ake note I don't expect to be in the bottom 5 again this year, but after having been there 3 years I think this is only fair to help the turn-around.
Officially motioning the following things....
1) Reverse, line-order draft to replace the draft dollars. While the idea of the draft dollars is nice, some people just don't want to or can't take the time to play the system. The top 5 teams from last year benefited the most this offseason and that's BS. We're here to help the bottom not make this a league for 5 people. The picks, like draft dollars are tradeable, but only after they have been announced.
2) Bottom 5 people are reverse order 1-5 on waiver priority at the start of the next year (6-end would stay the same order as it was previously). This allows anyone who isn't in the draft or other prospects to head to those bottom teams. Just a little more advantage.
3) Trades themselves take only 5 vetos (1/3 of the league) unless another 3rd party "likes" the trade and posts as such. In that case 1 additional person is required for each person who likes it. Off season as well.
4) Offseason trades take just as long to go through as season trades (unless 1/3 of the people are in the same place... aka chatroom, phone conference, etc, etc). That keeps people from calling everyone last minute because they HAVE TO make a trade.
I don't care if we take part of this, but we need to have 1-3 I think for this league to become more fair as a keepers league.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
My responses:
1) I am fine with this. Remember, we did this after the first year. Why did we change?
2) This cannot happen. Either we reverse everyone waiver for everyone, with first place being last in waiver and so on, or we dont do anything.
3) Disagree. If a league votes to veto and a 3rd party aproves the trade who has no vested interest in the league, no knowledge of who the owners are and is a reputable source (ie that guy that connor posted last year or the year before with the website), then we listen to him.
4) Offseason trading is different than yahoo trading. There is no need for 1-3 days...it doesnt affect anything. Even with a trade waiting period, everything would have been the same with Wieters. Example: Lets assume that there is a 3 day waiting period for trades to go through. Then Connor and I make our trade that "screwed" you out of Wieters exactly 72 hours and 10 minutes before the round nomination deadline. If you want to counter this trade with one of your own, you still have to call around frantically at the last minute (since any trade you make that happens more than 10 minutes after mine and Connors would not take affect until after the round nomination deadline). The only thing that the waiting period does is give people a chance to veto a trade, and we have never had a legitimate veto in this league (elliot's soriano thing in year 1 was a joke).
...just my 2 cents.
1) I'm fine with the reverse order draft, but don't pretend that we obtained our benefit at no cost. We may have come out with some of the best players in the draft, but we had to give up considerable resources to get them.
I should say that I'm fine with reverse order drafting as long as picks are completely tradable.
2) I don't like the waiver idea. But I don't really care enough about waiver priority to make a big deal about it.
3) Absolutely not. Why do we need to do this? Name one instance where the league would have benefited from this sort of mob rule.
4) Why?
1) Agree. Although I don't see the point of changing the system if you can still trade draft positions...
2) No fucking way. I'm not a top team but I do have the #3 waiver position. This makes no sense to me.
3) & 4) Communism much?
Eric, the big difference is that Kyle probably wouldn't have consented to giving up what was effectively the #1 draft pick.
I think that this draft has proved that you can apply whatever funky rules you want, but owners are going to pay what they're willing to pay to get a player they value. We can't force other owners to value players in a manner that we deem to be "correct".
... And I wasn't a "Top 5" team last year. I was almost in the bottom half.
BTW, I gave up Aaron Harang, Dustin McGowan, Rick Ankiel, and the difference b/w Miguel Cabrera and Mark Teixeira to get Wieters.
Most of the resources that I had to expend to get Wieters went to a bottom-half team.
I think everyone misunderstood #3...
"3rd party" just means another manager who isn't involved in the trade.... in OUR LEAGUE
aka if zach and I made a trade and elliot, steve, connor, lance, and eric all didn't like it, but maybe jonathan thought it was good, 5 wouldn't be enough to overrule it... you would need another person....
Biggest reason for #4 is because of being able to veto the trade... we've had more than enough stupid/beyond lopsided trades that we need a better way to police it than letting those people who go out convincing people who don't know otherwise. Right now my understanding is it takes 50% to turn down a trade.... but 50% of the league doesn't look at the fantasy league even once a week... so how do we expect 50% to be able to veto a trade?
Plus how do you do an offseason trade w/o allowing people to veto it when you do regular season ones where you can? It's way more difficult to go BACKWARDS after doing a trade 10 minutes before a pick and taking the pick then having the trade reversed because half the people think it was stupid... (aka if I gave up all my pts for Ken Griffey when he was bought in the draft for $1)
To answer Eric's question...
say the team who took first decided to trade with the guys in 2nd, 3rd and 4th because the picks 2nd, 3rd and 4th would get would be garbage (aka picks 10, 11, 12 and 13).
Instead of getting enough money to get the best pick in the draft, he'd only get pick 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. So trading the 4 worst players on his team for minor $$ to get the best player in the draft doesn't become an option unless he goes 4 players for the top overall pick...
#2 is designed to get the bottom so many people first crack at those who weren't in the draft. They need the prospects the most. I'd be fine going down to top 3 as 1-2-3 and the rest in the order they finished the end of the year last year, but I really think this is something extra to help the bottom part of the pack. Everyone seems to hate the idea, but we need to do something....
For the record, I had steve count... we've had only 7 people in the top 5... 2 of those people were only 5th place... so we've had 5 people in the top 4 (if I remember what he's said before... it's close to that). In a 3 year period... that's not good....
Just a quick point about vetoing trades: under the current regime, trades are only vetoed if there is cheating involved. If both parties agree to a trade, then it goes through no matter how unfair it seems to everyone else; who are we to decide with any amount of certainty who's going to be the better player over the long horizon that a keepers league occurs in?
Also, Kyle, I have to make an important point. You and Jonathan probably have the two most improved teams this winter. Your two teams finished 11th and 14th. I think the off-season worked as it was supposed to.
The point of the off-season is not to start everyone on a clean slate. If you want to do that, then a keepers league is probably not your first choice of league setups.
Post a Comment