Need some serious help to settle a dispute in my keeper - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Need some serious help to settle a dispute in my keeper

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Twisted Sister » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:17 am

Seems like a no brainer... the rules of the league were originally non-snake. Everyone agreed on it last season (the first year of the keeper).

When I commish, it takes a unanimous vote to change fundamental scoring/roster rules(once established)... why? Because it is not uncommon in keeper/dynasty for the entire league to collude against a dominating team.

The rules were non-snake. I agree, once you start getting 3+ on the keeper list... non-snake is fair.

I also like the rookie draft idea (rookies, until called up, don't count as a keeper).
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby stepsinsc » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:37 am

Twisted Sister wrote:Seems like a no brainer... the rules of the league were originally non-snake. Everyone agreed on it last season (the first year of the keeper).

When I commish, it takes a unanimous vote to change fundamental scoring/roster rules(once established)... why? Because it is not uncommon in keeper/dynasty for the entire league to collude against a dominating team.

The rules were non-snake. I agree, once you start getting 3+ on the keeper list... non-snake is fair.

I also like the rookie draft idea (rookies, until called up, don't count as a keeper).


The rules were never non-snake....the first year we drafted it was snaked and we never mentioned anything about the future.
stepsinsc
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 185
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Twisted Sister » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:49 am

stepsinsc wrote:
Twisted Sister wrote:Seems like a no brainer... the rules of the league were originally non-snake. Everyone agreed on it last season (the first year of the keeper).

When I commish, it takes a unanimous vote to change fundamental scoring/roster rules(once established)... why? Because it is not uncommon in keeper/dynasty for the entire league to collude against a dominating team.

The rules were non-snake. I agree, once you start getting 3+ on the keeper list... non-snake is fair.

I also like the rookie draft idea (rookies, until called up, don't count as a keeper).


The rules were never non-snake....the first year we drafted it was snaked and we never mentioned anything about the future.


Thanks for the clarity. In that case, you need to keep it snake. The default FF draft type is snake, non-snake is an exception format. It is a safe assumption that the league is snake unless specifically specified differently. You're adding a rule at this point.
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby stepsinsc » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:57 am

We're definitlely going to snake this year, but I added a slight change to appease the new owners. Basically, the league agreed to allow them to change ONE of their keeper selections by adding one player that was not kept by any of us 10 other owners. This means free agents and rookies are not included.

The problem now is they both want the same player, Chester Taylor, and I don't have a good resolution for this. It seems fair to me that if Owner A is getting the first overall pick in the normal draft (and thus is getting Reggie Bush), then he should be getting the second choice in this keeper-augmentation. Does that sound fair?
stepsinsc
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 185
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:59 am

stepsinsc wrote:We're definitlely going to snake this year, but I added a slight change to appease the new owners. Basically, the league agreed to allow them to change ONE of their keeper selections by adding one player that was not kept by any of us 10 other owners. This means free agents and rookies are not included.

The problem now is they both want the same player, Chester Taylor, and I don't have a good resolution for this. It seems fair to me that if Owner A is getting the first overall pick in the normal draft (and thus is getting Reggie Bush), then he should be getting the second choice in this keeper-augmentation. Does that sound fair?


the guy who has dominik davis gets chester. i mean that guy doenst even have a back.
The Miner Part 2
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 2131
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Chicago.

Postby Twisted Sister » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:01 am

stepsinsc wrote:We're definitlely going to snake this year, but I added a slight change to appease the new owners. Basically, the league agreed to allow them to change ONE of their keeper selections by adding one player that was not kept by any of us 10 other owners. This means free agents and rookies are not included.

The problem now is they both want the same player, Chester Taylor, and I don't have a good resolution for this. It seems fair to me that if Owner A is getting the first overall pick in the normal draft (and thus is getting Reggie Bush), then he should be getting the second choice in this keeper-augmentation. Does that sound fair?


Sounds good to me, sounds like you found a good compromise for the league. Give them the option to swap picks for Chester Taylor.
Twisted Sister
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2822
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Home Cafe: Football

Postby Matthias » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:44 am

The Miner Part 2 wrote:
stepsinsc wrote:We're definitlely going to snake this year, but I added a slight change to appease the new owners. Basically, the league agreed to allow them to change ONE of their keeper selections by adding one player that was not kept by any of us 10 other owners. This means free agents and rookies are not included.

The problem now is they both want the same player, Chester Taylor, and I don't have a good resolution for this. It seems fair to me that if Owner A is getting the first overall pick in the normal draft (and thus is getting Reggie Bush), then he should be getting the second choice in this keeper-augmentation. Does that sound fair?


the guy who has dominik davis gets chester. i mean that guy doenst even have a back.


yah. but moss & gates are at least reasonable players. the other guy's keepers are garbage. dillon doesn't look a whole lot healthier than dominic nowadays.

but yes, give the first keeper-augmentation to owner b who will be choosing second in the regular draft.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby The Miner Part 2 » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:49 am

Matthias wrote:
The Miner Part 2 wrote:
stepsinsc wrote:We're definitlely going to snake this year, but I added a slight change to appease the new owners. Basically, the league agreed to allow them to change ONE of their keeper selections by adding one player that was not kept by any of us 10 other owners. This means free agents and rookies are not included.

The problem now is they both want the same player, Chester Taylor, and I don't have a good resolution for this. It seems fair to me that if Owner A is getting the first overall pick in the normal draft (and thus is getting Reggie Bush), then he should be getting the second choice in this keeper-augmentation. Does that sound fair?


the guy who has dominik davis gets chester. i mean that guy doenst even have a back.


yah. but moss & gates are at least reasonable players. the other guy's keepers are garbage. dillon doesn't look a whole lot healthier than dominic nowadays.

but yes, give the first keeper-augmentation to owner b who will be choosing second in the regular draft.


Daunte Culpepper
Corey Dillon
Donald Driver
Matt Jones

those guys are garbage?? driver is going to have the same if not better season than moss and then you have dillion, jones and culpepper for gates. which means this guy can just pick up moroney with his first pick. the keepers between these two arent even close.
The Miner Part 2
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 2131
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Chicago.

Postby Matthias » Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:11 am

The Miner Part 2 wrote:
Matthias wrote:yah. but moss & gates are at least reasonable players. the other guy's keepers are garbage. dillon doesn't look a whole lot healthier than dominic nowadays.

but yes, give the first keeper-augmentation to owner b who will be choosing second in the regular draft.


Daunte Culpepper
Corey Dillon
Donald Driver
Matt Jones

those guys are garbage?? driver is going to have the same if not better season than moss and then you have dillion, jones and culpepper for gates. which means this guy can just pick up moroney with his first pick. the keepers between these two arent even close.


Garbage? Of course they're garbage. These are four keepers so should be (roughly) equivalent to the first four rounds of a draft. Dillon is a late 2nd-rounder and he's not looking good and he's the best of the lot. Driver > Moss? No way. Moss has ADP of 24. Driver is 46. Driver has one season with more than 5 TDs. Moss has eight. And has been in the league 8 years. Basically, Randy's off year is Driver's upside. Daunte is interesting but scares me with injury recoup. I wouldn't rate him significantly over any other random QB such as Brees you could WW in a 12-teamer. And Matt Jones has everyone excited this season, but he has them excited in about the 9th round.

So you have a 2nd rounder (maybe), a 4th rounder, maybe a 6th, and a 9th. That blows. At least if you gave me Moss & Gates I'd feel like I had two blue-chippers to build off of.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2398
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby onnestabe » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:55 pm

I haven't seen this mentioned, but maybe you should give the new guys a discount on this year's fee? Since the probably have little to no chance to win it this year, let them pay a little less and concentrate on improving for future years.

It just sounds like from what you are saying that there really is nothing you can do to make these teams competitive this year. If that is the case, why bend over backwards changing up league rules and such when you can just let them in for less money this year?
onnestabe
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerEagle Eye
Posts: 4074
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Cincinnati - West Price Hill

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 1:23 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact