Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:38:17 GMT -5
The rules committee is currently working on this, but I'm personally against cutting roster sizes. Here's an example why I'm against it, I have Daniel Norris SP I traded him for three lesser pieces because I figured I would have roster spots for them. Now with the three to 6 roster spots getting cut, I would never do that trade. It makes no sense and the teams that will win will be the one that have the studs not the owners who are deploying any strategies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Nov 28, 2014 16:46:34 GMT -5
I guess what my issue comes down to is competitive balance or the lack of it and equal opportunity. Which is mathematically impossible in the format as it is now. I can't say for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the cause of the turnover in this league. And I may be the only one that feels this way but allowing cap to be traded is not good for the league. Anyone who would trade cap away is foolish. A lesson I learned the hard way. Completely disagree about the lack of competitive balance and opportunity. More than any long-running league I've been in there is negative pressure on the best teams due to ballooning salaries of stars and the weaker teams benefitting significantly from higher draft picks (and now IFA cash). I mean, Colorado just came in 2nd and is rebuilding. The last Nats guy bailed because he was going to have to dump a bunch of contracts, not because he couldn't compete. Yes there are some teams that have bottomed out due to poor management that it's hard to get people to invest their time in. But that's true in every league and usually they're actually screwed because all they have is a handful of marginally better draft picks on their side. This league is more like reality where teams will naturally rise and fall due to economics, but turning around a franchise is going to take some real time and vision -- not a year or two of mining for completely unowned gems as the competition for them is absolutely fierce. Don't get the SP thing. It's just so people can start a full staff if they come up on the same day. No need to keep those spots full all the time. I don't want to have to skip someone if everyone starts on the same day or have a max bullpen of 5, fewer every time more than 2 SP line up. |
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Nov 28, 2014 17:01:51 GMT -5
I agree with your points Rays, to an extent. I also am not convinced that cutting three roster spots will really open up the waiver wire that much. For example, I feel like I have a top 10ish team in the league right now. If you cut down to 28, I'd drop Matt Thornton, Tim Federowicz, Michael Blazek (two of which are in my minors), so you open up one 38 year reliever and two bleh fringe MLB/AAAA guys. Most teams are going to have a similar situation where they can send down guys to absorb the blow and drop so-so guys. Maybe I'm strengthening your point for 25 man rosters, but I think league sentiment (or at least the sentiment of those contributing to this post right now) is that cutting rosters to 28 is okay, but not drastically going down to 25. Yeah...the guys who will be cut are not that important. Since even filler starters have trade value in this league, there's a disincentive to have anyone of real value out of your first ~19 anyway unless you're rebuilding. Even going down to 25 I would probably drop Franklin Morales. Wooooooooo. It might be fun because you'd have a more active waiver wire like in most leagues that consists mainly of middle relievers and 4th outfielders, but it's not going to change a lot. 25 instantly would have more of an impact but mainly because like Mariners points out you'd be punishing people who haven't been planning for it. Pretty easy to make sure anyone with real upside is in the top 25 or the minors. And hacking the minors down would have an equally negative impact on rebuilding teams as the positive impact of flushing out a few prospects. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 17:19:31 GMT -5
I surrender and withdraw all my ideas. It's your league after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Nov 28, 2014 17:34:33 GMT -5
You take things too personally rays. We're all for suggestions it's just some of these suggestions are a little drastic. With an established league it's best to slowly cut things out or add. But removing 20% of a roster is quite significant no matter how large a roster is 20% is a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Nov 28, 2014 17:57:47 GMT -5
Passive aggressive much? Sorry if you feel piled on here, but this has been a pretty civil debate with people who have played a year in this league already attempting to explain why they really don't agree things are so out of whack or in need of such sweeping change. There was a lot of agreement and you seem to have won some support for voting on 28.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Nov 28, 2014 20:53:04 GMT -5
I surrender and withdraw all my ideas. It's your league after all. Yeah man don't take this personally. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that you've been a great addition to the league. Seems like you're filled with ideas, which is good. |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Nov 28, 2014 22:39:45 GMT -5
I surrender and withdraw all my ideas. It's your league after all. Yeah man don't take this personally. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say that you've been a great addition to the league. Seems like you're filled with ideas, which is good. It's bad when Dan is the voice of reassurance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 1:56:41 GMT -5
Okay, I've wrapped my head around it and come to the conclusion it's not a big deal and if it's only half broke then only half fix it. I think 28 is a fair compromise to this situation.
Next, what if any is the criteria to be placed on the DL in season DL and why only 3 when there's 5 off-season? Although, it appears that during the off season the DL is really just 5 more bench spots. Is this right or wrong?
Can anyone be carried over into the new season on the DL (TJS)? I'm guessing no and they will need to be placed on when the league season opens then replaced with another player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Dec 6, 2014 9:28:05 GMT -5
Okay, I've wrapped my head around it and come to the conclusion it's not a big deal and if it's only half broke then only half fix it. I think 28 is a fair compromise to this situation. Next, what if any is the criteria to be placed on the DL in season DL and why only 3 when there's 5 off-season? Although, it appears that during the off season the DL is really just 5 more bench spots. Is this right or wrong? Can anyone be carried over into the new season on the DL (TJS)? I'm guessing no and they will need to be placed on when the league season opens then replaced with another player. It's difficult to police every team to make sure every player they have listed on the DL is actually on the DL. It's more of an honor system. If that's just your personal pet peeve and you want to patrol it, then by all means, have at it. Players who are on the DL should be listed on the DL in real life. During the offseason, we've been more relaxed about guys on the DL. Since no one is technically on the DL, it is expected that anyone stored on the DL either ended the season hurt, or is going to start the season on the DL. There are only 3 DL spots on ESPN because we changed the rule midseason and havent been able to change this on ESPN yet. It's not an offseason vs. season thing. I'm certainly fine with this rules committee discussing making the DL requirements more strict. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Dec 6, 2014 18:11:05 GMT -5
Yes, we have this on our list.
We have a couple of changes to propose to Tim and Steve before making them formal.
We are also looking at playoffs (length) and scoring categories as well as roster sizes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 10:48:32 GMT -5
The rules committee is currently working on this, but I'm personally against cutting roster sizes. Here's an example why I'm against it, I have Daniel Norris SP I traded him for three lesser pieces because I figured I would have roster spots for them. Now with the three to 6 roster spots getting cut, I would never do that trade. It makes no sense and the teams that will win will be the one that have the studs not the owners who are deploying any strategies. The only comment I would have on what is a legitimate point, is that I would be opposed to any significant rule change that does not come with adequate warning and a phase in period. For example, although I support the idea of reduced roster sizes, I don't think we can cut 3, 4 or five spots immediately. I would support a change that reduces the size by one spot per year for x number of years, starting in 2016. That way any managers who are significantly affected can plan for and accommodate the changes. |
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Dec 7, 2014 11:48:26 GMT -5
I guess what my issue comes down to is competitive balance or the lack of it and equal opportunity. Which is mathematically impossible in the format as it is now. I can't say for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if that's the cause of the turnover in this league. And I may be the only one that feels this way but allowing cap to be traded is not good for the league. Anyone who would trade cap away is foolish. A lesson I learned the hard way. I'd like to think I know my stuff about baseball. And when I join a Dynasty League I expect to be in the league for the long haul. In that long haul, I expect to continually build my team, never getting significantly worse or ever needing to do a complete gut or teardown. If people are leaving the league because they feel they can't compete or contend, they're either impatient or have confidence issues in making their team the best they can. As for cap being traded....it would be similar to saying let's not trade draft picks. I like leagues that are open with lots of activity and removing these aspects of the league would make the league really uninteresting. |
|
|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Dec 18, 2014 16:24:28 GMT -5
I think the rules should be changed to reflect that you can take as many guys as you want in the draft as this seems to have been changed this last year without that really being clear. They still read:
"We have a 10 round draft every year and those players are added onto the rookie rosters, wich consist of 13 spots."
The constitution reads:
"5.4) Even though it’s a 10 round draft, a manager can have and use up to a maximum of 13 picks."
|
|
