37 replies to this topic

[Cubbie Blues]

I still like a snake draft with keepers left as is.

[Katie]

I'm not a fan of the snake draft but I don't know of a better solution.

[Spencer]

I still like a snake draft with keepers left as is.

Ditto. Snake draft based on reverse order of standings.

[Spencer]

FYI for everyone: I think the majority of changes are going to be discussed on the BNFL message board, so be sure to check it out once in a while to chime in!

[Luke]

Seven keepers, worst to best every round?

Or... getting radical here...

Everyone gets five keepers without penalty, just like we do now.

After that, teams can keep additional players, but they begin to forfeit draft picks starting with Round 1 for each additional keeper. If they have more than one pick in a round, they only lose one of those picks.

For instance: Suppose Sam decides to keep seven players and currently has one first round and two second round picks. He would give up first round pick for his sixth keeper and his first second round pick for his seventh keeper.

We might have to hand edit the draft list to make that happen, but it shouldn't be too bad.

[T C]

Seven keepers, worst to best every round?

Or... getting radical here...

Everyone gets five keepers without penalty, just like we do now.

After that, teams can keep additional players, but they begin to forfeit draft picks starting with Round 1 for each additional keeper. If they have more than one pick in a round, they only lose one of those picks.

For instance: Suppose Sam decides to keep seven players and currently has one first round and two second round picks. He would give up first round pick for his sixth keeper and his first second round pick for his seventh keeper.

We might have to hand edit the draft list to make that happen, but it shouldn't be too bad.

I think that if we were to do something along those lines that the penalty would have to be much, much steeper for keeping more than 5 keepers. The whole point of limiting everyone at 5 would be to reward players for drafting well but also allowing enough turnover for the league to change each year. Allowing people to keep more just throws the league more out of balance and keeps teams from being able to rebuild.

That said, I'd be fine with allowing teams to keep more players, but I'd think a 6th keeper would have to cost 1 & 2 this year, and possibly #1 next year as well

[King Jeff]

Seven keepers, worst to best every round?

Or... getting radical here...

Everyone gets five keepers without penalty, just like we do now.

After that, teams can keep additional players, but they begin to forfeit draft picks starting with Round 1 for each additional keeper. If they have more than one pick in a round, they only lose one of those picks.

For instance: Suppose Sam decides to keep seven players and currently has one first round and two second round picks. He would give up first round pick for his sixth keeper and his first second round pick for his seventh keeper.

We might have to hand edit the draft list to make that happen, but it shouldn't be too bad.

I think that if we were to do something along those lines that the penalty would have to be much, much steeper for keeping more than 5 keepers. The whole point of limiting everyone at 5 would be to reward players for drafting well but also allowing enough turnover for the league to change each year. Allowing people to keep more just throws the league more out of balance and keeps teams from being able to rebuild.

That said, I'd be fine with allowing teams to keep more players, but I'd think a 6th keeper would have to cost 1 & 2 this year, and possibly #1 next year as well

I agree, because allowing people to exchange top draft picks for keepers would severely dry up the draft pool and we'd be playing with mostly the same rosters. I think 5 is a lot of keepers for a league this big, but I think we should at least see how it works out in our first re-draft before changing anything.

[Luke]

I think 5 is a lot of keepers for a league this big, but I think we should at least see how it works out in our first re-draft before changing anything.

This also makes sense.

Rome wasn't built in a day, but both Nero and Alaric made a fair stab at destroying it one.