|
Post by coverlicious on Mar 30, 2013 10:11:34 GMT -5
I like the three drafts as well. Like Smoke said, they each have their own strategy and they add options for trading. I also agree that a lot of GmLs are kept that wouldn't be drafted and held on rosters otherwise, so it can add better depth to the MLB draft. We all have the same opportunity to build GmLs through our minor league system, plus you can trade for GmLs or better prospects if you want. I don't think there should be a GmL limit.
The keeper deadline is kind of tricky. I feel like teams trading their "9th" keepers for extra assets does help those teams gain other assets, and it keeps better players out of the MLB draft. I know a different player then needs to be dropped into the MLB pool as a result of the trade, but you cannot argue that it is a wash (or the team would not be trying to updgrade in the first place). With that being said, I like it the way it is. The lesser teams do not usually have to give up much to upgrade their 8th keeper. So I actually feel this help to rebuild the lesser teams more quickly.
Two things I would maybe change (off the top of my head)
1) I would like the league open to trading all year round. I know I'm a junkie, but I just think it's fun to keep everyone involved all year if they want. I'm not sure what rules we'd need to put in place to make this happen, but I think it would be fun.
2) I don't like the fact that the teams who finish first get the first picks in the minor league draft. It seems like there are usually a few studs at the top of these drafts (Cespedes, Soler, Puig, ect.) and then the talent thins out toward the back of the first round. I understand this is to prevent "tanking" but I feel this may keep the league imbalanced. My proposal is the draft is determined like this (as they finish from prior year).... 10,11,12,7,8,9,4,5,6,1,2,3.
This would help the worse teams get better, while still awarding teams who tried the year before. Those are just a few of my ideas.
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Mar 30, 2013 11:05:23 GMT -5
I agree with almost everything coverlicious has to say and even smoke to an extent.
To prevent teams prematurely promoting minor league players by having one drop deadline for both major and minor league players or having a rule if you promote a guy you need to keep him up would be fine. Where I disagree with Smoke is I don't think the player should need to stay up for the first 14 days of the season, I think he should just have to stay up through the end of the major league draft, effectively costing the team the draft pick. Too much changes with guys who are suppose to break camp and then do not for some reason or another. Making a player stay up for 14 days penalizes guys who aren't trying to work the system.
The main thing to me in this league is allowing trading to occur before cuts are made. If there was one cut date, and trading opened up after the cuts, my interest in the league would severely wane. To touch on coverlicious point about year round trading, while I think I would like that, a moratorium on trades needs to be in effect. First, Yahoo enforces a deadline. Yanks doesn't choose the last date possible but it is pretty close. Pushing it back farther or not having one at all during the last 6-8 weeks of the season could bring in some collusion type of deals or what would appear to be some shady deals with last place teams and those battling it out. While opening up trading upon the conclusion of the season would not have any effect on the competitive balance of the league, from the standpoint of keeping track of things it would be another burden on the commissioner. Also, if any change in ownership of teams occurred, you would like the new owner to be on board before trading started for the upcoming season. That said I wouldn't mind more than a two week window, say something like trading can start Feb 1st (and nothing is stopping teams from speaking "hypothetically" with each other about deals before then), with the cuts for minor/major rosters due on 3/1, and the minor league draft starting shortly after that with the major league one coming right after that. Realistically, I don't think having a 2 week window, a 4 week window, or having trading opened up from the end of the season on would really change much of anything.
As for the minor league draft, I have never been a fan of the first place team getting the top pick. It was something I argued about over 10 years ago when my college friend came up with the rules and constitution. He always argued that it awarded the competing teams a small bonus. Most years that is pretty true that the top pick really isn't anything special. However, Yanks has lucked out winning the league the last two years and having international guys like Soler and Cespedes available. Other years the top guy should not be anything more than an overlooked player, that anyone could have picked up before the previous June deadline, like Jean Segura or Gregory Polanco. Where I would nitpick with covers suggestion is how a different draft order would work. In my opinion the difference between the 9th place team and the 10th place team is pure luck. Yet, 10th place in your scenario would get the first pick and the 9th place would get the 6th pick. Not sure if I really like that. My personal preference for the minor league draft order is 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 3, 2, 1. Generally, keep it the order we have been doing it, but place the top three teams that won money at the end of the draft. I think having the 4th, 5th, 6th place teams getting the top pick incentives team to keep competing to finish higher up in the standings until the end of the year instead of tanking to get the better major league pick. If I'm in 6th or 7th place come the last month of the season, the way things stand right now, I'll be doing everything I can to get lower in the standings and get the earlier major league pick. But knowing I could get a higher quality minor league guy (even if it is a Segura, Polanco, Billy Hamilton, Bruce Rondon, etc), would likely have me trying all season (as I'd rather have one of those guys than the difference between the 3rd pick in the major league draft and the 6th pick).
Overall, I don't really care too strongly about anything I just wrote besides continuing to have trading open before cuts are made.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Mar 31, 2013 15:54:15 GMT -5
Ok so glad guys shed light on their thoughts. Seems like there isn't any need for votes on certain points I brought up, ok by me.
I would like to propose a solution that my other league uses for the minors draft order: a lottery (like the NBA) to determine order.
The commish uses a lottery draft generator website (http://www.draftpicklottery.com/) to randomize the order based on place of finish. An example of the percentages is below (would need to change to 12 teams), but in general everyone has a shot at the #1 pick with greater weight placed on middle of the pack teams and less on last place finishers as well as the guys that finish in the money. It works extremely well, is fair, and adds a little bit of suspense in the preseason. Thoughts?
1st place - 5% 2nd place - 7% 3rd place - 8% 4th place - 16% 5th place - 12% 6th place - 12% 7th place - 12% 8th place - 12% 9th place - 8% 10th place 8%
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Mar 31, 2013 17:08:37 GMT -5
Ok so glad guys shed light on their thoughts. Seems like there isn't any need for votes on certain points I brought up, ok by me. I would like to propose a solution that my other league uses for the minors draft order: a lottery (like the NBA) to determine order. The commish uses a lottery draft generator website (http://www.draftpicklottery.com/) to randomize the order based on place of finish. An example of the percentages is below (would need to change to 12 teams), but in general everyone has a shot at the #1 pick with greater weight placed on middle of the pack teams and less on last place finishers as well as the guys that finish in the money. It works extremely well, is fair, and adds a little bit of suspense in the preseason. Thoughts? 1st place - 5% 2nd place - 7% 3rd place - 8% 4th place - 16% 5th place - 12% 6th place - 12% 7th place - 12% 8th place - 12% 9th place - 8% 10th place 8% With the random number generator I like that a lot more than my idea to set the draft order. But then I like to gamble
|
|
|
Post by coverlicious on Mar 31, 2013 17:51:22 GMT -5
I'm down for a lottery as well. June draft too.
|
|
|
Post by Smokedawg on Mar 31, 2013 17:55:21 GMT -5
I propose an individual lottery for each round of every draft
|
|
|
Post by orionbraun on Mar 31, 2013 19:13:00 GMT -5
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the drafts should be structured to facilitate competition as best as possible. Honestly, I was very surprised to see that the 1st place winner got the 1st overall pick in the minor league draft. That pick should be used to help a struggling team get better, not to increase the longevity of an already-winning team.
A lottery does make more sense than the current set up (for the mL draft), but I think all 3 drafts should be set up in reverse order of standings. I don't think a lottery for each draft makes sense -- there's no reason a team that has finished in the top 3 for the past 5 years should (hypothetically) be able to pick 1st overall in every draft. Just potentially widens the competition gap.
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Mar 31, 2013 19:37:43 GMT -5
I personally think the current settings for the major league draft of being the reverse standing from the previous year and the June draft being set by the reverse June standings is more than fine.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 1, 2013 0:45:41 GMT -5
In any case, I don't want to be that guy that complains about rules and want to change everything, but since I'm new here are the rules that I think could be put up for vote to encourage more balance: 3.) One Keeper deadline Already discussed previously. Again just wanted to share my views on what I think encourages more balance, hope others can chime in. willing to give the benefit of a doubt on the first part, especially since we're just getting to know each other. kinda comes across that way, though. GmLs or drafts aren't the issue. #3 admittedly is, at least to an extent.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 1, 2013 0:49:09 GMT -5
I like the three drafts as well. Like Smoke said, they each have their own strategy and they add options for trading. I also agree that a lot of GmLs are kept that wouldn't be drafted and held on rosters otherwise, so it can add better depth to the MLB draft. We all have the same opportunity to build GmLs through our minor league system, plus you can trade for GmLs or better prospects if you want. I don't think there should be a GmL limit. The keeper deadline is kind of tricky. I feel like teams trading their "9th" keepers for extra assets does help those teams gain other assets, and it keeps better players out of the MLB draft. I know a different player then needs to be dropped into the MLB pool as a result of the trade, but you cannot argue that it is a wash (or the team would not be trying to updgrade in the first place). With that being said, I like it the way it is. The lesser teams do not usually have to give up much to upgrade their 8th keeper. So I actually feel this help to rebuild the lesser teams more quickly.Two things I would maybe change (off the top of my head) 1) I would like the league open to trading all year round. I know I'm a junkie, but I just think it's fun to keep everyone involved all year if they want. I'm not sure what rules we'd need to put in place to make this happen, but I think it would be fun. 2) I don't like the fact that the teams who finish first get the first picks in the minor league draft. It seems like there are usually a few studs at the top of these drafts (Cespedes, Soler, Puig, ect.) and then the talent thins out toward the back of the first round. I understand this is to prevent "tanking" but I feel this may keep the league imbalanced. My proposal is the draft is determined like this (as they finish from prior year).... 10,11,12,7,8,9,4,5,6,1,2,3. This would help the worse teams get better, while still awarding teams who tried the year before. Those are just a few of my ideas. this is a pretty sharp post. you grasp the good & bad of that 2/15 to 3/1 period. 1s not gonna happen, logistically speaking. 2 we've voted on before, but i also feel it definitely needs to change in some regard...due to the last two years.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 1, 2013 1:00:08 GMT -5
The main thing to me in this league is allowing trading to occur before cuts are made. If there was one cut date, and trading opened up after the cuts, my interest in the league would severely wane. As for the minor league draft, I have never been a fan of the first place team getting the top pick. It was something I argued about over 10 years ago when my college friend came up with the rules and constitution. He always argued that it awarded the competing teams a small bonus. Most years that is pretty true that the top pick really isn't anything special. However, Yanks has lucked out winning the league the last two years and having international guys like Soler and Cespedes available. Other years the top guy should not be anything more than an overlooked player, that anyone could have picked up before the previous June deadline, like Jean Segura or Gregory Polanco. Overall, I don't really care too strongly about anything I just wrote besides continuing to have trading open before cuts are made. we're gonna have to look at the minor draft again. you're right about the last two years, and the history behind it. funny you mention, Koby. we talked for hours on the phone about the keeper deadline, and you/your deals specifically during this time frame. of course you don't want anything to change there, lol. and don't care about your interest waning because of that if it helps the league as a whole. anyhow, as cover pointed out, there's good & bad with these 2 weeks. the bad is that it allows the top teams to get even better. the good is that it allows the bottom teams to improve cheaply, if the owners are smart about things. (thus, all my warnings about the topic.) before the old league went away, Koby's solution (mainly as another Fondy-related protection for the league) was to make teams select 10 keepers by 2/15...then cut to 8 by 3/1. bottom line, he was trying to have it both ways...while limiting what Fondy could do. imho, it's gotta be one or the other though. either status quo, or all cuts/rosters due on one date.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 1, 2013 1:08:56 GMT -5
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the drafts should be structured to facilitate competition as best as possible. Honestly, I was very surprised to see that the 1st place winner got the 1st overall pick in the minor league draft. That pick should be used to help a struggling team get better, not to increase the longevity of an already-winning team. A lottery does make more sense than the current set up (for the mL draft), but I think all 3 drafts should be set up in reverse order of standings. I don't think a lottery for each draft makes sense -- there's no reason a team that has finished in the top 3 for the past 5 years should (hypothetically) be able to pick 1st overall in every draft. Just potentially widens the competition gap. there's not going to be a lottery. the major and june drafts were set up to specifically bring all teams back to the middle, at least to some extent. non snaking...worst picks first, and best picks last. i firmly believe that's what is best for the league, and can't imagine those drafts changing. other than these last two years, with Cubans, the minor league draft wasn't really all that important...going back to 2004 when I took over the worst team the league had. that said, things have changed. the intent was to keep teams competing all year. and i think that cookie needs to remain...just not for 1st thru 3rd. step one would be to vote on if we should change the minor league draft...yes or no. step two would then be to find out exactly how, and vote on it. that's where the options would come in, including a lottery i guess. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,3,2,1 would be an option...as would a lottery...as would 12 to 1...as would basically any combination of the 12 picks.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 1, 2013 1:17:34 GMT -5
back on point. (and the injury thing isn't a big deal. if that happened to come up, between 2/15 & 3/1, i'd probably make an exception anyways.) but there are 2 potential directions... 1) another "fondy" amendment, limiting the premature promotions on 2/15...and limiting the ability to create (and deal) extra assets. (woven into this can be the injury stuff, or anything related to the time period between 2/15 & 3/1.) or... 2) change things so that all rosters are due on 3/1...meaning minor league cuts, any GmL changes, and the 8 keepers are due all at once...all before the trading season can begin. so to keep track... we've potentially got the issue/choice above...if we don't remain with the status quo, that is...and also how to treat unsigned players, during the draft and on the wire. add in the minor league draft. seems to me that it's time to change that aspect of the league. most of the rest boils down to looking at the 2/15 to 3/1 time period...when cuts/full rosters are due. in any case, things are going to get lost among all the opinions/etc. i'm going to have to create a new forum here for votes. needs to be a separate thread on each topic, so we can look at things clearly...on a case by case basis.
|
|
|
Post by metsjetsknicks on Apr 1, 2013 17:47:57 GMT -5
willing to give the benefit of a doubt on the first part, especially since we're just getting to know each other. kinda comes across that way, though. GmLs or drafts aren't the issue. #3 admittedly is, at least to an extent. Hey, no need for the snarky comment considering you said you would be open to suggestions. In any case, I fully understood the rules as they were and know what I signed up for. With that said, I'll keep my thoughts to myself and focus on my squad. Good luck this year gentlemen.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 2, 2013 9:51:50 GMT -5
willing to give the benefit of a doubt on the first part, especially since we're just getting to know each other. kinda comes across that way, though. GmLs or drafts aren't the issue. #3 admittedly is, at least to an extent. Hey, no need for the snarky comment considering you said you would be open to suggestions. In any case, I fully understood the rules as they were and know what I signed up for. With that said, I'll keep my thoughts to myself and focus on my squad. Good luck this year gentlemen. give me a break. you brought up that you didn't want to sound like "that guy." i was saying that you kinda were sounding that way. doesn't have to be all one or the other though, as a result. in any case, we're putting the cart before the horse. i extended the leaguesafe deadline a 3rd time, and had it send you another email.
|
|
|
Post by Smokedawg on Apr 2, 2013 12:56:16 GMT -5
check your spam folder
sometimes the league safe invites get sent there.....
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Apr 5, 2013 1:24:34 GMT -5
leaguesafe is taken care of....thanks, jack.
i'll get to setting up some of these votes on the various topics.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Jun 7, 2013 2:36:50 GMT -5
Lastly, no GmL years can be gained for non-ROY candidates who may get sent down to the minors (before or during the season) for various reasons.
just in case someone picks up (the former studs) Montero & Ackley. they can be added to the minor league roster...but having exceeded the ABs, they cannot ever gain (or reclaim) any GmL years. those free years are now a thing of the past.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Jan 17, 2014 3:21:28 GMT -5
a few things, as we begin a new season:
first of all, i just finished refreshing my mind/catching up on all the various issues/threads...as well as the constitution. secondly, there is a new amendment (#6) to the constitution...in regards to the two main issues that arose early last season. thirdly, there is a 2nd vote in regards to changing the minor league draft. we're gonna change it, per the 1st vote...we just need to decide on what the new format will be moving forward. and lastly, there won't be any penalties for the teams that didn't reach either the IP or GP minimums last season. but that said, from this point forward, there will be...without a doubt.
i believe it's part "C" from the 3rd Amendment...but from 2014/this season forward, it'll be cut and dry (no exceptions) whenever the minimums are not met. in fact, i've changed the penalties in case it unfortunately comes up again.
- the penalty for the owner/team not reaching one of the IP or GP minimums in a season will be the forfeiture of that team's 1st Rd Major pick the following season. if they've already traded away that particular draft pick, the penalty will switch to the team's next best available draft pick. - the penalty for the owner/team not reaching both of the IP & GP minimums in a season will be the forfeiture of 1 of their 8 keepers for the following season. regardless of trades, cuts, etc...the team involved will only be allowed 7 keepers to begin the next year. - and if an owner/team fails to meet either one of the minimums for 2 consecutive years, they will be subject to losing their franchise. this will be at the commissioner's discretion, with the best interests of the league in mind. that said, if something like this is going to be a continuing problem with a particular owner/team, it's probably in everyone's best interest to move forward with a replacement owner for that particular franchise.
the only exception that will be made in regards to penalties for not reaching either or both of the minimums moving forward is if there's a replacement owner for the team the following year. if we're forced to make a change, there's no way i'm going to penalize a new owner who wants to take over the team.
|
|
|
Post by Coffee's 4 Closers Only on Jan 24, 2014 3:19:52 GMT -5
I like intention, and agree that we need to crack down on those not meeting their minimums. My only concern is that the two new penalties - forfeiting a first round major and a keeper slot - will only hurt an already damaged team. They likely didn't meet their minimums because they weren't competitive in the first place. I am concerned these penalties would just compound the problem sending the team into a vicious cycle.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Jan 24, 2014 3:35:40 GMT -5
I like intention, and agree that we need to crack down on those not meeting their minimums. My only concern is that the two new penalties - forfeiting a first round major and a keeper slot - will only hurt an already damaged team. They likely didn't meet their minimums because they weren't competitive in the first place. I am concerned these penalties would just compound the problem sending the team into a vicious cycle. those are the penalties from this point forward. imo, they need to be harsh...or it will only be like previous years, where my reminders/warnings/etc get ignored. i understand the point about compounding the problem for the team...but to be honest, i don't care...if someone shows me that they don't care, that is. one, the minimums are very easy to meet. and more importantly, two, it'll get us to a replacement owner that much quicker. and like i said, the replacement owner won't be penalized. in other words, if an owner can't/won't make the minimums moving forward, they'll have an immediate choice the following season...bail, or pay the price. and i'm ok with that, either way. bottom line, i want all 12 teams competing...and the quicker we get to that, the better.
|
|
|
Post by Coffee's 4 Closers Only on Jan 24, 2014 3:40:37 GMT -5
Fair enough, you make a reasonable point. And I guess we can always revisit the efficacy of this later if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Jan 24, 2014 12:25:59 GMT -5
exactly
|
|
|
Post by fondybadger on Jan 26, 2014 12:14:41 GMT -5
I don't mind the picks penalties or keeper stuff, but any chance we can make it a monetary penalty as well? Either added to the prize pool or split amongst teams in contention that didn't cash. Something where we put in $200 or $150 or something to start the year?
|
|
|
Post by Yanks27Sox9 on Feb 2, 2014 13:28:46 GMT -5
I don't mind the picks penalties or keeper stuff, but any chance we can make it a monetary penalty as well? Either added to the prize pool or split amongst teams in contention that didn't cash. Something where we put in $200 or $150 or something to start the year? Ryan had a similar idea. I just don't think putting extra into leaguesafe will fly. But who knows...
|
|