NFL Fantasy Football Keeper 2016

[wizards8507]

So what your saying is the only way you could get on board with the first round is if there is an additional penalty for a keeper beyond someone's first pick in the draft?

No. The only way I could get on board with a first round keeper is if there were no penalty for any keeper beyond losing the same-round pick.

Idk, maybe agree to disagree but I just can't wrap my head around your issue being disappropriate penalties. The max penalty is the max. There has to be an end point. But why should that mean a person can't keep any player he acquired. To me that's the essence of a keeper league. But again, if the league votes otherwise, that's fine. Just doesn't make sense to me. I have absolutely no problem with anyone ever forfeiting their first round pick to keep a player - to me that's a big give up in ROI and value. I'd never do it - I just think there should be the option.

Again, the issue is not with the first round player being kept. The issue is with the second round player being kept for the same "cost" as the first round player.

Keep a second round player and give up your first round pick
Keep a first round player and give up your first round pick

In essence, it's too "cheap" to keep your first round pick (or, put another way, disproportionately expensive to keep your second round pick). If you have a one round penalty for keeping a second rounder but a same-round penalty for keeping a first rounder then everyone except for major busts would keep their first rounder.

I disagree with the idea that a keeper league should encourage keepers. There needs to be a trade-off in the decision to keep a player or not. It shouldn't be an objective benefit.

 

[Ironman8]

No. The only way I could get on board with a first round keeper is if there were no penalty for any keeper beyond losing the same-round pick.


Again, the issue is not with the first round player being kept. The issue is with the second round player being kept for the same "cost" as the first round player.

Keep a second round player and give up your first round pick
Keep a first round player and give up your first round pick

In essence, it's too "cheap" to keep your first round pick (or, put another way, disproportionately expensive to keep your second round pick). If you have a one round penalty for keeping a second rounder but a same-round penalty for keeping a first rounder then everyone except for major busts would keep their first rounder.

I disagree with the idea that a keeper league should encourage keepers. There needs to be a trade-off in the decision to keep a player or not. It shouldn't be an objective benefit.

1) This is why I think a player should always be kept in the round drafted the following year, and then the next year the penalty is enforced

2) Why would keepers ever not be an objective benefit? That's the whole point. A keeper league not encouraging keepers? Then why even make it a keeper league in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

3) Objective benefit - Giving up your first round pick for a keeper is the least objective benefit there is IMO. David Johnson being kept in the 10th round vs. ODB being kept in the 1st round is a huge objectively different benefit for me. Obviously I go Johnson, but I believe I (and everyone else) should have that choice.

 

[wizards8507]

1) This is why I think a player should always be kept in the round drafted the following year, and then the next year the penalty is enforced

That doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it one year. Regardless, we're already at majority support for the one round penalty in the poll.

2) Why would keepers ever not be an objective benefit? That's the whole point. A keeper league not encouraging keepers? Then why even make it a keeper league in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I'm not saying the rules should discourage keepers, either. It should be a decision that needs to be considered carefully. Depending on how the draft and your season went, it might be best to keep 0, 1, or 2 players. Your system would make it 100% beneficial to keep as many non-bust, non-injured players as possible and the only decision becomes which player to keep. I prefer the more nuanced approach that first asks "are any of these players worth more than the one round premium I'd have to pay to keep them?"

3) Objective benefit - Giving up your first round pick for a keeper is the least objective benefit there is IMO. David Johnson being kept in the 10th round vs. ODB being kept in the 1st round is a huge objectively different benefit for me. Obviously I go Johnson, but I believe I (and everyone else) should have that choice.

I don't think the relevant comparison is between keeping David Johnson versus keeping OBJ on your own team. I think the relevant comparison is between the keeper on one team versus another. Example:

Ironman 2015 Draft
Round 1. Bust
Round 2. Homerun

Wiz 2015 Draft
Round 1. Homerun
Round 2. Bust

You keep last year's second round pick. I keep last year's first round pick. We both "spend" our 2016 first round pick to keep these players. But I'm keeping a prior-year-first-round player and you're only keeping a prior-year-second-round player. I'm getting more for my keeper pick even though I didn't outdraft you in the prior year. You're being disproportionately penalized because your bust came in the first round and my bust came in the second round.

 

[Ironman8]

That doesn't solve the problem, it just delays it one year. Regardless, we're already at majority support for the one round penalty in the poll.


I'm not saying the rules should discourage keepers, either. It should be a decision that needs to be considered carefully. Depending on how the draft and your season went, it might be best to keep 0, 1, or 2 players. Your system would make it 100% beneficial to keep as many non-bust, non-injured players as possible and the only decision becomes which player to keep. I prefer the more nuanced approach that first asks "are any of these players worth more than the one round premium I'd have to pay to keep them?"


I don't think the relevant comparison is between keeping David Johnson versus keeping OBJ on your own team. I think the relevant comparison is between the keeper on one team versus another. Example:

Ironman 2015 Draft
Round 1. Bust
Round 2. Homerun

Wiz 2015 Draft
Round 1. Homerun
Round 2. Bust

You keep last year's second round pick. I keep last year's first round pick. We both "spend" our 2016 first round pick to keep these players. But I'm keeping a prior-year-first-round player and you're only keeping a prior-year-second-round player. I'm getting more for my keeper pick even though I didn't outdraft you in the prior year. You're being disproportionately penalized because your bust came in the first round and my bust came in the second round.

To you first question - I think that's the whole point. The better you draft or pick up players, the better your keeper options will be. That rewards better owners / owners who pay more attention. I am 100% for rewarding those types of owners rather than 'rewarding' those who come in last.

I'd be fine with your scenario if that what the choice was - and I think choosing to give up your first round pick for a player is a nuanced choice, but I have voiced by side. What's done is done and we move on. Clearly agree to disagree.

Let's move on.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I still don't understand the penalty in the first year of keeping a player. I've literally never even heard that suggested and I can't begin to imagine what the rationale would be for it. Ultimately it is not a big enough deal to get outraged over, but I wouldn't mind taking a vote on that also if there is anyone else that agrees with me.

 

[wizards8507]

To you first question - I think that's the whole point. The better you draft or pick up players, the better your keeper options will be. That rewards better owners / owners who pay more attention. I am 100% for rewarding those types of owners rather than 'rewarding' those who come in last.

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but "drafting better" is subjective. I think your system over-rewards people who drafted well in the first round at the expense of those who drafted well in later rounds. Good picks should be rewarded but I don't think first round picks should be disproportionately rewarded.

I'd be fine with your scenario if that what the choice was - and I think choosing to give up your first round pick for a player is a nuanced choice, but I have voiced by side. What's done is done and we move on. Clearly agree to disagree.

Let's move on.

 

[Ironman8]

Last thing I will say though is if you are outlawing keeping players in the first and second round, it's bullshit to do it after the first year of the league. I drafted (and I assume others did too) from the beginning of the draft with keepers in mind. It's why I want young with my first and second picks.

But again, if everyone is for this, that's fine. I'll just make due. But I couldn't feel stronger about making rules AFTER the first year that didn't allow for the rule in the strategy.

 

[wizards8507]

I still don't understand the penalty in the first year of keeping a player. I've literally never even heard that suggested and I can't begin to imagine what the rationale would be for it. Ultimately it is not a big enough deal to get outraged over, but I wouldn't mind taking a vote on that also if there is anyone else that agrees with me.

Isn't that this?

 

[Ironman8]

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but "drafting better" is subjective. I think your system over-rewards people who drafted well in the first round at the expense of those who drafted well in later rounds. Good picks should be rewarded but I don't think first round picks should be disproportionately rewarded.

Ugh one more response then I swear I'm done haha.

"My system" may reward people who hit on first or second rounders, but in yours you are going to have everyone just chasing young lottery picks late in drafts and in pickups now. There is no way to truly benefit to these rules besides doing that. Whereas at least in my system you could reward both late value young upside as well as people nailing their early picks and giving up the year's first round for them and hoping they don't bust again.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Isn't that this?

Yes, each year after the first year. I didn't know I needed it to be so explicit because, like I said, I'd never considered that someone would interpret that as imposing the penalty in year 1. I also think the language we have used elsewhere that a drafted player has a keeper value of the round he was picked in (paraphrasing) implies that his original keeper value is the round he was picked in, then each additional year he is kept you're penalized a round. Otherwise, a player's keeper value is properly stated as the round he was picked in -1.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Last thing I will say though is if you are outlawing keeping players in the first and second round, it's bullshit to do it after the first year of the league. I drafted (and I assume others did too) from the beginning of the draft with keepers in mind. It's why I want young with my first and second picks.

But again, if everyone is for this, that's fine. I'll just make due. But I couldn't feel stronger about making rules AFTER the first year that didn't allow for the rule in the strategy.

I don't remember if it was out of haste or what, but for some reason we deliberately punted on nailing down keeper rules before last season. It was not a good choice, but whatever. It isn't the end of the world, either.

 

[Ironman8]

I don't remember if it was out of haste or what, but for some reason we deliberately punted on nailing down keeper rules before last season. It was not a good choice, but whatever. It isn't the end of the world, either.

Could really suck for someone whose best keeper options are first or second rounders.

 

[gkIrish]

Last thing I will say though is if you are outlawing keeping players in the first and second round, it's bullshit to do it after the first year of the league. I drafted (and I assume others did too) from the beginning of the draft with keepers in mind. It's why I want young with my first and second picks.

But again, if everyone is for this, that's fine. I'll just make due. But I couldn't feel stronger about making rules AFTER the first year that didn't allow for the rule in the strategy.

Not sure why you are complaining to be honest. You have Allen Robinson, David Johnson, and Jordan Reed as 6th, 11th, and 15th rounders, respectively.

All 3 of those guys are better value than OBJ, even if he is clearly the better player. So I guess I'm just saying you of all people should not care if first rounders are available. I understand you wanted to know ahead of time but it really has no effect on you.

 

[Ironman8]

I agree with the principle of what you're saying, but "drafting better" is subjective. I think your system over-rewards people who drafted well in the first round at the expense of those who drafted well in later rounds. Good picks should be rewarded but I don't think first round picks should be disproportionately rewarded.

The other thing with this though is that a first rounder and late rounder are disproportionately valued to begin with. The sliding one round value system is not proportionate to value to begin with, so I think your whole premise is off. To me, more proportionate with be cutting the round in half each year.

A first round pick is worth MUCH more than a late round, so you should be rewarded more for drafting better in the early rounds than late ones. LATE ROUNDS MATTER LESS. It's the whole point. Everyone can now just chase all lottery picks late and that's not drafting "better", it's just playing the odds for upside.

 

[Ironman8]

Not sure why you are complaining to be honest. You have Allen Robinson, David Johnson, and Jordan Reed as 6th, 11th, and 15th rounders, respectively.

All 3 of those guys are better value than OBJ, even if he is clearly the better player. So I guess I'm just saying you of all people should not care if first rounders are available. I understand you wanted to know ahead of time but it really has no effect on you.

That's my whole point dude. It's not for me. I'm not keeping OBJ. It's the whole principle for me. I'm not fighting for my team this year. It's not subjective for me. I just don't understand any of the logic behind not rewarding people who nail their early picks, but giving all the reward to lottery picks late.

My team structure is exactly my point. In my system I'd look at my options, and clearly Robinson, Johnson and Reed are better values that OBJ. But I strongly feel that you should have the option to consider all players on your roster to keep at their allocated costs.

Additionally, I don't care that the rule doesn't effect me, I'm against the principle of changing rules either mid season or after the season where no one was given the chance to strategize for it.

 

[IrishLion]

David Johnson for an 11th?

Can't say I'd care about the moral high ground like you do, IM8. You're a better man than I haha.

 

[Ironman8]

David Johnson for an 11th?

Can't say I'd care about the moral high ground like you do, IM8. You're a better man than I haha.

Haha it's not moral (I don't think? haha) - I just can't fathom a league where the only keeper strategy is to use late rounds and pickups to shoot for lottery picks. There is no other real cost-benefit that rewards and no other great strategy. If you nail your first or second round picks and draft for the current year late (with veterans) that shouldn't crush your next year's draft IMO.

 

[GATTACA!]

Man this shit is giving me a headache lol. So dropping to last in the second if you keep your first is a no go?

 

[wizards8507]

Haha it's not moral (I don't think? haha) - I just can't fathom a league where the only keeper strategy is to use late rounds and pickups to shoot for lottery picks. There is no other real cost-benefit that rewards and no other great strategy. If you nail your first or second round picks and draft for the current year late (with veterans) that shouldn't crush your next year's draft IMO.

How would it crush anything? You're still going to get to MAKE first and second round picks from the population of elite players, who will all still be available because nobody else in the league will be keeping their first or second round picks either.

 

[TK22867]

OMG, can't believe you guys are still using a snake draft.

Go to auction style. The only way to go, IMO. That way everyone gets a fair shake at every player. I will never participate in another snake draft as long as I live.

Regarding your debate on keepers, go to auction draft and use last year's average auction price from ESPN as your keeper price, and reduce each auction budget accordingly. Problem solved. Set a max number of years players can be kept, and increase the price paid by $5 per year or something like that.

There ya go, I just stuck my head where it done don't belong!

 

[Ironman8]

How would it crush anything? You're still going to get to MAKE first and second round picks from the population of elite players, who will all still be available because nobody else in the league will be keeping their first or second round picks either.

It crushes you comparatively against all other people who just drafted for lottery picks late - some of those players who would be elite options in the first or second rounds (i.e. David Johnson). So they all won't still be available. I honestly don't think it's "fair" I can keep Johnson in the 11th and a guy can't keep Antonio Brown in the first. Just don't get it.

 

[gkIrish]

That's my whole point dude. It's not for me. I'm not keeping OBJ. It's the whole principle for me. I'm not fighting for my team this year. It's not subjective for me. I just don't understand any of the logic behind not rewarding people who nail their early picks, but giving all the reward to lottery picks late.

My team structure is exactly my point. In my system I'd look at my options, and clearly Robinson, Johnson and Reed are better values that OBJ. But I strongly feel that you should have the option to consider all players on your roster to keep at their allocated costs.

Additionally, I don't care that the rule doesn't effect me, I'm against the principle of changing rules either mid season or after the season where no one was given the chance to strategize for it.

It's not rewarding people who nail early picks. It's rewarding people who avoid bullshit injuries. 1st rounders aren't supposed to be picks that you get lucky on. They are supposed to be the guaranteed producers based on their prior performances. Eddie Lacy decided to be terrible this year. Whoever picked him shouldn't be penalized for taking the consensus top 5 player. Jamal Charles got injured for me last year. Yeah, he had some injury history, but again, I shouldn't be penalized for having to drop him last year. You get rewarded for making great waiver wire pickups or great late picks. You nailed Jordan Reed in the 15th. There's your reward. You don't get rewarded for picking OBJ 9th which was a steal at that point in the draft (I remember thinking of taking him 4th).

 

[Ironman8]

OMG, can't believe you guys are still using a snake draft.

Go to auction style. The only way to go, IMO. That way everyone gets a fair shake at every player. I will never participate in another snake draft as long as I live.

Regarding your debate on keepers, go to auction draft and use last year's average auction price from ESPN as your keeper price, and reduce each auction budget accordingly. Problem solved. Set a max number of years players can be kept, and increase the price paid by $5 per year or something like that.

There ya go, I just stuck my head where it done don't belong!

Nice! Agree that Auction drafts are way better - but it would be extremely hard to maintain this keeper league and try an assign values from a snake to an auction. Just couldn't be done. Would have to start over.

 

[gkIrish]

Nice! Agree that Auction drafts are way better - but it would be extremely hard to maintain this keeper league and try an assign values from a snake to an auction. Just couldn't be done. Would have to start over.

We can start over. I really don't care. Is anyone that invested in their team that they don't want to start over?

If we start over we just need to set out all the rules.

 

[wizards8507]

It crushes you comparatively against all other people who just drafted for lottery picks late - some of those players who would be elite options in the first or second rounds (i.e. David Johnson). So they all won't still be available.

That was their decision. They sacrificed their 2015 season at the altar of potential 2016 keepers. They made their trade-off decision last season and now they're reaping the benefits (or lack thereof).

I honestly don't think it's "fair" I can keep Johnson in the 11th and a guy can't keep Antonio Brown in the first. Just don't get it.

No, you can't "keep" Antonio Brown in the first, but you can just plain PICK Antonio Brown in the first. Good on you for picking Johnson. The valid comparison isn't Johnson versus Brown, it's Johnson versus whatever slob the Brown manager drafted 11th.

 

[irish o'phile]

We can start over. I really don't care. Is anyone that invested in their team that they don't want to start over?

If we start over we just need to set out all the rules.

I really dont want to do an auction league. I think the majority doesnt have an issue with 2 keepers, and giving up the round before the keep was selected the previous year.

 

[Ironman8]

It's not rewarding people who nail early picks. It's rewarding people who avoid bullshit injuries. 1st rounders aren't supposed to be picks that you get lucky on. They are supposed to be the guaranteed producers based on their prior performances. Eddie Lacy decided to be terrible this year. Whoever picked him shouldn't be penalized for taking the consensus top 5 player. Jamal Charles got injured for me last year. Yeah, he had some injury history, but again, I shouldn't be penalized for having to drop him last year. You get rewarded for making great waiver wire pickups or great late picks. You nailed Jordan Reed in the 15th. There's your reward. You don't get rewarded for picking OBJ 9th which was a steal at that point in the draft (I remember thinking of taking him 4th).

It's not just bullshit injuries. Like you said, t's the Eddie Lacy's, the Jeremy Hill's, etc. It's not bullshit that Lacy sucked. It's the whole point of fantasy and the volatility of it.

We have an IR spot to keep a guy like Charles all year. In my eyes you should have the option to keep him in the first round again this year if you wanted to. You drafted him last year, got unlucky he got hurt, but should have the first option to keep him again if you wanted with your pick.

And again, if this is the setup, late round guys like Reed are not a "Reward" anymore. That's the only way to get high ROI. Huge difference. And keeping OBJ with a first this year would be WAY LESS OF A REWARD than keeping a Reed or a Johnson as you stated earlier. So you guys are inherently proving my point that it's not a disproportionate or crazy reward to keep someone in the first. It's a nuanced decision where strategy and preference play a part.

 

[GATTACA!]

I'm indifferent to starting fresh with an auction draft instead. Maybe we need to vote on that too.

 

[Ironman8]

That was their decision. They sacrificed their 2015 season at the altar of potential 2016 keepers. They made their trade-off decision last season and now they're reaping the benefits (or lack thereof).


No, you can't "keep" Antonio Brown in the first, but you can just plain PICK Antonio Brown in the first. Good on you for picking Johnson. The valid comparison isn't Johnson versus Brown, it's Johnson versus whatever slob the Brown manager drafted 11th.

You can't pick Brown in the first if you finish in the upper half of the league. So you can't own a player you were smart enough to draft because you did well the previous year. But the way you can do well for going forward is just draft lottery picks late. Do you not agree that is best tangible way to get ROI in your system?

 

[gkIrish]

I don't care anymore. We voted and if people don't want to go by the vote results then Gattaca should just set whatever rules he thinks are fair and I am good with it. Let's just stick to it going forward.