Question on keepers

[Wolverine]

My take on this?  I agree with Joe's original idea.  I don't like the idea of people trading elite players back and forth every few years and, as a result, no one else gets a chance to draft them.  I think that once the three year period expires on a player, he should go back into the draft regardless of who has him.  Every three years, he MUST be drafted.  That's my opinion on the situation.

[WayOutWest]

My take on this?  I agree with Joe's original idea.  I don't like the idea of people trading elite players back and forth every few years and, as a result, no one else gets a chance to draft them.  I think that once the three year period expires on a player, he should go back into the draft regardless of who has him.  Every three years, he MUST be drafted.  That's my opinion on the situation.

IMO 3 years is too long.

[Derek Bodner]

3 years is already in the rulebooks, that won't be changed.

[WayOutWest]

3 years is already in the rulebooks, that won't be changed.

Says who?  What if everyone agrees?

3 years is a long time to wait to correct a bad draft or mistakes.

This might take a while, and like Joe said, this needs to be cleared up before the trade deadline THIS year.

[Derek Bodner]

The being able to declare a keeper twice was already decided upon.  Already approved.  It won't be changed as it will affect moves that have ALREADY been made.

[ziggy]

Since we are going to have 3 year keepers, how about this.

One keeper is a 3 year keeper and one is a 2 year keeper.  You can trade the 2 year keeper, and if traded then they gain one year of eligibility, so they become a 3 year keeper.  If you are unable to trade your #2 keeper before the date of selecting next years keepers then they must go back into the draft, and you have to select a different keeper.

Players that were not keepers this year, but become keepers next year (Dwayne Wade for example) can become a 3 year keeper.  At the end of the 3rd year we have to select 2 new keepers (or 1 if we have a Dwayne Wade type who has keeper eligibility status remaining), and all the original keepers go back into the draft. Since we are only keeping 3rd and 4th round keepers, we have a 12 team lottery for the following draft.  The lottery would be similar to this year, where you can select your draft position, but instead of 2 groups of 6, we have one group of all 12 teams.

What this does is keep KG and Duncan from getting traded over and over, but does allow all of us to find a #2 keeper that we like for next year.  It also doesn't preclude trading Garnett for Duncan, so that Derek and Joe can keep Nash and McGrady, if that is what they want to do, but it does change the complexion of the league a bit.

It does create a situation where Derek could get Garnett again, but he has 1 in 12 shot at it, same as everybody else.  Also a 12 team lottery eliminates the possibility of people tanking to get a high draft slot, but it doesn't change the strategy of trading to get a better keeper, albeit a 3rd or 4th round keeper.


Just read Derek's post about moves that have already been made.  In the case of Tracy McGrady, he was with Team Sky for year one, and he was a keeper.  He was traded during year 2 to Bods Ballers.  Based upon what I am saying above he now becomes a 3 year keeper, because of the trade.  That means that Derek has his 2 keepers for next year already determined, assuming he doesn't choose to trade one.  Trading McGrady again though, won't affect his keeper status as a 3 year keeper.

I don't see any problem with this McGrady situation.  What difference does it make if you trade him in season or in the off season?

[Guest_Randy]

Guys,

I think we need to take a SERIOUS look at some of the issues and answer them:

1) Allowing players to trade top players (i.e. KG for TD and vice versa) isn't fair at all. However, losing a player of this magnitude could put a GM in a rebuilding position REAL quick! There's both good and bad in that, IMO.

2) I'm not sure that I like the idea of going into a season where everyone KNOWS that TD, KG and/or Dirk are available -- this makes it VERY tempting for GM's to start tanking it in just to put themselves in a position to gain one of these players!

3) I'm not so sure that it might not be better to go back to a draft from scratch every few years.

[WayOutWest]

My understanding was what Ziggy posted, I thougth we had agreed, one keeper for 3 years the other for 2.  That works out pertty well and guarantees that the top players will be in the draft every third offseason.

I don't see everone participating in this discussion, I think the guys that have the most to think about are the owners of KG, Dirk and TD.

Count my vote for Ziggy's plan.

[Derek Bodner]

My understanding was what Ziggy posted, I thougth we had agreed, one keeper for 3 years the other for 2. That works out pertty well and guarantees that the top players will be in the draft every third offseason.

Are final decision was each got to be kept for 2 offseasons.  There shouldn't be any confusion about this really, it's posted at the top of this board.
http://fantasy.phillyarena.net/
Under League Rules

Keeper Rules:

You have a limited # of time that you may keep a keeper.  You may withhold the rights to your keepers a maximum of 2 offseasons (3 total seasons worth of Fantasy Basketball at a maximum).  If, at the end of that second season you still have that player on your roster, you need to declare one of your other players that are keeper-eligible (have not been declared as your keeper the prior 2 offseasons) as your keeper.  The 2 years is determined by the number of consecutive offseasons that you have declared the player as one of your two keepers, trades during the season do not affect this.  For example, if you have declared a player as your keeper for 2 seasons, trade him, then re-acquire him, you cannot declare him as one of your 2 keepers during the following offseason.

If we're going to have it where you can't use the keepers to influence your other keepers whatsoever, then we might as well just re-do the draft every 3 years.  Better that than having sub par players like Antoine Walker being declared as keepers.  Although, I'm all rosy either way, since I just acquired TMac without using either of my prior two keepers.

[Joe Vancil]

Redrafting completely every however many years means that a manager in a low position has no way of really helping prepare himself for next year.

Ziggy's plan offers lots of options...and at least a bit of confusion.

My proposal offers a few things:

1)  simplicity.  Players drafted have two off-seasons of being keepers.  Trading doesn't change that.  2 off-seasons as a keeper, and then they go back into the draft.

2)  ability to prepare.  I LIKE the idea of a manager who is losing being able to make moves to set himself up for the next season - much like Ted did last year.  Marion and James made him a solid team going into the draft.

3)  When to level players go back in, the people who will be getting them are the worst teams.  If that happens - that builds parity.  Duncan goes back in at the end of next season...whoever drafts him gets him...and will probably keep him for 3 years.  But if they've prepared the way Ted did above, the next year, they're going to have to put one of those elite players back in the draft.  (It wouldn't matter in this case, because James and Marion are in the same year as Duncan.)

4)  There's very little bookkeeping to do.  Our bookkeeping involves this:
     a)  who was kept this past off-season
     B)  who was kept the past off-season
    c)  who was kept the off-season before

I'm interested in making this reasonably fair.  DaBods and I should get NO advantage of ANY sort by trading Duncan for Garnett, and in this case, we WOULDN'T.

For those trades which have gone down involving keepers THIS YEAR before we finalize this, I'd be in favor of allowing the players to be exempt from this restriction.  In other words, DaBods would still get the option of keeping McGrady for two off-seasons, etc.  The reason I say this is because if we don't do it this way, we're screwing those guys who traded for other people's keepers before knowing this rule would be implemented.

In other words, currently, giving examples of players:

Duncan would have 1 off-season left.
Nash would have 1 off-season left.
Lewis would have 2 off-seasons left.

Kirilenko would have 1 off-season left.
McGrady would have 2 off-seasons left - due to the grandfather clause.
Redd would have 2 off-seasons left (he wasn't a keeper this past off-season.)

Nowitzki would have 1 off-season left.
Allen would have 1 off-season left.

Wade would have 2 off-seasons left.

Can anyone tell me a way that a person gets screwed by such a system?  And doesn't everyone understand it at first glance?





 

[Derek Bodner]

Can anyone tell me a way that a person gets screwed by such a system?

I can think of a way almost everyone gets screwed.

Not all high-level keepers are acquired in trades.  I have 3 people who, I think, are top 10 level fantasy players (or, at least Kidd was before the injury).  Guess what, 2 of those people were NOT acquired via trades.  2 of those players I mortgaged some of my depth in order to obtain.

I think this is a fairly common practice.  People in the position of not having great keepers typically try to trade away some of their depth, thus mortgaging a shot at a championship that year, to get these high level players.

Under this system, it limits the amount of time they can keep the players they have acquired (because, typically, to upgrade one of your keepers you include your current keeper plus depth).  It screws the same people you're trying to help.  And I think it will actually deter blockbuster trades from happening.  It will encourage tanking.  I think it will lead to an all-around bad experience for players doing poorly.

For example, when I acquired Jason Kidd last year.  With him getting injured and missing the rest of the season, by making the trade I essentially took myself out of the playoffs.  I went from the 5th seed to the 7th seed.  Now, if I use him to acquire someone, try to tank advantage of the asset I mortgaged my season for, anyone I get I can only retain for one year.  How is this fair?  Not only will a trade like that screw me last year, but it will also screw me in 2 years by having to retain an inferior player because of a rule just instituted.  Again, I ask, how is this fair?  I didn't get Jason Kidd as a gift by draft position.  Just like I didn't get Tracy McGrady as a gift by draft position.  I used Jason Terry (a late 2nd round draft pick) plus Carlos Boozer (a tremendous late round selection) to get Kidd.  I used Michael Redd (about the 30th player selected in the draft) plus Kirk Hinrick (another terrific 6th round selection or so) to get Tracy McGrady.  You're going to tell me that, after mortgaging my last two seasons to get these players, I'm going to have to suffer in the future because I can't use them to get value back?

No, I think if we're going to overprotect people who weren't in the top 5 of the draft that much, we might as well just re-draft.  Start fresh every 3 years.  Better than screwing people who are lucky enough (or mortgaged enough of their team) to get top flight players.

[Derek Bodner]

For those trades which have gone down involving keepers THIS YEAR before we finalize this, I'd be in favor of allowing the players to be exempt from this restriction. In other words, DaBods would still get the option of keeping McGrady for two off-seasons, etc

Just to clarity, I didn't use ANY of my other 2 keepers (Kidd and Garnett) to get McGrady.  I used Redd (drafted this year), and Hinrich (drafted this year).  As such, McGrady's status wouldn't even be in question, correct?

[ziggy]

Can anyone tell me a way that a person gets screwed by such a system?

I can think of a way almost everyone gets screwed.

Not all high-level keepers are acquired in trades.  I have 3 people who, I think, are top 10 level fantasy players (or, at least Kidd was before the injury).  Guess what, 2 of those people were NOT acquired via trades.  2 of those players I mortgaged some of my depth in order to obtain.

I think this is a fairly common practice.  People in the position of not having great keepers typically try to trade away some of their depth, thus mortgaging a shot at a championship that year, to get these high level players.

Under this system, it limits the amount of time they can keep the players they have acquired (because, typically, to upgrade one of your keepers you include your current keeper plus depth).  It screws the same people you're trying to help.  And I think it will actually deter blockbuster trades from happening.  It will encourage tanking.  I think it will lead to an all-around bad experience for players doing poorly.

For example, when I acquired Jason Kidd last year.  With him getting injured and missing the rest of the season, by making the trade I essentially took myself out of the playoffs.  I went from the 5th seed to the 7th seed.  Now, if I use him to acquire someone, try to tank advantage of the asset I mortgaged my season for, anyone I get I can only retain for one year.  How is this fair?  Not only will a trade like that screw me last year, but it will also screw me in 2 years by having to retain an inferior player because of a rule just instituted.  Again, I ask, how is this fair?  I didn't get Jason Kidd as a gift by draft position.  Just like I didn't get Tracy McGrady as a gift by draft position.  I used Jason Terry (a late 2nd round draft pick) plus Carlos Boozer (a tremendous late round selection) to get Kidd.  I used Michael Redd (about the 30th player selected in the draft) plus Kirk Hinrick (another terrific 6th round selection or so) to get Tracy McGrady.  You're going to tell me that, after mortgaging my last two seasons to get these players, I'm going to have to suffer in the future because I can't use them to get value back?

No, I think if we're going to overprotect people who weren't in the top 5 of the draft that much, we might as well just re-draft.  Start fresh every 3 years.  Better than screwing people who are lucky enough (or mortgaged enough of their team) to get top flight players.

I am confused here.

Derek aquried McGrady who was a keeper, and didn't give up a keeper to get him.  Derek can't go into next season with 3 keepers, so he must trade one before this trade deadline, or one of the 3 keepers must go back into the draft.  He can't trade him in the offseason, and have that player become a keeper, because you can only trade keepers in the offseason, and Derek would have to take back a keeper, and he would thus once again have 3 keepers.

The definition of a keeper is someone who is retained from one off season through the next draft.  McGrady shouldn't gain an additional year of eligibility because he was a traded keeper, unless we have different types of keepers (ie. 1 off season and 2 off season keepers), and McGrady hadn't yet gone through his second off season.  If all keepers are going to be 3 years max, then McGrady gets 3 years, even if he is traded.  If we allow players to gain an extra year of keeper eligibility through a trade, then Garnett and Duncan will always be traded and never reenter the draft.  I have no problem with the best players reentering the draft, and I thought that was something that we all agreed to last year.

If Joe decides he wants to keep Lewis next year, then he has to trade Nash before this trade deadline, or Nash goes back into the draft.  Lewis will have one more offseason after this one to be kept as a keeper, but Duncan won't.

[Derek Bodner]

Now wait a second.  I thought the proposed rule was that you can't use your keeper to gain your next keeper.  That if you use a keeper to acquire a new keeper in a trade, your new guy simply extends the eligibility of your old keeper.

You're telling me that even though I didn't use either of my two keepers to acquire mcgrady, I STILL can only use him one more offseason?  This was a proposal that was supposed to stop people from using one stud keeper to acquire another stud keeper.  That's not the case here at all.  This isn't a case of me using my lucky draft position to acquire a top flight player.  This was a product of me using two non-keeper players to get a top flight player back.

Sorry, this is a proposal I will NEVER agree on.

[Guest_Randy]

I think a keeper has a 3 year contract -- that contract doesn't change, even if he gets traded.  If TMac was a keeper, then he gets a 3 year contract from the point of which he was chosen as a keeper, that status shouldn't change because he is being traded and it shouldn't make any difference when he was traded or who he was traded for.  I don't know TMac's keeper status but whenever he was chosen as a keeper, his contract should still be locked, IMO.  Otherwise, IMO, we create a loophole.