| 0 |
Subject: Fantasy WWE - keepers voting.
Posted by: Tree
- [22052618] Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 07:02
option 1:
a. your top scorer is gone. period.
b. you choose TWO of positions 2 through 4 to keep.
c. you choose two other guys of 5 through 8, for a total of FOUR keepers.
d. you can actually choose to keep less than 4 wrestlers. if this happens, anyone who does that gets "extra" picks at the end of the draft, in the same order as the draft had been going all along.
option 2: same thing as above, but in part C, you only keep ONE other guy, for a total of THREE, and in part D, the "extra" picks apply if you keep less than three.
option 3: no keepers
option 4: none of the above - if you choose this, please offer a suggestion?
|
| 1 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 07:16
|
Either #3 (no keepers, throw 'em all back in), or #4 (3-4 keepers, no restrictions).
|
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 07:33
|
1
|
| 3 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 07:50
|
oh yea, i vote for 1...man, i need coffee...
|
| 4 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 12:41
|
1
|
| 5 | MNG@college
ID: 117422015
Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 16:01
|
3
|
| 6 | Great One
Donor
ID: 41136511
Sun, Feb 02, 2003, 23:51
|
1
|
| 7 | Farn
Donor
ID: 7822711
Sun, Feb 02, 2003, 23:54
|
1
|
| 8 | mIST
ID: 21113162
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 04:11
|
3
|
| 9 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 06:56
|
five votes for option 1
three votes for option 3
four undecided
|
| 10 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 06:57
|
....and very much a mess. Depending on how much it clears up, the vote can be tabled if necessary.
|
| 11 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 08:37
|
#4 - 3/4 Keepers No Restrictions
|
| 12 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 40029714
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 11:07
|
1. Though I don't care. I'm going to be able to keep Rocky.
|
| 13 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 11:54
|
2
|
| 14 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Mon, Feb 03, 2003, 13:24
|
6 for option 1
3 for option 3
1 for option 4
1 for option 2
that's 11 votes of 12....
|
| 15 | kev
ID: 11438306
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 11:29
|
3
|
| 16 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 13:05
|
6 votes for option 1
4 votes for option 3
1 vote for option 4
1 vote for option 2
that's the final tally.
i won't make the call on this - a majority did NOT vote for any option, but option 1 did get 50 percent of the vote, followed by 33.3 percent for option 3, and 16.6 for options 4 and 2.
i think we should now go with option 1, but maybe it merits discussion?
|
| 17 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 38044119
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 14:12
|
You sound like a choice #1 voter. Or creator. Or both.
|
| 18 | kev
ID: 11438306
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 19:37
|
With only half the people voting for #1, I think it is still up for discussion. Half the people probably could have found a better option had one been given. Not saying I have that option.
|
| 19 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 20:28
|
well, that was option 4. "none of the above"..but clearly, i'm biased, and i have no problem admitting that...
|
| 20 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 00:14
|
Although I kind of voted for #3, I did also suggest option #4 ---- and suggested 3-4 keepers, no restrictions. Goatlocker also suggested that. It is possible that a middle ground in this area "could" be found, since we have extremes of the complex #1 and the "no keepers" of #3.
I honestly was thinking long-term when I drafted, not "seasonal," whether I was in error or not. I could move from #3 to a more lenient keeper idea like Goatlocker and I mentioned if necessary.
Mike D (showing I'm not totally against keepers, just a simpler, softer, more sensitive version....burrrrrrrppp!)
|
| 21 | kev
ID: 11438306
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 00:21
|
Maybe we can incorporate some sort of "Developmental Squad", meaning, we can keep people who are not making regular Raw/Smackdown appearances, or who do not have a certain number of points. Meaning, if you drafted Spanky, and he isn't being showcased by SS, you have the chance to keep him, or if Billy Kidman isn't getting a push yet, and you think he might be after SS, you have the chance to keep him. It allows you to keep those guys you had long term idea's for, and also allows you to have the top guys back in the draft.
|
| 22 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 07:05
|
i too was thinking long term when i drafted. i wonder if option 2 isn't a "compromise", as it's keeping only abouy 37.5 percent of your roster intact..
peace,
Tree
|
| 23 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 60151121
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 08:51
|
It's kind of obvious why I would want 3-4 Keepers no restrictions, but I really thought going in this was the way we were headed and based the rest of my draft on that.
The changes in storylines, etc are going to happen as we have already seen.
Look at my slowdown in points over the last two weeks.
I'm not sure I care for a "Keeper League" if I'm told who I can or can't Keep.
Cliff
|
| 24 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 08:55
|
I hate to throw any more ideas onto this pile, but I'd most prefer format #1, but with the option to keep your #1 scorer (and dump someone else instead) in exchange for sacrificing your draft position.
|
| 25 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 11:58
|
Especially since I voted for option 2, I think Tree's compromise suggestion, the modified keeper, might be a good place to meet in the middle.
|
| 26 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 149272511
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 13:01
|
I'd be willing to look at MITH's idea from post #24.
Cliff
|
| 27 | Tree, also @ work
ID: 599393013
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 13:06
|
hmmm...i like miths idea. sacrificing your draft position - how so - meaning, you get ZERO picks in the first round, and resume your place in the second round?
because if the guy who finishes first has the top scorer, he doesn't "sacrifice" anything...did that make sense?
peace,
Tree
|
| 28 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Wed, Feb 05, 2003, 13:37
|
This stuff is entirely off the cuff and not a formal proposal. Just throwing it out there to talk about and build on.
Use the option 1 rules, under which we give up 4 wrestlers:
-(1)top scorer
-(1)one of scorers 2 thru 4
-(2)two of scorers 5 thru 8
My alteration would allow for someone to choose to keep his top scorer and instead dump two of his 2nd thru 4th ranked scorers -or- keep both his 2 thru 4 ranked scorers and instead dump an extra 5 thru 8 scorer. Such a transaction (shift) should cost three (3) draft spots. Someone in one of the final three positions (there because they finished in the top 3) would not have the option to shift. I do not believe the top 3 scorers should have this option after the drat order is realigned from other proples' shifts, either.
Also, I think everyone should keep the same number of players. If you want to dump an extra wrestler for someone you think will still be available in the last round af the new draft, then you should just pick him up off waivers either before or after the draft.
|
| 29 | MNG@college
ID: 14157117
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 16:17
|
I just say 1 non first rounder and throw the rest of the guys back in
|
| 30 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 19:35
|
do people not enjoy keeper leagues? i'm thinking keeping 3 or 4 guys keeps continuity, but allows everyone ample chance to win the following season. or maybe...ok, radical idea time. this just came to me, so i'm typing it as the ideas formulate - bear with me. bare with me. don't get bare with me. ew.
like some minor leagues, let's have a split season.
basically, we'll go quarterly - i'll have to look it up, but there are four "major" ppvs - wrestlemania, summer slam....and one in the fall, and one in the winter??
season will still be rasslemania to summerslam.
BUT - at the halfway point, you have to give up two of your top 5 scorers. period. any two, but it's gotta be two.
THEN. at the end of the season, you gotta give up two more guys. your top scorer, and one of your next 4 scorers as well.
radical idea. i know. but it has quite a bit of turnover, and also preserves some continuity.
thoughts?
peace,
Tree
p.s. an extension of this idea could result in playoffs, if we decided to totally clear the points, and have the first half champion meet the second half runner up, and the second half champion meet the first half runner up, etc etc
|
| 31 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 19:41
|
I'm not a big fan of keeper leagues Tree. In fact, I usually won't play them. In this case, I figured Wrestling was ideal for a keeper league due to not really having seasons. I didn't expect keeper limitations other than raw number.
I love drafts, and therefore don't mind throwing 'em all back in and redrafting. Or, having keepers, but again, why limit them? If people want a shot at the top guys, skip the keeping, and draft.
My 3 cents.
|
| 32 | Tree
ID: 22052618
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 19:49
|
i love drafts, and i love keepers.
hmmm..maybe we oughta do my split season idea, but also use the re-draft to expand rosters. hehe....instead of 2 rounds, we go 4! bwahahahahhaha
|
| 33 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 31022116
Thu, Feb 06, 2003, 19:50
|
Yeah.....what he said. ;)
|
| 34 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 149272511
Fri, Feb 07, 2003, 16:17
|
I like keepers also, and thought that is what we were doing.
But, I'm open to anything the majority wants.
Cliff
|
| 35 | Tree
Donor
ID: 6423822
Sun, May 11, 2003, 08:00
|
butt
|
| 36 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Tue, May 13, 2003, 13:45
|
We have a "majority" that want some form of a keeper league. So, based upon that, what about eliminating from consideration the "no keepers" option and essentially re-voting with only options 1 and 2 to consider??
|
| 37 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Tue, May 13, 2003, 14:21
|
Any thoughts on my ideas or some variation thereof on posts 24 and 28.
|
| 38 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 40029714
Tue, May 13, 2003, 18:38
|
The rosters are too big. I will never get an up and comer. I just don't care enough to pay attention to anything outside the WWE. Honestly, the only reason I even watch WWE anymore is for fantasy. But I'm bored with my team. They're in good shape and I have a chance to win it all, but I'd rather have a totally different team and cheer for totally new crappy wrestlers. As long as the draft doesn't take a month again.
|
| 39 | Tree
Donor
ID: 6423822
Tue, May 13, 2003, 21:56
|
BH - i gotta disagree with you bro. i drafted a couple of up-and-comers - Spanky and Sean O'Haire. and while i started slow, Spanky in particularly helped me climb out of the complete basement. and both he and O'Haire have been consistent scorers for me.
perhaps a way to make the rosters seem "less big", would be for next season allow 6 guys to score.
peace,
Tree
|
| 40 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, May 14, 2003, 09:54
|
I think 6 strters is a great idea. Would probably promote more trading, too.
|
| 41 | Tree
Donor
ID: 6423822
Wed, May 14, 2003, 21:33
|
Folks - let's make a decision by saturday morning as to how many keepers we get.
i've just lost my top scorer, so i need to make a long term roster decision in the next 48 hours or so.
peace,
Tree
|
| 42 | mIST
ID: 5351150
Thu, May 15, 2003, 03:50
|
I say let's keep TWO guys from position 2 to position 8.
Otherwise, whatever you decide is ok for me.
|
| 43 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Thu, May 15, 2003, 06:36
|
I would like to keep 3-4 guys between 2-8 maybe upgrade the line up to 6 starters.
|
| 44 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Thu, May 15, 2003, 06:56
|
I really like 6 starters. I like 4 keepers. I'd like to see a system where the quality of your keepers somehow impacts your draft position, but I seem to be the only one.
|
| 45 | Tree
Donor
ID: 6423822
Thu, May 15, 2003, 07:20
|
MITH - i like the concept of your idea, but it should work in conjunction with your finish...
here's an idea - let me know what folks think:
1. 8-person roster
2. 6 starters, 2 bench guys
3. 4 keepers, but not your top scorer.
draft order is determined as such:
A. using the eligible points of your four keepers, standings are determined. top team is in first, etc etc.
B. add your official finishing position to the number achieved in A.
C. divide that number by two, and the HIGHEST number draft first, and down the line. if there's a tie, it should be determined by standing position.
did that make sense?
peace,
Tree
|
| 46 | Great One
Donor
ID: 41136511
Thu, May 15, 2003, 12:15
|
I love your plan.
So thats a YES vote I guess.
|
| 47 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Thu, May 15, 2003, 13:48
|
I second the Tree plan. It weighs the strength of your keepers and the strength of your finish....thus, if you sandbag now but keep 4 solid keepers, you're not going to get Lesnar on top of it. I like it!
|
| 48 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, May 15, 2003, 13:51
|
Fair enough. I vote yea.
|
| 49 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Thu, May 15, 2003, 16:12
|
only problem i see with that is that not everyones high scores is their first round pick, for example, Tree's top scorer is chavo, so he would lose him but still be able to keep austin. I think we need to say that you cant keep your first pick rather then high scorer. Another example would be angle or rock, both are not getting alot of time in the ring so probably are not their teams high scorer.
|
| 50 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, May 15, 2003, 16:22
|
Wiggs I disagree. High scorer is the way to go. The only advantage I see is from Angle. I don't believe Austin and Rock are going to be worth high first round picks next season.
|
| 51 | wiggs
Donor
ID: 10261612
Thu, May 15, 2003, 16:38
|
how about undertaker.
Austin is better then chavo with a torn bicep. Chavo will be out all next season.
The only people that have guys that 1st round pick isnt the high scorer are,
Me - I would lose Rey instead of batista
tree would lose chavo instead of austin
BH loses benjamin instead of rock
Mist loses Cena instead of taker
Mike D loses Kane instead of Angle
i think people that picked guys like rey, cena, benjamin, chavo and kane in later rounds should be rewarded rather than punished.
IIRC the original plan was we lost our 1st round pick, i dont know what things changed.
|
| 52 | GoatLocker
Sustainer
ID: 149272511
Thu, May 15, 2003, 16:46
|
Well, my first round pick is my top scorer.
Tree's plan sounds fine with me.
Cliff
|
| 53 | Tree, also @ work
Donor
ID: 599393013
Thu, May 15, 2003, 17:17
|
wiggs - right now chavo is my top scorer. but he's neck and neck with Stone Cold and Brian Kendrick, and chavo won't finish as my top scorer.
so i'll have the decision to keep him, or lose him.
from your list:
"Me - I would lose Rey instead of batista
tree would lose chavo instead of austin
BH loses benjamin instead of rock
Mist loses Cena instead of taker
Mike D loses Kane instead of Angle"
look ahead to next season, i see rey more valuable than batista, benjamin more valuable than the rock and cena more valuable than 'Taker.
in the case of Chavo/Stone Cold, i explained about that Chavo won't finish as my top scorer.
in the case of Kane/Angle, Angle clearly the better of the two - but he's had a serious neck injury, so how might that affect him over the long haul? additionally, he's been injured, so he hasn't been a top scorer. that's the breaks - an owner shouldn't be punished twice because his number one pick got hurt.
peace,
Tree
|
| 54 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Thu, May 15, 2003, 18:17
|
Right now we have 5 affirmative votes:
Tree
GreatOne
Me
MITH
GoatLocker
wiggs brings up good points of discussion but hasn't voted.....although I think Tree affectively counter-points wiggs' point, in that if you burned a 1st rounder on Angle/Batista/etc. and they get hurt and don't produce for you, why should you get screwed out of not keeping him?
Let's get everyone's vote.
|
| 55 | Farn
Donor
ID: 7822711
Thu, May 15, 2003, 19:17
|
I am ok with Tree's plan as is.
|
| 56 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 8119166
Thu, May 15, 2003, 20:58
|
I really don't care since all the scenarios make sense. Tree's plan looks fine, although I think he forgot to note that the final sum needs to be multiplied by pi(e).
I drafted initially thinking this was long term. I'm the one who was surprised by the "season" that was determined. This league has been a blast so far. I do agree anything to make things more active would be good, since my lineup has basically remain unchanged each week, other than the obvious injuries.
|
| 57 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 7724916
Fri, May 16, 2003, 00:12
|
lol......is that a yes vote, Mike D?
|
| 58 | Mike D
Donor
ID: 8119166
Fri, May 16, 2003, 00:40
|
You talked me into it, "Mr. I want double points"
LOL
|
| 59 | kev
ID: 3155515
Fri, May 16, 2003, 00:43
|
I like BH's idea of a new roster. Like him, I don't really get into wrestling other than watching WWE. I also wouldn't mind getting my hands on some new guys, even though I love Benoit.
But I will go with the majority.
|
| 60 | Tree
Donor
ID: 104471518
Fri, May 16, 2003, 07:08
|
kev - post 59 - i think with 4 keepers - one of whom CANNOT be your top scorer - and the addition of one extra starter while not changing the overall roster size, does quite a bit of roster swapping.
due to injuries and well, general suckiness, there are SEVEN different guys who have been on my roster who have scored 50 or more points:
Stone Cold, Randy Orton, Buh-Buh, Chavo, Maven, Sean O'Haire, and Brian Kendrick.
Of those guys, O'Haire and Kendrick were 6th and 8th round picks respectively, and those are the guys that have come on VERY strong lately.
in fact, there have been some real nice picks coming out of those last 3 rounds - Bischoff, Torrie, and Hogan come to mind.
with chavo injured, my top scorer is either gonna be Buh-Buh or Kendrick, two guys who it would pain me to lose - nonetheless, i'm in favor of losing our top scorer regardless of draft slot.
i think that leaves plenty of room for a new roster. 40 percent of my starters are late round draft picks, and they're scoring gobs of points for me.
peace,
Tree
|
| 61 | Species
Sustainer
ID: 569221717
Fri, May 16, 2003, 12:21
|
Including Mike D's vote, that's 7. kev says he'll go with the majority, and since 7 is a majority, that's 8. Is that sufficient to put Tree's plan in to effect and allow us to consider trades knowing that the keeper plan is?
I agree with the discussion that if you trade for someone, in terms of counting keepers that their total score for the year counts. If you trade for HHH (for example), his score comes with him when it comes to figuring keepers.
Fair? Good.
|
| 62 | blue hen
Leader
ID: 22100300
Wed, May 21, 2003, 00:52
|
Fine yes good.
But DON'T increase the roster sizes. I will NEVER get any players worth getting who aren't know entities. And I don't have the desire to try, either.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|