|
Post by Northumberland Reivers on Jan 26, 2021 10:00:08 GMT -5
Dan had mentioned that he'd like to see a change to the way we structure our roster with regards to RP/SP/P spots - if he can make the case below for changes he'd like to see and the reasons for them, we'll be able to see if they have the backing of other GMs and whether we can bring them to a vote
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 11:28:50 GMT -5
Thanks, Garreth. At present we have 4 active SP spots and 4 RP spots, and only 6 bench spots. Simply, I think this is too shallow for a 20 team league that permits 20 prospects to be carried. Considering that there are approximately 150 viable MLB SPs, and considering how erratic and oft-injured most pitchers are, we are all likely to be carrying at least 7 SPs, more likely 8 or 9 if we are forced to roster newly graduated pitchers that have exceeded their prospect eligibility so as to not lose them after we have invested time and salary cap space into them. Rostering that many pitchers is going to significantly eat up our bench spots, compromising our ability to carry bench bats. Considering that SPs will significantly outscore RPs, and there are far fewer viable RPs that are worth rostering, it just makes no sense to me that they should occupy equal active roster space. No one I know gets stoked over RPs, they're a necessary fantasy evil. I can't stomach the possibility of having more than 4 SPs eligible to start on a given day and having to choose between them (especially in a points league) while starting 4 RPs that may or may not even play that day, and even if they do, standing to earn significantly less points. So I would propose, at a minimum, adding an SP spot without compromising a bench spot, and ideally, adding the SP spot and 1, if not 2, bench spots, which I understand may have salary cap implications and may require additional conversation throughout the year. It's my general opinion that in dynasty leagues with deep prospect rosters, MLB rosters should be constructed in a way that rewards investment into prospects without being forced to choose between dumping them or thrusting them into starting roles (or occupying limited bench space) while they are still finding their way for the first year or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 11:47:19 GMT -5
Agree with a lot of this. I'd be hesitant about adding another active roster spot - as we've just added the extra UT - without bumping up the cap (which as you said would entail a broader discussion). As a quick fix, could we turn 2 RP slots to SP/RP and, if Fantrax allows, turn one of the UT slots into a UT/P?
So the potential rotation would be SP SP SP SP SP/RP SP/RP RP RP UT/P
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 11:52:12 GMT -5
I also think that having 4 RPs is a bit much. I personally am not the biggest fan of them. But in a daily league I can see where they might be useful. I do like what Brisket proposed except I would leave the UT spot a batter UT spot. I would be in favor of increasing bench spots as well. I am new to the salary thing so I am not sure how that would be rectified.
But I think having: SP SP SP SP P P RP RP
Could make it a better.
|
|
|
Post by Bubs on Jan 26, 2021 12:09:34 GMT -5
I see this as being two separate, but important concerns: 1) Active pitching spots and subsequent bench spots 2) Prospect integration
Active pitching spots and subsequent bench spots I am not at all opposed to modifying active spots, especially if we look to change an RP spot to a P spot. That way, current roster construction is not altered and will work as we have been planning thus far. As the draft is to occur next week, it is a bit late in the game to modify to the point of financial implications for 2021 rosters. A vote should likely be made to modify 2022 and beyond for finances.
Prospect integration The current setup on this league catapults prospects into the majors along the same timeline as MLB rookie status. In other leagues, I have seen this modified in order to account for the young players to become more established before being added to the big league roster full time. I would suggest changing these settings as opposed to worrying about extra bench spots. That way, the players a team develops can be shuttled to/from the minors for a lengthier time while still being able to be added to the big leagues as needed. My thought is to change the 130AB/50IP threshold by doubling it to 260AB/100IP. Again, this is a quick and easy fix that could be accommodated right away for 2021 planning. This could lead to concerns of having too many minor league players on a roster - which could be modified in future years if need be at a much cheaper overall team cost, but a vote for that sort of financial change for 2022 could also be addressed. (Then again, only 10 minors slots are required, so if no financial change was made, that too would make sense.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 13:42:21 GMT -5
In other leagues, we are able to keep prospects in the minors until the end of the season in which they reach the 130AB/50IP limits. Once they reach those limits, we are not able to shuttle them up and down. If promoted once the limits are reached, they must then remain on the Major League rosters. I would prefer that to doubling the thresholds. Also, I agree with Childish Bambino about adding a P roster spot now. I think adding another bench spot is a good idea for next year, including the discussion about salary cap discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 14:35:26 GMT -5
So perhaps if nothing else we can convert 1 existing RP spot to a P this year, and can vote on potentially adding another SP or P spot, and/or additional bench spot(s), for 2022?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 14:39:28 GMT -5
Prospect integration The current setup on this league catapults prospects into the majors along the same timeline as MLB rookie status. In other leagues, I have seen this modified in order to account for the young players to become more established before being added to the big league roster full time. I would suggest changing these settings as opposed to worrying about extra bench spots. That way, the players a team develops can be shuttled to/from the minors for a lengthier time while still being able to be added to the big leagues as needed. My thought is to change the 130AB/50IP threshold by doubling it to 260AB/100IP. Again, this is a quick and easy fix that could be accommodated right away for 2021 planning. This could lead to concerns of having too many minor league players on a roster - which could be modified in future years if need be at a much cheaper overall team cost, but a vote for that sort of financial change for 2022 could also be addressed. (Then again, only 10 minors slots are required, so if no financial change was made, that too would make sense.) I would be in favor of doubling the limits to allow prospects to marinate a little longer before forced call ups. This is common in some of my other dynasty leagues as well.
|
|
|
Post by nappydugout on Jan 26, 2021 16:10:44 GMT -5
Not singling anyone out, just replying to the topic presented.
This is a daily lineup league, not weekly. If it were weekly, the argument about having an equal number of SP as RP would hold merit. Here it doesn't. If an owner wants to roster bench SP they do so knowing their starts may fall on the same day as other pitchers. Same holds true today as when we started the league. It's a risk you have to be willing to take when you construct your roster. The fact that there are 150 viable SP is totally irrelevant to the conversation.
If you recall, the whole point of adding an extra U spot was to help balance out the pitching and hitting. Now we would like to undo that effort AND add an additional roster spot? If implemented, it should come at the expense of a bench spot and certainly shouldn't be this year. I would expect the same owners in agreement would come back and complain that pitching outweighs hitting again and lobby for another Utility spot or a 4th OF. If an owner can't stomach missing out on the 5th SP on a given day (which would be a rare occurrence), repurposing a bench spot, not RP spot, to a SP spot should alleviate that, we don't need to add a roster spot or reduce RP to address the situation. Our bench is our overflow, if we choose to make a change it should be at the expense of an auxiliary position not an active one.
Just because an owner is allowed 20 prospects doesn't mean they have to roster 20 prospects. If they do so, it can be at their own peril if many graduate at the same time. Some owners chose not to invest heavily in prospects understanding there may come a time it would be difficult to integrate them into a roster in a league with such severe penalties for dropping players. If we decide to add bench spots due to integration issues would owners get a mulligan on their prospect strategy? Of course not. If an owner has more prospects graduating to the majors than his roster can accommodate it is a case of poor planning on the owner, not the league settings. Creating an additional roster spot without eliminating a bench spot would be catering to these owners at the expense of others who may have had to make tough roster decisions in the past. I understand that Covid pushed contracts back one year, we all have to deal with it.
This is all a balancing act. We are balancing roster spots and salary vs projected points. We can't keep adding to the balancing act and we should understand we can't have everything both ways. We can't add a Utility spot because Pitching outweighs hitting, then turn around and add a Pitching spot. We certainly shouldn't entertain the idea that because some of us may wish to roster bench pitchers we should increase our bench spots so we can have some bench hitters as well. It's ridiculous. If we double the Milb promotion limits, undoubtedly some will complain there aren't enough Prospect slots and they are having to drop draft picks and prospects they invested in. Bottom line, if an owner has roster issues they should deal with it within the rules, not have them changed. Durham literally just gave away 2 4th round picks to have another owner take on Josh James. That's how it's done. You have a problem you find a solution within the rules.
I understand my point of view is usually in the minority here and I don't expect this one to be different.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 18:41:25 GMT -5
I’m in favor of the following pitching format: SP SP SP SP RP RP P P
In regards to the minor eligibility, I believe we should keep our requirements as is. I do agree with the point that was brought up stating that we can shuttle the players from our active to minor league roster (and vise versa) during the year that they lose minor league eligibility. This would allow more versatility in roster management without having to make the call on cutting a player who started the year with minor eligibility but was working through some growing pains that year.
|
|
|
Post by Northumberland Reivers on Jan 26, 2021 19:01:42 GMT -5
This is all good stuff, thank you everyone for weighing in.
Happy to hear some more opinions from those who haven't yet expressed theirs - agree that it raises a few different issues which concern everything from roster management to minors progression, salary caps and how we value certain player types. I'd also like to say thank you for everyone debating the merits of the argument, and playing the ball and not the man - I don't take that for granted, because some times people can get overly heated and needlessly personal. So thank you for that.
I'll wait a little while to see what others have to say before taking the above into account and proposing any potential rule change(s) - it won't take effect for this season, as we're close enough to the start of the draft, and GMs have been making a multitude of trades based on the current rules, but it's something that makes sense to debate further and see whether we can find a way forward that benefits the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 21:41:52 GMT -5
What would the downside be to swapping one of the current "RP" spots to a "P" spot? Seems like a potentially easy fix to me.
As far as prospects go - I think the limits are fine as they are. I think teams should have to make roster decisions within the current rules. It promotes roster turnover/financial decisions (similar to MLB). Also encourages people to actually log on and check their team/waivers.
|
|
|
Post by durhambulls on Jan 27, 2021 8:29:48 GMT -5
Lots going on in this thread: 1. Prospect Limits - (correct me if I’m wrong, Garreth) the limits are 130/50 but the prospect doesn’t have to be promoted until the end of the season in which they cross that threshold. This is very generous in my mind and shouldn’t be changed. Most guys come up mid-season or later and don’t cross these numbers. So you then have them whole next season to shuttle them between the majors and minors as they develop. Seems more than fair. There will be exceptions but raising limits doesn’t make sense. 2. Increasing roster size - I’m against this. We just added a utility player and a roster spot for them. Just play by the rules. Tough decisions are good. They promote trades and allowing for rebuilding teams to find niches to exploit. It’s good for league dynamics. It also helps ensure there are good players available in the auction each year. I know I assign my contracts based on current and future roster spot availability considering my minors promotions. 3. Dynasty changes - as a rule, I am against changing Dynasty league rules unless they are to correct an error. We are play by the same rules. Everyone is constructing their team based on these rules. To continue to change them just doesn’t make sense. There are always consequences to actions. Would teams be making their current trades if they had more roster space? More space in the minors? Every decision I make is based on the constructs of the league. Please just leave it alone. 4. Relief Pitchers - making one spot just P isn’t a huge deal. But it does change the valuation of RPs and RP/SP hybrids. Currently 80 are rostered. Making that 60 or even 40 will flood the market with quality RPs. What about teams that drafted and developed RPs? Or signed RPs to longer deals? With these changes, guys might need get the advantage they were hoping for. Scarcity establishes market value and our system has been creating these valuations for 2+ years. To alter this shouldn’t be done lightly. If it’s done at all, please just one slot. I also agree with Nappy - it would be rare to have more than 4 SPs all pitching on the same day. And if you do, make the tough decision.
Anyway. That’s my two cents. Thanks for reading
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 10:20:45 GMT -5
All great points above, and healthy debate. I will just reiterate that it is nonsensical, in my opinion, to protect the value of relievers at the expense of starters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2021 12:48:25 GMT -5
In regards to the minors - I don't fully know the rules yet but I think you should be able to stash someone in your minors as long as they don't exceed the thresholds (even if they exceed during the season) but in the off-season if they have exceeded their limits they would need to be added to your MLB/Reserves and given contracts.
|
|
|
Post by durhambulls on Jan 27, 2021 12:53:10 GMT -5
I’ll take a different approach here
You’re estimating 150-180 SPs rostered now. I personally have 9 on my roster with 2 MiLB players who will likely be in a rotation. At some point, there just aren’t more SPs worth owning. This is a 20 team league. So if we add an SP slot, that would increase the number rostered. And will these extra SPs actually be worth owning? Plus increasing the number of SPs rostered will decrease the pool of available replacements during the season. RPs score less points but they still score points. We roster 80 RPs which is 2-3 per MLB team. Doesn’t seem excessive in my mind when compared to 6+ SPs per MLB team.
Further, if most teams have say 8 SPs. What is the likelihood that 5 SPs all pitch on the same day? We currently have 28 SP slots available per scoring period. If you have 8 SPs rostered, that should be 9-10 starts per week. That leaves an SP slot scoring 0 points 64-68% of the time. RP slots aren’t sexy but they can bring points. And they can pitch 3-4 times per week.
I enjoy healthy debate and feel this is an interesting topic. I’m just not sure if this problem truly exists.
I’m a science guy. This is an opinion that doesn’t yet have facts that support it. How about we do a study? Play this season under the current rules (which makes sense anyway at this point in the offseason). Start a thread here on proboards titled Lost Starts. Any time a team has 5 guys starting on the same day, they make a post. Ideally listing the 5 SPs. Let’s see how many of our 380 regular season matches are affected by the 4 v 5 SP slots debate. Then a vote would at least be based on real data to justify fixing a problem that we know either exists or doesn’t.
|
|
|
Post by nappydugout on Jan 27, 2021 15:59:41 GMT -5
Agreed, spirited debate is good. I understand what you are saying, I don’t get where you are going with it though. I don’t get the argument that by leaving the league settings as is, we are protecting RP at the expense of SP. We bid on our players and assigned contracts knowing what the league settings were. All values are baked in at this point and reflect those settings. Collectively, we all set the value of each position. I bid $12,000,000 on Max Scherzer, because I wanted him and someone else bid $11,000,000. I didn’t just pick a number out of thin air. I did so with the understanding I would have 4 SP spots, 4 RP spots, a 6 man bench, and 20 possible Milb players. It’s not as if we all constructed our teams and were then given the rules after the fact. So, I don’t view it as protecting RP value, I believe by leaving things as is we are protecting the values that we have all set for all players based on the league construct. Another statement I don’t understand is: “MLB rosters should be constructed in a way that rewards investment into prospects without being forced to choose between dumping them or thrusting them into starting roles (or occupying limited bench space) while they are still finding their way for the first year or two.”
You are rewarded for investing in prospects. Quite handsomely actually. A prospect receives a 5 year league minimum contract upon promotion. What is more rewarding than that? In addition to the 5 year league minimum contract, are you suggesting we should be able to wait until the player performs well, or has a defined role before promotion? There is no such thing as high reward with zero risk. If the player is in the Majors and exceeds the maximum Milb requirements a decision needs to be made. Some will be tough; some will be easy. We have until the start of the following season to make those decisions. It’s not as if the Nationals can say “hey, Victor Robles has the exit velocity of an 8 year old girl, can we leave him on the team but pause his service time until he hits like 13 year old?” It doesn’t work that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 9:55:09 GMT -5
It’s not as if the Nationals can say “hey, Victor Robles has the exit velocity of an 8 year old girl, can we leave him on the team but pause his service time until he hits like 13 year old?” It doesn’t work that way. Hey! Victor does not appreciate that. He told me himself (since I am his owner) that he has started hitting like a 16 year old in the off-season!!! I after hearing the debates I would be fine keeping the league constructed like it is in all honestly. Either way though is fine with me. I do think the minors are fine the way they are. If anything I wouldn't mind seeing the Minor slots bigger, as I am a big fan of Minor league baseball!
|
|
|
Post by JAX Lucky Cats on Jan 31, 2021 1:09:38 GMT -5
I would be inclined to leave things as is; however, if we did put a motion on the floor to change 1 RP slot to a P slot for next season, I wouldn't complain if it passed.
|
|
|
Post by Lucroooy Jenkins on Feb 1, 2021 17:39:09 GMT -5
I'm fine with the way it currently works.
|
|