What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Commissioner question: Dealing with keepers when expanding a league (1 Viewer)

blake

Footballguy
Hello all: I've always liked reading the commissioner type questions regarding scoring rules, owner issues and such as it gives an aspect to this forum that is different from player valuations. I've always enjoyed seeing Greg Russell's and Adam Harstad's input as well in these commissioner type threads. While I've read many of these threads, I will offer one of my own:

My already established 12 team league is considering expanding to 14 teams. The first issue I've come across is what to do about keepers. Right now, we have a three keeper maximum rule, which may or may not change in the future. But the point is, it is 3 keepers max this year, and would be the same in 2016. If the league does expand, it would happen in 2016, not for this season.

My first thought was to have the 12 already established franchises select their keepers, and then with the released players, have an expansion draft with the two teams. Have them select up to 3 players each, and then they can go into the draft that way.

Because I was concerned about how good the players might be that would not be kept, the second idea would be to have the established teams "protect" 2 players, then have the expansion teams have a 3 round expansion draft. No established team could have more than one player taken from their roster.

Are there better ideas than these two and are there significant flaws with the above two ideas that I'm not seeing? I confess, I do need to do significant brainstorming still, but I figured this might be a good start as I can't think of a better place with more passionate fantasy footballers. Thank you in advance for all helpful responses.

 
When we expanded from 10 to 12 teams 14 years ago (also a 3 keeper league), we used your second option.

Every existing team designated two keepers. Then the two expansion teams had a draft for their keepers. But, as soon as one player was taken from an existing team's roster, that team got to pick its 3rd keeper before the next expansion team picked its next keeper.

We expanded after 2001. I had Faulk, Shaun Alexander and Warner. I decided to keep Faulk and Alexander. The owner with the 1st pick in the expansion draft took Warner. So then I picked my 3rd keeper before the other expansion team picked its 1st keeper.

This prevented this new owners from feeling they were getting completely screwed over by getting just leftovers, but it also allowed existing teams to get their 3rd keeper before their team was completely gutted by the expansion draft.

Edit: I wrote my entire explanation before I read your second option, which was exactly what we did.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This prevented this new owners from feeling they were getting completely screwed over by getting just leftovers, but it also allowed existing teams to get their 3rd keeper before their team was completely gutted by the expansion draft.
This is always the key. It is never easy to be an expansion team as you're not starting off from ground zero. But established teams' interests have to be factored in as well. I like the option that your league used. Also extra valuable since your league had the same keeper setup in 2001! Thank you very much for the response.

I'm assuming it is, but I'll ask anyway: Is your league still going?

 
Yes it is. We are entering our 20th year. Still just a 12-teamer. We've considered expanding to 14 a couple of times, but have just stuck with an unofficial "waiting list" for when owners leave (5 of the 10 original owners have never left, and 2 others left and then came back).

 
Yes it is. We are entering our 20th year. Still just a 12-teamer. We've considered expanding to 14 a couple of times, but have just stuck with an unofficial "waiting list" for when owners leave (5 of the 10 original owners have never left, and 2 others left and then came back).
Congratulations, first of all! That is amazing staying power.

And that's still another concern about expanding. Ours is a local league; I'm not sure about yours. So, unofficial waiting list would have to be altered. Though, I figure, there is always Craigslist to try to recruit for local owners if need be!

 
Ours started out as all friends from the Rochester, NY area. Over time, some have relocated, some have moved back. At one point a couple of years ago, more lived outside of the Rochester area than in it.

But this year, for the first time in over a decade, the entire league might be attending the draft live.

 
I think the idea proposed here of partial keepers and protecting the roster after a pick makes the most sense.

Although if owners are too attached to their keepers to go for that, another possibility is to give the "expansion franchises" a draft position advantage in upcoming seasons.

 
I think the idea proposed here of partial keepers and protecting the roster after a pick makes the most sense.

Although if owners are too attached to their keepers to go for that, another possibility is to give the "expansion franchises" a draft position advantage in upcoming seasons.
I was also thinking of that too with a more advantageous draft position. My first thought was that they would be slotted in the middle of the draft. But I do, very much like that idea as another compromise idea.

 
We did your first option with draft position advantage for the new teams when we went from a 10 to 12 team 2 keeper league.

 
We did your first option with draft position advantage for the new teams when we went from a 10 to 12 team 2 keeper league.
Jeez, with you helpful people around, you almost don't even need to do trial and error! So, did you give any concessions regarding the two keepers? Did the two expansion teams go into the draft with any keepers at all? And what was the advantage that the expansion teams got in the draft? Thank you for the response, by the way.

 
Ive dealt with this with a few leagues I have been in, each over 20 years. One aspect you need to consider is that the New teams can actually get better keepers than the lower teams in your league.

So in one league when we expanded, a 3 keeper, we did an expansion draft. In that league we had them draft 3 rounds from the pool. But they designated a 4th that would be exempt from the expansion draft. The 2 expansion teams ended up with very strong keeper 3s. And if you looked at the exempt list it was championship material.

In our 5 keeper we kept 5 and had them chose from the pool. But, each team's drop list was exempt after one player was drafted.

Mock out your league's keepers and take a look at who is available. Now tell me you can't build a powerhouse with 3 of the top 6 players.

Note: each of these leagues require you to keep the max. No draft picks involved which is important to you.

Edit: I seem to be too late. Hope all went well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edit: I seem to be too late. Hope all went well.
No, no, not too late! Your response was ridiculously helpful; thank you so much. I do have some questions that will likely help clarify a lot.

With the 3 keeper league, you mention designating a 4th. Would that be the established teams designated a 4th player from their roster to be protected from the expansion draft?

Another question with regards to your statement that no draft picks were involved. Just for my sake, could you expand a bit on that? And when you write that each of the leagues require keeping the max players...that means you couldn't keep less than 3 or 5 players? Sorry if that seems obvious; I sometimes need a little more explaining.

You are very right, by the way, about taking 3 players and having a fantastic team right away.

 
I'd really need to think about this more, but here is the first thing I would consider...

Existing 12 teams keep 3 players, but must expose 1 of them to the expansion draft.

The 2 expansion teams select 2 players from the exposed list. If an exposed player is not selected he stays with his team.

Next the existing teams which lost players, refill that slot from the available player pool in the same order in which they lost players.

The 2 expansion teams then select their 3rd players from the list of available players.

eta: the 2 expansion teams should be able to select their first 2 from the list of exposed players or the list of available (non-keeper) players. Most likely they'll pick from the exposed list, but I don't see any reason why they HAVE to.

Then draft as normal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
C & C said:
I'd really need to think about this more, but here is the first thing I would consider...

Existing 12 teams keep 3 players, but must expose 1 of them to the expansion draft.

The 2 expansion teams select 2 players from the exposed list. If an exposed player is not selected he stays with his team.

Next the existing teams which lost players, refill that slot from the available player pool in the same order in which they lost players.

The 2 expansion teams then select their 3rd players from the list of available players.

eta: the 2 expansion teams should be able to select their first 2 from the list of exposed players or the list of available (non-keeper) players. Most likely they'll pick from the exposed list, but I don't see any reason why they HAVE to.

Then draft as normal.
Fantastic idea. A really good twist. This is an idea I would strongly consider.

 
blake said:
ratbast said:
Edit: I seem to be too late. Hope all went well.
No, no, not too late! Your response was ridiculously helpful; thank you so much. I do have some questions that will likely help clarify a lot.

With the 3 keeper league, you mention designating a 4th. Would that be the established teams designated a 4th player from their roster to be protected from the expansion draft?

Another question with regards to your statement that no draft picks were involved. Just for my sake, could you expand a bit on that? And when you write that each of the leagues require keeping the max players...that means you couldn't keep less than 3 or 5 players? Sorry if that seems obvious; I sometimes need a little more explaining.

You are very right, by the way, about taking 3 players and having a fantastic team right away.
Yes to all your responses. That "4th" was someone they wanted available in the draft. Thus not killing the value of their 1st round picks. (in hindsight i didnt like that this let us know who they liked)

Each league everyone keeps 3 and everyone keeps 5. If you have rounds associated with keepers things change some. The value of NOT keeping a player is lessened by expansion.

I feel if you expand with this as your rule wouldn't it just be better off acting as if the expansion teams decided not to pick keepers and will draft in the first round, etc. (where to slot them in draft is another question)

good luck

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I feel if you expand with this as your rule wouldn't it just be better off acting as if the expansion teams decided not to pick keepers and will draft in the first round, etc. (where to slot them in draft is another question)
Great question. I've wondered about that too. I guess the problem that I see with that is, while established teams will eventually lose draft picks according to their keepers (as with my league, owners have to "pay" draft picks to keep players at the round the player was drafted or kept the year before), the established teams have keepers at discounted values, and the expansion owners wouldn't be privy to that without an expansion draft and to be able to "steal" (for lack of a better word) a player away from a stacked team who is at a good value/price.

Our league's draft structure is such that the consolation bracket winner gets the #1 pick. There are 6 teams that don't make the playoffs and the 6th place finisher in the bracket gets the #6 pick. The #7 pick is the first team eliminated from the playoffs. So, I was thinking the expansion teams could simply draft after the #6 pick. That was my first thought, especially if they can retain players before the draft and those players are pretty decent, so that they aren't too disadvantaged.

 
ratbast makes one good point...if your league allows trading of future picks, the value of those picks is significantly shifted by expansion or contraction.

Was in a 16-man league once that contracted to 12. Suddenly 3rd round picks went from being 33-47th best player on the board to being "25-35th." Teams that had dealt players for picks before the contraction made a killing, and gained a marked advantage.

Hopefully your league doesn't have any out-standing trades of this sort.

 
ratbast makes one good point...if your league allows trading of future picks, the value of those picks is significantly shifted by expansion or contraction.

Was in a 16-man league once that contracted to 12. Suddenly 3rd round picks went from being 33-47th best player on the board to being "25-35th." Teams that had dealt players for picks before the contraction made a killing, and gained a marked advantage.

Hopefully your league doesn't have any out-standing trades of this sort.
This is why posing this question here helps so much. The FBGs never let me down. I would never even have considered this, honestly.

 
To keep it simple, why not have them draft with no expansion draft? Then slot them at end of your draft to counter the advantage of building fresh but where you slot them doesnt really matter, random might make sense. Just follow what you already have for draft pick rules. Keep it simple.

 
To keep it simple, why not have them draft with no expansion draft? Then slot them at end of your draft to counter the advantage of building fresh but where you slot them doesnt really matter, random might make sense. Just follow what you already have for draft pick rules. Keep it simple.
So, don't allow them any keepers, but allow established teams to have (as many as) three players heading into the draft? I guess the answer to that is to do some mock drafts and see which players are available at the end of the first three rounds to get a gauge of the talent available in the draft. This idea is probably not nearly as far-fetched as my first glance at it.

 
To keep it simple, why not have them draft with no expansion draft? Then slot them at end of your draft to counter the advantage of building fresh but where you slot them doesnt really matter, random might make sense. Just follow what you already have for draft pick rules. Keep it simple.
So, don't allow them any keepers, but allow established teams to have (as many as) three players heading into the draft? I guess the answer to that is to do some mock drafts and see which players are available at the end of the first three rounds to get a gauge of the talent available in the draft. This idea is probably not nearly as far-fetched as my first glance at it.
So the first round will be them and those who didn't keep any, the second will be them and those who kept 1 or less etc. etc...... isn't that how you draft the first few rounds anyway?

 
Well, my league doesn't quite do keepers that way. And it is likely my fault for not starting it in my initial post...I just thought it was already long enough!

I'll try to give a cliffs notes version. If a player is drafted in the 6th round, and the owner wants to retain that player the next season, the owner has two choices to make:

1. "Pay" a draft pick two rounds higher than his current value and retain the player's rights. In this case, the team owner would give up their 4th round pick.

2. Freeze the player's 6th round value and give up a 6th round pick. Retain the player for one year and lose his rights at the end of the season. Basically a one year contract.

Those are the two options that an owner can use to keep a player in my league right now. Hope I wrote that in a (mostly) coherent way.

 
Well, my league doesn't quite do keepers that way. And it is likely my fault for not starting it in my initial post...I just thought it was already long enough!

I'll try to give a cliffs notes version. If a player is drafted in the 6th round, and the owner wants to retain that player the next season, the owner has two choices to make:

1. "Pay" a draft pick two rounds higher than his current value and retain the player's rights. In this case, the team owner would give up their 4th round pick.

2. Freeze the player's 6th round value and give up a 6th round pick. Retain the player for one year and lose his rights at the end of the season. Basically a one year contract.

Those are the two options that an owner can use to keep a player in my league right now. Hope I wrote that in a (mostly) coherent way.
That changes everything. I think your only choice is to consider them as teams who have decided not to keep and draft from round 1. But with this twist I think they might deserve to be slotted first as they dont have the advantage of a bargain player.

 
Only choice? Certainly that is a good option, but personally I think I'd be leaning towards an expansion draft that was written about earlier in some posts. Isn't that another viable choice? I like this primarily so that the new owners *could* get a crack at some players at below market values, you know?

 
Only choice? Certainly that is a good option, but personally I think I'd be leaning towards an expansion draft that was written about earlier in some posts. Isn't that another viable choice? I like this primarily so that the new owners *could* get a crack at some players at below market values, you know?
Ratbast is right in that it definitely changes the dynamic. And I see where he is coming from, but not sure it's your only choice.

What I would now consider is each team declaring exactly 4 keepers and exposing 2 to an expansion draft. No team can lose more than one. If a team has one of their 2 exposed players taken then they keep the one not selected as their 3rd keeper. If a team does not have an exposed player selected then they must choose to drop one of the two exposed players.

The expansion team must take on the status of the player (meaning they give up a draft pick just the same as the original team would have had to do). This could limit the options they have as they can't give up 2 picks in the same round (unless you already have rules for this).

Expansion definitely changes the value of draft slots and such. That could be an issue (think somebody spoke to this earlier so I'm not going to revisit it), but each team has a chance to understand the ramifications of choosing their keepers and whom to expose now that the league is expanding so it's should be the same for everyone.

 
I thought about your approach C&C (Music Factory?) but i might think the two expansion teams would come out too good here. If a couple of teams have 3-5 good deals they are going to have to make them available.

The other part that doesnt work is why make everyone keep 3 when they dont have to keep any? Thats how they are set up so they need to fit the expansion around that.

I still say let them draft as if they have decided to keep zero. They are only at a slight deficit this year and the restrictions of holding the players messes it all up for value as well.

Do the owners usually keep 3?

 
We only had 1 keeper. So this year when we expanded from 10 to 12 we started from scratch. I kind of wanted to keep mine (AP for a 4th rounder) but it was a league vote.

 
I thought about your approach C&C (Music Factory?) but i might think the two expansion teams would come out too good here. If a couple of teams have 3-5 good deals they are going to have to make them available.

The other part that doesnt work is why make everyone keep 3 when they dont have to keep any? Thats how they are set up so they need to fit the expansion around that.

I still say let them draft as if they have decided to keep zero. They are only at a slight deficit this year and the restrictions of holding the players messes it all up for value as well.

Do the owners usually keep 3?
In general I agree. I'm ok with the expansion teams being at a slight disadvantage this year, but they have to be given an opportunity to keep guys to be able to compete in 2016. I'm struggling with how the expansion teams will work their keepers next year. Under your suggestion, what do they give up if they want to keep one of those expansion draft players in 2016?

eta: I didn't completely get what you were saying at first. You are suggesting just slotting them into the normal draft, no expansion draft of any kind. That would work. I'm concerned on how long it will take for the expansion teams to be competitive. They are at a big disadvantage year 1. And probably pretty big year 2 and 3. If you give the expansion teams first picks overall, those guys are not going to be keepers next year most likely as they'd have to give up their first pick next year. If they do, those guys are not going to be the equivalent of Calvin, Dez, etc... so they'll still be behind for years to come. Player to compensation pick ratio likely means they will be better off keeping players selected in later rounds. Maybe I'm way off here. blake knows the league and he should have enough insight to know how this will work out.

Yeah, no reason to force them to keep 3. But I still think they declare 4, protect 2/expose 2. Then after the expansion draft they can drop as many as they want. This also means an expansion team can pass (not be forced to draft 3).

C&C is for Command and Conquer an old pc game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought about your approach C&C (Music Factory?) but i might think the two expansion teams would come out too good here. If a couple of teams have 3-5 good deals they are going to have to make them available.

The other part that doesnt work is why make everyone keep 3 when they dont have to keep any? Thats how they are set up so they need to fit the expansion around that.

I still say let them draft as if they have decided to keep zero. They are only at a slight deficit this year and the restrictions of holding the players messes it all up for value as well.

Do the owners usually keep 3?
This makes sense as to why you suggested the expansion teams should start off at zero. However, I do think that the expansion teams should get cracks at those players that are on below market deals. Maybe it is just where we differ on that topic.

But, this is the first season, 2015, where owners can keep up to 3 players. It is a local league, so there are some experienced owners, some not-so-much. So I'm trying to bring it along slowly, that is the reason for the low number of keepers. So, I'm actually not sure if the owners will keep up to 3, but they don't have to keep that many either. Owners can keep 0, 1 or 2 players as well.

The reason why I like your idea of having the expansion owners starting off with zero is that at least they'll get a franchise-type player, at least one, in the first round of the draft. I just feel like that if there are 12 teams already with some below market deals, they may or may not be able to get some in the draft, but they will be a step behind in that regard. As an example, one owner has Julius Randle at a price which is the equivalent of an 11th round draft pick. I got Odell Beckham as a free agent, and he is equal to a 10th round draft pick. Emmanuel Sanders is at an 8th round draft pick value. These are the kinds of values that the expansion teams should at least get a crack at, is my thinking.

 
In general I agree. I'm ok with the expansion teams being at a slight disadvantage this year, but they have to be given an opportunity to keep guys to be able to compete in 2016. I'm struggling with how the expansion teams will work their keepers next year. Under your suggestion, what do they give up if they want to keep one of those expansion draft players in 2016?

eta: I didn't completely get what you were saying at first. You are suggesting just slotting them into the normal draft, no expansion draft of any kind. That would work. I'm concerned on how long it will take for the expansion teams to be competitive. They are at a big disadvantage year 1. And probably pretty big year 2 and 3. If you give the expansion teams first picks overall, those guys are not going to be keepers next year most likely as they'd have to give up their first pick next year. If they do, those guys are not going to be the equivalent of Calvin, Dez, etc... so they'll still be behind for years to come. Player to compensation pick ratio likely means they will be better off keeping players selected in later rounds. Maybe I'm way off here. blake knows the league and he should have enough insight to know how this will work out.

Yeah, no reason to force them to keep 3. But I still think they declare 4, protect 2/expose 2. Then after the expansion draft they can drop as many as they want. This also means an expansion team can pass (not be forced to draft 3).
I think I'm probably more in agreement with C&C. Thank you for weighing in here, by the way. Same to you Ratbast and Insein.

I do worry about the expansion teams being competitive and how long it would take for them to be on equal footing in terms of owning players on very good deals. With no keepers starting off, they would be at an inherent disadvantage. The part that I bolded is where I agree with C&C. It is a lot better to keep players in lower rounds, but for example, one owner is keeping Antonio Brown who was drafted last year in the 3rd round, and he'd have to give up a 1st round pick to do it. I am working on a system for 2016 where owners will be able to start protecting 1st or 2nd round value players with a Franchise Tag.

I do like the declare 4, then protect 2/expose 2 idea. That was probably my first thought to all of this, but I'm grateful for ratbast and his thought provoking ideas. That's the exact reason I wanted to post this!

 
blake, which franchise type players do you expect to be available in the regular draft?
Looking at our 2014 draft right now, and that currently, teams cannot retain players drafted in the first two rounds, there will be loads of franchise type players available. And that is not including talented players who may not be retained such as Russell Wilson. He was a 5th round pick, but very likely won't be protected. Here are the first two rounds of players: Charles, Peterson, McCoy, Forte, Foster, Lynch, Calvin Johnson, Jimmy Graham, P.Manning, D.Thomas, Julio Jones, Rodgers, Dez Bryant, Brees, AJ Green, Luck, DeMarco Murray. After that, I can't say for sure.

Though, like I wrote above, for 2016, I want to make it possible, albeit at an expensive price, for teams to be able to re-sign players at 1st or 2nd round pick values. So, that list could change. And it very well might dwindle which makes me like the expansion draft idea.

 
Thinking again about this, there might be better players available than I was considering. I haven't been in a league like this for a long time so I forgot about some of the nuances. If an owner has Dez and say Lynch. There is a chance he doesn't have the compensation to be able to keep both. And I now see that this league just went to 3 keepers last year, so the chance for this to happen is even greater.

just saw, your latest post blake. I think ratblast is right. Just roll the expansion teams into the regular draft. With that list of guys available they'll be fine.

 
I think the thing that still sticks in my craw is that the new owners wouldn't be have the benefit of players on below market values. Sure, they'll be able to get franchise type players and be able to compete, but my thinking is, they'll be a step behind until they acquire players, either through the draft or trade, that are cheap to retain for several seasons. I do agree with you and Ratbast, that they'll be fine for the current season. And maybe that is good enough, probably.

What kind of leagues do you usually play in, C&C?

 
I think the thing that still sticks in my craw is that the new owners wouldn't be have the benefit of players on below market values. Sure, they'll be able to get franchise type players and be able to compete, but my thinking is, they'll be a step behind until they acquire players, either through the draft or trade, that are cheap to retain for several seasons. I do agree with you and Ratbast, that they'll be fine for the current season. And maybe that is good enough, probably.

What kind of leagues do you usually play in, C&C?
You listed 17 guys there. Does your draft snake? If it doesn't the expansion teams are guaranteed to get two guys off that list. Even if it does they still might get 2 of those guys because of teams keeping 3rd round picks like Antonio Brown.

I used to be in a 7 player keeper league and I was in a few dynasties where you keep you whole roster, but unfortunately for the latter I chose phenoms for those. I run my local dynasty league, but it's different. Not exactly a true dynasty league. It has a salary cap, auction, contracts that limit the number of years you can keep a certain player, rookie draft, franchise/transition tags. Been going strong for 15 years now. We've had turnover as it's not everyone's cup of tea. But 8 of the 12 teams have been around for 13 years at least.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the thing that still sticks in my craw is that the new owners wouldn't be have the benefit of players on below market values. Sure, they'll be able to get franchise type players and be able to compete, but my thinking is, they'll be a step behind until they acquire players, either through the draft or trade, that are cheap to retain for several seasons. I do agree with you and Ratbast, that they'll be fine for the current season. And maybe that is good enough, probably.

What kind of leagues do you usually play in, C&C?
You listed 17 guys there. Does your draft snake? If it doesn't the expansion teams are guaranteed to get two guys off that list. Even if it does they still might get 2 of those guys because of teams keeping 3rd round picks like Antonio Brown.

I used to be in a 7 player keeper league and I was in a few dynasties where you keep you whole roster, but unfortunately for the latter I chose phenoms for those. I run my local dynasty league, but it's different. Not exactly a true dynasty league. It has a salary cap, auction, contracts that limit the number of years you can keep a certain player, rookie draft, franchise/transition tags. Been going strong for 15 years now. We've had turnover as it's not everyone's cup of tea. But 8 of the 12 teams have been around for 13 years at least.
Yes, the draft snakes. And I think you're right; I think expansion teams would get two extremely good players. Looking quickly, Eddie Lacy *might* be available, Russell Wilson probably will be. Guys like Stafford, Keenan Allen, Matt Ryan, Brady, Ellington and Alshon Jeffery may be as well.

The local league that you describe, with salary cap, auction and contracts is almost EXACTLY what I want to grow this league into. I've been slow with gradually introducing new rules and the guys are very flexible, thankfully, and are willing to give things a chance, usually. But I really would love to change from a draft to an auction and have salaries and contracts. Do you have guaranteed contracts with penalties for releasing a player on a contract? I know I'm going off on another subject, but this setup in football makes me wonder if non-guaranteed contracts are the best idea. Then, I wonder, what is the point of having contracts, but instead, like you write, simply having a limit to the number of years you can keep a player.

Just curious: with the auction that you have each year, what kind of players are available? Another way of asking is, how many players are usually re-signed on teams?

 
I think the thing that still sticks in my craw is that the new owners wouldn't be have the benefit of players on below market values. Sure, they'll be able to get franchise type players and be able to compete, but my thinking is, they'll be a step behind until they acquire players, either through the draft or trade, that are cheap to retain for several seasons. I do agree with you and Ratbast, that they'll be fine for the current season. And maybe that is good enough, probably.

What kind of leagues do you usually play in, C&C?
You listed 17 guys there. Does your draft snake? If it doesn't the expansion teams are guaranteed to get two guys off that list. Even if it does they still might get 2 of those guys because of teams keeping 3rd round picks like Antonio Brown.

I used to be in a 7 player keeper league and I was in a few dynasties where you keep you whole roster, but unfortunately for the latter I chose phenoms for those. I run my local dynasty league, but it's different. Not exactly a true dynasty league. It has a salary cap, auction, contracts that limit the number of years you can keep a certain player, rookie draft, franchise/transition tags. Been going strong for 15 years now. We've had turnover as it's not everyone's cup of tea. But 8 of the 12 teams have been around for 13 years at least.
Yes, the draft snakes. And I think you're right; I think expansion teams would get two extremely good players. Looking quickly, Eddie Lacy *might* be available, Russell Wilson probably will be. Guys like Stafford, Keenan Allen, Matt Ryan, Brady, Ellington and Alshon Jeffery may be as well.

The local league that you describe, with salary cap, auction and contracts is almost EXACTLY what I want to grow this league into. I've been slow with gradually introducing new rules and the guys are very flexible, thankfully, and are willing to give things a chance, usually. But I really would love to change from a draft to an auction and have salaries and contracts. Do you have guaranteed contracts with penalties for releasing a player on a contract? I know I'm going off on another subject, but this setup in football makes me wonder if non-guaranteed contracts are the best idea. Then, I wonder, what is the point of having contracts, but instead, like you write, simply having a limit to the number of years you can keep a player.

Just curious: with the auction that you have each year, what kind of players are available? Another way of asking is, how many players are usually re-signed on teams?
They only way to change from what you have to an auction or a contract league is to likely start from scratch.

link to a copy of last years rules

When we win a bid in the auction you have to decide how many years you want to keep the player for (1-4). Any contracts greater then 1 year have a pro-rated signing bonus associated with them. Releasing a player before the contract expires means a cap hit equal to the remaining sum of the signing bonus. Usually it's not a large cap hit, but it eats away at what you can spend. Have a couple of misses and it starts to add up.

It's not all that often that the top players are available in the auction. Teams have the option to sign players to another contract once it has expired via the use of a Franchise (avg of top 5 salaries/position) or a Transition (avg of top 10) tag. Each team has 1 franchise and 2 transition tags. Owners usually have 1 or 2 tagged guys on their roster. Hard to have all 3 as you'll take up too much of your cap.

Each year is different in terms of quality and amount of talent available in the auction. Last year Calvin Johnson, Emmanuel Sanders, Larry Fitzgerald, Vincent Jackson are some of the receivers which were in the auction.

We have a 3 round rookie draft which does not snake. Those guys are all signed to 4 year contracts. Guys like Dez Bryant and Rob Gronkowski were signed to 4 year deals as rookies and now their contracts were up were tagged. Other teams have the chance to acquire the tagged players so long as they are willing to give up compensation.

Sorry, going too far down the rabbit hole here. If you, or anyone else, have any questions I'll be happy to answer them.

 
That is outstanding. Thank you for the link to the league rules; I'd really like to read that more when I have more time. That sounds like a really nice structure. I'm sure I'll have more questions soon! One to start with though: where do you have your league hosted?

 
That is outstanding. Thank you for the link to the league rules; I'd really like to read that more when I have more time. That sounds like a really nice structure. I'm sure I'll have more questions soon! One to start with though: where do you have your league hosted?
MFL - 2014 site

There are a million different things you can create a new league to do and this community is extremely helpful. Lots of great ideas out there. Just have to figure out what you think will work best for you and your league. Personally, I'd like to get into a local true dynasty league. But I know I'd have to run it for it to get off the ground. I already run this league and a redraft league, not interested in running another.

 
Convincing the guys in my league to get off of ESPN was hard enough. A few of them took a look at the MFL templates and weren't impressed even though I was. So, we are on Fleaflicker now since their historical record keeping destroys ESPN. I think if you start dealing with salaries and contracts, you have to move toward a hosting site like MFL.

I actually also run a fantasy basketball league, and I would love to do contracts and salaries in that league. It is just that fantasy basketball simply isn't as popular as fantasy football. Part of me thinks just keep it with a draft type format as it is very easy to do, easy to organize, and the league owners like it. Though part of me thinks I should really try to push the ideas. That is the biggest quandary I have!

 
You don't want to alienate anyone with whatever changes you make. You may want something with a little more meat to it, but that doesn't mean the rest of your league is ready for it.

The MFL interface is bland, not exciting, doesn't provide as much news as other sites force upon you...but it works and it's not expensive. You can spruce up MFL if you have the time and drive to do so. We used to be on CBS. I don't know how it's possible but that site gets worse every year. This year I'm switching a redraft league that been around since the early 90s from CBS to MFL. Not sure how the transitions going to go. I haven't used fleaflicker, but I know there are other good sites out there. Both of these leagues have some things I was sure MFL could handle so it was a relatively easy choice.

 
I used to be on CBS as well! Around a decade ago, and finally realized I shouldn't be paying that much for an ok, but not spectacular site. ESPN and Yahoo are wonderful because they are free and pleasing to look at, but they offer nothing outside of the bargain basement league hosting capabilities. Still, comparing that to the days of doing it by hand can't compare!

But now we have FleaFlicker which is better than ESPN and Yahoo...and then MFL which is far better than Fleaflicker. And then even other sites like Fantrax which has more capabilities than Fleaflicker it seems.

With MFL, I was willing to pay the hosting fee on my own to start, but that still didn't sway guys in my league. I think part of it was live scoring which I wasn't sold on with MFL. That said, I only did a trial league during the season, and maybe you might have something to offer with that. I still would like to hold the door open to MFL for the future for my league.

 
Yes it is. We are entering our 20th year. Still just a 12-teamer. We've considered expanding to 14 a couple of times, but have just stuck with an unofficial "waiting list" for when owners leave (5 of the 10 original owners have never left, and 2 others left and then came back).
We're in Year 11 of a 12-teamer. We've had only one owner leave the league, and that was only because he moved out of state.

At one point we considered expanding to 14, but we all just like the 12-team format better.

 
One last stance....why should an expansion team get an advantage over a team that might not have a good keeper at all?

Also I would lose the snake draft. Doesn't make sense with keepers.

 
One last stance....why should an expansion team get an advantage over a team that might not have a good keeper at all?

Also I would lose the snake draft. Doesn't make sense with keepers.
The first point is a very fair one. That one really sticks. And I am absolutely sure that there will be a couple of teams with lackluster keeper options. So, right there, you may have sold me.

About the snake draft, I can see that if there were a lot of keepers. But with so few, any reason for this? One thing that I would like to institute is the 3rd round reversal. I should have done that before and kick my own ### for not doing it.

 
One last stance....why should an expansion team get an advantage over a team that might not have a good keeper at all?

Also I would lose the snake draft. Doesn't make sense with keepers.
The first point is a very fair one. That one really sticks. And I am absolutely sure that there will be a couple of teams with lackluster keeper options. So, right there, you may have sold me.

About the snake draft, I can see that if there were a lot of keepers. But with so few, any reason for this? One thing that I would like to institute is the 3rd round reversal. I should have done that before and kick my own ### for not doing it.
With your first 3 rounds having a variable amount of owners in each round and your teams now being built around keepers (which should carry weight to the following season), there is no real reason to snake, it might actually be an advantage to have a lower slot (pick 6 and 16 vs pick 10 and 11 etc).. Straight draft, last to first would be my recommendation.. I also think you have to wonder about your slotting rules you previously mentioned.

 
So, when you suggest last to first, is that giving the #1 pick to the worst team the year before? Not the best team, right? Just want to make sure I understand your point.

Regarding the slotting rules, is that when I suggested putting the expansion teams in the middle of the draft?

 
yes last place team gets first pick, first place gets last in each round. I thought you said you shuffled the picks based on toilette bowl tournament? If so then reconsider if not then ignore my reference.

I doubt there are many keeper leagues that snake, especially leagues that allocate draft picks for keepers. The point of snaking is competitive balance and that is not really needed in a keeper league, a straight draft would actually aid the balance based on the idea that those with good keepers are at an advantage already and probably are winners in the league.

In summation, I would make them draft the whole team, no keepers. Make it a straight draft. I would either slot them in at beginning of draft or random if you're not happy with that. If you stick with snake, then I would go random.

 
Your explanation makes tons of sense regarding the parity and I think you probably sold me with that. This is going to be an interesting test year for the league. The first year with a maximum of three keepers...the possibility of expansion...the possibility of changing everything and moving to an auction or staying with a draft. And if we stay with a draft, you sold me with your point about a snake draft being unnecessary. I'd like to see which teams keep which players this year, as it may be a good move for this year and not waiting to change the draft format. Thank you for bringing this up.

You are right: the winner of the Toilet Bowl gets the #1 overall pick. And the first six picks are ordered in the finish of that tourney.

As far as the expansion draft, it does make a ton of sense to *not* have an expansion draft and then have the new teams draft either at the beginning or in a random spot. I think part of why I liked the idea of expansion draft was just that - the idea of it, and something fresh and new.

Again, thank you for your time with this. You've really fleshed out a lot of my inner thinking and clarified a lot.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top