|
|
Post by mozeknows (Mets Head of OMG) on Jul 9, 2017 17:16:01 GMT -5
This is for suggestions to League Rules that are brought up by league members during the 2017 Regular Season. They will all be discussed and debated during the offseason beginning after the 2017 World Series.
Edit: These are the topics posted so far (09/30/2017)
1 - "Salary Traded Out"
2 - "Minors Draft Round Amount"
3 - "Pitching Wins/Losses Adjustment"
4 - "Remove Penalty Rule"
5 - "Remove Following Year Post-Deadline 50% Cap Hit for One-Year Players"
6 - "Change Deadline Time"
7 - "New Chat Platform"
8 - "Matchup Tie-Breaker"
9 - "Consolation Bracket"
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Cameron) on Jul 23, 2017 11:10:44 GMT -5
I would suggest making the money you can trade out be around 7-8M if everyone wants a limit. But i for one would suggest taking the cap off completely and making it like real life where you can trade as much as you want to make deals work. You would only be able to trade money for current season, but with no limit i think it makes a lot more trades happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Max) on Jul 24, 2017 19:12:24 GMT -5
I like the idea of expanding how much money you can trade, and honestly wouldn't be against taking the cap off all together, maybe put a limit tho on how much you can trade in each trade tho. Also think we should look into shortening the draft, most minors will be full after this years draft and i would prefer to shorten the draft then to expand MiLB rosters which has also been suggested in the chatroll
|
|
|
|
Post by ch435 on Jul 26, 2017 11:08:35 GMT -5
I agree with Max above re: minors and $.
Also, would like to suggest that we discuss the possibility of moving away from Wins / Losses for pitchers. Given that we play in a H2H format, where random variations week to week in team performance already plays a prominent role, adding the increased variability of wins and losses as a scoring criteria (factors that are arguably outside a pitchers control) makes things too random. I think we should discuss how we can transfer the poitns associated with Wins/Losses towards QS or some other criteria in some way to reduce the randomness associated with wins/losses.
|
|
|
|
Post by mozeknows (Mets Head of OMG) on Jul 26, 2017 19:21:08 GMT -5
I believe there should be a cap on salary traded in/out. I would like to keep the increase a modest 200%, to $7.5 million, bit less than what has been floated in chat. I think before we make any change to minors roster size, we should have everyone's minors rosters all the way full. I am not in favor of shortening the draft; prospects are going to start graduating at a more rapid pace, and for now, I think 7 rounds will be good to help fill up some prospects teams. I am not in favor of moving away from wins and losses, personally. They introduce a certain amount of randomness, yes, but that's part of the fun-and even strategy- of fantasy for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ch435 on Jul 27, 2017 13:22:21 GMT -5
Moze, can you explain your reasoning for waiting until everyone's minors rosters are all the way full? I would stress several things in response to that: first, everyone's minors will likely be full after this next draft, and second, it's already been a significant limit on the trading market (traditionally, teams in contention are willing to swap specs to teams out of contention for talent that can help them win currently -- but if teams out of contention already have full minors, the trade market suddenly gets clogged very tightly, which I think has been th ecase already and will only be exacerbated in the future). Why should we accept a rule that may artificially limit trading, something we all clearly enjoy, when we can just change the rule to allow more prospects (something we also enjoy)? I don't see any downside to increasing the number of specs, and I disagree with your argument that specs will start graduating at a more rapid pace. The pace won't change at all, because with full rosters, a lot of us will choose to non-tender specs and send them back into FA pool.
I understand wins/losses are part of the fun for you, but can you explain how it's better for the league? In my opinion, it can frustrate owners if they build a strong team, only to have the randomness associated with wins and losses frustrate their position in the standings - when instead, we can reward managers who find strong pitchers and provide more consistent results reflecting pitcher skill. Otherwise, people may eventually shift away from pitching, when we've already taken steps to balance hitting/pitching in prior offseasons. I think the relevant metric should be what the league prefers as a whole, rather than any individual manager's personal preference (aka, a vote).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 13:33:41 GMT -5
We already reduced wins from 10 points to 5 and added qs for another 5 to balance pitching more. Switching away from wins just further guarantees the top pitchers will be more valuable and that some mid line pitchers that rarely get qs but that get wins due to their teams hitting.........score fewer points. Certain pitchers are almost always guaranteed a qs, so the wins and loss helps keep it more balanced I believe as there is randomness on if their team hits a current night(hence my ability to laugh all year when cams crying and sweating every game because his pitchers did great, but he needs more runs). I think it keeps the pitching balanced more overall. As far as increasing minors, I hate the idea. Say we go to 30 and right now we have maybe 4 guys per team average graduating to majors. At 30 prospects many people could take more MLB ready guys and have 7-8 guys graduating certain years. Then we will be voting to take off the 3-5 year limit or increasing our MLB roster to help offset salaries or allow our minor leaguers to be signed. I just see this as something that would completely change our league over time as people would want to sign all their prospects and hold onto them like they do now in trades. I'm super tired so hope this all makes sense. I'm about to get lunch and sleep before work.
|
|
|
|
Post by seeyalaterdylan (Orioles GM) on Jul 27, 2017 13:42:12 GMT -5
1. I'm OK with increasing money that can be traded, but not with unlimited cash flow.
2. I don't see the point in increasing the number of prospects. I think we currently have a good balance between top guys and depth.
3. I'm fine with removing wins/losses if that's consensus.
|
|
|
|
Post by ch435 on Jul 27, 2017 14:00:43 GMT -5
We already reduced wins from 10 points to 5 and added qs for another 5 to balance pitching more. Switching away from wins just further guarantees the top pitchers will be more valuable and that some mid line pitchers that rarely get qs but that get wins due to their teams hitting.........score fewer points. Certain pitchers are almost always guaranteed a qs, so the wins and loss helps keep it more balanced I believe as there is randomness on if their team hits a current night(hence my ability to laugh all year when cams crying and sweating every game because his pitchers did great, but he needs more runs). I think it keeps the pitching balanced more overall. As far as increasing minors, I hate the idea. Say we go to 30 and right now we have maybe 4 guys per team average graduating to majors. At 30 prospects many people could take more MLB ready guys and have 7-8 guys graduating certain years. Then we will be voting to take off the 3-5 year limit or increasing our MLB roster to help offset salaries or allow our minor leaguers to be signed. I just see this as something that would completely change our league over time as people would want to sign all their prospects and hold onto them like they do now in trades. I'm super tired so hope this all makes sense. I'm about to get lunch and sleep before work. Josh, you're also forgetting about pitchers that are good but play on bad-hitting teams. On net, this would balance out so that pitcher value stays the same -- points would just be more consistent, not different (depending on how we want to re-adjust). The "strategy" as it stands now is get pitchers on good teams -- where is the difficulty or fun in that? There's nothing interesting about saying "eh, this pitcher is not great, but on a good team, so might as well get him" as opposed to finding good pitchers regardless of the offense surrounding them. As far as your concerns about the minors, yes, that is true, people could have 7-8 guys graduating certain years -- but how many of those will actually provide value? That's what, 14 teams times 7 guys = 98 players graduating -- do you really see 98 guys being added to the game every year that are worth keeping the roster spot over someone else who is actually producing? Personally, I don't. There just aren't that many prospects who "hit" every year for that to be a massive concern. If you increase the MLB roster size, yes, people will just sign all their prospects and hold on to them. But I am not advocating that. I would keep the MLB roster the same, just increase the MiLB roster or decrease the number of picks / rounds in the draft so that the trade market doesn't get artificially frozen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 14:07:58 GMT -5
If they are not providing value, then teams should not have any issue dropping them at 20. People who keep prospects in their minors will wanna keep them around in case they click(aka max with Swihart rodon etc........). And the qs initial rule change very well offsets pitching amongst the top tier pitchers and the mid to lower tier and I just see it happening again if we get rid of qs. It keeps it fair having some points in there that are random(wins/losses) and some points that good pitchers get every outing they perform(qs). I like having the balance of the 2 myself.
|
|
