-
And 22 isn’t even onerous. If you rostered only 22 players who stayed healthy all season, you wouldn’t even come close to hitting your innings or games played caps, so it’s not like rostering 22 mlb players is even a mandate to attempt to compete for the title
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 6:08 PM
-
The obvious implication is the 60 day dl gets you and extra roster spot while the 10 day doesn’t. But it doesn’t make any difference for their ability to fill a spot in the starting lineup
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 6:05 PM
-
If 60 day counts why doesnt 10 day? They are equally incapable of filling a starting lineup while on the dl
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 6:00 PM
-
(cont) 10 day should still be considered in the 22 if they were healthy when you put them in your line-up.
-
i think my point is being missed. If my team has 22 major league players and then some go on the dl I don't think it's fair to drop prospects to find replacements for the DL players. Example: Ramos and snell.I do see that barretto should be replaced because, even though he was up for awhile, he is still a prospect. I'm fine finding a replacement for him. if hampson goes back down, I'll replace him as well. I even have no issue replacing a 60 day DL player with a healthy major leaguer, 10 day NO
-
True. And in the best interests of league a strict black/white rule is probably for the best.
-
We'd probably be wrong in a lot of cases, too. Who didn't think Vlad Jr would be called up by this point, right? Another good example is good for nothing Yu Darvish's initial DL stint appearing to be short and now he's been out for over two months.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 4:54 PM
-
I'm sympathetic to the concept that DL stints happen to players you're not intending to hoard as DL stashes (which I'm doing right now with Michael Pineda). I just don't see how we would apply the rule if it's not a bright line rule that DL players either do or don't count toward the 22. I don't think we should be making judgments like "well, this was unexepected so it doesn't count" or "this guy should be back soon" or "this guy should probably be called up soon."
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 4:52 PM
-
As a team trying to do the same thing as Bags we think the rule should be applied as it states. 22 major league players. Now if there are a rash of DL stints for guys legitimately owned then we can understand some leniency. But hoarding DL players is another story.
-
3/3 It serves that purpose more than letting someone hoard 18 prospects plus a crap ton of DL players (thereby having less than 22 healthy, major league players capable of filling out a roster). Stashing DL players when you're not competitive is basically the same thing as stashing prospects
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 3:37 PM
-
2/3: the purpose of agreeing to follow the rule is dis-incentivize the hoarding of prospects and incentivizing competitive behavior. We don't want to have a league where half the teams are competing and the other half have all of the top 200 prospects. That'd be no fun. You can certainly rebuild, but your maximum number of prospects is 18 (which is MORE than enough for a rebuild). Requiring you to maintain 22 MLB players not on the DL serves that purpose
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 3:36 PM
-
I don't have a strong opinion about whether 10-DL should count but I agree we need to decide/vote so we can avoid these gray areas moving forward
-
1/2 Here's my take: I don't think a DL player can by definition be capable of "filling out a starting lineup." In real life, the DL player is automatically precluded from playing in games, and is taken off the 25 man, major league roster while on the DL. In my view, that same mechanic disqualifies them from counting toward the 22 man, major league roster.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 3:29 PM
-
My instinct was to take the lax side of it bc I dont see it as threatening to the league balance, but that's based on my personal view that owning that many prospects is not a sound rebuild strategy anyway. For managers that disagree or think only healthy bodies should count (probably technically correct) for that or any other reason, I'm totally fine with that too. If any other managers have an opinion, please share. Thanks
-
Unfortunately, the language in the rule is a little vague and open to interpretation as to what, "major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup" means. YJ is probably right that we should clarify it. I honestly don't have much of an opinion of whether 10-day DL should qualify or not as long we're all playing by the same standard.
-
The odds are not stacked against anyone when we are all playing by the same rules, which we discussed and agreed upon last year.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 2:55 PM
-
... 21 of the 22 players Who are major-league players. If Every time someone goes on the DL I’m forced to release a prospect and pick up a temporary replacement then I’m no longer interested in being in this league and trying to rebuild with the odds stacked against me. I Think the rule was written so that teams would have 22 major-league players. After I pick up Travis I’ll have 22. I’ll nominated 2 more for good measure. But to say this isn’t knit picky Is ridiculous.Sincerely,
-
And yeah, if you're required to have 22 players capable of filling a starting lineup, and you roll with exactly 22, you should have to pick up someone every time one of those 22 goes on the DL
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 2:45 PM
-
You have to count DL. Neither a minor league player or a player on the DL can, by definition, "fill out a starting lineup." With Ramos and Snell on the DL, there are no catchers and only 4 starters.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 2:41 PM
-
Ramos is my catcher on the DL. Have a five man rotation with Peralta starting today and if I pick up a second baseman to replace Barreto it’s legit. I nominated a catcher because I’m assuming players that went on the DL are not counted as my 22? And so if you aren’t counting DL players, yes it is only one. barreto. Who just got sent down yesterday. I have to release players every time someone goes on the dL, i’m not interested in trying to build something in this league. I ha
-
I think we should clarify that point. The roster is 3 players short. I don't think I would have brought it up if it were one player short solely due to a short term DL stint (that'd still be illegal but whatever). There's no catcher, Barreto is in the minors and none of us can say for sure when he's going to get called back up (especially with the As making a push for the playoffs, there's a pretty good chance he stays down), and there are only 4 MLB Starting Pitchers
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 1:16 PM
-
Why does that not count? The rule says "22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup." An injured player can't fill out a starting lineup. I'm dealing with the same thing in Screw Cancer. I had Arodys Vizcaino and Brandon Morrow hit the 10 day DL and I had to use a roster spot on James Freakin' Pazos and I'm currently auctioning another jabroni reliever to hit my requirements. DL stints count, IMO
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 1:06 PM
-
I think the short-term injury to Ramos is fine to count as a catcher, which puts you just the one MLB player short. Thanks for addressing it FBs.
-
This isn't a personal attack nor is it my personal desire to bust on your team. Frankly, you paid into the league and if you want to spend your time and money on a rebuild, that's fine with me. But the league agreed on rules, which I'm fine with, and it appears that I'm not the only one who agrees on enforcing the rule we set. I'm sure you don't want to waive any of your prospects but thems the rules.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 12:02 PM
-
...I just nominated 3 players which i didn't want to do to replace the barretto (who would be back up soon enough) and 2 on the 10 day DL, but just know, If i have to replace every players put on the new 10 day, It will be really difficult to rebuild. Happy jeets?
-
I am also, and have always been, one of the most active owners. why YJ has taken such an interest in my team is interesting. don't you have your own team to run? I would be doing things very differently if it weren't for the 22 rule. If you want me to release Dom smith for a barretto replacement, I'll do it. My team is legit and don't try to make my rebuild any harder than it already is YJ. I've been active in this league since its inception. My team is horrible and I'm still making moves ...
-
dude. I just moved guzman to 1b. hampson to util. barretto who is coming up and down and up and down is my only borderline player. I would LOVE to pick up more prospects to be better in the future but I don't so that i can keep up with the 22 rule. I'm not going to waive good prospects during a rebuild for players on the the new 10 day dl. If you consider how often barretto is in the majors and that Peralta was only sent for the all star break i am legal.
-
Thanks for catching YJ. The rule was highlighted here just a couple months ago to help avoid this situation. FBs, please get compliant ASAP. If compliance isn’t met w/in 48 hours, I agree that simply cutting the most recent prospect adds makes the most sense. If any manager has an objection pls let me know.
-
I'd say the rule should be similar to that, possibly having the commissioner just cut the most recent minor league pickups (so that BOI doesn't have to make a judgment call about who the worst players are on someone's roster) and replacing them with some generic waiver wire major leaguer. I assume this won't be necessary, in any event, because if we agree this is to be enforced, Fun Bags can go ahead and fix this himself.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 9:18 AM
-
If we're gonna enforce it, that doesn't seem like a sufficient deterrent, since basically all of the interesting minor leaguers are owned. In the Screw Cancer league, the rule is you have 48 hours to get legal or the commissioner makes you legal. It was enforced against a team that picked someone off the waiver wire and didn't make a corresponding cut, so the commissioner cut his worst player for him 48 hours later.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 9:16 AM
-
Maybe we could do something simple like ban him from getting anymore minor league players until he has 22 major league players. That might drag out but would be easy to enforce.
SchanuWow! on
July 25, 2018 7:56 AM
-
We decided to require it but going with the honor system but maybe we’ll have to figure out how to enforce it now.
SchanuWow! on
July 25, 2018 7:38 AM
-
And arguably 9 pitchers with Peralta being called up. Still less than 22
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 6:08 AM
-
I missed Hampson in my count, so actually 10 MLB hitters. Don’t want to be inaccurate
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 5:58 AM
-
What did we decide about the 22 man major league roster issue? We wanted to require that right? Cause I love ya fun bags, you’re a good league mate, but you’ve only got 9 major league hitters and 8 major league pitchers right now. If we’re going to enforce that, we should do that. I actually don’t care if we enforce it, but if that’s what we wanted to do, we should follow through
Yeah Jeets! on
July 25, 2018 5:56 AM
-
Yeah Jeets!'s trade block has been updated!
Yeah Jeets! on
July 20, 2018 11:22 AM
-
Panda🐼🛡Shield's trade block has been updated!
-
Dirt Bikes and Drugs's trade block has been updated!
-
Having said that, I do agree JaBO is a unique league, and most importantly, it is definitely not dull here.
-
Benintending to get 🐟 some help's trade block has been updated!
-
Ha, I don't think anyone was criticizing. The top draft pick seems like a reasonable way to use the metric fuck ton of cap space you're sitting on.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 1, 2018 1:40 AM
-
$6 seems standard to me. Think you meant the $10 bid. All moot, when I carried a $16 Moncada with zero minor league experience (maximum high in FG salaries, low was like 8)
-
If you are going to pay 6 for a draft pick they had better make a fast rise to success. Mize fits the bill if anyone does - And this league (more than any league I've been in) sets a much different price tag for prospects which you have to adjust for. If you like a prospect with pedigree you have to pay more than surplus analysis would suggest. OR maybe FB will be a perennially bad team in this league, which looks entirely possible. one thing is true - JABo isn't "other leagues".
-
Money Bags was not to be denied
-
Ha! I'm reading "YJ wants Brinson and Aaron Sanchez". Now I shall keep both of them. Ok maybe Brinson...
-
I'll probably cut Betts and Bauers to make room. True story.
-
Don't listen to Blach Ops mind games, Shadows. He'll cut the shit outta Brinson or Aaron Sanchez the second he gets the chance to get Mize.
Yeah Jeets! on
June 25, 2018 7:48 PM
-
It would be a feel-good story to see the dynamic Tigers duo (5IS) land Mize. Although, I dont know if he'll be the favorite going in against the likes of the Warren Buffet of JaBO (FBs) and BFD, who's making a run at the record for most players owned at any given time (currently sporting 47!). I think WF* owns that mark, but his record will forever don an asterisk after purging the FA pool in what became known as the Gregory Polanco Scandal. Dark times. Dark, dark times indeed.
-
Rule #1045680 of JaBO, never reveal your "boy"! buahaha. Damn I only have a buck.
-
There's your boy, Shadows. Get after it
Yeah Jeets! on
June 25, 2018 4:47 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages