I know that now is probably the worst time to bring this up, since it is mid season and a big trade has just gone down, but how would people feel about changing the keeper rules slightly? Right now, a player can be kept 3 times, and we have our increasing draft pick costs, and all that. I was thinking it would be cool if teams could have one single "face of the franchise" type player, with each team being allowed to keep one player indefinitely. I haven't given a whole lot of thought to it, but I think it would be cool to have players be associated with certain teams. Obviously, this could be really imbalancing, and I haven't looked at what this would mean for each individual team, but what do you all think?
One thing Bill just suggested is maybe inflation should be increased on franchise players, so that way if you do want to keep a player for a long time, you'll have to pay for it. Also, a special thanks goes out to Spencer, for seeding this idea by suggesting I look in to ways to keep Longoria forever!
Edit: I bolded my edits to make it clearer that this would only be for one player
7 comments:
I do not see how this is in anyway better than the current system. The idea behind the original rule was to keep owners with a few great keepers from the original draft from dominating the league every season. I think that this new rule would favor teams with the best keepers, which I do not support. Why give another advantage to the strongest (who already have an advantage by the fact that this is a keeper league)?
The reason to do it is because it would be fun. You get attached to players over the years and you'd like to hang on to them. However, there would have to be a significant cost, most likely through rapid inflation, maybe even automatically cost a 1st round draft pick.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of this. In its small way it restricts the range of viable keeper strategies, by getting rid of the option of having 5 "value" keepers. Seems pretty pointless and slightly bad for the keeper system.
This didn't come across from Andrew's original post, but when he initially discussed the idea with me it would be limited to a single player per team. I don't think it would really affects whether or not "value" keepers are a viable strategy or not.
It seems that it would be one more thing that is a little unfair to Kate and Taylor. Also just take a look at the top 8 players in the league. There is going to be quite a large difference between #1 and #8. I think it probably just gives one team too much power for too long based on just 1 draft pick.
Yeah, the point was that each team gets one franchise keeper. It's just an addition to the system, not replacing the original. That said, if people don't like it, that's fine. I just thought it would be cool to have certain players always be associated with certain owners.
Nice try Andrew....with the first pick of the 2011 draft the Wong's take...Evan Longoria, the new "face of the franchise".
Post a Comment