I disagree with rules for tanking. That is that owners choice. Last year I drafted second overall (first year of the keeper) and I'm a huge Crosby fan so I had to take him. Unfortunately I then suffered injuries to Hall, RNH, and some off years from a lot of guys I had (made lots of trades since then, so it's hard to tell from my current roster). The last straw for me came at the midway point of the season (Weekly H2H points league) where I out scored the entire league by 70 points, except the guy I was facing who beat me by 1. Already out of the playoffs (at the midway point) I sold out vets for young guys, picked up Huberdeau, Granlund, and Kuznetsov (even though the weren't even in the NHL), and sat out the rest of the season. Point is, sometimes tanking is the best and fastest way to rebuild for an owner. If they feel that is the best option for their team, I don't think there should be any rules against it. My team will be top 3-4 because of it for a long time now.

__________________
12 Team Keeper, Keep 17, Keepers
Roster: 4C, 3RW, 3LW, 5D, 2U, 3B, 3IR, 4G (Start 2)
Stats: G(3), A(2), +/-, PIM(0.5), PPP(2), SHP(3), GWG(2), HITS(0.1), BLKS(0.2), W(3), L(-1), OTL (1), GA(-1), SV(0.2), SO(3)

C: Crosby, Tavares, Nugent-Hopkins, Johansson
LW: Hall, Parise, Silfverberg, Skinner, Conacher, Jokinen
RW: Seguin, Hossa, Wheeler, Burns, Pavelski, Yakupov
D: Doughty, Fowler, J. Johnson
G: Schneider, Hiller, Fasth, Nabokov

@Rattaylor you really keep 17 guys year-year? That's crazy! I would tend to agree with you there in regards to tanking. If you choose to do so, that's your perogative.

Are you guys doing separate drafts for prospects and NHL'ers? Someone mentioned about the rookie draft. How is it possible doing a September Yahoo draft to select someone like say a Drouin or a MacKinnon?? Won't they not even show up in the Yahoo system yet?

In regards to the competetiveness of our league, I feel there will be myself and 3-4 of the ~12 total managers who will be accessing resources such as Dobber's and really being strong managers. I'm feeling like, with the wrong (right for me...) settings, the 4-5 of us would dominate the pool for half a decade easy. I do not necesarily want this, as most of us are friends and it could sour some otherwise good relationships.

__________________
1 Year - 16 Team Yahoo - Yahoo Pts Only
G-5 A-3 +/-1 HIT-.2 SOG-.2 PIM-.25 W-5 L-3 GA-.5 SV-.25 SO-5

C: Roy, Benn(lw), McDonald (lw), Backstrom
LW: Hartnell, JVR, Pacioretty, Whitney
RW: Kane (C), Neal (lw), Bennett
D: Vishy, Shattenkirk, Goligoski, Whitney
G: Bernier, Emery
IR: Hornqvist

given what you are saying in your last paragraph you dont want to have a league with a minor league or prospect component you just want to have a single draft

in my family league we have a single draft and we do it offline so as long as a player is drafted into the nhl or have played in the nhl they are eligible to be drafted

i work out down the line the issue of the player not being in Yahoo out of the gate

also if you want to not alienate those other managers either a single keeper from year to year or 1F 1D and 1G is probably the way to go

as those other managers begin to become more proficient they might even be the ones to suggest increasing the keepers in the future

obviously an increase in keepers should be decided upon well in advance of a draft so managers are prepared to draft appropriately however a decision to increase keepers should never be made prior to keeper announcements being made as managers are making their decisions throughout the season based on the current keeper model changing that is unfair as they might have made a move or two differently as a result

Sound advice. Exactly what I did in my league (sig below). I realized I wanted to strike good balance between fun & competitiveness, given the varied hockey acumen of my GMs. A one-year points only league would have bored me to tears, and a deep dynasty w/farm w/multi-cats would have lost some of the GMs. Especially being a money league.

So I think a prospective commissioner needs to first decide which is most important - finding GMs to match a particular league set-up and compete level, or tailor the league to fit the GM/friends you want to b.s. with.

__________________

Four out of three people have difficulty with fractions

Commish - Twisted Wrister Fantasy Hockey League

12 team, $$$, 24 players, Weekly, H2H, limited keeper (8), multi-cat (G, A, PIMs, Hits, SOG, HT/ W, GA, SV%, SO)

Start: 2C, 2RW, 2LW, 4D, 2G

I'm in 3 keeper leagues all different settings so here's my experience.

Limited Keeper
- One league is a limited keep 5 (converted last year from a 1 yr H2H) where i'm defending champion. However, I didn't necessarily have the best team of 5 keepers (probably had the best team if 10 keepers) so this year I'm middle of the pack. But this does allows some more parity year to year for everyone to compete.

Large Keeper/Large Farm
- A keep 17 pros + 6 prospects where I took over the last place team in the offseason. Because there are so many keepers, there are a few teams that completely dominate (eg. having Crosby/Malkin/Rinne/Rask/Backes/Hartnell/Landeskog/Callahan/Chara/Phaneuf in a multi-cat league). To rebuild you do need a larger farm team for prospects, but it will be slow to compete against established teams.

Medium Keeper/Medium Farm
- a keep 12 + 3 prospects. This is a new league that drafted. It's a balance in that you have to target which potential keepers to upgrade (e.g. via trade), and whether to keep more younger developing players over older established/declining ones. Maybe the best balance in that you don't demolish a team that you've built up into a winner, but still chance for lesser teams to rebuild and be competitive next season.

For the large keeper, the nonplayoff teams just draft by order of finish. So there potentially could be tanking, but I really think the weak teams are usually truly that, and only way to develop is drafting top prospects..

For the medium keeper, the nonplayoff teams (4) have a consolation playoff to determine their draft order (winner gets 1st overall). First season for the league, so I can see how it encourages teams to still be competitive until the end of the season, and a reason not to completely sell off your team.

As far as vetoing, hopefully GMs have integrity not to collude. I tend to make a lot of trades (have done 7 trades out of the league's 14) and if ppl vetoed them down, i'd be pissed. Often's it's just rivals not wanting your team to improve. you have to just try to make fair trades so other gm's (a) won't complain and (b) continue to make trades with you.

Another thing is how you track win-loss records. I'm used to the yahoo way of tracking wins in each stat category (150-80-20) but one league is set up as just weekly matchup record (7-2-1). The latter way does make the the standings closer, while the former may truly reflect on a teams total performance.

__________________
Current: 3 NHL, 1 NBA
NHL winner '05,'07,'09,'11 (4/7)
NFL winner '10, '12 (2/3)

it depends on how you define tanking imo with regards to those commenting on it

teams should be penalized if they dont set their rosters in an attempt to lose

however teams making legitimate trades to improve their team for the future by selling off their best older players shouldnt be viewed as tanking

dropping your top players and filling your roster with non producing ones that you cannot possibly keep even if they were to get hot also is tanking

however grabbing a non producing rnh that someone else might have soured on thinking that if he gets hot he might make your keepers is not tanking

people have to realize that non playoff teams continuing to lose does not mean they are tanking

Yea, we keep most of our roster which I like. It's frustrating and good at the same time. I mean RNH is undroppable because he is too much of a stud, and if I decide I can't afford his off year someone else certainly will, so in that case it is annoying, but it really makes your drafting and knowledge of hockey important. We do a single draft that includes both rookies and waiver players. Last year from the draft I got Yakupov, Wheeler, Clowe, and Fowler, so being able to see past the "sexy" names is really important.

__________________
12 Team Keeper, Keep 17, Keepers
Roster: 4C, 3RW, 3LW, 5D, 2U, 3B, 3IR, 4G (Start 2)
Stats: G(3), A(2), +/-, PIM(0.5), PPP(2), SHP(3), GWG(2), HITS(0.1), BLKS(0.2), W(3), L(-1), OTL (1), GA(-1), SV(0.2), SO(3)

C: Crosby, Tavares, Nugent-Hopkins, Johansson
LW: Hall, Parise, Silfverberg, Skinner, Conacher, Jokinen
RW: Seguin, Hossa, Wheeler, Burns, Pavelski, Yakupov
D: Doughty, Fowler, J. Johnson
G: Schneider, Hiller, Fasth, Nabokov

1. Keeper numbers should be set at HALF of full roster minimum.
If you only keep, say, 5/23, you'll see very lopsided trades where a team that is out of it (last place team) trades their 5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th best players to a contending team for that teams' 4th best player. Now the contending team is ridiculously strong for the remainder of the season and only had to part with their 4th best player to receive 6 good ones (albeit non-keepers). Then the whole league will scream "VETO - UNFAIR"... and it's because your keeper number is too low. HALF. MINIMUM.

2. re: VETO. This is the most important part of setting up a league, IMO. Bad trades can create an unbalance in the league. You can have a few managers stop caring and trade away all their players to a buddy they like. Collusion... no. Stupid... yes. Then the one manager leaves and the staying manager's team is very strong. Trade regulations are important and should not be restricted to only "collusion". People say that trades should be allowed as long as there is not collusion - but this is a very flawed stance, IMO - because to make that statement you still have to deal with analyzing if there WAS collusion. Nip it in the bud. As you say, give everybody in the league a vote. 75% VETO or more and a trade gets overturned. All voting must be public so that each team knows who is issuing a VETO vote. (No quiet VETO. If you are going to VETO a deal, a person must stand up and say it). You will have bottom-feeders and good-teams so there will be balance to seeing all sides of a trade. If the trade doesn't create extreme imbalance to the league - it will pass.

The worst leagues I'm part in are the way they are because of unbalance in the league.
*This is the most important part of a good league, IMO. Keeping balance/competition.

3. Do not restrict keepers to positions. Allow a keep 12 (say) and don't force positions. Somebody may have had both goalies depart for Russia or go down with career-ending injuries... and you shouldn't force them to overpay just so they have the correct number of goalies.

4. Rule changes. Create a rule that says this "Voting on any rule changes shall be done prior to March 1st of every season. The rules in place on March 1st shall apply for the full upcoming season." Most leagues have a trade deadline that correspond to the NHL trade deadline. (early March?) You have to allow teams to make trades knowing the rules for the future season.

I've been in pools before where the league decides to change categories and include HITS, say, for the coming season. The league votes on it in the off-season and passes 7-5. Well, it's not necessarily FAIR to the 5 teams that don't have any HITS keepers on their team.

Majority vote isn't always fair.
A rule change should be tabled, voted on, with a time allowance for teams to adjust.


Those are my best pieces of advice for starting a new keeper league.

Excellent points being made here by all. Really appreciate the advice from everyone, and interesting to see the different situations and conflicts that arise. I'm in the preliminary stages of drafting up a 'Constitution' of sorts to outline all rules. Great points Pengwin in regards to both the vetoes and the changing of rules for any given season. I like the 75% rule and will likely impliment it for all aspects of the league (veto trades, new rule changes etc. etc.)

I feel for simplicities sake we will forego the rookie/prospect draft aspect of it and just roll with Yahoo. We're discussing getting all managers together for a real-life draft but this may prove unrealistical as the managers span thousands of kilometers.

I'm already in one-years with every one of the managers, so they aren't complete noobs. Pengwin again I agree that having limited keepers would lead to ridiculous trades as mentioned. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on including draft picks as trade bait or not? Would this lead to even more 'tanking' or is it a legitimate incentive for a floundering manager to plan for next year?

@cdubb we will be going fantasy-points-only with no playoffs. None of us have done Roto or H2H. We all prefer dailies, as far as I know. I do like having some sort of consolation prize whereby a manager consigned to losing would have some incentive to be 5th overall instead of tank it to 12th overall. But then again if a manager's team is legitimately awful they need to get some bonus for next season. It would just suck to try and grind out a fourth place finish (bubble for $$) only to finish just out in fifth, and get a shitty draft position for next season and nothing for your hard work that season.

@lucifer As I will be the new commish, I suppose all the decisions regarding tanking/not tanking will somewhat be up to me. Gonna be real hard to decipher some of the moves managers are making, while remaining impartial towards my own personal interest. I suppose by putting all trades up publically with a long review period and public vetoes I can move the responsibility to the group as a whole.

__________________
1 Year - 16 Team Yahoo - Yahoo Pts Only
G-5 A-3 +/-1 HIT-.2 SOG-.2 PIM-.25 W-5 L-3 GA-.5 SV-.25 SO-5

C: Roy, Benn(lw), McDonald (lw), Backstrom
LW: Hartnell, JVR, Pacioretty, Whitney
RW: Kane (C), Neal (lw), Bennett
D: Vishy, Shattenkirk, Goligoski, Whitney
G: Bernier, Emery
IR: Hornqvist