SDMB Fantasy Football DYNASTY League: Year Nine

The Game Room
582

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?

583

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.

584

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.

585

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.

586

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?

This is disappointing, Beef.

587

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

588

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.

589

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.

590

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.

591

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)
  2. 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)
  3. Trent Richardson (Bal - RB) - BUST (lol)
  4. Tavon Austin (Dal - WR) - BUST
  5. Bishop Sankey (Min - RB) - BUST (damn it furt…)
  6. Todd Gurley II (LAR - RB) - Sad face :frowning:
  7. 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.

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.

592

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?

593

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.

594

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.

595

I’d be fine with them splitting up the players between the two new owners, assuming they can do it quickly.

596

Getting to pick the better of the two teams seems like a good way to get replacements in quickly, though.

597

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.

598

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.

599

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

600

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.

601

Just got my renewal email.