Minimums Penalty

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Apr 20, 2024 11:06:45 GMT -5 tbrays said:

If teams wanted to make miniumums they could.
1) Teams can pick up players off the waiver wire. I've picked up many good players over the years off the waiver wire. The WW is barren now, but it takes persistence and some measure of planning. Not making minimums is a lack of activity or planning to field an active roster.
2) GMs can trade for players that provide ABs or IPs. Lower tier players wouldn't require much capital in return on a trade.

The problem is no one wants to win. We have de-incentivized winning. The worse you do, the better pick you get in the draft, the more IFA money you get. The better your ranking on our team prospect rankings list.
If a team is doing poorly, the best way to get that number one pick is to leave your active roster as empty as possible.

When we jumped to a 40-man roster, I could field about 26 active players which was a challenge the first year. It forced me to add depth off the waiver wire and trades. I'm not keen on the fact that a few years later we would consider reverting back. It takes time to adapt to these changes, and build a team with this structure in mind.

I thought the league minimums implementation was a good idea. It would cap the level of tanking.
I am not in favour of making changes to the 40-man now, less so in-season.

I do appreciate the premise that Chris and Andrew are making, and I fully understand the reasoning behind it. There are a lot of teams not making minimums and not fielding active rosters, with few trades or transactions to attempt to counteract it. I think that is purposeful though. Like plug and play, and hope that the team does bad enough or isn't active in order to get best IFA spot/draft pick.

I agree with most of this.

It would be intense having a fantasy league where everyone was really engaged.

[cleguardiansmike]

Apr 20, 2024 14:56:07 GMT -5 Cincinnati Reds - Chris said:

Apr 20, 2024 11:06:45 GMT -5 tbrays said:

If teams wanted to make miniumums they could.
1) Teams can pick up players off the waiver wire. I've picked up many good players over the years off the waiver wire. The WW is barren now, but it takes persistence and some measure of planning. Not making minimums is a lack of activity or planning to field an active roster.
2) GMs can trade for players that provide ABs or IPs. Lower tier players wouldn't require much capital in return on a trade.

The problem is no one wants to win. We have de-incentivized winning. The worse you do, the better pick you get in the draft, the more IFA money you get. The better your ranking on our team prospect rankings list.
If a team is doing poorly, the best way to get that number one pick is to leave your active roster as empty as possible.

When we jumped to a 40-man roster, I could field about 26 active players which was a challenge the first year. It forced me to add depth off the waiver wire and trades. I'm not keen on the fact that a few years later we would consider reverting back. It takes time to adapt to these changes, and build a team with this structure in mind.

I thought the league minimums implementation was a good idea. It would cap the level of tanking.
I am not in favour of making changes to the 40-man now, less so in-season.

I do appreciate the premise that Chris and Andrew are making, and I fully understand the reasoning behind it. There are a lot of teams not making minimums and not fielding active rosters, with few trades or transactions to attempt to counteract it. I think that is purposeful though. Like plug and play, and hope that the team does bad enough or isn't active in order to get best IFA spot/draft pick.

I agree with most of this.

It would be intense having a fantasy league where everyone was really engaged.

Yeah personally (as one of those people who took over a bottom barrel team and have been working on rebuilding it), I'm not in favor of changing the 40 man roster, even though it would undoubtedly help my team.  The goal should be to punish teams that aren't active, not punish the teams that are.  Teams that are missing minimums regularly shouldn't be rewarded.

If a manager who is already barely active finds out his 1.02 pick has moved to 1.07, it may lead to either a) vowing to be more active or b) force him out of the league where he can be replaced with a more active manager.  

I don't really see a downside to be honest.  Even if it's just a small step and not a fix all solution.
  

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

This is how the rule is written in another league I'm in, in regards to tanking.

"Owners will be expected to field an active MLB player at each position other than the 9 bench positions to the best of their abilities at all times. "To the best of their abilities" will be defined as at no point can a player in the minor leagues or on the disabled list be listed as a starter while other active players are available through free agency, on that team's 40 man roster, or in their minor leagues. The purpose of this rule is to prevent teams from purposely tanking by playing all injured or minor league players. There is clearly a gray area within this rule, and it will be the commissioner's discretion as to when this rule will apply, and what the punishment for tanking will be. Punishment could include loss of draft picks, loss of cap space, moving the team down in the draft order, or any other punishment the commissioner deems appropriate."

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

In regards to penalties. Seeing as teams in TPB can't trade picks 2 years in advance. We could make it so that every pick from the draft 2 years out, they're penalized.