Posted by: Species
- SuperDude  Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 18:18
As much as the 2018 offseason may be the outlier (given Greggo / Lyman's additions in late September and the teams they inherited needing significant overhauls), it is possible that G20 has evolved into an almost 12-month cycle, where the offseason needs it's own thread. So here we are.
With most of 2019's administration already done (save for lotteries), I am opening this thread for offseason business:
....AND, even though we are literally just about to play the first Wild Card game here on October 1st, given the incredible activity of the 2018 offseason, while the 2019 season is fresh in all of our minds, I want a roll call of teams that are fully and completely dedicated to not only returning for 2020 but to be active in league business, league discussions and trade activity!
Please consider this before committing. I would rather replace unsure teams early in the offseason so any incoming managers can truly put their own stamps on their teams. This was so wildly successful last year that I am implementing a commitment roll call on an annual basis.
Make your pledge on the metaphorical bible (or whichever religious text you prefer) here and now.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
ID: 330592710 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 10:12
I hope to run the lottery later today...
ID: 330592710 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:12
Will be selecting momentarily. Audit copies of random numbers will sent to Species, Tosh, and youngroman. Prospect draft lottery will run first, followed by supplemental draft lottery. Stand by...
mjd was the "#5 seed" (8.1% chance of selection), Khahan the #3 seed (after demerit - 14.8%), and Tree the #1 seed (25%)
ID: 07724916 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:21
I feel like everyone's 3rd grade teacher. Only darkside, Fosten, Thumper and slizz (albeit half way) actually answered the question I posed via leaguewide email about all teams' intention to return AND your dedication to league business. When I send out an email asking for each of your response and attention, I MEAN IT. Pretty please....with sugar on top.
NO MORE "The Tree Defense", which indicates "I thought by my posting other things in the thread that it was implied that I am in"
I want every team (but Thumper, darkside and Fosten) to answer the following question:
Question: Please indicate your intention to return and dedication to participating in league business, league discussions, league votes and respond promptly to trade discussions and offers:
1) I am returning and am completely dedicated to participating in league business, discussions and trade offers....oh and I am going to beat your ass Species so watch out.
2) I am returning and will do my best to participate in league business, discussions and trade offers.
3) I am concerned about my dedication to stay up with league business, discussions and trade talks. I am thinking about whether I want to stay in G20.
ID: 07724916 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:42
30 / 33:
THANK YOU Guru.
I did not get to the draft grids this weekend, and am traveling or otherwise busy on business 3 out of 5 nights this week and over the weekend. MAYBE next Monday when it is a Holiday. Sorry guys.
ID: 14143919 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:01
ID: 53336714 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:10
The league started its drift further away from what founding fathers intended with the implementation of prospects. As fun as it is to mine prospects, the pool of 60 / "hard cap" allowed teams to complete quicker rebuilds. The subsequent expansion of the pool to 100 (& trading draft slots) is fools gold. It will make it harder for the "younger" / bad teams to rebuild despite their accumulation of what they believe to be long term assets. Obviously, the thought is that those assets will help them get out from the bottom, but it will only prolong the rebuilding process from 1-2 seasons to 3-4+ to never. Then the team will be hamstrung for 2-3 seasons to come and the cycle will just repeat itself. At least with the pool of 60 / hard cap / get down to 3 prospects, the teams retained their picks the next season, still had their pick of shiny new toys, and could get those upside fringy type upside keepers as part of their 9. Unlike now, the old way promoted parity.
Another gripe of mine is the separate keeper deadlines. It opens the door for plenty of shady dealings in order to circumvent the 9 keeper ruling (the entire Archie Bradley & David Price mess). The dealing & shadiness surrounding those dealings left an awful taste for me and it was highly disrespectful to every other manager not involved. I'm sure even if that loophole was closed there will be creative ways to circumvent it. This is supposed to be fun, not aggravating.
On to the "moves cap". As stated above, if it passes I'm out. I don't want to have to deal with worrying about moves because the Cubs play what feels like 50% of their games before 1PM EST when no other team plays until 7PM. This happened to me a handful of times because of that. Most, if not all, of the Cubs players (& their opponent) are owned so I would go and see who is available in the later games. I'd speculatively pick one of those players up (say the 7pm games) only to see that he's benched and there isn't a damn thing you can do because of the Cubs lock. (I know playing on Yahoo would fix this mess as they allow pickups up until the game so its more of a ESPN issue). With a moves cap, it would only increase my frustration as you'd lose a move on top of that. Just one more thing to worry about on top of everything else in this league.
Now, I always joke with WG, BH, and Species about the moves cap, but WG is 100% right with respect to Blue Hen and his moves. Blue Hen will dump a bunch of players and block others from picking them up in hopes they start and when he finds out that they're not starting, he'll drop them and they will likely go to waivers and cannot get picked up again until they clear days later. Its smart strategy, but also ridiculous to damn near triple the next 5 teams.
6 out of the 20 teams eclipsed 200 moves (210, 257, 268, 274, 282, and 660) 5 out of the 20 above above 250 (257, 268, 274, 282, and 660) Only blue hen was above 300 with a grand total of 660!!!!.
< 25% of the league making more than 250 moves / year is not a small number. That number is fluid depending who is competing, but its definitely a benchmark that is consistent historically tp have < 20% of the league making that many moves. I have a compromise / idea (in an attempt to come to some middle ground):
Ref and I came up with the first "conditional" trade relative to saves years back and maybe we are looking at it wrong. Based on the number of saves a RP got, the higher draft pick that Ref would give me. Sure its a headache to track for the commissioner, but it was a creative way to get a guy who was risk averse to trade with me. If the player stunk it up for him, he gives me next to nothing but if its good for him he's not complaining giving the better pick...which brings me to my suggestion. Instead of a MOVES CAP, i'd be open to a "MOVES TAX"...something along the lines of:
FOR EXAMPLE: Team A makes 600 moves and wins the league.
REMEDY: Don't limit the demerits to a single round...Hypothetically speaking, TEAM A gets 20 demerits for his 600 moves. He forfeits the 1st round pick and is moved back 20 spots to round 2 and the same applies for the remainder of the draft and p-draft. Something along those lines.
As for weekly waivers / add drops - These types of leagues were implemented before the internet when leagues had to agree on a newspaper for scoring and check box scores manually. Imagine keeping tabs of daily moves back in the day / pre internet...Doing it once a week is more for tradition so that way it was easier to manually track the box scores when computing weekly standings. Its beyond me why leagues still operate that way when everything can be tracked digitally.
I'm 100% not bluffing when I say I'm on the fence in returning. The lack of integrity by some managers combined with the above reasons legitimately have me wondering if its even worth it to come back.
Post #32: 3
ID: 057721710 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:23
Post #32: 1.5
ID: 15510187 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 14:04
Post #32: 2
ID: 5095013 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 15:13
Post #32 - 1
ID: 2910361920 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 18:51
Post #32: 1
ID: 5691267 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:13
I personally think itís absurd to pinwheel through multiple FAs as lineups come out, using one roster spot, while trying to make up your mind on a stream for that day. Iím not even sure if itís logistically possible, but Iíd support being forced to hold your add through the next lock. This would curtail some of the streaming abuse that goes on.
ID: 5691267 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:15
Oh and Iím in for 2020. Will hope the injury gods donít shit down my throat next year.
ID: 5691267 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:17
Post #32 - 1
ID: 07724916 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:24
37: the moves tax is interesting alternative! Curious as to other manager's thoughts.
ID: 14143919 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 20:35
Tax seems like a reasonable compromise. You should win based on the performance of your core team (and luck of avoiding injuries, trades etc). Not the ability to bludgeon your way to categorical dominance.
ID: 217372011 Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 23:48
Post #32: 1
Also, I am definitely intrigued by the Hen tax.
ID: 410452818 Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 00:07
Post #32 - 1
For what itís worth, Iíd vote against the BH tax but would be open to a rule that says you have to keep added players through a lock, or other solutions that reduce my desire to make moves. Perhaps eliminating catcher slots, says the guy holding Will Smith.
Strongly in favor of a rule that puts both deadlines at the same time, and also one that prohibits trading between the deadline and the last pick in the S draft.
Would also vote yes on rules that limit the champion to 8 keepers and that set the draft order alphabetically by rotoguru handle, provided there is no shenanigans from BMD.
ID: 34954210 Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 11:22
Post #32: 1.5
Also, I am definitely intrigued by the Hen tax.
ID: 35282121 Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 14:37
ID: 367431722 Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 21:58
#32 - right now I'm in and dedicated for 2020. However in August I started nursing school. This semester is more than manageable but I wont know about next semester until January. Work load picks up next semester and the semester after that I have clinicals. I'm always dedicated to any league I'm in and if I feel I can't give it my all will reconsider. Therefore for the question posed I have to say:
As long as semester 2 is a manageable workload I'm in 100% a solid #2. If not I'll talk to the powers that be as soon as I know.
For Slizz in post 37 - I agree to the extent that more assets to work with can make the extremes more extreme. A good manager can have a quicker turn around time. A bad one will have a longer turn around time. But I think with more assets the normal manager will have a more stable time.
For the other part of Slizz's post about a moves cap, I think this is a complicated situation. Picking up players to block others from getting them and having no intention of using them is simply dirty play. If the purpose of a moves cap is to stop this - well it wont. As long as manager are physically able to do this, it will happen. I dont think the moves cap will actually accomplish what Slizz intends (though I'm with him on the intent). But a hard cap is tricky - too low and it stymies active managers. Too high and it has no value. I think as a league we need to ask ourselves - Is the 'bad' behavior we're seeing so egregious that it needs to stop? If the answer is no, then there is no need to do anything. If the answer is yes we have 3 choices: 1. Make a change the prevents the behavior from carrying over into future years. Not discourage the behavior, prevent it. 2. Ask the manager(s) to self-correct and bring their behavior in line with league expectations (which really are generally accepted good etiquette and manners) 3. Ask the manager(s) to leave 4. Eliminate waivers (for the specific behavior that we're discussing - adding players then dropping them before game time of the same lock out)
If you stay competitive in the league by in-season micromanaging and generally ('scuse my french) pissing on the draft, then a demerit system is neither a punishment nor a deterrent. Its just something that may potentially affect a manager doing high move volume for the right reasons. Personally I think for 2020 we go with #2. Bad behavior is no different in my eyes than abandoning your team. Have a conversation with the manager in question, lay out expectations ask for self-correction. If that fails, remove them from the league. But for people who want a solution here is what I would propose:
Look at all the moves and eliminate the extreme (660). The next highest number of moves is 282. Round this up to 300 for some padding and put the moves cap at 300. Simple, straight forward and resolves the problem without really punishing the rest of the league but without saying,"here's a slap on the wrist" (I think its also important to note that since we only have 1 seasons worth of data due to the way espn changed, we may have to revisit this number after next season) Note I'm not really in favor of a moves cap. Again my preference would be to ask the problematic manager(s) to self-correct their behavior. Just trying to offer a different perspective to the best result for the problem presented.
ID: 07724916 Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 11:16
Teams appropriately responding to Commissioner Requested Action:
Did it the first time: darkside Thumper slizz Fosten
Responded to Post #32: Guru GO slizz Tosh youngroman Meatwads Lyman ttucowboy Tree blue hen mjd bmd (albeit an incomplete) Khahan
Crickets: Greggo Nerfherders (although he has posted here) WG
ID: 07724916 Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 12:49
My $.02 on the moves cap from the perspective of just 1 manager out of 20:
- I like the creativity of the 'hen tax', but in the end I agree that it is not a deterrent. I love compromises, particularly if a valued manager is considering leaving over the subject. But I just do not think the tax does enough.
- I appreciate the sentiment of Khahan's suggestion - counsel the 'offender' - but I have a preference for "black and white". Bean has it right (and much to his shock, I did value what he had to say over his years here) -- you need defined rules, and the more subjectivity their is to things, the less enforceable it becomes.
Say what you want about blue hen, he gets creative and seeks to do so within the rules. Admittedly there are times where a toenail or two wanders across the line or perhaps into a gray area, but I do not want to restrict creativity. That's the sign of a good manager.
If the momentum towards doing "something" about the number of moves that border somewhere around obsessive or worse, a simple moves cap seems most appropriate. I am not too inclined to go weekly waivers - if you want that go to your nearest H2H league.
Seeking more input to arrive closer to a consensus.
ID: 35282121 Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 15:16
Species, I didnít see a number that says ďwill forget to mark my keepersĒ.
ID: 07724916 Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 17:12
55: bhahahaahaha. So true. Good one.
I also want to focus our discussions on a couple of the other rules under consideration this offseason:
IL Spots: - eligibility? Include called up prospects? - total number?
The limited IL experiment was a great success. The league never had them before, and the founders WANTED teams to have to make "hard choices" when players got injured - i.e. make this league harder than other common leagues. In my opinion, our compromise of restricting IL eligibility to keepers kept that history of hard choices intact.
I do not want to go crazy and just have anyone and everyone eligible. I am supportive of having called up prospects being added to the eligible pool. The general feeling when we implemented the concept was (something to the effect of) "Why penalize me when my key keepers go down?". Called up prospects are key strategic players in a team's overall build. I can see letting them be protected.
The other side of that coin could be: Yeah, but you released them in order to get a new P-pick.....that is the trade-off.
So called "Post-keeper" trades: Many teams were up in arms about trades made after the 9 keeper deadline. Some teams are concerned about these pre-arranged trades and are worried about collusion (I guess).
I want us to talk this out during this offseason. So far there has only been one suggested solution: ban trades between the keeper deadline and the end of the Supplemental Draft. Any other thoughts or ideas? This isn't "speak now or forever hold our peace"....but I would much rather attack this up front and avoid controversy later.
GP and IP minimums are always a hot topic
Feel free to add your own.
ID: 5691267 Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 17:49
Whether Bh was being serious or not, I agree that both deadlines should be at the same time which would effectively remove the post keeper trade stuff. The deals seem shady by nature and I realize thatís not the intent, but canít change the perception. I think the benefit of added strategy is significantly outweighed by the bad taste it leaves in peopleís mouths. Simple solution is get rid of the ability to make them. I donít care what type of value is being exchanged, no team should ever look like a feeder team for another and thatís what has started to happen in some instances.
ID: 35282121 Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 10:39
Post keeper trades: Iíd like to see a rule like ďYou canít trade a keeper in the first month unless you receive one in returnĒ. That should kill most of the shenanigans. Ideally, we wouldnít need this but judging by the last two seasons we certainly do.
ID: 34954210 Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:06
I agree. Put an end to post keeper trades by whatever means.
ID: 77532019 Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 17:39
i'd be interested to know specific trades that were of concern as mentioned above.
ID: 35282121 Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 22:48
Tree, go to this years preseason thread to get refreshed. The Archie Bradley deal was probably the worst offender. Itís shady backdoor deals(keep this player and Iíll trade xyz after the deadline).
I donít know when or who started it but I wish it was never a thing. Keepers shouldnít be placeholders for other teams. If we want to keep it legal then letís just let people trade keeper slots away.
ID: 77532019 Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 23:47
Tree, go to this years preseason thread to get refreshed.
ah yea, all the Greggo deals, which is ironically said he would vote in favor of banning.
in fact, i flat out called the deals "collusion" at the time. man, i'm definitely forgetting stuff in my old age.
we definitely need to ban that $hit, and i really don't think it would take much to make that happen.
the anger was strong - to the point where i could see continuing to allow such deals costing the league a quarter of the current owners, if not half.
oh, and post 117 in that thread. LMAO. come on now, got a bridge to sell too?
ID: 35282121 Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 00:14
Reason I said 1 month: Keepers were declared March 10. Start of the season was March 28th. 1 month would make open trading season start on April 10th. Basically only 2 weeks of the regular season where you canít trade a keeper for picks(keeper for keeper trades would still be allowed). I think this would significantly cut down on any shenanigans.
ID: 39230821 Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 15:14
I think the suggestion that keepers canít be traded for a month UNLESS a keeper is being exchanged both ways is a good one.
ID: 07724916 Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 15:25
62: I thought my 2017 Encarnacion trade was the first 'post-keeper trade', but actually it was slizz with the MadBum + Gregory Polanco for Lucas Giolito and a slew of picks that was the first on March 16, 2016. Someone is getting the last laugh on that one, although it took a lot longer than we would have thought!
Obviously I am a proponent of post-keeper trades and have used them for several seasons now -- both in buying (2017, 2019) and selling (2018 reload). Personally, I don't see why a team cannot choose to do with their keeper spots whatever they want to do. If it is more profitable for them to pick up Player X for cheap on November 1st and sell them at a profit on March 18th (at the cost of a keeper spot), shouldn't that be their choice?
A prime example of this in real life baseball is in the Rule 5 draft. Deals are made where teams with high Rule 5 picks will pick a player and immediately flip them to another team.
I completely understand and agree that there is risk of falling into grey areas with these deals. I agree that some of these deals are akin to "I will buy your keeper spot off of you" for some price. I ask again - is that necessarily wrong?
So long as their is fair, equitable market value exchanged in these deals, I see nothing wrong with them. I fully acknowledge that there is a risk of some sort of collusion. We have to police that and the sensitivity in recent seasons should make managers very cautious when executing these types of trades.
ID: 07724916 Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 16:05
64/65: I can visualize some sort of restriction of trading one of your 9 keepers, but I think we would have to vet that out a bit more than just "you must get a keeper back". Are you telling me that someone can't trade one (or more) of their 9 keepers in exchange for Wander Franco? Franco isn't a keeper but undoubtedly has significant value. Or trading a #80 ranked keeper for the #1 pick in our p-draft?
Are teams going to be mad if I trade one keeper for THREE keepers 2 minutes after the deadline? "He circumvented the keeper limit!" -- but it was keeper for keeper.
So many nuances. Keep the ideas flowing.
ID: 410452818 Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 17:49
Iím pretty strongly in support of no trades between keeper deadline and end of p draft. Even though I made plenty- trades before the draft, and during.
I am surprised to learn that making a high number of moves is sinister and should be punished. Clearly, a large part of this league feels that way, but Iím not clear on why 250 moves is perfectly fine, but 600 moves is treated with evil intent and deserves a slap on the wrist. And since about 150 of my moves were picking up a catcher, Iím also surprised that there isnít more support for removing the catcher slot.
Iím intrigued by the idea of forcing people to hold keepers longer.
ID: 35282121 Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 00:45
ď Are teams going to be mad if I trade one keeper for THREE keepers 2 minutes after the deadline? "He circumvented the keeper limit!" -- but it was keeper for keeper.Ē
I actually wanted to add that the number of keepers traded should equal the ones coming back. People keep pushing the boundaries of legality and for what? They make the league more top heavy and discourage middle of the road teams from trying to compete. Thatís the exact opposite of what a 20 team league needs. Like I said, if we want to keep post keeper trades then just allow teams to trade a keeper slot, at least thatís not under the table dealing and itís basically the same thing as a post keeper trade.
Itís a one month freeze, if someone wants Wander Franco, trade for him now(Iíd love to see the return of that package). I feel like keepers should be keepers and not placeholders for another team. I think it forces teams that are tanking to take an active approach to improving rather than a kicking a can down the road for the next prospect draft or prospect.
ID: 347152518 Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 07:41
Sorry Iíve been on vacation for a week with very limited internet. No time to read all this but yes Iím in fully. Will be gone until the 22nd
ID: 5691267 Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 15:45
Effective immediately, I quit. The direction this league is going is not enjoyable and to have a commish try and sweep things under the rug is not acceptable. Best of luck to all. Iím out
ID: 410452818 Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 21:03
Iím done defending. Just tell me what the rules are and do your best.
Pete, please donít quit.
ID: 55911315 Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 16:02
i fully acknowledge that there is a risk of some sort of collusion.
Fixed that for ya.
ID: 07724916 Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 20:25
Back from a nice weekend.
Pete, sorry to have you go. I don't know what piece of straw broke the camel's back. I don't know what I am sweeping under the rug and I don't know what direction the league is going that you are worried about. Honestly it seems like there is momentum to adjust the total number of moves and there is groundswell to do some sort of post-keeper trade restriction. Wouldn't those be directions that you might have supported in the past when they were discussed???
So right now we have 1 opening. slizz is on the fence. If anyone has friends in other leagues they want to offer up, please let me know. You can post here or just shoot me an email or text.
I have one last request: if you are going to accuse people of collusion, you better come with a little more than innuendo. Do not expect me to police / govern things through some weird back channel. Let's direct our attention to improvements to make the league better. If you want to end a certain practice in this league, please tell me how the proposal makes the league better.
ID: 55911315 Mon, Oct 14x, 2019, 18:46
If you want to end a certain practice in this league, please tell me how the proposal makes the league better
If you're doing something to reduce even the mere impression of collusion, it makes the league better.
ID: 410452818 Mon, Oct 14x, 2019, 22:40
Agree with Tree. Post keeper trades were a necessary evil, but theyíre icky. Letís ditch em.
ID: 39230821 Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 12:38
Not to derail but at some point Maybe we can vote on a move to Yahoo? I find it much better than ESPN
Pete, you will be greatly missed 😔
ID: 2910361920 Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 16:36
I agree that Yahoo is better than ESPN. World's better, actually. The ease of use, design and features at Yahoo have ALWAYS been superior to ESPN. My two cents, for what it's worth.
ID: 53336714 Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 16:44
Make that 2 openings. Due to recent events, I cannot be in this league anymore...good luck.
Rate this thread:
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.
If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.
If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.