-
Dunno, when he evolves from being a tool I guess.
-
When does Tim tebow become available for bid, you think?
Yeah Jeets! on
August 31, 2016 6:43 AM
-
Yeah Jeets!'s trade block has been updated!
Yeah Jeets! on
August 28, 2016 9:32 AM
-
The board needs to be resuscitated. Fun Bags post something!
-
Future Post Hype Sleeper Wasteland's trade block has been updated!
-
Yes, we agree that a "rule" without a note about enforcement/penalty is more of a guideline instead. If a majority were to favor it as a rule, we would obviously abide by it. However, we're not sure if we are 100% on any suggestion so far.
-
It's hilarious to me that this rule is written into the rulebook with no details on how it should be enforced (DL, demotions, promotions...ect)
But, if you want to do it, I'll have my roster legit by opening day next year.
-
BOI - if the rule is "written" - why didn't Niv program it to be enforced? I agree, it's a good rule, but I've NEVER seen it enforced. (i'm in 3 leagues). sorry i lost you, but I am trying to save you the headache of enforcing something with so many variables that aren't discussed in the "rules". If you create a website. encode the rules so that they are enforced by the website or don't call it a "rule". It's rediculous to have the commish enforce the rules you don'
-
5iS will have a firm stance on this...tomorrow, because one of us is too drunk. To be continued
-
I have a broad definition of "prospect". For example. Yasiel Puig is still a prospect. Why else do I still hold on to him heh.
-
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I lean toward thinking it's not feasible to police this. Perhaps that why "should" is the operative word in the rulebook? If there were a cap on prospects that would have been easy to write into the rules. If the concern is inactivity, that's easy to enforce since the league could always have the commissioner mark their team abandoned. That's obviously not the problem with FPHSW or Fun Bags (or BOI when he did his rebuild).
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 4:07 PM
-
If so, I have exactly 18 players w/o MLB experience (albeit only just this week w/ Bregman & Dahl making their debuts)
-
But then we have to define "prospect". Is that just anyone w/o major league IP or PA?
-
I want to start again by saying I'll live by whatever rules are necessary to keep the league together because this is by far the best league I'm in. I agree w/ Jeets that the best way to manage it is by just saying you can't have more than 18 prospects on your roster.
-
FPHSW is a great example of the unspoken part of Ottoneu Fantasy Baseball. Inheriting gutted teams not by his/her design, and building them up to be a better team than running with rule 1 suggested course. If anything, that rule would make me have 3rd thoughts of inheriting a team in the $50/$100 leagues. It would hinder leagues looking to fill the void of departed managers.
-
So maybe it's helpful to look at it not as "you need to have 22 players who fill positions a,b,c etc." and more like "you have a hard cap of 18 minor league players at any one time" because that's I think we would be saying by enforcing that rule. I'm Switzerland (neutral) on that one. I will be happy staying in the league either way
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 3:36 PM
-
The primary effect of the rule would clearly be to limit stockpiling of prospects and/or injured players. That is, FPHSW and Fun Bags (and any future teams) would essentially be given a hard limit of 18 prospects. I'm not sure whether that needs to be policed. We do the (modest) buy-in and it's a high risk strategy. Teams that try it are lighting $50 on fire and if the prospects fail or take a long time (see Gordon, Alex), then they could stay non-competitive for many years
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 3:32 PM
-
Ok, I'll jump back in. It's odd because the spirit of the rule, the way its written seems to be intended to guard against inactive owners, i.e. it seems to be intended to require everyone to fill out a lineup to keep some level of competitiveness. But I'm not sure how that goal would be served were we to require FPHSW and Fun Bags (and anyone else who wanted to try this) to fill in their roster with a few replacement level waiver wire guys. They're not catching BOI either way
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 3:28 PM
-
Even if your team is decimated by injuries, and become forced to cut potentially active/prospects to make room for fillers?
-
Well, whether one or some of us don't like a rule is one thing. We could always vote as a league to possibly change it. But it is pretty clear stated as a rule and should be acknowledged as such IMO. Both FPHSW and WAR suggested 1 week as a reasonable time to get aligned in managing changing dynamics at the MLB level. I would be totally fine with that too.
-
I'm not fond of that rule because it is short sighted for a dynasty league format for a sport that plays 162 games with daily and intermittent transactions from its minor league system. I can see the impact of the rule better governed for the NFL and NBA, but not MLB.
-
As some have mentioned, no matter what repercussions we put in place, it's a pain in the ass to enforce. If we could all just respect the rule(s) as they are written it makes for a better, more fun league for everybody. I'm pretty sure nobody here wants to have to police the rules. I sure don't!
-
I agree with Fun Bags. Also, I'm on boat with FPHSW's notions. Especially if the league does sway towards supporting a written rule with unwritten implications, let it be one MUST field the 22 player lineup card at the beginning of the season. From then on, impose some deadline perhaps at 1/3 of the season and from there it's free for fall. There are too many uncontrollable and unforeseen factors, including MLB real life management of upcoming prospects: delaying super two eligibilities.
-
YJ's description of the required 22 is correct (c, 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, mi, 5 of, util, 5sp and 5rp). There's no mention of DL. Just says, "major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup". So, I wouldn't make a differentiation there, unless a majority here wanted to add that in.
-
Fun Bugs, you lost me there pal. Whether the rule is coded to automate or not, shouldn't matter. This is literally the first rule in the rule book and it's there for a good reason.
-
My opinion. If the site doesn't enforce it. It isn't a rule. It's a suggestion. I think it's a great rule, but if a team decides they have no chance this year, it really isn't that big of a deal that they do a drastic rebuilds since they aren't a contender anyway - hey, like I'm doing this year. Although I like the rule, Niv has to find a way to enforce it or else it's just a big can of headaches and heated exchanges going forward
-
I suppose the commissioner could theoretically add a major league player (the proverbial replacement level player off the wire) to the owner's roster. This may be too difficult to police to implement as a hard and fast rule. I'm up for whatever everyone else wants. I've said my piece so I'll drop out and let others have their say
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 10:28 AM
-
I think that's fair and a week to comply is fair. But if an owner doesn't comply what is the recourse? Dropping players from a team can't make them return to compliance, especially if a DL'd player it was causes them to fall under 22
-
I also don't totally care whether we enforce it. And, actually FPHSW, I don't think you're the only team who would currently not be in compliance, though obviously this would affect you most drastically. But I do think we should either enforce it all the time (starting next year) or not at all, as opposed to just the start of the season.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 10:17 AM
-
And I guess the point is having 22 players being in the majors and playing. So I would think Holland would not count, and Severino would count when he's in the majors but not while he's in the minors. So, as in my previous hypothetical, if you needed him to be in compliance with the rule and he got sent down, you would have to pick up someone else to cover that. That's how I think it would work
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 10:14 AM
-
Well, if the rules suggest you "should" have 22 major league players, 22 is one catcher plus 1b, 2b, 3b, ss, mi, 5 of, util, 5sp and 5rp. I think that's what 22 is referencing.
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 10:10 AM
-
We just use the same rules that the MLB follows for the 25 man rosters. I think the MLB only gives 48 hours for a team to get back to legal roster, but we probably would want to give the team at least a week or so.
SchanuWow! on
July 30, 2016 9:58 AM
-
We would also need to define what constitutes a "starting lineup". For example, is a 2nd C required to be on roster? 5 RP/SP? 5 OF? If all of these are required, the following teams would also currently be out of compliance: Avisail (2nd C), Plumbers (2nd C), Fun Bags (5th RP, 1B, 5th OF), Fister (5th RP). (Quick eyeball test, so apologies if above includes errors)
-
So you're suggesting players on the DL shouldn't count towards the 22? I don't mean to be argumentative, I just think this will be impossible to enforce unless we explicitly define what counts and what doesn't
-
Well to take another line from the rules page: "The intention of this league is to mimic the job of an actual general manager as closely as possible." In the spirit of this I would think that in any situation where a real team would need to get a replacement, then we would as well. So if they place a player on the DL, then they call up a guy to replace him. If they want to demote someone to the minors, then they call up a replacement.
SchanuWow! on
July 30, 2016 9:25 AM
-
I want to reiterate that I think this is a great league and a great group of owners, so whatever is decided to be in the best interest of keeping the league intact and competitive is what I think we should do.
-
In my opinion, each team should be required to start the season with the full 22, but should be free to make moves in the best interest of their team once the season begins. Some food for thought, is Greg Holland a "major-league" player this year? What about Luis Severino, who finished 2015 in the majors but has pitched more in the minors in 2016?
-
Since I am obviously the unnamed topic of discussion, I'll add my thoughts. I agree w/ the spirit of the rule, but as Jeets mentioned, it does not say that it is a requirement. However, if a majority of the league agrees that we should abide by it starting next year, then I have no problem complying. I believe Jeets makes the most important point about whether DL'd players count, etc.
-
I assume there would also be some question as to how aggressively it needs to be policed. For example, if a team has one major league catcher and that guy picks up a short term injury, does his team need to pick up another major league catcher to be in compliance with the rule? It would seem the answer is yes. At least, once that player is on the DL (as opposed to out for a day or two but not DL'ed), since stockpiling DL players is a similar strategic move to stockpiling minor leaguers
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 7:42 AM
-
I think the enforcement suggested by BOI is reasonable, though perhaps if there's an offending team they should be given notice and the opportunity to make their own cuts first before the commissioner does it for them
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 7:22 AM
-
Hoo boy, that's a big one. I'll admit I had not paid any attention to that rule. I'm not a big fan of the writing of the "rule" given the operative word is "should" instead of "must" or "shall" and there's no enforcement mechanism. I could go either way with this. There's obviously going to be a disproportionate impact on FPHSW. But the spirit of the "rule" is something I'd generally agree with
Yeah Jeets! on
July 30, 2016 7:10 AM
-
One thought is if a team is 1 or more players short of a legal roster beyond "X" amount of time, a commish will remove the most recently added player(s) from that roster that aren't contributing to a legal roster and add them back to the free agent pool (# of players removed equivalent to # of roster spots needed to be cleared to correct the roster). Any other ideas out there?
-
I think WAR is right to bring it up. I noticed it early this season but didn't speak up on it. I think both FB and 5IS are spot on with their points too. We've got a good group of guys. I'd suggest we all abide by the rules by honor code the rest of '16 and maybe we can agree to a means of enforcement now for next year (hopefully won't ever be necessary)?
-
I had read the same thing and assumed the website would do it for them...I agree with Fun Bags that it will have to be enforced next year.
-
If the website doesn't enforce it by itself. The commissioner will have a pretty active job trying to enforce it himself. I wouldn't want to be commish with that rule in place. I think it's a good rule though. Would have to start next year.
-
From looking at the forums about the issue it seems that it's supposed to be enforced by the commissioner. From looking at some of the discussions I can see the point of why it should be enforced. What do you guys think?
SchanuWow! on
July 29, 2016 11:36 PM
-
I wanted to bring up a rule that I didn't realize actually existed until I stumbled upon it the other day:
1a. Each team should maintain at all times a roster of 22 major-league players that can fill out a starting lineup. The remaining 18 roster spots can be used for reserves, consisting of both major and minor leaguers.
SchanuWow! on
July 29, 2016 11:35 PM
-
Yeah Jeets!'s trade block has been updated!
Yeah Jeets! on
July 28, 2016 1:05 PM
-
Future Post Hype Sleeper Wasteland's trade block has been updated!
-
"Do you want to try to get into the money this year?" --- Hmm let me ponder about that for a nanosecond.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages