FF2010: Keeper League discussion thread

My answers...

Grumpicus wrote:

* In other words, is everyone ok with a $3 keeper (example: someone signs Montario Hardesty in the final week)?

Yes. Or more precisely, I think it's a small enough corner case to not need to be "solved". A little bit of speculative roster stashing isn't something we must quash, IMO.

There's a bit of interesting strategy there, too. Since there's no discount for waiting until the final week of the season to grab him, a team who suffers injuries or just bad performance might grab players like that earlier, to help them rebuild for next year.

* And the big one: Should playoff starts factor in to the inflation? In the NFL, you frequently see players who went to the Super Bowl get "inflated" deals just because they were there. This might also help to "even the playing field" a little if the champ is paying $15 for his MVP (i.e. started every week) keepers instead of $12. In the NFL (and the other GWJFFL conferences), the better teams draft last. In this solution, since there is no draft ranking, the better teams pay just a little bit more (only for their keepers). Personally, I like this one (probably because I suck :D) but am willing to hear what everyone else has to say.

My initial instinct is to say "no", although it is an interesting idea.

I'll say this: assuming everything else is basically as proposed, I would not be against the idea. If people like it, I'm cool with it too.

@Landshrk83: Eh, I'm ok with that. If a team is mathematically eliminated that early, let them have an "extra" dollar or two next year to help them improve. On the flip side, if playoffs count toward inflation, then resting your players once you have it in the bag adds an interesting wrinkle to the game (IMHO). The NFL has it and now the GWJFFL does (or would), too. I'm not sure if it would make teams more or less likely to rest players but I'll note that 2 of the last 3 weeks of the regular season are (or should be) against division rivals.

ETA:

*Legion* wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

* In other words, is everyone ok with a $3 keeper (example: someone signs Montario Hardesty in the final week)?

Yes. Or more precisely, I think it's a small enough corner case to not need to be "solved". A little bit of speculative roster stashing isn't something we must quash, IMO.

For the record, I agree... but I'm obligated to raise the question.

I like the $1 per week including playoffs idea for all the reasons Grump suggested. Sounds good to me. Everything else mentioned sounds awesome.

Personally, I'm leaning towards voting that no free agent pickup can be considered to be a keeper. Between the lack of competition most weeks and the difficulty of assessing proper value/inflation, I'd rather just keep it simple and say if you didn't draft him, you can't keep him. Anyone picked up on waiver is considered on a 1 yr contract until the next draft.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I like the $1 per week including playoffs idea for all the reasons Grump suggested. Sounds good to me. Everything else mentioned sounds awesome.

Personally, I'm leaning towards voting that no free agent pickup can be considered to be a keeper. Between the lack of competition most weeks and the difficulty of assessing proper value/inflation, I'd rather just keep it simple and say if you didn't draft him, you can't keep him. Anyone picked up on waiver is considered on a 1 yr contract until the next draft.

If we're doing this weird system then free agents have to count. They can accrue price just like bench players.

For the record, I do like this system of adding price to keepers, I just wish it had been decided on before the draft as there is no way I would have let some of the players that are injured / suspended this year go for as cheaply as they did.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Personally, I'm leaning towards voting that no free agent pickup can be considered to be a keeper. Between the lack of competition most weeks and the difficulty of assessing proper value/inflation, I'd rather just keep it simple and say if you didn't draft him, you can't keep him.

Well your formula solved the inflation part. Also, while there are some examples of free agents going cheaply, a lot of times free agents go very expensively. Last season, I spent a bajillion FA dollars to pick up Mohammad Massaquoi. In this keeper league, I might be less aggressive with the bidding in hopes of landing people I could actually keep, but I think it's fair to say that when it comes to quality FAs, cheap is going to be the exception rather than the rule. People will overpay to win FAs because you have to bid to win, and it's not "eBay style" - you pay what you bid.

Also, I think one of the more interesting wrinkles with free agency would be the fact that keeper value would play a role. People would have a reason to try and budget their bids, instead of just taking a couple of cracks at players with their whole budget.

ukickmydog wrote:

For the record, I do like this system of adding price to keepers, I just wish it had been decided on before the draft as there is no way I would have let some of the players that are injured / suspended this year go for as cheaply as they did.

It would have been nice if this idea had surfaced earlier, but nobody came up with it until Jolly Bill a few days ago.

It's a tad disappointing to not have it all figured out before the draft, but I'm glad we didn't just choose one for the sake of choosing ahead of time, because I think Bill nailed it. I'm mad that I didn't come up with it myself. I think it's more important to get the rules right going forward than to worry too much about the very first draft.

Also, because many of us had not done an auction draft before, I think the experience was part of what focused the discussion. We actually saw the numbers being attached to players, and I think that brought a bit of clarity to the discussion.

Eh, assuming we have a good run, I doubt it will be the last time that the rules ever change.

Hey, I'm happy to be credited with a good idea, even if it came a little late...

So with what was mentioned about Hardesty above, is keeping free agents at the value they were picked up something we are all ok with? It's the end of the season, and I'm destined to miss the playoffs. I start chucking the players I know I won't be keeping next year, and filling my roster with $1 players who are hurt. If I'm in really bad shape, I can do it before anyone else can afford to do the same to their rosters. Sure there is some risk, maybe only some low percentage will pan out and that is how we create parity, but I just want to be sure that I'm thinking about this correctly.

My two cents: I'm ok with seeing how/when/if that plays out that way. Why? Because...

Grumpicus wrote:

Assuming we have a good run, I doubt it will be the last time that the rules ever change.

Edit: That being said, please, discuss.

Alright then, sounds good to me

Let's get this season started!

Jolly Bill wrote:

So with what was mentioned about Hardesty above, is keeping free agents at the value they were picked up something we are all ok with? It's the end of the season, and I'm destined to miss the playoffs. I start chucking the players I know I won't be keeping next year, and filling my roster with $1 players who are hurt. If I'm in really bad shape, I can do it before anyone else can afford to do the same to their rosters. Sure there is some risk, maybe only some low percentage will pan out and that is how we create parity, but I just want to be sure that I'm thinking about this correctly.

I'm OK with it.

1) The teams doing this are going to tend to be the ones needing help anyway.
2) Anyone you pick up is on the hook for $3 (12 games of $0.25) of inflation - so his price to keep is, at minimum, $4.

Grumpicus wrote:

Eh, assuming we have a good run, I doubt it will be the last time that the rules ever change.

A good point. I think the proposal we have on the table right now is good to go for this year, if everyone else agrees. It doesn't appear to have any significant flaws, and we can assess whether the "keeper stasher" issue needs closer review after we go through our first keeper cycle.

I vote "OK" on the playoff inflation idea, too. A little parity isn't a bad thing, and we can review its effects next offseason and decide if it should stay or not.

*Legion* wrote:

Anyone you pick up is on the hook for $3 (12 games of $0.25) of inflation - so his price to keep is, at minimum, $4.

For the record, although ESPN doesn't let you draft for $0, Fleaflicker does let you pick up an FA for $0.

Grumpicus wrote:

For the record, although ESPN doesn't let you draft for $0, Fleaflicker does let you pick up an FA for $0.

I never knew that. I'd always assumed a $1 FA bid minimum.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Hey, I'm happy to be credited with a good idea, even if it came a little late...

So with what was mentioned about Hardesty above, is keeping free agents at the value they were picked up something we are all ok with? It's the end of the season, and I'm destined to miss the playoffs. I start chucking the players I know I won't be keeping next year, and filling my roster with $1 players who are hurt. If I'm in really bad shape, I can do it before anyone else can afford to do the same to their rosters. Sure there is some risk, maybe only some low percentage will pan out and that is how we create parity, but I just want to be sure that I'm thinking about this correctly.

I really don't like having free agent pickups keeper eligible if we use blind bids and the inflation system listed. I think it's going to lead to some crazily underpriced players, but if the majority want to do it that way I'll go with it. It's also one rule that's going to be very tough to change, especially if it is unbalanced, because those who benefit will likely be opposed.

I do realize that this isn't a democracy, though, and I trust our benevolent dictator to make the rules changes he feels are necessary.

*Legion* wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

For the record, although ESPN doesn't let you draft for $0, Fleaflicker does let you pick up an FA for $0.

I never knew that. I'd always assumed a $1 FA bid minimum.

0 bid baby! Useful in closed bid and open bid.

Landshrk83 wrote:

I do realize that this isn't a democracy, though, and I trust our benevolent dictator to make the rules changes he feels are necessary.

This is factually correct.

So if a player is drafted $50, and then cut, and then claimed for $10, what's his base keeper value?

Grumpicus wrote:

So if a player is drafted $50, and then cut, and then claimed for $10, what's his base keeper value?

Hmmm, average it out maybe? On one hand, it isn't fair to the person that drafted him to have to hold on to him all year so that someone else doesn't get a cheap player for next year, but on the other hand, that other team is going to be wasting a roster spot on him so they should get some reward.

I say $10. But that's mostly just to be consistent with what we've said so far. Is the best way to handle this to cut off the keeper eligibility of FA pickups around week 13 or 14? That way folks who are out can make pickups for next year, but people still trying for the playoffs can still use the waiver wire without worrying about giving someone Chris Johnson for $15 (if he should get hurt or something).

Ok. so to keep the discussion going...

Keepers are keepers always, regardless of the price or timing within the week or season that they are picked up. I'm a little concerned about the ability to pick up $0 players after the bidding process is over each week, but then again I guess the 20 man roster is the biggest tool we have to prevent good players from being on the waiver wire. I'm cool with it as it seem to be clearly communicated at this point that this is how it will work.

As a random other thought, are we turning off pickups in the off-season?

Jolly Bill wrote:

I'm a little concerned about the ability to pick up $0 players after the bidding process is over each week

Just so I'm clear, would you rather have FA pick-ups turned off after waivers are processed or a $1 minimum?

Jolly Bill wrote:

As a random other thought, are we turning off pickups in the off-season?

Actually, we're turning off pickups after week 13.

Edit: Also, I want to note that after seeing the prices paid for Brandon Jackson, I'm not all that worried about allowing free agent pickups to be kept.

Grumpicus wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

I'm a little concerned about the ability to pick up $0 players after the bidding process is over each week

Just so I'm clear, would you rather have FA pick-ups turned off after waivers are processed or a $1 minimum?

Jolly Bill wrote:

As a random other thought, are we turning off pickups in the off-season?

Actually, we're turning off pickups after week 13.

Edit: Also, I want to note that after seeing the prices paid for Brandon Jackson, I'm not all that worried about allowing free agent pickups to be kept.

I think I'd rather have FA pick-ups turned off. I don't really consider it a problem either way, since it's highly unlikely that someone will be able to pick up a Brandon Jackson like player, or even a Brandon Jacobs, for $0 after waivers are processed. It only bugs me because it seems to run counter to the FA argument that the prices will reflect the player's real value because of the competition to sign him. I guess if there was no competition that week, it really doesn't matter. Mostly I was just surprised because I was able to pick up Nate Washington for $0.

Jolly Bill wrote:

Mostly I was just surprised because I was able to pick up Nate Washington for $0.

Do you think he would/should have gone for more than $1 if he was drafted? Given that he wasn't...

Jolly Bill wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

I'm a little concerned about the ability to pick up $0 players after the bidding process is over each week

Just so I'm clear, would you rather have FA pick-ups turned off after waivers are processed or a $1 minimum?

Jolly Bill wrote:

As a random other thought, are we turning off pickups in the off-season?

Actually, we're turning off pickups after week 13.

Edit: Also, I want to note that after seeing the prices paid for Brandon Jackson, I'm not all that worried about allowing free agent pickups to be kept.

I think I'd rather have FA pick-ups turned off. I don't really consider it a problem either way, since it's highly unlikely that someone will be able to pick up a Brandon Jackson like player, or even a Brandon Jacobs, for $0 after waivers are processed. It only bugs me because it seems to run counter to the FA argument that the prices will reflect the player's real value because of the competition to sign him. I guess if there was no competition that week, it really doesn't matter. Mostly I was just surprised because I was able to pick up Nate Washington for $0.

FA pick-ups are good, though in the keeper league it doesn't really matter too much since there is hardly anybody worth taking that gets through waivers. No need to get rid of it. You could just as easily have put in a $0 bid for him during the waiver time and gotten him. Why restrict it?

Did anyone else bid on B. Jackson? I assume they did but I was wondering if anyone would mind sharing their bid. I really, really wanted Jackson so I bid what I thought would be a pretty high amount. I'm just wondering if anyone bid anything close to what I payed.

ukickmydog wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

So if a player is drafted $50, and then cut, and then claimed for $10, what's his base keeper value?

Hmmm, average it out maybe? On one hand, it isn't fair to the person that drafted him to have to hold on to him all year so that someone else doesn't get a cheap player for next year, but on the other hand, that other team is going to be wasting a roster spot on him so they should get some reward.

I think this is a tough decision. Their true value isn't full price nor is it the WW price of $1 (or whatever Grant is picked up for).

EvilHomer3k wrote:

Did anyone else bid on B. Jackson? I assume they did but I was wondering if anyone would mind sharing their bid. I really, really wanted Jackson so I bid what I thought would be a pretty high amount. I'm just wondering if anyone bid anything close to what I payed.

I bid $50.

Grumpicus wrote:

I'm not advocating we use it (I have to give it some more thought) but I did just verify that Ff supports an Injured Reserve.

I would be OK with exploring this idea. Mainly because I never play with IR rules and I like that we're making this league a different experience from our stock leagues.

I'm not yet advocating we use it (I have to give it some more thought) but I did just verify that Ff supports an Injured Reserve.

*Legion* wrote:

I would be OK with exploring this idea.

Explore away. That's why I brought it up. Implementation details include how big to make the IR list and how injured must the player be (e.g. doubtful, out, IR, etc..) to qualify for IR. Finally, if the threshold is not NFL-IR, can a player come back from GWJFFL-IR (see Rice, Sidney)?