Money League

[Nos - Sharks]

With the new season looming and our new site being built our league is turning into a respectable fantasy hockey entity with a real future. There's been some buzz about possibly entertaining the idea of turning this league into a money league if the consensus for it is high. This thread is to explain what is being thought about and to see what the rest of the league thinks about it.

For starters, since we didn't start the league off with the money idea in place some managers might feel as though they weren't prepared for it, and drafted differently to how they might have had the idea been in the forefront. To this we've discussed an "eased" money system where the top teams of the previous year would pay out more than the bottom teams. For instance:

(rough estimate, totals are not final)

1st: $20
2nd: $18
3rd: $16
4th: $14
5th: $12
6th: $10
7th: $10
8th: $10
9th: $10
10th: $10
11th: $10
12th: $10

This would go on for a couple seasons (2-3 seasons) until it's deemed fair by the league to continue with the same buy-in for everybody. For teams worried about being in the basement, don't be, I don't see any team here that couldn't compete in a couple years if managed properly, so draft wisely, make trades, use your hockey knowledge to make your club better. After all, isn't that what it's all about?

Initially there are to be four payouts after the playoffs are finished. As follows:

(rough estimate, totals are not final)

1st: $80
2nd: $40
3rd: $20
4th: $10

Another idea to add on to the initial payouts would be for our league to payout a percentage of the pool to teams with players who have won NHL trophies for that season such as the Art Ross, Vezina, and Rocket Richard trophies as an example. We'd create a banking system where you could cash out if you wanted or if it was too small to bother you could keep your account funded and use the funds for next year's buy-in.

Further ideas had teams able to sell their franchise off to the highest bidder. We'd gather managers who wanted to take part in the league and have them bid for the team being sold. A percentage would go to the manager selling his team and a smaller percentage would go to the league's pool for the next season of action. Percentages would be (estimated) 70% to the manager selling the club and 30% to the league. This would be a win-win situation where the manager who felt his team wasn't up to standard could recoup some losses, the entire league benefits by the cash pool getting larger, and we know the manager bidding for the team is serious about competing in our league.

Having said all that, nothing is on the horizon, if the interest isn't high we'll have no choice but to abandon the money idea but I think we'd be adding an extra dimension to our league that would be fun and exciting for all involved. For those concerned, think about it, it's ten bucks for a whole year, I find more than that in my couch cushions during the year. Let us know your concerns or questions, what you like or don't like, or add something that hasn't been talked about. Open discussion begins...

[Andrew]

Were you planning on putting this into practice immediately? Or 2008-09? I'm up for it, just need to get a credit card and PayPal account.

That seems like a pretty good system (don't know if we need to reward trophy winners though). I think we can charge the top couple teams a bit more and use the same payouts and have the money go to "the league". The site will have an operating cost, no idea how much, and we might as well have that paid for by all of us instead of forcing it on Derrick. Also seems like the 3rd place team is getting screwed a bit here, making 4 bucks profit on the year... weak.

For a $10 buy-in you can't go wrong. Even if you expect your team to be in the basement, about the same price as a movie and more entertaining.

[Nos - Sharks]

We haven't decided anything as of right now, that's what this thread is for, to see if the interest is high. When I say "we" I just mean Derrick and I, we want the rest of the league to be in agreement. If we can get it going before the upcoming season starts, great, it would be preferred but I'm not counting on that as a lot has to be done. As you mentioned, people would have to get PayPal accounts and such if you don't already have one.

As for the trophy winners, it's up for discussion. The idea was that even teams in the basement would have a chance at some cash if trophies were implemented in the payout system.

andrew1125 said:

I think we can charge the top couple teams a bit more and use the same payouts and have the money go to "the league".

I'm not sure what you mean by this, could you explain a bit further? As for the site operating cost, I'm not sure if this will be an issue right away.

As for third place, yeah maybe, the totals aren't final just an estimate, but who's to say the 12th place team wouldn't be 3rd the following year? It's sort of weighted by the minimum $10 buy-in for 4th, and then it's doubled for 3rd. Again, final totals can be worked out.

I'm glad you have such a positive outlook on the idea. 9 more to go!

[Chris - Capitals]

i dont mind the idea at all....just dont think it should be implimented untill next year leaving us a full season to nail down all the details

[patriot0103]

I don't really mind, but I'd bet my life there is no way everyone will agree. What are you gonna do, just kick out teams that don't agree despite the fact they signed up expecting a free league?

I don't know, perhaps if this doesn't work we could just get everyone that wants in to do a separate money league on the side with outside GMs replacing those don't want in...not as cool as a keeper money league, but at least we'll have something that way. I don't know.

[Mark - Bruins]

nossharks said:

Another idea to add on to the initial payouts would be for our league to payout a percentage of the pool to teams with players who have won NHL trophies for that season such as the Art Ross, Vezina, and Rocket Richard trophies as an example.

Says the guy with Crosby (last year's Art Ross winner), Lecavalier (last year's Richard winner), and Luongo (last year's Vezina runner-up)

1) I think the above suggestion isn't too helpful. You mention the reason for this payout would be that even bad teams have a chance at winning money. However, the reason good teams are good and bad teams are bad is because the most likely scenario is that all the top teams will have the trophy winning players while the bad teams will probably just have good prospects or decent veterans. Good idea, but the execution won't work since the top teams will just earn more money.

2) I don't think everyone will agree to a money league since the league started out as free. As Jesse said, its probably best to start a side league from scratch. That way, everyone has an equal start and you only get managers who want to be in a money league.

::EDIT::
Its a cool idea, I just think it has to be started the right way. The money scheme does make it a little more friendly for "basement" teams to join, but top teams might still be more willing to do current teams than the bottom teams.

[Hawks]

I'm all for switching it to a money league...It's not much, and though I do agree that maybe the teams that are "in the basement" may start with a lower buy in... $10 may be a little low, cuz those rewards are a little weak. But like I said, if we can get enough interest, I think that's a good idea. And the rewards for trophy winners is not such a good idea in my opinion, all it's gonna do is run up the cost of players who have a chance, and everyone knows who those players are, it's not like its a big suprise at the end of the season. And as for buying and selling/auctioning franchises....Great idea, however the league will have to be well organized and official in order for people coming in to feel it to be a good investment.

[Phil - Blue Jackets]

cronox said:

2) I don't think everyone will agree to a money league since the league started out as free. As Jesse said, its probably best to start a side league from scratch. That way, everyone has an equal start and you only get managers who want to be in a money league.

::EDIT::
Its a cool idea, I just think it has to be started the right way. The money scheme does make it a little more friendly for "basement" teams to join, but top teams might still be more willing to do current teams than the bottom teams.

There are only five teams that didn't get a fair start the first time around, those being myself, Nos, Dalton, Brad, and Chris. None of these teams are really "in the bottom" and four, now including myself, are all about a money league. To hell with starting another league. I find it hard to believe if the managers in this league really give a shit they can't come up with 20 bucks a head at least.

20 bucks a head paying 40, 30, 20, and 10 percentage wise for the top four finishers sounds good to start out with. I've said many times in IMs that I'd like a $100 dollar league, but i think 50 a head would ultimately be respectable.

At 20 bucks a head it would pay out 96 to first place and 24 to fourth. 50 bucks a head would pay out 240 to first and 60 to fourth.

I think its a great change. Maybe it will make people a little less homerish and a little more likely to listen to good deals for what may be some of their favorite players to have a shot at winnin some dough.

[dalton]

I don't have a credit card or Paypal so i wouldn't be able to do it.

[Andrew]

50 or 100 a head? I'd actually be for that, but if it were that pricy, we'd need to redraft to let people reconsider their strategy. Ten bucks is nothing, I wipe my ass with ten dollar bills, but if you wanted it to be about real money, we'd have to start fresh.

[Hawks]

I agree with Phil, but for starters I think $20 all the way around would be a fair start. I don't want to go through and start fresh, I'm happy with the way I've run my team since I got it and I don't reallly feel like starting fresh. And I find it hard to believe that there is anyone that doesnt have a credit card or doesnt know anyone that has one that they could throw a 20 dollar bill at and use their card.

[Nos - Sharks]

patriot0103 said:

I don't really mind, but I'd bet my life there is no way everyone will agree. What are you gonna do, just kick out teams that don't agree despite the fact they signed up expecting a free league?

No, it would have to be a unanimous decision by the league.

cronox said:

Says the guy with Crosby (last year's Art Ross winner), Lecavalier (last year's Richard winner), and Luongo (last year's Vezina runner-up)

Fair enough, I don't personally like the idea too much either, but in theory it was a way for teams in the basement to get a shot at some of the payout. Again, these are just ideas, you might like some and you might dislike others, that's what the thread is for...to come to a league decision.

cronox said:

2) I don't think everyone will agree to a money league since the league started out as free. As Jesse said, its probably best to start a side league from scratch. That way, everyone has an equal start and you only get managers who want to be in a money league.

What's being discussed is this league being changed into a money league, not whether or not we should start a new league. If the decision isn't unanimous then we'll have no choice but to abandon the idea. To be fair, everybody who drafted their team had a fair chance to compete. If you drafted according to age, your team should be able to compete in a couple years. Seeing as how the initial buy-in is so low I don't see why this would be a concern for anyone that drafted a team. Did you purposely draft a loser? Of course not.

hockeystar3712 said:

And as for buying and selling/auctioning franchises....Great idea, however the league will have to be well organized and official in order for people coming in to feel it to be a good investment.

Thanks, and I'm glad you're on board.

turcopolis said:

There are only five teams that didn't get a fair start the first time around, those being myself, Nos, Dalton, Brad, and Chris. None of these teams are really "in the bottom" and four, now including myself, are all about a money league. To hell with starting another league. I find it hard to believe if the managers in this league really give a shit they can't come up with 20 bucks a head at least.

20 bucks a head paying 40, 30, 20, and 10 percentage wise for the top four finishers sounds good to start out with. I've said many times in IMs that I'd like a $100 dollar league, but i think 50 a head would ultimately be respectable.

At 20 bucks a head it would pay out 96 to first place and 24 to fourth. 50 bucks a head would pay out 240 to first and 60 to fourth.

I think its a great change. Maybe it will make people a little less homerish and a little more likely to listen to good deals for what may be some of their favorite players to have a shot at winnin some dough.

Solid post, I think starting out with the $20 buy-in would be fair for everybody and easy to come up with, especially if we use the "eased" money system for lower placed teams. Perhaps we could work up to a higher buy-in but we just want to get this started on the right foot and fair for all involved.

andrew1125 said:

50 or 100 a head? I'd actually be for that, but if it were that pricy, we'd need to redraft to let people reconsider their strategy. Ten bucks is nothing, I wipe my ass with ten dollar bills, but if you wanted it to be about real money, we'd have to start fresh.

Again, did you purposely draft a losing team? Nobody should want to redraft their team.

hockeystar3712 said:

And I find it hard to believe that there is anyone that doesnt have a credit card or doesnt know anyone that has one that they could throw a 20 dollar bill at and use their card.

Good point, especially if it's only once a year.

[patriot0103]

nossharks said:

No, it would have to be a unanimous decision by the league.

So if it needs to be unanimous...after Dalton's response...doesn't that make it a no already?

nossharks said:

What's being discussed is this league being changed into a money league, not whether or not we should start a new league. If the decision isn't unanimous then we'll have no choice but to abandon the idea.

Wow. Not very open to other ideas, are we? All I did was suggest that if it's not going to work we could just make a yearly money league on the side. (That doesn't mean throw out this league and make a new one in place of it). How come for you it's money league with these rosters, or no money league at all? Wouldn't happen to be cuz you have Crosby, Lecav, Bergeron, Nash, Iginla, Luongo, Vokoun, would it?

[Nos - Sharks]

I don't believe a legit vote has taken place, has it? If his final decision is to not participate then we won't. Hopefully after everything is discussed, though, we can come to an agreement/solution that's right for everybody.

I'm open to ideas just fine, what we're discussing in this thread however is the idea to change this league into a money league. If this fails we could entertain the idea of a separate league at a later date. I've also worked at my team to get it this good. You had the good fortune to draft your own team, again I ask, did you purposely draft a loser?

Anyway, going on vacation for a week so I won't be around to answer PM's or posts in this thread. Have fun!

[Derrick - Senators]

There wont be any "side leagues" (at least none im organizing or taking part in in any way). Although i do appreciate the critical thinking and any new suggestions. anyway, Im already opposed to GM's in this league being in multiple leagues because it's too time consuming...confusing....and takes away from this league itself. I just dont see it right or fair some managers give 100% and their undivided attention while others give 80 or take the "whatever happens happens attitude" because they are in 3 other leagues (not saying this applies to any manager currently, just hypothetically speaking).

Furthermore, if this "money league" idea creates any sort of ill feelings or chaos it will be thrown away instantly because i/we have worked too hard to keep this league running and at the level that it is today. The idea was proposed just to get a feeler, maybe add an extra dimension or two to what we already have. However, to throw away an otherwise fun, healthy, growing league for a few bucks....im not in to.

[Ryan]

I also do not have a credit card.......tried many time....denied many times

[Chris - Capitals]

You dont always need a credit card you could just use your Bank ATM card and that should work

[Derrick - Senators]

...or just send me your money.

[Chris - Capitals]

yea i could hold on to it for someone too if need be ;D

[patriot0103]

admin said:

There wont be any "side leagues" (at least none im organizing or taking part in in any way). Although i do appreciate the critical thinking and any new suggestions. anyway, Im already opposed to GM's in this league being in multiple leagues because it's too time consuming...confusing....and takes away from this league itself.

I just love how the managers of all winning teams are so opposed to a "side league" (as you call it). It would take minimal organizing. All it'd take is people to send their entry pay in, someone to hold the money and distribute at the end, and the ability to create a league on yahoo and find a draft time everyone could make. I'd even be willing to take that responsibility and set it up.

My bad for the idea. Sorry that it was such an awful one.

I also completely disagree with the multiple leagues thing. If you can manage more than one team, and you enjoy doing so then why the hell not. I guarantee a lot of people in here are in more than 1. I would get bored if I only did one, and need more to get my hockey fix. I'm probably in 4 keeper/dynasty leagues or so and none of them hamper my ability to keep up with my other teams.

In fact, I feel being in more leagues helps me, as I do more research on players/prospects, and can apply what I learn to other leagues as well.