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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 26 Jan 2011, 8:04 pm

SLOTerp wrote:
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?


This is solid, but I'd prefer it as a modification of 2c, where only the playoff teams got the pickups, and they couldn't keep the players involved (nor they players they drop). In this proposal it's less likely to make a difference, but I still don't see what business non-playoff teams have making pickups during the playoffs.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 26 Jan 2011, 8:55 pm

I lean towards no restrictions (every owner has access with full keeper privileges). It may keep the owners more invested in the league and baseball in general. There are at least five weeks left in the MLB season when our FA signing period comes to an end. Now those five weeks could be of greater interest and value.

Having said that, I'm ok with (though not as warm to) restrictions. There is a risk we would take with no restrictions. An owner could pull a bone-headed move by dropping a currently valuable player (having no keeper value) potentially disrupting playoff balance. I think with the maturity of the league and 14 experienced owners (having accumulated 68 seasons of RBL experience!), that risk is overstated. But yes, the risk is there.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3147
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 9:13 am

I'm good with either of these. Thanks for allowing me to continue to nudge this issue and trying to find a way to address my concerns without causing other troubles.

If asked, I would choose Mike's option simply as a way to keep non-playoff teams interested.
 

Post 27 Jan 2011, 10:17 am

I understand George's concern about not being able to field a team, but it is the responsibility of the team owner to build a team that covers as many contingencies as possible. I would have loved to had an extra closer on my squad last year. God knows it would have helped in the finals! However, I made the cognizant choice to cover positional players with backups if need be. These choices show an owner's specific focus. Just as in society, there are consequences to our choices and decisions.

I am a newby at the fantasy baseball league play. That is why I haven't said much. Please enlighten me if I am not understanding.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 2:04 pm

Every rule has trade-offs and strategy implications. The reason you presently have to cover contingencies for the playoffs (or risk choosing not to) is because we have a rule that disallows pick-ups during the playoffs. There is nothing inherently 'right' or 'wrong' about that rule, it's just the way it has developed over the years.

Rules changes are not, nor should be, taken lightly. This is why we discuss them and require the 3/5 majority. Your opinion matters as much as anyone else's (even the commissioner's).

As to the rule discussion at hand, I don't think it will change anyone's strategy very much. There are two advantages to keeping offensive depth: 1) Injury and 2) Fill-ins for off-days. The above rule would eliminate the first (well, not quite as I argue below) but has no bearing on the second. Furthermore, if you are keeping offensive depth, I think it's a fair assumption that the quality of that reserve is greater than what would be found on the waiver wire. That brings me to my point about why there is still reason to maintain offensive reserves. If an average rostered player (much less a star) is injured there is likely little to gain by replacing him with a player off the wire. That is not to say no gain, certainly possible in the counting stats, but there might be a steep trade-off in the average stats. George's concerns may be addressed but perhaps he should be careful of what he wishes for!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 3:38 pm

I don't understand why we need to keep non-playoff teams interested during the playoffs, or at least, keep them more interested then they already are in winning their consolation games. Their interest doesn't impact anything meaningful, the way it does during the regular season.

Nor would I want, for example, to see a non-playoff team grab a valuable pickup as a potential keeper, thereby blocking a playoff team from picking up that player for use as a fill-in.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 27 Jan 2011, 7:35 pm

I very much doubt that consolation games grab anyone's earnest attention. Some non-playoff owners have a serious interest in improving their teams for next year - that is meaningful. Give those dedicated owners a reason to pay attention other than watching the playoffs from the sideline.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 28 Jan 2011, 9:21 pm

SLOTerp wrote:Some non-playoff owners have a serious interest in improving their teams for next year - that is meaningful.


Why? This can be accomplished before the end of the regular season, without the risk of interference in the playoffs.

SLOTerp wrote:Give those dedicated owners a reason to pay attention other than watching the playoffs from the sideline.


I don't follow. Paying attention to potential pickups is tangential. It doesn't keep them watching the playoffs, it keeps them scanning the waiver wire. The playoffs ought to be interesting in their own right, but if people don't care, I don't think we can do anything about it.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 1:14 pm

My point is not that the playoffs should be interesting to non-participants. My point is that five weeks of real baseball can now have fantasy relevance to every team, not just playoff contenders.

This debate, of course, is irrelevant unless the league chooses to extend pick-ups. I'll provide both options when the vote comes up - I can accept either outcome (or the status quo).

Good thing you and I agree on most issues - you're a persistent debater!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 29 Jan 2011, 3:51 pm

So are you :razz:

I think the fantasy relevance of those 5 weeks to non-playoff teams is less important than keeping them out of the way, as it were, during the playoffs. That's probably the core point where we're at agree-to-disagree, and it seems that none of the other owners are particularly interested in that nuance, so I'll leave it alone for now :razz:
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 11:07 am

Looks like there will be one more thing to vote on:

Our constitution states that the final week of the regular MLB season will not be used (something we voted on several years ago). The screwy new MLB schedule provides us with a conundrum - the regular season ends on a Wednesday and ESPN has apparently merged those three extra days into the final week (week 24).

Here are the options:
1) Use weeks 22 & 23 for the championship contest. That will leave the last ten days of baseball out of our league.
2) Use weeks 23 & 24 in our championship game. That contest would include 17 days of baseball instead of 14.

Based on the previous vote & the constitution I think the default assumption is option #1. I'm sure a lawyer could argue that option #2 is the default (Barry?) so it may be best to vote on this. It annoys me that ten days of baseball may have no meaning to our league.

Thoughts...
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 11:28 am

Ok, it just occured to me that there is another option... duh...

Use weeks 23 & 24. Ignore the last three days of the season! The results on September 25th (Sunday) will stand as the final score.

Image
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 11:54 am

SLOTerp wrote:Ok, it just occured to me that there is another option... duh...

Use weeks 23 & 24. Ignore the last three days of the season! The results on September 25th (Sunday) will stand as the final score.


Will ESPN support this? If so, I like it. If not... while I hate to make our league subservient to our website's strictures, throwing those 3 days out might not be worth the mess, as it were.
 

Post 02 Feb 2011, 12:06 pm

As a Mariner's fan, I am used to a large part of my season being meaningless.

That being said, I would love to fore go the last three days of the season and come to a compromise.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5252
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 02 Feb 2011, 2:30 pm

Cutting out the final three days is not supported by ESPN (best I can tell).

My preference lay in using the three days. The reason we (in the league sense - I did not support the change) did away with final week games was because some highly valuable players may be benched. Perhaps the longer contest of 17 days will mitigate some of that.

I know what you mean, Brad. As a life-long Orioles fan and a newly minted Nats fan, I am very familiar with meaningless games.

Todd, if you wish to use your magic on the schedule, feel free when you have time. You and Matt both have LM priveleges.