Keeper questions about the FNBA league.

[WayOutWest]

I don't understand the keeper set up as you explained it earlier dabods.

I was under the assumption that you got to keep two players.  You stated on the FNBA board that if I trade two players for one durring the offseason then I'm only left with one keeper and a draft pick.  That just doesn't seem right.  If Team A only has one good keeper and Team B has three good keeper why can't Team B trade two players to Team A for one and then both teams have two keepers?

[bbf78253]

I have some questions also.

If team A has 3 players they want to keep and 10 draft picks.  Team B (me) has basically no players worth keeping.  Can B trade a player to A in exchange for a draft pick then have A cut that player?  Or does A have to keep the player they traded for?

In the end A will have his 3 keepers + 9 picks.

Team B will have 1 keeper + 11 picks (or if the GM can pull another trade off 0 keepers + 12 picks).

[Derek Bodner]

You stated on the FNBA board that if I trade two players for one durring the offseason then I'm only left with one keeper and a draft pick. That just doesn't seem right. If Team A only has one good keeper and Team B has three good keeper why can't Team B trade two players to Team A for one and then both teams have two keepers?

Because you can only keep 2 players.

Here's how it works.

You don't cary all 12 players over to the next season.  You carry their RIGHTS over to next season.  Realistically, you get your 12 draft picks.  The first 2 rounds of the draft will be used to assign the proper 24 keepers to their respective teams.

But you can only keep 2 players, that's the rule.  Depth (as in the person with 3 keepers) can help you win this year, but that's it.  if you want to consolidate your rotation (trade quantity for quality) it must be done before the trade deadline.

Think of it as an expansion draft.  You may only protect 2 players.  What you do with those 2 protected players is up to you.

If you make a trade for a player in the offseason, that player (or players) are your keepers.  You can't go into the offseason with 13 tradeable assets (3 players and 10 draft picks), only 12 (2 players + 10 draft picks).  How you handle everything after that is up to you, but you must maintain that 12 person amount.  But if you trade a player, that player was one of your keepers.

Let's say in the offseason I trade Zach Randolph and a 4th round pick (which would be a 2nd round pick since the 1st 2 rounds are used to assign keepers), then I have now traded 2 of my 12 people out (randolph + the pick), I must get 2 assets back.  I CANNOT trade away those 2 players, only get one back, then decide to make terry and kg my 2 keepers.

[bbf78253]

IMO this (forced to keep a traded player) is going to severely limit trades.

To take your example a step further:
At the end of the season, you have KG, Terry & Dirk + 9 others (10 draft picks).

I have Wade & Odom + 10 others (10 draft picks).

We trade in June: Dirk & draft pick for Odom & Wade.

Now you have KG, Terry, Odom & Wade + 8 others (9 draft picks).  IMO if in October when we name our keepers you should be able to pick any 3 players from your roster.  Part of your incentive to trade Zach + a pick was to be able to keep 3 players...otherwise why do the trade?

What happens if we make this trade and then Dirk blows out his knee in international play?  Would I be forced to still use one of my keeper slots for him?

If a manger is forced to keep players received then why would you want to trade?  Basically what you are saying is that only a manager's 2 keepers are the only available trade items.

[WayOutWest]

dabods,

My understanding was that after all the wheeling and dealing you declared two keepers and then re-draft. What if I trade with more than one GM?  Do I end up with zero keepers?  When you talk about trading away your keepers are you talking about trades after we've declared our keepers?  That's the only way your scenario makes sense.  What if durring the offseason I make several trades to get the keepers I want?  Lets say I have four potential keepers and I decide to trade two of them to Ted for one of Teds players and the other two to Randy for one of his players.  In the end I have my two keepers (one from Ted and one from Randy)?  What about (J=Jihad Player, T=Ted Player, R=Randy Player & S-Scrubs Player).  Let say I trade J1 and J2 for T1, then I trade J3 & J4 for R1, then I trade J5 & T1 for S1?  Did I end up with R1 and S1 or did I lose my keeper all together because I traded away T1?

I don't understand all this new stuff.  There really ins't any draft picks to trade unless you're talking about trading in your draft priority (i.e. Ted has the worst record so he drafts first, when we trade a pick it's only that first pick no his pick-position in the draft).

IMO, we wheel and deal in the offseason all we want then declare two keepers two weeks before the draft.

So many questions.

[Derek Bodner]

If a manger is forced to keep players received then why would you want to trade? Basically what you are saying is that only a manager's 2 keepers are the only available trade items.

Yes, exactly.  You can trade your 2 keepers and your 10 draft picks.  Trades are only made to move up in the draft or to upgrade your keepers.

Let's get a few basics down.

There are 12 rounds of 12 picks (144 total picks) in the draft.  The first 2 rounds (picks 1-24) are used to assign keepers to their teams.  These picks are pre-set and you HAVE to draft the 2 players listed as your keepers.

After that (starting with draft pick #25) any player left on the board is up for grabs.  Nobody is any longer forced to pass over players.

So you physically can't have 3 keepers, because there's no guarantee that the said player will be there.  Furthermore, you can't trade, say, your 3rd round draft pick for a third keeper, because, again, because there's no way of assuring he gets assigned to your squad.

Therefore, every player must go into the draft with 2 keepers and with 10 draft picks.  No ifs, ands or buts.

Now, if I have terry, and I'm not going to keep him, why can't I trade him?  Because, then someone whom will have had no effect on your next season will have, in effect, helped you out.  There's a reason this league was setup with only 2 keepers, and not with retaining their entire team.

1) So that someone who messes up or doesn't make the best changes isn't  doomed for a decade.   Forcing you to re-draft means you have to do well year in and year out.  We don't want someone whom made a mistake to lose interest because he can't escape the bottom.  This isn't the NBA with 4 year rebuilding plans, players should be able to be competitive every year (if they do well).

2) Strategy.   Depth v. Keeper quality.  Some people will forego depth (and thus a more realistic shot at a championship this year) to get two stud keepers and put them in a position for years to come (with solid drafts and management).  For example, it's been no secret that I have wanted a stud guard to pair with KG, but do I want to overpay right now, lose my depth and possibly my shot in the playoffs this year?

If you could use non-keeper players as tradeable assets,  you could get the best of both worlds, in both of these issues.  Since you're forced to keep a player you receive back in a trade, it prevents this.

Now, since you can't force others to pass over players after round 3 (and therefore can only have a combination of 2 keepers and 10 picks), what trades can be made in the offseason?

picks for other picks.  Ex: want to move up in the 2nd round.  You trade your 2nd round pick + 3rd round pick for a higher 2nd round pick and a 4th round pick.  You move up in the 2nd round but move down into the 4th round.

Keeper for Keeper.  Straightforward.

Keeper + pick for Keeper + pick.  Terry + 3rd round pick for Pierce + 6th round pick.  a player gives up the better keeper (Pierce) to move up 3 rounds in the draft.  I get the better keeper but move down in the draft.

But in all trades in the offseason, they must be equal in the number of keepers and picks involved.  Any other combination will create discrepancies in one person having too many keepers, which can't happen for the reasons stated above.

[Derek Bodner]

IMO, we wheel and deal in the offseason all we want then declare two keepers two weeks before the draft.

Again, this goes into the concept of people whom you won't have next year helping you for next year.  As far as we're concerned, once the championship is declared we're in the next year.  You no longer have your entire team, only the right to declare 2 of your 12 players as keepers.

The only reason we wait to declare keepers until a week before the draft is for the reason BBF said, in case someone gets injured, traded, etc and would lose value.  In that case, tough sh*t.  Either take it or choose another keeper.   Or trade that keeper for another keeper in the guidelines I set above.

If you want to consolidate keepers like WoW mentioned (trading depth for quality), it must be done before the deadline this year.  As I said in the prior post, once this year is finished, players whom won't be on your team next year shouldn't be able to help your team.

[Guest_Dromedarius]

The problem with this system is that the people who got to draft players like Duncan, Garnett and McGrady in the initial draft are at a HUGE advantage. A team like mine, that drafted next to last, will be forever doomed to mediocrity, because while the owners of the aforementioned players are set for the next decade, not only will I lose all sorts of talent, I'll be good enough not to draft high, and bad enough to have trouble doing much beyond the playoffs.

I personally think everyone should have the rights to all of their players. That way, the guy that has my team next year won't have to completely rebuild. At the very least he can hold onto my Top 5. As it stands now, my brother (the guy who will most likely take my team over) will have to cut three potential keepers and watch as the weaker owners snap them up with their high draft slots, in essence being rewarded for sucking. Then he will get to do like I did, and covet Garnett and Duncan all year, knowing he can never touch them, and then he'll have to draft late and will be stuck with guys like Kidd and Pierce, guys that managers in this league won't touch. This will be a case of the very rich and the very poor do well, and those in the middle (teams 4-9) will be in big trouble.

Also, WOW, before you start with your keyboard warfare, your team is in the same state as mine, as is ziggy's, so think about that before you start trying to make me drop out of junior high because I'm such a loser.  You are a non-Garnett/Duncan/McGrady owner, and none of your keepers come close to that caliber. Also, like me and ziggy, you'll do well, have to cut all your talent, and be forced to draft guys at the lower end of the spectrum, thereby being stuck with Iverson and Shaq or Yao as your keepers.  

[WayOutWest]

Drom,

If you read this board more you'd see it's nothing personal against you, I just like to talk alot of smack.  I have no ill will towards you cause it's all in "sports" fun and because I know I'm smarter than you and the rest of FantasyLand losers.

I'm in the same boat as you, I drafted Shaq first because I was mislead into thinking he'd come back into better shape.  My pre-draft order was TD, KG, JO, Shaq and Dirk.  I came on live and switched it at the last second.  I'm the one that's been making the most noise about the re-draft/keeper issue becuase of the issues you mentioned.

[Guest_Dromedarius]

Good, then if you agree with me, I'll continue to piss and moan. Here's an example of why this sucks. I'd keep Davis or Kidd and Pierce or Wallace. Ted, who threw in the towel last week, keeps Marion and James, and then will probably draft either Davis or Pierce with his first place. In turn, I'll stick it out, have a good record, get beat in the first or second round, and then have to draft someone like SAR or Gasol. All the good centers will be long gone, as will the PGs, and I'll have a team of forwards, which would be my reward for drafting next to last and doing a good job with my team.

In the meantime, Ted will kick my predecessor's teeth in, as will Gen Hex, Bod and Genghis with their high-powered keepers. At least I will have ziggy and Jihad to join my team in getting smacked around after a successful first year.

Is there a solution? Yes. Put these players under contracts for a predetermined number of years. That way, at least the owners who now have Garnett, Duncan and McGrady will have to come down at some point. I personally feel two contracts isn't enough, but if that is all there is going to be, make it a two year and a one year. What that would do is give a team like mine a chance in two years, because I could throw the year Garnett is coming up, and then pick him up myself, instantly elevating me up to the top of the pack.

As it stands now, there is very little risk for guys like Bod, Genghis, Gen Hex and Ted, and lots of risk for ziggy, Jihad and myself. Why not even it out? I know I'm pissing in the wind when I lobby for more than two keepers, but why should certain owners get to dominate the best players for their ENTIRE careers. Put some risk into it, and if you want to make this competitive every year, then do it.

[Guest_Dromedarius]

P.S.

Make the contracts unrenewable. That would force every owner to develop or draft a player EVERY year, instead of being able to sit on two guys like T-Mac and Kirilenko forever. As the system stands now, the rich stay rich, and the poor feed off the middle class.

[WayOutWest]

As the system stands now, the rich stay rich, and the poor feed off the middle class.

America, gotta love it!

Oh..wait...we're talking about FNBA still right?

[Guest]

My thought is simple:  2 keepers, 10 picks.

I would say, do with them what you will, but because of the limit that DaBods mentioned, I can see that that's not possible.

I say don't declare the keeper players until August 1.  End of season to August 1 is the off-season, but not yet free agency.

On August 1, every manager declares two players as keepers, and every manager must have 10 draft picks.  If I've got Duncan and Nash as my keepers, and someone wants to trade me a 3rd round pick and a junker for Finley and a 4th round pick, we can do it.  They can keep Finley, or dump him (why would you dump him?), and I can keep the junker or I can dump him.

This allows for the possibility of a manager trading for a keeper he likes, and essentially, the "penalty" for doing this is only a single season.  The next year, that draft pick that I got will be gone...I'll have gained only a single year out of a good draft.

In the absence of such a thing, I say just do it the way Dabods suggested.

I didn't trade for Steve Nash to only keep him for next year.  As most of you will remember, Duncan and Nash were on my team last year.  I like the idea of legacy players, like Stockton for the Jazz or David Robinson for the Spurs.  Then again, I wanted last year's team back, anyway.  (**laughing**)

[Guest_Dromedarius]

I'm not getting what you're saying. Finley isn't a keeper except for maybe one or two owners, so this scenario isn't viable. Take my team for example. I have three keepers I could trade for draft picks, but what would I get back for them? According to what Bod said, if I trade Pierce or Davis for a 3rd round draft pick, I have to declare them as one of my keepers. Then I will have two third rounders and my remaining keeper, which isn't any better than Pierce or Davis and another keeper, along with my draft pick.

The problem with this system, which I am trying to highlight, is that the people with the best of the best, such as Garnett or Duncan, and the ones that are drafting high are in the best position. An owner such as myself, who drafted low, can't possibly obtain a player like a Garnett, Duncan or McGrady, and I will draft low again, meaning I will be penalized for having done well despite a poor draft position. This cycle is likely to repeat for years unless I intentionally tank it. This is the equivalent of the Lakers getting to keep Shaq and Kobe, while the teams like the Mavs and Kings, who have been successful, are penalized because all their eggs aren't in one (or two) baskets.

Furthermore, owners of players like Garnett, Duncan, and T-Mac (or even James) could conceiveably hold on to them for a decade or more, so the only way to have a chance of winning would be to dump your talent and hope to draft high and snag a James like player. At the very least, I'm asking for contract limits. In my scenario, you could only hold on to Duncan for two more years and Nash for one more, then they'd be up for grabs. That way, you aren't reaping the benefits of a Top 4 draft pick in the original draft for literally years and years, making the first draft by far the most important. As it stands, no matter who has my team, they aren't going to be happy in this shooter happy league stuck with Pierce or Wallace and Kidd or Davis.

My idea for an amendment means ALL owners will be required to be on their toes, rather than simply being lucky to draft high in the initial draft, because I tell you there is an ENORMOUS gap between Pierce and Garnett. The gap is much larger at the top of the pile than it is at any other point in the player structure.

[bbf78253]

And this all leads back to my point about off season trading being basically voided.

Say by chance I end up with the #1 draft pick...I can't trade it to anyone for any player of value.  If I were to package my top pick with say Wade to offer Drom for Pierce and his last pick....why should he accept?  He has two other players better than Wade but then would be stuck with Wade as one of his keepers.

And I would have no incentive to move down in the draft.  So unless there is a Duncan for KG type trade there will be no trades.  What we are stuck with is trading keepers for keepers....and if the player is one of your keepers then why would you trade him?