I'm not sure if I'm particularly for or against any of these changes, but they're things I've been thinking about, and thought I'd open them up for discussion.
1. Putting all free agents on waivers for a portion of the week.
Looking back to Mark's post when I snagged Mark Lowe before he had a chance to when Putz went on the DL, should we consider putting free agents on waivers every Monday? The waiver period could last Monday through Thursday or Friday, which would limit the number of speed based grabs, but still leave plenty of time for people to pick up players right away on the weekend and plug them in to the lineup for the next week. Right now, waiver priority is kind of meaningless, and a weekly lineup league seems like the perfect fit for putting all free agents on waivers.
2. Removing keeper time limits.
I can't remember exactly how we decided to have the the baseball system work. Did we decide on three keeper years (a total of 4 years) with escalating draft picks? I'm proposing removing the time limit, but keeping the escalating draft pick. That will keep the draft move "level" from year to year (e.g. no huge talent influx a couple years from now), and allow people to keep players they really like.
6 comments:
I like #1. The speed-based grabs are pretty annoying. The other option would be to implement a Free Agent Budget w/ bids. This is pretty popular in Auction leagues and I don't see why it wouldn't work for a draft league. Bids would be due by Friday night. On Saturday and Sunday, anyone could add/drop without bidding for any player not picked up through bidding (for $1). This would require some additional administrative work, but I think it would be pretty easy to handle in a 6 team league.
There will be some influx of talent at the end of the 4th season, but I don't see a problem with it. Also, I would guess that less than half of the current keepers would be kept longer than that - especially with escalating draft picks. Not having a time limit increases the likelihood of having one or two dominate teams before the draft, which I want to limit.
I'm not a big fan of the free agent budget in a draft league. We could implement the Yahoo waiver system without any extra work. Plus, we could do it this year, without too much weirdness because the fundamental system isn't really different.
If we set up free agent budgets, would people lose $1 for each move they've already made?
Regarding the time limits, with expanded rosters, I'm not sure anyone will be able to put together a completely dominant team. There are 20 starters and 26 roster spots; a group of five players can't cause someone to be dominant. Certainly, some teams will have advantages before the draft, but isn't that the point of a keeper league? But my suggestion wasn't based on thougts about competitive impacts, but more about how fun the league is. That's the point of this, right? I think it would be nice to have players who are "yours" and that they'll be on your team and you can root for them. Of course, the trade off for that is they'd become more expensive to keep each year.
I really don't think there will be dominant teams with 5 keepers. There are just too many variables. I'm not sure I feel strongly either way on the 3 year vs unlimited. It's sort of hard to know until it happens - as of now, it seems like allowing them forever wouldn't be terribly problematic, and I do like the idea that if you like a player, he's yours...
I also think we should try to recruit 2 additional serious players for next year. We could have some sort of expansion draft (i.e. protect 4 players, the two expansion teams can keep any of the other players on ending rosters) and then they could build up. This is still a competitive league but I think moving up to an even 8 would definitely add something, if only more smack to the trash talk board. Is Andrew really that busy?
I don't know of any keeper league that has an unlimited time limit. Yes it would become more expensive, but it can't get more expensive than a number 1 draft pick. If you collected 3 players that would normally be chosen in the first round, that's 2 first round picks you're getting for a 2nd and 3rd round pick. The league will only be fun so long as people have a reasonable chance at winning each season no matter how shitty their keepers are. Giving the best teams the added advantage of keeping the best players for an unlimited amount of time could create a situation where it's a one or two team race one year. I don't see how it is any more fun by keeping players longer vs drafting new players to follow. The time limit adds an element of strategy when it comes to trading.
I was thinking the budget would be more for next year... I am not sure if I can change the waiver wire rules or not.
There are leagues that allow you to keep players for an unlimited amount of time.
I'm not particularly convinced by the competitive balance argument about the keepers. It is extremeley unlikely that one team ends up with 3 of the top 6 players, even in a 6 team league. And if they do, under our current rules they could keep those players for another 2 or 3 years anyway. If you're worried about everyone not being competitive every year, why are we playing in a keeper league? But, as I said earlier, because the rosters are large and the keeper numbers are limited, I just can't see anyone going into the draft feeling like they have the league locked up.
I'm with Spencer on expansion as well. It would be good to get a couple more teams in, and an expansion draft should be workable without too much trouble. You could pick 3 or 4 keepers to protect, then you could pick one more if one of your players was selected. I think that's the way the NFL expansion draft went a few years ago with the Texans.
The vast majority of keepers leagues have some sort of keeper time limit.
I guess I'm just not as convinced as you that one team would not end up with 3 of the top 6 players. Spencer nearly had 1 and 2 just after 1 season.
IMO, a keeper league is an added element of strategy, but by no means should build dynasties. If someone wins it should be primarily because of a great draft and in-season management. Having some good keepers can certainly give you an edge, but within reason. Having unlimited time limits on keepers leans towards the side of dynasty building (even if it's small), which I am opposed to. To me, there is no added "fun" factor of having keepers indefinitely so I don't really see the benefit.
I would definitely like expansion. I think that would be good. We could come up with some rules to add one or two new teams.
Post a Comment