Please log in to post a message

• Yes I did say that about offering to pay entry fees for new teams but am against giving up players on my original roster as opposed to draftees . I see no inconsistency in that that money or the fee is less valuable than the players I might have on my roster( non draftees) that I acquired at a discount earlier bc maybe I saw something that others did not. Now I have to potentially give up that player. So of course I would rather have given up money at the time than players now.
  Neanderthal at Jan 3, 2024 10:54 AM
• With all that being said, my protected players are-
  JSN
  Marvin Harrison
  Nico Collins
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Jan 3, 2024 8:38 AM
• I don't want to play Caesar but we're going to stick with the original plan of 3 protected players, all players eligible for the expansion draft. The point of this draft was to give owners an incentive to claim and pay for these teams. Without them, this league would have reverted to a $20 league with no prize money and likely folds up with 2 teams not owned and no players on it, or it likely results in this expansion draft anyways. I hope this decision doesn't cause anyone ill will going forward, but it's a necessary decision that will only affect six teams and one player from each.
  
  Concerning the 2023 Auction draft imbalance, nothing is going to fix that outside of those players being drafted onto another team. As a big benefactor of that draft and in a show of good faith, I will not protect any of my 2023 draftees. No one else has to follow suit on that.
  
  The 2023 rosters have been locked per Ottoneu. Tomorrow on the 4th, automatic salary increases will be added. Please list on the message board what 3 players you intend to protect by Sunday PM.
  
  **If you do not announce any protected players by Sunday, none of your players will be protected.**
  
  Starting next week on Monday, JeffGeorge will be able to select a non-protected player from a team as well as choose a player from his team to "trade" to the team losing their player. This is to keep roster limits in tact and not have the two expansion teams have additional potential tradeable assets on roster. All Stars will go next and alternate until each team picks three players.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Jan 3, 2024 8:37 AM
• Has anyone actually taken a look at what the draft pool would be if it was just '23 draftees? As I noted previously, only 7 out of 10 teams would be contributing much of anything to the draft pool (since 2 teams drafted nobody and 1 team spent $11 on the draft). Additionally, a massive amount of the "surplus" is on one team, Njigba Turtles (and congrats man, you absolutely crushed that draft...I wish that had been me). For the sake of argument, if you go to our draft history and define surplus as Ottoneu Average Value less draft cost, Njigba Turtles has nearly 40% of the surplus acquired in that draft. That is an impressive showing, but my point is this: what happened in the draft cannot be undone by taking one player off the roster of teams that drafted. What's done is done. The point should not be to somehow reverse or mitigate the results of the draft, because not only is it not the primary issue, it's simply not practical. The point should be to hold up our end of the bargain by giving the two new teams the opportunity to get on a more level playing field since they held up their end of the bargain by paying for a season they couldn't possibly earn prize money from.
  
  It seemed to me that people were on the same page on this at the beginning of the season - recognizing that the league was in a bind and that it was going to require a bit of sacrifice from everyone to keep it going. I'm not sure what changed between September and January. Just to take one example, Neanderthal wrote in September that he would be willing to cover entry fees for the new teams ("I think we should cover the fee. It is only $20 per team and I am ready to pay it"), but in January he is not willing to sacrifice a non-draftee player. I just don't understand why we're trying to complicate an expansion draft that should be pretty straightforward.
  Bring Your Playbook at Jan 3, 2024 7:44 AM
• All I have to contribute here:
  
  I just paid $100 for a season I didn’t even participate in. However you guys can agree to the expansion draft is fine by me. Heck, I might not even draft anyone but I paid for the opportunity to do so.
  
  So please figure it out. Thanks.
  Brandon Clay All Stars at Jan 2, 2024 8:13 PM
• Congrats to San Fransicko for the win!
  I am one of the teams that didn't draft in 2023. Back in July, I had kept a full roster and decided to forgo the draft thinking the 2023 auction would go as usual, it didn't. The auction had $400 in draft capital kept off the table, that led to most top players available going at about half of their average ottoneu value. If I had known this back in July, I could have dropped most of my top players, re-draft them at a fraction of the cost and pick up a top WR and RB along the way.
  After the draft, I was on the fence about renewing, and I did voice my concerns about the last auction and it was met with a reassurance that something could be done to remedy issues with the latest action, that swayed me in renewing.
  In the previous posts, somebody brought out that making available only 2023 draftees would be detrimental to low/mid-tier teams. It is true that the latest auction very much changed the power structure in our league, but I don't think that this is how Ottoneu intends to work, arbitration only deals with leveling the field.
  I think making 2023 draftees available for the expansion would still bring very valuable players to the two new teams and it would also work towards amending the 2023 auction.
  Stoolblasters at Jan 2, 2024 2:29 PM
• Once again I’m fine with whatever y’all decide, but it doesn’t look like every team even participated in the 2023 auction? Not sure how an expansion style draft is fair for anyone if we’re making that the player pool.
  
  Getting to protect your top 3 assets and only being able to lose 1 guy prevents anyone from getting raided.
  SundayInTheParkwithJeffGeorge at Jan 2, 2024 4:56 AM
• Thanks for the congratulations and a great season all. This one was pretty special, winning the championship after starting 1-5 is pretty wild. I’m glad I didn’t get the value I was looking for when I was prepared to dismantle this team.
  
  I know we’ve got a complicated offseason upcoming, hopefully we can all get on the same page.
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Jan 1, 2024 7:58 PM
• Congrats to league winner .
  I am not sure why players on my original roster who would not have been otherwise available to the so called expansion teams should now be available to them. I think that only players who were drafted should be made available to these teams. When I came into league I acquired a team that had certain players on it which was the reason I selected that orphaned team. Now you are saying I could lose some of those players . I disagree
  Neanderthal at Jan 1, 2024 2:59 PM
• Congrats to our league winner Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares!
  
  The next step to our league is finalizing the details on the expansion draft. There has been a lot of discussion on eligibility and limits, my vote has been swinging in the wind, but personally I feel the fairest method was the original thought process of three protected players with all players eligible for selection. At the end of the day, you only have the potential to lose one player off your roster which shouldn't be a team buster situation.
  
  Are there any final words on this? Ideally I'd like to be able to get protected players announced by Wednesday/Thursday so draft could be done by end of week for arbitration to happen normally.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Jan 1, 2024 2:17 PM
• Not that this is a dealbreaker for me, but I assumed the player pool would be from each team, and not just the 2023 auction guys.
  SundayInTheParkwithJeffGeorge at Dec 28, 2023 11:28 AM
• Thank you. Were any specific details of the expansion draft discussed with you prior to joining?
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Dec 27, 2023 5:02 PM
• Yes. The ability to sign current college guys and the upcoming Expansion Draft right after the season were the main factors in spending $100 for a season that had two weeks left when I joined.
  
  The trade deadline was like 4 days after I joined.
  
  The expansion draft was key.
  Brandon Clay All Stars at Dec 27, 2023 4:33 PM
• At this point, I'm curious to get input from the "expansion" teams. What assumption were each of you under when you claimed these teams? Were either of you promised anything specific?
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Dec 27, 2023 2:49 PM
• So if a league is in a situation where it has two unclaimed, non-marketable rosters and there is a risk that it will not be able to continue in its current form, is that the problem of all 10 owners or is that just the problem of those owners who had cap space for the draft?
  
  Before the season started we had discussed the possibility of the 10 owners covering this season's buy-in for the 2 expansion owners. Was anyone expressing a view at the time that actually it should just be the 7 owners who had cap space in the draft paying the 2 entry fees? I don't recall that, and I can't see how it would have made sense.
  Bring Your Playbook at Dec 27, 2023 2:04 PM
• While limiting the pool to just drafted players certainly benefits some teams over others, allowing teams access to players they wouldn't have had access to in the draft is more punitive to the existing teams. I can be swayed either direction on this- I see merit in both sides of allowing all or just drafted players in an expansion draft. The discourse is good and we have time to figure it out- maybe some middle ground of still being able to protect a player from the draft? Or stick with 3 protected players and limiting how many drafted players or vice versa?
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Dec 27, 2023 1:56 PM
• The purpose of the expansion draft was to incentivize future owners to take over the teams with no roster so we'd have a full league. The auction draft created a buying incentive for teams with more cap space, leaving several players to become discounted with less money competing for more talent.
  
  As laid out below- limiting the expansion draft only to drafted players limits the pool to what expansion teams would have been able to acquire without hurting teams that hoarded/stashed players that may finally be paying dividends. If the belief is that most of the drafted players were bought on discount, this imbalance is solved by letting players bought on discount circulate to other teams- shy of re-pricing these players, which I would strongly disagree with, this draft is the best means of killing two birds (salary discrepancies and roster competitiveness) with one stone (the expansion draft).
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Dec 27, 2023 1:52 PM
• Yes, it's unfortunate and clearly not a standard thing that happens in most Ottoneu leagues, but it's a reflection of the fact that the league was in a pretty bad position with basically two empty, ownerless rosters post-draft, and we needed to attract two managers willing to burn $100 with no real hope of competing in season 1. The way to do that was the promise of an expansion draft. If I recall, I believe the alternative that was floated at the time was to drop down to the $20 non-prize league tier for this season in order to attract two new managers. Given that you're in this year's championship game (and congrats on your season), I'd say this has been a pretty solid net positive for you relative to the alternative. And then in terms of what the expansion draft looks like, maybe there are other ideas out there, but in my view a format that has the effect of limiting the draft pool to 7 rosters (the ones who spent money on the draft) and basically fully protecting 3 rosters (the ones who spent zero / immaterial amounts of money on the draft) isn't workable in practice even if there are theoretical arguments for it.
  Bring Your Playbook at Dec 27, 2023 12:53 PM
• The expansion draft you're describing gives the new owners access to players they wouldn't otherwise have access to until they were cut or traded. I'm still having a hard time accepting this as logical. If this is the way the majority feels we should approach this, the number of protected players needs to increase. I know I'm probably overthinking this as I can only end up losing one player but I'm having a hard time accepting the fact that I'll likely lose a valuable piece that I didn't choose to cut due to salary cap limitations. I've never experienced this in ottoneu...
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Dec 27, 2023 12:19 PM
• I think the fundamental question is what problem we're trying to solve with an expansion draft. Is it (1) to correct "imbalances" from the '23 draft (i.e., reallocate '23 draft bargains that in theory should be concentrated on rosters of owners who had more money to spend in the draft) or (2) to ensure that the two managers whose teams did not participate in the '23 draft have access to talent that puts their roster on a more competitive footing heading into '24? These are two different objectives with two different implications.
  
  If we pursue objective (2), which is what I believe the expansion draft is supposed to be about, then the solution is a reallocation of talent from across the league to the two "expansion" teams, in whatever is the most equitable fashion we can come up with. I think the original idea was a good one: a small number of protected players on each roster (we can debate the number), everyone else is in the draft pool, no more than one player selected off each roster.
  
  If we pursue objective (1), then the solution is a reallocation of talent from teams that had big '23 draft budgets to the two "expansion" teams. Unfortunately, contrary to the suggestion below, the teams with big '23 draft budgets did not garner some big systematic competitive advantage. This is borne out by the data - the draft history is readily available for anyone who wants to take a look. Of the 10 "non-expansion" teams, the 4 teams that went on to miss this year's playoffs spent an average of $146 in the draft, while the 6 teams that went on to make the playoffs spent an average of $87 in the draft. 3 of the 6 playoff teams spent $11 or less in the draft.
  
  That the draft did not provide a big competitive advantage to teams rich with cap space also makes intuitive sense given the way Ottoneu works. In general, you're only going to keep players through the cut deadline if they are better than what would be available at auction. If you have less draft budget, it's probably because you have a better roster with a fair amount of surplus. Yes, it is true that "what was available at auction" was probably better (or at least cheaper) in '23 than in other years given the absence of two teams from the draft, but the point still holds that teams with smaller draft budgets were generally better off, not worse off, and it's because they had superior roster alternatives to cap space. So bottom line for me is that an expansion draft player pool that includes only '23 draftees is going to disproportionately impact mid-tier teams while protecting the rosters of many of the top-tier teams, and that doesn't seem like a great outcome from a competitive standpoint.
  Bring Your Playbook at Dec 27, 2023 12:00 PM
• It was the 2023 auction that created the imbalance. Players that were already rostered going into this season’s draft wouldn’t have been available for any of the new teams, so why make them available now? The idea of losing a player that I drafted or traded for multiple season ago seems unfair. And I do understand where Playbook is coming from, each team should probably be allowed some sort of asset protection from this year’s auction but it’s also well documented that teams coming in to this year’s auction had an advantage over teams like mine who had very little to spend. I’m open to the majority on what happens with the 2023 auctioned players but I do not think players acquired in previous seasons should be available in the expansion draft. Arbitration and salary increases already create balance in that respect.
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Dec 27, 2023 11:05 AM
• I’d prefer not to have a class of players that can’t be protected at all. I’d rather reduce the number of protected players, if we feel that 3 is too many to ensure there are quality assets in the expansion pool, than say that 2023 draftees cannot be protected at all. I think leaving all ‘23 draftees unprotected ends up being relatively more punitive to managers who have joined the league more recently (who haven’t had multiple years to acquire surplus, so the ‘23 draft may have been their best opportunity to do so), and it’s tough to swallow the possibility of losing your single best asset to an expansion draft when surplus on any roster is almost always going to be highly concentrated and the single best asset may represent the bulk of the surplus you bring into the next season.
  Bring Your Playbook at Dec 27, 2023 9:42 AM
• I don't have an issue that only players drafted in the auction draft as eligible for selection- this prevents a team who made in-season additions from having to protect/lose guys they scouted/acquired in season. Are there any objections to that? Moves things a little quicker without having to wait for everyone to announce their protected players list- we can just post the link to the auction draft and make that the "eligible" list. This is all being made on the fly, so I'd like to hear any input- positive or negative- so it doesn't feel like I'm overstepping my commish powers.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Dec 27, 2023 8:34 AM
• I'm a bit late for the reply. We had discussed earlier this year how the last draft was skewed ($400 left on the table so players went far below their Ottoneu average value). To quote commissioner " Concerning the draft imbalance for teams with cap space, I agree as one of the teams that benefited".
  In the expansion draft plan below, I don't see anything addressing this. Could we make players drafted last year as the only ones draftable? Or at the very least, these players cannot be protected?
  Stoolblasters at Dec 27, 2023 3:23 AM
• Sounds good to me. Thanks.
  SundayInTheParkwithJeffGeorge at Dec 8, 2023 6:18 AM
• As we're moving closer to playoffs and the end of the season, it's best to get our expansion draft rules in place. Brandon Clay All Stars and Sunday in the Park are the two teams selecting- they will alternate picks with Sunday going first due to record. These rules are open to suggestion and adjustment, nothing is set in stone.
  
  The draft will happen the week after the playoffs finish- the picks will be made via the teams on the message board and the commissioners will move those players over to the new teams. The receiving expansion team must pick a player at the time to drop off their team- this prevents having an extra three players to include in potential trades.
  
  Each team can protect three players- those selections need to be made before the draft begins. We'll figure the date and communicate it in the playoffs, but failure to pick/submit protected players means none of your players are protected from selection.
  
  Expansion teams get 3 picks, once a player is picked from a team that team can no longer have their players picked by either expansion team. To clarify- Expansion team A picks a player from Non Expansion team C. Neither expansion team A nor B can now select a player from that non expansion team C.
  
  The salaries will carry over to the new teams, this will be done before arbitration so those players on the expansion teams will STILL be open to arbitration increases as well as end of year increases.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Dec 6, 2023 2:58 PM
• Kieran's Raiders has been claimed- wants the owner pays the fee we'll be a full league for the season. Good luck to all!
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Nov 22, 2023 8:04 AM
• Kieran has been abandoned by the Ottoneu system- if you know anyone wanting to jump on a team then get them signed up! I'll also put something out there for the managers needed board.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Nov 15, 2023 8:15 AM
• In an effort for transparency- Kieran Raider is the only team that hasn't renewed. He's visited the team over the last week and I've reached out with a message but he has not logged in since Sunday. We'll give him until conclusion of next week's games to get renewed before marking the team abandoned- assuming the system doesn't do it beforehand.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Nov 14, 2023 10:20 AM
• We still have 3 teams not yet renewed- please get squared away asap before Ottoneu drops you.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Nov 8, 2023 3:20 PM
• Renewal deadline was pushed out until next Tues 11/7- we still have half the league needing to renew. If you are unsure how to do so, please message and we'll get you sorted out.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Nov 2, 2023 10:20 AM
• Make sure to get renewals in by tomorrow- on the Ottoneu dashboard to the far right of your team it will say Extend Now. Click that and make sure location services are ON. You'll need to fill out your CC or bank info and agree to some terms to get it complete.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Oct 30, 2023 2:49 PM
• How do we pay our franchise fee to new site Paydala
  Neanderthal at Oct 28, 2023 6:49 PM
• On that note- reminder that 10/31 is the last day to renew/pay for your team. If it's not paid up by 11/1- Ottoneu will auto-drop you as a manager and anyone can claim the team.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Oct 28, 2023 10:53 AM
• JeffGeorge- I don't believe we have the option to pay for another player's team currently. I believe our final decision was to run with an expansion draft for you and Kieran at the end of the season.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Oct 28, 2023 10:52 AM
• Was it ever decided if y’all are covering the league fee for me or no? It’s cool either way, just looking for some clarification.
  SundayInTheParkwithJeffGeorge at Oct 25, 2023 7:39 AM
• Paydala is now up and running- please make sure to get signed up and paid up by 10/31 deadline
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Oct 24, 2023 8:10 AM
• If I lose again this week I’ll probably be looking to make moves. Feel free to start sending offers.
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Oct 8, 2023 3:57 PM
• I’m taking offers on Jonathan Taylor. Open to pretty much any position(s) but certainly won’t be giving him away.
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Oct 3, 2023 12:38 AM
• I’m getting really tired of Ottoneu. I had a claim in on Sheduer Sanders and it didn’t save.
  Sin Fransicko Forty Nightmares at Sep 30, 2023 12:25 AM
• In light of Stoolblasters reasoning I'm going to have to agree that no action should be taken. The sheer amount of points he put up would have beat any team but one, and we'd be taking a waiver wire team win away from someone and then having to do the same to all teams throughout the season to be fair. If he had put up some poor week like sub-80 points, then it'd be a different matter but he theoretically would have beaten any waiver wire team put together from the FA list, and really just about any other team he was against. Unless there's strong majority saying otherwise, I vote to just keep results as is and play the season out.
  
  Concerning the draft imbalance for teams with cap space, I agree as one of the teams that benefited. We'll get into the nitty gritty of an expansion draft closer to the offseason, but generally would look something like:
  -each team protects a certain number of players (I'd say in the 3-5 range)
  -no team can lose more than one player- once picked they're remaining players are all safe
  -waiver wire teams will alternate picks for a set number of rounds- when I've done in past we've gone 3 rounds but negotiable
  -this occurs before arbitration, teams will just manually be moved over to new teams
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Sep 13, 2023 9:06 AM
• Sure if I had a win in my pocket I would take it as well although I have to give credit to SG for a fantastic “draft “and winning his week. I like his honesty and saying he could take it or leave it.
  Neanderthal at Sep 12, 2023 6:57 PM
• I won't even vote on any option brought forward TMNT but tbh if I'm not getting a win when I play a waiver wire team, I don't see why anyone would be able to count any wins against the two waivers teams for the rest of the season. And yes, I scored more points than every team but one this week, but that is "irrelevant" smh... congrats to JeffGeorge on the win but I think the odds would have been extremely slim that a team filled with waivers would have beat me.
  Now, the team that scored 45 pts on the first week is going to threaten to leave the league over this, sure ok... Sounds salty, or maybe it's over the fact that since I joined the league, I won the past 2 years. Who knows?
  On another note, since I'm here, teams that had a lot of draft capital on draft day made out like bandits. I think it skews the entire league and it should def be taken in consideration for the expansion draft. Of course, the only blame is on the team that quit 5 days before the draft and the other that just abandoned their team without even taking the time to announce that they would not be there next season. Shame on both.
  I love the Ottoneu format and hope that this league as well as others will live on. But this is a challenging time for Ottoneu.
  
  Cheers
  Stoolblasters at Sep 12, 2023 5:27 PM
• I go with option 1 . I would give win to SG because if they lost they would have been saddled with the loss. They were playing to win or lose. But my bottom line is no team deserves a win when they play a team with zero players . The fact that they scored 150 points is not relevant. Since they were playing no one they could play the riskiest players and maybe they all came thru . Who knows?
  Neanderthal at Sep 12, 2023 4:59 PM
• Since I’m not expecting to actually compete by the end of the season, I’m cool with what the consensus is.
  SundayInTheParkwithJeffGeorge at Sep 12, 2023 4:26 PM
• I don't think Option 1 is reasonable, IMO. To me the only options are leaving things alone as they happened Week 1, or your Option 2
  Columbus Panhandles at Sep 12, 2023 4:07 PM
• I'm fine with whatever solution the group wants, just didn't think it was fair to say that Stoolblasters was given a win
  Columbus Panhandles at Sep 12, 2023 4:06 PM
• Basically what we need to figure out-
  
  Option 1- JG gets the win, Stoolblasters does not
  Option 2- No one gets a win from those two games, those games only are not calculated into the playoffs
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Sep 12, 2023 4:05 PM
• This bears further discussion because the original intent was thought two teams not being filled and being counted as BYE weeks not applicable to the playoff standings. I agreewith Neanderthal that a team shouldn't get a win over a team that had no players at the time of the game to fill, but feel a little sleazy taking a win from a team that filled a roster and won- in this case Jeff George. IMO, I would say that both of these games count as a BYE for all four teams involved, and the results be omitted from the playoff standings at EOS which will be assigned via win%. We are still able to manually adjust playoff order and standings at end of season, so I'm open to discussion on this from everyone; preferably quickly so we're all on same page for the season.
  Teenage Mutant Njigba Turtles at Sep 12, 2023 4:03 PM
• I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the team that scored the 2nd most points this week does in fact deserve a win...
  Columbus Panhandles at Sep 12, 2023 3:50 PM