Friday, January 4, 2008


After a crazy year of decimal point scoring (with much success), I think it is time to start throwing around new revolutionary ideas. Not revolution for the sake of revolution, but revolution to follow the idea that we can alway improve our fantasy experience.

Negative Scoring? (I'm not a fan, but willing to entertain the thought)

New Free Agency System?

Changes to the auction?

New trade deadline?

Implementation of some sort of dynasty/keeper league?

Lets throw out ideas folks. We have plenty of time to think and debate.


  1. I like the idea of a dynasty league. Carry one player over to the next year. Maybe put up three players that you would potential want to keep and then draw for one on draft day...or pick one and make him a "restricted free agent," if another drafter wants the player, they can offer a predetermined amount of "draft cash." This gives the "owner" an incentive to give up their player. Have it be a "side" auction. The "owner" has the ability to deny offers.

  2. There is one indisputable fact: keeper leagues are bourgeois fantasies. Keeper leagues are all about the concept of "property" and who it belongs to.

    Marxists support the egalitarian leagues that start anew each year: we all start equal and fresh, with opportunities for success on our merits. We don't succeed based on the property we inherit from the past.

  3. That's true, but I'm not a Marxist. If I was, I'd be living on your couches suckers...or should I say, "the peoples' couches?"

  4. i support a keeper league. it'd add to the strategy and keep a sense of continuity. i assume the marxist stuff was in jest.


  5. As Shmoopy says, there's a little truth in every joke. Keeper leagues are bourgeois because they are based on maintaining property you've acquired; non-keeper leages are socialist because they allow everybody a fair, equal start every year.

    The only way I would agree to a keeper league is if the first year of the keeper league is an auction (and we all know it's a keeper league). To allow a snake draft to determine the keepers is unfair: it doesn't give everybody a fair shot at all the keepers. I would acquiesce to a keeper league if it's an auction draft and we're all aware it's for a keeper league. But I still don't like the keeper league.

  6. I like the keeper league idea with the idea that obviously it would have to be done via the auction with an idea that in order to keep the player you have to the next year pay a 10% increase to keep the player with the minimum increase being $1.

    I think so far we have 3 for a keeper league and 1 against with a possibility of being swayed (although highly doubtful).

    Kiah-no vote
    Abe-no vote
    Brad-no vote
    Jerod-no vote
    Jon-no vote

    In order for the keeper revolution to begin there needs to be 2 more yes votes of the remaining votes.

  7. I don't like shenanigany things like "if you want to keep him you give up 10% next year" or anything like that. If it's a keeper league, it's a keeper league, with one or two keepers. The next year it's just an auction or a snake (whichever we're able).

    But I do vote no. If it becomes necessary, I'll make the arguments that may even sway some members of the pro-keeper party back to the anti-keeper party.

  8. You would at least have to give up the money you paid for the person the year before. That would be the minimum requirement for a keeper league. Otherwise why should one guy get to have LT and still have $265 to spend while one guy has Wes Welker to keep and only $265 also. At a minimum to keep a player you would have to sacrifice the amount paid in the auction, if we then had to convert to a snake draft then I would say we either have to determine money values equal to draft position or scrap the keeper league that year and then re-draft keepers the next year we would do the auction, etc.

    Essentially teams would be able to keep a player if they so chose, but would have to give up their money or a team could just decide to not have a keeper and have a monetary advantage over other people. Problem is do FA then equal $1 players? I would argue yes.

    And it really isn't shenanigy to increase cap value of the kept player. Odds are if you are keeping him, the person's value was increased and thus you should have to pay a slight increase in order to continue to have exclusive rights to the player rather than have the person go out into the "free market" of the draft.


  9. "Otherwise why should one guy get to have LT and still have $265 to spend while one guy has Wes Welker to keep and only $265 also."

    So you want to have a keeper league but make people pay for their keepers. Why not just throw the player back into the pool and make a person draft him again? You want a keeper league in which a person must pay to have a keeper--if that's how it is, I'd rather just have every player thrown back into the pool.

    Also, it would be a really lousy idea to scrap the keeper league if we need to return to a snake. So I overpay for a young player one year, then the next year we do a snake so it's scrapped so I don't get the player I overpaid for, and the next year the player's available again in another keeper draft? If we're doing a keeper league, we have to know we get to keep the players for the next year.

  10. Basically, if we're going to be a keeper league, we must commit to the keeper league: we can't have people paying for keeper value one season, then finding out they don't get the player they paid keeper value for the next season because we're doing a snake draft. When we have to do a snake draft again, we just have to figure out a way to make it fair (assuming we're doing the shenanigany "pay for your keeper" rule).

  11. What I would suggest is a "Franchise Player." The owner must pay a league minimum for the desired keeper. Let's say $50. If the player went for more than $50 in the previous year, they must pay the same amount that was paid last year for that player. It doesn't necessarily guarantee the best value for the pick, but it does guarantee that the player is yours.

  12. IF we're going to do a keeper league, then I like Bryan's idea. And if we do a snake draft, that "Franchise Player" is simply your first round pick.

    That way if you pay $5 for a breakout star, to keep him, you still have to pay $50 the next year (instead of $6 or $7). The 10% increase just makes all the "young-with-potential-under-ten-dollars" players the premium picks. That's not a good idea: the best players should be the premium picks. So if you want to keep a drafted player, you must pay a set amount (such as $50).

  13. The 10% increase relies too much on the previous year's luck: you try to predict which young-with-potential-under-ten-dollars players will break out, and if you're luck and get one, the next year you get an elite player already on your roster for $11 or under. I don't like that idea at all--it really threatens any competitive balance, based primarily on your luck (or smarts, I guess) with picking an unheralded breakout.

    It's better if any keeper would cost a set amount. Then you can decide if you think that player is worth the set amount. If he is, then keep him, and you're (say $50) lighter at the start of the draft. And we could say that if the player was over $50, it's the amount he was paid for.

    I just don't like the idea of giving all the rewards to the guys who get breakout stars. If keepers cost a fixed (and costly) amount, it at least keeps some competitive balance for the next year.

  14. keeper league would be okay by way of Bryans suggestion. But in general I am against it.

    My vote is NO. I like the idea of all players being around so all people have a chance at them. Sure, I am not very likely to get in a bidding war to secure LT or Adrian Peterson, but I like the fact that if I wanted to do it I could. True there are a lot of players out there, and there would be a lot of bidding still happening, but for me some of the the fun of the draft comes from seeing how it all unfolds, who gets the big name running backs, who gets the best WR, etc.

    Thats my opinion, but if I am voted down I'll just deal with it.


  15. I'm coming down against a keeper league. I feel pretty much the way Jon does here. It's not that I don't think a keeper league would be fun, it's just that the draft is exciting because of its possibilities. I see no need to reduce the excitement of those possibilities.


  16. I think it wouldn't be a terrible idea to make the keeper aspect optional. There's no need to keep a player if your whole team blows, so don't. This also give you an incentive not to keep players--if you choose not to keep players, you are potentially $50 or < ahead of other auction participants. Remember, this is coming from the guy who doesn't have a player worth $50 on his team :)

    Recap, so far:
    Joe-no (?)
    Abe-no vote
    Brad-no vote
    Jerod-no vote

    3 yes, 3 no, 3 no response.

  17. Here is an adaptation to the keeper league concept.

    (1) Bryan's idea of a franchise player with the cost being $50 if he was bought for $50 or less or acquired via free agency or the cost of the player in the draft if more than $50.

    (2) The adaptation suggested is the 10% increase. This way it really does possibly funnell the good players back to the "free market" of the draft.

    For Instance: Based of this year

    Joe keeps Peterson for $50, year 2 he keepts him for $55, year three for $61, year four for $68. (obviously in this case one could be rewarded for finding the rookie running back for under $50, but then maybe this causes rookie RB's to go higher also...keeper this could be a 5-7 year investment so why not pay $60 for the next big rookie RB)

    Rob keeps LT for $123+10% so $136, year 2 he has to decide does he keep LT for $150 or does he send him back to the "free market" because he probably could get him for a cheaper value (especially if all the other teams are at least spending $50 to keep a player).

    There would be plenty of turnover with the 10% increase and the auction would remain very interesting.

    Plus we are talking at a maximum 8 players not being in the draft. I can tell you of the team I ended up with I would not keep one player under the franchise rule with 10% increase. Think about that my best options would be Romo for $50, Owens for $76 (69+10%increase), or MJD for $50.

    I think there would be many teams that would not keep a player.

    What does everyone think about that possibility?

  18. True that a maximum of 8 players would be off the table, but the 8 players would be some of the most appetizing and exciting players available in the open draft.


  19. Obviously we would not start a keeper league from players drafted the year before, but lets look at possible keepers and cost (to the best of my recollection). (Also keep in mind that the keeper option might make Week 10 trading even crazier because a team might be willing to part with 3 solid contibutors to another team for a chance to have a stellar $50 keeper).

    Brad-Randy Moss $50 (cost less in draft)

    Justin-No one

    Joe-Adrian Peterson $50

    Rob-LaDanian Tomlinson $136 ($123+10%increase)

    Jerod-Peyton Manning $83 ($75?+10%increase)

    Jon-Torry Holt $61 ($55+10%increase)

    Kiah-Brian Westbrook $61 ($55+10%increase)

    Abe-Joseph Addai $82 ($74+10%increase)

    Bryan-No one

    So going into the draft we would still have players like Steven Jackson, Tom Brady, Terrell Owens, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Marshawn Lynch, Marion Barber, MJD, etc.

    Here would be everyone's money situation


    Now yes obviously it would have taken out possibly the 3 most intriguing players for the auction (Moss, AP, and LT), but that should only inspire people to pay more for them out of fear that they might not be there next year and may lead to a price that would make it hard for a person to justify keeping them when the free market might be cheaper.

    We could also put in a stipulation, that one could only use the "franchise" tag two years or something like that. (I am just throwing out ideas here, I think it would be fun to have the stipulation that the franchise tag could only be used 2 years and then the 3rd year the person was a "restricted free agent" where in the draft whatever the player goes for then the person who had the "rights" to the player could match the final amount bid in order to keep the player for 1 more year, but then after that he would be back in the draft as an unrestricted free agent.)

    Think about the added drama that could go into it. Joe has kept Adrian Peterson for 2 years via the franchise tag paying $50 and then $55, but the third year he goes out to the "free market" of the auction and Robert (after LT has become useless) decides he really wants AP but so do Abe, Jerod, Justin, Kiah, and well Joe still does....Well we all know Rob is determined and so he goes all the way to $145 to get AP. He is excited and overjoyed....but wait, Joe has 5 minutes before the draft proceeds to decide if he wants to "re-sign" AP at $145 he does and Rob's curses the heavens. Drama baby. Or in another scenario, AP hasn't been thrown out yet and Joe got caught taking Reggie Wayne for $50 and Peyton Manning for $65, leaving him with only $140. AP's name comes up and people are salivating knowing that Joe can only match a contract of $127. Joe's blood pressure rises like crazy as the price creeps closer and closer to $127 and eventually passes it causing Joe to curse Peyton Manning and Reggie Wayne and rip his Peyton Manning jersey off ala Hulk Hogan style.

  20. I like the 10% increase and the limit on consecutive years a player can be held.

  21. To answer the other questions:
    I am not in favor of negative scoring.
    I think the free agency system works fine.
    I like the way the auction is run now.
    6 hours should be enough time to make a pick, but don't do it based off the time between picks. Do it like so: Joe picks from 6am-12pm, Jon picks from 12pm-6pm, Jared picks from 6pm to midnight, etc...Have set slots and if you miss your slot, you can pick at any time, but the slot is the time period in which you pick.

  22. Bryan I think that works (the free agency comment). The other thing I have been debating is everyone is given $80 ($5 per week for 16 weeks) and we have an open bidding period every week from the Monday at Midnight until Wednesday at Noon. Each person has an opportunity to throw out one name for whatever amount they choose, if they are outbid they can either bid higher or throw out another name. However, an individual can only be winning one auction at any given time since you can only get one player per week. It adds extra strategy. Do you spend more money early to get premium Free Agents or do you save it for that possible injury to a star player and his meteoric rise of a backup?

  23. i like the free agency time slots (it seems to be more fair due to peoples various internet avaiability).
    As for the bidding on free agents, I am against it. I see where the suggestion would bring more strategy into play, but here is my arguement against it: the way Free Agency in our league was explained to me was that the team that needed the most help got to make the first pick so that they could hypothetically help their team. With the suggestion, there is a chance that a team that is in need gets some bum, while some already good team gets an up and coming star. I would find that frustrating.
    I think we should keep everything the way it is, but change the time deadline to a slot system.
    I realize that I vote no on a lot of suggestions, and fail to provide any alternatives of my own, I am sorry. I am just letting my feelings known, butI am okay with any decision that is made I will deal with.
    i have a question: if changes are to be made, do they need to be unanimous or is it majority rules.


  24. The suggestion of a limited keeper league (3rd year restricted FA, 4th year back into the pool) is shenanigany. Either be a keeper league, or don't be a keeper league; don't go off all half-baked.

    Jon, in the past changes have been made based on a majority vote. Of course, we could always vote to decide whether any future changes should be unanimous ;)

  25. May I ask why anything you disagree with you instantly try to put it down by calling it shenanigany or bourgeios?

    I figure you and your superior argumentitive style and rhetoric would rise above the name-calling tactic (and repetitive 3rd grade style of it) to a solid rationale and counter argument. Instead the first move is always name calling followed by a simple statement of why you think it is dumb.

  26. From now on I'll respond to your shenanigany, bourgeois ideas with a simple "I vote no."

  27. That would be much better.

    And if you noticed the whole keeper league idea was not even started by me.