Carter, I think you are correct to suspect that this situation is problematic (was this Andy's idea or yours?). Here's how I see it ( and someone tell me if I'm way off base):
*You are allowed to keep two first rounders (or any number from a single round) if you were shrewd enough during the season. It seems wrong to then make you give one of them up just because they both happened to be drafted in the same round. Our solution was that you'd lose the next available round automatically as sort of a compromise for having ended up with two of the same round. Otherwise, people would be even MORE hesitant to trade if they worried that they might have two of the same round that they wanted to keep.
*What you are proposing seems bogus. You can either (a) keep David Wright (b) trade David Wright and open up a first round pick for yourself or (c) trade your first round pick and give up your ability to keep David Wright all in one fell swoop.
*I don't see a legitimate reason why you should be able to trade your first round pick and then just let Wright magically fall to the second round where you can keep him. That just seems wrong and against the spirit of keepers. You would then essentially be getting something for nothing (ESPECIALLY since you don't have a second rounder on your team right now so you wouldn't be bumping anyone out of that spot).
*We ARE going to need to develop a system for what happens next season if you want to keep "old keepers" and "new keepers." Will the "old keepers" just supersede the "new ones" and just get added on in lower rounds? I'm not sure that this is important now, though.
Other thoughts? We need to develop a wiki of some sort to keep all the rules straight. I think I'll create a Google document that can then be edited as needed.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
leveraging draft picks
Consider the following transaction:
I trade my first round pick to Andy for something other than his first round pick. Thus, I no longer have a first round pick. Can I nonetheless keep David Wright (my first rounder)?
I think the answer might be yes, and that Wright now costs me only a second round pick. That is my answer because if I had one first round pick but two first round keepers, I can keep both but the second only costs me a second round pick. If I have one first round keeper and no first round pick, the situation is analogous to the second keeper above.
On the other hand, this seems fishy. If I want to keep Wright, I have (at least) the following options:
(1) keep Wright w/o trading first round pick; lose first round pick for Wright
(2) trade first round pick for something valuable; keep wright; lose second right pick for wright
Why wouldn't I chose (2)? Should I be allowed to chose (2)?
If I am allowed to chose (2), my first round pick just became available. I'm looking for starting pitching and speed/runs.
I trade my first round pick to Andy for something other than his first round pick. Thus, I no longer have a first round pick. Can I nonetheless keep David Wright (my first rounder)?
I think the answer might be yes, and that Wright now costs me only a second round pick. That is my answer because if I had one first round pick but two first round keepers, I can keep both but the second only costs me a second round pick. If I have one first round keeper and no first round pick, the situation is analogous to the second keeper above.
On the other hand, this seems fishy. If I want to keep Wright, I have (at least) the following options:
(1) keep Wright w/o trading first round pick; lose first round pick for Wright
(2) trade first round pick for something valuable; keep wright; lose second right pick for wright
Why wouldn't I chose (2)? Should I be allowed to chose (2)?
If I am allowed to chose (2), my first round pick just became available. I'm looking for starting pitching and speed/runs.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
My vote
I don't support a bid. Why? Disclosing my interest, I would like to have this player on my team and the possibility of acquiring him influences my strategy, especially since I did draft many pitchers. So an auction is not particularly fun or a lark from my standpoint. If we want to have fun, then slap an auction/bid process on a player who won't have much of an impact. Otherwise, change the draft to an auction system. To me, the random appearance of impact players is fun enough. It's the good randomness to offset the bad randomness of injuries. We played a season, some finished high, others finished low. Now we prepare to tweak our teams for another run, courtesy of free agents and rookies, and the teams that are fortunate enough to get a higher draft slot or suck so bad they don't have any keepers ought to have first crack at the impact players. I don't understand why we want to change that and give every team an equal shot at landing an impact rookie. He's going to go high, and he should go high. Bench, you're always pointing out the self-interest of MCard's proposals and I humbly suggest that Andy might have more of an interest in this auction than mere fun. Whatever. I vote no. Either have an auction system for everyone, or none at all.
On another note, while I enjoyed MCart's well-argued market model (and suspect this is why we are now drawing hits in China) I would not assert that there is no incentive for parity. I prefer leagues with heated competition; leagues that enslave managers to their computers, tweaking lineups and scouring the free agent pool. They are much more fun than leagues in which 3 or 4 managers are out of the running by June and essentially give up. But maybe I'm just a communist.
Also, if Carter can't come, should we take this show on the road and go to Philadelphia?
Were there more votes?
Snot Boogie has now accrued $350, if my caclulations are correct. Wait, how much money did we get from the 2-man team, Pete? I suspect the other teams will eventually give up.
On another note, while I enjoyed MCart's well-argued market model (and suspect this is why we are now drawing hits in China) I would not assert that there is no incentive for parity. I prefer leagues with heated competition; leagues that enslave managers to their computers, tweaking lineups and scouring the free agent pool. They are much more fun than leagues in which 3 or 4 managers are out of the running by June and essentially give up. But maybe I'm just a communist.
Also, if Carter can't come, should we take this show on the road and go to Philadelphia?
Were there more votes?
Snot Boogie has now accrued $350, if my caclulations are correct. Wait, how much money did we get from the 2-man team, Pete? I suspect the other teams will eventually give up.
With the first pick...
I'm starting to think that my Twins fandom and love of facial hair are not mutually exclusive.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
A Vote For Fun
I agree that we should allow wrinkles that make this whole thing more fun. And I also really do like making trades (maybe a little TOO much: see wikipedia entry entitled "The Jason Lane Incident"). What I don't like is Cardarelli dominating this league with no end in site (although I DO like complaining about it). So, I guess what I'm saying is don't listen to me.
Can we have a special Pat Neshek draft? You know, I bet if we ask him he'll COME to our draft.
Who's buying me one of those tshirts for my birthday?
PS: Am I the only one who has dirty thoughts when I hear/read the term, "proof shots"? I am? Okay, just checking.
Can we have a special Pat Neshek draft? You know, I bet if we ask him he'll COME to our draft.
Who's buying me one of those tshirts for my birthday?
PS: Am I the only one who has dirty thoughts when I hear/read the term, "proof shots"? I am? Okay, just checking.
best pat neshek proof shot EVER
even better: http://www.sidearmstore.com/
that t-shirt gives me kyle orton-level wood.
rebuttals
1. it's not like i have a trade worked out with anyone or have even talked to another owner about possible interest in trading an extra keeper slot. i just thought it would be an interesting wrinkle. it would be fun is all.
2. like pedrag i also enjoy trading. in addition to the burrell-myers hate crime, i also spent circa 1000 paid hours at work last summer working out the ortiz blockbuster with mo and the trading deadline-jason bay deal with mcart. the negotiating is probably my favorite part of fantasy baseball, and i think it would fun to try to figure out what a keeper slot is "worth" (whether a deal actually happens or not). it would just be another thing to keep people interested and engaged and i think it would be fun.
3. similarly, the matsuzaka thing that andy came up with is just meant to be a fun, one-time deal. nobody is saying that he's going to be the next santana. it's a jokey way for us to mirror the bid process in the mlb for non-free agent japanese pitchers. it's not pushing us down a slippery slope regarding the drafting of players. rather, it's a one-time bid process thing that we can do the night before the draft when we do the ping pong ball lottery. the only by-product of the bidding, that i can see, is that it will be fun. and the winner will have to buy everyone a round of sapporo.
2. like pedrag i also enjoy trading. in addition to the burrell-myers hate crime, i also spent circa 1000 paid hours at work last summer working out the ortiz blockbuster with mo and the trading deadline-jason bay deal with mcart. the negotiating is probably my favorite part of fantasy baseball, and i think it would fun to try to figure out what a keeper slot is "worth" (whether a deal actually happens or not). it would just be another thing to keep people interested and engaged and i think it would be fun.
3. similarly, the matsuzaka thing that andy came up with is just meant to be a fun, one-time deal. nobody is saying that he's going to be the next santana. it's a jokey way for us to mirror the bid process in the mlb for non-free agent japanese pitchers. it's not pushing us down a slippery slope regarding the drafting of players. rather, it's a one-time bid process thing that we can do the night before the draft when we do the ping pong ball lottery. the only by-product of the bidding, that i can see, is that it will be fun. and the winner will have to buy everyone a round of sapporo.
matsu-sucka
why are we having an auction now? how would that even work? why doesn't he just enter the league like any other rookie? if you want him that bad, take him with your first pick. i know im not drinking the boston kool-aid but hes not the best player in the league and probably not in the top 25 if not 50. i'm willing to listen to reason but i dont see why he needs anything special.
all i want is bitches
first off, don't lump me in comments that reference this league's general sacklessness in re trading. i made more trades than the entire rest of the league combined last year. including the huge pat burrell for brett myers challenge trade.
second: why, exactly, do we need to auction off Matsuzaka or raffle him for a keeper slot? he's an untested #2 (ok, maybe #1) starter, coming to a strange country, playing in a small park in a stacked division. even if he was just south of santana in terms of quality he wouldn't be a realistic choice at the top pick. it's not like the person who gets him is going to be guaranteed a certain very high level of performance. i think he should be in the draft pool like everyone else, but whatever.
third: march 10th is ok with me, but let's not get too stampy before carter figures out what his story is.
fourth: first dirty laundry airing of the season-- rumors are circulating that carter and pete have discussed a trade involving one of team whitey's all-star run producers plus spare parts for one of the young, fat, bearded catchers on pete's team plus a pitcher who owns kubota tractors. no one from either team would confirm or deny any part of the above.
second: why, exactly, do we need to auction off Matsuzaka or raffle him for a keeper slot? he's an untested #2 (ok, maybe #1) starter, coming to a strange country, playing in a small park in a stacked division. even if he was just south of santana in terms of quality he wouldn't be a realistic choice at the top pick. it's not like the person who gets him is going to be guaranteed a certain very high level of performance. i think he should be in the draft pool like everyone else, but whatever.
third: march 10th is ok with me, but let's not get too stampy before carter figures out what his story is.
fourth: first dirty laundry airing of the season-- rumors are circulating that carter and pete have discussed a trade involving one of team whitey's all-star run producers plus spare parts for one of the young, fat, bearded catchers on pete's team plus a pitcher who owns kubota tractors. no one from either team would confirm or deny any part of the above.
My feelings (for what they are worth)
Seems that there are three issues to be discussed and voted on.(1) Draft date: While I thought we had this all set Carter now drops a bomb that he might have "lawyer orientation" that weekend. I wish that he had waited to see if he could get out of it before bringing it up and making me all stampy, but oh well. Can everyone still fall back to March 10th if need be?
(2) Trading keepers: I like Andy's suggestion that we place a limit on the total number of keepers that you can potentially have. I also like the notion of lots of stupid trades and usually want to encourage as many as possible. I wouldn't really feel that strongly about this issue except that Cardarelli would not be proposing it if not for the fact that he wants to keep more players on his first place team. That seems a little fishy to me. He's trying to ram legislation through Congress under the auspices that it will "help underprivileged" teams but he's really just working for this own self interest here. We already let him place a limit on the trading deadline and up the number of keepers. How many more gifts do we need to give him? "The biggest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist." Why do I feel like the only person who constantly worries about this? He's got you all tricked with that gimp and fake speech impediment.
As always, I'll accept the will of the majority.
(3) Dice-K: Sure, let's have an auction. I don't care. How would this work? Everyone puts the highest spot that they are willing to give up into a silent auction and then the highest of the all wins? I'm sort of against this but I don't really care. But you know what's going to happen, right? Cardarelli's going to use his extra keeper spots to take Dice-K.
(Oh, who am I kidding. No one is going to man up and make a trade anyway so this will all be moot. I'm really not sure what side of any of this I'm on anymore.)
(4) Page Layout: Omar, I'm changing the colors of this page. The black background with white lines of text is killing my eyes.
A New Era
This discussion has been so calm that it's hard to believe it's occuring on the einardiaz blog. This is either a sign of a more mature, logical league or everyone is too cold to get worked up about anything.
Two questions:
-Do people want to debate more or can we vote on my question?
-Can we vote on the Matsuzaka thing while we're at it?
Two questions:
-Do people want to debate more or can we vote on my question?
-Can we vote on the Matsuzaka thing while we're at it?
public goods
as i noted in my support of representative cardarelli's amendment, i agree with him in theory and probably less so in practice. i acknowledge the critiques and only disagree in that i don't think it is a requirement to have parity and don't feel the need to protect the chastity of this perfect enterprise by regulating the mutual decision making amongst its members.
instead of viewing it as a single variable problem (i.e. i have a worthless keeper slot and want papelbon) the person who has the worthless keeper has to judge the cost-benefit to himself and to his fellow member (in as much as the other owners are important for future drafts and possible/probable trades). If i think my trade of a keeper slot will help me a little but help mike alot, i'd probably not do it, but that should be my choice (because i have to fight against mike the same as everyone else).
i support the keeper cap proposal - with 8 currently, setting a cap at 10 seems reasonable. i realize this whole thing will likely not pass in the general assembly, i just wanted to get it on the ledger.
instead of viewing it as a single variable problem (i.e. i have a worthless keeper slot and want papelbon) the person who has the worthless keeper has to judge the cost-benefit to himself and to his fellow member (in as much as the other owners are important for future drafts and possible/probable trades). If i think my trade of a keeper slot will help me a little but help mike alot, i'd probably not do it, but that should be my choice (because i have to fight against mike the same as everyone else).
i support the keeper cap proposal - with 8 currently, setting a cap at 10 seems reasonable. i realize this whole thing will likely not pass in the general assembly, i just wanted to get it on the ledger.
keepers
i think we should not trade keeper picks, personally, but i can see why it could be fun and/or a way to jump-start rebuilding. i can't imagine why anyone really wants to deal their keeper slot. there's not going to be anyone around in the first two rounds anyway thanks to MCard.
24 blows, by the way. Every time i watch that show i wind up berating myself for watching something so corny. for instance, why is the CTU office decorated like a nightclub? or do we just live in the future now and no one told me.
i did not get a chance to introduce myself to Buddy Bell at my sister's wedding. David Bell didn't show up. too bad. but i am now related by law to 3 MLB players. i think that merits an extra keeper slot.
chip ambres is the idol of millions in the KC metro area
24 blows, by the way. Every time i watch that show i wind up berating myself for watching something so corny. for instance, why is the CTU office decorated like a nightclub? or do we just live in the future now and no one told me.
i did not get a chance to introduce myself to Buddy Bell at my sister's wedding. David Bell didn't show up. too bad. but i am now related by law to 3 MLB players. i think that merits an extra keeper slot.
chip ambres is the idol of millions in the KC metro area
market failure and public goods
In contemporary economic theory, intervention in the market is justified when a market has failed, or to provide a public good (really a subset of the first) that private firms would under-supply. I think that both rationales apply to the trading of keeper slots. As comrade Martin indicated, the incentive structure for certain teams is such that a keeper slot has no value. This is not a problem, in itself - but if the "market" at issue is a fairly competitive fantasy league, this incentive structure will fail to provide it. Indeed, "league competitiveness" is a public good in some sense - no one has an incentive to make the league competitive (re: parity) and so we have to intervene to make it happen (assuming that we want to do so; I do).
However, this does not seem to require an outright prohibition on trading keeper slots. As Andy pointed out, we can get around such a prohibition through trades - MLB teams do this all the time in the Rule 5 draft. While I also like the drama that this could create, I don't see why we couldn't also allow some keeper slot trades. For example, we could cap the total number of keepers at 10 (or 8 or 12). The question is really how much do we want to enforce parity on the league. Personally, I don't want this to be the NFL, but I also want some limits on dynasty building.
Finally, on a personal note, the law firm I am working for has recently told me that it is holding orientation for my summer job the weekend of the draft (here in Philly). So, I need to find out if I can get out of it.
However, this does not seem to require an outright prohibition on trading keeper slots. As Andy pointed out, we can get around such a prohibition through trades - MLB teams do this all the time in the Rule 5 draft. While I also like the drama that this could create, I don't see why we couldn't also allow some keeper slot trades. For example, we could cap the total number of keepers at 10 (or 8 or 12). The question is really how much do we want to enforce parity on the league. Personally, I don't want this to be the NFL, but I also want some limits on dynasty building.
Finally, on a personal note, the law firm I am working for has recently told me that it is holding orientation for my summer job the weekend of the draft (here in Philly). So, I need to find out if I can get out of it.
Monday, February 05, 2007
reminder
my "rent-a-closers", though helpful in allowing me to win again, had nothing to do with my having the #1 offense last year. let's not let that fact be lost to the sands of time. my team: #1 offense.
also, i think trading draft slots will help Royals-esque teams in our league more than it will hurt them.
finally, in the interest of bridging the gap with almart on this issue, i'd like to remind the house that i did support his matsuzaka-bid process resolution in the last legislative session. i think it got tabled by bench or something and never came up for a vote.
also, i think trading draft slots will help Royals-esque teams in our league more than it will hurt them.
finally, in the interest of bridging the gap with almart on this issue, i'd like to remind the house that i did support his matsuzaka-bid process resolution in the last legislative session. i think it got tabled by bench or something and never came up for a vote.
comments: for suckers
not to stir up a blog controversy (actually, we could use one of those) but i think that the answer is no, you can't trade the 'idea' of a keeper slot. some answers to your likely counter arguments, and an alternative below.
1) we already expanded the number of keeper slots once - i would say that we give this whole thing a shot as written before we tinker with it again, because no one wants to realize that keepers turned 4 teams into YOUR kc royals and have to restart everything/talk bench off of a highway overpass.
2) true, we can trade draft picks. i think the difference is this: trading draft picks isn't just for kicks - it gives people who drew a draft slot they don't like (the sandwich pick, or whatever) a chance to take fate into their own hands and trade for a pick that is more their liking. no parallel justification for keeper trading.
3) also, for draft picks, the 'expected value' (work with me here) of a draft pick is ALWAYS going to be positive (a draft pick is always something you would want, pretty much no matter what). this checks abuses on the system - no one would do something so rash as trade their last pick for a coffee because you might draft the next mark teahen (billy butler, for those of you who were wondering. he's actually the next ellis burks, but like i said, work with me). not the case for keepers: let's say, for instance, you drafted a thousand pitchers lsat year and you are sizing up your roster and realize that you have no position players 'worth' keeping. ('worth keeping' meaning that their keeper value exceeds their expected draft number). so in our 'market' of keeper slots, depending on the owner, some keeper slots could have a negative/zero value to the owner. pretty easy for bad things to happen - you might have people dumping keeper slots to the huge advantage of another owner who is in better position in the draft because his rent-a-closers improbably finished at the top of the league once again.
4) what you COULD do is trade your dudes straight up, so that pete or whomever was sitting on the right to 'keep' the player in question, and then re-acquire those players for papelbon after the draft happened. the potential for backstabbing making this just all the more exciting.
no one trades anything in our league, so i guess this is all kind of academic, but i don't think it's a good idea.
i just want to say that i was a colts field goal on that last drive away from $93 4-way prop bet. fuck the colts.
1) we already expanded the number of keeper slots once - i would say that we give this whole thing a shot as written before we tinker with it again, because no one wants to realize that keepers turned 4 teams into YOUR kc royals and have to restart everything/talk bench off of a highway overpass.
2) true, we can trade draft picks. i think the difference is this: trading draft picks isn't just for kicks - it gives people who drew a draft slot they don't like (the sandwich pick, or whatever) a chance to take fate into their own hands and trade for a pick that is more their liking. no parallel justification for keeper trading.
3) also, for draft picks, the 'expected value' (work with me here) of a draft pick is ALWAYS going to be positive (a draft pick is always something you would want, pretty much no matter what). this checks abuses on the system - no one would do something so rash as trade their last pick for a coffee because you might draft the next mark teahen (billy butler, for those of you who were wondering. he's actually the next ellis burks, but like i said, work with me). not the case for keepers: let's say, for instance, you drafted a thousand pitchers lsat year and you are sizing up your roster and realize that you have no position players 'worth' keeping. ('worth keeping' meaning that their keeper value exceeds their expected draft number). so in our 'market' of keeper slots, depending on the owner, some keeper slots could have a negative/zero value to the owner. pretty easy for bad things to happen - you might have people dumping keeper slots to the huge advantage of another owner who is in better position in the draft because his rent-a-closers improbably finished at the top of the league once again.
4) what you COULD do is trade your dudes straight up, so that pete or whomever was sitting on the right to 'keep' the player in question, and then re-acquire those players for papelbon after the draft happened. the potential for backstabbing making this just all the more exciting.
no one trades anything in our league, so i guess this is all kind of academic, but i don't think it's a good idea.
i just want to say that i was a colts field goal on that last drive away from $93 4-way prop bet. fuck the colts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)