|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 2, 2018 23:51:53 GMT -5
Proposals for rule changes will be allowed to be posted here. The Commissioner and co-commissioners will discuss as to whether the proposal will be brought to a League Vote. No rules changes will occur during the season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck (Philadelphia Astros) on Mar 3, 2018 22:42:40 GMT -5
I think if a player becomes a Free Agent for the first time and is signed( for example) for 20 Mil for 2 years, that player then can't be Franchised by the same team after his contract is over for anything less than 20 Mil per season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason (Seattle Braves) on Mar 4, 2018 8:26:37 GMT -5
Instead of releasing MiLB players before the draft, teams should be allowed to draft as many players as they like with a 1 week deadline post draft to trim the roster down to 60.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 11:02:32 GMT -5
RFA matching: should be allowed to drop players as part of a contract restructure if needed to match an RFA offer. It’s silly to have to drop more players or clear more salary than needed since you have no way of knowing how large of an offer one of your RFA’s may get.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 11:27:00 GMT -5
RFA matching should be either a 15% home team discount should you sign your own RFA or a compensatory pick for losing an RFA. Maybe having a short round before parent team selection for teams that lost RFA's to grab a prospect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 13:17:08 GMT -5
I’d take Jon’s Idea one step further and say you lose your highest pick every time you sign an RFA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2018 13:45:31 GMT -5
I’d take Jon’s Idea one step further and say you lose your highest pick every time you sign an RFA Ouch!! P.S. Don't ever say publicly that you agree with me. Seriously.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck (Philadelphia Astros) on Mar 4, 2018 15:16:34 GMT -5
I think this will be discussed before next offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 5, 2018 23:32:03 GMT -5
A lot of these suggestions need to be discussed, and I don't think we wait until next offseason because then it will be too late and people will argue that it's too late to do anything for 2019. If we're going to make changes for 2019 and beyond then some of this stuff has to be presented formally in a poll and voted on early in the 2018 season so owners can prepare for changes ahead, if there are any. Keep the thoughts coming. Once UFA is over, I'll get some of these issues put up for vote. Some will be either or, but some may need 2, 3, or 4 options.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 20:25:51 GMT -5
Slow week so I figured I would write something here. There has been a lot of discussion over rules and players, but I figured I would throw something out there on a team approach versus a player approach.
In short, I would like to see a minimum AB and minimum IP requirement for each team per season. 6750 AB minimum would be a 450AB per player for the 15 starting players. 900 IP would be 140 IP/ avg for the 5 starting slots and 40 IP / avg for the 3RP and 2P slots.
The numbers could be a source of debate, but the premise would be for each owner to field a lineup throughout the year that compiled counting stats. The numbers would not be all that difficult to meet as long as the team is managed throughout the season. As a consequence for not meeting the minimums, the penalty should be surrendering the highest draft pick(s) the offending owner has for the draft for each minimum that is not met.
I know this might not be popular with some, but with the premise of an active and healthy ROTO league, high draft picks should not go to a team that doesn't set a lineup for most of the season. I know the popular counter will be that an owner should be allowed to run his team as he sees fit and I agree with that. I could care less if someone trades all of their players for prospects, but with the cap savings and amount of free agents available each year one should be able to get the prospects and field a team that accumulates weekly statistics.
The following is a bit more outside the box, but it pairs with the idea above. I would like to see a competition draft pick award system implemented. For any team that finishes 11-15 in the overall standings and has met the minimum AB/IP requirement, they would have the chance to receive bonus draft pick(s) associated with doing well in a single ROTO category. If anyone who finishes 11-15 finishes 1,2, or 3 in a singe category then they would receive a bonus pick at the end of the corresponding round. Example, if team x comes in second in SB then they get an additional pick at the end of rd 2 in the following years draft. Before everyone gets out their torches and pitchforks, I looked at all 4 DD leagues for 2017 and the result of this idea would have been (2) 2nd round competition bonus picks awarded in each of DD 2 and 3. No one would have qualified for any picks in DD1 or DD4.
I know its not perfect but for my 2 cents, I am very indifferent to the impact of 1 large contract or the franchising of 1 player per squad. I would rather see changes that encourage activity and more competition so hopefully more teams are competing and active throughout the entire season.
Sorry in advance if this offends, it was not my intent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 6:25:08 GMT -5
Awesome idea J. I for one will 100% of the time vote no for ANY rule changes by anyone or for anything, but I do like to see the activity and outside the box thinking. Good luck this season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 22, 2018 20:21:02 GMT -5
J,
I like the ideas. For one, we have an 850 IP minimum in Diamond Duos 4, and that's a daily lineup league. I think if we did something like this for DD1, a weekly lineup league, we'd have to come up with the best number. 900 IP might be it. I've never even considered an AB limit. So what happens if a team doesn't reach those minimums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 9:53:55 GMT -5
As I said in the post above, I would suggest the team(s) that do not meet the minimums must surrender the highest draft pick they have for each minimum nit met. Example, they do not meet the IP minimum or AB minimimum then they lose the highest pick they have (likely a first, but in the case of trades then they surrender the highest remaining). If they fail to meet both then the two highest picks are forfeited. I suggested the numbers I did because pretty much every member of a MLB bullpen throws at least 40IP and a starter would only have to average 140IP which is about the lowest you are going to see from a full time SP barring injury. The AB's were based on 450AB which is slightly above what a role/platoon player gets, but well short of the 550-600 ABs most regulars receive in a year.
With that said, I fell the numbers are conservative and anyone who doesn't shut it down for 2 moths after the trade deadline would easily fulfill. I suggested the forfeiture of picks because honestly, I don't feel someone should get the first or second overall pick when their lineup is filled with people who are on the DL or in the minors for months at a time and have essentially punted the season.
The second part about the competition picks was to incentivize people to compete throughout. Maybe if a few could earn an extra pick or two by doing well in a category then it would make the overall landscape more competitive. Unlike a head to head league, anyone taking points from the leader board has a chance to make the race tighter.
The DD leagues are a great product, but any minor tweak to get all of the baseball fanatics fighting to the end would make it even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott (Boston Padres) on Mar 25, 2018 7:38:52 GMT -5
J,
Thanks for the clarification. Makes a lot more sense to me. I really don't want to assign settings in Fantrax to forfeit Roto points for not meeting minimum thresholds on IP and AB. But your proposal doesn't take away team stats, it's all about future draft picks. Anyone else want to chime in on this idea? If we get a few others to comment then it's probably something we can do a poll for.
|
|
