Did I play it right?

[Pauly]

13 teams, mixed roto league, 10 keepers. The catch is that as the "new guy" in the league, I was forced to start from scratch. This, as you might imagine, made it very difficult. So, did I play it right, or miss the mark? I admit right now I got very carried away on Hosmer (plus he was the last great 1B on the board), and I regretted it just about immediately. Since there are daily moves, I will be using my bench pitchers as regulars...anyway, thanks in advance!

C- Doumit(1), Donaldson(1)
1B- Hosmer(37)
2B- Pedroia(37)
3B- Aramis Ram(17)
SS- Bartlett(1)
MI- Altuve(3)
CI- Belt(2)
OF- Bourn(33), Choo(22), Werth(22), Raburn(5), Viciedo(2)
UT- Heisey(1), Ibanez(1)
SP- Zimm(16), Romero(16), McCarthy(4), Alvarez(1), Volquez(1)
RP- Street(12), Betancourt(12), Francisco(7), Myers(5), Clippard(1)
BN- Allen Craig, Aceves, Colon, Adams, Capuano

[Captain Hook]

I think you did very well and given the circumstances, Stars and Scrubs (at least price wise) was the way to play it. You hope that everything is in a perfect place but if not you hope the one and two dollar players develop to be solid keepers for next year while you trade Hosmer and the other high priced players to the contending teams for solid low priced keepers for next year.

Good Luck


and PS - that is a terrible rule which you should really get the league to change (unless they offered you 50% or better reduction in league fees). League that want to add a new team should do everything possible (dispersal draft, extra picks, extra auction dollars, whatever) to give a new team a chance to compete and not just cast them adrift.

[Pauly]

and PS - that is a terrible rule which you should really get the league to change (unless they offered you 50% or better reduction in league fees). League that want to add a new team should do everything possible (dispersal draft, extra picks, extra auction dollars, whatever) to give a new team a chance to compete and not just cast them adrift.

Thanks for the look.

Yep...I led the way in getting that rule repealed, but they wouldnt make it retroactive to my joining, which really irked me. However, it's a great league with a great bunch of guys, so I guess it's worth it for this year.

[deansdaddy]

You did well - that's a team that will make some noise and definitely not be a cellar-dweller. Keep us updated on your progress

[Trav The Ump]

Perry, can I ask your reasoning as why you think a new team should be given any sort of leg up?

[Captain Hook]

Perry, can I ask your reasoning as why you think a new team should be given any sort of leg up?

Because leagues should be based on fair play and honesty and good competition - not on let's screw the new guy. WHY should a team with ZERO ****** chance of cashing play in such a league? And usually it's not just a one year project.

I hear this all the time - the old owners in most leagues do NOT want to give up the advantage they have over a new owner - this guy's league is really onerous - starting with NO players and having to go to an inflationary auction where his $260 is probably not worth $200. HOW is that supposed to be fun for someone?

[Trav The Ump]

Most interesting, I see your reasoning but I would counter with in our hockey league (under the same onerous rules you contest) we had a first year owner win the league going away.

Now I realize that's less likely than the norm however in my mind you may be de-valuing the commitment or perceived value of the existing owners. I can see your point in a relatively new league, I'd venture under 3 years. However in a long time league creating your own roster and team is simply part of the process. We all had to do it at one point or another so why should an owner coming in later be given random privileges?

Also my league is a money league but I wouldn't say a "big" money league. Most teams come in around $100-$150 per year with entry and transaction fees. So for a new team that sometimes is the cost of doing business. I just find this topic interesting as we are adding an eleventh team to our league this year as an expansion team and its the first time in about five years we've added a team.

As a second point of discussion, how would your viewpoint change from the experienced fantasy player you are versus an absolute rookie player who realistically will be in tough either way in the first year?

[AllstonRockCity]

If someone is joining a keeper league they should always be given the chance to go to the auction with just as many keepers as anyone else. Anything else is completely unfair.
This new owner should also have the right to obtain keepers on par with the level of players being kept (read: expansion draft).
I think this is actually more important for older leagues as a league needs to be prepared for owner turnover and having fair rules for new owners greatly increases the likelihood of filling vacancies when they arise.

[Captain Hook]

. I just find this topic interesting as we are adding an eleventh team to our league this year as an expansion team and its the first time in about five years we've added a team.

As a second point of discussion, how would your viewpoint change from the experienced fantasy player you are versus an absolute rookie player who realistically will be in tough either way in the first year?

1) So for your expansion team, did you do a dispersal draft - allow current owners to protect a few players (leagues always allow too many); let the new guy make a pick of available players (each old team losing only one player); and continue until he picked either the maximum to be kept or one from each team?

So let's say you did and you were better than most leagues and existing teams could only protect three of their players. That means the new team starts with at best the 31st, 32nd, 33rd best players (and usually it won't be that good because some teams have better rosters than others.

You think that guy is on level ground with the league?
Or you think he should pay a penalty and be the worst team in the league and just donate his entry fees for a year or two at BEST

2) I think even a novice would understand that they are inheriting a worse team than most of the league (the reason most teams quit) but I think they would feel better if it was well handled.

In our 11 team NL keeper that is more than 20 years old we lost an owner who had a pretty bad roster. The commissioner correctly gave the guy a 50% discount on our league fees ($700 range) for the first two years - at least if the guy has to rebuild he doesn't get killed doing it (and with the understanding that if he did manage to win money in either of those years the rest of the entry fee would be deducted from his winnings thus making it fair for the other teams as well)

[Trav The Ump]

No, he comes in with an empty roster as there is no team for him to take over. In our constitution we also explicitly state that you are more or less screwed. Lol.

I think my argument would be much less justified if indeed we were playing for higher stakes as you indicate Perry. I think at $500 plus than yes there is an incentive to make sure you get good quality owners and be able to replace them quickly. I do find it very interesting that you subsidize the team entry unless of course he wins some money, than that goes out the window. It just seems to me that's a bit juxtaposed with your original stance. So now your punishing the new owner for being good and passing all these hurdles that are supposedly laid out?

Don't get me wrong, I fully see your side of the argument and to some extent agree with it. However, we've had our rules laid out this way and our league is comfortable with it. I just like having quality discussion to further my knowledge of the game and how many other ways it can be played.

[alleyoops]

In the league that I've run for 17 years, we've been through three sets of rules on expansion. I think our current way of handling it has been the best. We give all new owners the choice of taking over a non-returning team, or having no keepers but going into the auction with a "discount". First new owner to commit to the league gets first choice, etc. The discount is currently set at $15, which is about the average of the "keeper value" of the returning teams (we don't have many keepers and our rules result in less "super-bargain" keepers than most leagues). For a league with more common keeper rules, maybe this would be $21 ($7 for three guys). The way it would work, using $21, is that during the auction, for the first three players that the discount guys buys he gets a reduction in cost/salary of $7 each. So if he paid $30 for Tulowitski, he'd have him at a salary of $23, and he'd only cost him $23 of his $260 auction budget. Same for the next two guys he buys. This gives him $21 of keeper value, putting him on par with the value of other teams, as far as keeper value. Maybe it's $18 or $24 or $30 for your league. Regardless, there is some number which would put him at the middle of the pack as far as keeper value. Maybe you spread it over 4 guys, instead of 3, if you have more keepers per team than we do. In the league in question, maybe it's $40 or $50 spread over 10 guys (since they can keep 10).

This also works well with an in-season salary cap. It's much better than simply giving him extra $ to spend in the auction, as he'd then be closer to the cap, and wouldn't have any "bargain guys" as possible keepers for next year.

Back to the original question - although I agree that you did OK, I think your team probably has no chance this year, and you'll probably have several years of dumping before you can become competitive. I agree with Perry and the others that the rule set of this league is poor, with respect to handling of new owners.

[Pauly]

Just reading Perry's rebuilding post...this might seem applicable. I made my first couple moves this year already on this rebuilding job (see first post), with one being major, even though it is early.

first move: traded Myers($5) for Seager(2) and Pomeranz(3)
second move: Traded my overpriced Hosmer(37) for Freeman($6 with a pending extension for next year), Hellickson(10) and Victor Martinez(4).

First move I have a thing for Pomeranz and I badly needed a SS eligible to replace the struggling Jason Bartlett (now dropped). Bartlett is really sucking it up and Seager looks semi-promising I guess. I also had 5 closers to use as chips. Second move I really love as a rebuilding type of deal...VMart sits on IR all season and doesnt count against my roster limits, and the other two are young and keeper-priced.

I always read you shouldnt make big moves early, but I just couldnt pass these up. You like?

[Captain Hook]

Just reading Perry's rebuilding post...this might seem applicable. I made my first couple moves this year already on this rebuilding job (see first post), with one being major, even though it is early.

first move: traded Myers($5) for Seager(2) and Pomeranz(3)
second move: Traded my overpriced Hosmer(37) for Freeman($6 with a pending extension for next year), Hellickson(10) and Victor Martinez(4).

First move I have a thing for Pomeranz and I badly needed a SS eligible to replace the struggling Jason Bartlett (now dropped). Bartlett is really sucking it up and Seager looks semi-promising I guess. I also had 5 closers to use as chips. Second move I really love as a rebuilding type of deal...VMart sits on IR all season and doesnt count against my roster limits, and the other two are young and keeper-priced.

I always read you shouldnt make big moves early, but I just couldnt pass these up. You like?

Well I like the second move a LOT

Not so much the first one (how is Seager even SS eligible)
But full disclosure I traded a cheap Pomeranz in a 15 team mixed keeper because I don't like him pitching in Colorado and I don't think they have the staff to help him.
BUT also I think you could get more for even a poor closer if not now then later