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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 21 Jan 2011, 2:00 pm

I'm voting for all the "2s" but a point: if we're doing this for injury back-up, 2a is kinda hit or miss. Yeah, if you got a 1b you know who has a gimpy knee, you can pick up a spare, but let's say you pick up a 1b and a OF, and your shortstop or catcher gets hurt. What's the point of having a couple of guys you picked up if they can't replace the guy who got hurt? Still, it's better than what we got.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 21 Jan 2011, 2:13 pm

I was just going to vote but then realized that I would like to add more people to the league but that would lessen my chances of making the playoffs even more and why would I want to do that? Any thought to adding more playoff teams as well if we are going to expand the number of teams? We could add 2 more to allow 8 teams to proceed and just not have a bye for any of the teams (like real baseball).

Another pitfall that may cause people to vote no on adding more owners to the league would be the impact it will have on player salaries in the upcoming draft and they will be starting with a clean slate and therefore may hold an advantage. Now if there was a one year delay on the addition of these new owners I would have had the knowledge of coming up to the end of a season that new owners would be added and could possibly keep depth at a position that I might not have otherwise thought would be so pressing.

In the end I want to be able to add more owners to the league but feel that I am given less of a chance of winning if I do so, therefor I'm apt to not allow it. What is everyone else's reasons for not wanting to add more owners to the league if they are going to vote no?

Also a possible solution to the scheduling of 16 teams would be to have 4 divisions recreated each year based on seed (1-4 to Div 1, 5-8 to Div 2, 9-12 to Div 3 and 13-16 to Div 4). You would play your division 3 times in a given season and then play all the other divisions just once. Pull the division winners and then either the next 2 best records (or 4 if we expand playoffs) with the first tiebreaker being which division you are in if the teams are tied. If you were at the top the season before you are granted tiebreaker rights the following season. This would always allow a team that sucked the previous season to make the post season but it will really showcase your talent as an owner if you are able to continually rank in the top division each year as you are given the chance to beat the best of the best year in and year out.

As for part 2a and 2c this is only beneficial to teams that make the playoffs as why would anyone want to call up a player that has nothing to gain from it? The only point to taking part in the draft would be to mess with the playoff teams. What if we basically included those two players in with the rest of the players but one week removed from the end of the playoffs each team has to drop two players from their team if they would like to keep their supplemental drafted players. This would also allow for losing teams to stay competitive up until the end of the season all the while trying to build for the future. In addition you could require that a team has to have the FA Dollar funds to make this transaction.

Sorry if all this information is too little too late.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm

It should be hard to get in the playoffs. Adding two owners & two playoff spots make it easier.

I actually believe old teams have an advantage regards salaries for keepers. Player values will increase, not decrease with new owners (more money chasing the good players), providing an edge to incumbent teams. Providing another year of planning to gain an even bigger edge? Nah.

Regarding divisions - I chose to hold off on divisions until we get clarity on expansion. We can add division play at any time.

As for Brad's response to 2a: Non-playoff teams do get something out of the draft - a place to store potential keepers (rookies perhaps) for an extra five weeks. If it looks like they'll pan out, call them up before the end of the season. Non-playoff teams gain a slight edge here since playoff teams should be looking for depth, not keepers.

George made a point about the two extra players for playoff teams being a bit of a crapshoot. Agreed, meaning that playoff teams should look to hedge their bets with utility type players rather than one-position types.

I do agree with Brad that 2c is only beneficial to playoff teams. There should be no reason for a non-playoff team to utilize the restricted FA period.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 4
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 21 Jan 2011, 3:14 pm

I guess I misunderstood 2a. If you call the player up than you are able to keep that player? The way I was reading it was that no matter what you lost that player, so if you called them up to help out and then the season ended you then lost that player so now your roster is down two players.

The addition of the 2 extra players should allow you to have depth at all the positional players. If you can't cover all of the positional players with a backup, you've got too many pitchers, ;)

I know my ideas are very outlandish, :). Just like to stir the pot.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Jan 2011, 3:18 pm

bradsour wrote:The addition of the 2 extra players should allow you to have depth at all the positional players. If you can't cover all of the positional players with a backup, you've got too many pitchers, ;)

...and thus George's concern... he carried only one offensive bench player into the playoffs.

A reserve call-up would have a base-value of $1 for keeper purposes, just like any other FA.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 22 Jan 2011, 1:59 pm

SLOTerp wrote:
bradsour wrote:The addition of the 2 extra players should allow you to have depth at all the positional players. If you can't cover all of the positional players with a backup, you've got too many pitchers, ;)

...and thus George's concern... he carried only one offensive bench player into the playoffs.


Which is exactly why I think the current system isn't broken. That was a strategic choice on George's part, same as it was on mine a few years ago. Any of the proposed modifications will tilt the strategic balance more heavily in favor of George's (and my) approach.

SLOTerp wrote:I do agree with Brad that 2c is only beneficial to playoff teams. There should be no reason for a non-playoff team to utilize the restricted FA period.


Indeed, that's the point. If the current problem is that playoff teams need to have more roster flexibility during the playoffs, as George has asserted, then 2c solves that problem without introducing any other considerations, like potential keeper pickups. In contrast, the other 2 systems being proposed introduce new wrinkles that don't address the problem at hand, which is a big reason why I don't like them. I don't see any need for additional pickups for non-playoff teams. They have plenty of time to pickup whoever they want.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 22 Jan 2011, 2:29 pm

At this rate, I don't think we'll have to worry about any constitutional changes. A few more owners to vote, though, and I'll keep the polls open the requisite two weeks in the event anyone wishes to change their minds.

Looks like ESPN might be doing their transition to 2011 on Monday. We'll have to see how they plan on tackling those partial weeks as we (read: Todd) set up the schedule. I'm most particularly concerned with the final three days of the MLB season which fall on a Monday through Wednesday. I would like for our season to end on the Sunday prior (leaving three days unused) rather than ending on the Sunday before that (leaving ten days unused). The flexibility given to us, or denied us, may precipitate a vote regarding when we end the RBL season.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 22 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm

On 2c (Todd's proposal): I've gone back and forth on this one but I keep coming back to 'no' for one simple reason: pitcher churning in the playoffs. The primary impetus for the FA budget was to prevent pitcher churning and it has done so effectively. But, if the stakes are high (playoffs), and FA dollars are available, it's bound to happen under the 2c proposal. Churning is not explicitly forbidden nor do I wish to do so. It would have to be defined and monitored - no thanks. The only other solution to churning would be to set a weekly innings cap on pitchers. That's another discussion...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 24 Jan 2011, 8:54 pm

Sharur wrote:
SLOTerp wrote:
bradsour wrote:The addition of the 2 extra players should allow you to have depth at all the positional players. If you can't cover all of the positional players with a backup, you've got too many pitchers, ;)

...and thus George's concern... he carried only one offensive bench player into the playoffs.


Which is exactly why I think the current system isn't broken. That was a strategic choice on George's part, same as it was on mine a few years ago. Any of the proposed modifications will tilt the strategic balance more heavily in favor of George's (and my) approach.


I explicitly used as an example for this problem SS or Catcher for the guy who gets hurt. No one carries an extra shortstop or catcher. But if your guy gets hurt and you're playing down one (or two) guys, it's going to hurt your chances. I don't care how it's done, but it's just CRAZY not to be able to replace injured players in the playoffs. Lessens the amount of skill/dedication/foresight it takes to win this by adding in a larger element of fortune than is necessary. What games are made better by adding a larger element of luck? None.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2011, 1:06 pm

Unless some minds (and votes) are changed, the current rules will prevail. Btw, I don't have your official votes George (nor John's - you there?).

I'm ok with playoff pickups but it's gotta be set up right. There must be a solution that allows for flexibility without allowing for pitcher churn. Now, some may think I'm overly concerned about this issue (churn) but I think it's a matter of league integrity. A playoff contest should not be decided by how many pitchers you can drop/add during the week. We've got a lot of big brains in this league - let's use them for the greater good of the RBL!

As for luck - it will always be part of the game, especially in a head-to-head league. Play rotisserie if you wish to minimize the luck factor.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 25 Jan 2011, 2:08 pm

SLOTerp wrote:Unless some minds (and votes) are changed, the current rules will prevail. Btw, I don't have your official votes George (nor John's - you there?).


I'm working on at least some of the more reasonable minds who I know voted against, but I don't know everyone. Votes are open, can I get a tally of who voted which way?

SLOTerp wrote:As for luck - it will always be part of the game, especially in a head-to-head league. Play rotisserie if you wish to minimize the luck factor.


Come on Mike. Of course luck is a part of the game, but the way this league's rules have evolved, skill and dedication are handsomely rewarded, and over the course of a long season the luck factor tends to evens out. Except in the playoffs, where luck is huge.

All I'm saying is that if Robbie Cano goes down with a broken wrist during your playoff run, the manager ought to be able to replace him with some waiver wire castoff that no one wants just to keep the roster spot active. I still haven't seen a reasonable argument against it. Sharur's argument I find just unfathomable. None of us can keep a reserve for every position, yet that's what he seems to suggest.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 25 Jan 2011, 5:41 pm

geojanes wrote:All I'm saying is that if Robbie Cano goes down with a broken wrist during your playoff run, the manager ought to be able to replace him with some waiver wire castoff that no one wants just to keep the roster spot active. I still haven't seen a reasonable argument against it. Sharur's argument I find just unfathomable. None of us can keep a reserve for every position, yet that's what he seems to suggest.


It's actually not that hard to keep a reserve for every position. Suppose your UTIL guy is an OF, your MI is a 2B, and your CI is a 1B. All you need on your bench is a C, a SS, and a 3B, and you are covered against any one injury. And that isn't specific to the example I constructed- you can move the positions around, the only important thing is the pairs between your "flex" starters and your bench players. The only way you need an additional player is if your UTIL guy is a DH. And this is assuming that you don't have any players with multiple position eligibility.

All that said, I don't have a problem with playoff pickups either, in principle. But I agree with Mike that there are other considerations. The advantage to the current system is that, while playoff injuries are a challenge, they are hardly insurmountable, and by disallowing pickups, we don't privilege large pitching staffs. Moreover, the current system is very simple and doesn't afford loopholes. It may not be perfect, but it's not broken.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2011, 10:39 pm

geojanes wrote:I'm working on at least some of the more reasonable minds who I know voted against, but I don't know everyone. Votes are open, can I get a tally of who voted which way?

Votes are made public at the end of the voting period. Some owners 'replied all' when they voted and you should have those in your in-box. Are you saying there are unreasonable owners in the league?!

I'm ok with another shot at an amendment on this one so bring on some ideas. George has one that I'll address tomorrow (after some sleep) and I have a few notions of my own, though I have not yet thought them through.
 

Post 26 Jan 2011, 11:01 am

This was one of the biggest choices I made in selecting players. I want them to have some positional flexibility.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5076
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 26 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm

George's proposal: Allow only offensive players to be acquired during the addl. restricted FA period.

Advantage: No pitcher churning.
What I don't like: Creates incentive to go into playoffs with a heavy pitching staff. Some may already use that strategy but it shouldn't be biased by this one rule.

My new proposal: Limit total pickups during the extended FA period. I recommend a limit of two players. This would apply to ALL owners, meaning non-playoff teams get 2 FA's as well.*

*Edit: This does not imply an additional number of FA $'s. FA $'s are reduced to $2 and if you only have $1 or $0 at the end of the regular FA period, you are NOT given any extra dollars.

Advantage: No pitcher churn (or 2 at most). Easy to implement within ESPN. Non-playoff teams have a reason to stay interested.
What I don't like: Not much. We can quibble over the limit (2) but don't expect much or any budging on my part.

Other ideas or comments/criticisms on the above?