Who wants to be in an auction league?

[Eric_the_Red]

I will PM them and see who hasn't signed up yet.

[redsfandan]

I show 11 owners have joined the Yahoo league. Who are we missing?

I'm the team that hasn't, technically, joined yet. But, like I said in the pm I just sent to Eric_the_Red, I haven't joined yet because I didn't think there was a need to rush to join since the draft isn't for another few weeks. That's all.

[Eric_the_Red]

No problem, rfd. Thanks!

[FutureRedsGM]

I will PM them and see who hasn't signed up yet.

I am HGH - High Grove Hoodlums.

[Eric_the_Red]

I am HGH - High Grove Hoodlums.

Nice acronym.

[redsfandan]

Next order of business if how we should handle keepers.

So, two questions:
1. How much should the cost be to keep players next season? $2, $3...$5..??
2. Should there be a limit to the number of players kept?

My votes:
1. $3 additional each year
2. No limit.

Anyone have any objections with this set-up?

For players valued $20 and under, it is $3 to keep them.
For players valued $21 or more, it is $5 to keep them.

This will put more of the elite players back into the pool each year.

I had a thought that I hope people keep in mind...

I don't know how experienced all of the owners are in this league. But I think we have at least one person that is new to fantasy baseball and it's possible that we could have one or two more people with some experience but not ALOT. So, my concern is that we could end up with rules that makes it harder for owners with weak teams to strengthen their teams enough in a reasonable amount of team to keep the league as competitive as possible. If there are a couple teams that don't start off with strong teams and struggle to improve year after a year a 12 team leage could really be a 10 team league.

Increasing the salary cap hit of players by $3/yr would be fine with me but I'm not sure about $5 for more expensive players.

That'll make it almost impossible for some players to be kept for more than one year. That could also affect the trade value of the players and result in an owner feeling that they have to trade a player at any price because they won't be able to afford to keep him. Just food for thought.

As far as keepers go, I'd prefer to have 10 keepers.

That would be enough for any team to start off next year with a foundation already in place but it would allow weak teams to have a chance at some decent players in the year 2 draft that aren't just fringe players or prospects who may not even see any time in the majors that year. Otherwise, we could end up with a team that, because they have a bad draft in year 1, finds it hard to legitimately compete until year 3 or later. To be clear, I don't have a problem if a team decides to build for the future instead of competing right away. But having a team or two that are constantly in the bottom of the league rankings every year would detract from the competitiveness of the league and increase the chances of owners leaving the league. Everyone would still have a shot at the same players in the year 2 draft if there were 10 keepers. 10 keepers would just increase the chances of every team having at least a shot at winning within the first few years.

[Eric_the_Red]

Wouldn't the $5 fee for better players let to more churn with top players, thereby increasing the chances that any team could get those players? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying there.

[redsfandan]

Wouldn't the $5 fee for better players let to more churn with top players, thereby increasing the chances that any team could get those players? I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you are saying there.

Yes it would. I just wanted to point out that it would probably be extremely difficult to keep those players for more than only one year. Keeping in mind that, since we'll have 25 man rosters, every team could be at least $75 over the cap before the 2nd year draft. So, how much turnover would we want of top players. Also, if a team decides that it would be hard to keep a player and they trade him to another team would the new team have that player at the same price as the original team bid for him? For example, one team bids $40 for a player and later trades him to another team. Would that player count as $40 against the new teams salary cap? I want to make sure that things like that are clear from the get go.

Like I said in my previous post, I'm not at all opposed to upping player values every year. And right now I'm not sure which way I would lean on upping players value by $5. But, while I'd consider myself fairly experienced in standard fantasy baseball, I'm not experienced in auction leagues let alone leagues where player values increase and I may not be the only one in that boat. So, I think just taking a little time for the league to discuss that proposal instead of jumping to a vote right away would be a good idea. That's all.

[Eric_the_Red]

Yes, if players are traded their contracts/values would go with them.

Maybe we just split the difference and say all keepers are $4 more per year?

[RedsManRick]

Here's a thought, tiered bumps:
Under $10: Up $5
$10-$24: Up $4
$25-$39: Up $3
$40 and over: Up $2

This would make it so you aren't keeping some $3 prospect for 10 years when he turns about to be good, but it also makes it so the studs aren't immediately priced out of reasonable range. Absent that system put me down for $4 bumps. As for the number of keepers, I'd say no limit.

One interesting idea I've heard is allowing prior year's owner to have matching rights. So a guy would go to FA, but you'd have the right to match whatever the winning bid is and get your player back at that price. Maybe we could have like 3 "tags" to give out to guys who we weren't keeping so we had a better shot at bringing the guy back but didn't have to pay him more than he's worth.

[Gamble]

Is there anyway we could have a franchise tag? Each team can keep one player at no cost? The rest at $4. The catch for the future is to change their value each season to their projected value. Just a thought.

[Redsfan320]

3 weeks 'til draft day!

320

[Eric_the_Red]

Hmm, franchise tag, huh? Sounds interesting. Maybe we add a caveat that franchised players can be keep at their previous year's value, but they cannot be dropped that year?

[Joseph]

Hmm, franchise tag, huh? Sounds interesting. Maybe we add a caveat that franchised players can be keep at their previous year's value, but they cannot be dropped that year?

Now that I like.

[reds1869]

Now that I like.

I could go for that. As Lou Brown would say, "that's a heck if an idea."