The FOFC Keeper League 2011

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Quick dumb clarification about the new keeper rules since I'm not quite sure I'm getting it. So, I've got Tom Brady and Vic's Heroes has Drew Brees. We've both kept them 2 season and next season will be their third. At the end of next season, if we don't trade them midseason, are they gone off of our team? Or next offseason, do he and I just find each other since and go "Hey, you have Brees and I have Brady and they're both top 5 QBs. We're both going to lose them if we don't do something so let's swap." It seems to me like keepers who hit 3 years should be released at the end of the season and before the trading window, otherwise you'll just have this silly recycling every 3 years. If you wanted to trade them you need to do it this offseason, and lose a season of eligibility or midseason and risk disrupting your team.

SI

I don't know if this will ever happen, but the possibility of it happening changes my opinion.

I think keepers should be keepers for 3 years and that it. Even if they get traded, they years they already have against them should be counted. Those years should be a factor considered when you are trading.

Am I allowed to change my vote for first rule we're voting on?

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't know if this will ever happen, but the possibility of it happening changes my opinion.

I think keepers should be keepers for 3 years and that it. Even if they get traded, they years they already have against them should be counted. Those years should be a factor considered when you are trading.

Am I allowed to change my vote for first rule we're voting on?

Kind of defeats the purpose of part of the rule which was to create more movement.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Quick dumb clarification about the new keeper rules since I'm not quite sure I'm getting it. So, I've got Tom Brady and Vic's Heroes has Drew Brees. We've both kept them 2 season and next season will be their third. At the end of next season, if we don't trade them midseason, are they gone off of our team? Or next offseason, do he and I just find each other since and go "Hey, you have Brees and I have Brady and they're both top 5 QBs. We're both going to lose them if we don't do something so let's swap." It seems to me like keepers who hit 3 years should be released at the end of the season and before the trading window, otherwise you'll just have this silly recycling every 3 years. If you wanted to trade them you need to do it this offseason, and lose a season of eligibility or midseason and risk disrupting your team.

SI

Wouldn't your way make the silly recycling every two years instead of three? . (but hey, that's more trading at least)

[sterlingice]

But for my team, right now, I'd have to make a decision like "do I want to win now and go with Brady for 1 season or trade him for a different guy I get to keep for 2 more seasons". Next season there will be a bunch of "I'll trade you my top 10 pick because I get nothing for him but you get 2 seasons if you do the same". I guess ultimately no big deal either way since we are all under the same rules. I was just curious if I was reading the rule right.

SI

[PackerFanatic]

If you trade for a guy, you shouldn't inherit his years of service. Like Lathum said, the spirit of the rule is to encourage more trades. While it is possible to see a Brady-for-Brees type trade, I can't see it happening all that often (and even if it does, I am okay with it - I wouldn't expect to get many chances to draft a guy like that in a keeper league, to be honest)

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by JAG

For simplicity's sake, I would say no. I guess it would depend on how Fleaflicker's software does it also.

I would have to think they would allow it, I couldn't see any reason why not. It's probably unlikely to happen, but you never know

[PackerFanatic]

1. Yay
2. Yay

[samifan24]

1. yay
2. yay

[TLK]

Originally Posted by Lathum

for the couple of people who have voted no for the trade rules just curios why

I'm interested in this too. We should probably all be on the same page on this one.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

If you trade for a guy, you shouldn't inherit his years of service. Like Lathum said, the spirit of the rule is to encourage more trades. While it is possible to see a Brady-for-Brees type trade, I can't see it happening all that often (and even if it does, I am okay with it - I wouldn't expect to get many chances to draft a guy like that in a keeper league, to be honest)

If that is the spirit of the rule, I guess I am okay with it. It goes back to what I said before. If the 3 year rule was put in place so that stud players would show up in the draft every once in a while, then the new rule defeats that purpose. I'm fine with it creating more movement I guess.

I see the scenario that SI presented happening a lot. In fact, I think it is a good strategy within the rules and likely something I am going to look for.

[TLK]

Once we get this trading mess finalized... Marques Colston is on the block for a 1st Round Pick.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Lathum

for the couple of people who have voted no for the trade rules just curios why

IMO, the three year keeper rule is in place to make the draft relevant and to promote some kind of parity as nobody can have Brady/Brees/Manning for more than three years. At the end of those three years the owners of those players need to either make sure they draft a viable keeper for the following season or make a trade (during the season) for their next keeper.

These new rules essentially mean the best players will never be draftable again and for me, the draft is the best part of fantasy football and what I enjoy most.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

IMO, the three year keeper rule is in place to make the draft relevant and to promote some kind of parity as nobody can have Brady/Brees/Manning for more than three years. At the end of those three years the owners of those players need to either make sure they draft a viable keeper for the following season or make a trade (during the season) for their next keeper.

These new rules essentially mean the best players will never be draftable again and for me, the draft is the best part of fantasy football and what I enjoy most.

This is why I'm currently torn on the new rules. I like trading, but I like the draft more and I fear this will pretty much gut the draft. Then again, as it is, it will take a decade to get us out of a cycle of every 3 years being the big draft you have to do well in.

SI

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

These new rules essentially mean the best players will never be draftable again and for me, the draft is the best part of fantasy football and what I enjoy most.

If the best players can be kept indefinetly they wouldn't be available to you in the draft either way.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Lathum

If the best players can be kept indefinetly they wouldn't be available to you in the draft either way.

Precisely why I like the 3 year keeper rule, so the best players do become available at least every 3 years.

What I don't like, and again, only my opinion, is trading rules that skirt the three year keeper rule as I find it far less interesting as my only decisions become should I trade Fitzgerald for Andre or Calvin Johnson in the offseason...kind of boring if you ask me.

[Lathum]

But the opposite would destroy trading of any kind. No one would give up draft picks because they would know guys would be available in the draft.

[spleen1015]

I would rather have an interesting draft and no trading at all than lots of trading and a shitty draft.

[JAG]

I think I would be against years of accrual counting no matter whether you trade a player. It's a keeper league, I expect certain players to be unavailable to draft, and if I really want a certain player I have to put together a trade for them. However, I wouldn't be opposed to some type of rule like no trading players with three years for another player with three years, or a trade only removes one year of keeper eligibility (so a person receiving a keeper with three years only gets to use then for a season before they would have to be traded or go back in the pool of players), or something more interesting someone could come up with.

Just a thought also, but seeing as this discussion might take some additional days and we still have a good bit of time before we need to get drafting, maybe we should bump the schedule out a few days.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by JAG

I think I would be against years of accrual counting no matter whether you trade a player. It's a keeper league, I expect certain players to be unavailable to draft, and if I really want a certain player I have to put together a trade for them. However, I wouldn't be opposed to some type of rule like no trading players with three years for another player with three years, or a trade only removes one year of keeper eligibility (so a person receiving a keeper with three years only gets to use then for a season before they would have to be traded or go back in the pool of players), or something more interesting someone could come up with.

Just a thought also, but seeing as this discussion might take some additional days and we still have a good bit of time before we need to get drafting, maybe we should bump the schedule out a few days.

The bolded part is exactly my thoughts. As much fun as the draft is, in a keeper league, I expect guys like Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson to rarely be available. The year they may become available, then that draft will be great (well, at least until pick 3, lol)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

What I don't like, and again, only my opinion, is trading rules that skirt the three year keeper rule as I find it far less interesting as my only decisions become should I trade Fitzgerald for Andre or Calvin Johnson in the offseason...kind of boring if you ask me.

Shhh... that's my decision next year

SI

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by johnnyshaka

Precisely why I like the 3 year keeper rule, so the best players do become available at least every 3 years.

What I don't like, and again, only my opinion, is trading rules that skirt the three year keeper rule as I find it far less interesting as my only decisions become should I trade Fitzgerald for Andre or Calvin Johnson in the offseason...kind of boring if you ask me.

That's only if the guy that has Andre or Calvin even wants Fitz in return. We assume that these deals are always going to happen...still takes both teams to want it. We have a rule like this in the league that I run (you can't keep the same two guys from year-to-year, so you will always need to give up at least one of your previous keepers) and we have only had one keeper-for-keeper trade (Brees for Manning).

[TLK]

Originally Posted by JAG

Just a thought also, but seeing as this discussion might take some additional days and we still have a good bit of time before we need to get drafting, maybe we should bump the schedule out a few days.

In full agreement here... not sure how we will come to a resolution, but we will back the trade window and possibly the draft a few days.

[MikeVic]

I haven't read this thread in awhile, and I'm confused/conflicted on the trade thing too. It seems like there is discussion going on with it though, so maybe I won't vote on it right now.

For the IR rule, I vote Yay.

So for the keeper trading thing... Would it be an acceptable compromise to not be able to trade once the season is over? Then at least if Brees is doing poorly and Brady is doing well, sterling would have to decide "do I want to get Brees and ruin this year before the playoffs, or just hope I can draft a nice QB in the offseason and keep Brady?"

[MikeVic]

Is Danario Alexander eligible as a rookie keeper?

[PackerFanatic]

Yes, Mike - he was a rookie last year, so he is eligible.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

So for the keeper trading thing... Would it be an acceptable compromise to not be able to trade once the season is over?

That is the whole rule - do we allow trading during the offseason or only once keepers have been announced.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

Would it be an acceptable compromise to not be able to trade once the season is over?

To me that would make no sense. If I have 2 stur receivers why shouldn't I be able to trade one of them for future picks if I'm not going to keep him?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

To me that would make no sense. If I have 2 stur receivers why shouldn't I be able to trade one of them for future picks if I'm not going to keep him?

You can, during the season. I thought the rule was you can trade if you declare them your keeper? I was happy with that rule and if we're changing it, I'd vote nay on the change. Or we increase the number of keepers or something. I don't know how to explain it, but I think being able to trade outside of your keepers after the season kind of screws over the teams that sucked the previous year and should have first dibs on the good players being released back into the pool. Yeah I know they can trade their picks for that extra awesome WR you have, but like someone else said, I like the drafting process way more than trades.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

You can, during the season. I thought the rule was you can trade if you declare them your keeper? I was happy with that rule and if we're changing it, I'd vote nay on the change. Or we increase the number of keepers or something. I don't know how to explain it, but I think being able to trade outside of your keepers after the season kind of screws over the teams that sucked the previous year and should have first dibs on the good players being released back into the pool. Yeah I know they can trade their picks for that extra awesome WR you have, but like someone else said, I like the drafting process way more than trades.

I think this is what drives my opinion. For whatever reason, the league I have been playing in for a long time, there's not much trading. So, I'm down on trading. I would rather have a fun draft than 5-6 trades in the league per year.

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

You can, during the season. I thought the rule was you can trade if you declare them your keeper? I was happy with that rule and if we're changing it, I'd vote nay on the change. Or we increase the number of keepers or something. I don't know how to explain it, but I think being able to trade outside of your keepers after the season kind of screws over the teams that sucked the previous year and should have first dibs on the good players being released back into the pool. Yeah I know they can trade their picks for that extra awesome WR you have, but like someone else said, I like the drafting process way more than trades.

This is where I was coming from with my arguments earlier.

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I think this is what drives my opinion. For whatever reason, the league I have been playing in for a long time, there's not much trading. So, I'm down on trading. I would rather have a fun draft than 5-6 trades in the league per year.

Agreed- this has been my experience in a variety of fantasy leagues, not just fantasy football leagues. The draft is my favorite time of the whole season.

[Lathum]

So I am just trying to wrap my head around this issue.

People want better players in the draft to make it more interesting, so basically they want to punish the better teams by not allowing them to keep their top players more than 3 seasons, but also not allowing them to trade those players, plus guys can't be traded once the season is over.

IT just doesn't make much sense to me.

[sterlingice]

I'll get the easy stuff out of the way:

Also, for the IR rule, I vote YAY.

And, currently, barring some wacky rule change, Houston Hippopotami keepers are pretty straight forward:
QB: Brady
RB: Jones-Drew
WR: Fitzgerald
RK: Best

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So I am just trying to wrap my head around this issue.

People want better players in the draft to make it more interesting, so basically they want to punish the better teams by not allowing them to keep their top players more than 3 seasons, but also not allowing them to trade those players, plus guys can't be traded once the season is over.

IT just doesn't make much sense to me.

In a perfect world, what I'd really like to see is that as soon as the clock strikes midnight after the fantasy Super Bowl (so, week 16/17/whatever), any player with 3 years is released into the draft pool. So, I have to decide either this offseason or by the mid-season trading deadline if I wanted to keep Brady or try to trade for, again, let's say Brees.

I think the positives are higher:
-Better draft pool as more 3's will get dumped in
-Best players will probably rotate ever 2-2.5 years not every 3 if they are traded
-Legitimate strategies of long term versus short term gain for your team adds depth to decisions

There are definitely downsides:
-If I'm me and Brady is tearing it up this season, why should I be penalized for that and have to decide if I want to keep him or trade for a lesser Brees because I can then keep him through the end of this season, next season, and then have to decide on him the next time just as I did with Brady this time. Then again, if I think he's going to lead me to the fantasy title, isn't that a reasonable price to pay?
-Why are you penalizing good teams? Well, that's the nature of fantasy and a draft- it is an equalizer.

SI

[johnnyshaka]

SI, that's what my long time money keeper league does...we get together for the Conference Championship games, crown the winner, and then hand in our keepers along with dues for the upcoming season.

Oh yeah, we drink lots of beer and eat way too much pizza!

Once that is done, trading is re-opened but obviously only keepers and picks are available for trade.

[PackerFanatic]

That's always what I struggle with - I think having trading right after the season is a great idea, but only if its the keepers (since I am of the mind that as soon as the NFL season ends, the fantasy season ends too). But I also like waiting as long as possible to have to announce keepers (in the league I run, the deadline is two days prior to the draft). Gotta find a compromise that works.

[TLK]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In a perfect world, what I'd really like to see is that as soon as the clock strikes midnight after the fantasy Super Bowl (so, week 16/17/whatever), any player with 3 years is released into the draft pool. So, I have to decide either this offseason or by the mid-season trading deadline if I wanted to keep Brady or try to trade for, again, let's say Brees.

SI

I think this makes sense.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In a perfect world, what I'd really like to see is that as soon as the clock strikes midnight after the fantasy Super Bowl (so, week 16/17/whatever), any player with 3 years is released into the draft pool. So, I have to decide either this offseason or by the mid-season trading deadline if I wanted to keep Brady or try to trade for, again, let's say Brees.

I think the positives are higher:
-Better draft pool as more 3's will get dumped in
-Best players will probably rotate ever 2-2.5 years not every 3 if they are traded
-Legitimate strategies of long term versus short term gain for your team adds depth to decisions

There are definitely downsides:
-If I'm me and Brady is tearing it up this season, why should I be penalized for that and have to decide if I want to keep him or trade for a lesser Brees because I can then keep him through the end of this season, next season, and then have to decide on him the next time just as I did with Brady this time. Then again, if I think he's going to lead me to the fantasy title, isn't that a reasonable price to pay?
-Why are you penalizing good teams? Well, that's the nature of fantasy and a draft- it is an equalizer.

SI

What happens with the keeper years after the player is traded midseason? Does it reset for the new owner? Does the partial year count against the new owner?

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

What happens with the keeper years after the player is traded midseason? Does it reset for the new owner? Does the partial year count against the new owner?

It would reset. If the new owner wants to keep the player at the end of the year, he can - and that would count as that players' first year of being kept.

[sterlingice]

That would be my theory

SI

[JAG]

I'm good with SI's suggestion.

[TLK]

*Off-season trade rules

-Keepers will now be announced no later than a week after the championship game.
-Only keepers are eligible to be traded
-Keepers may be traded for keepers, draft picks or keepers and picks
-Any player received in an off-season trade will have one year counted against the keeper limit.

Do we want to vote on this... or keep discussing it?

[JAG]

I think some of those are contradictory. Just a thought but breaking them into separate points for voting might be a good idea too, for example:

1. Players who have been kept three years are ineligible for trading after the in-season trading deadline. (yay/nay)
2. Only keepers are eligible for trading (yay/nay)

etc...

Also, the was I worded point 1. gets the same effect as SI's suggestion without us having to decide keepers way before the season, so we don't have to deal with a keeper getting injured in the playoffs, running into legal trouble in the offseason, and so on.

Thanks as always for trying to organize the discussion.

[PackerFanatic]

-When you say "Championship Game", is that the fantasy championship game or the Super Bowl?

-I don't understand point 3 (trades will be allowed one month before keepers are announced); if we are announcing them so early, wouldn't this just be the normal in-season trade deadline?

[Lathum]

I'm confused about some of TLKs proposal. Like PF said, one month within championship game, wouldn't that negate the trade deadline?

I am also just not a fan of the trade only keeper for keeper concept. If a guy has Kevin Kold and Michael Vick on his roster for example in the offseasoe he should be able to trade one for a draft pick to someone who wants to keep him who may need a keeper QB.

[TLK]

Originally Posted by PackerFanatic

-When you say "Championship Game", is that the fantasy championship game or the Super Bowl?

-I don't understand point 3 (trades will be allowed one month before keepers are announced); if we are announcing them so early, wouldn't this just be the normal in-season trade deadline?

That was from the old proposal and should of been deleted. It's early here.

[TLK]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I am also just not a fan of the trade only keeper for keeper concept. If a guy has Kevin Kold and Michael Vick on his roster for example in the offseasoe he should be able to trade one for a draft pick to someone who wants to keep him who may need a keeper QB.

Where does the rest of the league stand on this? I think this need to be answered before trying to put together something to vote on.

Should we be allowed to move non-keepers after the season?

[PackerFanatic]

Originally Posted by TLK

That was from the old proposal and should of been deleted. It's early here.

No problem

[JAG]

Originally Posted by TLK

Where does the rest of the league stand on this? I think this need to be answered before trying to put together something to vote on.

Should we be allowed to move non-keepers after the season?

I'm ok either way. It would probably be more likely to help a team that had a great last season, so I would lean towards no, but if the majority want it, I'm ok with it as well.

Lathum, for someone with two great players at a position, couldn't they choose to trade the keeper and keep the non-keeper?

[PackerFanatic]

I'd prefer to not allow non-keeper moves in the offseason. Once the trade deadline hits, the only players you can move (once the season ends) are keepers.