some Fantasy League policy decisions (how many keepers/team, etc)

Kneel B4 Zod · #1 05-22-2007, 12:42 PM

My league, which I just joined as an expansion team, transitioned this year from a snake draft w/ 4 keepers per team to an auction draft w/ unlimited keepers @ $3 yearly inflation.

some in the league are now regretting this decision, as the rules encourage rebuilding/future planning to a much greater degree than the old format, which means more owners will probably fall out of contention early ever year and become inactive owners.

(this is the 7th year of the league, tight group of college buddies, the league is going nowhere. it's a very active league with no trading restrictions. there is a loser tax, which means the 15th place team ends up paying more than the 14th place, etc, and the top 3 teams win money)

I've never played fantasy before, so my question is "which types of leagues are better - those with very flexible keeper rules and no anti-rebuilding rules, or those which place more restrictions on trading/future planning"?

is there such a thing as "better"? beyond the obvious, what are the pro's/con's of each system?

TheNoodleMan · #2 05-22-2007, 01:07 PM

first of all, what sport?

Kneel B4 Zod · #3 05-22-2007, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
first of all, what sport?

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, baseball

TheRover · #4 05-22-2007, 01:23 PM

if I may add a second question, do most keeper leagues usually have a set end time? one that I'm in has just decided to blow it up and do a redraft after year five. oh, and no one is dropping out or anything so it'll just be the same people involved. is this in any way remotely standard? Let's just say I don't agree with the decision. At all.

slothinator · #5 05-22-2007, 01:25 PM

It depends on how deep the keeper league is. I only play in one keeper league, and we keep 5. Planning for the future isn't a big deal. If you are keeping 10-15 or playing in a dynasty league, then playing for next year and beyond is a big deal.

With your league, flexibility is going to be huge. Technically, your keepers aren't unlimited; you are restricted by the auction cap. Players are going to need to be able to make the decisions to keep their expensive players and compete, or trade them cheap talent and build themselves back up. Your league should not have tight restrictions on trading and rebuilding. Otherwise, the teams that are bad are going to stay bad if they can't set themselves up for the future. In a small keeper league, you have to tighter guidelines to prevent dumping and collusion because a small keeper league plays more like a "one and done" league.

TheNoodleMan · #6 05-22-2007, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if I may add a second question, do most keeper leagues usually have a set end time? one that I'm in has just decided to blow it up and do a redraft after year five. oh, and no one is dropping out or anything so it'll just be the same people involved. is this in any way remotely standard? Let's just say I don't agree with the decision. At all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone proposed this in my football league they'd be summarily killed.

slothinator · #7 05-22-2007, 01:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if I may add a second question, do most keeper leagues usually have a set end time? one that I'm in has just decided to blow it up and do a redraft after year five. oh, and no one is dropping out or anything so it'll just be the same people involved. is this in any way remotely standard? Let's just say I don't agree with the decision. At all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this a majority decision? Or is it kooky-commish syndrome? If the former, what are the reasons being by others in the league for wanting to blow it up and start over? Is there one dominant team, or a couple of teams that just consistently suck?

If it's the latter, then get away from this league.

Kneel B4 Zod · #8 05-22-2007, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if I may add a second question, do most keeper leagues usually have a set end time? one that I'm in has just decided to blow it up and do a redraft after year five. oh, and no one is dropping out or anything so it'll just be the same people involved. is this in any way remotely standard? Let's just say I don't agree with the decision. At all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say a hard reboot like that would only be required under certain circumstances - like a league that had been playing under weird band-aid type rules that everyone was tired off.

there should be a reason for starting over, not just b/c some teams are bad

TheRover · #9 05-22-2007, 01:36 PM

Noodes,

8/10 voted for it, so that's a lot of murderin' to do.

Sloth,

No one gave a reason other than the two voting against the changes unless I missed something. There are a couple of teams near the bottom that were there last year (this is the 2nd season for us), but overall there's a good amount of parity I'd say. At least, I've never heard it mentioned as an issue before.

I should point out that this was an issue set to be voted upon from the beginning because most, if not all, those in the league were new to keeper leagues and weren't sure they wanted to commit (I guess that's the reasoning behind it). But that doesn't seem to be a problem at all.

Kneel B4 Zod · #10 05-22-2007, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on how deep the keeper league is. I only play in one keeper league, and we keep 5. Planning for the future isn't a big deal. If you are keeping 10-15 or playing in a dynasty league, then playing for next year and beyond is a big deal.

With your league, flexibility is going to be huge. Technically, your keepers aren't unlimited; you are restricted by the auction cap. Players are going to need to be able to make the decisions to keep their expensive players and compete, or trade them cheap talent and build themselves back up. Your league should not have tight restrictions on trading and rebuilding. Otherwise, the teams that are bad are going to stay bad if they can't set themselves up for the future. In a small keeper league, you have to tighter guidelines to prevent dumping and collusion because a small keeper league plays more like a "one and done" league.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, I agree. the problem basically came about b/c I was the first one to realize how important future building was (or act on it), and traded $16 Cole Hamels for $1 Corey Hart and $1 Anthony Reyes. results to date make that trade look like a disaster, and the commish is basically saying "we shouldnt have a league where trades like that can be made, b/c they throw the competitive balance off so much for one year".

to which my reply is, well I gambled on the future, which may or may not turn out be worth it. of course if we change the rules midstream from essentially unlimited keepers to 4 or 5, then that trade no longer makes any sense at all