Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

>> DC NBA Fastbreak Classic

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Shiver View Post
    Oh yes he does, lately anyway, his FG% and points have been atrocious. At least his assists and steals have still been great, but these single digit sub-.400 performances are pissing me off.
    I have Gilbert Arenas on my team. Your complaints are invalid.
    (shameless self-promotion)
    Like video games? Subscribe to my Youtube Channel!
    https://www.youtube.com/user/Forenci

    Comment


    • We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

      I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

      For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

      Is that ok?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by D-Unit View Post
        We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

        I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

        For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

        Is that ok?
        I think it works alright. I'm not sure, but for basketball 5 years may be too long. I think it works in the MLB fantasy keeper league because a lot of players take a while to breakthrough in the majors and usually it takes some time to succeed at a high level. So the people who take chances on the younger players should be rewarded there.

        However, big time NBA stars (like Wall) emerge almost immediately in their rookie campaigns or the year after. I think 4 years would be good, but maybe that's just me.

        I like the idea overall, though. Rewards people who may overspend on young guys who we don't know if they will pan out, or on hidden gems someone else may find.
        (shameless self-promotion)
        Like video games? Subscribe to my Youtube Channel!
        https://www.youtube.com/user/Forenci

        Comment


        • Originally posted by D-Unit View Post
          We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

          I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

          For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

          Is that ok?
          Now wait....I might be misreading that but if you keep a player who cost you $200 last year, you still get just as much headed into the next year to spend as someone who kept players worth less? That doesn't seem right.

          In like a normal draft keeper league, if you keep a guy you drafted in the first round, you lose your first rounder the next draft. Shouldn't it be the same way here only you're without the money that you spent?

          Otherwise there is an incredible advantage to anyone who spent a lot on one player and decides to keep him vs. someone who built a value team. You know what I mean?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
            Now wait....I might be misreading that but if you keep a player who cost you $200 last year, you still get just as much headed into the next year to spend as someone who kept players worth less? That doesn't seem right.

            In like a normal draft keeper league, if you keep a guy you drafted in the first round, you lose your first rounder the next draft. Shouldn't it be the same way here only you're without the money that you spent?

            Otherwise there is an incredible advantage to anyone who spent a lot on one player and decides to keep him vs. someone who built a value team. You know what I mean?
            I know that is a factor, but that was permitable. The downside of that was that those owners had to go through the season with crappy depth. The penalty of being charged that amount for more than one season is not a good idea. If Dwight Howard went for $120 on a $200 budget, it's not right for that owner to go into next year's draft with only $80 to spend for the rest of his team. He already paid the price for doing that this season.

            That said, the new rules will prevent him from keeping Dwight, but with the new rules in place before the draft, then they can re-strategize accordingly.

            Forenci has a point... but I think 3 years would be too short. Maybe 4 would be the happy medium. Still willing to hear others out.

            Comment


            • Well, what about only costing half of what they spent if that's possible to do? Just like real life, there needs to be some sort of advantage/disadvantage system to the players you keep around. Like if you found a stud for only $5 who broke out this year, there should be an advantage to keeping him rather than someone who paid a lot of an established star keeping that star.

              When the 5 year limit kicks in, it will alleviate that to a degree, and we could probably go without costing you something to keep a guy, but for this season, since that won't be in effect, teams that spent a lot on established stars will have an inherent advantage over teams that spent more frugally and spread out their money.

              So I think, just for this season until that 5 year keeper rule comes into effect, it should cost at least a percentage of what you spent on the player previously in order to keep him. Even half would probably be effective in my opinion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
                Well, what about only costing half of what they spent if that's possible to do? Just like real life, there needs to be some sort of advantage/disadvantage system to the players you keep around. Like if you found a stud for only $5 who broke out this year, there should be an advantage to keeping him rather than someone who paid a lot of an established star keeping that star.

                When the 5 year limit kicks in, it will alleviate that to a degree, and we could probably go without costing you something to keep a guy, but for this season, since that won't be in effect, teams that spent a lot on established stars will have an inherent advantage over teams that spent more frugally and spread out their money.

                So I think, just for this season until that 5 year keeper rule comes into effect, it should cost at least a percentage of what you spent on the player previously in order to keep him. Even half would probably be effective in my opinion.
                Nah, we're not going to do that. I never specified that that would be the case prior to the draft last year, so it would be hard to force now. Plus, players that have been traded and such make it hard to determine things. The advantage of finding a player such as one off the wire or one you got in the draft for cheap is that you get to keep them if you wish.

                Comment


                • D, look at the "Keeper" menu on your team page. It lists the salaries right next to the player. This includes guys that were traded for or you spent waiver dollars on.

                  Why would that be there if it wasn't assumed that in a keeper league, it costs something to keep a guy. That was my assumption coming into it...it's not something that should have needed announced.

                  See what some others have to say on it, but it seems against what I've always known in keeper leagues that it doesn't cost something to keep a guy.

                  Comment


                  • I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again. It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Shiver View Post
                      I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again. It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.
                      That's exactly the reason I assumed it would. I had never been in an auction draft before, but I figured it would carry over all the same.

                      Comment


                      • I'm more than willing to listen to what others have to say then.

                        In my experience here, assumptions aren't rules until they are announced and made clear. If I just hoped people would assume it and I never said anything about it, usually I would get hammered.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Shiver View Post
                          I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again. It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.
                          Yeah, but that's with a snake style draft. Not an auction draft. If you lose the pick from that round you decided to keep the player from, that's totally different from auction style.

                          I'm all for encouraging smart bidding and efficiency... but what is that? It's different for everyone because everyone may have their own strategy. What's smart to you may not be what someone else thinks is smart.

                          Comment


                          • The smartest thing is to spend the least on the best players, I don't think anyone would argue with that. That's just how life works in general...you want the best stuff for the least amount of money.

                            You can get awesome production out of a superstar you spent 2/3 of your money on, but it would be even better for you and your team if you spent $5 on an unknown and he grew into Superstar.

                            And I don't see how it's different from a snake order draft. If you keep a player you spent a 2nd round pick on, you lose your 2nd round pick.

                            If you want to keep a player you spent $100 on, you should have $100 less to work with in the next auction.

                            I mean, compare it to real life. If the Heat got to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh, but got to spend the same amount as everyone else the next year...it wouldn't really be fair to the frugal teams who spent less on more players. You know what I'm trying to say? The Heat are penalized because they are paying 3 guys a majority of their salary and don't have the funds to bring in other players, while another team might be spreading out how much it pays and end up with fewer stars, but a more solid all around team, and the ability to add available stars because of how much more money they have to work with.

                            It's the same principle here. I don't want to sit here and give away my strategy, but if I keep 3 productive players I spent a total of $30 on in the draft, I should be benefitted in some way that a team keeping 3 players they spent $200 isn't. That team probably gets 3 better overall players, but they will have less to work with to build around them in the following draft.

                            Again, collect some more opinions but I think most of the league will agree with what I'm trying to say like Shiver.

                            Comment


                            • I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

                              It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.
                              Last edited by Bosanac01; 03-03-2011, 03:34 PM.

                              Sig by: BK

                              02:40 *** Chucky quit #nfldraftcountdown
                              02:40 <vidae> yay, hes gone
                              02:40 *** Chucky joined #nfldraftcountdown
                              02:40 <vidae> aww hes back
                              Originally posted by fenikz
                              we all hate you

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BeerBaron View Post
                                The smartest thing is to spend the least on the best players, I don't think anyone would argue with that. That's just how life works in general...you want the best stuff for the least amount of money.

                                You can get awesome production out of a superstar you spent 2/3 of your money on, but it would be even better for you and your team if you spent $5 on an unknown and he grew into Superstar.

                                And I don't see how it's different from a snake order draft. If you keep a player you spent a 2nd round pick on, you lose your 2nd round pick.

                                If you want to keep a player you spent $100 on, you should have $100 less to work with in the next auction.

                                I mean, compare it to real life. If the Heat got to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh, but got to spend the same amount as everyone else the next year...it wouldn't really be fair to the frugal teams who spent less on more players. You know what I'm trying to say? The Heat are penalized because they are paying 3 guys a majority of their salary and don't have the funds to bring in other players, while another team might be spreading out how much it pays and end up with fewer stars, but a more solid all around team, and the ability to add available stars because of how much more money they have to work with.

                                It's the same principle here. I don't want to sit here and give away my strategy, but if I keep 3 productive players I spent a total of $30 on in the draft, I should be benefitted in some way that a team keeping 3 players they spent $200 isn't. That team probably gets 3 better overall players, but they will have less to work with to build around them in the following draft.

                                Again, collect some more opinions but I think most of the league will agree with what I'm trying to say like Shiver.
                                On the bolded part... Is that forever as long as they keep the player?

                                As for comparing this to real life, the difference is players sign contracts for a certain amount of years. This is concept seems endless.

                                I just want to be fair to all. So I will wait for others to chime in. I think this would've had a major effect on trades. People might not have done some of their trades if they knew about the cost of keeping certain players.

                                ie. If you traded for Player A who cost $120 (Amare Stoutemire) in the draft for Player B who cost $15 (Lamarcus Aldridge) in the draft in a deal that involved other moving parts. Your intent could've been that you were going to keep Player A as your keeper, but without considering the cost of keeping him would be different, then you might not have done the trade. With so many trades done without this in consideration, I think that puts a significant twist on how this season has rolled out.

                                I wish we cleared this up before the season started. Oh well. More comments people!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information