-
Welcome aboard, jredwine. May your baseball glove overfloweth.
-
Welcome, jredwine! Please send me a list of players you would like to cut ASAP. @Cub and @Inkosi, I'll put you next in the queue to add a friend if spots open up. But: we have 12 owners who have paid for 2020, so I'm expecting all to stick around!
-
Pay no attention to the man with the apple watch behind the curtain
-
I assure you all that my post was typed with tongue firmly planted in cheek, but now that we've learned of their Boston fandom? Now I'm doubling down.
-
I'm also asking Keith to create us a when2meet poll for determining our draft date. Post the link here and I'll send it out as well!
-
I assure you, Keith and his brother Jon are on the up-and-up. Feel free to give them a good-natured ribbing about being cheating-friendly Boston fans, but I don't think we need serious accusations unless there's evidence. :)
-
Brothers, eh? There's a whiff of collusion in the air this offseason, gents. Oh, and I don't like it. I don't like it one bit!
-
My brother is still in, even happy to pay the $20! I would say that a new owner should probably get a round of free drops even though they've missed the 1/31 deadline.
-
I heard from Mr. Fish! He felt bad that he missed arbitration but has re-upped his team and sent me his list of cuts. We've got a mini waitlist for Epstein's team if he doesn't respond by Monday morning; let me first check in with Roberto Big Piece about his brother.
-
Agree with Commish's plan.
St. CGT V on
February 6, 2020 11:54 AM
-
Same here; I know someone with dynasty experience who might be keen to join us.
-
If we need a new owner, I could ask if my coworker is interested.
-
Eppy visited the site on 2/1, apparently, but Fish hasn't been on since the end of Arbitration.
-
Ok, Fish and Epstein have neither paid to renew their teams nor responded to my messages (or in Epstein's case, his friend's text). I'm giving them until the end of this weekend to at least respond, otherwise time to look for new owners?
-
looking good boys!
-
Looks like all 10 teams that have made cuts will be 'valid' re: $1 per open spot after the final 2 trades go through.
St. CGT V on
February 1, 2020 2:35 PM
-
Thanks, Commish!
-
Oh and actually I found the place where I can set the trade review time to 24 or 48 hours. Let's poll after we are clear who's in the league and cuts are final.
-
Ok, cleaned up my team and Inkosi's; sent messages to Fish and Eppy. And yeah, looks like Roar's team will be fine after these trades. Anyone not strictly "over" the cap but doesn't have the "$1 per open roster slot" space required?
-
Then it's Fish and Epstein. Our newest and one of our oldest members, hopefully also just losing track of the date. Oh hey, did everyone pay up to renew their team? Lemme check that as well.
-
Oh no, y'all. After sending multiple messages this month about being clear about the cut deadline, I totally spaced it yesterday. I will go through my team right away without looking at any of the other cuts that happened and do my own. Inkosi sent me a message with their intended cuts. Roar -- says your lineup is invalid, but do these last 2 trades get you under the cap?
-
question... what happens to teams that are overcap after the dust settles on deals... I.E. Epstine? do they not draft players and have have to cut players for half prices in order to have a legit roster?
-
Heh. No indeed.
-
Not our tidiest keeper deadline ever...
St. CGT V on
February 1, 2020 1:30 AM
-
In other news, I'm making the vast majority of my roster available for trade. Not looking to give anyone away, but I'm wide open at this point. My trade block has all of the players in question listed. Please don't be shy. Cheers!
-
Perhaps not, though I've read otherwise. I'm certain the Commish can shed some light.
-
I don't know if that is something the Commish can alter...
St. CGT V on
January 30, 2020 5:47 PM
-
Would the rest of you Hammerers be up for reducing the twiting time for a trade to take effect from 48 to 24 hours? I know I'm up for it.
-
I'm down with Rime too.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtUVQei3nX4
-
I just want to say quickly that I agree with the commish's proposal. This is just a game, after all, enforcing the rules could be tough and what's important is that everyone makes a sincere effort to field a full mlb lineup.
Roar from 34 on
January 26, 2020 2:16 PM
-
ok, let’s see those drops!!!
-
Proposal is solid commish!
-
I like your proposal, Commish, on all fronts.
St. CGT V on
January 25, 2020 1:07 PM
-
I don't have an enforcement mechanism in mind, besides "a talking to". I guess flagrant violation could lead to seeking a replacement owner. How does that sound to everyone, any concerns? And last, also, only 6 of us have paid up for this season -- please do so by Jan 31 or your team will be "abandoned"!
-
(1) Every team should maintain a roster with enough MLB players (healthy or not) to fill out their starting lineup including 1 catcher and 10 pitchers (SP/RP doesn't matter). Exception: if you're ahead of pace, e.g. maxed out your innings or your catcher games in August, you can drop players. (2) Every team should try to hit at least 5/6 of the max games/innings at each position (the existing 1250 IP min, and 135 games per hitter position).
-
Ok, sounds like there's not a big swell of support to institute a hard and fast rule about healthy MLB roster, but we mainly agree to abide by the spirit of it. Shall we propose something? I have a two-part idea.
-
looking to move J-Up for a RP if anyone is interested.
-
paid up and ready to roll!
-
Agree with the St.
-
I lean towards enforcing the rule, but with this understanding - I don't think it matters in the rules if the major league players are healthy, aka, actually able to 'start' - what matters, it seems to me, in the spirit of the rules, is that there are 22 major league-rostered players, not 22 *healthy* major league-rostered players. So if your 5 SPs are all hurt, that's no issue - but you should have 10 MLB pitchers (again, I don't think SP vs. RP really matters), 5 MLB OFs, etc.
St. CGT V on
January 15, 2020 11:40 AM
-
(character limit is no fun)
I did try in the second half to hit the innings minimum last year (got close!), but was my team really helped by Tanner Roark being in my rotation for a few months?
-
I'm ok with either way, but enforcing this rule would be a disadvantage for rebuilding teams, especially filling out starting pitching. I know last year if I had to choose between a ~80th ranked prospect or like, Andrew Cashner, it's a pretty easy choice to leave that SP slot empty. RPs are easier since you can always grab a decent ratios guy for cheap, but the replacement starter level is terrible.
I agree it's no fun for teams to be empty, but we should be clear about the tradeoff.
-
as long as the spirit to comply with the rules is there, I would vote to continue the way it has been - remember, no money is involved, just pride! hahaha
-
2-cents. (1.) ...all teams should try to get to the min/max of innings/games, so that the standings are true. (2.) I believe the reason why there are two Catcher positions is that in today's game its tough to max out the 162 games if you only have one C. Obviously, if you hit the max or are on pace to be over the max you can drop the extra catcher... (3.) Minor leagues are part of the strategy; but, there are more than enough roster spots to fill a lineup and retain minor leagues if you want.
-
There were definitely points last year where I didn't have 22 healthy ML players on my roster, and forcing teams to carry 2 ML catchers (which I think the rule requires?) seems unnecessary when there are only 162 games to fill. So my vote would be to continue not enforcing this rule, but I understand if others feel differently.
-
I trust everyone in the league to play by agreed-upon rules, but we should be explicit about what they are. I've had portions of seasons where I had fewer than 5 healthy RPs, and still reached the IP min (and usually max). Injuries happen, and anyone can easily be short a MI or an OF at times. I think the intent of the rule is everyone is playing the same game, rather than having one or two teams totally full of minor leaguers. Is that needed?
-
The rule reads: "a. Each team shall during the regular season maintain a roster of 22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup as defined below. The remaining 18 roster spots can be used for reserves, consisting of both major and minor leaguers.
i. A roster of 22 major-league players capable of filling out a starting lineup as defined below shall be maintained regardless of any games started, games played or innings limits."
But there's no automatic enforcement or not
-
Hey y'all, I want to start a conversation that may lead to a vote. Do we want to start enforcing the rule that says every team must be able to fill their lineup with MLB players? We have let it slide in the past, but it is listed in the Ottoneu rules. How would it be enforced? Share your thoughts on the message board, or privately with me if you prefer. To be fair to everyone I think we need to decide this before the cut deadline.
-
line-up pretty much set... looking for small depth deals heading into the draft - have interesting OF depth to give and other on the trade block.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages