|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Nov 30, 2013 16:50:06 GMT
Auction would be easier to do, be complete in a shorter time period. MFL has a nice auction draft mode.
Snake would take awhile, but would entail a bunch of trading and more work. The benefit here is the ability to trade and take your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Dec 3, 2013 19:47:10 GMT
I like auction for the initial draft and then the following rookie drafts could be pro format. At least with auction for the veteran draft you can live with your decisions a little more knowing that you were in control of who is on your team rather than a luck of the draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by atlantagm on Dec 3, 2013 19:48:19 GMT
Also regarding trading. In my other 32 team leagues you don't have to try really hard to encourage trading. It happens quite frequently and it has really taught me a lot of lessons about trading. The rookie draft will probably have trades galore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Packers GM on Dec 6, 2013 20:47:06 GMT
I prefer an auction format for the initial veteran draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2013 19:46:58 GMT
Raiders here - My vote is for the 2014 rookie picks to be included in the initial auction. If you want the 1.01 - pay for it. Leaving it to random draw is grossly unfair, IMO - There is a HUGE difference between ( 1.01 + 2.32 ) and ( 1.32 + 2.01 ).
I would like to forward that the 2014 Round 1 Rookie Pick should be included in the initial auction as a 'player' up for auction bids.
Given that it is a 32 team league, a rookie snake draft is grossly overloaded to the first several picks. Leaving a 32 team rookie snake up to random chance in a start up dynasty is not fair, IMO.
If someone really wants the 1.01, he can outbid everyone else for it. Otherwise, by chance, I may get pick 32, which historically has been far less valuable than the 1.01.
Even the combination of 1.01 and 2.32 is far more valuable than the 1.32 and the 2.01 - I've looked at 2 IDP dynasty rookie drafts for 2013 and 1.01 yielded Gio or Bell or the like - whereas 1.32 would have been an LB ( Ogletree or Alonso if you were reaching, going against the vast majority of published rookie cheat sheets and got lucky, but you should have ended up with Mingo or Bostic or Jones or Minter - they have done nothing ) and if you wanted an Offensive player, maybe you got RB Taylor or WR Rogers or RB Randle or WR Boyce - aka, zeros
i hope this makes sense, I am writing this as I try to score One Direction Concert tix for my 12 y/o daughter and she keeps asking for updates....
We did this in a dynasty I am in, the top picks of the rookie draft were purchased in the auction and only 5 players were available via auction. It works and it is fair.
Bottomline, randomly choosing rookie draft order in a 32 team dynasty start up is grossly unfair, in my humble opinion.
Thanks for your time and attention, have a great day
Raiders
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Dec 7, 2013 19:58:47 GMT
If the vet draft was a snake and the rook was regular it is pretty fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 6:00:41 GMT
I like raiders idea if its an auction but would there be a limit on first round picks a player can win in bids? I might even extend this to round 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 6:09:21 GMT
And what kind of restrictions are we thinking on contract years in an auction? I'm kinda on the fence between auction and snake. Both are a lot of fun but I kinda hate the year restrictions. I know its a necessary evil but I think it should just be until the draft is over. I'm in another league, and I think bills might be in it, where the years restriction is in place for the life of the league and it sucks. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Dec 20, 2013 8:44:49 GMT
yeah there would have to be year restrictions unfortunately, but It would probably be more due to roster size of 53. You can also do a contract extension once a year to retain key players on your team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 13:46:51 GMT
But would the year restrictions be: 1. Just a restriction on the number of years you can bid on each player? Example: you can only bids maximum of 4 years. Or 2:would it be a restriction of total contract years on your roster? Example: the total number of contract years on your roster may not exceed 120 years. And if that is the case, would that rule be in effect for the life of the league or just during the initial draft?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Dec 20, 2013 14:34:31 GMT
Would lean toward your 2nd there but would probably have to be in effect for the entirety of the league... the number will be high though due to roster size
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 16:39:05 GMT
I completely understand having that limit for the initial draft to avoid having almost every player being signed for 4 or 5 years(Not sure what the max is), and to ensure that we actually have a decent FA every year after the draft. But I don't really understand enacting it over the life of the league. I really like the idea I came up with for the international league, but it was too late to enact it. For the initial draft, everyone should be required to deal out an equal amount of 1, 2, 3, and 4 year contracts. So for example if you sign 32 guys in the initial auction you would have to sign 8 to 1 yr contracts, 8 to 2 yr, 8 to 3yr and 8 to 4 yr. That way we ensure an large FA pool each year. You would have an equal number (or at least very close) of players expiring each year for the first 4 years. It also doesn't punish the people that choose to sign 50 cheaper players instead of 35 more expensive ones. AND there is no need for a roster years limit  |
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Dec 20, 2013 17:06:05 GMT
what if we just based it on real player contracts? they keep their auction salary number but years are based on their real life contracts... then we would never have to use a year cap
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2013 17:15:16 GMT
That would be interesting... I'd be down for either way. A little more research to that method but I'm fine with that. I definitely like that idea better than a roster years cap though. I'd be interested to see how it plays out... usually longer contracts make players more valuable but that would just mean that you will pay a higher salary for longer... With the extensions and tags it would be quite complex, which I like. I'd really have to think on how to value players. One good thing about that way is that you'd actually have some good players that aren't on the max contract length, although they will most likely still get tagged or extended.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buffalo Bills GM (Commish) on Dec 20, 2013 17:33:45 GMT
yeah I think that could be the easiest way to solve that problem and avoid the year cap
|
|
