FF2011: Official GWJFFLK-specific discussion thread

I disagree that post-waiver pickups are just "emergency kicker additions" as Jolly Bill has already pointed out. Additionally, regarding "if you want a player to be keeper-eligible, you have to spend money to acquire him," I could have just as easily spent $1 on Brandon Lloyd instead of $0, for example. No, I don't think that "you can't keep post-waiver pick-ups" is the way to go. Figuring out either a fair base value for them would instead be my preference... which is why I instituted Rule B.

In the case of Romo and Kolb, when they were dropped, they went on 48-hour waivers when anyone and everyone had a shot at them. If no one thought they were worth a flyer at that point, then I've got no problem using Rule B as it is written to figure the base value. If you want to keep this from happening, put your bids in.

I've been lurking in the shadows so as to not squelch discussion but I'm getting pretty close to posting some revised keeper rules so get your final say in over the next couple (up to 36) hours or so.

Grumpicus wrote:

Additionally, regarding "if you want a player to be keeper-eligible, you have to spend money to acquire him," I could have just as easily spent $1 on Brandon Lloyd instead of $0, for example.

You certainly could have, and under those rules, you would have a reason to do so. It would make for a very meaningful difference between spending $1 and just waiting and picking him up for free.

Grumpicus wrote:

In the case of Romo and Kolb, when they were dropped, they went on 48-hour waivers when anyone and everyone had a shot at them. If no one thought they were worth a flyer at that point, then I've got no problem using Rule B as it is written to figure the base value. If you want to keep this from happening, put your bids in.

That is my only real problem with the whole post-waivers deal. It puts a damper on the casual, fun feel of the league (for me) if there's a chance that a 48 hr window away from my computer could spell semi-permanent disadvantage due to missing a player pickup.

That being said, I'm still OK with Rule B and the $5 or 50% inflation for free agents (bringing an added player up to $6 assuming even the pickups start with a base of $1, right?). Neither example I gave earlier is particularly terrible, just a problem I have with the system.

Edit: maybe I just don't truly understand the bidding system. After all the bids go through and free agent changes take place, is there a second bidding round that takes place? I have to go re-read the site I guess.

Grumpicus wrote:

In the case of Romo and Kolb, when they were dropped, they went on 48-hour waivers when anyone and everyone had a shot at them.

This actually is not correct.

The "48 hour" rule listing in our rules is technically meaningless, because we use a bidding waiver system instead of a classical one. So there is no 48-hour period. The setting appears on our rule list because the site forces you to set it to something, but it is not used.

Instead, players dropped in a particular week do not appear on waivers until the following week. Blind bidding replaces the traditional waiver timeline (in which a dropped player is available for claims in the 24/48 hours following his drop) with a weekly claim date for bidding.

Man, this is too confusing for me. I must be just retarded.

BlackSheep wrote:

Man, this is too confusing for me. I must be just retarded.

I'm just ready be done talking about it and get a commish ruling on what the keeper rates are going to be

*Legion* wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

In the case of Romo and Kolb, when they were dropped, they went on 48-hour waivers when anyone and everyone had a shot at them.

This actually is not correct.

The "48 hour" rule listing in our rules is technically meaningless, because we use a bidding waiver system instead of a classical one. So there is no 48-hour period. The setting appears on our rule list because the site forces you to set it to something, but it is not used.

Instead, players dropped in a particular week do not appear on waivers until the following week. Blind bidding replaces the traditional waiver timeline (in which a dropped player is available for claims in the 24/48 hours following his drop) with a weekly claim date for bidding.

*Legion*, *Legion*, *Legion*, why do you make me hurt you?

Although it's not obvious, you might be smart enough to follow along...

I refer you to last season, week 11. On Wednesday (or was it Tuesday?), when the waivers processed, Landshrk83's Lagomorphs cut Tim Hightower in order to claim Chad Henne. Subsequently, a couple teams added (for free, no bidding necessary) a couple players. Then, still in week 11, you'll see that I bid on and claimed Tim Hightower for $3. Why did I do that? Because he was on 48h waivers. You'll also note on the same page that the Flaming Homers claimed (not added, despite the bid being $0) the Atlanta Falcons in the same week after I dropped them to pick up the Eagles (you have to click "Next" to see it) on Wednesday. All of this happened in week 11.

Edit:

Clearly I don't remember sh*t correctly.

Grumpicus wrote:

I refer you to last season, week 11. On Wednesday (or was it Tuesday?), when the waivers processed, Landshrk83's Lagomorphs cut Tim Hightower in order to claim Chad Henne. Subsequently, a couple teams added (for free, no bidding necessary) a couple players. Then, still in week 11, you'll see that I bid on and claimed Tim Hightower for $3. Why did I do that? Because he was on 48h waivers. You'll also note on the same page that the Flaming Homers claimed (not added, despite the bid being $0) the Atlanta Falcons in the same week after I dropped them to pick up the Eagles (you have to click "Next" to see it) on Wednesday. All of this happened in week 11.

Aha! I didn't cut Kolb so I could keep him on the cheap for this year, I cut him to make space and then brought him back when I no longer needed Lawrence Tynes. I cut Kolb to snag Troy Smith as I had no starting QB that week. I also didn't have a starting kicker as Janikowski was on a bye. In week 11 I cut Tynes and put Kolb back on my roster.

It all makes a lot more sense now. To me.

garion333 wrote:
Grumpicus wrote:

I refer you to last season, week 11. On Wednesday (or was it Tuesday?), when the waivers processed, Landshrk83's Lagomorphs cut Tim Hightower in order to claim Chad Henne. Subsequently, a couple teams added (for free, no bidding necessary) a couple players. Then, still in week 11, you'll see that I bid on and claimed Tim Hightower for $3. Why did I do that? Because he was on 48h waivers. You'll also note on the same page that the Flaming Homers claimed (not added, despite the bid being $0) the Atlanta Falcons in the same week after I dropped them to pick up the Eagles (you have to click "Next" to see it) on Wednesday. All of this happened in week 11.

Aha! I didn't cut Kolb so I could keep him on the cheap for this year, I cut him to make space and then brought him back when I no longer needed Lawrence Tynes. I cut Kolb to snag Troy Smith as I had no starting QB that week. I also didn't have a starting kicker as Janikowski was on a bye. In week 11 I cut Tynes and put Kolb back on my roster.

It all makes a lot more sense now. To me.

Well, now that we know the clear and legitimate reasons for temporarily dropping a player only to add him back 2 days later... what happens to the base price in that situation? It drops by half because no one snagged him in that 48 hr window?

garion333 wrote:

Stuff.

I might be saying the same thing but this is my reading of events:

Reference.

You picked up Tynes in week 10 because Janikowski was on a bye. In week 11, you cut Kolb to add Troy Smith and then realized "Oh sh*t, I should have cut Tynes instead," and picked Kolb back up and dropped Tynes.

What concerns me is that all of Garion's transactions that week were adds, not claims. Is this because he added Troy Smith after the initial waiver period and then realized his error and grabbed Kolb back after his 48 hours had past? Or is it because I'm not remembering the process correctly? Either way, I think that my initial, almost-4am opinion is that "if the same team drops and re-adds a player in the same week, it is treated as though the player was not dropped at all."

Much easier to figure out when you search on my team only. I was jumping back and forth through all those screens. So, yes, I had to make some moves after the waiver period when Troy Smith was a complete free agent. And then I must've realized my mistake, cut Tynes, waited for Kolb to clear waivers (because the person who cut him can't claim him, yes?) and corrected my mistake.

I don't really plan on keeping Kolb anyway. I have Stafford for that.

So the question remains, what are we doing about this situation? If someone cuts and adds a player the same week, I see no reason to consider it a transaction. I can get behind that. I'm still not a huge fan of saying that we can't keep free agents.

"if the same team drops and re-adds a player in the same week, it is treated as though the player was not dropped at all."

I'm on board with this. I'm sure we'll hash it out again next year anyway

Jolly Bill wrote:

I'm sure we'll hash it out again next year anyway :-D

God, I hope not.

Hooray, I get screwed yet again.

Are you talking about the Tony Romo thing? Sorry if that doesn't work out for you, I'm definitely voting for the 'if added for free during the same week treated as not dropped' rule.

Maybe I'm going crazy here, but while it looks like you cut Romo on 11/11 and picked him back up on 11/13, when you picked him back up you spent money to claim him ($5). As I understand it Rule B is still in effect in that case. Right?

That would make his base price for the season ($21 + $5) / 2 = $13. With inflation that's $17 to keep him.

Let's vote on a complete proposal.

Draft one up and email it to me.

(Sorry, all, too damn busy and stressed lately. I'll get my thoughts down on "paper" soon.)

Since the rules discussion seems to have petered out (pending an actual proposal), here's a question for you:

Over/Under for number of keepers dropped post-draft and before week 1?

I'm thinking 4, I'd probably set the over/under at 4.5 so that I'd feel terrible about taking the under.

I'm confused. You pick your keepers before the draft. Why are you setting an over under on keepers dropped after the draft?

I think he's asking about how many people we initially kept, but then post-draft we ended up dropping there will be. So, he thinks we may have 4 keepers dropped before week 1, which I think may be a gross overestimation unless injury becomes a huge issue. I mean, I pretty much only plan on keeping a couple players. This isn't a dynasty league and I know that if I release most of my players I can be competitive in getting the other players who will be available for draft.

Does that make more sense?

ukickmydog wrote:

I'm confused. You pick your keepers before the draft. Why are you setting an over under on keepers dropped after the draft?

Because of the inevitable change in your opinion of your team post-draft, greater potential for good free agents to be available, and the injury / depth chart news window approaching the first games of the season.

Nothing serious, just a bit of idle speculation coming into the season. With each team likely to keep 4-6 people, that's 48 to 72 players being kept across the whole league. I'm predicting at least a few managers regretting not having that money during the draft, very likely myself included.

Oh, 4 total among everyone. Okay, makes a little more sense now. I was thinking 4 per team which would be basically the average # of people kept per team to start with...

Oh yeah, I mean among the entire league. I have on idea, really, but I'm curious to see how it works.

Registration ends Sunday. 9 of 12 had said they're coming back. And then there's this:

boogle wrote:

f*ck man, I don't know. I need convincing.

Spoiler:

convincing = prostitutes

I'm not sending hookers to Boogle so I guess he's out.

I'm out.

I'll send some. For the good of the league.

Keep in mind, we're talking CHEAP hookers here. Boogle will just have to put up with the stubble rash in the morning.

boogle wrote:

I'm out.

garion333 wrote:
boogle wrote:

I'm out.

:(

He required a fair bit of arm-twisting last year, anyway.

Correction, 10 of 12. I had missed BlackSheep. The only unknown now is the Flaming Homers. Feel free to chase him down if you're feeling helpful. Also, be thinking about who of the 3(?) new applicants you want to have take over Boogle's spot.