Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 04 Sep 2012, 6:07 am

Issues brought up recently:

1) Extend FA signing period through end of season.

2) Formalize rules on extended FA pick-ups (timing).

3) Provide incentive for owners to win consolation bracket (purpose: prevent player dump).

If you've got any more ideas, please drop 'em in here so we don't forget come amendment time.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2012, 7:54 pm

Pasted from league chat board.

Some ideas on incentives (#3 above)

Consolation bracket winner:

a. Auction dollars (fixed amount)
b. Auction dollars (graduated amounts tied to seeding)
c. Keeper discounts (fixed amounts)
d. FA dollars
e. Free buyout

Should prizes only be awarded to the winner or should there be smaller prizes for 2nd & 3rd?

There are a few owners that support prizes for the playoff bracket as well. I'm not inclined to back that effort without a really good argument.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 07 Sep 2012, 12:42 pm

Hey, there is a prize for the playoff bracket: it's called the Plaque! Your team and name immortalized in brass and wood. That should be enough of a carrot for any of us.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Sep 2012, 7:53 pm

Transcript from ESPN league chat board

Playoff Waivers?

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 1, 8:21 PM

Would it be possible, and if so would it be desirable, to put all the players on waivers starting Monday morning, so that when transactions unlock, there's no advantage to the first mover? It's not provided for in the constitution, but I don't think the constitution really goes into detail on it one way or another, and it's a rule we've only had for a year in any case. There's certainly still an argument that it's not a change we should make until next year (if we make it at all), of course.

Of course, the problem would be eliminated if we just kept acquisitions open straight through to the playoffs, and just locked the non-playoff teams at the end of the regular season. As Barry and George noted, I'm still not entirely sure why we don't do that.

EDIT: From what I can tell, it isn't possible to force all players onto waivers. But I may be missing something.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 1, 10:13 PM

As you point out, we can't put players on waivers.

If you really want someone on Monday, be at a computer at 10 a.m. (EDT).

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 1, 11:43 PM

If you really want someone on Monday, be at a computer at 10 a.m. (EDT).

Would you agree that this is not an ideal setup? No harm in discussing changing it for next year, even if we're not going to do anything about it now.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 2, 10:28 AM

I bet the reason we closed acquisitions for the last week was to stop teams from gaming the first week of the playoffs by loading up on two start pitchers.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 2, 10:36 AM

Would you agree that this is not an ideal setup? No harm in discussing changing it for next year, even if we're not going to do anything about it now.

No argument there - I think it deserves attention for next year.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 2, 1:59 PM

I bet the reason we closed acquisitions for the last week was to stop teams from gaming the first week of the playoffs by loading up on two start pitchers.

That's a good point. And although this year we knew who the participants were, and thus could have started the playoff acquisitions already, most years we could not have done that.

Which is why it's unfortunate that we can't force everyone onto waivers, because that solution would address the first-mover issue without compromising streaming-prevention.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 2, 2:31 PM

Another issue I wanted to address this offseason was dropping of valuable non-keepers leading up to the FA deadline. It didn't happen this year, but with the new playoff pickups rule I could easily see a situation where a top 20 unkeepable player gets dropped at the deadline for a rookie, and then is later grabbed by a playoff team and affects the outcome.

One idea I had, which would mimic the fact that real teams have a financial incentive not to totally tank after they are eliminated from the playoffs, was to have a full 8-team lower bracket playoff with the winner getting $10 in free keeper money for the next auction.

---------------

George Janes
Eastside Bombers
Posted: Sep 2, 7:50 PM

Oh, I like the idea of prizes, but not only for a lower bracket but for the upper bracket as well. Keeper money is a pretty good prize on top of the glory and the plaque.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 2, 7:57 PM

It might raise the threshold on buyer trades as well. If a team has a choice of keeping a top 20 player and shooting for the lower bracket prize vs. giving him away for the right to pay a borderline keeper $6, they might be more likely to hold and see what happens. This could raise the return for sellers. Right now I think it's really skewed towards the buyers, because sellers have no leverage, and I think we saw that this season.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 2, 7:58 PM

Also, I've always been against any type of real-life monetary prize in our league, but I would be ok with a keeper bonus for the champion as well as the lower bracket winner.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 2, 9:43 PM

Just so I don't forget tomorrow morning, I'm unlocking acquisitions tonight.

10 a.m. gentlemen, 10 a.m. If I see a transaction post @ 9:59, it's coming back!!

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 2, 10:00 PM

Regarding dropping valuable players- why not just say something like, you can't drop any player that costs $10+ (and isn't DL'd) once we get within waiver distance of the deadline? If they're cheap and worth picking up, they won't be dropped anyway.

I don't like the idea of any prizes for the actual league winners, because that could snowball. The team that wins the title doesn't need the help.

An award for the loser's bracket, on the other hand, is interesting. In addition to the points Matt makes, it would also help teams that are playoff long shots from having to choose to sell, since the two potential goals (win the loser's bracket, make the playoffs) have convergent strategies.

---------------

Nick Schuller
Apple Sauce
Posted: Sep 2, 11:46 PM

I like Matt's idea as well, especially because we start the playoffs early. It's fine with me to dump all of my non-keepers in favor of guys who at least have potential keeper value, but by doing that I'm resigning myself to spending a good chunk of the season not trying to field a team that can win games and not caring about the outcome of my matchups. It would be more interesting to have a reason to care about the outcome of matchups for the last couple of months even after your team has been eliminated from the main playoff draw.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 4, 9:10 AM

I've started an off-season discussion thread at Redscape for rules changes.

I'm not sold on auction dollar rewards since there are situations where that would not be possible as currently set-up (individualized budgets not an option). While I could add dollars via keeper subtraction, that assumes everyone has keepers.

Would additional FA dollars be an adequate incentive?

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 4, 11:01 AM

Would additional FA dollars be an adequate incentive?

Almost certainly not.
I've started an off-season discussion thread at Redscape for rules changes.

It seems like Redscape is pretty dead, honestly. I think we get as good or better participation here as we would there. Granted the format is better there, at least in terms of returning to old discussions, but we might want to rethink the Redscape policy, at least.

Oh, and about being able to add auction dollars- you could do it on the fly by subtracting from the first purchase, if a team had no keepers.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 4, 11:10 AM

In that case, maybe I could get on board with auction dollars...

I still prefer Redscape for permanancy. These discussion boards are deleted when ESPN turns the league over to next year. I trust in Neal & Brad to keep Redscape going even if it never returns to its vibrancy of several years ago. As for financially supporting Redscape, that will continue as long as it exists (about $20 annum from this league).

Speaking of which... Brad, did you ever approach Chad about the old discussion board files? I know he always said they were corrupted & beyond repair but even when they could only be viewed, they had value to many of us. Just curious.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 4, 11:25 AM

Perhaps ESPN will allow for budget modifications prior to the auction (Yahoo currently allows this). This will also alleviate the issue surrounding buy-out adjustments.

We can only hope...

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 4, 12:36 PM

Problem with FA dollar prizes is that they will tend to perpetuate cellar-dwelling. Hard enough to dig out of a hole as it is.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 4, 12:44 PM

Problem with FA dollar prizes is that they will tend to perpetuate cellar-dwelling.

Relative to auction dollar rewards, yes, but relative to the status quo? Could you explain?

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 4, 7:40 PM

I originally floated a similar idea with auction dollars a couple of years ago and agreed with Mike at the time that it wasn't practical.

I think the alternative of "free keeper money" works well. You're giving the team money, but they have to spend it before the auction. You could make it "money above $1" to avoid the problem of a team trying to keep a single $6 player for $0.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 4, 7:57 PM

That's an interesting twist. It certainly has merit.

---------------

Nick Schuller
Apple Sauce
Posted: Sep 4, 8:01 PM

One other idea would be to allow one amnesty: similar to the NBA, it would be a free buyout.

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 5, 11:06 AM

Two issues with climbing out of the cellar: the first is assembling a full team of decent players (since those you have are the ones who put you in the cellar); the second is that many of the decent players are already keepers for better teams. To the extent you make it easier for "rich" teams to hang on to keepers, you're making it tougher for the guys at the bottom to claw their way up.

"Churn" is generally a good thing in any sport--it keeps things interesting for the have nots, who can always hope for better next year. If you reduce churn, you're making the league less interesting all around.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 5, 12:33 PM

To be clear, we're talking about incentives that would accrue to owners in the consolation bracket, not owners in the playoff bracket. Regardless of the actual incentive (auction dollars, FA dollars, discounted keepers, etc...) it can only improve the chances of those in the bottom half. Like Todd, I would not be a proponent of incentivizing the playoff bracket.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 5, 12:36 PM

Ah, I do notice that Matt mentioned an additional incentive for the playoff bracket. That's not going to happen unless there is overwhelming support (something I doubt you'd find).

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 5, 12:44 PM

I do suppose it's possible that someone would intentionally lose so as NOT to make the playoffs, hoping for success in the consolation bracket.

There are two things working against that:
1) The consolation bracket involves eight teams, not six (thus no 'byes').
2) Anything can happen in the playoffs - lower seeded teams can and have won.

1 seed: 3 titles
2 seed: 2 titles
3 seed: 0 titles (could be cursed, Ryan)
4 seed: 2 titles
5 seed: 1 title
6 seed: 1 title

---------------

Ryan Fickes
Rockville Longgui
Posted: Sep 5, 1:54 PM

Seriously, Mike. Your attempts at reverse-jinxing have me fearing for your safety now. That is not a god to be trifled with. Stay safe, my friend.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 5, 3:43 PM

I'd go along with a keeper money playoff prize if there were general support for it, but I'm much more in favor of the lower-bracket prize. You could even do something like a first prize of $10, second prize of $5, or $15/$8/$5, or whatever. Just something that makes it worth a non-playoff team's while to keep a few good players around.

No matter how bad I felt my team was, there's no way I'd intentionally lose and give up a shot at the playoff crapshoot to gamble on some extra keeper money. But if I happened to find myself around 10th or lower, it would definitely affect the trade equation as I looked to get keepers.

I wouldn't be as much in favor of single-contract amnesty, because that would have such vastly different value to different teams. If you had $90 left of Chris Carpenter, say, the prize would be worth way more to you than to someone who hadn't saddled themselves with silly contracts. Whether it's amnesty or keeper credit, I think it should be a dollar amount that is the same no matter who wins it.

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 5, 4:23 PM

I understand, Mike. Such a reward would essentially make it marginally easier for the teams "on the bubble" in a given year to pull themselves up a notch, but it would do it at the expense of the guys in the cellar. If anything, we should have a "goat" prize that gives an added benefit to the worst teams (but then you're into perverse incentives).

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 5, 5:18 PM

Barry, keep in mind that any team can win that consolation bracket, even the #14 finisher. They're less likely to, of course, but incentives-wise, we don't accomplish our goal if we just throw gifts at the bottom teams.

I agree with Matt about contract amnesty. Dollar amount should be the same regardless.

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 5, 7:20 PM

I fully understand. I'm just pointing out that (a) it's a zero sum game, so any time we benefit one team we're penalizing the others and (b) the guys who are most likely to benefit from the proposed incentive scheme are those in the middle (who are most likely to win the consolation bracket), to the detriment (in large part) of the guys at the bottom (the guys at the top presumably have less need to add new players, since they have a ready pool of their current guys (who are, by definition, pretty good) to make keepers).

I hear you about the problem with throwing gifts to the guys at the bottom (hence my reference to perverse incentives). Perhaps an out-of-game reward would be appropriate (though I can't think of one that folks would genuinely care about that wouldn't involve bucks). Not an easy problem. I'm not sure I'm opposed to the proposed reward system--I see the issue it addresses; I just wanted to raise the downside that I see.

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 5, 7:26 PM

Perhaps weighting the prize so that the bottom teams receive proportionally more for winning than do the top-seeded teams would work. Top two seeds receive $10 for first, $5 for second, nothing for anything lower. Next two get $15 for first, $10 for second, $5 for third, nothing lower. Next two get $20 for first, etc., so that if the #13 or 14 team won first prize in the consolation bracket, it would get a $25 bonus (that's pretty healthy, but it presumably would occur fairly rarely).

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 5, 9:41 PM

I think Barry's idea there is pretty good. The only concern then would be teams taking a dive during the regular season to be lower seeded for the consolation bracket.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 5, 10:14 PM

Lots of good ideas here so a list might be in order.

Consolation bracket winner:

a. Auction dollars (fixed amount)
b. Auction dollars (graduated amounts tied to seeding)
c. Keeper discounts (fixed amounts)
d. FA dollars
e. Free buyout

Should prizes only be awarded to the winner or should there be smaller prizes for 2nd & 3rd?

There are a few owners that support prizes for the playoff bracket as well. I'm not inclined to back that effort without a really good argument.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 5, 11:54 PM

I would definitely vote against any in-game rewards for the playoff bracket. The playoffs are their own reward =)

---------------

Nick Schuller
Apple Sauce
Posted: Sep 6, 1:02 AM

I don't think there need to be additional incentives for playoff teams, but I do still like the idea of incentives for non-playoff teams. I agree that the free buyout would have to be one of several options for it to work, as it would be more valuable to some teams than others. I don't think that's a bad thing, or that the different dollar amounts involved pose too big a problem. If I won, for example, I don't think I would be upset that I only got to buy out Jordan Walden instead of Carl Crawford and his monster contract. If the idea is to help create parity by giving at least one lower finishing team a slight head start, then I would be in favor of multiple options because each team has different needs and problems. For some teams, one contract may be more limiting than the advantage of receiving a few more auction dollars. For another team, the keeper discounts might be more valuable. I just like the idea that there could be some strategy involved and potential for appeal for each team on the bottom. That way, as Matt has said, each team has something to think about when it comes to trades, and a reason to care about his team in September.

---------------

Brad Sweet
Ugly Ducklings
Posted: Sep 6, 1:28 AM

I'm not really a fan of making a lower seeded consolation bracket get more value for their positioning. It's too easy to just tank your team by not starting guys and purposefully going for the lower seed just to get a better pay out... there is no risk if you weren't going to make the playoffs anyways, why not try to get the better prize?

What I would be for is having a set amount say 10$ allotted and then allow the team their choice how they want to spend the money... Buyout, Auction, or Free Agent Dollars.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 6, 8:41 AM

Note on the keeper discount option. In my view, it would have to be a one-year discount only with no re-setting of the base value. Otherwise it would represent a multi-year award.

---------------

George Janes
Eastside Bombers
Posted: Sep 6, 12:33 PM

Barry's argument holds no water since it assumes that keeping players is a good thing. That assumption has not been proven and I don't think it's true.

We do it, however, because it's fun: it's like a lottery that doesn't cost real money. But like the real lottery, however, it's probably a net loser for most teams.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 6, 4:46 PM

I don't buy that. You've had a good year without keeping anyone, that's true. But most teams that have been successful have made about as much use of keepers as teams that haven't. It's much more about the decisions people make on keepers than it is just about doing it or not doing it.

---------------

Barry Jacobs
Texas Teabaggers
Posted: Sep 6, 5:23 PM

Options are always good things, George. If one doesn't exercise it, one is no worse off than before, whereas if one exercises it, one is presumably better off (at least subjectively).

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 6, 7:36 PM

Mike - I definitely agree with that. It should have no bearing on the base year calculations for future salaries.

---------------

George Janes
Eastside Bombers
Posted: Sep 7, 9:04 AM

Todd, all I'm saying is that both you and Barry are making the assumption that keepers are a benefit and Barry is making assertions on that assumption. I expect that the assumption is wrong, but at the very least, it is unproven. This isn't the Republican National Convention fellas: we're a league based on data and analysis not faith and assumptions. Todd, what can you do for us?

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 7, 9:28 AM

I don't have data at hand, but prior to an auction I will calculate the value of existing contracts relative to the value of players contracted to obtain a player inflation rate. What I've found is that the players are generally worth at least 10% more than their associated contracts as a whole. This certainly implies that the contracts are valuable. It doesn't, however, address the distribution of that value and I would guess that the best teams, year in and year out, create the most value out of their keepers. But just because some teams write mediocre or poor contracts does not deny Barry's theory.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 7, 9:53 AM

Indeed, and moreover, Barry's point about options is a good one as well. Even if the average contract is a bad one, it can't hurt a team to have the option to sign discount contracts. They can always decline to do so, if they agree with you, George, and think that the contract is bad even after the discount.

---------------

Brad Sweet
Ugly Ducklings
Posted: Sep 7, 10:38 AM

The thing I'm most concerned with is the inability to pick up any players on the final week of the season. If there were playoff berths at stake this could be huge (playoff atmosphere for the bubble teams).

Why don't we just start the playoff acquisition system in that final week of the season rather than in the postseason for all teams... and further why can't even non-playoff teams get the 2 playoff pick-ups? What if I want to try to win in the consolation bracket whether there is anything to gain or not?

If we do add the final week into the playoff waivers pick up system then I think we might want increase the pick up number to 3 (1 for each week).

Benefits of adding in the final week:

Commish doesn't have to lock players down. It can just be a timed based rule and if team picks up a player after the deadline he is non-keepable.

Teams on the bubble can make roster adjustments that final week (Injuries happen then too).

Disadvantages:

I don't really see any. If anyone else can think of one reply!

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 7, 12:03 PM

If we do add the final week into the playoff waivers pick up system then I think we might want increase the pick up number to 3 (1 for each week).
The playoffs already last 4 weeks (3 matchups, the finals are 2 weeks).

I think non-playoff teams should still be locked out. Just set all their acquisitions to 50, and once that's done any playoff pickups can't be kept.

Why do I think non-playoff teams shouldn't get pickups? Mostly because I think it has the potential to compromise the playoffs. We added playoff pickups mostly as injury insurance. If there's one decent stopgap available at a particular position, and a week into the playoffs my guy goes down, I don't want to miss out on that stopgap because the 11th place team realized the stopgap was better than his starter.

That being said, this year pretty effectively demonstrates that injury insurance is not what those transactions are being used for. Most playoff teams seem to be taking an aggressive approach instead, immediately grabbing whatever might help them most, which makes sense- if someone really important goes down, you're probably hosed anyway, so better to maximize your chances on the assumption that won't happen. But this does make me wonder whether we're really accomplishing anything by allowing the playoff transactions.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 7, 12:43 PM

Regarding Brad's concern of final week acquisitions. That is being addressed by proposing an extension of the regular FA period through the final week.

If we award a prize for the consolation bracket, I can see the argument for restricted acquisitions for everyone. I don't yet know if I agree but it has merit.

Todd, if you assume the only purpose of playoff FA's is injury insurance, perhaps it is being mis-used. Is it also possible that alleviating the randomness of SP starts (double starts v. single) is a legitimate problem that can also be addressed in the same way? That's what I used one of my acquisitions for.

---------------

George Janes
Eastside Bombers
Posted: Sep 7, 1:45 PM

Got it. I was responding to Barry's comment earlier in the thread. I see where he gets on board for incentives later. We agree.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 7, 1:52 PM

Todd, if you assume the only purpose of playoff FA's is injury insurance, perhaps it is being mis-used. Is it also possible that alleviating the randomness of SP starts (double starts v. single) is a legitimate problem that can also be addressed in the same way? That's what I used one of my acquisitions for.
Injury insurance was put forward as the original justification for the rule change. I'm not necessarily saying it's being mis-used- we didn't put any restrictions on it, so I don't think it can be mis-used in that sense. Rather, I question the value or necessity of it, given that it's not being used for its intended purpose.

Regarding 2-start/1-start weeks, I suppose there might be something to that. No one brought it up at the time, but that doesn't mean it's not important. But if I have 4 more starts than you, and we each grab a couple 2-start pitchers, the differential remains the same.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 7, 2:23 PM

Every policy has its unintended consequences. Some good, some bad. I don't know if the limited streaming is, in and of itself, good or bad but I can say this - if seeds #3 through #6 are utilizing this strategy, it strenghthens the hand of the bye teams. If we're burning our FA's just to get through round one, we are at a significant disadvantage when/if we meet Matt and George. Now that's an unintended consequence we probably didn't predict either.

So... we try to envisage the perfect league and keep grinding the sausage!

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 7, 4:09 PM

Err, okay. I'm not sure what your point was, Mike.

When this rule change first came forward, I argued that protecting against injuries was possible through roster construction, and that to the extent that people (including myself) didn't do so, it was a strategic choice- more risk, potentially more reward, by assuming your hitters won't go down and rostering more pitchers (for example). Others argued that existing bench spots were insufficient, and that we needed a few transactions to cover for emergencies.

Given that we saw a flurry of transactions as soon as they were enabled for the playoff teams, my interpretation is that we aren't using them for protection against injury. All other things being equal, arguably that doesn't really matter one way or another. However, we've already discussed the problems that emerge from the transition between regular free agency and playoff free agency...

1. Do non-playoff teams get to make pickups?
2. How many pickups should each team get?
3. How do we make the transition fair (can't put players on waivers, etc.)?
4. How do we prevent out-of-contention teams from dumping valuable non-keepers and influencing the playoffs?

Maybe some more I'm forgetting. Anyway, if we went back to not having playoff pickups, all of these issues disappear. So I personally would like to be convinced that we need them, such that it's worth dealing with everything else that comes with it.

---------------

Matt Brooks
Lincoln Lumberjacks
Posted: Sep 7, 5:08 PM

I think I voted yes for the playoff pickup rule after being lobbied, but this is pretty much what I expected to happen. Whatever number of playoff pickups you allow, the majority are going to be used to stream pitchers.

I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, but I definitely wouldn't have a problem going back to our old system: FA pickups last until the last day of the regular season and are locked for the playoffs. Construct your team to carry you through September.

---------------

Michael Polcen
Turtle Soup
Posted: Sep 7, 6:35 PM

The possibility of streaming was in fact brought up in the referenced discussion. That's what led to the limit (2) on playoff acquisitions. The initial failed proposal was to allow use of all FA $'s available.

The discussion is an Interesting read and also validates Redscape as a preferable site for policy discussion. I'll see about transposing some of the more relevant stuff in this thread over to RS. Certainly the discussion can carry on here but come off-season I expect amendment talk to move over to Redscape.

Todd, the only point I was trying to make above was that any rule we create will have unintended consequences. I then considered the effects of the FA rule on competitiveness in the playoffs. I wasn't arguing for or against - just ruminating, I suppose. As it turns out we anticipated the pitcher streaming prior to the rule creation.

---------------

Todd Nelling
Otto's vall Bangers
Posted: Sep 7, 6:44 PM

Well, as it currently stands, I'd favor junking the playoff pickups, and extending the deadline to the end of the regular season, over the increasingly complex proposals under discussion (consolation bracket awards, limitations on who you can drop, etc.). I'm open to those alternatives, though, as I don't think the problems are insurmountable.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 Dec 2012, 5:23 pm

MLB Schedule has come out.

The good: Opening day is on a Sunday.
The bad: The final day is on a Sunday. If we're to have a 2-week playoff and not use the final week, we burn 7 days of games instead of just 3.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 02 Dec 2012, 8:18 pm

Preliminary amendments:

1) Create consolation bracket reward system - CBRS (most likely auction dollars). Purpose: Provide incentive for teams to retain valued players. Also gives owners a reason to stay involved. Side effects may include fewer trades and death spiral for really bad teams. Please consult with your PCP to determine if CBRS is right for you.

If, and I would argue only if, #1 passes then...

2) Allow FA acquisitions through end of regular season.
3) Allow extended FA pick-ups for consolation bracket.

Alternatively,

4) Eliminate FA pickups during playoffs.

Ideas addressing the loss of an entire week of games:

5) Use them all as part of the 2-week championship contest (back to a 21-week regular schedule).
6) Use half the week to extend the 2-week championship contest, giving up only 3 or 4 days (I think we'd have to jury rig the system but its not like we don't do that already).
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 07 Dec 2012, 11:31 am

I don't follow why #2 is dependent on #1.

I really wish I had a better idea of the statistical significance of late season benchings due to teams being out of the race or whatever. I'd like to make an informed decision on the timing of the championship, but it's hard =( I'm somewhat tempted to say just lose the full week for the sake of simplicity and consistency, but I'd prefer to go back to 21 weeks over some weird half week crap.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Dec 2012, 1:02 pm

Sharur wrote:I don't follow why #2 is dependent on #1.

I really wish I had a better idea of the statistical significance of late season benchings due to teams being out of the race or whatever. I'd like to make an informed decision on the timing of the championship, but it's hard =(

I await your statistical analysis...

I'm somewhat tempted to say just lose the full week for the sake of simplicity and consistency, but I'd prefer to go back to 21 weeks over some weird half week crap.

Losing half a week of games this past season seemed palatable because those games fell on Monday-Wednesday. For some reason, Thursday-Sunday seems less tasteful.

I was never a fan of losing the last week of games in the first place but whatever ownership decides. The status quo, I believe, is we don't use those games - supermajority required to bring 'em back into play.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Dec 2012, 1:26 pm

Now that I think about it more, you might be right about #2's dependency on #1. Is the dropping of high valued players a significant problem? Probably not and at this point we're all veterans and know not to do it. Well, except for Nick - dropping Nelson Cruz in mid-August - mon dieu!

Perhaps it should be floated as an amendment unconditionally.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 07 Dec 2012, 5:43 pm

SLOTerp wrote:Losing half a week of games this past season seemed palatable because those games fell on Monday-Wednesday. For some reason, Thursday-Sunday seems less tasteful.


I thought the point was that the championship matchup is exactly two weeks under the current (2012 season) system. If we cut it off on a Thursday, it's not two weeks long. I'd rather it stay two weeks long then try to drop a few extra days.

... Or are you talking about potentially making it 2.5 weeks long? I don't think I really like that either.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 07 Dec 2012, 7:29 pm

I was talking about going 2.5 weeks. But yeah, I don't think I like that either.

The reason we didn't use the final 3 days of the season the past two years was to stay consistent with not using the final week. At least in my mind, it had nothing to do with having a championship that was exactly two weeks long.

I'm ready for baseball to start again...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3046
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 02 Jan 2013, 3:20 pm

Amendment Proposal #1: Expand the league to 16 owners. Nothing else changes (i.e. same # of playoff teams, same auction budgets, same contract structure). New teams start from scratch - there will be no expansion draft.

I'm a big tent kinda guy, why don't we share with our friends? Yes

Amendment Proposal #2: Incentives for the playoff consolation bracket. Auction dollars for the following season shall be rewarded to 1st ($10), 2nd ($5), and 3rd ($3) places in the consolation bracket.

Great idea. Yes

Amendment Proposal #3: Extend FA acquisitions through final week of regular season.

Of course. Yes

Amendment Proposal #4: Allow extended FA acquisitions for active teams in the consolation bracket. This amendment only takes effect if Amendment #2 passes.

Of course. Yes

Amendment Proposal #5: Do not allow any FA acquisitions during the playoffs.

A free agent is a teammate you haven't made yet. Why would we do this? Bad idea. No

Amendment Proposal #6: Use the final week of the regular MLB schedule in our two-week championship contest.

I'm OK with dropping the last week since I hate the fact that the Yankees often rest their regular players after they've clinched. I could be talked out of my no vote, though, if others feel strongly.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 02 Jan 2013, 4:27 pm

Thanks for utilizing the discussion board! I think Todd already drove the email train out of the station, though.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 03 Jan 2013, 9:30 pm

Sorry =( I legitimately could not get on the site, and at that point hadn't been able to for several days. Lo and behold, when I next checked ~2 hours later, I could.

I totally sympathize with you on the annoyance of e-mail discussion, though.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5097
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 15 Jan 2013, 7:24 pm

Discuss division play here. There are two primary issues:

1) Scheduling.
2) Who goes where.