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.
I am not sure why you keep denying there is an advantage to adding players with no competition.
I’m saying in the very specific exampe of one manager left with $1 per spot it’s only a disadvantage to that manager to wait and go last.
Once one of rosters is filled, the other benefits from having freedom to select from everyone left.
In this scenario you’re literally getting all the players that every other manager passed over.
That is exactly right! And so the best thing I can do is not nominate in the hopes that other teams run out of money or space and then I can nominate him with no (or less) competition. but if I HAVE to nominate someone, then I have to decide - do I nominate that guy and hope no one else values him or has the cash or do I nominate someone I am less worried about losing, knowing that if I win him, I have one less spot to fill? Both are risky, and eventually I lose that option - I have one spot left and I have to nominate that guy and risk losing him.
2 Likes
Other managers will run out of their money when they spend it all. If you’re not bidding or nominating then it’s totally in their control how and at what time they spend their money.
If you’re getting down to the last spots available they should also be picking the players they value the most. If a 5 dollar player is left over at the end it means they valued a player higher than that and went ahead and took that player. If you’re not nominating and can’t bid higher than a dollar then there is nothing stopping them from taking any player of their choice. That is to their advantage not to the final managers.
The point is to let the market decide, waiting until you are the market is antithetical to ottoneu.
3 Likes
To add to all this I would add a few caveats.
If if was a slow draft I wouldn’t allow it since the long time frame means they would have more information than everyone else. That said I think you should try to move even slow drafts along as quickly as possible.
I also think it’s just more fun if all managers all present and participating. Even if I felt like it would personally give me an advantage I would be against a manager sitting out in principle (assuming it wasn’t due to an unforseen emergency).
If you are the last manager standing (with 1$ per spot) the market has already been decided by the previous players.
If you are the last manager standing (with 1$ per spot) the market has already been decided by the previous players.
This is not true. The market for a player does not exist until they are bid on by someone.
The absence of a bid does not mean all other owners value the player at $0 or $1.
3 Likes
I’m going to lock this thread since this can just go back and forth forever. Everyone’s made their points and anyone who wants to refer to this in the future for reference is more than free to.
I should add - I appreciate everyone remaining civil during this back and forth.
Thanks!
2 Likes