As Mo put to my attention, I did not directly address the concerns of loyalty to this league. To say I am loyal to something I do not yet belong to is absurd, but if you want a promise that I will remain in this league until death do us part, I am willing to do this if indeed this is a competitive league where people set their line-ups in a consistent manner, seek out rising no-bodys fresh from the farms, the occasional controversial trade, and some good spirited (or not) trash talking, etc.
Of course, I am going to need my lawyer go over any paperwork, but otherwise I am perfectly willing to make a blood oath or pinky swear as you guys see fit. What do you yanks call that handshake where someone spits into his palm? That, I might not be willing to do, unless we're really close to a sink...
So, what is the consensus? Do you need to put this to a vote?
And do you guys play other fantasy sports?
If my opinion even matters at this point; I think waivers is silly in baseball because the season is so long, but not having waivers will make people hesitant to make add/drops on a whim (thus limiting creativity, or taking away the kiddy wheels). Another idea if you guys are uncertain about waivers being mis-used, you can limit the number of add/drops, and you can even make it a relatively high one (say 50), but this will prevent players who 'lock-in' players via waivers. Otherwise, screw it, not having waivers makes things more volatile, but I think it seriously punishes newbies.
the CheddarWurst
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
waiver wire by convention
but fine, i guess more accurately its free agent pool. a true waiver wire is when a player gets dropped and then cannot be picked up right away. depending on the time he has to spend on the 'wire', he is picked up a day, two days later by the waiver wire order. if you look at the football league, you will see we had a waiver wire order as well. that way if mike drops mark prior its not a free for all. if i have the 5th spot on the waiver wire order but andy has the 1st, he gets first dibs on prior. but once you use your waiver wire spot, you get dropped to the bottom. that means if you blow your load on prior, you wont be able to pick up kerry wood who will certainly get injured within weeks of the season starting. but we dont have a waiver wire, so thats moot. (ok andy, i can't spell. we got it. make sure you teach the middle school kids that you don't need to spell to get into a good college.)
*omar: what do you call a point that is purely academic, or that cannot be settled and isn't worth discussing further? -alm
and pete what i was referring to was an adrian beltre type situation. im not sure if ben dropped him but let me explain. he is drafted in the 3rd round. He flirts with the mendoza line in april and may and ben ends up dropping him because he never should have drafted him in the first place. He sits for about two months then in August decides to stop sucking and starts to hit .350 or whatever. Ben decides to pick him up again just as a flyer. Why should Ben get penalized with a third round pick if he wants to keep him next year when any other team could have picked him up for a low pick just because he drafted him at the start of the season?
why penalize ben in this scenario: because ben was wrong in drafting adrian beltre. frankly, this is why you don't cut people. you bench them, but you don't cut them. you trade them, but don't cut them, unless they're truly worthless, or you think so anyway. now that we have a slightly longer bench, 2 DL slots as well, i don't think you should ever cut your third round pick unless he dies or is so bad (jamie moyer) that you can't even trade him for someone else's disappointment. the moral of the story, anyway, and the answer people seem reluctant to accept is, it would be ben's fault for drafting a guy who sucks early in the draft. why give him a free ride and let him get beltre back cheaper since he was the (hypothetical) butthead who drafted adrian beltre in the third round after adrian beltre's "i need a contract" year.
but who would take on, not only a bad player (moyer/beltre) but also take on his draft spot. i could understand trading beltre for someone like iguchi but only if you didn't have to take on his draft spot. what is the recourse then for drafting a bad player? like when i took pat burrel in the 4th round three years ago, that was a terrible move. but if i could have kept him as a 27th round player i would have but never as a 4th rounder. and nobody would have traded for him as a 4th rounder. but then if i would have dropped him someone else could get him as a 27th rounder. i just don't understand why everyone else gets a benefit that i dont. i might not be making this argument if you lost a 10th round pick instead of the 27th round pick but as such we are in this situation. i also love the irony of pete saying "quite frankly, this is why you don't cut people". i only had 11 moves all year and you had 100+ and i'm trying to help your ... kind ... out.
can we get a more moderate viewpoint here? i think pete and i are the extremes in terms of moves making.
omar: "everyone else gets a benefit that i don't" ans: because they didn't take pat burrel in the 4th round, they took someone better. they are rewarded for their good decision. you, conversely, are penalized for your poor decision.
"trading beltre for someone like iguchi" ans: you would still make the trade, but the person trading for beltre probably would not be planning on exercising his option to keep him. remember, it's not as if beltre explodes if you don't elect to keep him; he just re-enters the pool and you could attempt to draft him again in a more reasonable round. -alm
andy - that doesn't answer the question. it just says im stupid, which i was for drafting burrell. but it doesn't change the fact that he was dropped and thus becomes (by rule) a free agent pickup. im asking how we are going to go about verifying this. if you can get over the fact that some people (my god!) make bad draft picks (see andy martin circa 2005 top 3 picks) we can come to a good answer.
*omar: what do you call a point that is purely academic, or that cannot be settled and isn't worth discussing further? -alm
and pete what i was referring to was an adrian beltre type situation. im not sure if ben dropped him but let me explain. he is drafted in the 3rd round. He flirts with the mendoza line in april and may and ben ends up dropping him because he never should have drafted him in the first place. He sits for about two months then in August decides to stop sucking and starts to hit .350 or whatever. Ben decides to pick him up again just as a flyer. Why should Ben get penalized with a third round pick if he wants to keep him next year when any other team could have picked him up for a low pick just because he drafted him at the start of the season?
why penalize ben in this scenario: because ben was wrong in drafting adrian beltre. frankly, this is why you don't cut people. you bench them, but you don't cut them. you trade them, but don't cut them, unless they're truly worthless, or you think so anyway. now that we have a slightly longer bench, 2 DL slots as well, i don't think you should ever cut your third round pick unless he dies or is so bad (jamie moyer) that you can't even trade him for someone else's disappointment. the moral of the story, anyway, and the answer people seem reluctant to accept is, it would be ben's fault for drafting a guy who sucks early in the draft. why give him a free ride and let him get beltre back cheaper since he was the (hypothetical) butthead who drafted adrian beltre in the third round after adrian beltre's "i need a contract" year.
but who would take on, not only a bad player (moyer/beltre) but also take on his draft spot. i could understand trading beltre for someone like iguchi but only if you didn't have to take on his draft spot. what is the recourse then for drafting a bad player? like when i took pat burrel in the 4th round three years ago, that was a terrible move. but if i could have kept him as a 27th round player i would have but never as a 4th rounder. and nobody would have traded for him as a 4th rounder. but then if i would have dropped him someone else could get him as a 27th rounder. i just don't understand why everyone else gets a benefit that i dont. i might not be making this argument if you lost a 10th round pick instead of the 27th round pick but as such we are in this situation. i also love the irony of pete saying "quite frankly, this is why you don't cut people". i only had 11 moves all year and you had 100+ and i'm trying to help your ... kind ... out.
can we get a more moderate viewpoint here? i think pete and i are the extremes in terms of moves making.
omar: "everyone else gets a benefit that i don't" ans: because they didn't take pat burrel in the 4th round, they took someone better. they are rewarded for their good decision. you, conversely, are penalized for your poor decision.
"trading beltre for someone like iguchi" ans: you would still make the trade, but the person trading for beltre probably would not be planning on exercising his option to keep him. remember, it's not as if beltre explodes if you don't elect to keep him; he just re-enters the pool and you could attempt to draft him again in a more reasonable round. -alm
andy - that doesn't answer the question. it just says im stupid, which i was for drafting burrell. but it doesn't change the fact that he was dropped and thus becomes (by rule) a free agent pickup. im asking how we are going to go about verifying this. if you can get over the fact that some people (my god!) make bad draft picks (see andy martin circa 2005 top 3 picks) we can come to a good answer.
Speak to me like I'm a child
I apologize if I'm the only one, but what exactly is the difference between a waiver wire and just free agents? I though I understood before but I guess I'm wrong.
Anyone?
A waiver wire is this: Say you cut a player. That player doesn't immediately become a free agent, he goes to "waivers," where he stays for several days. if you decide you want this guy, you put in a waiver claim for him. of course, if the guy is desirable, several teams may claim him. the way you decide this, is to have a waiver order, which is usually in reverse chronological order based on the last time you made a waiver claim, or reverse order of standings to help bad teams get good. waiver wires are dumb and unnecessary. especially now that there is a disincentive to recklessly add and drop people. -- pete
Anyone?
A waiver wire is this: Say you cut a player. That player doesn't immediately become a free agent, he goes to "waivers," where he stays for several days. if you decide you want this guy, you put in a waiver claim for him. of course, if the guy is desirable, several teams may claim him. the way you decide this, is to have a waiver order, which is usually in reverse chronological order based on the last time you made a waiver claim, or reverse order of standings to help bad teams get good. waiver wires are dumb and unnecessary. especially now that there is a disincentive to recklessly add and drop people. -- pete
another hypothetical
what if i draft a player in the 10th round, then drop him because he sucks, and then he gets good again in august and i pick him up? he should be a waiver wire pickup but how would i verify this? do we need to start keeping logs of the free-agent pool? i think we should, only so that ben has a 50mb excel file at the end of the season that crashes the crerar lab when he tries to print it. and im assuming ben is the commish again? are you running unopposed? or is this just a chicago mayoral election with straw men running against you?
postscript from Pete
I made everyone an administrator, so you can edit posts and add links and do other things as well as turn the blog pink from time to time.
next item: THERE IS NO WAIVER WIRE. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. also, less crazily, if a player was drafted by you, the only way you can keep him is at the round you drafted him at. there's no special allowance for a guy you decided to drop then re-pick up (let's be honest, we're obviously not talking about high draft picks here). that's corny. i expect better from you omar.
next on docket: stats.
end of postscript
postscript from Pete
I made everyone an administrator, so you can edit posts and add links and do other things as well as turn the blog pink from time to time.
next item: THERE IS NO WAIVER WIRE. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. also, less crazily, if a player was drafted by you, the only way you can keep him is at the round you drafted him at. there's no special allowance for a guy you decided to drop then re-pick up (let's be honest, we're obviously not talking about high draft picks here). that's corny. i expect better from you omar.
next on docket: stats.
end of postscript
what this book presupposes is
Which (andy's post below) is why quantum-leap mike carter will think twice about cutting mark prior instead of tying up a DL slot. basically, a dead mark prior is worth keeping so that you stop anyone else form gettiong a free, living mark prior for a low round dradft pick. stratego is the name of the game. i have to go my malt-o-meal is getting cold
[why are you posting drunk? See comments on previous post. --m]
{I thought we weren;t supposed to use comments. also, i wasn't drunk, just had sleep in my eyes. and why are we still batting around crazed hypothetical situations for rules we already voted on and settled. --p}
«now I feel ripped off, since I didn't understand what I was voting on --m»
[why are you posting drunk? See comments on previous post. --m]
{I thought we weren;t supposed to use comments. also, i wasn't drunk, just had sleep in my eyes. and why are we still batting around crazed hypothetical situations for rules we already voted on and settled. --p}
«now I feel ripped off, since I didn't understand what I was voting on --m»
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
waiver wire/picks revert
i posted something about this a few days ago, but after the frenzy of voting it seems worth bringing up again: no waiver wire is only going to work if dropped players are valued where they were drafted for keepers.
it's going to go down like this: mike carter drafts a healthy mark prior in the third round. prior blows out his elbow at the all star break, out for the rest of the season. seeing little sense in tying up his DL slot for the privilege of keeping him and chancing next year's 3rd round pick, he drops him, czap snatches him up, throws him in the dl slot, and next year 'gives up' his 27th round pick to lock in a now-healthy mark prior, forefeiting his shot at drafting the talented mr. wily mo pena. folks are going to be PISSED, is all i'm saying.
it's going to go down like this: mike carter drafts a healthy mark prior in the third round. prior blows out his elbow at the all star break, out for the rest of the season. seeing little sense in tying up his DL slot for the privilege of keeping him and chancing next year's 3rd round pick, he drops him, czap snatches him up, throws him in the dl slot, and next year 'gives up' his 27th round pick to lock in a now-healthy mark prior, forefeiting his shot at drafting the talented mr. wily mo pena. folks are going to be PISSED, is all i'm saying.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
A repost of Saud's non-limerick
Those who know me know that I take sports very seriously. They also know I take fantasy sports very seriously too. (NFL Films presenter voice: on) When he landed on these shores in the year 1999, part of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Saud did not know the difference between a home-run and a touchdown. Since then, after playing stick-ball in the immigrant neighborhoods of Chicago's south side, breathing the smoke-stenched air of jimmys huddled over a cold one (miller lite) and basking in the magical glow which we can only abbreviate to ESPN. An astute learner, he began to differentiate the subtleties of the game, slowly building his sports-fan acumen to become the deranged maniac he is now. Relationships have been strained, much buffalo wings sauce has been slathered, and beer spilt, but if there is a sports event worth the millions being paid its athletes going on, there is a safe chance a certain Saud Al-Zaid is viewing it on the other side of that screen.
Ok, enough with the fancy talk. I've been in the same fantasy league since 2001, we play all the usuals (NFL, MLB, NBA) . I recently caught a cheater in our league, and for the obvious ethical reasons had to recuse myself. It was a painful. painful experience. I grew up on some level with those guys, but I can't stand a cheater, and I certainly can't stand someone who lies even when he is caught cheating. The other peeps on my league wanted to "look the other way", but how can you trust someone after that special bond between player and league has been broken? As long as everyone here is a straight shooter, all I gots to say, lets play ball.
Saud "Beast from da Middle East" Al-Zaid
p.s. And seriously man, have you had the cheddarwursts in Comiskey? Its a freaking delicacy, I tell you what.
Those who know me know that I take sports very seriously. They also know I take fantasy sports very seriously too. (NFL Films presenter voice: on) When he landed on these shores in the year 1999, part of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, Saud did not know the difference between a home-run and a touchdown. Since then, after playing stick-ball in the immigrant neighborhoods of Chicago's south side, breathing the smoke-stenched air of jimmys huddled over a cold one (miller lite) and basking in the magical glow which we can only abbreviate to ESPN. An astute learner, he began to differentiate the subtleties of the game, slowly building his sports-fan acumen to become the deranged maniac he is now. Relationships have been strained, much buffalo wings sauce has been slathered, and beer spilt, but if there is a sports event worth the millions being paid its athletes going on, there is a safe chance a certain Saud Al-Zaid is viewing it on the other side of that screen.
Ok, enough with the fancy talk. I've been in the same fantasy league since 2001, we play all the usuals (NFL, MLB, NBA) . I recently caught a cheater in our league, and for the obvious ethical reasons had to recuse myself. It was a painful. painful experience. I grew up on some level with those guys, but I can't stand a cheater, and I certainly can't stand someone who lies even when he is caught cheating. The other peeps on my league wanted to "look the other way", but how can you trust someone after that special bond between player and league has been broken? As long as everyone here is a straight shooter, all I gots to say, lets play ball.
Saud "Beast from da Middle East" Al-Zaid
p.s. And seriously man, have you had the cheddarwursts in Comiskey? Its a freaking delicacy, I tell you what.
City Of Presidents
"DEDHAM, Mass. --A prosecutor said Tuesday that a dominatrix waited too long to call for help as a client died of a heart attack during a bondage session, then dismembered and disposed of the body rather than report the death....Barbara Asher, who went by the name Mistress Lauren M, has pleaded innocent to charges of manslaughter and dismemberment in the death of Michael Lord. The retired telephone company worker from North Hampton, N.H., died in July 2000 while strapped to a rack in Asher's Quincy condominium, according to police....Asher and Ferrer took Lord down from the rack and tied to revive him, but by then it was too late....The next day, Nelson said, Ferrer dismembered the body of the 280-pound Lord with a hacksaw and they divided his remains into eight trash bags. The day after that, they drove to Augusta, Maine, where they dumped the remains behind a restaurant, the prosecutor said. His remains have never been found."
Good to see everything is still going well back home.
Good to see everything is still going well back home.
maybe we can close out the keepers discussion today
so settled business - by virtue of majority vote
no waiver wire
2 dl spots
27 roster spots
and a pluarity of people believe the world is very (not extremely) evil as a result of the bears loss.
and i just checked and the last person voted and the number of keepers is .... 5!
anyone know anything else we have to vote on that aren't stats?
no waiver wire
2 dl spots
27 roster spots
and a pluarity of people believe the world is very (not extremely) evil as a result of the bears loss.
and i just checked and the last person voted and the number of keepers is .... 5!
anyone know anything else we have to vote on that aren't stats?
Deep Sea Diving
What I want to know about this Saud kid is:
+Is he going to commit to being in this league for years to come? No point in finding a 10th in a keeper league if he's not gonna be around next year (and for years to come).
+Is he going to commit to being AT THE DRAFT every year? Andy and Carter are already planning to fly to Chicago for the draft, so he needs to understand the importance of being there (here).
+Will he care about the season all the way through? (See the Martin Samuels Experiment, circa autumn 2005)
+Can he take a joke about himself better than Omar? We already have one guy always on the hyper defensive (which in itself is hilarious) but I don't know if I can handle two.
Saud, if you're reading this, I don't mean to be a dick (or turn this into a job interview), I'm just testing the waters here. Obviously we all care about this way too much and I just want to make sure that you do too.
Postscript from pete:
Saud, as was mentioned, is in a phd program at chicago, so um, i don't think we need to get a prenup or anything. omar takes jokes!
+Is he going to commit to being in this league for years to come? No point in finding a 10th in a keeper league if he's not gonna be around next year (and for years to come).
+Is he going to commit to being AT THE DRAFT every year? Andy and Carter are already planning to fly to Chicago for the draft, so he needs to understand the importance of being there (here).
+Will he care about the season all the way through? (See the Martin Samuels Experiment, circa autumn 2005)
+Can he take a joke about himself better than Omar? We already have one guy always on the hyper defensive (which in itself is hilarious) but I don't know if I can handle two.
Saud, if you're reading this, I don't mean to be a dick (or turn this into a job interview), I'm just testing the waters here. Obviously we all care about this way too much and I just want to make sure that you do too.
Postscript from pete:
Saud, as was mentioned, is in a phd program at chicago, so um, i don't think we need to get a prenup or anything. omar takes jokes!
Monday, January 16, 2006
i didnt complain
i just dont have any blogging skills. bloggar failed me and i couldnt figure out how to correct it. please get rid of this pink color. its hard enough to look like im actually working at work but when pink comes up im certainly not working. maybe fuscia. that looks like work is getting done.
and please vote for all the polls, not just some of them. ideally its setup so that you cant vote multiple times but thats not something im going to count on. the only settled piece of business is no waiver wire. 5 no votes is a majority. one more vote for 2 dl spots and thats done too. and someone's lying here, we don't have two people named ben. this is serious folks.
the world is indeed evil. and 24 is awesome. i should have allowed for multiple answers for that one.
and please vote for all the polls, not just some of them. ideally its setup so that you cant vote multiple times but thats not something im going to count on. the only settled piece of business is no waiver wire. 5 no votes is a majority. one more vote for 2 dl spots and thats done too. and someone's lying here, we don't have two people named ben. this is serious folks.
the world is indeed evil. and 24 is awesome. i should have allowed for multiple answers for that one.
Tolbert is that you
leaving aside the fact that my head almost exploded when people complained about the readability of the site design (it's a X(#*WU$#@DJ9#SIning blogger template! we didn't go to the pratt institute or MIT! we don't commission web designs for a fantasy baseball rules blog) anyway, what i was going to say, is that omar's polls are now a bit more legible, but i think everyone already voted. i took the last 1.5 days off from sports and the internet (and liquor) after the double dogdirt sundae of saturday and sunday NFL games. here's to hoping that fantasy baseball doesn't fall victim to bob dupuy's velvet fist or whatever, as per omar's news tip. also, someone fork saud's e-mail address so he can be put on the blog (which means, i also punch the Saud ticket for 06.)
the poll is screwy
i have just spent the last 30 minutes trying to turn the text white but its not going to happen but there are still votes there to be made.
also fantasy stats are going to court http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/baseball_statistics_lawsuit
so clearly we are doing something important.
also fantasy stats are going to court http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/baseball_statistics_lawsuit
so clearly we are doing something important.
we're turning into monsters
one point about the waiver wire issue, with the two previous votes about what happens to waiver wire/free agent pickups (25th pick) and that injured players become waiver wire players, the waiver wire is going to play a much bigger part than it has in the past. there are pros and cons about having a waiver wire. a pro is that it doesnt penalize people who don't check the team for a player that pete/omar/mike(s) drop at 4am and is subsequently picked up at 4:15 am by moacir. a con is that it puts undue burdens and creates another level of confusion (to be honest i can't explain the con as well as the pro so i'll just copy mike's) " I've always felt that it lets other people be even more lazy and wait for an email that says "someone is about to make a clever move, which you didn't think of but now have time to analyze and realize might help you so maybe you should log on and block it' " im not sure you can get an email saying that someone has been dropped but i get the point none the less.
cautious optimism
i would just like to point out one thing, if saud joins that will result in a 100% increase in the arab population of this fantasy league. we will be able to create a voting block and start appropriating funds to invade other fantasy leagues, complete with threats of suicide bombings. and tell saud as long as he doesnt spend half the draft looking for a cheese bratwurst like he did during the alcs game at comiskey, its all good.
and seeing as how there are 9 votes for which i can assume are 9 different people, the results are in. Three of the four resulted in majorities. We will have majority vote on all unforseen rules. Waiver wire pickups will be given the worst avaliable draft pick during subsequent drafts (5-4) and injured players will be treated as the aforementioned waiver wire pickups.
im going to post a few more questions as well as the runoff between 3 and 5 keepers (3-3) to see how many keepers we will have.
and seeing as how there are 9 votes for which i can assume are 9 different people, the results are in. Three of the four resulted in majorities. We will have majority vote on all unforseen rules. Waiver wire pickups will be given the worst avaliable draft pick during subsequent drafts (5-4) and injured players will be treated as the aforementioned waiver wire pickups.
im going to post a few more questions as well as the runoff between 3 and 5 keepers (3-3) to see how many keepers we will have.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Fine
The main reason I'm not posting/participating is the fucking white-on-black scheme, which is giving me a brain tumor. Seriously, no one does that except for the dude who hates whales and kid art. I vote black on gray like in the one nine nine nine.
Labor rules
So I can't even begin to slog through the amount of text that's been posted. I think it's obvious that while a lot of us cut our teeth at the Maroon, we were all columnists of some sort. While I can appreciate getting geeked out on particular passions (once upon a time, we added a 6th country to the Axis and Allies game board by consolidating all of the neutral countries and redrawing some existing borders, then created 6 new technologies, 4 new units by taking some pieces from Fortress America, and made it every man for himself. We ended up playing a single game for 3 months and replicating what turned out to be the worldview of John Mearsheimer) I don't have the mental energy to devote to making things as real as possible. So I'm glad auctions, contracts, and the like have been tabled. I have cast my votes. I'd like to see 4 keeprs (enabling me to retain two pitchers, an infielder, and an outfielde, for instance). I'd rather not have keepers tied into the draft. If I drafted wisely, or worked the free agent pool effectively, I want to be rewarded, keep my three best, then replenish my team and not have to waste a pick retaining someone.
I do understand the arguments for tying them into the draft, so if folks want it, I have no problem. I'm just playing the lazy card. Similarly, I don't want a waiver wire. I've always felt that it lets other people be even more lazy and wait for an email that says "someone is about to make a clever move, which you didn't think of but now have time to analyze and realize might help you so maybe you should log on and block it". As for injured players, if you drop him, you take the risk. One of the advantages of a keeper league is that you can stash someone like Barry Bonds on the DL, and still keep him for the following season. If we are going to tie FA pick ups to the draft, then I support erasing their old draft value and having them count at the bottom of the pile.
I play fantasy baseball because a) it's a nice mental distraction; b) the postings often make me laugh; c) it's a good way to keep in touch with people I value keeping in touch with; d) I need to deny anyone from Voices winning a fantasy crown; e) I like to eat Harold's in the MacLab. Please keep it simple for now.
I do understand the arguments for tying them into the draft, so if folks want it, I have no problem. I'm just playing the lazy card. Similarly, I don't want a waiver wire. I've always felt that it lets other people be even more lazy and wait for an email that says "someone is about to make a clever move, which you didn't think of but now have time to analyze and realize might help you so maybe you should log on and block it". As for injured players, if you drop him, you take the risk. One of the advantages of a keeper league is that you can stash someone like Barry Bonds on the DL, and still keep him for the following season. If we are going to tie FA pick ups to the draft, then I support erasing their old draft value and having them count at the bottom of the pile.
I play fantasy baseball because a) it's a nice mental distraction; b) the postings often make me laugh; c) it's a good way to keep in touch with people I value keeping in touch with; d) I need to deny anyone from Voices winning a fantasy crown; e) I like to eat Harold's in the MacLab. Please keep it simple for now.
Friday, January 13, 2006
White boys
CAN rap. I'm going to the negatively titled documentary in about 10 minutes. Afterwards, I will catch up on the blog posts, advance last minute bitchuments, and vote.
I would also like to point out that while I have been too busy to fully engage this forum, I was not too busy to sign up for fantasy golf.
I would also like to point out that while I have been too busy to fully engage this forum, I was not too busy to sign up for fantasy golf.
Bueller?
I could be wrong about this, but I get the feeling that Whet and Czap aren't really involved with this blog. Are you saying that this war of words hasn't been griping enough for you?
PLEASE VOTE BELOW
if you have not done so already. we have 7 votes for most categories so we are missing 2.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
I like where this is headed
I can almost guarantee a David Stern style mustache on draft day. Who's gonna wear a bright yellow suit and give me a awkward 3 point handshake? As your unelected despot, I can promise you everything and give you almost nothing.
Also, can we work Rob Dibble style ass tattoos into this league somehow? Anyone who loses three years in a row has to get their team name tattooed for all time?
Also, can we work Rob Dibble style ass tattoos into this league somehow? Anyone who loses three years in a row has to get their team name tattooed for all time?
glad someone else has little faith in us all
andy, i was thinking the exact same thing but wrote it off as my twisted mind. we need to atleast have a 1 day waiver wire if not 2 days. That was part of my reason for adding "special rule" for injured players. Even with the waiver wire, then its just a matter of who has the top waiver spot to pick up an injured player and then hold him for ransom. I have already had that happen in other keeper leagues (without all these other rules) so thats why i was hoping to have this stuff talked about before we move on to stats. Can anyone guess who hasn't voted yet so we can find out what the majority has decided on?
happy someone voted on the rotating president. i was thinking of voting for it but decided that it was pretty stupid. its a stupid decision for the EU as well.
i think we should write it on paper and the comish can read them from the podium and we can insert those people in the excel file in their draft spots.
happy someone voted on the rotating president. i was thinking of voting for it but decided that it was pretty stupid. its a stupid decision for the EU as well.
i think we should write it on paper and the comish can read them from the podium and we can insert those people in the excel file in their draft spots.
i'm the asshole who voted for EU rotating presidency..
but i'm fine with majority rule.
the question about what to do with injured guys is an interesting one. i would submit that injured guys should be subject to the same rules as everyone else UNLESS we have a true waiver wire with at least 1 day on waivers. otherwise it's ripe for tomfoolery. example:
i draft gagne in the 3rd round, and he gets hurt. he's out for the season and set to report to training camp the next year. i clearly have little interest in holding onto him, and under 'normal' fbaseball rules i'd drop him no consequences. but if DRAFTED dropped players are treated like other free agents, a perverse set of incentives is set up: he's worth nothing to me (on my team, he's locked as a 3rd rounder) but he's EXTREMELY valuable to anyone else, since he's going to be healthy next year and all you'd have to give up is your [tbd, 15th-25th round pick]. all sorts of somewhat suspect shit can come out of this - i 'drop' him to mike carter who snatches him up, or somehow 'trade' him back to myself by dropping him, having someone else pick him up, and then trading to get him back, trying to do an end run around the rules by 'wiping' the player of his high compensation pick value. this is a problem. solution: the compensation round for all drafted players is based on the draft, no matter whether we cut them or not.
moacir raises a really interesting point re: keepers. the drama of the latter suggestion is kind of appealing; i like the idea of seeing if a guy will slip below where you intended to keep him but defending your turf with a keeper pick and snatching someone elses pick away. mostly i like the idea of trumping someones claim on a player. for draft drama purposes.
the question about what to do with injured guys is an interesting one. i would submit that injured guys should be subject to the same rules as everyone else UNLESS we have a true waiver wire with at least 1 day on waivers. otherwise it's ripe for tomfoolery. example:
i draft gagne in the 3rd round, and he gets hurt. he's out for the season and set to report to training camp the next year. i clearly have little interest in holding onto him, and under 'normal' fbaseball rules i'd drop him no consequences. but if DRAFTED dropped players are treated like other free agents, a perverse set of incentives is set up: he's worth nothing to me (on my team, he's locked as a 3rd rounder) but he's EXTREMELY valuable to anyone else, since he's going to be healthy next year and all you'd have to give up is your [tbd, 15th-25th round pick]. all sorts of somewhat suspect shit can come out of this - i 'drop' him to mike carter who snatches him up, or somehow 'trade' him back to myself by dropping him, having someone else pick him up, and then trading to get him back, trying to do an end run around the rules by 'wiping' the player of his high compensation pick value. this is a problem. solution: the compensation round for all drafted players is based on the draft, no matter whether we cut them or not.
moacir raises a really interesting point re: keepers. the drama of the latter suggestion is kind of appealing; i like the idea of seeing if a guy will slip below where you intended to keep him but defending your turf with a keeper pick and snatching someone elses pick away. mostly i like the idea of trumping someones claim on a player. for draft drama purposes.
i stole carter's idea so that maybe we can get this voted on. i agree that the carter/beatty resolution seems adequate but would like to work out the kinks before we move on to stats (which will have tons of votes i forsee). for the last one, injured player, i assume it will be a player that you might actually keep (i.e. a good player) and not what happens if willie harris gets injured.
in re omar
the plan, as stated pretty clearly already, is as follows,
the way keepers are going to work
you are allowed to keep up to X players from the previous season. (X is to be determined). For the first retained year, a player costs you the pick at which he was drafted the previous year. if the player in question was a waiver pickup the previous year, he costs you your (to be determined -- either a set late-round pick or your worst available pick). if the player was drafted in a given year but you picked him up as a free agent, he can be retained (once) as a free agent. if you acquired a player by trade who was drafted by your trading partner, you can retain that player only at the round in which he was drafted originally, for the first year.
after one retainment by one team, a player thereafter costs that team's best remaining pick to keep, up to X players. if a player is not retained, he regains his eligibility to be kept at his draft value for one year for all GMs at the end of the season. this means a GM could conceivably not draft in the first X rounds, although you are free to retain anywhere from 0 to X players.
you are free to choose to retain no players and thereby lose no picks.
the way keepers are going to work
you are allowed to keep up to X players from the previous season. (X is to be determined). For the first retained year, a player costs you the pick at which he was drafted the previous year. if the player in question was a waiver pickup the previous year, he costs you your (to be determined -- either a set late-round pick or your worst available pick). if the player was drafted in a given year but you picked him up as a free agent, he can be retained (once) as a free agent. if you acquired a player by trade who was drafted by your trading partner, you can retain that player only at the round in which he was drafted originally, for the first year.
after one retainment by one team, a player thereafter costs that team's best remaining pick to keep, up to X players. if a player is not retained, he regains his eligibility to be kept at his draft value for one year for all GMs at the end of the season. this means a GM could conceivably not draft in the first X rounds, although you are free to retain anywhere from 0 to X players.
you are free to choose to retain no players and thereby lose no picks.
carter/beaty plan
as far as i can tell it never seemed to be combined to me so if either of the bill's endorsers could explain it, i would be very appreciative. and we still never came to a decision as to whether or not to have a cap. and when do you have to declare your keeper, because thats one issue i have with this plan. its not so much an issue but an intricacy. If ben leaves Vlad open as a 1st rounder and say posts his keepers on the blog i might second guess my decision to hold my first rounder (lets say, Helton) so i can get his first rounder and then it becomes and issue of who blinks last. I guess if we just do it at the draft you are at the mercy of the hat with numbers in it to decide draft order and see if you can snatch a first rounder away by leaving your (presumably worse) first rounder unprotected.
and any explanation as to where waiver pickups would be valued could also be helpful. and how to deal with guys who are injured during the year, dropped and then picked up by another player. if something happens like with rolen or gagne this year, are they no longer 2nd,3rd,4th round players and instead waiver pickups (currently 10th round) or do you still have to give up the draft spot that they were drafted in the year prior.
and when/if we decide on this plan, who makes the final ruling on issues that we haven't thought of. is there a competitve council setup or is it just commish decision?
and any explanation as to where waiver pickups would be valued could also be helpful. and how to deal with guys who are injured during the year, dropped and then picked up by another player. if something happens like with rolen or gagne this year, are they no longer 2nd,3rd,4th round players and instead waiver pickups (currently 10th round) or do you still have to give up the draft spot that they were drafted in the year prior.
and when/if we decide on this plan, who makes the final ruling on issues that we haven't thought of. is there a competitve council setup or is it just commish decision?
resolved, sort of
i don't know what consitutes a mandate, but it seems to me that myself, ben, andy and two mikes are in favor of the beatty-carter plan as described below. so obviously i'd like to hear from the others but i am hopeful to close the books on keepers and then resolve the stat question (i'm willing to back off earlier, more radical positions on stats but i am still anti-home run, at least in ideals). also, ben, i made you an admin on the blog since you are commissioner pro tem/permanently.
number of keeper spots:
4 or 5 are my preferences. we should vote.
round for waiver-guys:
well, in reality, if a guy went totally undrafted, seems to me a GM should only have to give up your lowest remaining pick to retain him the first year, but then of course it becomes the highest remaining pick ever after. i'd like everyone to note that the keeper rule should strongly curtail the number of flippant roster moves (i might still pick up and drop jorge piedra 10 times a year, but i'm sure as hell not going to cut jorge posada in may again)
number of keeper spots:
4 or 5 are my preferences. we should vote.
round for waiver-guys:
well, in reality, if a guy went totally undrafted, seems to me a GM should only have to give up your lowest remaining pick to retain him the first year, but then of course it becomes the highest remaining pick ever after. i'd like everyone to note that the keeper rule should strongly curtail the number of flippant roster moves (i might still pick up and drop jorge piedra 10 times a year, but i'm sure as hell not going to cut jorge posada in may again)
waiver wire?
people seem sold on pete/carter's idea. i'm in. what seems like a fair value for undrafted/waiver wire guys? 10th rd? 15th rd?
>Remind me again why attaching keepers to a specific
> place in the draft is important?
it adds an element of strategy to the draft rather than just trying to keep up with the joneses. if keepers are outside the actual draft, you're wedded to keeping your 3 absolute best players, because that's what everyone else is going to be doing and you don't want to be way behind before you even started drafting. ben, take your team. say you're not sold on an aging vlad - you think his numbers are on the way down and you're concerned about his back. is he still a top 3 rounder? clearly. keepers outside the draft, you're keeping him no matter what (you don't want someone to keep pedro, peavy and tejada and then snatch up vlad in the 4th round). tie keepers into the draft, and you can elect to pass on vlad, keep liriano and sacrifice your 18th round pick and draft someone else using one of your early picks.
simply put, there's strategy if it's tied to the picks. if it's not, it's basically just a calculation of "who do i think the top 3 guys on my team are/were?" and that's who you're stuck with from now till eternity.
>Remind me again why attaching keepers to a specific
> place in the draft is important?
it adds an element of strategy to the draft rather than just trying to keep up with the joneses. if keepers are outside the actual draft, you're wedded to keeping your 3 absolute best players, because that's what everyone else is going to be doing and you don't want to be way behind before you even started drafting. ben, take your team. say you're not sold on an aging vlad - you think his numbers are on the way down and you're concerned about his back. is he still a top 3 rounder? clearly. keepers outside the draft, you're keeping him no matter what (you don't want someone to keep pedro, peavy and tejada and then snatch up vlad in the 4th round). tie keepers into the draft, and you can elect to pass on vlad, keep liriano and sacrifice your 18th round pick and draft someone else using one of your early picks.
simply put, there's strategy if it's tied to the picks. if it's not, it's basically just a calculation of "who do i think the top 3 guys on my team are/were?" and that's who you're stuck with from now till eternity.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
the distinguished gentlemen from ohio
ok. i said i was going to keep an open mind, and i have. i am now wholeheartedly in support of the beatty bill. i might be completely wrong on draft day, but i really like how i imagine this system will play out. i think it will be fun to be rewarded for a strong late-round pick. it will make the end of the draft more dramatic (in fact, the last rounds might be the most important for the future of one's team). by making second-year keepers costly, it will sort of act like a contract but without all the mess. it won't be too difficult to keep track of, and it seems like a worthy compromise for all of the ideas floated around.
Vote Beatty/Carter in 06
Okay. I'm sold on the idea that we should tie keepers to draft position. Thank you for the clarification. Now, how many keepers?
keepers are the weakest branch of government
Re:Ben's question whether tying keepers to specific rounds is useful.
Answer: Yes.
Legal Principals: (a) Reward fantasy player for efficient draft by allowing said drafter to keep the cheap player at that price for at least an additional year; and (b) interesting trade possibilities, since I can trade someone with a high round value for someone with a lower round value in order to rebuild my team for the future (e.g. trade A-Rod, who would presumably cost a round 1 pick to keep, for two young bucks who would cost, for example, rounds 14 and 22).
Problems with this system:
a) how long can i keep the player at the cheap draft pick rate? The best idea so far in my view is one year, with subsequent resignings costing highest remaining draft pick.
b) overall complexity... this is not that bad... the commish will have to keep a good record of the draft, but that can simply be posted on the blog...
Why is this better than each keeper costing highest remaining draft pick? In my view, the most important difference is the strategic off-season trading possibilities... a team close to contention can trade young, cheap players for a highly valued player - just like real life.
It is also better than the 3rd party rankings because that system is fundamentally flawed. It does not really reward an efficient draft, because you have to pay for the keeper based on his production (e.g. i draft the 4th most valuable player in the 23rd round, i still have to pay a first round pick to keep him - the same result as the simple keeper=highest remaining pick system). In fact, since most players will only keep their best players, the 3rd party ranking system will usually lead to the same result as the simple (Omar) system, but with needless complications. The only difference will occur when Andy wants to keep some scrub.
Answer: Yes.
Legal Principals: (a) Reward fantasy player for efficient draft by allowing said drafter to keep the cheap player at that price for at least an additional year; and (b) interesting trade possibilities, since I can trade someone with a high round value for someone with a lower round value in order to rebuild my team for the future (e.g. trade A-Rod, who would presumably cost a round 1 pick to keep, for two young bucks who would cost, for example, rounds 14 and 22).
Problems with this system:
a) how long can i keep the player at the cheap draft pick rate? The best idea so far in my view is one year, with subsequent resignings costing highest remaining draft pick.
b) overall complexity... this is not that bad... the commish will have to keep a good record of the draft, but that can simply be posted on the blog...
Why is this better than each keeper costing highest remaining draft pick? In my view, the most important difference is the strategic off-season trading possibilities... a team close to contention can trade young, cheap players for a highly valued player - just like real life.
It is also better than the 3rd party rankings because that system is fundamentally flawed. It does not really reward an efficient draft, because you have to pay for the keeper based on his production (e.g. i draft the 4th most valuable player in the 23rd round, i still have to pay a first round pick to keep him - the same result as the simple keeper=highest remaining pick system). In fact, since most players will only keep their best players, the 3rd party ranking system will usually lead to the same result as the simple (Omar) system, but with needless complications. The only difference will occur when Andy wants to keep some scrub.
quick responses
publius-
here is why i want to tie keepers to losing a pick, like i said before: what happens when you don't want to keep the maximum? i don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage if one year I want to totally start from scratch, but i will be, because people who keep five will draft at the same time as me.
also, being allowed to keep a 19th round pick is a compromise candidate for the earlier debate about the theoretical liriano thing. if you like liriano b/c he is a twin and also think he is going to be an ace, you can lock him in for another year with your 19th rounder, but when he actually turns into an ace, you're going to have to give up your highest remaining pick. (i should say lowest, really, as 1st is lower than 19th really, but i hope i am understood. i actually really like my system, but obviously what's more important is whether anyone else does.
andy-
you are right that i forgot about yahoo's actual rank system. at the same time, i've had some weird encounters with that thing. like how it insisted that brian roberts was still the 23rd best guy in our league, despite him only have like three good months last year. but yeah, i forgot, you're right. although the dimension of thinking about yahoo's stat hiccups would actually be kind of fun, strategically. like realizing how soriano isn't actually good.
here is why i want to tie keepers to losing a pick, like i said before: what happens when you don't want to keep the maximum? i don't want to be at a competitive disadvantage if one year I want to totally start from scratch, but i will be, because people who keep five will draft at the same time as me.
also, being allowed to keep a 19th round pick is a compromise candidate for the earlier debate about the theoretical liriano thing. if you like liriano b/c he is a twin and also think he is going to be an ace, you can lock him in for another year with your 19th rounder, but when he actually turns into an ace, you're going to have to give up your highest remaining pick. (i should say lowest, really, as 1st is lower than 19th really, but i hope i am understood. i actually really like my system, but obviously what's more important is whether anyone else does.
andy-
you are right that i forgot about yahoo's actual rank system. at the same time, i've had some weird encounters with that thing. like how it insisted that brian roberts was still the 23rd best guy in our league, despite him only have like three good months last year. but yeah, i forgot, you're right. although the dimension of thinking about yahoo's stat hiccups would actually be kind of fun, strategically. like realizing how soriano isn't actually good.
There's still a xmas tree in my living room
Andy, there's no need to be a bitch about this. Just because something is cleared up in your mind doesn't mean that it's been decided. Some, including me, were still batting around a preseason ranking system, since a post season ranking wouldn't take into account things that happened over the winter. So get off that high horse for a second and offer a better argument than, "but I want to do it this way."
I do like the idea of announcing who you are keeping the day of the draft. Your keepers are then just "bonus picks" or however you want to think about it. That would add drama and make sure no one is too comfortable going into to draft day.
Remind me again why attaching keepers to a specific place in the draft is important? (I ask for real. I still don't get why people think that's such a good idea).
I do like the idea of announcing who you are keeping the day of the draft. Your keepers are then just "bonus picks" or however you want to think about it. That would add drama and make sure no one is too comfortable going into to draft day.
Remind me again why attaching keepers to a specific place in the draft is important? (I ask for real. I still don't get why people think that's such a good idea).
my team didnt suck shit
i would have no problem drafting the first three,five,7 rounds from my team last year. Unless i get the top 2 picks, i wont be able to get Arod again. Theres no way i'd get Arod AND texiera either. How about getting Konerko, Jeter, Sheffield, Matsui, Buherle, Ichiro, Colon and Halliday in my top 10 picks or players even close? I didn't win but my team was pretty good. My pitching sucked for half the year and it caught up to me. I doubt i will be able to out do myself this year so don't give me shit if you didn't end the year with a good team. And how is 5 players any different than you plan whereas you keep players based on where you draft them? Do you not plan on keeping any players or only 1 player? All I am doing is setting a hard cap instead of a variable one based on stat rankings. If you don't want to keep 5 players then dont. If you keep 2 players then you can 'draft' until either another team has only kept 2 players or you can draft from the general pool. If some team has 10 good player and only keeps 5 then you can start drafting from their pool. While this does get back to that arms race idea, atleast its capped at 5 players (or 4 or even 3, i just think 5 is a nice medium between keeping everyone and only your best player).
On a positive note, i think pete's idea is actually pretty interesting. not sure where the waiver = 10th round idea came from but it gives you the option of keeping players for a while but you have to 'pay' for them with picks. While this idea again brings back the dreaded idea of contracts, what happens when you trade a player. example trading arod after 07 year for ortiz. ortiz was a 2nd round pick (possibly) and arod was a first round pick. who loses which pick in the 08 draft?
Yes, im mad im still at work at 7 and lost is on in a few minutes. fuck this, im leaving. who cares if i showed up at 11.
On a positive note, i think pete's idea is actually pretty interesting. not sure where the waiver = 10th round idea came from but it gives you the option of keeping players for a while but you have to 'pay' for them with picks. While this idea again brings back the dreaded idea of contracts, what happens when you trade a player. example trading arod after 07 year for ortiz. ortiz was a 2nd round pick (possibly) and arod was a first round pick. who loses which pick in the 08 draft?
Yes, im mad im still at work at 7 and lost is on in a few minutes. fuck this, im leaving. who cares if i showed up at 11.
doesn't anyone read this thing?
sweet christ, i'm going to have the attendance secretary mail some of you highlighters and graphic organizers so that you can keep track of important details in these posts.
>The problems with that seem to be two fold, however.
>1) The yahoo! rankings aren't going to be the same
>as ours since a) they'll use different stats and
>b) they pretend that stats are the only issue
>whereas we all (or, all of us but Omar and maybe
>Whet) want to like the players we have and don't
> think of them like robots. 2) How far in advance
>do these preseason rankings (or, hypothetical
>drafts) take place? Would that give us enough
>time for winter trades?
if we did compensation picks we'd print out the *end of year* rankings from the yahoo league and use those. those rank the value of players in that league (rank not o-rank) and reflect the stats used. also no in-advance problems.
omar, what's the only thing worse than being forced to draft the first 3 rounds from last year's team? drafting the first 5 rounds. you've outdone yourself.
>the yahoo stats are slightly weird and seem
>best suited for a straight 5x5 league
that's o-rank (which follows no logic.) rank uses the stats you are using. or at least i was under the impression it does?
pete's working paper #14 is fine by me. i'm mostly fighting to have keepers tied to a specific draft round in some way. bring me your scott podsedniks and jh. peraltas.
also i think we should announce who we are keeping at the draft. as in, everyone walks up to the board and punches that shit into the relevant round. and that's when you realize what czap's has in the works for everyone. except this year it'll be projected over a neon christ dying on the cross.
>The problems with that seem to be two fold, however.
>1) The yahoo! rankings aren't going to be the same
>as ours since a) they'll use different stats and
>b) they pretend that stats are the only issue
>whereas we all (or, all of us but Omar and maybe
>Whet) want to like the players we have and don't
> think of them like robots. 2) How far in advance
>do these preseason rankings (or, hypothetical
>drafts) take place? Would that give us enough
>time for winter trades?
if we did compensation picks we'd print out the *end of year* rankings from the yahoo league and use those. those rank the value of players in that league (rank not o-rank) and reflect the stats used. also no in-advance problems.
omar, what's the only thing worse than being forced to draft the first 3 rounds from last year's team? drafting the first 5 rounds. you've outdone yourself.
>the yahoo stats are slightly weird and seem
>best suited for a straight 5x5 league
that's o-rank (which follows no logic.) rank uses the stats you are using. or at least i was under the impression it does?
pete's working paper #14 is fine by me. i'm mostly fighting to have keepers tied to a specific draft round in some way. bring me your scott podsedniks and jh. peraltas.
also i think we should announce who we are keeping at the draft. as in, everyone walks up to the board and punches that shit into the relevant round. and that's when you realize what czap's has in the works for everyone. except this year it'll be projected over a neon christ dying on the cross.
Concerning New York
In an effort to sift through the dialogue and bring us up to date:
1. We're gonna have a keeper league.
2. We're gonna have a draft and not an auction for at least the next two years.
Two items really in contention at the moment:
3a) The number of keepers.
3b) How do the keepers effect the following draft.
4. Stats have not been resolved, but that comes next.
My two cents (for the day):
3a) The fewer keepers, the more interesting the draft will become and thus the more interesting the season will be. As Moacir pointed out, we don't have a 40 man roster so no one really is going to be holding on to guys that they think will be good next year and sit them on the bench all year. I don't think that's what any of us was anticipating (and correct me if I'm wrong). The only reason I thought having keepers would be a good idea in the first place was to add another little wrinkle into the season. Winter trades, added strategery, and the ability to hold on to your very favorite players from the year before. I didn't think that we needed to completely turn this thing upside down. Plus, in regards to Pete's comment, the more players we keep the more likely it is that someone will say, "I don't want to keep that many," in which case we don't really have a workable cap. Furthermore, the more players a team is allowed to keep, the more likely it will be that good teams will stay good and bad teams will stay bad (*cough, cough*). Was anyone really completely dissatisfied with the way we have run things that past three years?
3b) Again, I'd be willing to bend on this, but it seems to me that either using a third party system or previous draft order is only going to unnecessarily complicate matters. What happens if you have two 4th rounders? Why are waiver wire dudes automatically 10th rounders? What if you want to keep your 10th rounder? Are the Yahoo!/ESPN/BP rankings to be trusted?
In the end, I'll be fine with whatever system the majority of people want on this one and I'd rather have a system that people are excited about rather than one that people begrudgingly following cause they were tired of thinking about it. As Carter said today, "this league could last until we die." And that, my friends, is what I am working towards here (not the dying part, the longevity part).
Do any of you get the feeling that this is what writing the Federalist Papers must have been like? If founding a nation and deciding a system of government was a completely pointless action, I mean.
-PUBLIUS
1. We're gonna have a keeper league.
2. We're gonna have a draft and not an auction for at least the next two years.
Two items really in contention at the moment:
3a) The number of keepers.
3b) How do the keepers effect the following draft.
4. Stats have not been resolved, but that comes next.
My two cents (for the day):
3a) The fewer keepers, the more interesting the draft will become and thus the more interesting the season will be. As Moacir pointed out, we don't have a 40 man roster so no one really is going to be holding on to guys that they think will be good next year and sit them on the bench all year. I don't think that's what any of us was anticipating (and correct me if I'm wrong). The only reason I thought having keepers would be a good idea in the first place was to add another little wrinkle into the season. Winter trades, added strategery, and the ability to hold on to your very favorite players from the year before. I didn't think that we needed to completely turn this thing upside down. Plus, in regards to Pete's comment, the more players we keep the more likely it is that someone will say, "I don't want to keep that many," in which case we don't really have a workable cap. Furthermore, the more players a team is allowed to keep, the more likely it will be that good teams will stay good and bad teams will stay bad (*cough, cough*). Was anyone really completely dissatisfied with the way we have run things that past three years?
3b) Again, I'd be willing to bend on this, but it seems to me that either using a third party system or previous draft order is only going to unnecessarily complicate matters. What happens if you have two 4th rounders? Why are waiver wire dudes automatically 10th rounders? What if you want to keep your 10th rounder? Are the Yahoo!/ESPN/BP rankings to be trusted?
In the end, I'll be fine with whatever system the majority of people want on this one and I'd rather have a system that people are excited about rather than one that people begrudgingly following cause they were tired of thinking about it. As Carter said today, "this league could last until we die." And that, my friends, is what I am working towards here (not the dying part, the longevity part).
Do any of you get the feeling that this is what writing the Federalist Papers must have been like? If founding a nation and deciding a system of government was a completely pointless action, I mean.
-PUBLIUS
My Formal Proposal
Here's one complaint i have with your proposals ben/omar:
what if someone doesn't have 3 or 5 guys they want to keep? do they start the draft at the same time as everyone else with less picks? do they get to draft additionally out of the pool of available guys before the real draft starts? this is my main beef with that simple proposal, really my only objection. if there's essentially a penalty for having such a bad team that you can't find 3 to 5 guys to keep, then the rich will immediately, permanently be richer, right?
i take your point that we would not in fact need a dry erase board. it would be cool though if we could all wear blazers with our team logos on them.
My View on Evolution
ben, you articulated my fear of andy's plan, which is that the yahoo stats are slightly weird and seem best suited for a straight 5x5 league. here's yet another idea: you can keep a guy at the level you drafted him at for one year. anyone who is a multi-year keeper then becomes a first-round pick, essentially. (in the case of multiple first round picks, you lose the highest remaining round, obviously). you can keep people forever, with the stipulation that, of course, every multi-year guy costs you your highest pick left. in the event that you pick up a guy off the waiver wire then want to keep him, he by default counts as a 10th round pick. should you want to keep multiple waiver pickup guys in a given year, you lose your 11th, 12th (n+1) round pick. this seems a sensible compromise on omar/ben/andy's plan. after that first year (and we can argue over whether the 10th round is the right spot), the guy becomes a multi-year keeper just like anyone else, costing the highest remaining pick.
this way, a waiver-move or very-low round pick of a very good guy has some lasting value (rewarding you for your smarts), but eventually loses that value, while you can still retain the services of the guy in question, as a sop to the idea of loyalty to a specific fantasy nation-state on the part of say, boof bonser or yusmeiro petit. this meets the usual test of reasonability, which i define as "could the commissioner keep track of all of this from year to year using one 8.5x11 sheet of paper?" yes he could. print out the draft, print out the finished rosters at the end of the year. set a date by which GMs must announce their keeper (preferably one week before the draft for drama and crazed preparation) . on the end of the year roster, write down the draft round a player was taken, for waiver guys put 10. The only thing I don't think I covered here was: number of keepers. i like a max of 5 as a compromise. but maybe others have opinions as well. I would add that we need to freeze rosters from roughly October until a month before the draft, for sanity's sake, but we can then trade guys at will in the preamble to the draft.
example scenario:
At 2006 draft, Pete takes ~25 guys.
Before 2007 draft, Pete protects Round 2, Round 4, Round 11, two waiver pick-ups for five.
At 2007 draft, I lose picks 2, 4, 10, 11, 12.
Before 2008 draft, Pete protects two multi-year keepers, his 2007 1st and 2nd round picks, and one waiver pick up from 2007 roster.
At 2008 draft, I lose picks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10.
what if someone doesn't have 3 or 5 guys they want to keep? do they start the draft at the same time as everyone else with less picks? do they get to draft additionally out of the pool of available guys before the real draft starts? this is my main beef with that simple proposal, really my only objection. if there's essentially a penalty for having such a bad team that you can't find 3 to 5 guys to keep, then the rich will immediately, permanently be richer, right?
i take your point that we would not in fact need a dry erase board. it would be cool though if we could all wear blazers with our team logos on them.
My View on Evolution
ben, you articulated my fear of andy's plan, which is that the yahoo stats are slightly weird and seem best suited for a straight 5x5 league. here's yet another idea: you can keep a guy at the level you drafted him at for one year. anyone who is a multi-year keeper then becomes a first-round pick, essentially. (in the case of multiple first round picks, you lose the highest remaining round, obviously). you can keep people forever, with the stipulation that, of course, every multi-year guy costs you your highest pick left. in the event that you pick up a guy off the waiver wire then want to keep him, he by default counts as a 10th round pick. should you want to keep multiple waiver pickup guys in a given year, you lose your 11th, 12th (n+1) round pick. this seems a sensible compromise on omar/ben/andy's plan. after that first year (and we can argue over whether the 10th round is the right spot), the guy becomes a multi-year keeper just like anyone else, costing the highest remaining pick.
this way, a waiver-move or very-low round pick of a very good guy has some lasting value (rewarding you for your smarts), but eventually loses that value, while you can still retain the services of the guy in question, as a sop to the idea of loyalty to a specific fantasy nation-state on the part of say, boof bonser or yusmeiro petit. this meets the usual test of reasonability, which i define as "could the commissioner keep track of all of this from year to year using one 8.5x11 sheet of paper?" yes he could. print out the draft, print out the finished rosters at the end of the year. set a date by which GMs must announce their keeper (preferably one week before the draft for drama and crazed preparation) . on the end of the year roster, write down the draft round a player was taken, for waiver guys put 10. The only thing I don't think I covered here was: number of keepers. i like a max of 5 as a compromise. but maybe others have opinions as well. I would add that we need to freeze rosters from roughly October until a month before the draft, for sanity's sake, but we can then trade guys at will in the preamble to the draft.
example scenario:
At 2006 draft, Pete takes ~25 guys.
Before 2007 draft, Pete protects Round 2, Round 4, Round 11, two waiver pick-ups for five.
At 2007 draft, I lose picks 2, 4, 10, 11, 12.
Before 2008 draft, Pete protects two multi-year keepers, his 2007 1st and 2nd round picks, and one waiver pick up from 2007 roster.
At 2008 draft, I lose picks 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10.
i have standards
i don't draft cubs and except for extreme situations don't draft twins either. i am more likely to not draft a player that i hate than pick a player i like.
all these issues about keepers doesn't come into play until next year right? because i dont really remember who was on my team last year besides arod and texiera. i guess i had ichiro too. i think i had buherle and andy pettite. i assume i had a few more yankees and maybe konerko?
my plan (for keepers, we still haven't gone through the stat fight yet) is to have 5 keepers that you state at the start of the draft and they come off the board and after everyone takes their 5 players we go from there. no 3rd party stats, no contracts. if we ended up doing an auction that would be different but as it is, i think just a simple plan would be better.
preseason rankings change all the time. i know espn updates them if anything happens and we will just find the most updated one before the draft.
all these issues about keepers doesn't come into play until next year right? because i dont really remember who was on my team last year besides arod and texiera. i guess i had ichiro too. i think i had buherle and andy pettite. i assume i had a few more yankees and maybe konerko?
my plan (for keepers, we still haven't gone through the stat fight yet) is to have 5 keepers that you state at the start of the draft and they come off the board and after everyone takes their 5 players we go from there. no 3rd party stats, no contracts. if we ended up doing an auction that would be different but as it is, i think just a simple plan would be better.
preseason rankings change all the time. i know espn updates them if anything happens and we will just find the most updated one before the draft.
Alito Schmalito
If we do what Pete outlines below (and what others have talked about before) we don't need a giant white board or paper. All we'd have to do this: at the beginning of the draft, each GM would walk up to the "Big Board" (the excel file we used last year) and type in his 3 keepers in the appropriate rounds (I suppose in this case we'd have to use the yahoo! predraft rankings, or something). Then, once everyone places their players on the big board, we begin the draft. If you drafted Ortiz in the 2nd round, he's already there and you just skip your pick. Easy.
I'd still rather just have everyone keep their first 3 rounds, and then move from there, but if people would rather use a third party system to sort out how high the draft pick goes, I'd be willing to deal with that. The problems with that seem to be two fold, however. 1) The yahoo! rankings aren't going to be the same as ours since a) they'll use different stats and b) they pretend that stats are the only issue whereas we all (or, all of us but Omar and maybe Whet) want to like the players we have and don't think of them like robots. 2) How far in advance do these preseason rankings (or, hypothetical drafts) take place? Would that give us enough time for winter trades?
I'd still rather just have everyone keep their first 3 rounds, and then move from there, but if people would rather use a third party system to sort out how high the draft pick goes, I'd be willing to deal with that. The problems with that seem to be two fold, however. 1) The yahoo! rankings aren't going to be the same as ours since a) they'll use different stats and b) they pretend that stats are the only issue whereas we all (or, all of us but Omar and maybe Whet) want to like the players we have and don't think of them like robots. 2) How far in advance do these preseason rankings (or, hypothetical drafts) take place? Would that give us enough time for winter trades?
just because she dances go-go
guys from last year's top 30 who are consensus top-30 again:
arod (omar)
pujols (carter)
vlad (ben)
manny (moacir)
santana (whet)
helton (andy)
tejada (whet)
ortiz (ben)
abreu (czap)
michael young (pete)
texiera (omar)
pedro (carter)
oswalt (ben)
maybes
rolen (andy)
crawford (mikec)
soriano (moacir)
ichiro (omar)
edmonds (whet)
matt clement? wtf? why was moacir not ribbed like i was for drafting jamie moyer in the top 30? weird. anyway, what i think this shows is that the weighted system (when you keep a guy, you lose his round in the draft) or the yahoo! ranking system (andy's way) would be entertaining ways of valuing keepers. say you draft clement too high and he has a decent but not great year -- do you take the chance of letting him go and trying to redraft him at the right round, or do you say, no, my team will not be intellectually engaging to me without matt clement and keep him even though he costs you a third round pick. by the way, if we do this system, we have to get a dry erase board or a giant piece of paper or something.
arod (omar)
pujols (carter)
vlad (ben)
manny (moacir)
santana (whet)
helton (andy)
tejada (whet)
ortiz (ben)
abreu (czap)
michael young (pete)
texiera (omar)
pedro (carter)
oswalt (ben)
maybes
rolen (andy)
crawford (mikec)
soriano (moacir)
ichiro (omar)
edmonds (whet)
matt clement? wtf? why was moacir not ribbed like i was for drafting jamie moyer in the top 30? weird. anyway, what i think this shows is that the weighted system (when you keep a guy, you lose his round in the draft) or the yahoo! ranking system (andy's way) would be entertaining ways of valuing keepers. say you draft clement too high and he has a decent but not great year -- do you take the chance of letting him go and trying to redraft him at the right round, or do you say, no, my team will not be intellectually engaging to me without matt clement and keep him even though he costs you a third round pick. by the way, if we do this system, we have to get a dry erase board or a giant piece of paper or something.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
the shield
anyone see the new episode of the shield? its starting off strong, just like i will in baseball next year. i am begining to be draft talked out. i think we should keep talking and then take another vote. if the votes stay the way they are now then thats that. everyone plead your case and then the jury decides. it might require a few sets of votes to finalize everything but now that carter can setup votes (again, bravo) we are in business.
bears playoff game and then 2 hours of 24? im not sure i can handle the excitement on sunday.
bears playoff game and then 2 hours of 24? im not sure i can handle the excitement on sunday.
top 30 from last year, for conversation:
randy johnson (pete)
arod (omar)
pujols (carter)
vlad (ben)
manny (moacir)
santana (whet)
sheets (czap)
beltran (mikec)
rolen (andy)
helton (andy)
crawford (mikec)
abreu (czap)
tejada (whet)
soriano (moacir)
ortiz (ben)
schmidt (carter)
ichiro (omar)
michael young (pete)
schilling (pete)
texiera (omar)
pedro (carter)
oswalt (ben)
clement (moacir)
edmonds (whet)
pierre (czap)
hudson (cardarelli)
gagne (andy)
for those of you keeping score at home, dontrelle went in the 15th, chad cordero in the 18th. brian roberts in the 15th. jose guillen in the 21st. worst pick award is anyone's game, but i'm a front runner.
randy johnson (pete)
arod (omar)
pujols (carter)
vlad (ben)
manny (moacir)
santana (whet)
sheets (czap)
beltran (mikec)
rolen (andy)
helton (andy)
crawford (mikec)
abreu (czap)
tejada (whet)
soriano (moacir)
ortiz (ben)
schmidt (carter)
ichiro (omar)
michael young (pete)
schilling (pete)
texiera (omar)
pedro (carter)
oswalt (ben)
clement (moacir)
edmonds (whet)
pierre (czap)
hudson (cardarelli)
gagne (andy)
for those of you keeping score at home, dontrelle went in the 15th, chad cordero in the 18th. brian roberts in the 15th. jose guillen in the 21st. worst pick award is anyone's game, but i'm a front runner.
mike carter free state compromise
carter, i'm behind your system if there's some way to figure out the 'value' of a waiver wire pickup. potential solution: keeping a waiver wire player would result in the loss of your last overall pick. since that's the value of undrafted guys the day of the draft.
sticking with carter's solution would require ironing out the 'how long can you keep a guy' question. i would submit that anyone off the waiver wire could be kept for one year ('put under contract', but i hesitate to use that word since it gets people kind of crazy. personally i like the idea of mailing pete a 'contract' i signed with a fictional david wright. that's just me.)
i still am at a loss as to why people (i guess not people so much as omar) think that using the yahoo stats to decide what picks are given up is too complicated, but since i'm the only one that voted for it, whatever.
>if someone like andy wants to keep younger guys like liriano
>that's his perogative. i don't think his team will necessarily
>be worse off than a team that keeps guys like billy wagner.
>if you look through last year's first three rounds you'll
>find what ended up being many medicore players.
concede that you never really know what players are going to do - the point of my argument was simply that what ben's system is -actually- asking you to do is to draft your #1, #2 and #3 pick from the pool of players you had last year instead of the general draft pool. vlad might not be top 10 next year. who knows. that said, most people would agree that drafting ryan howard in the top 3 rounds would be a bad idea, no matter how faliable the preseason rankings are. i'll play no matter what system we settle on, but if we just hack off the first three picks no matter who we keep, we're going to end up with a pretty dull, one-dimensional system. and once people figure out the strategic implications of all this i'm predicting some pretty serious buyer's remorse.
i tried to login to the blog at work today, but the school filter blocked everything useful on the page. too much cursing, i guess. fuck.
sticking with carter's solution would require ironing out the 'how long can you keep a guy' question. i would submit that anyone off the waiver wire could be kept for one year ('put under contract', but i hesitate to use that word since it gets people kind of crazy. personally i like the idea of mailing pete a 'contract' i signed with a fictional david wright. that's just me.)
i still am at a loss as to why people (i guess not people so much as omar) think that using the yahoo stats to decide what picks are given up is too complicated, but since i'm the only one that voted for it, whatever.
>if someone like andy wants to keep younger guys like liriano
>that's his perogative. i don't think his team will necessarily
>be worse off than a team that keeps guys like billy wagner.
>if you look through last year's first three rounds you'll
>find what ended up being many medicore players.
concede that you never really know what players are going to do - the point of my argument was simply that what ben's system is -actually- asking you to do is to draft your #1, #2 and #3 pick from the pool of players you had last year instead of the general draft pool. vlad might not be top 10 next year. who knows. that said, most people would agree that drafting ryan howard in the top 3 rounds would be a bad idea, no matter how faliable the preseason rankings are. i'll play no matter what system we settle on, but if we just hack off the first three picks no matter who we keep, we're going to end up with a pretty dull, one-dimensional system. and once people figure out the strategic implications of all this i'm predicting some pretty serious buyer's remorse.
i tried to login to the blog at work today, but the school filter blocked everything useful on the page. too much cursing, i guess. fuck.
the rewards of a good draft
i think the reward of picking a good player late in the draft is that your fantasy baseball team will be helped greatly. this is enough of an incentive to do the research and work hard in the later rounds.
i would prefer the draft to be a thing of the past once the season starts, and i think one of the most fun things about our league is the active waiver wire. under the keeper-tied-to-round-drafted system, what would happen if i wanted to keep ryan howard this year? i'm not trying to make an argument against this system, i'm just trying to figure out where i stand based on issues like this one.
right now i'm leaning toward everyone keeping the same number of players and basically starting the draft at round three or four or two or whatever. if someone like andy wants to keep younger guys like liriano that's his perogative. i don't think his team will necessarily be worse off than a team that keeps guys like billy wagner. if you look through last year's first three rounds you'll find what ended up being many medicore players. fantasy performances are not as consistent from year to year as on might think. my first pick last year was carlos beltran who started over 100 games for me last year, completely shit the bed, and i still somehow came in 1st. maybe we could look at last year's draft spreadsheet to see who the consensus top 30 was.
p.s., andy, your three hypothetical keeper picks (liriano, duke, bay) were all on the final roster of the champion chocolate gazongas. those might have to be my first three picks next year.
i would prefer the draft to be a thing of the past once the season starts, and i think one of the most fun things about our league is the active waiver wire. under the keeper-tied-to-round-drafted system, what would happen if i wanted to keep ryan howard this year? i'm not trying to make an argument against this system, i'm just trying to figure out where i stand based on issues like this one.
right now i'm leaning toward everyone keeping the same number of players and basically starting the draft at round three or four or two or whatever. if someone like andy wants to keep younger guys like liriano that's his perogative. i don't think his team will necessarily be worse off than a team that keeps guys like billy wagner. if you look through last year's first three rounds you'll find what ended up being many medicore players. fantasy performances are not as consistent from year to year as on might think. my first pick last year was carlos beltran who started over 100 games for me last year, completely shit the bed, and i still somehow came in 1st. maybe we could look at last year's draft spreadsheet to see who the consensus top 30 was.
p.s., andy, your three hypothetical keeper picks (liriano, duke, bay) were all on the final roster of the champion chocolate gazongas. those might have to be my first three picks next year.
[supression of free spreech]
[...]
other things: while it may be nihilistic, my point is that with most keeper leagues the rules setup from the onset are usually set in stone going forward. i was not aware that we had the option for changing rules in the future, because that is a little anachronistic.
[...]
and i still dont really understand blogs. it wouldn't let me compose a mesasge from my apartment without going through hoops so comments was easier.
other things: while it may be nihilistic, my point is that with most keeper leagues the rules setup from the onset are usually set in stone going forward. i was not aware that we had the option for changing rules in the future, because that is a little anachronistic.
[...]
and i still dont really understand blogs. it wouldn't let me compose a mesasge from my apartment without going through hoops so comments was easier.
stop throwing bombs at the czar's carriage
Omar that first part of your post was positively nihilistic. look, if we agree to a ranking system, and then it turns out, in the future, that the people who made the ranking system go crazy and it starts to suck, we can pick a new ranking system the same way we picked the first one. worry less about small hypothetical problems two years in the future. anyway, i think the yahoo ranks just compile the guys in order of how many pts they score in your system, so how could it be wrong?
anyway, i hear what you're saying about losing the first three rounds of the draft completely, and it is a drawback to think that up to 30 of the "big names" will have no potential of moving. that's one thing i don't like about keepers, but at the same time, we could make trades all winter before the draft, using our old rosters (i'm going to say ex cathedra, to head off another crazy tangent debate, that all waiver-wire pickups stop cold with the end of the season, or whenever yahoo stops letting you do them) to get the guys we do want to keep.
the counterexample to your theory of weighted keepers limiting say, my crazy pickup and drops, is that i am still dumb and make crazy moves. and really, i think 90% of my league-leading # of moves involved roster spots #24 and #25 last year. i solemnly swear to continue being a crazed GM if we have keepers.
in re the Adrian Beltre scenario:
I think that's an perfect example of the strategy involved in keepers -- sometimes you just get lucky (for example, that year Javy Lopez hit 45 home runs). you have to decide using your brain whether or not post-tubercular, post-contract year Beltre is worth keeping around. the answer, as our dear commissioner discovered, was no bleeping way.
so, what we do know is that
A) we're having a draft. table all discussions of auctions until next year, when we can vote again
B) we're having some keepers, starting at the 2007 draft.
C) no need to talk about money. i know there is some difference of opinion on the money issue, i think we should just say, for now, that you don't have to pay to play. [...]
anyway, i hear what you're saying about losing the first three rounds of the draft completely, and it is a drawback to think that up to 30 of the "big names" will have no potential of moving. that's one thing i don't like about keepers, but at the same time, we could make trades all winter before the draft, using our old rosters (i'm going to say ex cathedra, to head off another crazy tangent debate, that all waiver-wire pickups stop cold with the end of the season, or whenever yahoo stops letting you do them) to get the guys we do want to keep.
the counterexample to your theory of weighted keepers limiting say, my crazy pickup and drops, is that i am still dumb and make crazy moves. and really, i think 90% of my league-leading # of moves involved roster spots #24 and #25 last year. i solemnly swear to continue being a crazed GM if we have keepers.
in re the Adrian Beltre scenario:
I think that's an perfect example of the strategy involved in keepers -- sometimes you just get lucky (for example, that year Javy Lopez hit 45 home runs). you have to decide using your brain whether or not post-tubercular, post-contract year Beltre is worth keeping around. the answer, as our dear commissioner discovered, was no bleeping way.
so, what we do know is that
A) we're having a draft. table all discussions of auctions until next year, when we can vote again
B) we're having some keepers, starting at the 2007 draft.
C) no need to talk about money. i know there is some difference of opinion on the money issue, i think we should just say, for now, that you don't have to pay to play. [...]
red herring
its not as much a red herring as something of a projected concern. yes, we can decide on the procedure now but in 2 years when we find out how stupid the yahoo/espn rankings are then everyone is going to be pissed. again, my issue is only what ben called "the arms race".
If we do the proposal whereas you only lose a player where he was picked, it will really limit the action that happens during the season. i like seeing pete pick up and drop players every morning and i'm worried that this change will stop that. also i still am in favor or some sort of cap. Because (baring injury) who is going to drop any player in the top 3 rounds? what is the first round of the draft going to be then? there will be a defacto skipping of the first three rounds in andy's plan as opposed to the actual skipping of the first three rounds in ben's case. the real difference then is that in ben's place the rest of the draft goes as normal but in andy's there are still keepers in subsequent rounds.
also what about a player who has one great year (that you want to keep) but you don't think his stats the prior year are equal to his supposed value the next year. think beltre from a few years ago. he had great numbers and would probably have been a top 10 stat player but nobody thought he was a top 25 player (how'd that one work out ben?). you would lose a first round pick when nobody would have drafted him until the 3rd-4th round. i know this doesn't happen all the time but these are the types of issues that come up and cause a row.
after crede's 2010 mvp season you are going to be begging to trade for him. just look at that upward swing, its a thing of beauty. that "i want to hit a homerun (fly-out) every time" swing. hes going to be the new tom imanski any time now.
If we do the proposal whereas you only lose a player where he was picked, it will really limit the action that happens during the season. i like seeing pete pick up and drop players every morning and i'm worried that this change will stop that. also i still am in favor or some sort of cap. Because (baring injury) who is going to drop any player in the top 3 rounds? what is the first round of the draft going to be then? there will be a defacto skipping of the first three rounds in andy's plan as opposed to the actual skipping of the first three rounds in ben's case. the real difference then is that in ben's place the rest of the draft goes as normal but in andy's there are still keepers in subsequent rounds.
also what about a player who has one great year (that you want to keep) but you don't think his stats the prior year are equal to his supposed value the next year. think beltre from a few years ago. he had great numbers and would probably have been a top 10 stat player but nobody thought he was a top 25 player (how'd that one work out ben?). you would lose a first round pick when nobody would have drafted him until the 3rd-4th round. i know this doesn't happen all the time but these are the types of issues that come up and cause a row.
after crede's 2010 mvp season you are going to be begging to trade for him. just look at that upward swing, its a thing of beauty. that "i want to hit a homerun (fly-out) every time" swing. hes going to be the new tom imanski any time now.
keepers
i tried to design what i think is essentially a compromise between andy and mo's positions into the voting - keeping a player implies loss of the pick used to draft that player initially. i think this idea, which currently has only my support, is great. it rewards a good draft. it also allows you to keep a young buck and only lose the late round draft pick you used for him - and therefore, the end of the draft actually becomes important, rather than a time for teasing ben about the number of twins and blue jays he drafted.
this is slightly more complicated than simply losing picks beginning in round 1 for each player keep. it also may over-reward a good draft, since you could lock in a good young player for cheap forever. but who cares? if this is seriously a long-term league, everyone will have a good cheap player or two within two seasons - and the first few rounds of the draft will continue to "feel" like they are supposed to, instead of omar leading off the 2011 draft with an aging joe crede.
finally, if the voting on number of keepers and keeper-draft relations do not result in a majority - a real possibility - should we have a run off between the top two? are there any other issues that need to be added?
this is slightly more complicated than simply losing picks beginning in round 1 for each player keep. it also may over-reward a good draft, since you could lock in a good young player for cheap forever. but who cares? if this is seriously a long-term league, everyone will have a good cheap player or two within two seasons - and the first few rounds of the draft will continue to "feel" like they are supposed to, instead of omar leading off the 2011 draft with an aging joe crede.
finally, if the voting on number of keepers and keeper-draft relations do not result in a majority - a real possibility - should we have a run off between the top two? are there any other issues that need to be added?
dudes you'd want to keep
it's not deep AA prospects, it's rookies/guys you think are going to break out. for example: i'd like to keep felix hernandez and john patterson pretty bad, but neither of those guys are early rounders, so that'd be stupid. or i'd really like to keep morneau this year, who is probably going to have a huge season. morcy, i don't follow you on the complexity - we're really only using last year's stats, and yahoo conveniently gives us those at the end of the year...
Monday, January 09, 2006
understand what you are voting for
man, fuck having a job that doesn't let me be on the internet. now everyone's voted.
i love democracy and everything, but i'm worried that people are voting to send the troops into iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. i understand the sexy simplicity of ben's idea, but it simply wouldn't work as advertised.
>Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana?
'cept the problem is that no one could ever keep a player like liriano, unless they were seriously uninterested in winning. it works like this:
crafty draft strategist (mike carter) sizes up his team. he gets to keep 3 guys for free. understanding that he's essentially just being asked to draft his #1, #2 and #3 round guy from a smaller pool, he correctly elects to pick the three best guys on his team from last year:
pujols, jake peavy, and billy wagner
guy who likes twins a lot (me or ben) picks his long term dudes:
liriano, zach duke and jason bay
result: mike carter's already sewn up the league, and the season hasn't even started.
bottom line: if the pick compensation system is 'just set them aside and start the draft', you're essentially starting the draft in the 4th round. so the ONLY guys you'd EVER get to keep in ben's world are round 1-3 guys. no one gets to keep any phillies infielders in this universe, at least not if they plan on winning. THAT SUCKS.
use a slightly more advanced pick compensation system (my proposal), and you could elect to keep either studs or mid-range guys. keep studs, you lose stud-round picks. keep mid-rangers, lose mid-range picks. simple as can be.
omar's objection (we'd argue about it too much) is a red herring: that's why we'd settle on a valuation system now. as to "does the universe collapse upon itself if someone tries to keep two guys that end the year valued #3"? i would imagine not. you would either have the person just give up their next highest or lowest pick.
how it would work again: at the end of the year, we'd have yahoo spit out the rank (according to our stats) of all the dudes in our league. divide that number by 10 (for 10 players per round) and you have the pick compensation number. only problem: guys that got hurt or entered mid-year (their stats being artificially low b/c of plate appearances). solution: we'd agree to something like, 'anyone who played in less than 75% of the season is valued according to the espn preseason rankings.'
i'll defer to the majority if that's actually what people want... but understand you voted for a system where you don't get to keep any of the players you like.
i love democracy and everything, but i'm worried that people are voting to send the troops into iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. i understand the sexy simplicity of ben's idea, but it simply wouldn't work as advertised.
>Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana?
'cept the problem is that no one could ever keep a player like liriano, unless they were seriously uninterested in winning. it works like this:
crafty draft strategist (mike carter) sizes up his team. he gets to keep 3 guys for free. understanding that he's essentially just being asked to draft his #1, #2 and #3 round guy from a smaller pool, he correctly elects to pick the three best guys on his team from last year:
pujols, jake peavy, and billy wagner
guy who likes twins a lot (me or ben) picks his long term dudes:
liriano, zach duke and jason bay
result: mike carter's already sewn up the league, and the season hasn't even started.
bottom line: if the pick compensation system is 'just set them aside and start the draft', you're essentially starting the draft in the 4th round. so the ONLY guys you'd EVER get to keep in ben's world are round 1-3 guys. no one gets to keep any phillies infielders in this universe, at least not if they plan on winning. THAT SUCKS.
use a slightly more advanced pick compensation system (my proposal), and you could elect to keep either studs or mid-range guys. keep studs, you lose stud-round picks. keep mid-rangers, lose mid-range picks. simple as can be.
omar's objection (we'd argue about it too much) is a red herring: that's why we'd settle on a valuation system now. as to "does the universe collapse upon itself if someone tries to keep two guys that end the year valued #3"? i would imagine not. you would either have the person just give up their next highest or lowest pick.
how it would work again: at the end of the year, we'd have yahoo spit out the rank (according to our stats) of all the dudes in our league. divide that number by 10 (for 10 players per round) and you have the pick compensation number. only problem: guys that got hurt or entered mid-year (their stats being artificially low b/c of plate appearances). solution: we'd agree to something like, 'anyone who played in less than 75% of the season is valued according to the espn preseason rankings.'
i'll defer to the majority if that's actually what people want... but understand you voted for a system where you don't get to keep any of the players you like.
That's what I'm talking about
Nice polls, Carter. I knew you'd come through.
Moacir, they way I see it, allowing an unlimited number of keepers is like a nuclear arms race designed to make life less fun. The more other people keep the more you'd feel compelled to keep until we all are holding on to half our teams. What incentive will people have to dump good players? Why would I risk losing someone who is reasonably good when I could just save them? The fact of the matter is NONE of the top players in the game are going to be available in the draft if we allow unlimited keepers. If we limit the number, strategy becomes more important and it limits people just getting lazy and holding on to half their team. The draft would become one slightly animated waver-wire session and then we'd all go home with blue balls.
Moacir, they way I see it, allowing an unlimited number of keepers is like a nuclear arms race designed to make life less fun. The more other people keep the more you'd feel compelled to keep until we all are holding on to half our teams. What incentive will people have to dump good players? Why would I risk losing someone who is reasonably good when I could just save them? The fact of the matter is NONE of the top players in the game are going to be available in the draft if we allow unlimited keepers. If we limit the number, strategy becomes more important and it limits people just getting lazy and holding on to half their team. The draft would become one slightly animated waver-wire session and then we'd all go home with blue balls.
voting
at the threat of wildly overstepping my authority, here are the issues as i see them... sorry my formatting sucks, if anyone can fix it, please do...
just to make sure the above is clear,
-option 2 implies that keeping three players means that you lose picks in rounds 1-3, 4 keepers = loss of picks 1-4, etc
-option 3 implies that if the keeper is in group 1-10 of yahoo (etc) player rankings, i lose first round pick, if in group 11-20 i lose second rounder, etc
-option 4 implies that if i draft brandon phillips in round 23 and he becomes the next furcal, i can keep phillips and give up my round 23 pick the next year
just to make sure the above is clear,
-option 2 implies that keeping three players means that you lose picks in rounds 1-3, 4 keepers = loss of picks 1-4, etc
-option 3 implies that if the keeper is in group 1-10 of yahoo (etc) player rankings, i lose first round pick, if in group 11-20 i lose second rounder, etc
-option 4 implies that if i draft brandon phillips in round 23 and he becomes the next furcal, i can keep phillips and give up my round 23 pick the next year
Why use comments?
(Seriously, this whole blog is one long comments driven conversation. Just log in and post.)
Pete's 100% correct. We need to either place a cap on the number of players each person can keep or come up with some fandangled new way of figuring out which draft picks you lose. Omar made an excellent point, however: if you choose to keep two third round players, then what do you lose? I think we should just cap the number you keep and then draft from there. Simple.
Don't forget, people, drafting is possibly the most fun part of the season. Why would we create a system where we drastically undermine the joy associated with the draft? Do we really want a draft where everyone keeps all the 1-5th rounders and we are only drafting bullshit?
So let's vote:
1. Auction or not? (nay)
2. Cap on the keepers? And if so, how many? (I say only 2 or 3)
We really need some sort of voting software. Can someone find that shit and put it to use here?
Pete's 100% correct. We need to either place a cap on the number of players each person can keep or come up with some fandangled new way of figuring out which draft picks you lose. Omar made an excellent point, however: if you choose to keep two third round players, then what do you lose? I think we should just cap the number you keep and then draft from there. Simple.
Don't forget, people, drafting is possibly the most fun part of the season. Why would we create a system where we drastically undermine the joy associated with the draft? Do we really want a draft where everyone keeps all the 1-5th rounders and we are only drafting bullshit?
So let's vote:
1. Auction or not? (nay)
2. Cap on the keepers? And if so, how many? (I say only 2 or 3)
We really need some sort of voting software. Can someone find that shit and put it to use here?
Do your science on this
Andy (and all),
Will someone please explain to me why the following, simple system (that I have been talking about for months) is a) not workable and b) why were are better served by a system that is much more complicated?
I see things going like this:
1. We draft as normal this year.
2. At some date to be determined (either right at the end of the season or right before the next draft) each GM effectively "holds" three players that will automatically begin on his team the following year. Just like an expansion draft.
3. We take those 30 players out of the draft (last I checked, 3 players x 10 teams = 30) and draft as usual.
4. The following year, we repeat. You can choose any player on your roster at the end of the year.
This would allow a number of different strategies to take place. Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana? Draft him higher than you should hoping for potential gains down the line. Think that hot new stud that the Cardinals brought up (hypothetically) at the end of the season is gonna be big? Pick him up down the stretch and hold him for next year, sacrificing one of your more established veterans. Thrilled that you have Vlad this year? You get him next year too! Pissed that Andy has had Manny for two years? Over pay for him in the form of a trade filled with prospects and hope that it works out for you. Really like Jason Bay, beyond any reasonable amount? Choose to keep him rather than risk losing him in a draft. Angry at Omar for only drafting evil players? Well, I guess this doesn't get around that, but you get my drift.
Also, with this system, people would be able to make OFF SEASON trades, adding drama to the time between October and April. Winter meetings, anyone?
I don't buy this argument put forth by Congressman Beatty that allowing GMs to hold on to a player indefinitely is a bad idea. Why not hold on to Pujols until he begins to suck? That's part of the fun, right? Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em, so to speak. Plus, this will only make blockbuster trades that much more enjoyable and important.
Listen, I think the main goal of this draft/league should be to keep all parties interested and competitive throughout the course of the season as well as year to year. Adding preseason rankings would only add fuel to the augments that we're sure to have anyway. And contracts would seriously deminish the likelihood that people make trades since they wouldn't want to take on a good player if he was in the last year of a contract and they knew he was going to reenter the draft in the following year. We already have a league filled with people unwilling to make trades during the year. Why limit this aspect of the game? It would also seriously complicate how the next draft works. If I trade Pete a guy I just got for a guy he drafted two years ago, does that mean that I lose him (and consequentially one of my keepers) at the end of the year? And does he then gain a keeper for a whole year? And if the contract becomes new year time it is traded, then what's the point of having trades. Am I wrong here?
Let's not complicate this more than it has to. Keepers is a fun idea because it rewards long term thinking but it shouldn't totally change the way the league is managed.
Will someone please explain to me why the following, simple system (that I have been talking about for months) is a) not workable and b) why were are better served by a system that is much more complicated?
I see things going like this:
1. We draft as normal this year.
2. At some date to be determined (either right at the end of the season or right before the next draft) each GM effectively "holds" three players that will automatically begin on his team the following year. Just like an expansion draft.
3. We take those 30 players out of the draft (last I checked, 3 players x 10 teams = 30) and draft as usual.
4. The following year, we repeat. You can choose any player on your roster at the end of the year.
This would allow a number of different strategies to take place. Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana? Draft him higher than you should hoping for potential gains down the line. Think that hot new stud that the Cardinals brought up (hypothetically) at the end of the season is gonna be big? Pick him up down the stretch and hold him for next year, sacrificing one of your more established veterans. Thrilled that you have Vlad this year? You get him next year too! Pissed that Andy has had Manny for two years? Over pay for him in the form of a trade filled with prospects and hope that it works out for you. Really like Jason Bay, beyond any reasonable amount? Choose to keep him rather than risk losing him in a draft. Angry at Omar for only drafting evil players? Well, I guess this doesn't get around that, but you get my drift.
Also, with this system, people would be able to make OFF SEASON trades, adding drama to the time between October and April. Winter meetings, anyone?
I don't buy this argument put forth by Congressman Beatty that allowing GMs to hold on to a player indefinitely is a bad idea. Why not hold on to Pujols until he begins to suck? That's part of the fun, right? Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em, so to speak. Plus, this will only make blockbuster trades that much more enjoyable and important.
Listen, I think the main goal of this draft/league should be to keep all parties interested and competitive throughout the course of the season as well as year to year. Adding preseason rankings would only add fuel to the augments that we're sure to have anyway. And contracts would seriously deminish the likelihood that people make trades since they wouldn't want to take on a good player if he was in the last year of a contract and they knew he was going to reenter the draft in the following year. We already have a league filled with people unwilling to make trades during the year. Why limit this aspect of the game? It would also seriously complicate how the next draft works. If I trade Pete a guy I just got for a guy he drafted two years ago, does that mean that I lose him (and consequentially one of my keepers) at the end of the year? And does he then gain a keeper for a whole year? And if the contract becomes new year time it is traded, then what's the point of having trades. Am I wrong here?
Let's not complicate this more than it has to. Keepers is a fun idea because it rewards long term thinking but it shouldn't totally change the way the league is managed.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
rules for keepers?
i think we almost had a quorum at moacir's place on saturday to make some fantasy decisions, but in light of all the drinking perhaps the blog is the way to go.
everyone seems down with the idea of keepers. the only questions seems to be how to balance b/t rewarding smart pickups and not destroying the fantasy economy.
suggestion: everyone gets a certain number of contracts (3? 2 1 years, and a 2 year?). you put your dudes under contract at the end of the season (or immediately before the draft, for maximum drama...). at the end of a contract period, the player has to go back into the general draft pool (meaning that no one can sit on grady sizemore for the next 6 years)
pick compensation would work like this: you could exercise your contracts on any of your players. you'd sacrifice one pick for each contract. value (round) of the pick would be judged by the value of the player. personally i'd suggest one of two ways: first (and i think best?), we'd print out a list of the value of all the true value of guys at the end of the season according to all our stats (through yahoo) and then divide that into rounds (1-10 first round, 11-20 second, etc.) if the guy you contracted was the overall 43rd best player, you lose your 4th round pick. advantages: rewards research/baseball prospectus science about breakout seasons, but doesn't lock mr sizemore as a 17th rounder in perpetuity (which would fuck everything up 4 years from now.) disadvantages (i'd argue these are minor): rookies who only played half a season (they'd be valued low) and guys that got hurt during the year (same).
or we could use one of the preseason rankings (ESPN?). disadvantage would be that it wouldn't reward you quite as much for picking up ryan howard a year before everyone realized he'd be good. thoughts?
everyone seems down with the idea of keepers. the only questions seems to be how to balance b/t rewarding smart pickups and not destroying the fantasy economy.
suggestion: everyone gets a certain number of contracts (3? 2 1 years, and a 2 year?). you put your dudes under contract at the end of the season (or immediately before the draft, for maximum drama...). at the end of a contract period, the player has to go back into the general draft pool (meaning that no one can sit on grady sizemore for the next 6 years)
pick compensation would work like this: you could exercise your contracts on any of your players. you'd sacrifice one pick for each contract. value (round) of the pick would be judged by the value of the player. personally i'd suggest one of two ways: first (and i think best?), we'd print out a list of the value of all the true value of guys at the end of the season according to all our stats (through yahoo) and then divide that into rounds (1-10 first round, 11-20 second, etc.) if the guy you contracted was the overall 43rd best player, you lose your 4th round pick. advantages: rewards research/baseball prospectus science about breakout seasons, but doesn't lock mr sizemore as a 17th rounder in perpetuity (which would fuck everything up 4 years from now.) disadvantages (i'd argue these are minor): rookies who only played half a season (they'd be valued low) and guys that got hurt during the year (same).
or we could use one of the preseason rankings (ESPN?). disadvantage would be that it wouldn't reward you quite as much for picking up ryan howard a year before everyone realized he'd be good. thoughts?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
auction
okay, i think you have explained how trades would work with an auction, but what about free agent/waiver pickups? how much does the hot july rookie cost? zero? how would that work for the subsequent year?
Friday, January 06, 2006
No keeping this year
I'll weigh in more later, but just so we're clear, we are NOT keeping players from last year's team this year. 1) That would be really unfair to someone who traded away stars at the end of the season and 2) we need a 10th man for this league.
That is all.
That is all.
comedy jokes
i like how all three Mike C's just identified themselves as "Mike." in this case i can tell it's carter (or is czaplicki) writing in the last post, but anyway, about what he says:
1. Auctions. There is a simple way to alleviate how auctions (and the subsequent 'salary cap') suffocate trades during the season: don't use the auction price for in-season transactions. so, even if someone paid $70 for jamie moyer, it doesn't matter until the next year when they try to keep jamie moyer, and then they lose $70 going into the auction -- this is one way of doing it. another way is to say auction values are only relevant during the specific auction. so even if you overpaid once for jamie moyer, you could bring him back next year. by the way, if we do the kind of keeper system being proposed (just keep a guy forever with no penalties) and an auction (with no ramificatiosn for the next season's auction), next year's auction is going to be ($&@#(&ing crucial to every subsequent year of fantasy baseball. like whoever gets pujols, a-rod, santana, etc, is going to have them FOREVER at no additional cost. so there is a serious incentive to just waste all your money on four studs, fill out the rest of your team with $1 players, and then just wait for the next year when you have pujols, a-rod, and santana plus a full budget to play with. which seems unfair, because that advantage would never go away. basically, auctions do make shit complicated. but there is a way to not have them crush trading activity during the season, which is to not make salary a consideration in trading (but it necessarily has to be if we do a keeper system). drafting would obliterate all need to worry abotu this because your value is just implicitly "where you get drafted.' like if you draft pujols and keep him, you lose your first round pick from last year. this is the kind of thing that could really reward someone for getting a sleeper. for instance, if you drafted david wright in the 10th round last year, you can keep him and just lose your 10th pick. (again, this is why it's important to keep only drafted [by someone, not necessarily you] players -- otherwise shit gets weird when someone gets to keep jhonny peralta but give up no picks as a result -- that person will then have gotten ahead of everone else, picked their full team before everyone else. it also solves the problem of superstars getting locked up forever. you can have pujols for his whole career, but you're never going to have a first round pick that isn't him. make sense? of course, if we do an auction, all that goes out the window and pujols' value becomes whatever ~$70 someone paid for him.
1. Auctions. There is a simple way to alleviate how auctions (and the subsequent 'salary cap') suffocate trades during the season: don't use the auction price for in-season transactions. so, even if someone paid $70 for jamie moyer, it doesn't matter until the next year when they try to keep jamie moyer, and then they lose $70 going into the auction -- this is one way of doing it. another way is to say auction values are only relevant during the specific auction. so even if you overpaid once for jamie moyer, you could bring him back next year. by the way, if we do the kind of keeper system being proposed (just keep a guy forever with no penalties) and an auction (with no ramificatiosn for the next season's auction), next year's auction is going to be ($&@#(&ing crucial to every subsequent year of fantasy baseball. like whoever gets pujols, a-rod, santana, etc, is going to have them FOREVER at no additional cost. so there is a serious incentive to just waste all your money on four studs, fill out the rest of your team with $1 players, and then just wait for the next year when you have pujols, a-rod, and santana plus a full budget to play with. which seems unfair, because that advantage would never go away. basically, auctions do make shit complicated. but there is a way to not have them crush trading activity during the season, which is to not make salary a consideration in trading (but it necessarily has to be if we do a keeper system). drafting would obliterate all need to worry abotu this because your value is just implicitly "where you get drafted.' like if you draft pujols and keep him, you lose your first round pick from last year. this is the kind of thing that could really reward someone for getting a sleeper. for instance, if you drafted david wright in the 10th round last year, you can keep him and just lose your 10th pick. (again, this is why it's important to keep only drafted [by someone, not necessarily you] players -- otherwise shit gets weird when someone gets to keep jhonny peralta but give up no picks as a result -- that person will then have gotten ahead of everone else, picked their full team before everyone else. it also solves the problem of superstars getting locked up forever. you can have pujols for his whole career, but you're never going to have a first round pick that isn't him. make sense? of course, if we do an auction, all that goes out the window and pujols' value becomes whatever ~$70 someone paid for him.
i have returned
without class, the internet loses all appeal. that said, classes are starting back up, and i think this blog is great.
if we are going to have keepers, do we get to keep anyone from last season? if so, i have heard of leagues in which keeping player X costs a team a draft pick in a certain round, while player Y (less than X) costs a draft pick in a later round. i am interested in this if anyone can explain it to me.
similarly, i did an auction draft once and it was fantastic. but, we had no player transactions during the season because they were too complicated. is there anyway around that problem? if not, i'd rather have a normal draft with in-season activity than an auction.
for stats, my platform remains unchanged. baseball prospectus and hardball times may explain how to win games in real life, but fantasy stats should be set up to allow different teams to win in different ways. if ben wants to win with speed, more power to him. i realize i am entering the game late, but here is my ideal 5X5...
hitting:
on base%
slugging%
home runs
steals
runs or hits
pitching:
Ks
era/ra
whip
wins
saves
i do not like negative stats at all. lets set up a voting system...
if we are going to have keepers, do we get to keep anyone from last season? if so, i have heard of leagues in which keeping player X costs a team a draft pick in a certain round, while player Y (less than X) costs a draft pick in a later round. i am interested in this if anyone can explain it to me.
similarly, i did an auction draft once and it was fantastic. but, we had no player transactions during the season because they were too complicated. is there anyway around that problem? if not, i'd rather have a normal draft with in-season activity than an auction.
for stats, my platform remains unchanged. baseball prospectus and hardball times may explain how to win games in real life, but fantasy stats should be set up to allow different teams to win in different ways. if ben wants to win with speed, more power to him. i realize i am entering the game late, but here is my ideal 5X5...
hitting:
on base%
slugging%
home runs
steals
runs or hits
pitching:
Ks
era/ra
whip
wins
saves
i do not like negative stats at all. lets set up a voting system...
Stats Redux
I'm just gonna go ahead and build off of Pete's post again:
"we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day."
This seems like it might be on the whole good for the league but not so good for me trying to not finish in last again.
"can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something."
This seems to be something everyone is in favor of. Or, at least I am. But can I make a plea to used a modification without "stupid" stats? I guess this doesn't get us anywhere at all. I like Omar's idea of having some sort of voting booth on this site. Everyone votes for their top 5 stats and then we work from there. Someone get on that.
"keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball."
Although isn't that part of the fun of having a keeper league? Getting rookies and then watching them produce for you year after year, tank occasionally and make you consider trading them? I'd much rather that this resembled the gave before free agents, when owners could buy and sell players like cattle. I mean, isn't that the whole idea of fantasy baseball anyway? I would be in favor of entertaining the possibility that players kept must a) be drafted or b) be traded. Although that sort of limits the fun of a Ryan Howard style pickup. Not to sound all fantasy-baseball-libertarian here, but shouldn't we allow people to construct their teams as they choose? It seems to me that if we place a limit on the number of players chosen to be kept, things will work out fine.
"also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean."
Yeah, beginning next year let's draft in reverse order to the winning season (if we don't do an auction).
"this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically."
I'd be willing to give this a try, although I have a feeling some people (namely me) are going to get completely fucked over. But that's part of the game too, I suppose.
What do other people think? Carter? Moacir? What the hell have you been doing that's so important that you can't jump into the fray?
"we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day."
This seems like it might be on the whole good for the league but not so good for me trying to not finish in last again.
"can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something."
This seems to be something everyone is in favor of. Or, at least I am. But can I make a plea to used a modification without "stupid" stats? I guess this doesn't get us anywhere at all. I like Omar's idea of having some sort of voting booth on this site. Everyone votes for their top 5 stats and then we work from there. Someone get on that.
"keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball."
Although isn't that part of the fun of having a keeper league? Getting rookies and then watching them produce for you year after year, tank occasionally and make you consider trading them? I'd much rather that this resembled the gave before free agents, when owners could buy and sell players like cattle. I mean, isn't that the whole idea of fantasy baseball anyway? I would be in favor of entertaining the possibility that players kept must a) be drafted or b) be traded. Although that sort of limits the fun of a Ryan Howard style pickup. Not to sound all fantasy-baseball-libertarian here, but shouldn't we allow people to construct their teams as they choose? It seems to me that if we place a limit on the number of players chosen to be kept, things will work out fine.
"also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean."
Yeah, beginning next year let's draft in reverse order to the winning season (if we don't do an auction).
"this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically."
I'd be willing to give this a try, although I have a feeling some people (namely me) are going to get completely fucked over. But that's part of the game too, I suppose.
What do other people think? Carter? Moacir? What the hell have you been doing that's so important that you can't jump into the fray?
in my lonely room
So, we never really got anywhere with figuring anything out here.
some general predictions:
we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day.
can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something.
things i am in favor of:
1. keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball.
some possibilities: every team gets n number of contracts, say 3 or 4. maybe give them a two-year contract and two one-year contracts, or whatever combination. there's no point having three year contracts, because well, see my note on 1. you can trade guys, and the attached contracts, for people without contracts, in a given year. although this is an incitement to tank in certain situations (trade all your good players for three or four good young guys that people contracted). the way to deal with this is that maybe last place loses a contract. also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean.
or, conversely, you can just keep three guys but you can only keep a certain guy two years (for a total of three years consecutive on your team). i also think you should only be able to "keep" guys you drafted, since otherwise people get rewarded in excess for just being waiver wire hawks, although hard work is a talent too.
what i am going to say about everything is that i am in favor of finding the exact point at which fantasy baseball becomes so complicated that it starts to resemble work, and have the league exist in and around that point.
this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically.
predictions for 2006, not specifically related to fantasy sports:
1. kanye west will run for congress
2. pittsburgh pirates make surprising run for pennant in tribute to the '97 pirates, joe randa may not live to see it
3. blue jays win the world series with 18 third baseman on their roster
some general predictions:
we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day.
can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something.
things i am in favor of:
1. keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball.
some possibilities: every team gets n number of contracts, say 3 or 4. maybe give them a two-year contract and two one-year contracts, or whatever combination. there's no point having three year contracts, because well, see my note on 1. you can trade guys, and the attached contracts, for people without contracts, in a given year. although this is an incitement to tank in certain situations (trade all your good players for three or four good young guys that people contracted). the way to deal with this is that maybe last place loses a contract. also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean.
or, conversely, you can just keep three guys but you can only keep a certain guy two years (for a total of three years consecutive on your team). i also think you should only be able to "keep" guys you drafted, since otherwise people get rewarded in excess for just being waiver wire hawks, although hard work is a talent too.
what i am going to say about everything is that i am in favor of finding the exact point at which fantasy baseball becomes so complicated that it starts to resemble work, and have the league exist in and around that point.
this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically.
predictions for 2006, not specifically related to fantasy sports:
1. kanye west will run for congress
2. pittsburgh pirates make surprising run for pennant in tribute to the '97 pirates, joe randa may not live to see it
3. blue jays win the world series with 18 third baseman on their roster
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
end times
summary: write a summary about the story.
I thiNk The Story is about a whales That Have NO Theeth.
did you like the book? why or why not?
I DO Not like The Book Because it is to long.
main characters:
1. whales
2.
3.
4.
tommy byrne '49 no hit pete in my final game. he was one walk shy of a perfect game. strong finish for the newark peppers.
i'm willing to chip in my $13 for fantasy fantasy baseball. do we have enough?
I thiNk The Story is about a whales That Have NO Theeth.
did you like the book? why or why not?
I DO Not like The Book Because it is to long.
main characters:
1. whales
2.
3.
4.
tommy byrne '49 no hit pete in my final game. he was one walk shy of a perfect game. strong finish for the newark peppers.
i'm willing to chip in my $13 for fantasy fantasy baseball. do we have enough?
Monday, January 02, 2006
Other Fools?
Have Carter, Czap and Moacir not been invited to this blog? It was my understanding that this would be used to set up next year's fantasy league, not just for the whatif leauge. I miss Moacir's rants already.
Holy fuck, it's hailing like a bitch outside. Do not go outside.
Holy fuck, it's hailing like a bitch outside. Do not go outside.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)