New Dynasty League and we've had our first trade where people are asking questions (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

See, this is totally against the spirit of what I am trying to do. It's not a reset to "punish" good owners or "bail out" bad owners. It's to experience a restart having new knowledge we didn't have 20yrs ago when it started.

In addition, good owners will still get back to the top and bad owners will still fall to the bottom. A reset won't improve a bad owner and the way they work.

I just want to start from scratch and don't want to add another league or find new owners. just freshen up the existing league.

My response to that is just play redraft.

 

[barackdhouse]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

See, this is totally against the spirit of what I am trying to do. It's not a reset to "punish" good owners or "bail out" bad owners. It's to experience a restart having new knowledge we didn't have 20yrs ago when it started.

In addition, good owners will still get back to the top and bad owners will still fall to the bottom. A reset won't improve a bad owner and the way they work.

I just want to start from scratch and don't want to add another league or find new owners. just freshen up the existing league.

Sometimes leagues just get that way on their own. It isn't always because the bottom was made of bad owners. Sometimes the rhythm of teams trying to turn their fortunes around just doesn't work out. I have seen dominant teams with great owners become a toilet bowl team in one year. I have turned toilet bowl teams around to championship teams in 2-3 years a couple times and I have seen it a lot. But all it takes is for a couple extra permutations in favor of the top heavy staying top heavier... and there is an argument for a reset. But never without a unanimous consent and it's easier to set a league up that way than to introduce it after the fact. If the top heavy owners don't wanna give up on it, **** that's fair I get it. But if it's so lopsided you can't get quorum it doesn't mean the bad teams are a reflection of their owner. I reject that premise I've seen it happen with all good owners.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

The dice roll is interesting, but hard to get a normal dynasty league with no defined endpoint to agree on something like that, since it basically amounts to a weaker / much less overhanded version of "I want to start over".

I fear that @Gally is going to be waiting a long time for that reset if it's going to take a 3-peat. If a team is that stacked, and wants to keep their dominant team, they could just opt for a retooling year after winning back-to-back, and coming back even stronger in year 4 to resume their reign of terror. Feels like a reset dice roll or even a coin toss would have been reasonable after somebody goes back-to-back.

The lesson here, with years of insight, is that if you're not making your new dynasty startup an empire format or with some other defined endpoint built in, you're doing it wrong. At whatever point the league folds, it's going to happen with some justifiable bad blood from whatever team was residing at the top, particularly if they haven't been there for long.

 

[barackdhouse]

It should be expected that a dynasty league becomes top heavy.

Hence the word dynasty.

 

[JohnnyU]

It should be expected that a dynasty league becomes top heavy.

Hence the word dynasty.

....and things change quickly in fantasy football. There's a reason why the NFL stands for "Not for Long". A good savvy dynasty owner can change his fortunes on a dime. A bad dynasty owner, whatever the reasons, should probably stick to redraft. A good dynasty owner may go through ups and downs. A bad dynasty owner may not have many ups. I've noticed some owners who have more affection for the draft than they do actually winning. They will draft a stud in the rookie draft then turn around and trade him for more draft picks. They are always trying to acquire draft picks because that's their true love, not winning. Or they simply don't have the patience it takes to play dynasty. In which case, playing redraft is probably the game for them. I like to have a balance of both youth and still being able to compete now.

 

[Gally]

The one that constantly comes up and I see the same thing levied at other people too, is when an owner moves a future 1st round pick. Oh holy cow does this bother some other owners. And IMHO it's usually really crappy jealous owners that can't generate any traction with their own teams because they're too risk averse. Ok I'm done ranting for the day. So glad I'm not a commish anymore.

Where it sounds like you and I are the same is that draft picks are just picks. They have value but most dynasty owners value picks way more than I do. I would rather use those picks to acquire players that I have seen play in the NFL and have a better feel for their value than some yet to be named rookie that is a 50-50 shot to be useful.

Like you said, people go nuts over 1st round picks. I try to use that to my advantage. I very rarely have my own 1st round pick as i trade them away all the time. That's not to say I don't value them. I do because other's do so highly. I have also traded back into the 1st round many years as I see what players are available so while I am trading for a pick it's more for the player I will get with that pick. For example, I traded back in to the first round in two leagues to get Egbuka this year because he dropped and I thought the cost of the pick (Egbuka) was now worthwhile to go after.

The way value is set in trade evaluations is usually way off. Don't get me wrong, there is a value set by market and you should always try to get "market value" in a deal but sometimes you have such a different value basis on players or picks that the market may thing you are getting screwed but when your valuations are that different you can really flourish when you are right. People that have convictions in their own evaluations are the easiest trade partners. It's the guys that always have to meet this perceived market value are tough to deal with.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

It's probably also worth noting that there are owners who just don't 'get it' and make bad decisions in virtually every league. Some are proactive in their self destruction, some of passively sliding into it, but you won't find 12-14 total sharks in every league.

Based on my experiences about half the managers in any given league have a really solid gauge of value and can create trading conditions that take into account risk and upside, about 50% of the remainder really struggle to trade or put themselves in winning positions because they are either passive or have a desperate need to 'win' every trade they offer and never get anything done. And the remaining 25% are just bad. They can be taken advantage of with a bit of seduction, they act impulsively, they go off vibes rather than facts. They are dreamers with no plan and probably an inflated sense of their understanding.

 

[Gally]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

See, this is totally against the spirit of what I am trying to do. It's not a reset to "punish" good owners or "bail out" bad owners. It's to experience a restart having new knowledge we didn't have 20yrs ago when it started.

In addition, good owners will still get back to the top and bad owners will still fall to the bottom. A reset won't improve a bad owner and the way they work.

I just want to start from scratch and don't want to add another league or find new owners. just freshen up the existing league.

My response to that is just play redraft.

But I want to start from scratch to build a team for years to come with the dynasty format that we created. That is different than redraft. But after 20 years, seems like a good time to start over. Before you say that my team is probably terrible and needs a rebuild and that is why I want a restart that is far from the truth. I have a quality team that is a contender and has been most every year.

 

[Gally]

The lesson here, with years of insight, is that if you're not making your new dynasty startup an empire format or with some other defined endpoint built in, you're doing it wrong. At whatever point the league folds, it's going to happen with some justifiable bad blood from whatever team was residing at the top, particularly if they haven't been there for long.

Oh I wish I had thought about that (reset clause) 20 yrs ago when we created the league for sure. It would have made this easier. I understand it's hard and the biggest obstacles have been the teams that have future pick assets.......not the teams that are perennial winners. We have a couple teams that are always playing for next year with next year never coming and we have a few teams that are always in contention every year.

The ones against the restart are the ones playing for next year because they will "lose" all their assets. The are all for a reset if they can keep their extra picks.......which completely defeats the purpose of a reset. They can't quite grasp that concept.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if a reset ever happens but at least there is a chance now.

 

[JohnnyU]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

That's rad, i love the random reset idea.

I hate the idea of a dynasty reset. I've been a commissioner a long long time and my advice is to become better dynasty players, rather than punish the good teams and give a do over for the flunking owners. I'd rather just replace the owners that bail because they suck at dynasty.

See, this is totally against the spirit of what I am trying to do. It's not a reset to "punish" good owners or "bail out" bad owners. It's to experience a restart having new knowledge we didn't have 20yrs ago when it started.

In addition, good owners will still get back to the top and bad owners will still fall to the bottom. A reset won't improve a bad owner and the way they work.

I just want to start from scratch and don't want to add another league or find new owners. just freshen up the existing league.

My response to that is just play redraft.

But I want to start from scratch to build a team for years to come with the dynasty format that we created. That is different than redraft. But after 20 years, seems like a good time to start over. Before you say that my team is probably terrible and needs a rebuild and that is why I want a restart that is far from the truth. I have a quality team that is a contender and has been most every year.

If everyone agreed then that's great. All I know is that I wouldn't be a part of a league that tried instituting that after not being that way previously. However, if I joined a league with that format, then it's on me not to join. Just my opinion on the subject. If all your leaguemates agreed to that change, then fine. If all my leaguemates decided that except me, then I would find another league. From the words of a once famous comedian when jokingly correcting his children, "I'll take you out of this world and then make another one that looks just like you".

 

[Gally]

They can be taken advantage of with a bit of seduction, they act impulsively, they go off vibes rather than facts. They are dreamers with no plan and probably an inflated sense of their understanding.

I find those guys to be the opposite of this. They don't trust their valuations so they never pull the trigger because they don't want to make a mistake.

 

[Gally]

If everyone agreed then that's great. All I know is that I wouldn't be a part of a league that tried instituting that after not being that way previously. However, if I joined a league with that format, then it's on me not to join. Just my opinion on the subject. If all your leaguemates agreed to that change, then fine. If all my leaguemates decided that except me, then I would find another league. From the words of a once famous comedian when jokingly correcting his children, "I'll take you out of this world and then make another one that looks just like you".

See, I don't understand the mentality of being so against a reset that you would leave a good league rather than have a reset every 20 years (or whatever time frame). I could understand not wanting to be in a league that resets every 3 years but I think 20 years is long enough to have built, re-built, and re-built again that starting from scratch seems like no big issue and doesn't take away from the league being a dynasty format. But to each their own.

 

[JohnnyU]

If everyone agreed then that's great. All I know is that I wouldn't be a part of a league that tried instituting that after not being that way previously. However, if I joined a league with that format, then it's on me not to join. Just my opinion on the subject. If all your leaguemates agreed to that change, then fine. If all my leaguemates decided that except me, then I would find another league. From the words of a once famous comedian when jokingly correcting his children, "I'll take you out of this world and then make another one that looks just like you".

See, I don't understand the mentality of being so against a reset that you would leave a good league rather than have a reset every 20 years (or whatever time frame). I could understand not wanting to be in a league that resets every 3 years but I think 20 years is long enough to have built, re-built, and re-built again that starting from scratch seems like no big issue and doesn't take away from the league being a dynasty format. But to each their own.

I missed the 20 year thing. First of all, I don't have 20 yers left, so it doesn't matter. If for some reason I'm still here in 20 years, I'll probably look for a redraft league, because long term planning probably isn't in my future.

 

[sushinsky4tsar]

The lesson here, with years of insight, is that if you're not making your new dynasty startup an empire format or with some other defined endpoint built in, you're doing it wrong. At whatever point the league folds, it's going to happen with some justifiable bad blood from whatever team was residing at the top, particularly if they haven't been there for long.

Oh I wish I had thought about that (reset clause) 20 yrs ago when we created the league for sure. It would have made this easier. I understand it's hard and the biggest obstacles have been the teams that have future pick assets.......not the teams that are perennial winners. We have a couple teams that are always playing for next year with next year never coming and we have a few teams that are always in contention every year.

The ones against the restart are the ones playing for next year because they will "lose" all their assets. The are all for a reset if they can keep their extra picks.......which completely defeats the purpose of a reset. They can't quite grasp that concept.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see if a reset ever happens but at least there is a chance now.

Definitely not taking a shot at a dynasty league from 20 years ago not having the foresight of a defined endpoint. Playing in dynasty that far back was cutting edge in its own right. Glad that you were at least able to get them to agree to the 3-peat clause. Better than nothing.

General thought, as an alternative to a dice roll... maybe any championship team going for a repeat should also have to submit a lineup made up of any player from the other teams in the league. If they can't beat their own repeat-championship team with an all-star team from the rest of the league, that's probably a pretty good indication that it's time to reset.

 

[ratbast]

What ever way you view this trade there will be more like it until the value is recognized by the owners. In my best league, 30+ years, we have gotten to the point where the commish only overturns accident trades. There have been bad trades and the owners wear it like a scarlet letter!
I feel that since this is a new league, the value hasn’t been established yet, the teams are all evenish and may actually take a few years to change that pattern. Should be expected.
This is a new dynasty league. All teams could win, like redraft.

 

[Gally]

we have gotten to the point where the commish only overturns accident trades.

Interesting sentence. Does this mean there were times that the Commish was overturning other kinds of trades. Also, how many "accident" trades does this league have?

 

[JohnnyU]

we have gotten to the point where the commish only overturns accident trades.

Interesting sentence. Does this mean there were times that the Commish was overturning other kinds of trades. Also, how many "accident" trades does this league have?

I believe those "other kinds of trades" probably refer to a veto policy in his league. As for "accident" trades, I've seen this happen probably a dozen, or slightly less, times spread out in all my leagues the past 20 years.

 

[tjford]

If everyone agreed then that's great. All I know is that I wouldn't be a part of a league that tried instituting that after not being that way previously. However, if I joined a league with that format, then it's on me not to join. Just my opinion on the subject. If all your leaguemates agreed to that change, then fine. If all my leaguemates decided that except me, then I would find another league. From the words of a once famous comedian when jokingly correcting his children, "I'll take you out of this world and then make another one that looks just like you".

See, I don't understand the mentality of being so against a reset that you would leave a good league rather than have a reset every 20 years (or whatever time frame). I could understand not wanting to be in a league that resets every 3 years but I think 20 years is long enough to have built, re-built, and re-built again that starting from scratch seems like no big issue and doesn't take away from the league being a dynasty format. But to each their own.

What's pretty popular amongst many circles that I play in is starting up a new dynasty league with the same rules with the majority of the same owners. Quenches your thirst for a refresh but keeps the other league whole.

 

[TVT 0 N S T A]

Sorry for the double post - but outcome doesnt really change a player's immediate value.

My point was that when people complain about something being lopsided more often than not it doesn't pan out that way. I wasn't trying to say that value at the time of trade changes after the fact. The value is the value. It's the future impact I was referencing.

It's just a really bad trade - arguably the 2 best pieces of the trade are on the same side and the return is a bunch of crap.

I can agree that some people argue terrible trades and really they aren't that bad but can we at least agree... this one is bad. I realize, yesterday's price doesn't matter but it definitely is a decent baseline for value, especially with veterans. It isn't like these guys were drafted this year and are outperforming their ADP as 1st or 2nd year players... most of these guys have been in the league for awhile and haven't done much or have been wildly inconsistent (Pittman) or injured.

 

[Gally]

It's just a really bad trade - arguably the 2 best pieces of the trade are on the same side and the return is a bunch of crap.

I never said it was a good trade. It is a bad trade. No doubt about it. Will it end up being a bad trade? Nobody knows. That's my point. In my experience the more complaining about a trade that happens the more likely the trade ends up being fine (which isn't saying the trade was good or the guy shoulda got more for Nabers/Hall....just that karma seems to work things out over time).

 

[JohnnyU]

It's just a really bad trade - arguably the 2 best pieces of the trade are on the same side and the return is a bunch of crap.

I never said it was a good trade. It is a bad trade. No doubt about it. Will it end up being a bad trade? Nobody knows. That's my point. In my experience the more complaining about a trade that happens the more likely the trade ends up being fine (which isn't saying the trade was good or the guy shoulda got more for Nabers/Hall....just that karma seems to work things out over time).

I don't think it's worth making the argument it may turn out fine. All that matters is the now when evaluating trades, not what might be. The current market says that was a horrible trade and the owner should be invited to go snipe hunting (some may need to Google that).

 

[Gally]

It's just a really bad trade - arguably the 2 best pieces of the trade are on the same side and the return is a bunch of crap.

I never said it was a good trade. It is a bad trade. No doubt about it. Will it end up being a bad trade? Nobody knows. That's my point. In my experience the more complaining about a trade that happens the more likely the trade ends up being fine (which isn't saying the trade was good or the guy shoulda got more for Nabers/Hall....just that karma seems to work things out over time).

I don't think it's worth making the argument it may turn out fine. All that matters is the now when evaluating trades, not what might be. The current market says that was a horrible trade and the owner should be invited to go snipe hunting (some may need to Google that).

I am not making the argument it may turn out fine (even though it kinda reads like I am). I am just anecdotally saying the more people complain seems to lead to the lopsidedness not really manifesting as people think it will. Not specifically about this trade but in situations like this trade.

 

[ratbast]

we have gotten to the point where the commish only overturns accident trades.

Interesting sentence. Does this mean there were times that the Commish was overturning other kinds of trades. Also, how many "accident" trades does this league have?

Never really any overturned it’s just we got rid of commish approval. Accidental trades are for dumb things like hitting accept instead of decline or misreading the trade etc.

 

[wlwiles]

we have gotten to the point where the commish only overturns accident trades.

Interesting sentence. Does this mean there were times that the Commish was overturning other kinds of trades. Also, how many "accident" trades does this league have?

The 3 dynasty leagues that I'm in (12 teams each) are only comprised of 18 different owners. Everyone is in at least 2 of them and several like me are in 3. We've had 2 or 3 accident trades over the years where the accepting owner realizes the trade is actually in League A instead of League B. Once we had a situation where (I'm making this up bc I can't remember the exact deal) Joe offers Pickens for a 2nd. Bob accepts, then realizes he's paying the 2nd and thought he was the one selling Pickens (bc he owns Pickens in a different league). That kind of stuff really only happened when we switched to Sleeper platform I think as everyone was getting used to the interface, navigating trade offers from the League -> My Team page vs. from the DM's part of the platform/app.

 

[Crippler]

I think some folks are sensitive to bad owners making bad decisions and you should just consider it a part of the game. I think the issue is that sometimes things become sooo top heavy in a league that it's just stupid to continue. I'll admit I've seen this a couple times and I think there can be an argument for 12 owners deciding together that it's time to reshuffle the deck and do a startup all over.

This is why I have been pushing our league to have a "random" reset that happens if some team wins it three times in a row. Similar to an Empire type league but without the Bigger Payout situation (I mean winning three times in a row should be enough of a payout).

I have actually been pushing for a complete random restart (roll dice every year and if a X comes up we restart). We would only roll dice if we haven't had a restart in at least 5 years and then roll each year until there is a restart. Totally random and nobody knows when it will happen. But most don't like that idea so it has never passed. So I changed it up a bit to after a three-peat. Somewhat random but also kind of known it could be happening. I am sure there will be some pitfalls with this idea (a poor team trading with the back to back champ to try and get him a third in row type thing) but figured it will be interesting.

League started in 2005 so everyone has learned a lot about the value of players and how to build a team. I just wanted to get a chance to start from scratch knowing what I know now and see how it goes. Well, this year the Three-Peat Reset was voted in. We will see if it ever happens again. It has happened one time 2009-2011 and we had three other times of back to back (2005-6. 2014-15, & 2018-19 - all by different teams)

I won my league 6 of 7 years and built a dynasty for years to come. I threw it in this year with 2 bad teams that had new owners to make me work again. We had another owner do same a few years ago. So instead of complete redraft, a dispersal draft with new owners balances things out.

 

[Crippler]

I have been toying with idea that all trade talks are public. Thus owners will always get best value for studs. Almost like auction trade league.

In the end, we always have difference of effort put into dynasty leagues. The cream will always rise to the top. The owner who pays attention. My home league has bad owners. We did dispersal for couple few years ago and they are back at the bottom. Nothing even redrafting after few years will fix. Hard to get a bunch of competent, trade seeking, active kind of crew for entire league.

Really bad trade as own both players and would trade neither for that package and I am still contender that has lost Burrow, Benson, Nabers, Roquan Smith, Joey Bosa so far.

 

[JohnnyU]

I have been toying with idea that all trade talks are public. Thus owners will always get best value for studs. Almost like auction trade league.

In the end, we always have difference of effort put into dynasty leagues. The cream will always rise to the top. The owner who pays attention. My home league has bad owners. We did dispersal for couple few years ago and they are back at the bottom. Nothing even redrafting after few years will fix. Hard to get a bunch of competent, trade seeking, active kind of crew for entire league.

Really bad trade as own both players and would trade neither for that package and I am still contender that has lost Burrow, Benson, Nabers, Roquan Smith, Joey Bosa so far.

Not a bad idea I must say so.

 

[Wigglytuff's Gruff]

They can be taken advantage of with a bit of seduction, they act impulsively, they go off vibes rather than facts. They are dreamers with no plan and probably an inflated sense of their understanding.

I find those guys to be the opposite of this. They don't trust their valuations so they never pull the trigger because they don't want to make a mistake.

Nah, those are the passive guys. No conviction, no proactiveness. Bad players actively balls things up because they believe their unfounded beliefs too strongly.

Like the guy who took RJ Harvey 2nd overall in my league above Judkins, Henderson, Hampton etc etc. His team has been crap forever cos he's too busy trying to do things against the grain.

 

[Gally]

I have been toying with idea that all trade talks are public.

We have toyed with this as well but have never been able to come up with a good way to do it. Frankly, it's near impossible to do something like this because everyone has differing values.

One idea we thought of was anytime there was an offer that was going to be accepted was to throw it on the message board and give everyone else 24 hours to 'beat it'. But what 'beats it'? I think in theory this is a much better idea than actual practice.

What if you need a simple trade because of a late inactive or something similar but have to wait 24 hrs to make the deal? Kind of hinders that. What if two owners think their offer is better but the original guy doesn't? How pissed is someone going to be when their trade is cancelled for what they think is an inferior offer? Does the clock then get reset for another 24hrs to let others now try to beat that offer?

Lot's of moving parts that in theory may work but in practice will likely be a complete and utter cluster for the commish.

 

[JohnnyU]

I have been toying with idea that all trade talks are public.

We have toyed with this as well but have never been able to come up with a good way to do it. Frankly, it's near impossible to do something like this because everyone has differing values.

One idea we thought of was anytime there was an offer that was going to be accepted was to throw it on the message board and give everyone else 24 hours to 'beat it'. But what 'beats it'? I think in theory this is a much better idea than actual practice.

What if you need a simple trade because of a late inactive or something similar but have to wait 24 hrs to make the deal? Kind of hinders that. What if two owners think their offer is better but the original guy doesn't? How pissed is someone going to be when their trade is cancelled for what they think is an inferior offer? Does the clock then get reset for another 24hrs to let others now try to beat that offer?

Lot's of moving parts that in theory may work but in practice will likely be a complete and utter cluster for the commish.

The point isn't what beats it, or that you have to accept what beats it. What it does do is give other teams a "chance" to beat it in the eyes of the guy accepting a deal. More transparency and better deal for the guy trying to trade a player. Now he may still accept a worse offer that may work better for his roster construction, but at least it's out there for everyone to see, and to be able to make an offer. I like it.