Determination of Keeper possibilities

[Derek Bodner]

Alright, let's nail this down for good.  

Options:
- Keep it as is (can't keep same players 2 years in a row, acquiring new keepers, no matter what means, gives you two years of eligilbility).
- Joe's proposal (traded keepers retain eligibility from past team, i.e. keeper status only reset when player enters draft pool).
- My proposal (keeper eligibility based on who you traded, so that if I trade KG, who has no seasons left of keeper eligibility, the players I get from his trade won't have any keeper eligibility either).
- Completely re-do the draft every 2-3 years

Are these the options?

Use this thread to discuss how it affects the league and past trades/keeper status.

We'll discuss this for one week (August 23rd, Tuesday).  After which we'll put it to a vote.

[Lurker]

I am in favor of Joe's proposal.  A player has 2 years MAX keeper eligibility with the two years being reset any time the player goes thru the draft.  Then he is a free agent regardless of how many teams he has been on in those two years.


And to address the add/drop issue: IMO we should switch to weekly lineups.  You set your lineup for the week and can't change it until the following week.  That way add/drops won't have an effect until the follwing lineup.  It also means that managers have to make more decisions.  This also makes those lower draft choices and roster spots tougher choices.

For example:  Assume I have both Duncan and Dalembert.  For the week in question the Spurs play 2 games while the Sixers play 4....now I have to decide if Duncan for 2 games is better than Dalembert for 4 games.

[Guest_Randy]

I too am in favor of Joe's proposal.  

I would like to see the number of add/drops controlled -- Lurker's suggestion is quite intriguing and while it definately has it's drawbacks, those drawbacks exist for everyone.  

I, currently, don't have a lot of time to draw up a proposal so, while I will vote, I will work within whatever system the majority agrees with (as long as Joey V. isn't allowed to suit up refs for his team in addition to all the other guys he add/drops per day!).

[Skandery]

I, too, am in favor of Joe's proposal.  Entering the draft pool is the only thing that resets the status and they must enter the draft pool every two off-seasons no matter how many teams they've been on.

Limiting Add/Drops to an arbitrary number like 50 or 75 would be better to me than Lurker's proposal of only allowed to change lineups once a week (much less participation, less fun I think).  The BEST possible scenario for me is increasing the roster's so that adding and dropping is moot altogether, don't know what kind of restriction yahoo has on that, Derek.

The other issue is have we figured out whether Yahoo will allow us to play the championship a week or two before the end of the "real" regular season?  So that top-notch players aren't sitting resting for the playoffs.  

     

[Guest]

I didn't know we were debating the add/drops.  That's an entirely different thing to vote on, and would need to open up a new thread to debate.  I'm completely against limiting the add/drops.

And this isn't really a vote.  This thread is more to bring everyone up to speed.  We also need to address the issue of how prior trades will be handled with keeper status, as that might influence what people will vote on.

[Guest]

~that was dbodner.

[Joe Vancil]

Obviously, I like my proposal.  

I feel that the idea of re-drafting means you really give up too early and just wait until next year.

I feel the idea of trading players resetting eligibility simply means that I trade Duncan for Garnett, etc., and the "top" players are never out there for everyone.

I feel that the idea of maintaining keeper eligibility regardless of who you get opens up more problems and controversy than it fixes, and unduly complicates the process - plus opens a very nasty loophole - trade Duncan for two scrubs, trade 2 (different) scrubs for Garnett,  trade Garnett for Duncan - I've now swapped Duncan's eligibility for the eligibility of two people I wouldn't keep anyway, and I've reset Duncan's eligibility.

In my model, all we need to keep track of is the players kept across each season.  If they were kept last year, they've got one year of eligibility left.  If they were kept last year and the year before, they're in the next draft.

For moves, in a surprise announcement, I'm in favor of LIMITING MOVES if we EXPAND ROSTERS.  If my picking up the likes of Brevin Knight or Jerome Williams constitutes a big advantage (and I believe it does), then those guys need to be on somebody's roster, forcing me to trade for them.  I'm against the idea of setting a single line-up for all week.  I like being able to change my line-up around to go after different categories when I feel like I can get them.  I like checking the scores DAILY...not WEEKLY.

As for the folks that say it requires too much time?  Hogwash.  You can spend hours on it, or you can spend 5 minutes a day on it, and you can get the same result.  I spend considerably less time on it than most of you think.  Most of my time is spent checking Stat-Tracker in the evenings or reading summaries on the 'net.  My transactions take no more than 5-10 minutes a day.  I spend *FAR* more time on here than I do working on the fantasy league...and I have TONS more transactions than anyone else.

I think we've got a great league, and I really want to play another season...got the fever, I guess.

 

[Derek Bodner]

I feel the idea of trading players resetting eligibility simply means that I trade Duncan for Garnett, etc., and the "top" players are never out there for everyone.

Which is why I put in my proposal.  If the eligilibility is determined based on who you trade, it also puts players back into the draft pool, but guys with a garnett or duncan don't get to continually reap the rewards of those players (as you would by trading Garnett for a stud who simply hasn't used their eligibility up).

And I agree with Joe about the transactions.  It really doesn't take much time, and that's the only real reason I can see of limiting transactions.

[ziggy]

I am a commish of a baseball keeper league, and Caleb is in the league, so he could offer his opinions.  THis is how we have done our keepers rules.

We had our first non-keeper draft in 2004, which was determined at random.  We then kept 2 players from the final rosters of 2004 in the 2005 draft, and the draft order was exactly how we did it here, two lotteries for bottom 6 and top 6, to select your draft position.

The keeper rule is that all players who were kept in the 2005 draft, could not be keepers with the same team in the 2006 draft.  They could be traded and kept by a new team, or they could be sent back into the draft.  Starting with the 2006 draft we will expand our keepers from 2 to 4.  Keepers from the 2006 draft can be kept by the same teams in the 2007 draft, but must once again be traded before the 2008 draft.

In the 2004 draft I got ARod, and I kept him in the 2005 draft.  I was forced to trade him before the 2006 draft, which I have done.  Caleb got Vlad, and he has since traded him.  In fact every keeper has been traded, except for Randy Johnson, and he can still be traded up until the next draft (with the same off season rules we have here which is keepers for keepers only).

I set up the rules for a specific reason.  I got lucky, and was able to draft ARod.  I had him for a season and a half, and then I traded him for Oswalt and Beltran.  Because I got lucky in the draft I was able to choose ARod, but by forcing teams to trade or lose their keepers, it has forced each and every one of us to plan for our future, and not be subject to the randomness of the draft.  I got lucky getting ARod, but it was up to me to get the best possible deal I could for him.

I also had the first keeper year (2005) as a 2 keeper year, to take away some of the advantage of the randomness of the draft, but we will expand to 4 keepers for the 2006 draft, after we have had a chance to build our teams after a couple of seasons, and after all the initial keepers had changed teams.  The draft order for 2006 will now go back to a random "pre-determined lottery", and all 12 teams will have the same odds as everybody else.

I don't like the idea of Duncan, or McGrady, or Kobe, or Garnett etc. going back into the draft.  We throw in the randomness of the draft once again, and we don't have the opportunity to use our skills to rebuild our team after our keepers lose their eligibility for our team.  If everyone has to trade their original keepers, then the options for trading keepers multiplies enormously.  If you add to the number of keepers, it also makes doing multi player deal much easier.  We have made 32 trades so far in our league, and have 2 weeks before the trade deadline.  Keepers were involved in 20 of those 32 trades.

I would like to see some limitation placed on moves made, but I think the best way to do that is by expanding the rosters.  Instead of 12 with 2 IL, I say we go to 15 with one IL.  This takes 36 players off the FA list, which reduces the pool to choose from in the adding and dropping, making it less effective and less likely to happen.  We can still set a limit of 100 moves, but I doubt anyone would even come close to 50-60.  Increasing rosters also makes trades easier to do, as you have more options to choose from, and you also increase the number of games each team plays each week, and increase the probability that the week to week variation is minimized.

I agree with Joe's idea of giving a grandfather to the guys to traded for keepers last year.  I also like the idea of limiting keepers, be that to one draft or 2 drafts, but I do not like the idea of throwing them back into the draft.  I much prefer the idea of trading them, and they then get new keeper eligibility.

[Skandery]

I don't like the idea of Duncan, or McGrady, or Kobe, or Garnett etc. going back into the draft. We throw in the randomness of the draft once again, and we don't have the opportunity to use our skills to rebuild our team after our keepers lose their eligibility for our team. If everyone has to trade their original keepers, then the options for trading keepers multiplies enormously. If you add to the number of keepers, it also makes doing multi player deal much easier. We have made 32 trades so far in our league, and have 2 weeks before the trade deadline. Keepers were involved in 20 of those 32 trades.

Ziggy, I don't understand this part.  You say "randomness" of the draft, but it won't really be random.  We'll do it same we did last year and I assume what we'll do this year, the worst record team, Caleb's will get to choose where he picks, then SpursX3, then Ted, then me, so on and so forth.  

I still maintain that the top keepers, the cream of the keepers one might say, will not change year to year and being able to trade them means that they will remain withinthe rosters of the top teams in the league.  In a 12 player league and 2-keeper system, you have 24 keepers every year.  I believe that 16-18 of those keepers will change year to year, meaning that a keeper last year won't be one this year and vice versa.  Larry Hughes, Gilbert Arenas, Steve Francis, not kept last could very well be kept this year.  Lamar Odom, Rasheed Wallace, Al Harrington, kept last year, may very well NOT be kept this year.  But the top 5-7 keepers (KG, Duncan, Nowitzki, McGrady, Kobe, LeBron) are NOT going to change.  These players will be keepers and remain at the upper echelon of keepers for many many years to come.  Which team is going to trade any of these players without getting the same kind of player back.  You'll say that Nowitzki and McGrady have both been traded, that's true.  But what happened in each case, BBF and me both went on to have miserable losing seasons.  While you and Bods went on to contend for championships.  If you don't force these upper echelon keepers of the keepers back into the draft, they will simply circulate amongst the teams that own them and those teams will remain at the top.  

My Scenario:  If you force all players back into the draft: a manager, like me, who made horrible decisions that lead to an awful season now has one of the top picks in the draft and has a chance at one of these miraculous players.  

Your Scenario:  On the other hand, if you go with trading keepers instead, let's go back to what happened to me.  Through bad decisions, I end up with a horrible "keeper" roster that includes Kirilenko, Artest, Redd, Boozer, and not much else.  Now will anyone with Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki trade me for one of my players.  Bods will you give Garnett up for one of those guys, Joe will you trade Duncan for any one of those guys, how about you Ziggy, will you trade Nowitzki??  The answer is NO.  And no matter how bad my team is the year before, I won't EVER get a chance at that impact player until he has long-since been reduced to that of an "average" keeper if at all.

In that scheme more manager's will get that chance to build around one of the great ones.  

As for using your skills to build a winning team after your keepers lose their eligibility.  I think it'll take a great amount of skill (and of course a little luck) for those at the top to make this kind of decision.  

"Hmmm, this player will definitely re-enter the draft this summer, so do I keep him and secure my playoff spot but lose out in the keeper category, maybe I can still make the playoffs without him and I'll trade him (presumably to a very strong team with a great chance at winning it all) for somebody who still has eligibility left and that way I'll have better keepers."

I think the wise, astute managers still rise to the top.                    

[ziggy]

I don't like the idea of Duncan, or McGrady, or Kobe, or Garnett etc. going back into the draft. We throw in the randomness of the draft once again, and we don't have the opportunity to use our skills to rebuild our team after our keepers lose their eligibility for our team. If everyone has to trade their original keepers, then the options for trading keepers multiplies enormously. If you add to the number of keepers, it also makes doing multi player deal much easier. We have made 32 trades so far in our league, and have 2 weeks before the trade deadline. Keepers were involved in 20 of those 32 trades.

Ziggy, I don't understand this part.  You say "randomness" of the draft, but it won't really be random.  We'll do it same we did last year and I assume what we'll do this year, the worst record team, Caleb's will get to choose where he picks, then SpursX3, then Ted, then me, so on and so forth.  

I still maintain that the top keepers, the cream of the keepers one might say, will not change year to year and being able to trade them means that they will remain withinthe rosters of the top teams in the league.  In a 12 player league and 2-keeper system, you have 24 keepers every year.  I believe that 16-18 of those keepers will change year to year, meaning that a keeper last year won't be one this year and vice versa.  Larry Hughes, Gilbert Arenas, Steve Francis, not kept last could very well be kept this year.  Lamar Odom, Rasheed Wallace, Al Harrington, kept last year, may very well NOT be kept this year.  But the top 5-7 keepers (KG, Duncan, Nowitzki, McGrady, Kobe, LeBron) are NOT going to change.  These players will be keepers and remain at the upper echelon of keepers for many many years to come.  Which team is going to trade any of these players without getting the same kind of player back.  You'll say that Nowitzki and McGrady have both been traded, that's true.  But what happened in each case, BBF and me both went on to have miserable losing seasons.  While you and Bods went on to contend for championships.  If you don't force these upper echelon keepers of the keepers back into the draft, they will simply circulate amongst the teams that own them and those teams will remain at the top.  

My Scenario:  If you force all players back into the draft: a manager, like me, who made horrible decisions that lead to an awful season now has one of the top picks in the draft and has a chance at one of these miraculous players.  

Your Scenario:  On the other hand, if you go with trading keepers instead, let's go back to what happened to me.  Through bad decisions, I end up with a horrible "keeper" roster that includes Kirilenko, Artest, Redd, Boozer, and not much else.  Now will anyone with Duncan, Garnett, Nowitzki trade me for one of my players.  Bods will you give Garnett up for one of those guys, Joe will you trade Duncan for any one of those guys, how about you Ziggy, will you trade Nowitzki??  The answer is NO.  And no matter how bad my team is the year before, I won't EVER get a chance at that impact player until he has long-since been reduced to that of an "average" keeper if at all.

In that scheme more manager's will get that chance to build around one of the great ones.  

As for using your skills to build a winning team after your keepers lose their eligibility.  I think it'll take a great amount of skill (and of course a little luck) for those at the top to make this kind of decision.  

"Hmmm, this player will definitely re-enter the draft this summer, so do I keep him and secure my playoff spot but lose out in the keeper category, maybe I can still make the playoffs without him and I'll trade him (presumably to a very strong team with a great chance at winning it all) for somebody who still has eligibility left and that way I'll have better keepers."

I think the wise, astute managers still rise to the top.

Skanery,
Would I do a trade like Dirk and Damon for a Artest and Kirilenko deal?  I would give it serious consideration, and depending upon the rest of my team I just might.  Would I do a trade like Dirk, Damon, and Eddie Jones for Artest, Kirilenko, and Redd?  Depending upon the rest of my team, I would say the probability is very very high.

Now I understand baseball and basketball are different games, and the impact of players is different.  The top 10 offensive players in baseball are

Albert Pujols
Alex Rodriguez
Vlad Guerrero
Manny Ramirez
Bobby Abreu
Gary Sheffield
Miguel Tejada
David Ortiz
Barry Bonds
Alfonso Soriano
How many of those players got tradedx for each other?

Manny (plus Mike Lowell) was traded for Pujols

Vlad and Bonds (plus Troy Glaus) were traded for Brad Lidge, Carl Crawford, and Hank Blalock.  The team that got Vlad then traded him for Miguel Tejada.

Not one of the other top 10 were traded for each other.  Only 2 of the 20 keeper trades involved 2 of the 10 best hitters.

Of the top 10 pitchers, only Santana and Clemens were traded for each other.

I don't believe it is a given that Dirk, Duncan, and Garnett will always be traded for each other.  In fact if Derek has him this year and then trades him, and the new owner has him for 2 years, well Garnett will then be 32 years old and not the absolute domniate player he is today.


As far as the randomness of the draft, I agree we do the reverse order lottery for this draft.  As far as the 2006 draft, if I have to give up my 2 best players, why should my performance this year have any influence on my draft position.  I am being forced to give up my two best players, and if I finish second again, why should I have the second to last pick in the draft?  If I have to give up my two best players I should have the same probability as anybody else to get any specific position in the draft.  If it does make a difference, and we don't make it random, then what the hell, tank the season so you get the first pick so you get the first shot at cream of the top 20 or so players in the league.

[Joe Vancil]

ziggy,

     So why would I *NOT* trade Duncan for another elite player - a Garnett or a Nowitzki?  And then, afterward, trade back for him?  

     The idea everyone is REALLY after is to get two top-level keepers, and get them staggered - something like I had planned for doing with Duncan and Rashard Lewis.  I'll lose Duncan next year, but I'd have Rashard Lewis.  As it stands, I'm better off keeping Steve Nash, since I can trade Nash off for more value in the long run, and whoever gets Nash knows what they'll be getting, and can keep him for a couple of years.  

     I look at Derek as being in the cat-bird's seat (under my system):  with Garnett and McGrady, he can keep McGrady this year and next, Garnett this year only, and his "third" player next year and the year after.  It's the ideal situation.

     You asked what Skander would do in the trade scenario you proposed.  Let me ask what YOU'D do if you were Skander and such a trade was proposed.  In such a case, Skander's probably competing for a championship.  In such a case, he'd tell you to take a hike.  NOW...if he could get Nowitzki for, say, Artest and Damon Stoudemire, he might do that...allowing the team not in competition (you) to build for your NEXT YEAR...when you'd have Artest, your second keeper, and a shot at Nowitzki.  But you won't give up Nowitzki for just ANYTHING...and he's not going to offer you the world unless it means he's got a good chance of WINNING NOW.

Look at where Nowitzki's, Duncan's, and Garnett's teams have traditionally finished.  1-2-3 last year's regular season.  Assuming you, Derek, and I don't do a brain-dead job of drafting, we're likely to finish 1-2-3 again.  And then, we just swap players, and we stay at the top of the league, until it comes time for us to be forced to trade again.

Instead, force me to make the TRULY difficult choice - do I want to win this year, or do I want to set myself up to win NEXT year?  Do I dump Duncan for the future, or do I dump the future for this year?  Do I offer up a Nash/Lewis/Finley package for Garnett, knowing I have Duncan and Garnett this year, and I have to start over - essentially from scratch - next year?

If we're just going to trade keepers for each other, I'd just as soon say that keepers have no maximum life-span...keep them for as long as you want.  Duncan and Nash would retire as Polar Bears.  After all - what's the point of me trading Duncan for Garnett or Nowitzki?  It keeps the elite players in the same people's hands.  Instead, I only get Duncan for 2 years of every 6, Garnett for another 2, and Nowitzki for the last two.  If you're going to go with the "they'll degrade over time" argument, then why not just let me keep Duncan until I no longer find him worth keeping?  He'll degrade "eventually."

Don't get me wrong.  It'd be wonderful to be a guy who has Nowitzki for the next two seasons...or Garnett.  The question is whether or not it would be *FAIR*.  I've had my run.  I'm willing to take my lumps upon losing Duncan to the draft.  But if I'm at the bottom, I'm *NOT* willing to keep taking my lumps because Joe trades Duncan for Garnett and essentially keeps those two guys out of the draft.

If we can just trade these guys for each other, why not just let us keep the guys we've got.  I know I'd certainly be happier with that solution...I've grown to like having my Duncan/Nash combo.  And I imagine I'll try to reacquire players who I lose once I go through the draft...sort of like I got Nash back two years ago, or re-drafted Finley and Okur last year...or traded for Stockton my first year.

The reason we don't just get to keep these guys is that we wanted everyone to HAVE A CHANCE at these guys.  Not "have a chance to get screwed over in a trade to get them."  Not "watch them be passed from top team to top team."  To HAVE A CHANCE TO DRAFT THEM.  And that's never going to happen if they're not forced back into the draft.

 

[Guest_Randy]

Zigs,

Sorry, but I don't see baseball and basketball even close in comparison -- basketball only has 5 players on the field and the top 5 (maybe 10) players in the league have a WHOLE lot more impact than 1 baseball player on a team.

If you allow top players (top 5 players like TD, KG, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, etc.) to lose their lottery status just by being traded, we will see TD and KG simply being traded back and forth!  Why?  Because these guys are fantasy STUDS -- and often they do 3x what other players do on the floor.  So if I'm going to lose one, I simply trade for another one and perpetuate my status on the top of the league.


There are several reasons why I would like to see use Joe's proposal:

It allows those on the bottom of the league to rise to the top by gaining top NBA fantasy stud players every few years;

Rebuilding an NBA team in today's NBA takes time -- do we really want to relegate the bottom players to being at the bottom for 5 or 7 years simply because they didn't get the right lotto number at the very beginning?  Sometimes it can take 10 years to rebuild a team in today's NBA -- if we make our GM's at the bottom of the league suffer there for that long, they will lose interest.  And, I would rather see us keep them interested and give them the opportunity to shorten their stay at the bottom of the league.  In the NBA, you have longevity -- what goes around comes around -- the fact is that no matter how great a team the Spurs or Detroit have assembled, losing key pieces like TD and Big Ben are impossible pieces to replace.  When those teams lose those pieces they will go through a rebuilding process -- how far down they fall is the question.  I'd like to see us shorten the real NBA process so that our fantasy GM's on the bottom don't lose hope and interest.  

It's a WHOLE lot easier rebuilding a team with a player like TD or KG -- legit superstars in the league than trying to rebuild around a star -- if you are a great GM, you might be able to do it with a bunch of stars -- but give the guys who are struggling a chance.  Sure, it might be tough for Joey V. to rebuild after losing TD but having TD gives him a legit shot at a title.  Let's see how good Joey V. can do in assembling a team without TD.  (sorry, Joe, just using TD as an example since he is probably the biggest fantasy stud -- that's of course, until Oberto comes in and 10 to 15 minutes a game away from him).



On a side note, I REALLY like Zig's idea of expanding the rosters (with only one IR spot) to 15.  I think it would help a LOT of the constant moves that were being made  :moon:  last year.  I'd still like to see a fix on moves but I'd rather see a 15 spot roster per team than our present 12.

[Skandery]

Actually guys I'm starting to see Ziggy's point.  

Ziggy has Dirk and Ray Allen and goes on this year to finish in the top three, he doesn't trade either of them because he thinks he can win the championship, knowing full well (under Joe's proposal) he'll lose both to the draft.   A couple of bad breaks happen and he doesn't win the championship, now Ziggy has to keep his 3rd and 4th best players (somebody with the talent levels of a Zach Randolph and Joe Johnson) and he's stuck at the bottom of the barrel in the draft because he finished in the top 3.  So no championship, not great keepers plus a crappy draft position.  He's saying he would just keep Ray Allen and Dirk Nowitzki and TANK THE SEASON ON PURPOSE knowing that Duncan, Nowitzki, Garnett, and LeBron are without a doubt in the draft.

The question mark to Joe's proposal is how do you stop people from intentionally tanking the season to get a favorable draft position when the best of the best keepers will be out there??  That is actually a big hole and it hurts managers who have built a good foundation on the year that these magical players get released.  

(ALL EXAMPLES THAT FOLLOW USE PLAYERS ELLIGIBILITY AS IT STANDS TODAY)

I say we adopt Ziggy's proposal with two exceptions:

1.  If a team trades a keeper for a keeper, NEITHER elligibility is reset.  

Example:  Ere go if Joe, Bods, and Ziggy do the whole let's trade Garnett, Duncan, and Nowitzki for each other, all three of them will lose all three players to the draft.

2.  If through a series of trades the same team regains the same player (example below with Bods and Garnett) the player DOES NOT reset his elligibility.

Example:  If a player trades a keeper for a non-keeper, the keeper's elligibility is reset; no change in status for the non-keeper.  So if Bods trades Garnett for Dwayne Wade and Zach Randolph, all of those players (including Garnett) can be kept for two off-seasons.  If Bods tries to go around the system and trades Wade and Kidd to get Garnett back, Garnett regains status of having to re-enter the draft because he is back with Bods team.

Additional examples:

1) If its a really complicated three-team trade like Garnett and Terry (Bods) for Duncan and Alston (Joe), then Joe trades Garnett for Stoudemire (Caleb).  Then under this system.

Duncan - Must re-enter the draft
Garnett - Must re-enter the draft
Stoudemire - Must re-enter the draft
Alston - can be kept
Terry - can be kept

2) If Joe trades Duncan and Nash for Stoudemire and A. Miller.  Two keepers for One keeper and one non-keeper.  We go by the yahoo player ranking (NOT o-ranking) on whose elligibility is reset.  Since Duncan will presumably be rated higher than Nash, Duncan's elligibility IS NOT reset.    

Duncan - Must re-enter the draft
Stoudemire - Must re-enter the draft
Nash - Reset elligibility (can be kept)
Miller - can be kept

3) If SpursX3 trades Kobe and Gasol to Lttk for Wade and B. Miller.  Two keepers for two non-keepers.  ALL players can be kept.

Kobe - Reset elligibility (can be kept)
Gasol - Reset elligibility (can be kept)
Wade - can be kept
Miller - can be kept  

There is my best crack at a solution to how we can move the cream of the crop around to different teams while at the same time not punishing strong teams whose keepers's time has run out.

[ziggy]

Zigs,

Sorry, but I don't see baseball and basketball even close in comparison -- basketball only has 5 players on the field and the top 5 (maybe 10) players in the league have a WHOLE lot more impact than 1 baseball player on a team.

If you allow top players (top 5 players like TD, KG, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, etc.) to lose their lottery status just by being traded, we will see TD and KG simply being traded back and forth!  Why?  Because these guys are fantasy STUDS -- and often they do 3x what other players do on the floor.  So if I'm going to lose one, I simply trade for another one and perpetuate my status on the top of the league.

Randy,
I know that baseball and basketball are different, and the effect of players is different.  The game of fantasy baseball and fantasy basketball are different.  In basketball you have 5 guys but they play 3 times a week.  In baseball you have 9 guys and they play 7 times a week.

The concept is the same though.  The difference between Albert Pujols and Carlos Delgado, or Gary Sheffield, or Mark Texieria is just as large as the difference between Garnett and Rasheed or Garnett and Jermaine or Garnett and Pau Gasol.  The point is to get fair value for Garnett, and there are a lot of ways to get fair value.

Would you trade a top 3 player (Dirk) and 5th round talent player for another first round talent player (AK47) and a 3rd or 4th round (Ron Artest) talent player?  I would.  It all depends upon the circumstance, and who I have on my team, and who the players are that are offered.

I traded A Rod (a top 3 player), for Beltran and Oswalt.  That is no different that trading Garnett, or Duncan or Dirk for AK47 and Ron Artest.

I have finished second 3 times, and I have always drafted #10, and I have drafted one of the so called top 5 one time.  In the non-keeper drafts, I drafted Ben Wallace and Shawn Marion, and Ray Allen and Rasheed Wallace.  Both times I finished second.  Yes I traded for Dirk, but I didn't improve appreciable after I got him, and Lurker didn't drop much after he got rid of him.

Of the top 50 Teams in all of the Yahoo public leagues last year, which player was on more of those teams than any other?  It wasn't Dirk, it wasn't Garnett, and it wasn't Duncan.  It was Shawn Marion, and he was on 26 of the top 50 Yahoo teams.  Who were the top 10 players most often on the rosters of the the top 50 Yahoo Public Leagues

#1 Shawn Marion 52%
#2 Brad Miller 46%
#3 Rashard Lewis 42%
#4 Steve Nash 38%
#5 Kevin Garnett 34%
#5 Jeff McGinnis 34%
#7 Nazr Mohammad 28%
#8 PJ Brown 26%
#9 Kurt Thomas 24%
#9 Raef LaFrentz 24%

The only one of your top 5 was Kevin Garnett.  In fact none of your top 5 were in the top 20, except Garnett.
These 10 players were on a top 50 team, 35% of the time.  That means that, on average, between 4 and 5 of these players were on every one of the top 50 teams.

So in short you don't have to have one of the top 5 players to win, and you don't have to have one of the top 5 players to be competitive.  So you don't have to trade a top 5 player for a top 5 player.