We will vote on possible rules changes at the draft. POst your ideas here and everyone please chime in with your interest in what's posted.

from 4 divisions to 3. Have 3 division winners and 3 wildcard.

Does anyone agree on this?

If charging owners money for trading future season draft picks is a deterrent to prevent an owner from trading away the future than quiting the league, the following example makes absolutely no sense.

Owner A trades a player and their 2009 11th round pick
to
Owner B for their 2009 3rd round pick.

While it is correct that owner B, should pay money as a deterrent. Why should owner A pay money for trading away his 11th round pick in this deal? Owner A comes into the following draft with a better future drafting situation. The present wording deters upgrade type trading, which as we all know is oft times easier than just receiving an actual pick without a bump (or kickback) of a lower rounder in return.

~~~

I propose that ONLY owners who actually come into drafts with less than their finish order traditional picks pay money for trading away draft picks. Charging owner A in the above example is totally stupid. To me, this is a no-brainer and shouldn't even require voting. All that needs to be done is a simple 1 minute assessment of each teams draft. Owner monies are regularly being held against the spirit of this rule.

does the schedule work out the same?
2x each divisional opponent + 1 vs each non divisional team?

No...which is why we made the change. In a 3 division league 1 team is missed in the schedule. With 4 division of 3 we get to play each team at least 1 time and the division opponents 2 times.

Paying money as a downpayment is not meant to be a deterrent but is meant to protect the 18 round draft and ensure that each team has his draft in tact in some way. Team A won't have an 11th round pick but gets an extra 3rd. I understand your thinking here but the fact remains an 11th round pick will not be used by this team. In your example if you replace the 11th round pick with a player...Team A would have 2 3rd round picks and an 11th round pick. That 11th round pick carries a value and is protected if there is an owner change.

Now if you say we should move the value assigned to the rounds and say rounds 9 or higher should have no money value if the picks are traded, I could buy that but to say because Team A is getting a 3rd and the trading away the 11th rounder means nothing I don't agree with. I'd be up for making a change to which draft picks should carry a fee but not for what you proposed here.

And as an FYI I still have not received payment for the draft picks that were traded by every team. If that team chooses to leave now and not pay...who do you think is going to have to make the payment? I don't think it fair if I needed a new owner to come in and pay the full fee and not have a full draft. I'd probably send Nick to break legs .

First off, how many times was this edited? Good Golly Oh Molly, that in of itself assures me that I'm onto something. Scott, what are you in need of this unecessary coin that makes you so defensive when this gets brought up? Ignoring me when I email concerns privately is one thing but flashing off in a thread where you had asked for new ideas is totally another. Keep the freaking dollars if things are so tough. I'm simply stating that it's loony (check that - LOONEY!!!) that a team should have to pay monies when their draft situation is improved. Stop giving us spin-doctoring that an 11th round pick still has value. If it has so much value, Waysted will swap you our 11th for Storm's 3rd next year. Come on already. You know what I'm saying! And if there is a current team that hasn't paid for there 2007 future trades (as you claim) why haven't you called them on the carpet? The entire thinking that you have to (say politely Eric) kiss ass to a new owner is bass ackwards. A new owner should be thrilled to play in your league. I'm diametrically opposed to your way of thinking on this and your hasty defensive response just furthered what I already knew.

Stand back from the computer and lay off the caffiene.

No offense here but you are way out of line. First, I edited my spelling of "here" as I spelled it incoorectly "hear". Second I don't know what e-mail you are referring to and third this rule is only here to protect the league from an owner not owning up to his responsibility when trading future year picks. We've already had an instance where an owner did this and than didn't show at the draft. I had to put out the money myself to make it fair for the new owner as they didn't have a full draft.

So I will tell you what, I will remove this rule altogether if you will be the one who pays for the new owner coming into the league where he is shortchanged draft picks. Either half the league fees or all of the league fees depending on how many draft picks are traded. Quite frankly, I am at the point where I don't feel like chasing fees down any more and hear the complaining I get from owners in this league. So you pay for anyone that short changes the league and we are all good to go. I won't worry about people showing up. I won't worry about making sure all the fees are paid.

If I actually did what I just said I believe the league would fall apart in less then 3 years. I am constantly chasing down the fees (not just fees owed for draft picks but half the fees prior to setting keepers).



Are you questioning my integrity here? The more I read this the more I am appalled. I won't call someone out in public that owes money but the owners that owed money know what the consequences were/are (there was more than 1 two weeks ago but now there is only 1). If this is truly how you feel, that you don't trust what I say than why are you staying in the league? I'd be happy to send your money back and find a replacement. I certainly wouldn't want to stay in a league where I don't trust the Commissioner and if that's the case perhaps it's time to move on.

As for your suggestion and my initial response. I will put it another way since I don't think you got what I was saying. You are saying why should someone pay when they improve their draft position from 11th round to 3rd round (in essence having 2 3rd round picks). I was saying that isn't an in a owner in a better position having 2 3rd round picks and an 11th rounder (in the example of trading a player). That was all I was saying.

One last point. As this is a semi-keeper league part of the fun and thrill is the trading of future picks. How would you propose to protect the league when these future picks are traded? This league has been in existence for 8 years. There has only been 1 year where we had no turnover. So as these owners move on how would you want to protect the league? If you know of another way by all means I am open.

I missed this in my first response. One more thing. I asked for ideas and for people to respond to those ideas. I was responding to your idea that I didn't agree with your idea but I'd be up for making a change. I don't see how that is defensive (maybe I am wrong). I am commish but I am also an owner. Look at past posts in previous rules change threads.

I am absolutely open to ideas and will listen to what the league votes. Ask Jason and others here and look at past posts. I remember for 3 years running I stated "This league will never become a TE mandatory league" because I hated TE's. Well this year we will become a TE mandatory league because the league voted it in. I may not like the rule personally but if the league thinks it will improve the experience in PAFFL than I am all for it. I even voted yes on this rule change last year because I do think it in the best interest of the league.

I'll try to express myself in a different manner here. From my original example change the draft pick swap to a 9th rounder and subsequent $35 fee for more impact. Hello potential new owner A. Here is your roster and because the prior owner traded away a future draft pick (a 9th) while dealing a player and receiving a future draft pick this year (a 3rd) you only have to pay $65.

Scott, are you telling me that it's so hard to find new owners that (in my example) you think it's necessary to have this rule in place so you can give a 35% discount on the new team THAT HAS TWO 3RD ROUND PICKS AND NO 9th?

Are you questioning my integrity here? The more I read this the more I am appalled. I won't call someone out in public that owes money but the owners that owed money know what the consequences were/are (there was more than 1 two weeks ago but now there is only 1). No I'm not questioning your integrity and where did I say I didn't trust what you say? What's to be appalled about? I think it's a dumb rule and really wonder why you rushed like lightning to defend it. Further, what in the world is wrong with stating in public that somebody owes money? For god's sakes, website software on just about every management site allows for it. You are correct that this league has high turnover. It's 'pry the least attractive thing about PAFFL. However, at the same time, you have some great 2 owner teams. You and Neil could split if necessary. Ralph and I could split if necessary. I know Nittanybob is a reliable and super fantasy player also. It's no far stretch to say Rhino and he could also split if necessary. With minimal effort, PAFFL could withstand three drops.

This entire dialog would have gone much better in person - for a variety of reasons. I can't possibly be alone in my thoughts that charging $35 to a team that UPGRADES their future draft with a 9th round for 3rd round swap is ludicrous!!! Ask Ralph and Bob C. In the WSB, to ease with accounting, we don't even pay our $100 fee for the season until it's over and we meet for the playoff draft. Sure, we are a bit more "family/friends" league with far less turnover. But in each of their cases - I met them over the internet much the way this league was formed (Ralph via the DVFFL that tanked) & (Bob C. via posting an opening on footballguys.) I'm not at all paranoid that either of them would run out on me after a bad season.

You asked How would you propose to protect the league when these future picks are traded? If you go all the way back to my original post and re-read it, I never said you should abandon the entire rule. I said I propose that ONLY owners who actually come into drafts with less than their finish order traditional picks pay money for trading away draft picks. and I also said Charging owner A in the above example is totally stupid. It is. All the fuss that ensued afterwards was unnecessary. You continue as commissioner because you like it, just as I continue as an owner because I like it. Carry on and I apologize for upsetting and offending you. The rule contains things that need addressed. My example (very similar to two times WSB had money held for improving our future drafts) is perfectly logical and showcases irrefutable points.

Owner A trades Clinton Portis and a 2009 9th round pick
to
Owner B for his 2009 3rd round pick

[u]OWNER A SHOULDN'T HAVE $35 HELD FOR 8 MONTHS FROM WINNINGS TO PROTECT A POTENTIAL NEW OWNER[u]

Hard not to agree with DB here Scott-

I can see making a team pay up for damaging the future of a franchise to win now, with the possibility of that owner bolting, but in reverese it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't get the beef here. While I can see merits to both sides of the issue, the ONLY person that stands to lose anything is the commish (as he has stated, it's already happened to him). Since that's a FACT, I can't really understand why anyone in this league would have a problem ensuring Scott doesn't have to shell-out extra money.

So what if you have to pay some of the league fee early? Who does that hurt?

Ummmmm....hmmmmm you want to know something funny...I kind of incorporated this rule in a way already. I was reading your post that you wanted to do away with payment altogether and for that I apologize for the misunderstanding. There was a team that traded away their 3rd round pick but because they received a 3rd round pick in another trade I didn't require a payment for the 3rd round pick that was traded. So I guess I partially incorporated what you are raising here.

I don't have an issue with making some sort of change in what you have mentioned if everyone else believes its in the best interest of the league. What I don't want to do is to not charge for draft picks traded and have a situation where I have to say..."So you want to take this open team...well you don't have a 1st or 3rd round pick and you won't be able to keep any players that were drafted in the 1st or 3rd round. By the way you owe $ 100 for this year."

despite being one of the new guys i'm going to address a peripheral issue/rule here that i'm not too stoked about...

assuming nothing changes re: future draft pick trading fees...
i think it would suk to be an active competitive member of a league who always pays dues on time etc then for one reason or another have to drop the league. then despite giving the league plenty of advance notice of the crappy news and leaving the next owner with a good squad, a good keeper situation it turns out that i have my prepaid $35 or $50 kept & used as a discount for the next owner. i'd consider it an unecessary discount for a team that in its totality (potential keepers and draft picks) would be considered a quality team. yeah - we may all define 'quality' team differently but thats not quite my point. pls read on
if we dont change the advnaced payment for draft pick rule, i'd prefer that the league vote as to whether the orphaned team needs a discount to make it attractive to another owner instead of making it a steadfast rule that the advance pay $ is used as a discount. if voted by say 75% of remaining owners that the teams is strong then the new owner pays full fees and the departing owner gets his advanced pay $ back. if u think this makes it too easy for owners to quit, then give them 50% back and the other 50% goes into the prize pool - not as a discount.
heck - i've already heard peeboys talk about how he needs to break his team down and start from scratch. he also seems to have all 18 of his picks. sure looks like he joined the league w/o the enticement of a discount. i'd consider that a good sign as to how committed he is to the league. quite frankly i'd be hesitant of taking on an owner who only joined cuz the fees were discounted since imo its a good sign you'd be looking for his replacement in a couple years. i took on a partnership in a team with only 18 of its normal 20 picks and i'm not looking for a discount on my dues. can you tell that i think the financial motivation for recruting owners is a bit overblown?

ANOTHER SUGGESTION that may not address scot or eric's concerns completely, but might put things to rest would be to
1. have every team pay a full years dues in advance and delete the future draft pick trading fees. keep in mind that there are already trade veto rules in place where every owner has the opportunity to voice their opinion if they think an owner is mortgaging their teams future too much.
2. determine the minimum amount of advanced notice required for departing owners to give the league. think march or april? if they meet this dadline they get their money back. if they previously traded picks for the upcoming year's draft (or - as i thnk eric was saying - leaves their team with a lesser condition of picks than the traditional package of picks) then it's not automatic that they get their full amount back. instead of using a formula based on draft picks it goes to a vote to determine if a discount will be necessary to recruit a new owner based on the 'damage' the previous owner did to the orphaned teams future based on draft picks NOT on bad drafting or waiver wire pickups. the amount can be determined by another vote or a formula if we must have it (although im not a fan of the formula)

ADVANTAGES?
gone are the adminsitrative tasks of managing tracking and hawking people for the future pick fees
combine that with the trade voting procedures I read in the rules and i think you've done as much as u can do to protect the integrity of the league with less time and fewer tylenol being consumed by the commish.
getting new owners to pay 2 years at one time may seem like a bit much but it could also been seen as getting a stronger sign of commitment and assurance that they will show up at the draft. set up a payment plan if necessary

DISADVANTAGES?
people are out $ and getting nothing for it. you could put it in a money market account and each year dump the excess earnings (after paying the owner's taxes on it or just put it in a tax-free account) and add it to the prize pool or split it b/w all owners.

This idea is an interesting one and I'd like to hear peoples opinions on this. I would place the money in a money market account for a year and all money would be put towards winnings. I would then not have to chase down fees. $ 100 would be due at each draft for the following year (if I get you right). If a team that trades away their 1st and 2nd round pick and has crappy keepers decides to leave then the league can vote that it would be too hard to find a replacement asking for a fee for that year and we would not pay the owner back that is leaving. I see potential here but I'm not sure what others would say.

i have a feeling this may have already been discussed in the past, but i'll ask anyway. have there been discussions re: whether to increase a player's keeper round each year he is kept?
eaxmples:
Year 1 Player A = 4th round keeper. Year 2, Player A = 3rd rd keeper, Year 3, Player A = 2nd round keeper etc
Year 1 Player B = 18th round keeper. Year 2 Player B = 16th round keeper, Year 3, Player B = 14th round keeper etc
this can obviously be tweaked as we decide. perhaps the lowest a non 1st round keeper can go is the 2nd or 3rd round or maybe the increases happen every two years? perhaps a player's keeper round increases by different increments based on his scoring performance in relation to others in his position or only increases if he scores in the top 10 at his position? stuff like that.
yeah i might be making this more complicated than it has to be but i've read of other leagues that do something similar to create more of a crunch & keep the player pool somewhat fresh with top tier players. While I imagine it may go in cycles, there's obviously a big difference in talent b/w the PAFFL first round players and those of other leagues. perhaps thats the nuance that makes this league special and we simply shouldnt touch it.
i realize we're entering mega-draft prep time but thought id mention this anyway. any thoughts?

Sorry Liverlips, but we've done both in this league. I'm liking the current 4 divisions better.

Anyone have a response to this? I kind of like this idea.

We do that type of thing in OUTRAGED, and it works out pretty well. The keeper rules in OUTRAGED were copied from PAFFL, with several twists:

1. Don't have that rookie thing in OUTRAGED.
2. When a player is kept, his value is moved up by 1 (ex: from a "4" to a "3).
3. When a player is traded, his value is moved down by 1 (ex: from a "4" to a "5").
4. If a player returns to an owner in the same year, his value reverts back to the same value it was with that owner originally(prevents owners from trading a player back-n-forth to get him to "18").
5. Any UNDRAFTED players that are picked up are given a value of "10", regardless of player dropped.

I'm not saying that we should follow all these rules in PAFFL, but wanted to put these out there how another league copied PAFFL's, then tweaked them. Works pretty well, imho.

We've already tweaked our rules enough to homogenize this league to be like other leagues members are in. Let's just leave it alone and savor the differences in leagues.

The ability to run the spread offense (1 RB, 3 WRs).

We tried to get this passed a year or 2 ago and the league decided it didn't want to allow for this.

i'm not a fan of this proposal simply because i like the crunch/challenge that a start 2RB lineup requirement creates.

to handcuff yousrelf because of this draft picks rule is stupid. i am currently being offered a trade where i have to give up a 6th and get an 8th in order to make an upgrade of players. i think this is a very fair offer. i also don't think an owner who would replace me next year would be terribly handicapped if i made this trade. if a potential owner is unwilling to join because of this kind of situation, is that the kind of owner you really want in the league?

i'll be honest: i'm 50:50 on returning next year. so i'm probably not giong to trade draft picks, just in case i don't. if i get lucky enough to finish in the money, i'd like to get paid and then be able to make my decision. i have no intention of running my team into the ground if i decide to leave and i have no intention of trading away all my draft picks to try to win this year.

Bob,

I appreciate your honesty and hope you do remain. As for your comment about this rule, it serves a specific purpose and although you may not like the rule, it is in place for just the reason you stated above. There have been 3 times that I can remember where an owner was 50/50 to staying or going and this rule deterred them from trading away draft picks. I see this as a good thing as in your case a 6th round pick is a valuable pick to a new owner. WOuld the fact that a 6th round pick deter us from getting a new owner? Likely not, but trading away a value pick should incur a cost in my opinion and quite frankly if an owner isn't sure they are returning the following season I would hope and prefer that owner to not trade draft picks as this is the lifeblood of a new owner trying to build a team in a given year.

Scott

i see where you're coming from white lightning. that is why i made the proposal i did regarding having a prepay/deposit one yr ahead and the refunding of deposit (this is a basic summary - see my previous post for more detail) based on a leaguewide vote. i dont think dropping two rounds in a draft in an effort to improve your team now can be considered mismanagement or collusion etc and i would definitely in favor of refunding that owner's $.

That's nice of you but the rules that are in place require him to pay $ 35 for trading the 6th round pick. By trading a pick that requires a fee, the owner is accepting the responsibility of paying the amount owed even if that owner decides to leave the league the following year.

that's nice of me????
i am fully aware that this thread is for future rules proposals and all current owners should play by the current rules. i believe my note was obviously in reference to the previous post that was a proposal/suggestion for the future

I'm with you nittanybob, but anybody following this thread already knew that. When you have time Scott...I've seen you mentioning that ex-players burnt the league with this issue. Could you share which owners did this and who actually covered the money? Further, which new franchise owners inherited teams by paying less than $100 the first season, when owners whom left did pay these fees? I think this information is definitely relevant to how certain people perceive/comment about this topic.

Jersey Tomatoes left the league...I fronted the money...and Marauders paid less the first year he entered. Every other owner showed the courtesy of not trading away draft picks the year before they left the league. It happened once and it was 1 too many times.

The question was asked if there was any experience in this type of thing, and I shared.

Also, if we're too stubborn to learn from others' successes and failures, we're headed in the wrong direction. OUTRAGED learned from some of the successes of PAFFL, and is a better league because of it. And it's still different enough to be unique from PAFFL.

Thanks for the response Scott. So, if the placard on the home page of our website is correct, Mauraders won the league his very first year after inheriting a team without value picks and a full draft. Interesting. Hey, I'm just about fixing what I see as a gliche and I'm open to any/all suggestions. As far as you losing coin, Mars has won plenty and that ought to be settled between you two and not held up as deterrent against change to tenured (and loyal) owners who would never leave PAFFL in the lerch.

i believe i only had to pay $50 last year to inherit my team. i still don't think that makes it right, though. you know you are taking over someone else's team. you have to be willing to make the sacrifice to do it. would i have paid $100 last year? 90 percent sure i would have. i think its especcially less of a predicament in a league where you are only keeping 2-3 players each year as you are in this one.

in my instance, we were swapping a 6th and an 8th round pick. perhaps the rule could be written so that if the trade invovlves two equal valued picks - at lesat according to what scott has set up in terms of what an owner must pay - then neither owner has to make that payment. is that clear?

It's clear but I don't agree with it. I agree with this point for the person receiving the 6th round pick as they are improving their draft position and when looking at our drafts over the years...the 6th round is much better than the 8th round in the value of the players...at least on paper the year of the draft. For the person receiving the 8th round pick and losing the 6th round pick they should get some reprieve and according to the rules that is in place.

As for your other comment...the fact that you did gain benefit because someone traded away a draft pick that you didn't have...only makes it more fair in my eyes that if you trade a pick and leave...the replacement owner should get the same benefit.

Regardless of our personal opinions...the rule is in place and the expectation will be that if you trade the pick...you will owe the $ 35. We can certainly raise this for vote next year if the league decides to do so...but that would be for the future.

Mars shouldn't have to pay me out...it was my issue as commish for not collecting the monoey owed. This is why I no longer put up with this. It is each owner's responsibility to pay what is owed and they accept the rules of the league when they join.

That was a direct result of my expert managerial skills, nothing more.

and by the way- I attended that draft as a partner to Nsab only- we didn't know the other team wasn't showing up until we were there- I had no intention of joining on my own, and had no cash allocated to joining-so basically I was helping everyone else out- i paid what Scott asked me to pay.

Yeah, you're a good fantasy player and potential trader.

Switching gears, is it safe to assume that posting in this area is a waste of time until next summer?

suggestion 1: add something to the rules that addresses the occurrences where an owner doesnt field a complete lineup. for whatever reason.
i suggest the lowest score of the available players should be used to determine the W or L of the matchup (so nobody enters the playoffs due to a cheap win). we can also add that that substituted player's points don't count towards that team's total points. essentially, the team pays the price of not making his bye week changes but the rest of the league doesnt pay a price.
suggestion 2: each week the lowest scoring team owes the highest scoring team of the week $. something small like $ or $5.

No I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. Since we were slow to post in the spring and summer last year...if we can get suggestions and discussion now for next year...than we can possibly get the vote in the early summer.

How about this for 2009: Instaed of two wild cards based on records, we have 1 wild card based on record and one based on TOTAL POINTS. this way, a team that has had bad luck isn't punished - which he can be in a head-to-head league.

I am in a few leagues with this rule. it isn't bad but I'm not sure I'd want this in PAFFL. I would be interested in what others have to say as I am more indifferent to this one.

out of curiosity - is the reason you're not sure you'd want this in PAFFL because you don't think it's a good idea or because you want PAFFL to be different from your other leagues?
in this format, where you don't play the same teams as everyone else & records can get a tad tainted if you're in a weak/strong division, mr. lightning's suggestions makes some sense to me.
OR to step it up a notch...
you take the 1st top 5 teams based on record and select the 6th spot based on what the head-to-head record would have been between team #6 (based on record) & the team remaining with the highest total points IF they played each other EVERY week.

I like it

Bob,

Neither...just that I don't care either way about this one. I don't love the idea but I don't hate it either. If we vote it in than I am all for it. If we decide not to vote it in...than I am all for it.

The "Bob Playoff" Rule

Tiebreaker rules - Need to clean up the rules language and determine whether we want to change how we approach the tiebreaker. Bob's posting has some pretty good suggestions. I will grab the ones I like and post them here. Others can do the same as well.

tiebreakers for playoffs and seeding based on total points.

Total Points show the stronger team, imho. Head-to-head factors in too many "luck" situations: (1) Playing twice against teams that might be tougher than the division opponents of others; (2) Strength of schedule when the other team got the schedule with the soft bye weeks; and (3) Strength of schedule of Points Against.

Total Points shows how the owner truly performed and removes the factors that he cannot control.

Use for tiebreakers only.

And, the language is soooo much easier than trying to figure out head-to-head with a 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-way ties!

Another possible tiebreaker option:

Break ties like the NFL. Break the tie for the teams within the same Division first. Who ever wins that tie breaker goes against the third team for the first wildcard. Then break the tie between the two remaining teams.