Fantasy Baseball Cafe Forums

by **Matthias** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:18 pm

True, but you have to strike a balance that now for later does not dominate the league. Everyone really should be building to win every year, or at least remain competitive. Otherwise you create a situation where you're almost forced into playing for this year or next as the deals become so big that that's the only way to accumulate enough talent in any one season to actually take home the gold. And personally, I don't like that... I prefer something where there's incentive for each team to be competitive every year but still smart about looking towards next season and beyond. Obviously, in any keeper league, you're not going to get that perfectly, but I think you can do some things to prevent a league from falling into all-or-nothing mode.

by **noseeum** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:46 pm

Matthias wrote:True, but you have to strike a balance that now for later does not dominate the league. Everyone really should be building to win every year, or at least remain competitive. Otherwise you create a situation where you're almost forced into playing for this year or next as the deals become so big that that's the only way to accumulate enough talent in any one season to actually take home the gold. And personally, I don't like that... I prefer something where there's incentive for each team to be competitive every year but still smart about looking towards next season and beyond. Obviously, in any keeper league, you're not going to get that perfectly, but I think you can do some things to prevent a league from falling into all-or-nothing mode.

I agree. I just prefer to use league characteristics over rules to prevent behavior.

Definitely keep the number of keepers small if you want to avoid the deals being ridiculous. We stick with 4.

by **Matthias** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:39 am

noseeum wrote:I agree. I just prefer to use league characteristics over rules to prevent behavior.

Agreed.

noseeum wrote:Definitely keep the number of keepers small if you want to avoid the deals being ridiculous. We stick with 4.

Yah; our league was 3 + 1 (3 keepers of any type and 1 keeper that you had to buy for $1 at the draft) and then this year we added 3 slots for minor-leaguers. Holding the number of keepers down is the best way to prevent the over-selling of any future year, although I kind of liked the solution I had that if they wanted to keep all those keepers and not change the league, you could just cap the number of your keepers that you didn't draft or keep from last year.

by **raiders_umpire** » Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:53 am

fantasma wrote: a recent trade of Milton Bradley, Soria, and Mike Gonzalez for Matt Weiters, Zimmerman, Myers, and Guardado). !

Hello fantasma. :-)

As far as the actual trade, that is the type of trade that usually happens in keepers every year when a few teams start rebuilding. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with that type of trade in a league of mine as long as all 15 guys are staying up to date with the league. If the owners are committed to next year, then a trade involved around a minor leaguer like Weiters is just fine. I think noseeum hit upon something with trades of this magnitude that the "losing" team go ahead and pay next years fee.