Transactions in your leagues

[Samson]

I'm curious - do you think trades are less common just because people don't like to trade? Or because the financial implications provide a disincentive?.

 

I do not think the $2 per trade (not per player) transaction fee is stopping folks from making trades. A few of our owners make most of the trades and others almost never do.

[Samson]

In my oldest league we pay $60 per team (12) and the first 10 transactions are free. After that there's a $1 charge for every transaction, that money goes into a pot and the money goes for the highest scoring team throughout the entire season (including playoffs), so even if the highest scoring team doesn't make the playoffs or gets knocked out of the playoffs the incentive is still there as the pot always goes for over $100.

 

I am a fan of giving transaction fee pot to the playoff champion and not highest points total, because it's less predictable. If you have a team with a strong points total lead, they can basically make free transactions. When the pot goes to the playoff champ, there's more of a chance of a one-week upset.

[myfinsin09]

my "main league" is $230 entry fee w/ 14 teams. We have 5 free transactions and then all transactions are $5 each. We also use a FAAB budget for free agent pickups which IMHO is the only way to do it. We require owners to pay current transaction fees halfway through the season and then again at the end of the regualr season. We do 2 things to keep interest forthe teams out of it. #1 we offer $40 each week for the high point scorer. #2 all teams not in the playoffs have a 3 week most total points for $150...the combination keeps teams making pickups even after they are out of the playoff hunt. We very raley have any turover in the league and actually have a waiting list so we never have issues w/ owners paying transactions. Alot of us just say 'screw it" and write the check for an extra $100 at the start of the season. The $5 per transaction covers the cost of the weekly payouts and the $150 "toilet bowel" as well as still adding a little extra to the total prize pool.

[BeeR]

This is do not understand. If you have a "fair" waiver system (either via waiver period or through blind bidding), then every owner gets a crack at any player they want, so there is no logical reason to limit the number of moves a team can make.

 

Leagues that are plain FCFS at all times, well, that is a different animal altogether.

? If you have a rotating waiver wire order, you still get a crack at every player, you just don't always get first "dibs," and it's based on how often you get other FAs, so IMO it's very fair, tho not perfect.

 

In fact, the logical reason to limit FAs is as I said before: so more people get a crack at more players.

 

Re blind bidding, I hate it, IMO it's just plain stupid and I'll never be in such a league.

[Big Country]

? If you have a rotating waiver wire order, you still get a crack at every player, you just don't always get first "dibs," and it's based on how often you get other FAs, so IMO it's very fair, tho not perfect.

 

In fact, the logical reason to limit FAs is as I said before: so more people get a crack at more players.

 

Re blind bidding, I hate it, IMO it's just plain stupid and I'll never be in such a league.

 

Re: blind bidding, why do you hate it? Would you not though agree that it is probably the "fairest" method in that it gives all owners an equal shot at all players. I am going with the most common method where all teams start the season with a fixed amount that can be bid, once it is spent, they can no longer pick up players. You get into the real cash for bids, that is a different beast.

 

I still do not understand the logic on limiting the number of moves. If all owners can submit claims during the waiver period, then all owners are getting a fair shot at all players. If one owner wants to try get 5 players, why shouldn't he be allowed to?

 

I guess I just have never understood the logic of doing things that limit owners abilityto manage their teams as they see fit, including not just limiting the number of waiver/FA moves per week, but also having limits on the number of players by position a team can have (or even worse, having a fixed roster structure).

[BeeR]

Re: blind bidding, why do you hate it?

I guess the whole "secrecy" thing. It's stupid. Why hide? Would you do an auction draft that way? I wouldn't. Why not do it out in the open? Also the idea of overpaying for a FA I could have gotten for a lot less sucks, as does underbidding when one more buck would've got me the guy. Getting FAs shouldn't be some hokey guessing game.

 

Would you not though agree that it is probably the "fairest" method in that it gives all owners an equal shot at all players.

If it wasn't blind, yes.

 

 

I still do not understand the logic on limiting the number of moves. If all owners can submit claims during the waiver period, then all owners are getting a fair shot at all players. If one owner wants to try get 5 players, why shouldn't he be allowed to?

Because some owners have more of a life or are busier at times than others and shouldn't be penalized for it. If you limit it, such people can come back later in the week and at least get something.

[Big Country]

Because some owners have more of a life or are busier at times than others and shouldn't be penalized for it. If you limit it, such people can come back later in the week and at least get something.

 

I still don't get it.

 

Say waivers run on Wednesday night at 9pm. Any owner can put in as many claims as they wish from kickoff Sunday through Wednesday at 8:59 PM and get the players they want (depending on waiver order, etc. of course). After that, an open FCFS period.

 

I guess I do not see what is unfair if there is a period in which every owner had the exact same shot to submit claims, and that period is a long enough period of time (4 days in this example) such that even the most busy of people have time to submit a request.

 

Heck, if there is really that much concern about owners not having time to put in a waiver request and losing out on players in a FCFS period, have two waiver periods, each week, one ending on Wednesday night, another on Saturday night that could even include the dropped players from the Wednesday run, and then a brief FCFS period from Saturday night until Sunday kickoff. Then the argument of being too busy has little merit as they have the entire week in which to make claims on players.

[Big Country]

I guess the whole "secrecy" thing. It's stupid. Why hide? Would you do an auction draft that way? I wouldn't. Why not do it out in the open? Also the idea of overpaying for a FA I could have gotten for a lot less sucks, as does underbidding when one more buck would've got me the guy. Getting FAs shouldn't be some hokey guessing game.

 

If it wasn't blind, yes.

 

Are waiver requests not made blind, or do you have a league with some "open" waiver request rule where each team has to list out all the players they are going to try to acquire and hope that one of the teams with higher waiver priority doesn;t decide to snipe them?

 

And the point of not liking to overpay or missing out by a buck is one of the strategies involved in a bid system.

 

FWIW, I have played in an auction league where waivers were open bid on a message board. The league decided to switch to a blind bid system, partially because the open bid system took too much away from the savvy owners that eyes pickups a week or so before they became "hot" and rewarded the owners that maybe were not paying as close attention but when they saw what another owner was looking at would piggy back off of their research to try jump in on a player.

[The Holy Roller]

Simple solution if it is a real issue is rather than a charge per transaction, have fantasy bucks, so, for example, each year you have $100 to make your bids with. Waivers are blind bid, FCFS is a minimal fee. Once you have spent your money, you can;t make moves.

 

Otherwise, I've played in both, and generally speaking the leagues that charged for moves were a pain in the ass. Collecting, unless you collect extra fees up front sucks, and oftentimes teams near the bottom of the standings stop making moves altogether, even to cover byes, as what is the point of throwing away extra real money if you are out of it.

 

My local (15 years, $125 entry, 16 team) pays $10 to the weekly high scorer. That's the incentive to keep playing for the teams near the bottom. There's a $1 fee for all player moves but they do not go into effect until the money is in the commissioner's possession. Usually there's about $150 at the end of the year and it's added to the payouts. No problems.

[Scooby]

in one league I play in $250 entry & $10/ move of any kind. The additional pot is now up to $300! Hope I win this yr

[policyvote]

Charging for moves makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I have no idea who started it, why they started it, or who thinks it's good. If you want a bigger pot, raise the stakes up front--don't dissuade people from trading or making moves!

 

Peace

policy

[Busby]

In the league I am co-comish.

 

 

It is a salary cap local league which we charge 220 (Collected at the time of the draft) per team. We charge 3 per waiver wire transaction. We used to charge for trades, but we removed the cost of the trades to help stimulate trades within the league. It had no effect. Teams still consider their players gold and anything you/they offer is trash… In a ten team league we average 1 to 2 trades per year.

 

We use the transaction fees collected to pay out starter points. We keep a running total of each starter category (QB, RB, WR, FLEX, DEF, and K) and the winner of each category would get 1/6 of the transaction cost collected through the year.

 

Buzz…

[Samson]

I guess the whole "secrecy" thing. It's stupid. Why hide? Would you do an auction draft that way? I wouldn't. Why not do it out in the open?

 

At a live draft you typically have everyone present (incl phone and web for some), which is a luxury you typically don't have for FA moves every week. Really an unfair comparison.

 

As for secrecy being dumb, I do think blind bidding has the following results:

 

1. The uncertainty often drives up the price of a player vs. where they would go in an open bidding process.

2. It does not allow owners who are wishy washy on a player to figure out how bad they want a player . . . cheap owners lose a lot.

3. For those who lose the auction, having it closed does not tip their hand that they have an interest in a player or perceive a need at a certain position.

4. Reduces targeted bidding against a certain owner (e.g. a division mate, etc.)

5. Does not reveal a hot player/find others might not be aware of.

 

The downside is that you do not know instantly if you won a player and have to wait for processing to occur. Even this adds a level of excitement where every morning you wake up and check the site to see what moves people made.