And a random suggestion, but I vote for championship belt over trophy.

Generated the random draft order.... and I'm not happy.

1. Cincy Flying Pigs
2. Detroit Crime
3. Preston Shorebirds
4. Milwaukee Beers
5. Las Vegas Broncos
6. Winnepeg Americans
7. Dan's Team
8. Cypress Woodpeckers
9. Aggieland Maroon Sox
10. Tyler's team
11. Seabrook Shrimpers
12. Texarkana Tortugas
13. South Padre Pelicans
14. Anchorage Moosen


Edit: I took a video of me doing it, but it was automated directly by Yahoo and it should have sent a message out to the dynasty saying so.

14th might not be a bad spot. You'll be able to grab two solid players... 28 picks is a long way for the first pick to wait.

Yea, not the end of the world, but I don't want to build my "dynasty" team around the 14th and 15th best players.


I think 1-6ish are the best spots, then it's a little bit muddier from there. It'll be fun. Atleast now I can try to get a strategy together.

3, huh...that's going to be a tough but good call.

Damn, I really wanted to be in the top 6.

quick reminder that draft picks can be traded.

3 can be had but think Redskins trading with St. Louis to get RG III before phoning.

quote:

---

Damn, I really wanted to be in the top 6.

---

how about 7?

The Flying Pigs of Cincinnati will entertain trade proposals for the first overall pick.

quote:

---

I'll listen to trades for the first overall pick.

---

I'll give you my first this year and next.

Nay. I'm not that forward thinking

I think I like my spot, can do a lot with 6th.

One other "rule" that I thought of :

The player has to be in Yahoo's system for you to draft them. So if there's a minor league player you want to draft, make sure he's in the system first.

Fairly obvious, but worth stating.

I'm still a little confused on the keeper part.... Just for this example, say I have Trout, Correa, and Kershaw. After 3 years those 3 players would take up 9 spots on my roster?

quote:

---

I'm still a little confused on the keeper part.... Just for this example, say I have Trout, Correa, and Kershaw. After 3 years those 3 players would take up 9 spots on my roster?

---

Must be nice having 3 top 5 picks on 1 team.

Here was my post on page 3.

quote:

---

Here is my proposal on keepers/ dynasty.

- Each player is currently "valued" at $1. (Not actual money)
- Every consecutive year he is kept, another $1 is added to his value. (So if you keep Mike Trout next spring, it costs you $1. The next year $2, the next year $3, etc)
- if a player is traded, he retains his value. So if Trout was traded in year 3, the new team would have to spend $3 to keep him- his value is not reset)
- if a player is dropped and picked up on waivers, he retains his value.
- if a player is dropped and makes it through waivers, and is picked up as a free agent, his value is reset to $1

Year 1- we will have $18 at the end of the year to keep players
Year 2 - I will increase the $$ amount (to $22 as an example) and keep inflating it year after year to account for the rising cost of the players. We will determine it before the draft of each year, so we are all on the same playing field.

---

So those three players would cost you $9

If the salary cap went up from $18 in year one, to $20 in year 2, to $22 in year 3..... Then you would have $13 total to spend on the rest of your roster.

Does that make sense?

Once you're out of "money" the remaining players will be released to free agency/next years draft. Correct?

quote:

---

Here was my post on page 3.

quote:

---

Here is my proposal on keepers/ dynasty.

- Each player is currently "valued" at $1. (Not actual money)
- Every consecutive year he is kept, another $1 is added to his value. (So if you keep Mike Trout next spring, it costs you $1. The next year $2, the next year $3, etc)
- if a player is traded, he retains his value. So if Trout was traded in year 3, the new team would have to spend $3 to keep him- his value is not reset)
- if a player is dropped and picked up on waivers, he retains his value.
- if a player is dropped and makes it through waivers, and is picked up as a free agent, his value is reset to $1

Year 1- we will have $18 at the end of the year to keep players
Year 2 - I will increase the $$ amount (to $22 as an example) and keep inflating it year after year to account for the rising cost of the players. We will determine it before the draft of each year, so we are all on the same playing field.

---

So those three players would cost you $9

If the salary cap went up from $18 in year one, to $20 in year 2, to $22 in year 3..... Then you would have $13 total to spend on the rest of your roster.

Does that make sense?

---

In this example, he would only be able to roster 16 of the 25 total players allowed per team, correct?

Technically you can have 29 on your roster with the 2 DL spots and the 2 NA spots.

Pretty sure we have 5 NA spots now.

Making up an example for you guys:

Let's say your key players (and their values) 3 years from now are :
Carlos Correa - $3
George Springer - $3
Dallas Keuchel - $3
Lorenzo Cain - $3
Jay Bruce - $2
Salvador Perez - $2
Matt Harvey $2
Araldis Chapman - $2
Colin McHugh - $2

Which add up to $22, which lets pretend is the salary cap.

You can use every dollar to save these keepers. But because they all have relatively high value, you're only keeping 9 total players. Then we go into the draft, and you need to pick up 16 players to fill your roster.

The next year, each persons value goes up by another $1, so those 9 players would then cost you $31, and if the salary cap only goes up to $24 or $25, then you have some tough decisions to make on who to let go.


I probably should not have used the word salary cap, because that's not how it works. It's more like a "keeper budget".

Yes. 2 DL spots and 5 NA spots.

Okay.

So we can't have pitchers in our bench? We are strictly alotted 5 SP's and 6 RPs? Just wanted to clarify before I start prepping.

I think... So after the first season, you can basically pick 9 players to keep since each of their values will be $2?

So when you get to year 5 or so. You have to decide if you want to keep a couple of players, or keep Correa for $5?

How would the drafts work if someone needs more players than other teams? Would that player just get extra picks? And which rounds would they get those picks?

Correct. The idea is to build a roster as close to real life as possible.

Edited to add: you can have pitchers in your "n/a" spots - basically your minor leagues

That is why the "keeper $$" will inflate year after year, so that you can keep multiple players,. It won't inflate fast enough for you to keep everyone, but enough to force everyone into tough decisions.

If you want to keep Correa forever, you will be able to, but you'll be sacrificing depth in your roster. It should be fairly easy for an owner to drop all but 2-3 players and start building up the talent again if they fall behind.

The draft will go in reverse order of standings, with the last place person getting first pick the next year.

Each team will draft until they have 25 players. Once they are full, they skip their remaining turns until the draft is finished.

But after year 1, it wouldn't make sense to not keep 9 players, right?

Just want to clarify one last time on the bench players...they can ONLY be batters?

I guess my initial thought was that we could allocate to the bench however we want because that's actually how MLB clubs do it...some guy with 3 man benches and then more in the pen to start the season, etc.

Anyway I'd prefer to have the option to have bench players be batters or pitchers because that's actually the most realistic.

quote:

---

Anyway I'd prefer to have the option to have bench players be batters or pitchers because that's actually the most realistic.

---

Agree

I think if teams keep players they should start their draft in the following round.

For example, if I keep 9 and someone else keeps 4, the team with 4 should get to draft 5 players before I draft any...

Your double negatives are confusing me

After year one, I would imagine that everybody would want to keep as many players as possible, unless there are incentives to not keep players (as is given just above of my post.