Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

League Issue


BiggieFries
 Share

What do you think when you hear "5 player keeper league"?  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you interpret "5 player keeper league"?

    • It is an understood rule that I cannot trade until I everyone has declared their keepers.
      6
    • Since it wasn't in the rules from last year, too bad. The trade should stand and everyone can trade any of their players from their respective "pools" at will.
      44
    • Puddy
      7


Recommended Posts

...To be fair and honest, there is no rule about how trading in the off season should go. ...

 

Says it all right here! Trade stands, move forward. :D

 

Why peanalize the guy for building a great team last year? He reaps benefits of his good work by improving his position with (for his roster) non-protectable players! That all falls under the concept of protecting players. You are trying to build a feeling of team contituity from year to year.

 

SOunds like you were hoping to snatch a guy he had to cut! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

In my local, we instituted a 5 keeper max starting with last year's season. We have not declared our keepers as of yet, and a trade went through the other day that included a player that one of the team owners would more than likely not have kept. In my opinion this trade should be reversed as it is somewhat violating the integrity of the "5 keeper" rule.
? Lost me. "5 keepers" should mean UP TO 5, not "you have to keep exactly 5." If the latter is the case, that's a totally retarded rule. Who cares if he traded for someone he doesn't want to keep?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went through this two years ago. It turned ugly as people wih bad keepers were throwing around picks like crazy. We didn't like the way it was going so we added the rule that a keeper must be on your roster in week 10. If you want to trade a player who fits this qualification in the offseason, you can, but he counts as one of your keepers.

 

People were pretty passionate both ways and it was ugly for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this doesn't seem right either, if you're out to get the best possible trade, an 8th rounder is hogwash. Looks like clearly buddy helping buddy, and trying to justify it. I'm sure he could have gotten a 3rd minimum had they bothered to even shop Alex at all.

 

SO.. my options are either drop Alexander outright, or pick up an extra 8th rounder for him.

 

For arguments sake let's say all other teams are perfectly content with their keepers and we do not have the first overall pick.

 

You are saying that under this scenario, you would opt to let Alexander go to the draft pool for nothing rather than improve your draft position in exchange for a player you werent keeping anyway?

 

ETA: And the actual "cost of Alexander is the draft pick given up plus the potential keeper that is now being dropped to make room for Alexander.

Edited by Big Country
Link to comment
Share on other sites

? Lost me. "5 keepers" should mean UP TO 5, not "you have to keep exactly 5." If the latter is the case, that's a totally retarded rule. Who cares if he traded for someone he doesn't want to keep?

 

Disagree 100%.

 

Some league have a fixed number of keepers.. thus, 5 keepers. All teams keep 5, no more, no less. Strategy involved in positioning yourself to improve your overall team, etc. because of the fixed number. If you have 6 keepable players but other teams have only 4, there is a golden trade opportunity. Now, as you are cutting the player in question if you dont do a deal, the other owners have a bargaining advantage, so you want to get as many involved as possible to bid the price up.

 

Some leagues say up to 5 keepers and each keeper costs a pick (countless ways to do this, some are simply 1st rounder for one keeper, first and 2nd for 2, etc., or round the player was drafted in or x number of rounds above where player was drafted). Then there is strategy involved in who to keep based on their cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post wasn't a perfect science....but for arguments sake, lets say LT cracks his foot in the first game this year.....and sucks all year.....would you have a problem with a guy leting a healty LT go for an 8th rounder to a friend....I think that is underhanded....noone gives LT for and 8th rounder....and projections are subjective to a point. Are you telling me Alexander is being projected outside the first round this year....if not he is a consensus first rounder and needs to be treated as such to maintain integrity in the league. Maybe you make the baseline a third rounder...I don't care...but an 8th for Alexander should not be allowed.

 

In the offseason, with limited keepers, and under the rules from the scenario, Alexander has limited value to the owner with him currently as he can not keep him. As he does not have the first oveall pick, Alexander essentially has no value to him, thus anything he can acquire for him is a positive for his team.

 

If he shops Alexander around and can get a team willing to part with an early pick for him, also meaning they are thus giving up their current keeper RB, more power to him.

 

But let's take this a step forward. Many have Alexander in the 5-8 RB range this year. Let's settle at 6. Let;s also say somehow RBs were somehow distributed such that each team had one top 10 RB. The Alexander owner options for trade partners are thus limited to those teams with a nRB worse than Alexander. Now, in addition to giving up a pick for Alexander, they are also giving up a top 10 RB that they would otherwise be keeping. LEt;s say it is someone like Rudi Johnson or Willie Parker, who many have ranked right around, possibly just below Alexander (obviously some have them ranked higher, but lets not argue this right now). To these owners, there is no way they would give up a relatively early draft pick for the minor increase in RB. An 8th is more than adequate in their mind. Maybe someone would go to a 6th. Now, if the above distribution did not happen, and an owner has the option of keeping Reuben Droughns or dealing for Alexander, they may well be inclined to offer up more, but, if the other owners all have decent RB keeper options, and are only willing to offer up to say a 7th for Alexander, this owner need only offer a 6th to make the move, and the Alexander owner in the given situation is getting more than fair compensation. He is adding an important mid-round draft pick in exchang for a player he owuld otherwise have to release and the other owner is significantly improving their RB keeper at the cost of an important mid-round draft pick.

 

In many leagues, the Alexander owner would simply throw in their last round draft pick to keep picks even. In my local, as we draft early, we allow the teams with extra picks to use them and give supplemental picks to any teams that don't have a full roster at the end of the draft. We then have a cut down date before the season starts for those teams that have extra players on their roster. This allows them to make use of the picks acquired via trade as we draft early to hold on to "prospects" and make their decisions closer to the start of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this doesn't seem right either, if you're out to get the best possible trade, an 8th rounder is hogwash. Looks like clearly buddy helping buddy, and trying to justify it. I'm sure he could have gotten a 3rd minimum had they bothered to even shop Alex at all.

 

Actually, no, as I stated before, there was no other team willing to offer anything for Alexander. Here are the other team's keepers:

 

LT -Divison A

SJ - Divison A (SA owner)

Gore -Divsion B

Addai - Division B

Westbrook - Division A

Parker - Divsion B

Henry - Divsion A

Maroney-Divsion B

Brown - Division A

Jones - Divsion B

 

The only person who was willing to offer anything for SA was the Kevin Jones owner. The SA owner tried, but none of the other owners were willing to give anything, since they already had RB keepers who were just as good, if not better, than SA (at least in their opinion). Remember, you can only keep 1 RB. SA owner was not going to trade him within his division unless he got some real value, which no one was going to give up.

 

Contrary to what Azzallo posted, it is not a whiny league. I guess it is more like Atomics, where owner's are beginning to realize we need to tweek the rules so that a stud like SA can't be traded for a garbage pick. I think everyone on this board realizes that SA hold much more value than what a typical 8th round pick would garner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no, as I stated before, there was no other team willing to offer anything for Alexander. Here are the other team's keepers:

 

LT -Divison A

SJ - Divison A (SA owner)

Gore -Divsion B

Addai - Division B

Westbrook - Division A

Parker - Divsion B

Henry - Divsion A

Maroney-Divsion B

Brown - Division A

Jones - Divsion B

 

The only person who was willing to offer anything for SA was the Kevin Jones owner. The SA owner tried, but none of the other owners were willing to give anything, since they already had RB keepers who were just as good, if not better, than SA (at least in their opinion). Remember, you can only keep 1 RB. SA owner was not going to trade him within his division unless he got some real value, which no one was going to give up.

 

Contrary to what Azzallo posted, it is not a whiny league. I guess it is more like Atomics, where owner's are beginning to realize we need to tweek the rules so that a stud like SA can't be traded for a garbage pick. I think everyone on this board realizes that SA hold much more value than what a typical 8th round pick would garner.

 

Basically what happened here is exactly what I posted in my above scenario. And so I will disagree that Alexander is worth more than an 8th round pick in the given scenario. The SA owners options are take the 8th rounder for him or lose him outright. Now, if the KJ owner had the #1 overall pick, not a great deal unless there was another very valuable player also available in the draft and this was the least expensive way to secure both of them. But, if the KJ owner knew he was the only owner willing to trade for SA, he probably could have given even less and it still would have made sense for the Alexander owner to make the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what happened here is exactly what I posted in my above scenario. And so I will disagree that Alexander is worth more than an 8th round pick in the given scenario. The SA owners options are take the 8th rounder for him or lose him outright. Now, if the KJ owner had the #1 overall pick, not a great deal unless there was another very valuable player also available in the draft and this was the least expensive way to secure both of them. But, if the KJ owner knew he was the only owner willing to trade for SA, he probably could have given even less and it still would have made sense for the Alexander owner to make the deal.

 

I agree 100%....under the current rules, the SA owner had no option but to take the best he was offered.

 

But the question remains: is this the best way to run a league, where a potential stud like SA can be had for basically nothing, or should there be parameters in place going forward to prevent theft like this from occuring in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I agree that it would be more fun to trade and scour other teams for trades, etc, I disagree with the bolded part. Once the season ends, IMO, your team no longer is your entire roster, but a subset of it. IMO, once you start trading players before you declared your actual keepers, you've turned your keeper league into a dynasty league. Let me ask you this then.. (please put aside the fact that it's more fun to trade everyone) once you declare your keepers, can you still trade those old players you owned before declaring?

 

Once the keeper declare date and time hits then the roster consists of only those players stated at that time. If you don't want rosters to consist of the team people end the season with then you need to set a date to declare keepers the first week after the season is over. You're mistake is that you don't have an early date set. Your interpretation of Roster's at the end of the season is wrong in my opinion. It's not the end of the season but the keeper declaration date that should mark and lock a roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no, as I stated before, there was no other team willing to offer anything for Alexander. Here are the other team's keepers:

 

LT -Divison A

SJ - Divison A (SA owner)

Gore -Divsion B

Addai - Division B

Westbrook - Division A

Parker - Divsion B

Henry - Divsion A

Maroney-Divsion B

Brown - Division A

Jones - Divsion B

 

The only person who was willing to offer anything for SA was the Kevin Jones owner. The SA owner tried, but none of the other owners were willing to give anything, since they already had RB keepers who were just as good, if not better, than SA (at least in their opinion). Remember, you can only keep 1 RB. SA owner was not going to trade him within his division unless he got some real value, which no one was going to give up.

 

Contrary to what Azzallo posted, it is not a whiny league. I guess it is more like Atomics, where owner's are beginning to realize we need to tweek the rules so that a stud like SA can't be traded for a garbage pick. I think everyone on this board realizes that SA hold much more value than what a typical 8th round pick would garner.

 

That is exactly my point Swam....it isn't about this guy improving his team....I understand that...but lets get real here....Alexander is a consensus first rounder in any redraft league this year....anywhere from 4 to 8. That being said...I can understand a third rounder....but an 8th....that is stealing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically what happened here is exactly what I posted in my above scenario. And so I will disagree that Alexander is worth more than an 8th round pick in the given scenario. The SA owners options are take the 8th rounder for him or lose him outright. Now, if the KJ owner had the #1 overall pick, not a great deal unless there was another very valuable player also available in the draft and this was the least expensive way to secure both of them. But, if the KJ owner knew he was the only owner willing to trade for SA, he probably could have given even less and it still would have made sense for the Alexander owner to make the deal.

BC...I am not being rude...upfront....so you don't think I am an ass....but I disagree wholeheartedly. This is not about the guys right to improve his team. This is about fairness and value.....would you trade Shawn Alexander for say...I dunno...Santonio Holmes? Even though Holmes has been picked higher in all the huddle ladder drafts...lets for arguments sake say he is an eigth rounder. Straight up...would you think this was a good trade come week five. Forget the logic of it depends how they are playing...lets say they both are playing to their full potential...would you do it? HELL NO. The league would vote to not allow the trade and vigorously ask what the hell is going on. Same thing here....just because the guy can't get higher than an 8th don't make it right. Alexander is still a first rounder and should be treated as such...no matter when the trade happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BC...I am not being rude...upfront....so you don't think I am an ass....but I disagree wholeheartedly. This is not about the guys right to improve his team. This is about fairness and value.....would you trade Shawn Alexander for say...I dunno...Santonio Holmes? Even though Holmes has been picked higher in all the huddle ladder drafts...lets for arguments sake say he is an eigth rounder. Straight up...would you think this was a good trade come week five. Forget the logic of it depends how they are playing...lets say they both are playing to their full potential...would you do it? HELL NO. The league would vote to not allow the trade and vigorously ask what the hell is going on. Same thing here....just because the guy can't get higher than an 8th don't make it right. Alexander is still a first rounder and should be treated as such...no matter when the trade happens.

 

So for the sake of "fiairness and value" will you pass on Shaun Alexander as your second RB so another team without a RB can have a quality 1st RB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So for the sake of "fiairness and value" will you pass on Shaun Alexander as your second RB so another team without a RB can have a quality 1st RB?

 

I don't get what you are driving at. The luck of the draft slot...is just that luck. Value has nothing to do with your scenario...or Imight not understand what you are saying....please elaborate some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what you are driving at. The luck of the draft slot...is just that luck. Value has nothing to do with your scenario...or Imight not understand what you are saying....please elaborate some more.

 

You are concerned with "fairness and value" ... so wouldn't it be more fair and more valuable to the owner that doesn't have a front line RB if you pass on the front line RB so that he can field a more competetive team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100%....under the current rules, the SA owner had no option but to take the best he was offered.

 

But the question remains: is this the best way to run a league, where a potential stud like SA can be had for basically nothing, or should there be parameters in place going forward to prevent theft like this from occuring in the future?

 

well that's the very NATURE of a keeper league. you get to keep some players, the rest you throw back and get nothing in return. not "basically nothing", but nothing. so he gets a little something instead of absolutely nothing and you think this somehow threatens the integrity of the league? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are concerned with "fairness and value" ... so wouldn't it be more fair and more valuable to the owner that doesn't have a front line RB if you pass on the front line RB so that he can field a more competetive team?

 

LOL...I did understand your first post. Maybe you can re-read your last two posts and then decide to edit and retract...or you can simply keep those two posts there....up to you...either way, trading players and the luck of where you fall in the draft are two entirely different things...but you knew that.

Edited by TheShiznit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well that's the very NATURE of a keeper league. you get to keep some players, the rest you throw back and get nothing in return. not "basically nothing", but nothing. so he gets a little something instead of absolutely nothing and you think this somehow threatens the integrity of the league? :D

 

Uh, yes, I do.

 

Most keeper leagues allow you to keep many players, with no restrictions on the number of players you can keep from any position. If our league was like this, there would be little liklihood that anyone would let a player like SA fall back into the draft.

 

But we put the three-player restriction on our league to ensure that the draft would be filled with decent players from many positions. We are allowed to keep only three players, and just one player from any one position. That is, you can only keep one RB, one WR, etc. Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate....one which our league will address at this year's draft.

 

What doesn't seem to work is having a league where a player of SA's caliber can be traded for an 8th round pick. While I agree it helps both teams in the trade, I think the damage to the balance of the league is moreso. The other 8 owners have maneuvered the entire prior year to make sure their keepers are in place for the next season, only to see another owner be able to grab a keeper-caliber player for essentially nothing.

 

We have now done is set a precedent that managing your regular-season roster is of little importance, since you can get what you need in the offseason by trading a low-round pick for a stud. It makes little sense.

 

Maybe we install a trade-deadline....maybe we bump our keeper allowance from 3 to 5...maybe we allow owners to keep multpile players from one position, so if they have two stud RBs, they don't HAVE to let one go. There are a number of options.

 

But how you can argue that the best option is status quo, and argue that a trade like this is best for the league, is a little odd to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL...I did understand your first post. Maybe you can re-read your last two posts and then decide to edit and retract...or you can simply keep those two posts there....up to you...either way, trading players and the luck of where you fall in the draft are two entirely different things...but you knew that.

 

Bullmanure ... you are espousing that owners not be allowed to trade players ON THEIR TEAM in an effort to improve their draft because it is NOT FAIR (where is the whiny graemlin when I need it). But your concern for fairness and equity comes up short if it means you don't draft the best players so others can build equitable teams.

 

If an owner is astute enough to draft enough players that he has more keepers than he can keep why the hell should he be penalized by being required to simply DROP the extra player so that YOU have a chance to get him for nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, yes, I do.

 

Most keeper leagues allow you to keep many players, with no restrictions on the number of players you can keep from any position. If our league was like this, there would be little liklihood that anyone would let a player like SA fall back into the draft.

 

But we put the three-player restriction on our league to ensure that the draft would be filled with decent players from many positions. We are allowed to keep only three players, and just one player from any one position. That is, you can only keep one RB, one WR, etc. Whether that is right or wrong is a different debate....one which our league will address at this year's draft.

 

What doesn't seem to work is having a league where a player of SA's caliber can be traded for an 8th round pick. While I agree it helps both teams in the trade, I think the damage to the balance of the league is moreso. The other 8 owners have maneuvered the entire prior year to make sure their keepers are in place for the next season, only to see another owner be able to grab a keeper-caliber player for essentially nothing.

 

We have now done is set a precedent that managing your regular-season roster is of little importance, since you can get what you need in the offseason by trading a low-round pick for a stud. It makes little sense.

 

Maybe we install a trade-deadline....maybe we bump our keeper allowance from 3 to 5...maybe we allow owners to keep multpile players from one position, so if they have two stud RBs, they don't HAVE to let one go. There are a number of options.

 

But how you can argue that the best option is status quo, and argue that a trade like this is best for the league, is a little odd to me.

 

:D

 

what's this you were saying about not being whiny? :D

 

if you don't like this sort of trade, my advice is to stop playing in keeper leagues.

 

edit to add: by the way, the alternative here is for alexander to simply go back into the draft pool and get picked by a team who is giving up even less than the team giving up a draft pick to grab him as a keeper. what sort of precedent does THAT set for the crappy teams that suck in the regular season?

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullmanure ... you are espousing that owners not be allowed to trade players ON THEIR TEAM in an effort to improve their draft because it is NOT FAIR (where is the whiny graemlin when I need it). But your concern for fairness and equity comes up short if it means you don't draft the best players so others can build equitable teams.

 

If an owner is astute enough to draft enough players that he has more keepers than he can keep why the hell should he be penalized by being required to simply DROP the extra player so that YOU have a chance to get him for nothing.

 

Wow...the resident moron has spoken....did your forget the meds. Better get the nurse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko:

 

what's this you were saying about not being whiny? :D

 

if you don't like this sort of trade, my advice is to stop playing in keeper leagues.

 

Thanks for your advice....I know just what to do with it.

 

Your namecalling really adds something to your ability to make a valid argument....thanks for allowing me to get a better picture of what you are all about. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullmanure ... you are espousing that owners not be allowed to trade players ON THEIR TEAM in an effort to improve their draft because it is NOT FAIR (where is the whiny graemlin when I need it). But your concern for fairness and equity comes up short if it means you don't draft the best players so others can build equitable teams.

 

If an owner is astute enough to draft enough players that he has more keepers than he can keep why the hell should he be penalized by being required to simply DROP the extra player so that YOU have a chance to get him for nothing.

 

On second thought I will respond to your ignorance...even though I think you won't get it.

 

The only thing being penalized is integrity. Alexander is worth more than an eight rounder. The fact you don't get that is rather telling. This owner had the chance to get Alexander again as well if he picked high enough. That is called luck of the draw. It is dirty and low. And only those with no scrupals whatsoever would not see that. I don't disagree he could have been traded...but I think a consensus first rounder should grab more than an eigth rounder. Again....if this were a trade midseason you would argue collusion....SA for Santonio Holmes would and should never be approved. It is no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On second thought I will respond to your ignorance...even though I think you won't get it.

 

The only thing being penalized is integrity. Alexander is worth more than an eight rounder. The fact you don't get that is rather telling. This owner had the chance to get Alexander again as well if he picked high enough. That is called luck of the draw. It is dirty and low. And only those with no scrupals whatsoever would not see that. I don't disagree he could have been traded...but I think a consensus first rounder should grab more than an eigth rounder. Again....if this were a trade midseason you would argue collusion....SA for Santonio Holmes would and should never be approved. It is no different.

 

Quite clearly you should never play in a keeper league ... I mean it is simply not fair that somebody else gets to keep LT ... and it is down right not fair that in one of my leagues one owner gets to keep SJax and SAlexander and THolt and CJohnson ... he should be required to throw one of those RBs and one of those WRs back. That way I have a fair shot at them in the draft.

 

BTW ... when you have to resort to name calling that really doesn't strengthen your argument.

Edited by Grits and Shins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information