Auctions: How much do you allocate to starters? (1 Viewer)

[SelenaCat]

I'm certain that this will be touched upon in Jeff Pasquino's forthcoming auction guide, but I wanted to start some discussion on how much of your total salary you allocate to starters. Obviously, your bench size, and to some extent your lineup requirements, will influence how much you spend on starters (in a deeper league, you'll spend slightly more on backups simply because you have more to purchase). Keeper or dynasty leagues will also influence how much you spend as well (or rather, how much you want to spend on non-starter prospects).

For myself, I play in two 1 QB/1 Superflex*/2 RB/2 WR/1 TE/1 K/1 DST leagues. (*Superflex is any non-DST player, typically a 2nd QB in all but extreme situations). That's 9 starters and we carry a total roster of 18 players. One league is a reset league, the other is a keep-5 league. (We use $260 total salary, but I'll use percentages to make it more easily applicable to all leagues.)

For the reset league, I typically allocate 85%-90% of my salary on starters. I tend to go for the low range (85%) simply because a quality backup QB will still go for $5-15 (2-5% of total salary) due to the "start 2 QB" starting requirements (there aren't enough starters to go around, so you pay a premium to acquire one rather than using a WR or RB for your bye weeks). RB3's also tend to fall in similar ranges, though I quite often go for lower-cost RB's hoping to hit someone who can become a quality backup.

For the keeper league, I only drop my starting salary to 80-85%. My reasoning is that I don't want to bother with prospects that will take 2+ years to develop since I can only keep 5 of them every year.

 

[fightingillini]

It really depends on how deep your rosters are and how many have to start, as well as how players are valued in your league.

I play in a 10 team 20 player auction league with a start 1QB/2RB/3WR/1TE/1K/1Def and 1 offensive flex at any skill positon (QB,RB,WR,TE). PPR league.

So I have to start 8 skill players, and I have 10 bench players. (I never draft more than 1 kicker and defense, and never for more than $1).

I would generally try and not spend more than $10 on my RB3, and no more than $4 on my RB4. I try not to spend more than $3 on my QB3, and I will try not to spend more than $1 on any backup WR.

So I have RB3 = 10, RB4 = 4, QB3 = 7, 7 other players at 1 dollar each. Add that to the $2 on my kicker and defense, I try to budget $30 to my bench, so with a $200 cap, my starting lineup budget is about $170, or about 85% of my cap. I am flexible here. Usually I try and get a nice bargain or two early in the draft so I have more $$$ to allocate to the bench and then I can steal a sleeper or two by bidding $2 and shutting out cash strapped owners who can't bid more than a $1 at the end of the draft.

IMO, if you're spending less than 80% of your cap on your starting players, then it's a losing strategy.

 

[Banemorth]

90%

 

[Warrior]

Depends on how the draft is going. Starters going for too much? Spend more on your depth.

Anyone who gives a specific % has a lot to learn about fantasy drafting.

 

[Amused to Death]

Depends on how the draft is going. Starters going for too much? Spend more on your depth.Anyone who gives a specific % has a lot to learn about fantasy drafting.

I took the OP to mean when you're budgeting. Obviously you have be flexible during the auction but you have to go in with some idea what you're looking to spend player by player or by position. I agree to an extent that you have to not overspend on your players, but at some point overspending may become a necessity if you've misjudged your values. A team full of value doesn't mean your team can compete.

 

[mjr]

Unless youre talking strictly about reset/redraft leagues, I dont think that spending less than 80% on starters is a losing strategy at all, especially when we're talking about dynasty leagues.

I picked up Aaron Rodgers before he took over for Farve at a salary of 2.5% my league's cap. Same with a couple of other guys like CJ, Wallace and Stevie Johnson. These 4 guys in a start 9 league only make up about 8-10% of my cap space combined.

The biggest chunk of my cap space gets eaten up in aquiring top 10 players when they become FAs in our league. AP alone is costing me about 12% of my cap, for example. But as of now, all 9 of my usual starters account for only 45-50% of my cap and it has been a competitive team every year, with three 1st and 2nd place showings out of the last 4.

It all depends on the league set up and when you're jumping into it, of course, but 80% or more on your starters sounds like a lot outside of a redraft league. To me that sounds more like trying to buy one championship immediately instead of building a team that can win multiple championships down the road with top, young talent aquired over a couple of years.

 

[SelenaCat]

Unless youre talking strictly about reset/redraft leagues, I dont think that spending less than 80% on starters is a losing strategy at all, especially when we're talking about dynasty leagues. I picked up Aaron Rodgers before he took over for Farve at a salary of 2.5% my league's cap. Same with a couple of other guys like CJ, Wallace and Stevie Johnson. These 4 guys in a start 9 league only make up about 8-10% of my cap space combined. The biggest chunk of my cap space gets eaten up in aquiring top 10 players when they become FAs in our league. AP alone is costing me about 12% of my cap, for example. But as of now, all 9 of my usual starters account for only 45-50% of my cap and it has been a competitive team every year, with three 1st and 2nd place showings out of the last 4. It all depends on the league set up and when you're jumping into it, of course, but 80% or more on your starters sounds like a lot outside of a redraft league. To me that sounds more like trying to buy one championship immediately instead of building a team that can win multiple championships down the road with top, young talent aquired over a couple of years.

A dynasty league is a completely different beast than a limited keeper league (and even moreso than mine, which has escalating salaries after two years kept to enforce more league parity). When you can only keep 3-5 players, you rarely have the luxury of keeping long-term prospects and therefore there's less incentive to go after them unless you have a strong feeling that they'll be starters next year. I've had multiple discussions on this topic over the last few years, and almost all of the FBG staffers feel similarly: With a keeper, you tend to only be focused 1-2 years out with your prospects and look at it much more like a redraft "win now" type of league.

 

[mjr]

Unless youre talking strictly about reset/redraft leagues, I dont think that spending less than 80% on starters is a losing strategy at all, especially when we're talking about dynasty leagues. I picked up Aaron Rodgers before he took over for Farve at a salary of 2.5% my league's cap. Same with a couple of other guys like CJ, Wallace and Stevie Johnson. These 4 guys in a start 9 league only make up about 8-10% of my cap space combined. The biggest chunk of my cap space gets eaten up in aquiring top 10 players when they become FAs in our league. AP alone is costing me about 12% of my cap, for example. But as of now, all 9 of my usual starters account for only 45-50% of my cap and it has been a competitive team every year, with three 1st and 2nd place showings out of the last 4. It all depends on the league set up and when you're jumping into it, of course, but 80% or more on your starters sounds like a lot outside of a redraft league. To me that sounds more like trying to buy one championship immediately instead of building a team that can win multiple championships down the road with top, young talent aquired over a couple of years.

A dynasty league is a completely different beast than a limited keeper league (and even moreso than mine, which has escalating salaries after two years kept to enforce more league parity). When you can only keep 3-5 players, you rarely have the luxury of keeping long-term prospects and therefore there's less incentive to go after them unless you have a strong feeling that they'll be starters next year. I've had multiple discussions on this topic over the last few years, and almost all of the FBG staffers feel similarly: With a keeper, you tend to only be focused 1-2 years out with your prospects and look at it much more like a redraft "win now" type of league.

My league enforces a 10% salary increase on all players every year, which is all the more reason why I try to keep the total % of my starter salaries as low as possible. But from a limited keeper perspective I see what you're saying.

 

[SelenaCat]

My league enforces a 10% salary increase on all players every year, which is all the more reason why I try to keep the total % of my starter salaries as low as possible. But from a limited keeper perspective I see what you're saying.

Ours is much more steep based on production. A $1 RB that finishes in the top-10 could easily jump to $30 or 40. Still a bargain, but no longer a steal. Plus there's a minimum increase of $5 the third year and $10 the following years, so that we've never had a player kept more than 7 years (Rodgers, AP and AJ). That said, even without the steep increase, the limited keeper slots tends to curb the enthusiasm for prospect players.In the interest of not muddling the waters, let's keep this more focused on reset leagues because dynasty/keeper leagues will be greatly affected by previous history and any methods of normalizing salaries.Interesting fact: Using the salaries of the past 10 years in my reset league, the average cost of all starting players (i.e. QB1-24, RB1-24, etc.) works out to just shy of 90% of our total salary. The amount spent on starting players (2 most expensive QB's, 2 most expensive RB's, etc.) didn't seem to have much effect on final record (with the exception of three teams who went with QBBC/RBBC approaches, which made them technically below 75% spent on their 2 "best").

 

[Easy Money]

I'm happier drafting 3 to 5 good players on my team with most of my money/points that are going to put consistent points up each week.

200 point/dollars spend 175 to 180 on starters.

 

[FantasyTrader]

65-70% I prefer drafting a well balanced team. After the bye weeks, then try to package depth to swing a 2-for-1 and/or 3-for-1 deals for studs.

 

[The Kerminator]

65-70% I prefer drafting a well balanced team. After the bye weeks, then try to package depth to swing a 2-for-1 and/or 3-for-1 deals for studs.

I think this is a good point and should factor into your strategy. In my league, owners don't do a lot of trading and it is very difficult to swing 2 for 1 deals. I used to believe in lots of depth but I've given up on assembling a team with depth and instead spending most of my money on starters.

 

[SelenaCat]

65-70% I prefer drafting a well balanced team. After the bye weeks, then try to package depth to swing a 2-for-1 and/or 3-for-1 deals for studs.

I think this is a good point and should factor into your strategy. In my league, owners don't do a lot of trading and it is very difficult to swing 2 for 1 deals. I used to believe in lots of depth but I've given up on assembling a team with depth and instead spending most of my money on starters.

I think 70% is pretty low, and I know that it's in the range of what Dodd's data said resulted in a losing team back when he was writing Perfect Auction articles. But yes, it's greatly affected by how trade-happy your league is. Mine is not, so there are rarely more than two or three substantive trades a year. Trying to count on trades would probably be a losing strategy in my league, unfortunately. It might work better in my keeper league as teams likely out of contention would be more willing to give up those studs if you have quality keepers, but in a reset league, there's really no incentive for them to make those trades.

 

[FantasyTrader]

65-70% I prefer drafting a well balanced team. After the bye weeks, then try to package depth to swing a 2-for-1 and/or 3-for-1 deals for studs.

I think this is a good point and should factor into your strategy. In my league, owners don't do a lot of trading and it is very difficult to swing 2 for 1 deals. I used to believe in lots of depth but I've given up on assembling a team with depth and instead spending most of my money on starters.

I think 70% is pretty low, and I know that it's in the range of what Dodd's data said resulted in a losing team back when he was writing Perfect Auction articles. But yes, it's greatly affected by how trade-happy your league is. Mine is not, so there are rarely more than two or three substantive trades a year. Trying to count on trades would probably be a losing strategy in my league, unfortunately. It might work better in my keeper league as teams likely out of contention would be more willing to give up those studs if you have quality keepers, but in a reset league, there's really no incentive for them to make those trades.

Strange. This hasn't been my experience at all in my redraft leagues. Right around week 7-8 is when there's usually 2-3 teams getting pretty desperate and more willing to trade that one stud on their roster for an upgrade at other positions. I've had success with it. But you bring up a great point - if your league is stingy with the trades, it's probably better to just draft top-heavy and hope ya stay healthy.

 

[greyone]

I'm certain that this will be touched upon in Jeff Pasquino's forthcoming auction guide,

Always comes out to late for me. Auction done and over with. Could have used the advise weeks before hand. Please release this earlier...PLEASE JP.

 

[matuski]

The best part of an auction is you can't go in with a rigid strategy. If you allocate X% to a starting roster, and the rest of your league is allocating X+5% - you aren't getting anyone.

You can allocate a percentage to whatever you want, but you better be willing to throw that out the window in a heartbeat.

 

[PIK95]

Depends on how the draft is going. Starters going for too much? Spend more on your depth.Anyone who gives a specific % has a lot to learn about fantasy drafting.

Yeah, I agree with this. I just walk in with a specific target or two that I have to have and then just find value for the rest. We have $100 and last year I spent over 75% on two guys. Every auction league is different though with keepers, lineup size, keeper value going forward, bench size, scoring system, and even how many teams your league has to just come up with one style that fits everyone.