|
I spent almost all my dynasty rookie draft capital last year on QBs. I figured any given rook could be a bust so I didn't want to use one early pick on a guy who would wind up being worthless, especially since I was already really QB needy. That's how I wound up with all three of Watson, Trubisky, and Kizer. I wanted Mahomes but someone else snagged him, and I considered Beathard but someone grabbed him too. I also picked up Alex Smith as a free agent for cheap, and it was really nice that he decided to go ham given what happened with Watson. Kizer is still on my team (and still taxi squad eligible), I've got to make decisions about him and Trub soon probably, and Watson is on my IR but I'll have to move him back onto the roster, plus I have to decide if I want to keep Smith or not. I can't realistically keep hanging on to five QBs. But I feel like this approach really worked out, because I got Watson and there's no way I knew which of Watson/Trubisky/Kizer/Mahomes was going to wind up being my long-term star QB.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
Salary caps may also come into play. Do your players have salaries, and if so, are they determined based on draft position?
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
"Football player may or may not be good" --football analysts
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I think the easiest thing to do in fantasy football is just trust talent. A couple years back, I remember arguing against drafting Antonio Brown first overall. My logic was nobody has been that dominant three years in a row. I'm dumb. Sorta like how Julio Jones was a lock for top 3 WRs again last year, right? And OBJ? Or like how Adrian Peterson was a lock to be top 3 RB, even when he went to the Saints? What I'm getting at is yes, trust talent, if the team is otherwise functional. But there are so many counterfactuals that it's totally reasonable to think that a top star player may regress in a given year for reasons x, y, and z. I dunno about that Browns call, but I'd say DJ is a big risk this year if you're taking him in the top five and I'd probably not do that in redraft.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
Drunk Nerds posted:Is this referencing an inside joke I missed out on? I guess just random homers, lol.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
The biggest error of that article is ignoring Shanahan and how he ran his running game in Atlanta. McKinnon's performance is going to be dependent more on how well Breida and I guess possibly Joe Williams perform. The idea that Shanahan is going to use Juszczyk as a goal line ball carrier is of course very silly. But if Shanahan views his RBs as McKinnon playing a Tevin Coleman type role while Breida plays a Davonta Freeman type role, then McKinnon is not going to get high volume and neither back will be worth an early round pick in fantasy. It could go the other way around, though, and we need to see what Joe Williams can do when healthy (I suspect it's "fumble a lot, not make an impact, maybe get traded or cut").
Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:37 on May 7, 2018 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
sourdough posted:Team getting Fournette and Hilton wins by a ton Agreed, I'd mash that
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
assuming 12 teams, are there really 48 qbs worth owning? If not, then the roster limit isn't really going to affect availability.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Reports > Player > Full Free Agent Listing. Then Show Only: Rookies. e. but as Az said, you can't then sort or filter that list by position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
I would not take that for Funchess. He's young, he's basically WR1 on the Panthers, and he's not going to go away, and that's worth a lot more to me than a third round pick. That said, you do have a couple too many WRs. I'd be looking to move maybe Westbrook ahead of Funchess though. Or Demaryius, who is still good but is old and still stuck on a poo poo team and costing you a fair amount of cap. For crabs I think a 2019 2nd is about par? He's listed as WR1 for the Ravens, but the issue I see with him is that the WR corps behind him is unimpressive so I expect him to draw the tightest coverage; his fantasy production in Oakland was inflated by Carr preferring him as his red zone target; and Flacco is a middling QB. None of that means that Crabs can't excel in Baltimore, but I see him as a risk right now, and that reduces his value as a trade in the offseason. If you had the roster and cap space to keep him a few games into the regular season, there's a chance his value goes up considerably, but also it could drop, and obviously you're looking to move him now. For me, for proven players with both upside and downside risks and unknowns, a 2nd round pick is about right. Others may disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 21:12
|
|
|
Our league is the one copied, and we're definitely revisiting the rookie prices, and the reason it's not auction for the rookie draft is really just so we have picks to award by standings and to trade otherwise. But also I had no idea what I was doing and made up like 50% of it as I went along. Our scale is currently $20 for the first four picks of the first round, then $18 for the next four, $16 for the remaining first round picks, and then halving each round thereafter ($8, $4, $2, $1). We agree this isn't good and will be changing it this year, I believe. We also have a taxi squad, though, and players on taxi don't affect cap. At all. And you can draft directly to your taxi squad. This is important for dealing with rookie salaries.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
The whole point of the taxi squad is to stash future prospects. Your taxi squad players aren't affecting your cap, so they're "free" stashes. If you have someone who is startable today on your taxi squad, then you are taking advantage of the taxi squad just to create cap space, so someone else is going to get to make use of that player (and pay their cap hit) instead of you. If you wanted to prevent that, all you had to do was roster the player and pay their dang cap. It's only fair. That said, you had to spend a draft pick to get that player, so you deserve some kind of chance. Compensation, or a way to block a steal (that costs you something). In our league, what we did up till now was you could block a steal, by not only promoting to your roster but you also had to start that player that week. Which would make the player permanently ineligible for taxi squad ever again. I think that worked OK, but what happened in practice was that almost every steal attempt got blocked by starting the player, because in dynasty it's better to maybe lost this game and have to cope with the addition to your cap, then to lose a long-term good prospect who could be helping you for many seasons to come. For example, I started Trubisky one week to avoid him getting stolen off my taxi squad. He was definitely not the QB I wanted to start that week, or really at all that season, but he's also too valuable to just lose off my roster, particularly since I've been struggling at QB for a couple years. I had to deal with his salary in my cap the rest of the season since starting him made him taxi-squad ineligible. So now we've basically voted to do as Spermy says: we're putting draft picks compensation in instead. (Did we agree to get rid of the blocking mechanism too? I forget.) We want to leverage rookie salaries, taxi squad space, and taxi squad theft to accomplish these goals:
All of these factors are aimed at keeping owners engaged and involved all season, even if they're losing a lot of matches this year. Keeping the league healthy and teams having a shot at being competitive, if not this year, then probably next year. Ensuring that if an owner leaves, their team is still attractive to bring in a new owner to the league. Being balanced and fair and fun. It's been interesting seeing what tweaks get suggested, which things wind up being argued over and which everyone is in favor of or nobody really cares about. One other thing to keep in mind: in our league, we do IDP. Nobody can stash 14 goddamn WRs on their roster, like RCarr has. You get 24 regular roster slots, 2 IR slots, 3 taxi squad slots, and you need to fill positions at QB, RB, WR, TE, LB, DL, and DB, for a total of 13 starters each week. This year I believe we're expanding the roster by 1, the IDP starters by 1, and maybe the taxi squad by 1, if I remember correctly. If our salary cap is the same as RCarr's league, but more positions to fill, then there are fewer players at any given position that are viable to put on a roster, and by extension, the rookie draft has to be more selective even with taxi squads. Which means a second round salary that might seem high in RCarr's league may seem less high in our league? Maybe? Although it does seem like we don't draft very many IDP rookies in the rookie draft. And we're pretty sure we need to adjust the rookie salaries. And we're still not totally sure whether we like having the free agent draft before vs. after the rookie draft. (You have to drop players to free agency to make room for your rookie draft, so it makes sense to do the free agent draft after the rookie draft, but... maybe it's very important to know whether you'll get that one high-priced free agent by bid before you decide whether to use or trade away your expensive 1st round pick...?) The whole subject of figuring out the rules for a dynasty league is kind of fascinating, really. We have three commissioners and by rule, the commissioners get to make the rules, but by custom we poll the whole league about everything important and discuss anything where there's disagreement, because the goal is a fun league that everyone wants to play in. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
Zauper posted:Even so, most people don't have any extra IDP players, so they have 6 IDP and 18 offense (of which 7 start). I think a few of us tended to keep more than 6 IDP during the season but then dropped one or two towards the end of the season/last game or two. I have 7 IDP now, BALLS has 8, the Whalers has 9, Lego has 7, Ash only has five(!), Brick has 8, Garbage has 9, Homey has 8, and the remaining 5 teams including you have 6. I didn't count IDPs on taxi squads/IR but there are a handful around. Essentially if you only carry 6 IDP guys, none of them can be Qs or you're at risk of not having a full roster on Sunday morning. It's often impossible to get up to date info on questionable defensive players because the major sites are much less diligent about reporting whether they practiced on Saturday or looking into whether they're really likely to play or not. So I think most teams wind up dedicating at least 7 and often 8 or 9 slots to IDP guys, in terms of not being able to roster 18 or even 17 non-IDP uninjured non-taxi guys that you intend to keep through the season. RCarr posted:Yeah a dynasty league is definitely a league where you will need to tweak the rules each year until you find that perfect balance. I'm quickly learning that. Mostly there's just no universally-used format or set of common formats for dynasty, the way there is for regular redraft leagues. So you can't just copy a rules set that has been broadly tested and results from thousands of trials across thousands of leagues for a decade, you have to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Commissioner/Franchise Setup -> Abilities -> Commissioner Lockout This is the right answer, and owners can all see when the lockout is enabled and get a notification when it's disabled, so the commish can't engage in shenanigans.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
Also this is dynasty so you have to think about talent, and about opportunity for the next few years, not just 2018. Who is going to stand out enough (and rise to that challenge) to still be a valuable starter for your team in 2020 and beyond? First round rookie draft picks should pay off long-term, not just short-term.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
5th round in dynasty has most people not even drafting any more and is scarcely better than a free agent pickup.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
3 games is not a useful data set, but also, sure
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
I expect typically your #1 WR is less important than your bellcow back, yes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
sourdough posted:For a QB's passing numbers? Maybe? You practice and plan routes and plays with a bunch of WRs and the team has TEs and catching RBs as well. But you only have a depth chart of RBs of like 4, and 2-4 are often specialists. Plus your RB1 pass blocks on option plays, especially if he's a bellcow three-downs type back who has to be able to do that well to take that role. Maybe when there's a big fall off from your WR1 to your WR2, that could be more significant? Like, probably Ben's passing without Antonio Brown are probably worse than when he's missing LeVeon Bell instead, but actually I'd be real interested in whether that is the case or not, now I'm thinking about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
except kickers and D/STs should be taken in the final two rounds of your draft, if you're forced to take them during the draft at all, so your QB1 or evne your QB2 in a 1QB team should be taken before them, always.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Wilson as QB2 is madness. Anyone else surprised by some of these early rankings? Mahomes over a bunch of reliable QBs, Zeke behind DJ, Barkley ahead of Fournette... I realize I probably am not thinking these through, this is just first impressions. e. Julio is 4th, but Matty Ice is 14th?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Well let me just get this out there now for the new season as the first guy to start giving 89 poo poo: "It doesn't matter, 89, because by week 3 you'll have traded every guy you drafted away anyway"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Ben Nevis posted:If you were in a superflex league and wanted to balance things a bit so QB, at least beyond the top dozen guys, wasn't always the immediate choice for flex, are there any reasonable adjustments you might make? I think the thing to do is increase the value of RB/WR/TEs compared to the QB, rather than trying to reduce QB scoring. But be careful not to make it super swingy or hand out a bunch of dumb bonuses like a lot of people do. PPR is common, but you can add points per first down (esp. adding that to TEs helps them be more useful); give RBs a points per carry score (maybe a quarter point?) which rewards inefficient RBs and power backs over efficient guys who get more yards per carry; maybe assign extra points for yards-after-catch? I would not do all of these, but if you picked one or two it would help.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
I've got Olsen and Ebron. My problem is I'm over my cap and Olsen is $13 ($250 cap), but Ebron at $2 I can use regardless of whether Spoeank is a dumb bitch with terrible taste who will never change or improve as promised. I feel like Olsen is kind of the forgotten top TE right now, people are worried about his injury from last year but he came back and performed well after it, and he remains a top cam newton target, so I don't see what's radically changed to make him no longer be useful. I just wish I had him for something under $10. I can't talk too much about my plans here because it's a goon league, but I am gonna have to decide before the rookie draft whether I want to keep or try to trade Olsen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
If it's a keeper superflex league with standard scoring and people aren't idiots, all of the good QBs will be kept and the first round will be picking up the remainders, who are probably the high-risk guys and the really lovely guys. In this format you can't not keep a potentially useful QB.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:This just in, Eifert is now projected to be the TE5 this season. You're going to have a nice frustrating time as you fail to start the top scoring TE on your bench, every week. Also, inevitably, like three or four of the top ten TEs every year are total random dudes nobody's heard of, because that's how the position works, so you're going to get to experience the joy of having four of the top five TEs on your roster and still underscoring your opponent's TE several times through the season because he grabbed some rear end in a top hat off waivers week 3 who is just randomly going ham this year. Sataere posted:Of course, plans change. Injury or inefficiency can change circumstances. Of the five quarterbacks with rookies sitting on the bench behind him, Tyrod has the best chance of keeping his job all year. This is really what it boils down to. In a keeper superflex league, even a risky guy like Tyrod is still an essential keep vs. any other position on the roster, including sure-thing star players at WR. There's essentially no chance of finding a replacement-level QB on the waivers during the season, so you have to have 3 QBs rostered all year, and your choice for the third one is going to be grim if you're trying to get him in round two of the draft. Whereas if all your WRs die you can still find someone on the waivers who will at least score more than 0 points, and the same for RB, TE, etc. Of course, you could always start a WR or RB in that superflex slot, but your RB3/WR3 are generally worse than any QB who is playing that day, even the QB playing for the Browns. Of course it's not ideal, Mayfield could wind up coming in late in the season if Taylor is really bad or Mayfield appears to be ready. Cross that bridge when you come to it. For now, I still say you have to keep Taylor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Mahomes was picked #10 and sat out last year. I don't know the statistics, but that's a recent example. Alex Smith outperformed, and that probably helped with the decision to keep him on the bench, but I think it was clearly the plan anyway. Zauper posted:I think you have to keep Tanny as your QB2, not TyGod, and then spend your first rounder on a QB -- ideally one of the rookies. Ah god I forgot Tannehill was already in play. Hmmm. I guess a lot depends on how many QBs are draftable and what position you're in in the first round. I'd want to keep both Tanny and Tyrod on the roster unless I was basically guaranteed to get a QB with my first pick who was guaranteed to start games. Especially given tannehill is coming off an injury and a lost year.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
Ben Nevis posted:I'm 10th. QBs available will be Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Newton, Luck, Cousins, and then a big drop off down to like Alex Smith and Joe Flacco. And of course, the rookies. It's pretty much the biggest haul of good QBs available since the league began. 6 of the teams in front of me are definitely looking for QBs. 2 of them could reasonably be. I've floated offers to the teams at 1.4 and 1.5, who both are not in dire need of a QB but could use receivers, to see about swapping first rounders. Wow. Yeah if you can do that and then drop one of tyrod/tannehill, that's a good plan. Even at tenth, you'd basically be sure of either a rookie or a starting veteran, so if you decide the top three rooks are all guaranteed to play, you might be able to swing it at #10. I'm kind of stunned at someone deciding not to keep each of those veterans, though. Maybe some of your leaguemates are idiots?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
I don't want to really touch the Raiders at all. I have zero and I mean zero belief in John Gruden.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Suddenly not being ready for something is actually completely in line with being in recovery and coping with lifelong mental issues, and he is not by himself at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 01:06
|
|
|
I wonder how many times per game the Raiders are gonna roll with spider 2 y banana. loving john gruden. God.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
He sounds like Wil Wheaton. That sort of "I'm on camera/on mic and trying to sound like an announcer but it comes off as smug" sound, like Wil he seems incapable of just talking like a normal person. This is based on a sample size of two videos posted in the thread, but I already can't listen to him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
RCarr posted:Who runs the Goon 2015+ Dynasty league again? (I always forget) We call it the "I paid what for who?" league now, but yeah it's me, plus Spermy Smurf and Teemu Pokemon as the other commissioners. Zauper is a league member and he posts in this thread fairly regularly too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
RCarr posted:Ok cool, hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions... Zauper addressed all of these but I'll add some context. 1. There are some ways to clear cap space, such as by dropping players or making trades. But the fact that your cap prevents you from accumulating expensive players is a feature, not a bug. Owners have to manage their cap! Also, though, there only has to be one other owner with cap space and a desire for that player, for the auction price to rise by a lot. 2. We do not want owners eliminated from playoff contention to give up. Having a worthwhile goal that is worth going for in the playoffs even if you started the season 2-8 means it's more likely everyone stays engaged through the whole year, and that is important especially in dynasty where there may be owner turnover, where you want everyone bidding on free agents to ensure high salaries for the best players, where you want other owners willing and able to trade for now or for the future, etc. That said, I agree with Zauper that 1.13 costing a much as 1.9 through 1.12 makes it a little less amazing. It's the 13th guy for the salary of the 9th guy. 3. MFL does not make it possible to accept a player straight to your taxi squad, whether by trade, auction, or draft. During the rookie draft we give all the teams an extra, temporary roster slot strictly for transitioning players to the taxi squad. We also use a soft cap; that is, owners aren't programmatically prevented from busting cap with a player add, so we just expect everyone to pay attention and the commissioners do too. But on top of *that*, rookie salaries have to be assigned manually due to our structure, so even if we had a hard cap, this system would still work; commissioner just assigns the rookie their new salary after owner moves them to taxi squad. Basically, our league rules allow you to avoid busting cap with a taxi-eligible player (or for that matter an IR-eligible player, who only costs half salary against your cap) if you immediately move them to taxi/IR, but MFL does not really support that, so we have to fudge it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
The real issue with dynasty values is that there is no standard dynasty league format. When I was setting up our league a few years ago I spent weeks looking at the fairly sparse online resources about dynasty and there was a lot of variation. The best resources basically stated as much and gave some guidance about setups, but a ton of important details were always left out. Not just starter and bench composition, either; scoring obviously, but all kinds of things. Taxi squads, contracts, IR eligibility, salary caps, IDP, salary escalation, it goes on and on. Some leagues you can only keep a guy for a four or five year contract and then they are forced onto the open market, other leagues you can effectively keep a guy his whole career. Auction vs. snake drafts, rookies + free agents at once or separate, it just goes on and on. I think the result is that dynasty projection would require a dedicated set of analysts who are willing to fully engage with the full spectrum of rules and come up with projections that vary across different key rulesets. It would be a huge amount of work for what is probably a pretty small audience, compared to just focusing on standard format redraft.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Leaving Luck aside entirely; are the Colts less terribly run and loaded with garbage players? Frank Gore is gone, and TY Hilton is presumably still good, but... who else?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
I love it, because it's so immersive and decisions can have consequences for years. I hate it, because it takes a lot more effort, and mistakes can have consequences for years. I think having good rules and solid leadership and fair-minded owners is even more critical, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
There's always several breakout TEs on the waivers, you guys are crazy. Look at the ADPs of the top 24 TEs for the past few years.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I'm not looking for top 24 though. I'm looking to hit on a guy who ends up top five. How often are those guys undrafted? You're drafting a second TE, and hoping he's top 5? Or, maybe you're saying you're aware TEs are a lottery and just buying two tickets, to increase your odds of hitting that top 5? How late are you taking that TE2, and still hoping for a top-five hit? What's the opportunity cost of taking that 2nd TE there? What's the positional scarcity of the TE position, after Gronk and Kelce and I dunno, maybe Ertz? Is your second TE pick really enough better than taking a likely breakout TE in week 2, that it's worth not rostering another WR or RB or even QB lottery ticket? I feel like we've established this in previous FF threads pretty solidly and I don't see how anything has changed drastically this year.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 14:35 |
|
|
89 posted:I've jumped into the rabbit hole that is Dynasty settings. Just some comments: Based on the rules you posted, you would not sign all your guys to 5-year contracts for two reasons... A) you only have 50 years worth of cap and you have a bench of 25-30 players so you are going to have to average something like 2 years or less per player; and B) you eat that contract for its full term even if the player dies or is poo poo, so you really do not want to slap 5-year contracts onto lottery ticket type players willy-nilly 30 is a deep bench for 12 teams, even with IDP. Our league is at 25 and that seems pretty good, it forces everyone to consider their bench slots carefully. We do add 4 taxi squad slots though, plus two IR slots, so the total if they're all full is 31. If you went with more than 12 teams, you might need to tweak that. Consider adjusting scoring to make IDP players about as important as non-IDP ones. In superflex the QB position is the most important but otherwise, we find it good to have (say) a good linebacker be as valuable as a good running back. Otherwise, IDP becomes an afterthought and using bench slots for IDP guys is disadvantageous, so everyone will just stream guys that aren't the half-dozen top stars of IDP, without much care or commitment to building a dynasty IDP stable. An option with 12 teams is to create three four-team divisions. With a 13 week season, each team plays division rivals twice, and all but one of the other teams once; rotate the schedule so the one non-division team they don't play changes on an 8-year cycle. This leaves you with playoffs for weeks 14-16: we use the first week for a wildcard matchup, and the remaining two for a semifinals and finals match, plus a two-week consolation tournament. The end result is ranked winners from fourth to first place (the losers of the semifinals play one another for third/fourth) plus a consolation bracket winner who can get some kind of prize, and that's good for keeping teams who are eliminated from playoff contention interested and engaged. Alternatively, you can run a 13-week season, which lets each team play division rivals twice and every other team once: that only leaves you with 2 weeks for playoffs, so you likely cannot have wildcards, so you'll either only have division champs get into the playoffs (kinda sucks if you see one division champ with a much worse record than the #2 team in another division!) or you'll have to let in 6, which is half the league and kinda seems like too many. But you could still manage it if you have a wildcard week and then a free-for-all multi-team championship week I guess, some kinda ranked scoring three-way fight? There's possibilities, anyway. Being able to trade future draft picks is cool and good in my opinion. This is a good reason to keep a non-auction draft for rookies on your schedule. You'll also need to decide what to do about veteran free agents... when owners can drop them, whether there's an offseason where teams are locked, and how they pick them back up. Assuming you're doing FAAB/auction for free agents, you'll need to decide on how teams get budgets and how they're spent, and also salary escalation year over year. If you're just doing contracts and no salaries, that's interesting, I've not seen that before but it sounds like it could work. Free agents would only be available if you still had some contract space left under your 50-year cap I guess? What happens when there's a sudden star free agent that everyone wants, do you do waiver wire priority or something? What I would suggest you do (what we did) is find your interested parties and get them involved in the rulemaking process. The more engaged people are, and the more they feel a sense of ownership in the rules and structure, the less likely you are to have people who rebel against the commissioner or make accusations of unfairness. You can also find out early on (before the team draft) if you've got one or two owners who are gonna be a problem (they're not engaged at all, or they're overly argumentative, or they're just really stupid, or whatever). Put all your rules in a shared document (like on google docs) in an organized way so everyone can see them, and you can comment on them and track changes and stuff. If my experience is anything to go by, you'll be tweaking the rules for the first few years as you start to find out what is and isn't working for the league.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2018 18:47
|
|