I think there is one situation where it doesn’t matter. If the manager in question only has $1 per open spot then it doesn’t matter too much (except to them) if they come in at the end or not. They will automatically have to take what whatever is left over by other players. It really only hurts them since they couldn’t try to be the first bidder on their preferred $1 players.
Not necessarily, they still don’t have to nominate any players and risk 1.using a roster spot on someone they aren’t interested in or 2. Losing a player they are interested in to a team who can bid $2. Teams should not be allowed to skip nominations no matter the situation. That’s how I manage the drafts I commission for.
1 Like
Yeah I agree that it’s still an advantage. And it also wastes other people’s time. If you want to fill your roster with $1 players, then log out of the draft and choose from who is left via 48 hr auctions. But sticking around and intentionally missing nominations is just rude.
I really like the concept of a bot bid to keep people honest and on task.
1 Like
1- hit pause at a couple seconds left on the nomination clock. 75% of the time they are working on getting the nomination in with the clock ticking down. 25% of the time they just lost track of the order and are ready as soon as they see the pause.
2- if a manager is popping in and out, quickly turn of their draft, if they log in and explain the connectivity issues, turn them back on. They can’t bid so that takes away part of the strategy to miss nominations.
A nomination bot would kill the random nature of Ottoneu. At the end of the draft basically the same player pool would be owned everywhere. It would be like ESPN, everything the same everywhere, yuck.
This thread is about how managers gain an advantage by skipping parts of the draft and joining later or skipping nominations. If you want to talk about the draft bots, you can leave your thoughts on the relevant thread:
3 Likes
Ok. Really more of a related thought than any sort of a thesis.
1 Like
Just trying to respect what @legendaryan wanted, which is some general consensus that they can point to next time someone in their league tries to claim its ok to just nominate some guys in a draft after everyone else is gone. Think we’ve met that criteria!
1 Like
If the manager in question only has $1 per open spot then it doesn’t matter too much (except to them) if they come in at the end or not.
This is the concept I want to push back on with this thread.
As Niv said earlier:
Joining late is a little different, of course, because that manager didn’t get to bid on other players so they have lost the advantage of bidding on other players, but it doesn’t mean they still do not gain an advantage by trying to add players without any competition.
The point many seem to miss is that most owners are (and should be) operating under the assumption that owners cannot show up late (or skip nominations) and draft.
Just because a player is not nominated earlier does not necessarily mean the other owners value them at $1 or less. Strategies are many but just one might include leaving open spots and money on your roster despite there being players you deem ‘valuable’ still in the FA pool. Open spots give flexibility and the chance to learn more information before committing money or spots.
Many have already realized the benefit of being the last one standing in their draft if there were players remaining they wanted. This is a viable strategy but the cost of being able to implement this strategy is to attend and nominate at each turn.
@chy924 summed this ‘cost’ up well:
When you nominate you have to determine if you’re putting up a player you like and risking getting outbid or if you’re putting up a player you DON’T want and risking getting stuck with that player.
2 Likes
This is the ultimate thing - if they have preferred players and just don’t want to show that information while other teams with money are out there, they are attempting to manipulate the market, and they should be stopped from succeeding by being marked as done with the draft.
1 Like
But if they’re down to one dollar per open spot then they’ve already shown that informtion. They’ve already shown all the other players how much they’re willing to overbid or underbid on players, because they’ve already done that with players they’ve spent more than a dollar on.
And the players know how much they value the rest of the players, because by getting down to one dollar per player they’ve shown they value all the remaining players they would take at one dollar.
The probably prefer some $1 players over others, but unless they have insider information that shouldn’t affect how much the other managers indpendently value the remaining players.
If anything going last with $1 per spot helps the other players as they have less competition for the $1 dollar players.
It also prevents the last player from being able to nominate $1 players and having them go for above value which would be want I would want to do in this situation if I had only $1 spots left.
In my opinion going last hurts any player with only $1 spots.
I don’t think that’s true. Let’s say I have 5 spots and $5 left and other people have cash. If I nominate someone I want, someone else might bid $2 and I lose the player. If I nominate someone I don’t want, I might get stuck with them. So I’m forced to make a decision and take a risk one way or the other.
If I wait, someone on my target list might get nominated but more than likely that’s not going to hurt me - that player might have been nominated anyway and they likely would have been bid to $2 if I nominated them. Then, when I do nominate again, there are fewer (or no) teams with cash and/or roster space, and I’m more likely to get the players I still want without someone else bidding.
4 Likes
If you nominate a player that you think is worth a dollar and someone pays $2 for them it means that in your opinion they overpaid for that player which is good for you.
My personal opinion is that nominating a player you don’t want is a bad idea in any circumstance.
I’ll nominate players that I think will go for more than I want to spend, but as long as they’re worth at least one dollar I’ll take any player at the right price point.
If I wait, someone on my target list might get nominated but more than likely that’s not going to hurt me
It hurts you because if you think a player is worth one dollar then only the first player who bids can get it at the price you value that player at. Though I would argue the player who is nominating should be trying to get higher priced players for cheap not bidding on $1 players.
Though who’s worth more than a dollar or not depends on how each manager values players.
If you have only $1 left per position, you can only bid $1 even if you think this player could be worth $2. I do not think it is a fair argument to claim that due to only having $1 per roster spot available, anyone you nominate is only worth $1.
3 Likes
Exactly why each owner should be required to nominate a player the whole draft in order to have the opportunity to bid players remaining uncontested.
If you have to nominate every round, you’re forced to put up a guy you like.
You don’t get to hide your preference until everyone else has left.
3 Likes
I’m not saying you have to bid only on players you think are worth a dollar. I’m responding specifically to chy924’s example
I don’t think that’s true. Let’s say I have 5 spots and $5 left and other people have cash. If I nominate someone I want, someone else might bid $2 and I lose the player. If I nominate someone I don’t want, I might get stuck with them. So I’m forced to make a decision and take a risk one way or the other.
If you think $2 is too much then the person who got it in your opinion overspent (or at the exact right price.)
I don’t think $2 is too much. I just can only bid $1. If for some reason Juan Soto came up at that point I could still only bid $1, even if I think he’s worth more (which of course I do). I’m hoping at that point to get a $5 guy for $1. My best path to doing that is hoping other people use up their cash before I nominate him. Skipping my nomination allows me to delay nominating that player.
If you have to nominate every round, you’re forced to put up a guy you like.
With 40 roster spots and 12 teams there should be 480 players that you “like” depending on what price they get to in the auction.
The important thing that changes how much you bid on each player is how much the other managers save or overspend on their teams. Which isn’t relevant if they only have $1 per player since you know exactly how much they have to spend.
I am not sure why you keep denying there is an advantage to adding players with no competition.
Even if you and 1 other owner both only had $1 per spot and alternated bidding, you both loose who ever the other nominates.
Once one of rosters is filled, the other benefits from having freedom to select from everyone left.
Permitting waiting out other owners would lead to stalemate.
1 Like
I’m hoping at that point to get a $5 guy for $1. My best path to doing that is hoping other people use up their cash before I nominate him.
The only possible path to getting that $5 player is for no one else to value that player the same amount you do. There’s very little way for you to prevent another team from that taking that player if they have the money to outbid you.