Old School Rotisserie Rule Question

[Daver]

Ok, so I have been co-commissioner of our 12 team NL only 4x4 keeper league since we started 32 years ago. We formed our rule set pretty much straight out of the Waggoner/Okrent book and We’ve had a very stable league constitution but of course have added (and deleted) some rules along the way.

One of the rules we added well over 20 years ago when we instituted FAAB ($100 budget) for the first time was that if you bid $25 or more on a free agent and you win the bid, you are obliged to keep that player the following season (as long as that player still had NL affiliation).

One of the newer teams (to both our league and the game in general) asked me what this rule is trying to accomplish and for the life of me I really couldn’t come up with a good answer. He thought that a league with a salary cap and a finite FAAB budget, this rule seemed completely unnecessary and overly punitive......and at that moment, I couldn’t really argue.

So, if anyone else uses this rule I’d be interested to hear what you would consider its purpose and also whether or not you think it is kind of redundant given the existence of a cap and a finite FAAB budget.

Thanks for reading

Daver

[Judge Jude]

We play by the original 1984 book, so we don't have such a sacrilege!



until you get a better answer, I thought this might have something to do with making trades and it being somewhat of a poison pill.

[virgonomic]

It is redundant and my classic AL league got rid of it several years ago. If you are willing to blow your load on THAT FA, or on a player coming over from the NL, the more power to you.

[Ken]

I’ve been in a league where it prevented dumping a particular position at auction. One strategy was to buy no closers and just get them in faab with big bids and this stopped it. That said I don’t see any reason to keep it unless someone likes it

[TranaGreg]

it's a bit of a reach but the only scenario I can think of is where one team blows it's FAAB budget towards the deadline just to keep other teams from getting key free agents

[Daver]

!
F


until you get a better answer, I thought this might have something to do with making trades and it being somewhat of a poison pill.

Yes, after research this weekend, this rule, plus a few others, predated our introduction of salary cap and they collectively served to manage dumping travails. So “poison pill” was exactly the intention. There were always bids for the big guys well into the $40’s, but to my recollection, they were never traded to contenders in season, most likely due to the next year requirement. Now, like many other rules, it is surplus to requirements.

Thanks to all who took the trouble to reply
Daver