In order for the Gentlemen's Game to live up to its name, we have to find a fair way to settle the disputes that are sure to arise by the expansion of our league. The first and most pressing concern is how to go about setting up the keeper draft with two new teams. I personally do not want to spend the next 6 weeks in a bitter back and forth about the best way to do this. I understand that debate may get heated as we figure out the best way to resolve this matter. However, I don't want the expansion of our fine league to create so much sectional tension that we become divided. Though popular sovereignty was a failed experiment as a way to resolve disputes over slavery in the newly acquired American territories after the Mexican-American war, the only way I know to solve our issues is to have pro-con discussion and put the issue to a vote. The owners collectively will choose our fate.
The problem we must deal with is..... if, when, and how Bebo and Jimmy choose two players that would be deemed their keepers.
If they choose their 2 keepers after we lock in all of our keepers, 4 playoff teams from last year, who would have drafted the 4 best players available after keepers, will no longer get that opportunity because hypothetically the next 4 best players will be on the expansion team rosters. We set up the draft to reward the best performers from from last season, and while the draft order hasn't changed, the players available at those draft slots will change.
In our pre-expansion system Mr. Montana would have received 3 keepers. 2 days ago he was planning on being the only team to be assured 3 keepers.
If Jimmy and Bebo drafted from the 9 and 10 hole without receiving any keepers, each owner would fundamentally have 3 keepers while our expansion teams would be choosing the best available player after the top 24 are off the board. Last year players like Chris Johnson, Steve Slaton, Darren Sproles and Tyler Thigpen went undrafted. (Amazing that Digital ended up with 3 of those) In addition, DeAngelo Williams went in round 17, and Forte went late. These are all prime examples that there is value in the late rounds. However, the top 4 teams from our flagship season drafted first last year. Those teams all made the playoff again, so there is of course value in getting higher picks.(and being good at this)
I am going to now pose a couple of solutions.
1. Expansion owners choose two keepers after last years owners lock in their keepers. Expansion teams draft 9 and 10. Expansion teams lose picks in rounds immediately following the projected draft position of the keepers they chose.
2. Expansion owners choose no keepers. They will draft in the 9 and 10 slots and will make up the two players by choosing in all 17 rounds rather than sitting out rounds like the rest of us.
3. Expansion owners choose 1 keeper after last years owners lock in their 2 keepers. They lose a pick in the round immediately after their keeper was projected and they make up the other player by drafting in all other rounds.
4.Most radical...All owners lose keepers in the round in which they are actually projected. Expansion owners choose no keepers and draft in the 9 and 10 holes.
In the next 24 hours, lets debate, discuss, stir the pot and get all of our opinions out there. Tomorrow around this time, we will put it to a vote. If one option recieves 5 votes...we go with it. If no option receives 5 votes...we will take the two options receiving the most votes and put them back on the ballot. If there is still a tie between those two options .....Civil War!
As one of the top picks I still lean towards option 2. It is a gentleman's game, is it not?
ReplyDeleteTyler, you are correct in there being talent available in later rounds. It is quite possible without the expansion draft provided to Jim and Bebo they could still draft a team with success. Your point is also applicable to the four top teams who all picked up players that helped us make our runs in later rounds. But I think the bottom four teams can attest that this is not always the case. I think we have to look at it from the perspective of fairness at the beginning of the draft. The most fair, to me, seems to be an expansion draft. Expansion teams should not be punished or put at a disadvantage
Whatever inconvenience it places on the top four teams is minor. We are still keeping our two most valued players and drafting early after only 20 players are off the board.
well put 9000....others?
ReplyDeleteI meant Option 1. I apologize.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with HAL 9000 more. His position is fair and reasoned.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to someone coming forward with the argument that our 16-player lead on the newcomers is somehow insufficient. I, for one, am not even completely comfortable with the advantage we currently enjoy.
Option 1. Let them choose from our dregs in a snake-like fashion.
ReplyDeletePlayer 1
Player 2
Player 2
Player 1
In this scenario Player 2 gets the 9 spot and player 1 gets the 10 spot.
I like Digital's draft format as well.
ReplyDeleteAlso, should be change the blog's subtitle, or are we doing this Big Ten style?
Option 1 also represents how true expansion drafts work. The two expansion teams are essentially drafting from our teams but we have the ability to protect certain players.
ReplyDeleteGood point JameSon Curry. Again, everyone has admin privileges so feel free to change anything you desire. As a gentleman's game it is also a gentleman's blog. Everyone please feel free to make suggestions as to titles, subtitles, post ideas, color scheme, layout, etc. Anything that disturbs anyone can be put to a vote. The only caveat is that Jason's and my vote are worth 10 and everyone else's vote is worth 1.
ReplyDeleteMost of us have already spent some time researching draft prospects or at least weighing options regarding who we will keep. We put effort into this league, and I think we should get more imaginative with the maiden voyage for our new additions.
ReplyDeleteI think Option One is the most reasonable of those listed (but this is in the category of debate, not vote, for me right now). I think we should consider Option One with a caveat...compensatory picks. After expansion, Ben's second round pick will be 16th instead of 9th. My fourth round pick will essentially be 44th instead of 32nd. These changes create a higher risk of bust. One can clearly argue that these changes affect everyone in the league, so it's a wash, but I think we could provide a little more to protect our incumbents and encourage league continuity.
If we provided compensatory picks in descending order of finish, then the incumbents could enjoy better positioning without simply punishing the new guys. I could get an additional sixth round pick (purely hypothetical, that could all be worked out), Taylor gets an additional seventh, and so on.
Maybe it's too much headache for the draft scheme, but anyone who is about to complain about wasting too much time on fantasy football has already been lost.
Well, since I can actually edit html code, it really doesn't matter how much your vote is worth.
ReplyDeleteIt still seems to me that two options are available: 1) we either provide them expansion picks before the draft, or 2) we change the order of the draft to give them better picks.
ReplyDeleteI would rather give LaDanian Tomlinson and his lightning bolt earrings up before I sacrifice position in the draft.
My vote is for option 1 without compensatory picks. As far as league continuity goes, the only league continuity that I believe we envisioned is represented by the 2 keepers each of us get to hold onto. As for adopting more measures to protect incumbents, I'll pass. The way I see it, the newcomers are already picking from our leftovers and picking in the last 2 spots. As I've stated, I'm not sure I'm even comfortable with the advantages the veterans will be enjoying under option 1. In the name of equality, fairness, and competition on a level playing field, I will pass adopting more measures to create additional advantages for the original 8 teams.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I should add that I think compensatory picks should be based on some loss for which we deserve compensation. No such loss has occurred. We are in a two-player keeper league. Seemingly everyone is in agreement that we are keeping 2 players. That right has not changed. Nor has any other right. I have no more claim to the rest of my roster post-keeper decision than any other manager. If I don't keep Roddy White, I have no claim to Roddy White. Thus, I cannot be compensated for his loss, as he was not mine to lose.
ReplyDeleteYes, we will be selecting from a depleted talent pool. Yes, our picks will be lower than they would have been if our league had not expanded. Our league has expanded, though. And, as such, I hope we will offer the newcomers the chance to compete on an even playing field (or at least as even as we can possibly make it). I seek no compensation at the expense of the newcomers when I will select 2 keepers before they select their first and I will be drafting before them in the draft.
I vote 1
ReplyDelete