-
It is also my understanding you can have minor league players still on your regular roster too, but they would follow the normal rules and not the seperate minor league system. Is that right or am I making that up?
Booger Weeds on
November 11, 2016 10:57 AM
-
Yeah, that was my understanding of it and was going to be my suggestion as well. I got the idea from some people from slack. You would either have to make room to add more (drop enough to be under 5 minor league players) during the draft. The only way to add them is what has been mentioned already, during the draft or via trade. My understanding is you can have more than 5 you just can't draft during the annual draft.
Booger Weeds on
November 11, 2016 10:55 AM
-
I like the idea. I will check on slack to see how guys handle the draft as to before or after the auction. But the other questions. The only way to add a player to your MiLB roster is through trade or the draft. The max you are allowed to have is 5 unless otherwise traded for. If you have 5 or more when the draft occurs you do not get to add anymore. Yes you can release players from your MiLB roster.
My Big Unit on
November 11, 2016 10:50 AM
-
I think the MiLB draft does exactly that Jodie. As for how it'd work, it would take place immediately following the Ottoneu draft. In my mind, you would start with 5 from the draft, then could trade as you wanted but only add via draft. If you wanted to drop one of them you could, but not to pick up a player. Only way to add to that roster is the draft. My question is, do you always get 5 picks every year, or if you already have 5 do you get skipped in the draft?
-
Would the MiLB draft be before or after the auction draft? Would your MiLB roster be continuously growing? Could you release a player from your MiLB roster? I know these are smaller details to be working out after voting, but it seems like a majority is in place for it.
-
And again, I was curious whether all that would be necessary given how in depth ottoneu already was?
Booger Weeds on
November 11, 2016 10:30 AM
-
Do people like the separate minor league deal? I mentioned it because someone talked about shrinking the free agent pool to make it harder for people to constantly pick players up. I talked about the minor league rosters because I thought if people rostered less minor leaguers and more players that were active it might accomplish that. But I was interested in knowing if everyone thought that would work or if it would not accomplish shrinking the player pool?
Booger Weeds on
November 11, 2016 10:29 AM
-
I changed it to be you have until the end of the day on which the transaction completes to get yourself under the cap, either through trade accepted or cuts.
-
I think I'd be open to giving the day to cut, but to give time to come up with another trade would be a weird timeline (I think)...how long does someone have for a trade? Giving a day to cut solves that issue. That work? I will change the wording now
-
Also on the 5 MiLB player thing a team can have more than 5 at a time. But that is only through trade. You also do not get to add new MiLB players just because you traded 1 or more of yours. The only way to add them is through the yearly draft or through trade
My Big Unit on
November 11, 2016 12:07 AM
-
Also on the 5 MiLB player thing a team can have more than 5 at a time. But that is only through trade. You also do not get to add new MiLB players just because you traded 1 or more of yours. The only way to add them is through the yearly draft or through trade
My Big Unit on
November 11, 2016 12:07 AM
-
I kinda like the sliding scale thing. My only hang up is how it is worded on the survey. The part where commish vetos if it pushes someone over the limit. I think there needs to be a SMALL variance in there. Like give them the day to cut some people or deal them. I know they shouldn't even be taking that much on but I don't like seeing vetoed trades that can be fixed by dropping a $5 player due to an accounting error.
My Big Unit on
November 11, 2016 12:04 AM
-
Alrighty. I have setup a survey with the three proposals. The poll will be open until 11:59pm CST on Sunday. Please everyone vote. If everyone hasn't voted, the majority of votes at the time will rule. This gives us Monday to get a true lay of the land so everyone knows what is going on when trading officially open up on Tuesday! Survey is here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/6B67LPW
-
From what I've read up on these 5 MiLB drafts is that these players are not apart of the 40 man roster and kept off it. Once they get called up into the Majors they have to come up to the 40 man and you have to drop someone if you do not have space. They are permanently up once they are called up the first time. No sending them back down to open a space. These are carried outside of the actual roster and are maintained by the commish is most that I have seen.
My Big Unit on
November 10, 2016 10:35 PM
-
Jodie - know we've discussed it before, but can you explain the MiLB draft a bit more on here for those who haven't heard of it? Just how it would work/what happens with current rosters/etc? Gracias mi amiga
-
Something that has been put into place in other leagues is a minor league draft. So basically you would draft like a snake draft or something 5 or so minor league players and they would be yours to claim if they came up and you would get them for $1. You can also trade them and other things, but it could potentially make it where more people roster those players who would normally be in the free agent pool. I know Ottoneu is already a Beast, but DL's post made me think about it.
Booger Weeds on
November 10, 2016 4:36 PM
-
I suggested the MLB lineup rule. My biggest reasoning behind that is it reduces the depth of quality players in the free agent pool. Making it tougher to spot start and such. I think it will really make end of the year more challenging for making innings and games limit.
My Big Unit on
November 10, 2016 3:04 PM
-
As far as roster requirements go, I am in favor of something in place to ensure you at least attempt to field a starting lineup.
-
I'll be honest, I wasn't a fan of the original salary cap restriction proposal. If someone wants to take on a butt load of debt and potentially sacrifice years in the future for it, that should be their decision. This happens in real professional sports every year. BUT, if we think this is going to be an issue and require something be implemented, I would be down for the sliding scale proposal. (I think as long as we have quality people as managers none of this will be a problem)
-
Sliding hard salary cap. You still have the $400 that you start with. For loans however, Start of season - May 31, $500 hard cap. June 1 - July 31, $550 hard cap. July 31 - Trading deadline, unlimited. This would ensure that no one could load up in the front, and then also give those out of it room at the deadline to make deals without worrying about space. Thoughts? Would that solve it? It'd be pretty easy to watch
-
Alright so proposal #1 seems like we have support to put it to a vote. As for proposal #2, have an interesting change that might be too weird but it could potentially increase trading/add strategy/solve the concerns
-
Because it takes the fun out of it for everyone else. What if I took on $700 with loans and won every year? It's not hard to find sellers, especially if there is only a few (or one) buyers.
-
Just to be sure I'm on the same page:
With the salary cap proposal, an owner would still have to be under $400 at the start of the season, there would just be a limit to the amount of loans you can take?
I'd be opposed to that simply because if somebody is willing to make that trade, why not let them?
CronChips on
November 9, 2016 5:54 PM
-
this is only a surgestion, but if there is a concern have a date or time frame in which you can't exceed so much extra loans to keep people from unloading to early. But I am not sure setting a hard cap like that is a good idea. I am just unsure really. I also think having a good group of managers(which I think we have) might actually fix the problem and keep the loans under control.
Booger Weeds on
November 9, 2016 11:49 AM
-
1st, I think there definitely be a lineup requirement to make sure a roster can be filled. 2nd, I am torn on the salary cap thing. I can see the argument to have one, but I can also see the argument if a team wants to trade all its assets to try and take on cap its their problem to deal with once the season is over. Nuns does make a good point about someone initially getting a bunch of players with loans making it hard to compete. The only thing I have regarding that is to set a deadline or date
Booger Weeds on
November 9, 2016 11:45 AM
-
I recommended the salary cap due to something I saw in my other league. Before the season started, a team took on close to $700 in salaries and no one stood a chance. I don't think this one would be hard for the commish to police since all trades are in an open forum.
-
That should read the goal would be to not be picky about it. Things happen, sometimes you need a starter and not reliever, etc. But basically have 12 hitters and 10 pitchers that are currently on a major league roster
-
Essentially your wonderful commish would...the salary thing would be pretty easy to watch. I think $500, is too low, $600 seems really high...maybe $550 is that sweet spot? As far as roster spots, it'd be honor system mostly. The goal wouldn't be to be crazy picky about it.
-
That really is the only way of policing.
My Big Unit on
November 8, 2016 5:09 PM
-
I am curious to know how these proposals would be policed. As far as I can tell the only option would be the honor system and the eyes of the other owners.
-
So please discuss as necessary, after a couple days we can figure out if a vote is needed (someone simply second a proposal) and then go from there. Thank you all again!
-
Proposal #2: Major League Roster Requirements. Create a requirement that you have to, at a minimum, be able to field a full roster. Meaning a hitter for each spot (12) and pitcher for each spot (10). 15 Day DL players would count toward those numbers. Basically just makes sure you have a complete roster. We can even call this the Tatamagouche Rule :)
-
Proposal #1: Implement a salary cap. Right now there is a budget of $400 plus traded money. The idea is that you can't go over a certain amount, whether it's $500/$550/$600. I'd be curious to know opinions + where you think the cap should be.
-
As we finally are near the end of the arbitration period, wanted to have discussion on two rule changes that have been brought up as ideas. If any of them are seconded we can have a vote (hooray election day!) in the next week.
-
Swanson's Swan Song's trade block has been updated!
-
Whiskey Sticks's trade block has been updated!
-
All allocations are officially in! Aside from any changes, which I'd think would amount to a small difference, you should now have a decently clear picture of where you'll stand once trading season reopens! Thank you to everyone!
-
Of course you cannot just swap players around like that, I just wanted to put names to the dollar values being discussed to inquire whether a $69 Trout is really a necessary arbitration target. Adding to the fun, I realize that sometimes there doesn't appear to be a deserving arbitration target on a roster and so the $ spent on that team goes to whatever is deemed the best strategy, etc. Thank you all for the discussion and your insights. :)
-
While I do agree with you and I would probably not own a $74 Trout, the likelihood of you being able to find a Bryant and/or Cruz to auction or trade for is probably pretty slim. Not that Trout is always available or being cut either, but he has started out at that high of a price pretty much for the last several years. Bryant has just had that price boost in the last year or so.
Booger Weeds on
October 27, 2016 8:51 AM
-
And, in a given year, a player like Bryant may equal or better Trout's numbers, so then you have Cruz in head-to-head points with a $1 player, for example.
-
But with Trout at $74 you aren't getting two average players, you would be getting Bryant and Nelson Cruz, for example. That seems significant.
-
Reading through these posts...it's basically my yearly dilemma. I *get* I guess why you would spend that much on one player. I just don't think I could ever look at my team and have one guy take up almost 1/5 of my payroll. That's what that comes down to for me...you're all in on one guy, and while Trout is the best to go all in on, that's a season breaker if anything at all happens.
-
Yes, you can get Trouts points with two cheaper players, but you're also using twice as many games for those points among your outfielders. So with Trout your getting 1200 points while using less than 162 games, whereas with two players your still getting 1200 points but using approx. twice as many games.
CronChips on
October 26, 2016 4:28 PM
-
i know its a liitle late in the covo but Betts has also only had 1 good season
Piskijikers on
October 26, 2016 4:15 PM
-
I think in a few instances they ended maybe keeping him over that price and winning, but those were very few. Of course I am going off memory about this, but I believe that was the gist of it.
Booger Weeds on
October 26, 2016 4:13 PM
-
One of the people from slack either wrote up and article or was posting in slack. But they researched varying prices of Trout and found that a Trout over a certain price was hardly if ever found on the same team by the end of the season. So basically, he was saying that you have to be careful how much you initially buy him for because if you go to high history has shown that those teams usually don't win. They end up trading him to a contender.
Booger Weeds on
October 26, 2016 4:11 PM
-
And I would probably still trade for him. :)
-
Oh, I agree with you, I didn't think Trout would be allocated so much. But I guess what I'm saying is ~$5 isn't usually going to move the needle on a player like Trout.
-
That would depend upon who is available as a free agent in the draft. Moreover, arbitration is intended to address perceived salary imbalances (i.e., to raise the salaries of players who are significantly outperforming their low cost) in an attempt to increase parity within the league, and I am simply surprised to see that Trout at $69 is viewed as such a candidate. And if it is true, and everyone agrees it is true, why is the same logic being applied less to other prominent players? :)
-
What's more valuable to me, dropping Trout for $70 or keeping him and competing, or keeping him and trading him to someone in competition for more cost effective assets?
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages