|
|
Post by Bubs on Feb 17, 2023 17:09:39 GMT -5
I am opening up a thread here where everyone can place topics for future consideration. These are NOT items that need to be discussed until late in the season or even the off-season itself. The intent is simply to remind us all to revisit these topics as they are deemed appropriate at that time, as I am not speaking for everyone else, but I will otherwise forget!
I will start this off with a suggestion I received via IM.
We should consider whether the number of rounds of FYPD picks that are allowed to be traded should be reduced. NOTE: This would not impact the ability to select up to 20 players overall as needed for a team to replenish a minor league system, but it would reduce the trade flexibility - for better or for worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lowered Expectations on Feb 23, 2023 7:57:53 GMT -5
First topic of debate is ending the draft after the 5th rd, not to let people just continue to draft. I believe this diminishes picks after the 2nd rd. This is an opinion on when the picks loose value but I want to make all the picks be worth something and also more accountability on using the picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lowered Expectations on Feb 23, 2023 8:00:08 GMT -5
I would also like to help balance the scoring between pitchers and hitters. I think that the bonus for a quality start, which is 6 points could be where this can take place. I believe this number should be cut in half but it can be done over time to allow for teams to adjust their strategies. I think we should knock it to 5 points next off-season and then down to 3 points the following offseason, this would lower players like corbin burnes by like 60-80 points to lower 600s, right now the best hitters are getting 550 points a year and pitchers are at like 700.
Another one I think would balance the hitters and pitchers would be to get rid of the -.5 for strikeouts on the hitters, this would raise hitters at least 50 points. I think this would be the easiest one to implement that getting rid of the QS bonus points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 7:37:03 GMT -5
Motion to reduce trade waiting time to 24hrs to allow for commissioner review but not hold the deal up too long. Losing even a day in a daily league sucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 7:43:07 GMT -5
Motion to convert 1 RP spot to a P spot to de-emphasize the value of RPs relative to SPs and the mad dash for SP/RPs. I know it’s probably rare that a manager would have 5 SPs (or more) starting on one day, but in the event that does happen it seems silly to have to have to sit one. And anyone who built their staff around RPs can still use the P spot to start their RPs. Just provides more flexibility in the event the stars align and you get a 5 start day.
|
|
|
|
Post by nappydugout on Feb 24, 2023 8:39:23 GMT -5
I think we should consider reducing the penalty for releasing players assigned to multiple year contracts. I think the harsh penalty directly contributes to owner turn over. It's not surprising that an owner who extended multiple year contracts in excess of $15,000,000 to Mahle and Uquirdy left the league. Good luck finding an owner willing to take on that mess. Further, any prospect that is promoted automatically gets a 5 year deal. It's pretty rough that every underachieving prospect will cost you $250,000 a year for 5 years if you release them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2023 9:32:14 GMT -5
I think we should consider reducing the penalty for releasing players assigned to multiple year contracts. I think the harsh penalty directly contributes to owner turn over. It's not surprising that an owner who extended multiple year contracts in excess of $15,000,000 to Mahle and Uquirdy left the league. Good luck finding an owner willing to take on that mess. Further, any prospect that is promoted automatically gets a 5 year deal. It's pretty rough that every underachieving prospect will cost you $250,000 a year for 5 years if you release them. I think it makes more sense to let a replacement owner drop 1 or 2 albatross contracts of their choice coming into the league rather than give an active manager an out for a dumb contract they decided to sign. Regarding prospects, good idea, maybe just a 1 year salary penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by nappydugout on Feb 24, 2023 10:33:06 GMT -5
I think we should consider reducing the penalty for releasing players assigned to multiple year contracts. I think the harsh penalty directly contributes to owner turn over. It's not surprising that an owner who extended multiple year contracts in excess of $15,000,000 to Mahle and Uquirdy left the league. Good luck finding an owner willing to take on that mess. Further, any prospect that is promoted automatically gets a 5 year deal. It's pretty rough that every underachieving prospect will cost you $250,000 a year for 5 years if you release them. I think it makes more sense to let a replacement owner drop 1 or 2 albatross contracts of their choice coming into the league rather than give an active manager an out for a dumb contract they decided to sign. Regarding prospects, good idea, maybe just a 1 year salary penalty. I'd be in favor of removing the automatic 5 year contract for promoted prospects. The penalty for dropping a player from your MLB roster should be consistent regardless of how the player was acquired. I'm not suggesting we remove the penalty all together. Maybe decrease the penalty each year. Bad contract decisions are compounded by the severe penalty. Owners with horrible balance sheets and no relief in sight will be less engaged, which affects competitive balance. It would be great to prevent owners from leaving the league because of a few bad contract decisions. If the alternative is recruit new owners and let them drop the same bad contracts at no penalty, I'm not sure how that is a net gain for the league. |
|
|
|
Post by nappydugout on Feb 28, 2023 9:18:26 GMT -5
We need a firm rule or threshold for vetoing trades.
This isn't a redraft league, or a standard keeper league. Player valuations change exponentially from owner to owner based on contract status, roster needs and cap space. If Reynolds was signed for say $20,000,000 would anyone complain, or would we all laugh at Bubs? Personally, I wouldn't roster Bryan Reynolds for $5,000,000 a year, I know other owners who wouldn't either. I would be happy to roster 70% of his production for 85% less salary. Bryan Reynolds isn't a top 100 player in this league. He isn't a top 50 position player, or a top 20 OF. When considering production against salary, he was 85% less valuable than Ian Happ. Both are OF eligible. Both are 28 years old and signed through 2025. Happ scored the same amount of fantasy points as Reynolds. Bryan Reynolds' salary is $5,500,000 compared to Happ's $875,000. I don't think there would have been as many complaints if the deal was for Ian Happ instead of Bryan Reynolds, though I could be wrong. Certainly no one would categorize Ian Happ as elite.
The format of this league should allow more flexibility when grading trades, it isn't as simple as looking at where each player is listed on a dynasty ranking. What may be a great deal for me may be a horrible deal for Durham or Lowered Expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bubs on Feb 28, 2023 9:31:55 GMT -5
We need a firm rule or threshold for vetoing trades. This isn't a redraft league, or a standard keeper league. Player valuations change exponentially from owner to owner based on contract status, roster needs and cap space. If Reynolds was signed for say $20,000,000 would anyone complain, or would we all laugh at Bubs? Personally, I wouldn't roster Bryan Reynolds for $5,000,000 a year, I know other owners who wouldn't either. I would be happy to roster 70% of his production for 85% less salary. Bryan Reynolds isn't a top 100 player in this league. He isn't a top 50 position player, or a top 20 OF. When considering production against salary, he was 85% less valuable than Ian Happ. Both are OF eligible. Both are 28 years old and signed through 2025. Happ scored the same amount of fantasy points as Reynolds. Bryan Reynolds' salary is $5,500,000 compared to Happ's $875,000. I don't think there would have been as many complaints if the deal was for Ian Happ instead of Bryan Reynolds, though I could be wrong. Certainly no one would categorize Ian Happ as elite. The format of this league should allow more flexibility when grading trades, it isn't as simple as looking at where each player is listed on a dynasty ranking. What may be a great deal for me may be a horrible deal for Durham or Lowered Expectations. They're all gonna laugh at you me!  |
|
|
|
Post by Bubs on Mar 25, 2023 16:53:41 GMT -5
Adding from GroupMe discussions for future considerations:
Modify the nomination process for future MLB Auctions - possibly amend the zero/no bid system and/or expectations on higher bid increment based on proximity to 24 hour mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by durhambulls on Mar 27, 2023 10:32:04 GMT -5
For the auction, I’d like to see some changes regarding players on the IL.
1. I don’t like that players on the IL don’t have their salary count against your cap. Seems like you are setting people up to make bad cap decisions in the auction. And allowing owners to expand the cap.
2. It seems very arbitrary. I have 3 players who will all start the season on the IL but aren’t designated as such yet. So I couldn’t secure any replacements at auction and will have to rely on left over free agents for however long they are out.
I propose a simple change - every player under contract and won at auction, has their salary count against the cap and occupies a regular roster spot. No IL at all during the auction phase for anyone. Let the first free agent add period run on the night before opening day and everyone can fill their roster as they desire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2023 9:10:45 GMT -5
1 day trade waiting period.
|
|
