Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Go Back  Pred's Fantasy Football Forums > SAC'D - Shark Attack Contract Dynasty (a Frenzy league) > SAC'D Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding
User Name
Password
Home Forums FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 10th, 2006, 09:36 AM   #61
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Okay, I guess we can look at adjusting the prices again. I still think that we are creating a situation where essentially teams trade stud players and pick up extra picks in the process. If two teams tender first round backs and are willing to not match (not to mention that at these prices it would be difficult to afford two) they get a RB and also a top 15 (or 20 pick). Not that "charging" a third round pick would mitigate this but at least we would not have so many extra picks.

As for the IDP idea I think that if the tender amounts are set right that they should be handled like IOP's.
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:02 AM   #62
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
My take, I think the RB tenders need to be bumped to 4000 for a 1st, the tenders for rounds 2-6 are fine.

If the RB tender was 4000 for a 1st I never woulda tendered a 1st for McGahee, though as it was I felt I was really gambling at 3200.

I'd also be in favor of eliminating a 1st round tender level for all IDP's, Ray Lewis, as good as he once was, doesn't warrant a 1st round comp IMO.

Lets just fix some of the 1st round tenders, specifiacally RB by making it an extremely difficult decision to tender a 1st, unless you've got a LT or Alexander type.
With a 6 round draft, and building and maintaining your team through the draft being more important in SAC'D, I'd almost be in favor of eliminating all 1st round tenders across the board. Leave the tender levels where they are, just knock them down a round. This would leave the first two rounds untouched, allowing the teams that need to rebuild through the draft (the bottom 4 or 5 teams) get two good players via the draft.

BTW, Mike, weren't you the one last week telling people to quit their bitching? :idiot
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:06 AM   #63
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
With a 6 round draft, and building and maintaining your team through the draft being more important in SAC'D, I'd almost be in favor of eliminating all 1st round tenders across the board. Leave the tender levels where they are, just knock them down a round. This would leave the first two rounds untouched, allowing the teams that need to rebuild through the draft (the bottom 4 or 5 teams) get two good players via the draft.

BTW, Mike, weren't you the one last week telling people to quit their bitching? :idiot
I'm just respoonding to Matt. Personally, I don't care if nothing changes, I have no problem with the comps, even if there are 12 1sts, but if you want to put a check on the system, make it more prohibitive, or make the comp system more complicated, i.e. you tender a 1st, but steal another guys player that was also a 1st your comp drops to a 2nd or something.

I think the reality is lose an Alexander type, you deserve a pick at the end of the 1st round, thus I'd be against eliminating the 1sts entirely, but I could see raising the bar at RB, and putting in an equal distibution type clause as stated above, you swap 1st rd tender players and your comp drops around, swap 2nd rd players and your comp drops to a 3rd, etc.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823

Last edited by Preds; April 10th, 2006 at 10:08 AM.
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:07 AM   #64
Burt the Butcher
Supreme FF Dominator
 
Burt the Butcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Falcon, Colorado
Posts: 17,945
Burt the Butcher is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

I agree some tinkering needs to be done. I like taking the first level higher AND eliminating 1st round comps.
__________________
What's the point in calling shots
His cue ain't straight in line
Cue balls made of Styrofoam
And no ones got the time


OUT---
Burt the Butcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:10 AM   #65
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

I'll chime in and say a couple of things:
1) I don't see prices coming down next year. Why would they if they haven't from last year. LT at over $5k is basically the standard at this point. So if you are hoping next year would be different, I am not sure why that would be the case. Whoever has LT, for example is just going to put him back in the RFA pool next year as you can't sign someone for that much for more than 1 year. And then the cycle starts again. Take a look at the WR numbers. I think they got worse, not better. (I'd make commentary on some of them, but that would be rude until they have sold.)

2) I'm for eliminating the 1st round tenders or for doing what Matt said (I actually like the idea of paying a price to sign a RFA, just like the NFL team that signs one has to offer a pick to the team.) The comp picks are killing the draft. If this keeps up, around pick 2.05/2.06 you are looking at third round talent. That means pick 3.01 is getting close to 4th round talent. Not really fair at all.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:14 AM   #66
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Eh, after the 1st round the picks are virtually worthless anyhow.

Prices are high enough as it is, you reduce or eliminate the comps, and players will NEVER move teams. Trust me, they didn't in the Frenzy till we put a comp system in place.

Conversely, if you force teams to give up a pick to acquire a RFA, you'll see prices reduced, and more players matched with the market now deflated.

The comp system is IMO almost dead on, just needs a bit of tweaking at the top tier for RB's and IDP's.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:23 AM   #67
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
Eh, after the 1st round the picks are virtually worthless anyhow.

Prices are high enough as it is, you reduce or eliminate the comps, and players will NEVER move teams. Trust me, they didn't in the Frenzy till we put a comp system in place.

Conversely, if you force teams to give up a pick to acquire a RFA, you'll see prices reduced, and more players matched with the market now deflated.

The comp system is IMO almost dead on, just needs a bit of tweaking at the top tier for RB's and IDP's.
It needs a bit more than just a bit of tweaking. Sure players are moving, but is that really the point? This is a dynasty league, the idea being you keep your team for the most part year to year, with minor movement (trades not counting). You're killing the draft, dramatically. And there's plenty to be had in the first round. And I think we were all agree we wanted to see prices reduced this year and they are not really going down. I think they need to be eliminated, or dramatically higher.

From a homer perspective, but Reggie Brown and Ryan Moats were drafted in our second round, and Brown is a starter this year (and was for part of this past year) and Moats was last year for part of the season. And that is without looking to see who else was drafted in that 2nd and 3rd round.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:38 AM   #68
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
It needs a bit more than just a bit of tweaking. Sure players are moving, but is that really the point? This is a dynasty league, the idea being you keep your team for the most part year to year, with minor movement (trades not counting). You're killing the draft, dramatically. And there's plenty to be had in the first round. And I think we were all agree we wanted to see prices reduced this year and they are not really going down. I think they need to be eliminated, or dramatically higher.

From a homer perspective, but Reggie Brown and Ryan Moats were drafted in our second round, and Brown is a starter this year (and was for part of this past year) and Moats was last year for part of the season. And that is without looking to see who else was drafted in that 2nd and 3rd round.
First and formost, this is NOT a dynasty league, it is a cap/contract league, and as such is drastically different.

And yes, there SHOULD be movement of the RFA's. Ideally IMO the retention rate should be about 50-60%. Unfortunately, here in season 2 we're nowhere near that, thus tweaking is needed.

RFA's are a key part of the cap/contract process. In general these players will turn out overpriced compared to other market conditions, and that's partially the intent. you want to pry a guy, you pay through the nose in many cases, but at least the team tendering the player has the blow softened by getting some form of comp. And if you think the #13 pick is adequate comp for losing Alexander, your nuts. That 13 pick is a HUGE gamble that may or maynot payoff. Most the comps are towards the end of the draft, which is useless players for the most part. Nothing but deep sleeper gambles and IDP's.

I just totally totally disagree with the angle you guys are heading towards, and it's gonna hurt the league and force more rebalancing. Been there, done that. A comp system as we have can and will work, the numbers just need to be tweaked higher at RB, and as I stated previously, maybe have the comps reduced if you sign another player tendered at the same comp level. Do those 2 things and the problems take care of themselves.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:38 AM   #69
Doggler
SAC'D
 
Doggler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 964
Doggler is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Instead of creating picks out of thin air, and instead of giving picks, why don't we SWAP picks? Basically, if you land someone else's RFA, you'll drop down a round and they'll move up a round.

The 'buying' team must give their highest pick at or above the tender level.
The 'selling' (or non-matching team) will give their highest pick from the round following the pick they receive.

Example
I have picks 1.9, 2.9, 3.9, 4.9, 5.9, 6.9
Burt has picks 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, 6.3
Burt has LT, he tenders him for a 1st.
I win LT.
Burt declines to match.
I give Burt 1.9 because he tendered him as a 1st round pick. Burt then gives me 2.3.

What I like about this system is that picks are NEVER devalued.
A few things would need to be ironed out:
1)Is a one-round swap fair enough to the team who decides not to match? We could turn it into a 2-round drop if that's the consensus.
2)What to do with multiple or no picks in a round? I think that can all be addressed...i.e. if you don't have a 1st and someone tenders a guy at a 1st, you simply cannot bid on him. Likewise, if you're Burt and you tender a guy for a 1st and you don't have a 2nd, you're screwed - maybe you swap 1sts if his is better than yours, but there is definately a hierarchy that can be followed.
__________________
Red Rocks Pea Cocks
Doggler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:39 AM   #70
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
With a 6 round draft, and building and maintaining your team through the draft being more important in SAC'D, I'd almost be in favor of eliminating all 1st round tenders across the board. Leave the tender levels where they are, just knock them down a round. This would leave the first two rounds untouched, allowing the teams that need to rebuild through the draft (the bottom 4 or 5 teams) get two good players via the draft.
As someone who has ended up with some of these higher picks I can definately get behind the idea of eliminating first round comps. I think this also makes trading picks a little smoother because at least for the first two rounds you know the value of what you are getting.
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 10:47 AM   #71
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Most the comps are towars the end of the draft, which is useless players for the most part.
Not sure where this is coming from. I know in SAC'd we have not gone through the comp process yet. The only other league I am in with the comp picks is the Frenzy.

In the 2005 Draft, I think there were 6 First Round Comps and another 3 in the second round and we only added 13 extra picks. That would be almost 70% in the first two rounds.

In the 2004 Draft, I think there were 5 First Round Comps and another 4 in the second round. In that draft we added 17 picks so that is over half were first or second rounders.

BTW, the numbers above our from my excel spreadsheets but I am pretty sure that they are correct.
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 11:09 AM   #72
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philadelphia Freedom
Not sure where this is coming from. I know in SAC'd we have not gone through the comp process yet. The only other league I am in with the comp picks is the Frenzy.

In the 2005 Draft, I think there were 6 First Round Comps and another 3 in the second round and we only added 13 extra picks. That would be almost 70% in the first two rounds.

In the 2004 Draft, I think there were 5 First Round Comps and another 4 in the second round. In that draft we added 17 picks so that is over half were first or second rounders.

BTW, the numbers above our from my excel spreadsheets but I am pretty sure that they are correct.
4 of the 6 last year in the Frenzy were WR's, a problem we've since addressed this year by significantly raising the WR tenders, to the point where only 2 WR's were tendered as 1sts, and neither have received a bid to date thus far. The other 1st rd tenders in 2006 ar Peyton Manning (who also has gone unbid on thus far), Alexander and LT.

Alexander and LT swapped hands, and thus 2 1st rd comps have been awarded in the Frenzy thus far. A problem which IMO could again be reduced by knocking the comp down a roudn if you lose a player, then sign another player at the same comp level.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 11:12 AM   #73
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

I'm with Mike in the sense that a little tweaking is more appropriate than a major overhaul. I don't think dropping first round tenders is a major overhaul. And Mike, to your comment of whether the 1.13 is adequate compensation for Shaun Alexander, that is not the point. Take a look at what happened in the Frenzy, sure, the 1.13 may not be adequate, but when losing Alexander means you have the cap space for LT, you get way more in return for what you are losing. At 1.13, you've moved out of sure thing category, but there is still plenty of talent on the board. I'll say it again, the compensatory picks were never meant to be anything near equal compensation.

Secondly, picks past the first round definitely are not worthless. In the Frenzy, without IDPs, they are definitely worth less, but considering you can draft a player that could start for you right away for under market value in the 5th and 6th rounds, how can they be worthless?

I think anthing involving trading of picks would be problmeatic, unless we banned the practice of trading options to swap picks in a round. That would get far too complicated and muddy the waters far too much.

I wouldn't be against some form of forfeiting picks to illiminate the dilluting of the waters. What about something like if you sign a 1st round RFA tender, and you lose a 1st round RFA player, then you lose you compensatory pick because you signed a first round player.

Team A signs LT from team B. Team B gets 1 round comp. Team B then signs Shaun Alexander from Team C. Team B loses 1st round come by signingin a 1st round player from another team. Team C still gets a 1st round comp, unless they sign a 1st round player from another team. Team A doesn't have to pay anything just for signing a 1st round player, unless they lose a first rounder themself.

This would solve a few problems. First, it wouldn't make it prohibitively costly to sign 1st round tendered players from other teams, because you would at least still be able to maintain your own picks. Secondly, it would reduce the motivation to just slap a tender on a player with the intention of signing another player of the same value from another team and picking up a free pick. Lastly, fewer comp picks would be passed out, keeping the value of the draft intact, while not totally destroying the movement of players.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 11:18 AM   #74
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

i dont think we should have a major overhaul.

tweaks.

lets look at raising the tender level on RBs and maybe something to reduce the tender if you swap a first round tender for another first round tender. although on that one i think we may want to say if the players you are swapping are of the same position.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 11:30 AM   #75
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I wouldn't be against some form of forfeiting picks to illiminate the dilluting of the waters. What about something like if you sign a 1st round RFA tender, and you lose a 1st round RFA player, then you lose you compensatory pick because you signed a first round player.
I like this. This seems like a vaible solution. Because chances are the guys putting RB's out there are looking to sign another.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 11:41 AM   #76
Preds
*****istrator
 
Preds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY
Posts: 17,122
Preds is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I'm with Mike in the sense that a little tweaking is more appropriate than a major overhaul. I don't think dropping first round tenders is a major overhaul. And Mike, to your comment of whether the 1.13 is adequate compensation for Shaun Alexander, that is not the point. Take a look at what happened in the Frenzy, sure, the 1.13 may not be adequate, but when losing Alexander means you have the cap space for LT, you get way more in return for what you are losing. At 1.13, you've moved out of sure thing category, but there is still plenty of talent on the board. I'll say it again, the compensatory picks were never meant to be anything near equal compensation.

Secondly, picks past the first round definitely are not worthless. In the Frenzy, without IDPs, they are definitely worth less, but considering you can draft a player that could start for you right away for under market value in the 5th and 6th rounds, how can they be worthless?

I think anthing involving trading of picks would be problmeatic, unless we banned the practice of trading options to swap picks in a round. That would get far too complicated and muddy the waters far too much.

I wouldn't be against some form of forfeiting picks to illiminate the dilluting of the waters. What about something like if you sign a 1st round RFA tender, and you lose a 1st round RFA player, then you lose you compensatory pick because you signed a first round player.

Team A signs LT from team B. Team B gets 1 round comp. Team B then signs Shaun Alexander from Team C. Team B loses 1st round come by signingin a 1st round player from another team. Team C still gets a 1st round comp, unless they sign a 1st round player from another team. Team A doesn't have to pay anything just for signing a 1st round player, unless they lose a first rounder themself.

This would solve a few problems. First, it wouldn't make it prohibitively costly to sign 1st round tendered players from other teams, because you would at least still be able to maintain your own picks. Secondly, it would reduce the motivation to just slap a tender on a player with the intention of signing another player of the same value from another team and picking up a free pick. Lastly, fewer comp picks would be passed out, keeping the value of the draft intact, while not totally destroying the movement of players.
BTW I've tried stating about 3-4 times now to put in a system to reduce the comp if a player is lost and a replacement is signed at the same comp level.

While your proposal eliminated the comp entirely, mine reduces it a round. Both accomplish the same objective, though I prefer my plan since the odds of an even up type swap like what occured in the Frenzy with LT and Alexander are not that high. I think the norm will be more like the Alexander / McGahee swap.
__________________
4x Frenzy Champs! 2003, 2005, 2013 & 2022* (* co-champs with Roosters)
Email: preds1@gmail.com
Cell: 716-481-8823
Preds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 12:01 PM   #77
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
First and formost, this is NOT a dynasty league, it is a cap/contract league, and as such is drastically different.
I thought the D stood for Dynasty? I'm picking a nit here, and the point is probably worthless to try to make, but these threads would be boring without worthless points...
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 12:03 PM   #78
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preds
BTW I've tried stating about 3-4 times now to put in a system to reduce the comp if a player is lost and a replacement is signed at the same comp level.

While your proposal eliminated the comp entirely, mine reduces it a round. Both accomplish the same objective, though I prefer my plan since the odds of an even up type swap like what occured in the Frenzy with LT and Alexander are not that high. I think the norm will be more like the Alexander / McGahee swap.
I know you did state that Mike. I wasn't ignoring it, just trying to improve on it, incorporating some of the other ideas.

If Alexander and McGahee were both tagged as 1st rounders, it think it should be more than a one round drop, if we're still looking to add picks. If you want to make sure teams are still getting additional picks, how about something like (and keep in mind, we need something to incorporate all situations, not just straight swaps), if you sign a player of the same position and tender level of one you lost, your compensation picks drops two spots. If you signed a player of lower value, or at a different position, then your own comp only drops one round. Of course it would get complicated when a team, say, loses three RFAs, and signed 4 in return. How do you match them up? Highest tendered loss to highest tendered gained? Match by position first? Match round, then position as tie breaker? It could be done, but will be confusing.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 12:03 PM   #79
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I thought the D stood for Dynasty? I'm picking a nit here, and the point is probably worthless to try to make, but these threads would be boring without worthless points...
Now there's a sentiment I can get behind.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 01:09 PM   #80
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Do we want to do what the NFL does and wait a year to see how the player performs and then comp based on that performance? Or is that even more complicated?
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 01:39 PM   #81
Mutts
General Member
 
Mutts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 3,026
Mutts is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Personally, I think you are all freaking out before the data exists to make the judgements. One thing I've noticed in SAC'D (probably because of the many great fantasy minds) is that major judgements are made ahead of an actual situation worthy of judging. Its biasing the league towards people's preconceived notions. I still say this happened with IDPs. Most owners went light on IDPs in the inaugural draft because of their own biases and ever since we've been tweaking the rules to devalue IDPs further.

I say be aware of the existence of IDPs - tweak the rules to value IDPs more and I think you'll see the top end problem with offensive players start to fix itself.
Mutts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 02:31 PM   #82
Skippy the One Eyed Beagle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutts
Personally, I think you are all freaking out before the data exists to make the judgements. One thing I've noticed in SAC'D (probably because of the many great fantasy minds) is that major judgements are made ahead of an actual situation worthy of judging. Its biasing the league towards people's preconceived notions. I still say this happened with IDPs. Most owners went light on IDPs in the inaugural draft because of their own biases and ever since we've been tweaking the rules to devalue IDPs further.

I say be aware of the existence of IDPs - tweak the rules to value IDPs more and I think you'll see the top end problem with offensive players start to fix itself.
:goodposting:

Lets not try to fix an issue that doesnt exist. Let's see what happens.
  Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 03:54 PM   #83
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Again, I am not nit picking here, but how much longer do we need? We were saying last year we would be correcting the amounts now, now we are saying we can correct them next year (which would then only apply to the 2008 season). The fact is we have added 4 first rounders so far and will probably do the same next year unless we fix something. Doesn't have to be dramatic, but it should be fixed.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2006, 04:02 PM   #84
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutts
Personally, I think you are all freaking out before the data exists to make the judgements. One thing I've noticed in SAC'D (probably because of the many great fantasy minds) is that major judgements are made ahead of an actual situation worthy of judging. Its biasing the league towards people's preconceived notions. I still say this happened with IDPs. Most owners went light on IDPs in the inaugural draft because of their own biases and ever since we've been tweaking the rules to devalue IDPs further.

I say be aware of the existence of IDPs - tweak the rules to value IDPs more and I think you'll see the top end problem with offensive players start to fix itself.
I will then add the footnote to my statements that I am talking under the assumption that the trend we see going on this year continues next year. Unless there is overwhelming support, I wouldn't want to change anything prior to the next RFA season either, but, if the same thing happens, I think change would be obviously called for. I for one am simply thinking out loud about what the problem appears to be and brainstorming solutions. If we see the same thing happen next year, we'll have this thread to refer back to to see what the original ideas were and what the original perceptions of the problems were.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2006, 11:31 AM   #85
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I will then add the footnote to my statements that I am talking under the assumption that the trend we see going on this year continues next year. Unless there is overwhelming support, I wouldn't want to change anything prior to the next RFA season either, but, if the same thing happens, I think change would be obviously called for.
I agree with Brian on this one. I'd go a stpe further though and say if we see the same trend continue, we should have something in place that will implement the changes in 2007, not during 2007 for the 2008 season. I'm not sure how to do this, but it should be considered. Another season like this and the rookie draft will be silly once again.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2006, 11:31 AM   #86
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

...
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2006, 11:34 AM   #87
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I agree with Brian on this one.
It's your first step to the dark side.

I think it would be difficult to have something in place to implement immediately. What is the trigger to implement the new rule? Majority vote? Predetermined amount of 1st rounders handed out? I know there are bids I made this year I wouldn't have made if I thought the rules might have changed mid stream.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 12th, 2006, 12:24 PM   #88
randilover
SAC'D
 
randilover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Outside Philadelphia
Posts: 1,183
randilover is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Yeah, exactly. Otherwise we are looking at the same thing for next year if the speculating we are doing is correct.
randilover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 15th, 2006, 04:30 PM   #89
Philadelphia Freedom
Feeding Frenzy
 
Philadelphia Freedom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,096
Philadelphia Freedom is on a distinguished road
Smile Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Did not want to post in the thread but it is Brian Westbrook not Bryant. Just so you don't end up with a worthless name on your roster...
Philadelphia Freedom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2006, 04:24 PM   #90
Nittany Dodgers
Feeding Frenzy
Moderator
 
Nittany Dodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maplewood, MN
Posts: 5,204
Nittany Dodgers is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2006 SACD RFA Commentary

Brett, isn't McNabb your own RFA? Don't bid on your own RFAs. Delete your post if you can.
Nittany Dodgers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2006 Frenzy RFA Commentary Preds Frenzy Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding 5 April 23rd, 2007 01:13 PM
Official 2006 SACD RFA Tenders Preds SAC'D Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding 24 April 24th, 2006 07:15 AM
2006 SACD RFA declarations Burt the Butcher SAC'D Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding 35 April 4th, 2006 10:55 AM
2005 SAC'D Master Trade Tracking Thread Preds SAC'D Trading Block 1 May 6th, 2005 06:49 AM
RFA Rules and Tender details Preds Frenzy Restricted Free Agents (RFA) Declaration and Bidding 0 March 15th, 2004 01:25 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums