Why should he suddenly get pick 3.10 and another owner is inserted into the draft order between the current pick on the clock and my pick at 4.01? Suddenly I have to wait an additional draft spot? Why is that better?

11

That’s a fair point for during the draft. I wouldn’t object to keeping the old rules once the draft goes live. But between roster cuts and when the draft starts, I still vote that trades do not have to be balanced. (EDIT: Let’s be real though, the excitement level late in the third round is not very high.)

However, it might actually be more bookkeeping for the commissioner. Let’s run through an example to see how it shakes out. Adding hassle for the commissioner is no small thing, mind you, so if it turns out to be a lot I might change my vote back to keeping the old way entirely.

Let’s imagine the Hamlet example given the details I half-remembered above, and let’s say Hamlet picks 3rd and his trading partner picks 6th.

Hamlet:
1.03 Pick
2.03 Pick
3.03 Pick
4.03 Keeper
5.03 Keeper
6.03 Alan (being traded away)
7.03 Brian (being traded away)
8.03 Keeper
etc…

Trading Partner
1.06 Pick
2.06 Pick
3.06 Pick
4.06 Pick
5.06 Pick
6.06 Pick
7.06 Pick
8.06 Keeper
9.06 Chris (being traded away)
10.06 Keeper
etc…

Under the old rules, Hamlet gets Chris and the 7.06 pick, so the commissioner simply changes ownership of those two slots to Hamlet. Meanwhile, Alan and Brian go to the partner, so ownership of those two slots simply changes to the partner. Four ownership changes and nothing else happens. That’s pretty darn elegant.

The new way, we start by changing ownership of Alan, Brian and Chris, leaving all three in place. Then whatever keeper Hamlet has at 4.03 needs to be moved to the open spot at 7.06, and ownership of 7.06 needs to change to Hamlet. (Hamlet already owned 4.03, so ownership doesn’t need to be changed for that newly created draft pick.)

Net result is…
Old: 4 ownership changes, 0 moves
New: 4 ownership changes, 1 move

If the commissioners declare this a bridge too far, I will side with the commissioners.

12

Important note: Everybody can voluntarily bypass the old rule by doing any unbalanced trades (eg: 2 for 1) before cutdowns, regardless if we make this rule change or not.

The only reason the old rule exists is to reduce bookkeeping for the commissioners. There is no bookkeeping until cutdowns, so doing unbalanced trades before cutdowns is a no-harm no-foul situation.

EDIT: Back in the day we used to set the cutdown deadline to literally the day before the draft starts. Cutdowns Saturday, draft begins Sunday kind of thing. That’s probably why it was never an issue before.

13

I don’t understand any of this so I abstain.

14

Sorry, I was typing quick.

I meant that everyone should have 25 picks going into the draft. Cuts can go towards picks for the rookie draft and keepers would go towards the remainder. If someone does an uneven trade during the draft, their next keeper pick (which already exists) would convert to a draft pick.

It sounds like this is what everyone else wants as well.

15

As your returning champion, what I say goes. And I say…it doesn’t seem to be too important either way. Just go with the easier bookkeeping method.

16

We definitely can’t do something that involves creating new picks in the middle of the draft both because that’s unfair to everyone after that pick and it would be a nightmare on yahoo. I think we may be onto something where future pick trades and uneven trades don’t need to be balanced but after the draft starts we could keep the current system for balancing picks to make it consistent for the way yahoo requires the draft to be entered. I’m petty sure I’m okay with that unless someone figures out a big flaw with that.

17

No objection to that. It’s reasonable to enforce balance trades during the draft.

No it wouldn’t. I outlined how it would work above. It would work exactly the same way if it happened before the draft or if it happened during the first few rounds. For the example I outlined, the keeper slotted at 4.03 would get moved to 7.06.

18

My bad. I didn’t actually evaluate your proposal because I didn’t have access to a spreadsheet to play around with it. Going to be away from home for another week still. You can remove that objection then.

19

It was a minor quibble only. The point about fairness is compelling all on its own, and for that reason I don’t object to keeping the old rules for during the draft proper.

EDIT: It actually wasn’t even a quibble, it was more of an FYI.

20

In these scenarios I defer to how would this be handled in the NFL draft.

It seems like if I’m making an unbalanced trade where I get another teams last pick, it should fall under that teams natural order, and not mine.