Copied from old boards (originally posted about three weeks ago)

SLOTerp

Time to start thinking about baseball (part winter meetings, part knocked out of RFL playoffs).

Final rosters are being reconciled & verified by Matt and myself and should be ready soon. Auction date options sent out shortly.

Ideas for 2011:

Expansion to 16 teams. The current wait list has four players (Steve being one of them - I knew he'd be back...).

I can't think of anything else too important though if we expand, a revisit to a divisional format might be worth a look.

Amendment proposals to date

1) Expand to 16 teams. New teams start from scratch.

_________________



geojanes

The one rule I really don't like in this league is no adds during the playoffs. It's just silly that if your catcher or SS gets hurt, you've got to play a guy down. It's a terrible way to lose and a lousy way to win in the playoffs. I honestly don't even understand the rationale for it. If someone who likes this rule could explain why it exists, in a way that would convince me of its worth, I'd be much obliged. Otherwise I'd like to discuss an amendment.

I'd be OK expanding the league. I'm OK not expanding the league too.

_____________________

SLOTerp

I vaguely remember some discussion about that rule but not the specifics. My thinking was and is along these lines:

1) FA deadline set before season is over to minimize owners dumping valuable non-keepers for potential keepers.

2) Playoff teams are not given an exception. It would be anti-competitive to allow the best teams more opportunities to obtain keepers.

Happy to discuss and look at alternatives.

_____________________

SLOTerp

I think a supplemental draft would be cool (like the MLB 40-man roster on Sept 1). Playoff bound teams could add some depth and non-playoff teams could take some flyers for next year. There would be lots of questions to deal with but I think it'd be doable. You could finish an email draft or auction in a week or so. I've actually seen an email-based auction service that might work very nicely for something like this.

_____________________

geojanes

Now that's something I can get behind. An expansion of the rosters. The guys in the Playoffs can focus on adding backups in case of injury, while the guys not in the playoffs can focus on next year and see if they can pick up a keeper or two. Like it.

_____________________

SLOTerp

Ok, so let's start thinking about some details.

1. Number of players. I think about 2 or 3 each.
2. Method. I'm inclined towards an email draft. Check this site out: http://www.myemaildraft.com/
3. Timing. My preference would be at the FA closing date.
4. Limits on use. Will roster expansion lead to some pitcher churning in the playoffs? Do we care?

5. How do we accommodate the extra players? ESPN did not allow for roster expansion once the season started. Maybe that will be different this year but I'm not banking on it.

Perhaps we only allow the additional players to replace others on the roster - i.e. You call up one of your draftees but have to release another player. That solves the technical problem with #5 and at the same time addresses #4.

_______________________

Sharur

I can understand the rationale for expanded late-season rosters, but I think the logistical headache probably makes it not worth the trouble.

Boy I do like your idea Mike. I didn't see your thoughts on this before old Redscape shutdown. If you can't defeat the roster expansion technically, then your suggestion on having the equivalent of NFL practice squad players, players you can call up in an emergency is great.

To Sharur, I'd think you might have a different opinion, if you lost a couple of batters you couldn't replace during the playoffs. As I said earlier, having a playoff decided because you can't replace an injured player is a lousy way to lose AND win a playoff game.

"To Sharur, I'd think you might have a different opinion, if you lost a couple of batters you couldn't replace during the playoffs. As I said earlier, having a playoff decided because you can't replace an injured player is a lousy way to lose AND win a playoff game."

Actually... in 2008 I had no one to really replace Carlos Quentin with throughout the entire playoffs, and I had someone else go down later on (I forget who) that I was unable to replace during the championship.

Sharur wrote:Actually... in 2008 I had no one to really replace Carlos Quentin with throughout the entire playoffs, and I had someone else go down later on (I forget who) that I was unable to replace during the championship.

And doesn't that suck? All season long you mange to get to the playoffs; if someone gets hurt you deal with it through a trade, or a waiver wire gem, and then suddenly you can't do that anymore? When it counts the most? It's just a dumb rule, where any possible benefits are far outweighed by the possible harms. Mike's suggestion is a fine one, but I'm just as fine never turning off drop/add.

I think the idea has merit and worthy of a vote. Here's a draft of the amendment:

1) Immediately following the FA deadline, a supplemental email draft will take place.
2) Two rounds in reverse order of the standings (14-1,14-1).
3) These two players stay off-roster unless called up.
4) Players are called up via board announcement and require the dropping of another player (subject to buy-out rules if applicable).
5) Transactions are conducted by any league officer (Commissioner, Secretary, Scribe)
6) Call-ups not limited to playoff teams.
7) Unused call-ups and/or released players may not be kept.

Record-keeping would be minimal - in fact, those players could simply be posted in the 'Announcements' box.

I believe this could be completed in the week between the FA deadline and playoffs using the service mentioned above. An alternative would be to have each owner provide a list of players and draft based on that list (like the draft over at the RKL).

If we expand to 16 teams will we split into 2 divisions?

geojanes wrote:

Sharur wrote:Actually... in 2008 I had no one to really replace Carlos Quentin with throughout the entire playoffs, and I had someone else go down later on (I forget who) that I was unable to replace during the championship.

And doesn't that suck? All season long you mange to get to the playoffs; if someone gets hurt you deal with it through a trade, or a waiver wire gem, and then suddenly you can't do that anymore? When it counts the most? It's just a dumb rule, where any possible benefits are far outweighed by the possible harms. Mike's suggestion is a fine one, but I'm just as fine never turning off drop/add.

It did suck. But to be fair, I took that risk knowingly. I could have opted for a deeper offensive bench, but I decided to build a deeper pitching staff instead. That meant that I had less ability to deal with offensive injuries.

Anyway, I'm not against finding a solution, I just think the one on the table is overly complex.

Why don't we just say that roster additions are locked for the following year at the conclusion of the regular season (or a bit before that, if that's our traditional date), and that any players picked up or dropped thereafter cannot be kept, only those players that were rostered before the deadline, and still are at the end of the playoffs?

Green Arrow wrote:If we expand to 16 teams will we split into 2 divisions?

I don't think so, not unless we wish to create four divisions. The problem with two divisions is that you can't play each team in the division twice - there aren't enough weeks. Under a 16-team, divisional set-up you would play everyone once and only five division rivals twice. Well... maybe that would be ok. You could certainly do it with four divisions though (and set up the playoffs NFL style).

By the way, the 2011 MLB schedule is a bit different this year. Opening day is on a Thursday, so the first weekend will be merged with the week after. The final week ends on a Wednesday meaning that fewer games get left out of our playoffs. If you recall, our championship does not include the final week (last year was a mistake - we didn't plan on the merging of All-star week with the following week).

Sharur wrote:Why don't we just say that roster additions are locked for the following year at the conclusion of the regular season (or a bit before that, if that's our traditional date), and that any players picked up or dropped thereafter cannot be kept, only those players that were rostered before the deadline, and still are at the end of the playoffs?

And that's NOT a pain in the ass?

Of course the alternative is to extend the FA signing deadline. In fact, it may have outlived its usefulness anyway. I think all the owners have a good understanding of the system and most have many years of experience with it. I'm not so sure we need to concern ourselves with last place teams releasing highly paid/valuable players.

Now, there would be a new problem of George churning pitchers in the playoffs...

SLOTerp wrote:Now, there would be a new problem of George churning pitchers in the playoffs...

I've got to say that the creation of drafting budgets that become your Free Agent budget was a fantastic rule. I know I was skeptical when it was first proposed, but since I'm calling a rule dumb, I need to recognize that this was a great rule, and has added a level of complexity to the day-to-day management of my team that is really great. If we had to worry about the FA budgets through the playoffs, oh, man . . . tit would make those tough choices even tougher.

SLOTerp wrote:

Sharur wrote:Why don't we just say that roster additions are locked for the following year at the conclusion of the regular season (or a bit before that, if that's our traditional date), and that any players picked up or dropped thereafter cannot be kept, only those players that were rostered before the deadline, and still are at the end of the playoffs?

And that's NOT a pain in the ass?

I don't think so. It would just mean that rosters need to be recorded at that point, rather than after the playoffs. That would be the only difference. And if we missed the chance to do it within that time frame, the transaction log would allow us to reconstruct it after the fact. That sounds like far less work than an additional draft to me.

SLOTerp wrote:Of course the alternative is to extend the FA signing deadline. In fact, it may have outlived its usefulness anyway. I think all the owners have a good understanding of the system and most have many years of experience with it. I'm not so sure we need to concern ourselves with last place teams releasing highly paid/valuable players.

Now, there would be a new problem of George churning pitchers in the playoffs...

I agree that pitcher churning would be an issue. I also think that, quite frankly, if I were out of the playoffs, I would do more or less what you're saying people wouldn't do. It would be advantageous and well within the scope of the rules.

But it's not advantageous. At that point in the season, you might look to pick up some flyers or rookies that will be of unknown value next year. By dropping a player you have no intent on keeping, yet would have keeper value if the base were $1, you are throwing an advantage to your competitors for next year. The gain is speculative. The loss: High probability of gains for competitor & a valuable player is removed from the auction pool.

Is it possible this happens? Yes. Probable? No. I agree that your system would make it even less likely since the speculative gain is removed.

So what are the pros and cons of each proposal?

Supplemental draft

Pros: Might be fun, No significant pitcher churning (2 at most)
Cons: Time consuming, 'Taxi-squads' tracked separately, Manual drop/add by officers

Extending FA period

Pros: Simple, May keep non-playoff teams interested (keeper-shopping)
Cons: Pitcher churning possible, Non-playoff teams impacting playoffs

Restricted FA signings

Pros: Simple
Cons: Pitcher churning possible, Some additional record-keeping

To clarify my first point above. I do cede a probability of non-playoff teams dropping players who have positive value this year but no value next year as a keeper (i.e. players who may have a value between $1-$5). This may have a disruptive effect on the playoffs. To what extent, I don't know, especially since the values we place on players in this range fluctuate quite a bit from owner to owner.

I'm also satisfied with the system we have so no change is fine too!

Amendment proposals will go out tomorrow for voting. Here is what we have so far.

1. Expansion to 16 teams.

2. Player acquisition after the FA deadline (currently set one week prior to the end of regular season)

There are three proposals on the ballot. If more than one proposal passes, the one with the most votes carries the day.

2a. Supplemental draft.
-- Email (via automated service)
-- Two rounds
-- Draft in reverse order of standings (14-1, 14-1)
-- Two players are put on reserve squads
-- Calling up a reserve requires the release of an active player (buyout rules apply)
-- This is NOT an extended bench - once released, players do NOT go to the reserve squad
-- Reserves may be called up until the conclusion of the RBL playoffs
-- Released players and/or players in reserve may not be kept
-- Draft to start at end of FA signing period

2b. Extension of FA period
-- FA's may be acquired through the conclusion of the RBL playoffs

2c. Restricted FA signing period
-- After the FA signing deadline ends, a restricted FA signing period begins
-- FA's acquired during the restricted period may not be kept
-- The restricted FA signing period ends at the conclusion of the RBL playoffs

I'm leaving division play out this year but if some are clamoring for it, I'll add it in as a proposal. Anything else y'all interested in?