Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

You mean the random team list, or the random draft orders for the entire regular season?


And I can think of a disadvantage if you mean the draft orders, could be a serious one. It's not unheard of for a team to drop out of the league. Going > 1-2 drafts ahead is asking for someone to drop out randomly, causing mass chaos as every draft ahead has to re-randomize and possibly re-trade.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

The draft order... The reasoning behind why not makes sense.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Concerns about an overly unbalanced trade send this one back to the negotiating table.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Just as a note, Toluca is in the same boat, as randomization triggers at Israel for the DCMP drafts.

The general plan was that the rotation would simply run once again if the remaining drafts were <1/2 of one rotation, and only re-randomize if that wasn't the case.

Oh, right, and about the waiver priority: It's rookie players in order of signup, then returning players in reverse order of last year's finish (as much as possible). Hmmm.... Now there's an idea...

Any objections to running Toluca and Chesapeake on straight waiver priority?

I concur on that. 1-day district drafts are still under discussion, I believe, but I'm leaning towards disallowing trading on those due to the deep fields seen at district drafts.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

So would that mean the order would be the same for both, or reversed, or something else?

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Possibly one normal and one reverse--don't think I'd do both events the same way. Or one normal, and one rotated.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I'm curious what makes the trade imbalanced. If we use the system that you proposed that isn't being used, just as an example of balance, of the +3/+2/+1/-1/-2/-3, it ends up being +2 weighted towards UT(+6 for TBC, +8 for UT). Since TBC is the team receiving the better 1st round pick, it makes sense for UT to have the points skewed more towards them.

All things considered, how is a 2 spot move in the first round that much better than 2x 2 spot moves in the 2nd round. (And the whole, well there hasn't been a trade yet where a first round pick was traded without another" part is silly, theres been like 5 trades and its week 2, of course there haven't been many trades yet, and theres no rule that says you have to trade a round 1 for a round 1.)

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

At a regional where there are 2 powerhouses aka greater Kansas 2017 2nd vs 4th pick is a way bigger advantage then gaining a few pick spots at the end.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

I don't use the system he proposed. I am evaluating the trade based on the value returned through an independent system. As you know, the value of picks (theoretically) increases exponentially as you go up. While by definition, UT benefits from a position advantage, I don't feel that trade represents approximate fair value in the return. This does not mean that a first rounder is required to move up in the first round, but it does mean that if you don't, you have to make up for it with appropriate second/third round selections.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Trades shouldn't be being based on subjectivity regional by regional. AKA you shouldn't say, "well our picklist says they'll get a massive advantage here if we let the trade go through, so no".

Also, I disagree with exponentially, historical 2nd round picks are about .6x as valuable as 1st round picks.(exlcuding 1st pick and 18th pick).

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Well, I guess that's why we have three people evaluating the trade. I'm not saying the AVERAGE first round pick is exponentially more valuable: it's that the difference between them is. So the difference between the #2 and #4 picks is greater than the combination of the two second rounders used in that trade by a reasonable margin.

I agree with your first statement. A team's picklist cannot be used to evaluate a trade's fairness. No team has the same picklist.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

For a deep event, I think that this one would have passed. For a shallow event, like Southern Cross, I believe there's some concern that it's less balanced than straight numbers would think. Some metrics show it one way, some show it another way.

The other item here is that this is the second (third?) attempt at this trade, with different non-GKC events; on the first one it was noted that there seemed to be a possibility at an undisclosed trade down the line. I can't say that that's true or false, so I can't evaluate based on that.



Let's put it this way: It's really, really close. And I think it's worth reviewing in more depth. I'll put a final answer before GKC (won't be an hour before, unfortunately--work schedules--unless it's issued tonight). And obviously GKC won't proceed past the first pick until a final decision.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

Technically I thought the system was Eric, and if Eric is unavailable then it goes to the other 3, did I misread?

Anyways, I thought to the reason we were approving trades was to make sure nothing fishy was going on(two teams pooling picks, etc.). I'm not sure why everyone is up in arms if one team gets a better deal out a trade. Here's a secret, a team will only make a trade when they think they're getting the better deal out of it, so by proxy, someone will always be getting the bigger end of the stick at the end of the day. If one team is happy with 2 2nd round increases, and the other team is happy 1 1st round increase, and there seems to be no shady dealings, it should go through.

IMO anyways, I can't vote as its my team, and at the end of the day I don't really mind if our trade gets declined, I'm just arguing for the sake of all trades.

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

TBC has had no talks to my knowledge about any trades down the line with UT, in fact we haven't had any talks about any trades at all, besides declining a couple offers(We trust our picklists, and prefer to trade spots rather than teams.)

As for the first trade, it didn't go through as UT had already traded another team, and thusly we were not able to complete the trade. So now we're trying again with a different event, as the first event chosen isn't realistic given the current 2nd round spots. In fact, this trade is more favorable for UT than the last one(they are gaining +2 in the 2nd round of the non-GKC draft, and compared to the +1 of before.)

Re: [FF]: 2017 Season Long Fantasy FIRST
 

That is true. Doesn't mean that I can't take input from the other 3, though.

I'll let you in on a secret: you're not entirely correct. There are other reasons to make a trade if requested, not all of them draft-related. And maybe some of those end up with one person getting a lot of small ends of the sticks...