|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Oct 8, 2013 21:18:56 GMT -5
If you have thoughts on anything else you'd like to change, let us know. We're open to discussion on ways to make the league better.
I know a couple other issues have been brought up about officially adding clauses to the rules on tanking and roster management as well as games started limits
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Oct 8, 2013 23:47:37 GMT -5
IMO tanking should be a case by case situation to be dealt with. I'm fully in favour of teams being allowed to strip their teams down if they want to do a rebuild, a la the Marlins. But come on, atleast make an attempt to field a team, otherwise its blatant tanking.
I'm not in favour of limiting GS. It seems the discussion on this cirlces around this on-going jabfest between Cigar and Royals.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Oct 8, 2013 23:52:46 GMT -5
IMO tanking should be a case by case situation to be dealt with. I'm fully in favour of teams being allowed to strip their teams down if they want to do a rebuild, a la the Marlins. But come on, atleast make an attempt to field a team, otherwise its blatant tanking. I'm not in favour of limiting GS. It seems the discussion on this cirlces around this on-going jabfest between Cigar and Royals. Yeah.. those last two sentences are spot-on. And I'd say that it's more of a never-ending jabfest than an on-going one. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2013 14:23:48 GMT -5
C'mon you know you guys just live to read the jabs me and Cigar poke at each other heh heh.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Oct 11, 2013 9:08:07 GMT -5
Very true, it's one of the great true rivalries
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 14:36:48 GMT -5
I would like to propose a change to the number of games that is required for a player to have eligibility. It is currently at 20, but I propose we drop it down to ten
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 15:02:07 GMT -5
It is 30 to retain eligibility from season to season. It is 20 in season to "gain" eligibility. I think that is a good number. Otherwise we going to have guys with 3, 4, 5 position eligibility. I think the Matt carpenters out there should be a rare breed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2014 16:04:41 GMT -5
I was told it was twenty to keep eligibility. I made a couple of moves because of this
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 1:24:52 GMT -5
It is 30 to retain eligibility from season to season. It is 20 in season to "gain" eligibility. I think that is a good number. Otherwise we going to have guys with 3, 4, 5 position eligibility. I think the Matt carpenters out there should be a rare breed. What are the requirements per ESPN? I have no experience with ESPN leagues only Yahoo and FleaFlicker. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Sept 15, 2014 1:31:07 GMT -5
It is 30 to retain eligibility from season to season. It is 20 in season to "gain" eligibility. I think that is a good number. Otherwise we going to have guys with 3, 4, 5 position eligibility. I think the Matt carpenters out there should be a rare breed. What are the requirements per ESPN? I have no experience with ESPN leagues only Yahoo and FleaFlicker. I actually think its 20 in 2014 to qualify there in 2015 or 10 during that season to gain eligibility for that year. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Apr 7, 2016 2:02:25 GMT -5
The current rule with claiming an IFA is that he can only be claimed if it's been a year or more since he's been signed. Otherwise, IFA money must be used.
I propose that these players be claim-eligible, but placed through a 24-hour period where they can be bid on. If there aren't any bids 24 hours after the claim was posted, then the owner who submitted the claim is awarded the player.
Anyone against this? I think it's fair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 6:42:20 GMT -5
The current rule with claiming an IFA is that he can only be claimed if it's been a year or more since he's been signed. Otherwise, IFA money must be used. I propose that these players be claim-eligible, but placed through a 24-hour period where they can be bid on. If there aren't any bids 24 hours after the claim was posted, then the owner who submitted the claim is awarded the player. Anyone against this? I think it's fair. I'm against this |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Apr 7, 2016 8:43:28 GMT -5
Thoughts on this idea for TPB bidding:
Any unowned player eligible for a TPB bid can be bid on for a multiple year TPB bid. The deciding factor on who the highest bidder is the total $$ of his contract (Years x $$/per year)
So you could essentially win a guy on less money per year, but you would own him for more years.
|
|
tigers
AL Managers
Posts: 2,120
|
Post by tigers on Apr 7, 2016 9:31:02 GMT -5
What are the reasons to change with how it is set up now? I would like to hear some justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Apr 7, 2016 9:33:04 GMT -5
That will be way too hard to track I think
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Apr 7, 2016 10:49:36 GMT -5
What are the reasons to change with how it is set up now? I would like to hear some justification. I don't have a problem with the current set up. It's something I've seen in other leagues and just thought I'd table the idea. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Apr 7, 2016 11:10:18 GMT -5
This isn't totally changing the rules. Just an add-on.
|
|
tigers
AL Managers
Posts: 2,120
|
Post by tigers on Apr 7, 2016 12:02:21 GMT -5
But it changes the whole complexion of picking up IFA's after a year of their signing. It gives those with IFA money more power in taking those not bid on after the July signings. I readily admit my reasons against a change are self-serving. I have never viewed IFA money as worth much, I would usually throw it in on some trade. Until the recent fun with Henry Pujols and Olivio I had never bid on an IFA. I thought I would try something different. I did the same with my draft picks until this past draft. I would either sell the top picks off or trade them.
I like doing research on the late-blooming Latin players and picking them up for free. Now, if I find a player I would want he would be opened up to a potential bidding process. I would probably have not been able to acquire players like Luis Severino, Jorge Mateo, Domingo Acevedo, Francis Martes, and several more if this were in place then. I feel if I do the research work I should reap the benefit. The IFA money should be used on the hyped recent signees and Cuban players. Leave the crumbs to us opportunists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Apr 7, 2016 15:34:41 GMT -5
I like doing research on the late-blooming Latin players and picking them up for free. Now, if I find a player I would want he would be opened up to a potential bidding process. I would probably have not been able to acquire players like Luis Severino, Jorge Mateo, Domingo Acevedo, Francis Martes, and several more if this were in place then. I feel if I do the research work I should reap the benefit. The IFA money should be used on the hyped recent signees and Cuban players. Leave the crumbs to us opportunists. I agree. It would eliminate much of the appeal of hunting for diamonds in the rough from past years. Doesn't seem unfair or unrealistic to me to not get a shot to bid on a player (as is the case with non IFAs) when they've been available for over a year. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Apr 7, 2016 15:48:01 GMT -5
I agree with Bruce and Jon
|
|
