Leonard Peltier is a man of few words when it comes to this blog. Yet, he still has things to say. I was blown away by the idea that heretofore will be known as the "Wilson Rule", a tag I cannot take credit for, but one that was generated by the king of nicknames, our Admiral Sax. Last Sunday over Dr. Pepper and a 3 meat dinner, Leonard, The Admiral, and I discussed fantasy football of all things. Our discussion centered on how the current keeper system waters down the talent available in the draft. Though we are getting players a round later than projected, those players have little, if any more value considering that 20 very highly rated players will be off the board before the draft even starts. Essentially we will be drafting 3rd and 4th round talent with our first round picks. Where is the value in that? Digital, please figure out how or if there is any reward in our current system and report back to us.
Now for the "Wilson Rule". According to Peltier, if we truly want to reward smart drafting, then we should lose the pick from the round our keeper was taken the previous year. Talk about changing the game. I may be wrong about the following players, but I know I am close. Under the Wilson rule, Taylor and Scott would lose their last round pick for keeping Chris Johnson and Steve Slaton respectively as they were attained off waivers. I would give up my 15th and 16th round picks for Pierre Thomas and DeAngelo Williams. Jason would be giving up a late rounder for Forte. I am not suggesting that this rule take place before this years draft. That would be a really bad idea. However, before we draft and decide who to keep, I think we should discuss and possibly put the Wilson Rule to a vote for next year. It is my personal belief that this would have a dramatic impact on who we keep, leave a ton of top notch talent still on the board come draft day, make the off-season much more interesting(which I didn't think was possible), give hope to non-playoff owners who drafted a couple of young studs and truly reward risk-taking and smart drafting. I can't wait to hear thoughts on this. Digital....do what you do and analyze these scenarios to see if it would make much difference in how we draft.
2018-19 Conference Honors & Awards
7 years ago
I don’t have any problem with switching to that format for this season, but I think the biggest problem is that with the likely manner in which new teams join the league, we are going to have issues over what certain players should give up to keep someone. It would be awfully generous to let Jim or Bebo keep Chris Johnson for a 17th round draft pick. That’s one of the reasons that I vote for them not to get “keepers.” I just fail to see how new teams earned the right to “keep” players that they never had at a discounted rate. Just give them the first picks in the draft and everyone else can benefit from clever drafting in the prior season, and Jim and Bebo can earn that privilege as they also enjoy draft successes. I vote for capitalism, comrades.
ReplyDeleteUnless Taylor or Scott have opposition to changing to that format, then I think it’s fair to vote on it for the upcoming season. Taylor and Scott are the only teams I know of that completed off-season trades, so I would understand if they wanted to rescind the trade and proceed with the new rules, keep the trade and accept the new rules, or keep the trade and proceed with the way we have it. I am also not sure how we would handle the second year of keeping such a player. Would Taylor get a lifetime 17th round pick of Slaton?
I am sure someone will make the argument that he would have drafted differently last season if he thought those rules were in play, but I disagree. Teams are responsible for drafting players that will help the team, and I highly doubt anyone would have drafted a player and planned to sit him on the bench and hope that the next season he would be worth keeping. Tyler was barely able to do that with Tom Brady last year, and that was after Brady put up the best statistical season ever.
Now I love the idea of a player getting a diamond in the rough as much as the next guy. However, I think the reward for making a smart move should end with the season in which the move was made, and should not be further rewarded. Would I or Taylor have made the playoffs without Johnson and Slaton? I know I wouldn't have with my shitty draft last year. Making the playoffs was reward enough. In addition, the keepers are another reward. You got a player last year at a good value, and this year you still get a decent value for him as you lose the draft pick in the round after which he is projected. As far as altering draft strategy, at least personally, I don't think it would change that much.
ReplyDeleteAs far as there not being talent left, that's ridiculous. As far as I can tell, there should be two great receivers and two great wide receivers left for Jimmy and Bebo. And then the fact that it's actually a first round pick doesn't matter...it's just semantics. I've been talking like that all summer that this first pick is really a 3rd round pick for most people. Think about people taking every player off the board, which are basically the top 20 players, this scenario would leave the draft exactly as if the first two rounds didn't exist because Jason would pick first, Taylor next, and so on. The keeper picks are all about value. If you don't think your keeper is worth the round he's projected in, then why are you keeping him? I personally think that A-Rod is going to have a better season than Peyton Manning, and therefore, I was going to keep A-Rod over Chris Johnson because I felt his player ranking was too high, and Chris Johnson's was approximately correct. Now I will keep Calvin Johnson over Chris Johnson because 1) I need a #1 WR and 2) I think Calvin is, honestly, 1st round talent in a league this size.
The argument of instituting this because talent won't be around in the pseudo-first round (first of all, stop thinking of it as the first round), is not the right reason for doing it. Why is making a smart draft pick and being smart with your keepers this year not good enough?
I don't feel it makes sense to institute the Wilson rule for this year. Of course some aren't going to have a problem with it because it helps them out tremendously. In fact, the more I've thought about the Wilson rule the more I favor our current system.
ReplyDeleteFor starters, the Wilson rule does not lend itself very well to offseason trades. I think they will occur less and in a more boring fashion.
Second, that is an absolute giant of a reward to give up a 17th round pick for a guy projected as first round talent. In a sense we are placing higher value on managers for having a good fantasy season with waiver wire players and late round picks than a manager who does it with a top talent guy.
Upon further consideration, I am with Taylor and Scott on the Wilson rule. It is too much of a reward to only give up a 17th round pick for a legit talent, and there really is not a great, consistent way to handle it beyond one season. We get a value for our keepers, even if it is not a supreme value. And let's be honest, if you make a few clever trades, you could keep Slaton and DeAngelo Williams for garbage picks and annhilate everybody by making only average picks for the first 15 rounds. That said, if people want to vote on it, I have no problem with voting on it for this season, as long as we do it in the next week or so.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the input...this is exactly what I was hoping for. As far as the Wilson Rule goes...I would be more than happy to put it to a vote if there are arguments to be made in its favor. Those that have spoken, have done so against the institution of the Wilson Rule. Thus, there is no need to put it on a ballot for next year. Let me be clear about one thing though....this was brought up for discussion for next season only. There was never any intention on my part to get the Wilson Rule instituted for this upcoming season.
ReplyDelete