Commissioner type advice for handling keeper rules (1 Viewer)

[deacon14]

Thanks in advance for your time and opinion.

My league has rules which allow you to either:

keep one player (we call it protect or your franchise player) or

forego keeping anybody to enter a supplemental draft to get your franchise player before the actual draft.

Here is my question (and it has never happened in the first 14 years of play because nobody ever grabbed a rookie before.) Do you all think that rookies should be eligible in this supplemental/franchise player process?

The pro argument would be as follows: Why not? Obviously, the designer wanted teams who had lousy seasons to feel better going into future drafts. Why else would they make a rule that forced good teams to throw back their 2nd best player and possibly more into a supplemental draft process for those weaker teams to fight for?

The con argument is that rookies weren't even part of the group that all owners are deciding on keeping or protecting. Why should the weaker teams (well, some teams) have opportunity at the rookies in a draft that procludes (other teams) owners who elect to keep a player?

Personally, I think the entire supplemental process is weak! If you have a one player keeper league, make it simple YOU HAVE TO KEEP ONE GUY! So what if your team was lousy. That was your fault through either drafting, or lack of trading. Pick the best guy and be done with it. However, there will be no changes. This Reggie Bush factor has never been addressed. The rulebook is ambiguous and this should be addressed before owners make choices on a keeper or entering the supplemental. Thanks again and FTR I'm not even the commish, juz gathering evidence from the knowledgable bunch assembled here.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Not to be a stickler, but if its not in your rules, then its fair game.

It all depends on the wording of the rule and if it does not specify that this pool of players is from last year's players or one without rookies, then its fair game.

 

[Daywalker]

How is it unfair? If you want to go after a rookie then don't keep anyone.

 

[deacon14]

Unlike many leagues, there is no real rulebook, or constitution. Just a scoring page and payouts page. We've flown off the cuff on many issues, including playoff tiebreakers and such. Made rules and still haven't put them ink. The point here is, which methodology is correct. We'll take care of our lax issues.

 

[notoriousbob]

We do a similar "franchise" player thing with the option to keep from 0-2 players. Any players kept are treated like the teams first and, if they keep two, second round picks in the regular draft (ie no supplemental). So when the draft comes around the teams that didn't keep anyone have their pick of the remaining pool of players, including rookies of course. Bush went #1. This seemed to me to be the only fair way to do it. I don't want to MAKE anyone keep a player if they don't want to.

 

[Godsbrother]

I don't like the rule but I see no reason why rookies should be excluded from the Supplemental draft.

Our league allows you to keep up to 2 players that were drafted in rounds 9 or later in the previous year. If you keep one player, he counts as your 5th round pick in the upcoming draft. If you keep 2 players, he counts as your 7th round pick. If you don't keep anyone then you don't forfeit any picks.

 

[Ozymandias]

I'd say no. The purpose of a draft is usually to provide the lower ranked teams to draft first. The purpose of keepers is to provide some team continuity. If someone chooses not to keep, he has a pool of established players to choose from, instead of his keeper.

Keep your yearly draft separate from the keeper issue.

 

[deacon14]

Some on each side, interesting. Perhaps I was in error thinking this was a slam dunk. Anybody else?

 

[Rhino]

Unlike many leagues, there is no real rulebook, or constitution. Just a scoring page and payouts page. We've flown off the cuff on many issues, including playoff tiebreakers and such. Made rules and still haven't put them ink. The point here is, which methodology is correct. We'll take care of our lax issues.

I can't believe you've run the league for 14 years and not had a lot of problems arise from your lack of clear-cut rules.I've been running my league for nine years now, and we've got a VERY clear set of rules in place that address just about every issue you could think of - but those rules evolved over many seasons of issues coming up and then us finding a solution and making it a permanent rule.If it were my league and I was commish, I'd put it to a vote. Majority wins and then it becomes a permanent rule.

 

[deacon14]

Unlike many leagues, there is no real rulebook, or constitution. Just a scoring page and payouts page. We've flown off the cuff on many issues, including playoff tiebreakers and such. Made rules and still haven't put them ink. The point here is, which methodology is correct. We'll take care of our lax issues.

I can't believe you've run the league for 14 years and not had a lot of problems arise from your lack of clear-cut rules.I've been running my league for nine years now, and we've got a VERY clear set of rules in place that address just about every issue you could think of - but those rules evolved over many seasons of issues coming up and then us finding a solution and making it a permanent rule.If it were my league and I was commish, I'd put it to a vote. Majority wins and then it becomes a permanent rule.

Rhino, I want to be perfectly clear. I don't run this league. I commission another league and am over the top about details, ambiguity, etc. I do help on the trade approval committee here and (really) am just curious to concensus on yes/no to rookies in this arrangement. Perhaps, I should've posted a poll.And the vote and majority would be whoever is in/out of the supplemental process this year. Guys keeping would say no rookies, and guys not keeping would say yes rookies...I may want Bush. I hate stuff like that. Again, what is best for the league from the unbias.