With a nod to the previous name, I have named my team Old Man's Flaming Arthritis.
After reviewing the discussion and since no official ruling has been implemented, I thought I would put in my $0.02 on the keeper inflation issue. I am totally on board with the $3 or 30% for draftees. It is simple to calculate and does not require much in the way of supervision to ensure it is applied correctly. I'm not quite as big on the $5 or 50% for free agents, but I can live with it because it does decrease the leanings toward a dynasty league. I am also in agreement with using the average cost method for players who were drafted, released, and claimed/added. I can envision some fringe instances where this might work greatly to someone's advantage, but I don't think there are enough of them to require a specific rule.
I'm sorry, per the rules of the league your $.02 automatically rounds up to $1.
...but I don't think there are enough of them to require a specific rule.
Exactly my thoughts. Whatever method we use, if simple enough, is going to have an edge case that works to someone's advantage/disadvantage, but it's not worth obfuscating the rules over it.
I'm sorry, per the rules of the league your $.02 automatically rounds up to $1.
Awesome! I'm increasing in value already!
Anyone else having trouble getting into FleaFlicker? It just redirects me over to AOL when I try and log in.
I don't think so. This was discussed in the non-keeper FFL thread here if that helps.
Cmon everyone, go put in your times, we want to get the best/first pick at drafting for this league!!!
Shall I open up some earlier dates and run the risk that someone gets injured after being drafted?
I'm okay with that. In fact, I have a draft on Monday, so ...
I resolved my issue by emailing FleaFlicker directly - they are awesome!
Looking at my roster, it's painfully obvious that my team overachieved and I'm not sure yet who I'd keep... how do we see what we originally paid for players?
Check the link in the OP
Awesome, found it.
Now to figure out who to keep... Orton ($3) and McFadden ($6) seem like no-brainers, but I'll have to see the final formula to know if Gates ($15), Sproles ($10) and Greg Jennings/DeSean Jackson ($25 each) make the cut.
Jeez Grumps, that's some hard work there. Bravo.
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.
Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.
ukickmydog wrote:Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.
Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ya...
garion333 wrote:ukickmydog wrote:Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.
Yeah, but you get Holmes for $10.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but ya...
Just trying to make you feel better is all.
I don't think we've discussed it much yet, but when we submit our keeper lists, it would be a big advantage for one person to know other team's keepers in advance. In fact, I'd probably wait until the deadline to submit my keepers if it was public.
Any chance we could do a two round keeper selection process? First submit your keeper list, then once everyone has done so and the lists are public, add or drop a small number of players off of your list (maybe 1-3 players) to come up with a final list?
Not sure I understand the #s, but I see that I got no consideration for keeping an injured Romo on my roster all year huh.
Grump's a classy guy that clearly did a lot of work to come up with this performance based system, so I'm sure he'd never say it like this, but either shut up about your special considerations or go find another league to play in.
I've been thinking the same thing about a two stage keeper process. Not sure how much that's just wishing I had more info about other teams before picking mine though.... A more 'fluid' system would probably be better, but then no one would share info until the deadline. With the two stage solution there is incentive to obfuscate your true keepers with as much garbage as you're allowed. I would personally like a two stage solution if there was a fair way to do it that without a lot of complexity.
Oooo. New idea, although still complex. Only allowed to announce 1 keeper per day. That way everyone slowly gets dialed in on the keeper situation. I'm not really up for another rules discussion now, so once and done keepers might be best.
Landshrk83 wrote:I don't think we've discussed it much yet, but when we submit our keeper lists, it would be a big advantage for one person to know other team's keepers in advance. In fact, I'd probably wait until the deadline to submit my keepers if it was public.
Any chance we could do a two round keeper selection process? First submit your keeper list, then once everyone has done so and the lists are public, add or drop a small number of players off of your list (maybe 1-3 players) to come up with a final list?
Y'all discuss and I'll give it some thought. I'm still new to this whole keeper thing (obviously).
How about a closed keeper/cut list submitted privately to Grump by a specified deadline? This would keep the lists out of the public eye until all lists are submitted. We could then begin the official player-cutting process. The only real commissioner involvement would be in making sure that all the lists are honored by their respective owners.
I've been thinking the same thing about a two stage keeper process. Not sure how much that's just wishing I had more info about other teams before picking mine though.... A more 'fluid' system would probably be better, but then no one would share info until the deadline. With the two stage solution there is incentive to obfuscate your true keepers with as much garbage as you're allowed. I would personally like a two stage solution if there was a fair way to do it that without a lot of complexity.
Oooo. New idea, although still complex. Only allowed to announce 1 keeper per day. That way everyone slowly gets dialed in on the keeper situation. I'm not really up for another rules discussion now, so once and done keepers might be best.
Bold added is mine- that's why I was suggesting a very limited number of keepers that could be added or dropped once the first round went through- and I think for the most part people aren't looking to game the system too badly.
I'm fine with one and done keepers if everyone else is fine with that too.
How about a closed keeper/cut list submitted privately to Grump by a specified deadline? This would keep the lists out of the public eye until all lists are submitted. We could then begin the official player-cutting process. The only real commissioner involvement would be in making sure that all the lists are honored by their respective owners.
I'm of the opinion that if you declare a player a keeper, you're keeping them (if we do a one stage process). Possible exceptions for players that are injured, or have other drastic situation changes after we declare keepers.
I agree. By "official player-cutting process" I simply meant the mechanics of removing them from rosters. I was primarily focusing on the privacy aspects of declaring keepers.
I agree. By "official player-cutting process" I simply meant the mechanics of removing them from rosters. I was primarily focusing on the privacy aspects of declaring keepers.
Ahh, gotcha.
Pages