| 0 |
Subject: Not So Mock Draft Trade Deadline Thoughts
Posted by: Mikel @ school
- [569283112] Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:45
OK everyone I already made the league...I can still change Trade Deadline So everyone tell me what you want...this is where you can discuss what you want and why you want it.
This is the final vote what ever comes out of this will be FINAL.
We have 1300 IP
We have Daily changes (those cannot be changed)
After this vote please no more Complaining Please lets all be Adults here.
BTW: the League is at yahoo
ID - 52557
pw - rotoguru |
| 1 | wiggs
ID: 810271513
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:47
|
well with 1300 set in stone then there cant be a trade dead line. I really dont understand anyways, since people say that no one trades whats the big deal. It will be nice to have an option as to way to do. I vote NO DEADLINE
|
| 2 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:47
|
the disccusion from the other thread:
wigg's last post:
tduncan, you are like talking to a wall. Weekly changes are dumb, they make no sense. I agreed to the limit, but dam right, when i run out of ips i am going to trade for hitters. There was no talk of limits when i drafted and i loaded up on pitching. I am not going to get punished for this.
my reply:
thats right wiggs, you should be able to start all your starting pitchers, for the WHOLE season, NO MATTER FOR HOW INNINGS THEY GO.
we don't need the IP limit thing at all. it's a dumb thing to limit.
BUT... in order to prevent people from shifting roatetions and start 8 different pitcher every day, we need to make the lineup changes weekly. IT'S A SMALL PRICE TO PAY!
I actually feel like I'm talking to a wall too. but this is the last time I'm metionning this. do whatever you want. I will play either way.
|
| 3 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 13:52
|
one more thing:
why are we not limiting at bets? why are we not assuming how many AB each position player will have, and then limititing it? we are doing the same thing for pitchers right?
|
| 4 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 550321519
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 14:03
|
Limiting at-bats? tduncan, you are funny . .
|
| 5 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 14:04
|
whats so funny? we are limiting IP right? whats the difference?
|
| 6 | Mr. Nice Guy
ID: 421124113
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 14:17
|
alright, personally I go w/ no trade line because it doesn't really matter that much
|
| 7 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 550321519
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 14:20
|
This is a bad situation . . . yet not all that surprising, considering how this league came together. When I signed up for this league, I thought I was signing up for a 'Mock' draft. We started up and hadn't even set position requirements until many rounds had already been completed. I just say, at least we aren't playing for money. I can't imagine what it would be like . . .
I like daily changes and the 1300 IP max. I would also be willing to go along with an August 15th (or 21st) trade deadline. However, wiggs felt that with these rules in place, he was being penalized for drafting what he feels is a strong staff of SP. tduncan . . . you feel that a trade deadline is absolutely necessary because if we don't have one, it will hurt the integrity of the league. Someone could stack their SP early and then trade them away late for RP or hitting. I honestly don't see this as being a big problem. There would have to be some serious trading going on for anyone to effectively employ this strategy . . and I just don't see that happening.
In an effort to facilitate a solution, I will go along with the majority. Regardless of the rules we decide on, I do not plan on winning (or trying to win) the league by exploiting the rules.
|
| 8 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 15:21
|
Tduncan, i am not exactly sure where you stand here. Seems like we are battling, but at the same time we are agreeing? I dont see a need for a deal line for the simple case that 1300 innings isnt that many. As for daily vs weekly changes, there is an option as to how many free agent pick ups you can make, if you are afraid of people just getting guys for 1 night we can limit them and it will all work out. What do you think of that idea?
|
| 9 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:16
|
tdunc has brought up a good arguement for having a trade deadline.
I have yet to see one for NOT having a trade deadline. Does anyone have a logical reason for not having a trade deadline?
August 15th or 21st...
|
| 10 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:19
|
Also, if tdunc says he should be able to start all of his SPs for the entire season then I say I should be able to start ALL of my catchers for the entire season.
Weekly lineup changes are dumb because after Monday I might as well not even check my team until a week later. If someone get hurts I'm screwed. I can't see how anyone would be in favor of weekly lineup changes.
|
| 11 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:26
|
Sorry, i didn't really make the point that I wanted to above.
Now that the draft is over, everyone is trying to make the rules that would best benefit their team. Can't we realize that this is a fun league and compromise on something that will keep the league's integrity?
I think that you should be able to start a maximum of 5 SPs and 2 RPs with a limit of 1400 innings. This gives enough innings to utilize all your pitchers but doesn't make it enough to rotate pitchers in and out all year. RPs can be rotated through depending on matchups but once the end nears innings will be a concern if they weren't distributed well.
Trade deadline should be late August so that tduncan's scenario doesn't play out and lineup changes should be daily so that noone loses interest.
Thoughts?
|
| 12 | Chuck
ID: 501351722
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 16:57
|
Don't know about the logic on this one (or if we would just have to go on an honor system):
Why not go with a games started limit to keep consistent w/ the position players. You can have your SP's appear in 162 games. You can only have your RP's appear in 162 games.
I think this overall needs to be looked at logically: Why are there 5 SP spots and 2 RP spots? Because, I feel, pitchers will pitch on the same day. The five spots are not meant to rotate as many pitchers in and out as possible; it is meant so that you can start all of your pitchers w/o having to miss any starts. Though not perfect (we do have 2 utility spots as well), this is supposed to be a rough model of a baseball team. Ideally, your staff would each start a game in succession and you would have a middle reliever and a closer. Again, this is not perfect, but it is the model. This is why I favor a 162 game SP limit (definately) and some other RP limit-- I figure 162 games as well. If one of your pitchers has a bad performance, you should not be able to make it up by picking up people randomly off the waiver wire.
I would say this:
If we do go w/ no innings or games limit, then there should not be any limit as to who you can drop and pick up. If we are making that a rule, it should become part of the strategy. As for personal bias on this, there will be weeks in the summer where I may not be able to change my team.
|
| 13 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 17:20
|
pride, I have given some reasons for not having a trade deadline. I am not going to post them all again but you can read back through.
As for your comment about starting all your catchers, the difference is in the beginning i asked what the break down of positions were and i was told 1 of each and 7 pitchers. That being said you have to understand that you can only start 1 catcher, but in my opinion i should be able to start 7 SP if i want. If i am willing to except the loss in the saves catergory. dont worry, i am not planning on using 7 SPs, but my draft out look was to win the wins, category and sacrifice the Saves, there fore i only drafted 1 closer. Do you understand what i am saying?
|
| 14 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 17:24
|
has anyone given any thought to adding a transaction limit i asked about early. I think this will eliminate the rest of the problems, if you only get to make say 10 moves for the season then you wont be dropping and adding players so much. Just an idea. Let me know what you think.
wiggs
|
| 15 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 550321519
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 17:33
|
I really have to agree with the things that cEHp said in post 11. I think this is as fair as possible, given the situation and the arguments on both sides.
|
| 16 | ChicagoTRS
Sustainer
ID: 5031911
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 17:55
|
Just to throw a thought into your Trade Deadline/No Trade Deadline debate. I am not in your league but I thought I would at least add a reason why you should adopt a trade deadline. In the past with leagues like this I have seen some ridiculous trades late in the season from bottom dwelling teams to contending teams. Who knows who are friends outside the league and who might want to help someone else out. Especially since this is not a keeper league and noone really cares about keeping players. How would you like to be leading HRs the last week of the season and the team behind you makes a trade for Sosa and some other slugger and they give up a few bench players. I think trade deadlines keep things a little more honest or minimally you have to have someone review trades to keep them fair.
|
| 17 | Dan
Donor
ID: 371211321
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 18:51
|
I'm all for a trade deadline, all for limiting IP, and even AB makes sense. Then you have to be more careful when considering starting someone and make sure you get quality starts from that player. It makes a ton of sense in my mind, no!???
|
| 18 | Strike One
ID: 356372421
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 20:43
|
1300 IP max
Trade Deadline
i'm not gonna state my reasons since they've already been argued. that's just my vote.
|
| 19 | Khahan
ID: 567232217
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 21:22
|
Ok, trade deadline, my preference would be none, but to be honest I really don't care. If you guys tell me there is a trade deadline, so be it. I think live and still have fun.
As for the Innings pitched, I'll go with EH on this one. I don't think it should be limited and 1300 seems low, but at 1400, I think that is a good compromise. I can agree to that one.
No, the rules of the league are not exactly as I'd like them, but I am 1 of 12 here and we all need to give a little bit.
|
| 20 | Strike One
ID: 73522811
Tue, Feb 26, 2002, 22:53
|
since this seems to be the new league discussion thread, i wnat ed to point out one thing i noticed what browsing through yahoo. that is that Edgar Martinez is not listed. did a martinez search and his name didn't show up.
|
| 21 | sledge
ID: 211241916
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 07:14
|
I'd rather have a deadline - but don't really care. I'll take it either way.
|
| 22 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 09:08
|
The only argument I've seen AGAINST a trade deadline is that you'd want to max out your IPs and then trade for hitting which is exactly the reason FOR a trade deadline. Please, if you have a VALID reason for a trade deadline let me know because I've read through all of your posts and I haven't found one.
|
| 23 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 10:04
|
Dan (post 17):
Actually, it doesn't make sence to me at all.
let me ask you something: in your basketball league, do you limit the number of FG attempts per position, saying "Then you have to be more careful when considering starting someone and make sure you get good FG % from that player." (you, post 17).
No, of cousrse not. and why? because then the guy who drafted iverson and stackhouse will say: "i loaded up on shooters. I am not going to get punished for this." (wiggs, post 2).
if we wanted to look for quality starts, we would have made it a scoring category. but we aren't, so whats the idea of the IP limit?
I have yet to read one good argument for why limiting IP is a good idea. the only argument I have read is "in my league last year we had an IP limit". and I don't consider this a good argument.
|
| 24 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 10:22
|
tduncan....you aren't reading very carefully.
Without an IP limit I could simply waive my 7th pitcher and pick up another one and start him. He'll get me some strikeouts, possibly a win and hell with the amount of quality pitchers still out there probably will help the WHIP and ERA. If I do this several times throughout the year I will have a LARGE advantage over someone who doesn't do this.
Also, a real major league team has a 5 man rotation. 5 pitchers selected to pitch in a certain order. I have NEVER IN MY 16 YEARS OF WATCHING BASEBALL, SEEN A 7 MAN ROTATION. I thought when doing position requirement that everyone had enough common sense to pick 5 or 6 SPs and 2 or 3 relievers. Maybe it is because that is how it's always been done in the past.
Honestly, at this point i don't really care. Let's make it no limits and everyone can use whatever strategy (underhanded or not) to try and win the league. I'll run my team as if there were limits and start 5 SPs and 2 RPs just like I would any other year. If I lose to someone who takes a different path so be it.
|
| 25 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 10:33
|
I don't understand the "real MLB 5 man roatetion" thing. we decided on 8 pitchers in the starting lineup. each of us can decide how he wants to spread his pitchetrs, for the good of his fantasy baseball team.
yes, you are right. no IP limit creates the problem of starting 8 different guys every day. so how do you take care of this problem? very easily. weekly lineup changes. this way, you won't be able to rotate your pitchers daily, and you will be able to start who ever you want for next week according to opponents/ballparks/wheater.
|
| 26 | wiggs
ID: 810271513
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 10:40
|
WHY WONT ANYONE ANSWER MY SUGGESTION OF LIMITING TRANSACTIONS. IT WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING.
|
| 27 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:09
|
Many managers like to work the WW for strategic reason that aren't underhanded. Limiting this would prevent this from happening and if you ran out then perhaps you'd be stuck with an injured player for the last month of the year.
Since tduncan seems to have everything figured out and can't seem to see the problem with weekly lineup changes I say we do it his way. What the hell, I love playing in a league where I have the ability to be active once every week.
I vote for no IP limit and weekly lineup changes.
If a player gets injured on Monday my whole season will go down the tubes but what the hey. A compromise doesn't seem to be in sight.
|
| 28 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:18
|
One more point, though tduncan is dead set that weekly lineup changes fix the "rotation problem" he is wrong.
Say I start 7 SPs, one week then the next week my 6th and 7th only have one start. I merely surf the waiver wire for pitchers that have 2 starts, since I don't really need a bench I can waive all of my bench players that I don't REALLY want and pick up 2 more pitchers that have 2 game weeks. If my guy gets injured I can pick up his replacement for the following week and still get all the starts out of my 7 pitchers. If the 2 guys I picked up have 1 game weeks the following week I can drop them and find 2 pitchers that have 2 game weeks and continue like this for the entire year. Doing this would probably give me over 100 extra innings. But hey, whatever works.
|
| 29 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:23
|
how exatly your whole season will go down the tube because you will miss 20 at-bets or 1 pitcher start? you are making such a big deal out of such a small problem.
don't you think you will lose much more when you will max out your IP and you won't be able to gain anything for pedro's final 5 starts?
and being active doesn't always mean changing your lineup. researching the WW or making trade offers are just as important.
|
| 30 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:26
|
what would you rather have:
1 pedro martinez start or 2 starts by a shaky WW starter?
you are forgeting 2 out of the 4 categories for SP are averages. nobody is gonna miss a start of 1 of his good pitchers for 2 starts by bad pitchers.
|
| 31 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:29
|
Ummmm....I won't max out my IP because I realize that 5 starts from Pedro are more important then 5 starts from my 7th starter which is why I will only start a 5 man rotation which is the idea behind IP limits.
Like I said, put no limits on. I will still play this year like I have every other year and start a 5 man rotation.
I don't know why you are so dead set on weekly lineup changes. I was in a league like that last year and it sucked. Had I known this I might not have drafted Preston Wilson or Kendall...why am I being punished?
I don't care, you set the rules and I will beat you regardless of what they are.
|
| 32 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:30
|
"then the next week my 6th and 7th only have one start"
Pedro isn't my 6th or 7th starter.
|
| 33 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:36
|
I'm not locked on the weekly chagnes thing. but it is the only way to get rid of the IP limit thing, wich is IMO a much bigger problem.
like I have said before, it's a small price to pay.
|
| 34 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 11:40
|
a small price to pay....
YEAH, and John Smoltz will get 50 saves this year.
|
| 35 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 12:00
|
Another "price to pay" with weekly changes is in the scenario where Randy Wolf pitches 2 games. 1 @ San Diego and one in Coors. I have to sit him down for both games eventhough he'd most likely dominate the Padres. How is that fair?
The bottom line is we have to keep changes daily but give enough IP so that you can throw 7 pitchers and not run out of innings.
I think that 1550 is the absolute highest that we could go. This allows 200 IPs per pitcher and 150 IPs for closers. If that is not a compromise that everyone can agree on then I just give up.
|
| 36 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 13:49
|
Ok, I can't read this whole thread. Its just a lot of repeating.
How about this, daily line up changes for hitters and weekly we submit our pitching schedules?
Again, not exactly how I'd like to see things run, but it offers the best of both worlds.
Or throw in a rule like, if you pick a pitcher up off waivers or as a FA, you have to miss his next scheduled start and you can't waive him until he's started twice for you.
Rules like that would solve the problem of rotating pitchers on and off your roster.
Wiggs has another good option. Limit the nubmer of transactions we can make. Maybe transaction to replace injured players don't count towards the limits. I'd be curious what logic would be used to come up with a good #. Maybe rather than a flat amount, say in any given week.
Or forget innings. We limit the games started at hitting positions, why not limit the games started at pitching positions.
Most of us have 5-7 starting pitchers. Why not say 195 starts per roster. I got that by taking 162 game season/5 man pitching rotations=32.4 starts for an average pitchers.
32.4 x 6 (chosen at random from between 5-7 starting pitchers per roster) = 194.4. Round up and we can have our pitchers make no more than 195 starts total.
Relief pitchers would not count towards those starts.
There, you guys now have 3 or 4 options to choose from. Since nobody else wants to offer up any options other than Wiggs and I, lets say we vote now.
Inning limit (we then need to vote on how many)
Min starts per waiver pick up/waiting time to use
Transactions limit (we then have to figure out how many
Limit starts (we then have to vote for how many)
...
Please, lets just put the debating in circles behind us and vote.
My vote is for for Limit starts
|
| 37 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 15:00
|
the GS limit sounds good.
but... no "betweens". let's say the max # of games a starter can start is 35. if someone wants to start 8 SP, thats his choise to make, and he shouldn't be punished.
so 8x35 = 280.
my vote goes to 280 GS limit.
|
| 38 | Chuck
ID: 501351722
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 15:15
|
I vote for the games started limit... 280 sounds good, but we can vote on that later.
|
| 39 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 15:27
|
Yes, please, lets vote for the actual number later and not muddle the initial issue with secondary stuff. So far its 3 votes for Games Started limit. 0 votes for other options.
Thanks guys, lets get all the votes in then deal with secondary stuff.
|
| 40 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 16:41
|
Like I said...you guys make the rules and I will beat you regardless.
I'm down for the 3 posts above.
|
| 41 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 16:51
|
Using the same logic above the amount of RP games would have to be 490
Seeing as the average reliever pitches between 65 to 70 games the number of relief appearances will have to be:
7 * 70 = 490
|
| 42 | CanEHdian Pride
ID: 426351415
Wed, Feb 27, 2002, 16:53
|
Opps, miscalculation.
8 * 70 = 560
|
| 44 | sledge
ID: 211241916
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 01:33
|
ouch !!! Ya'll play nice. I think tduncan did more than his share to help our draft by giving us the graphs, etc. It's a democracy - everyone is entitled to his own opinion. We've all said our peace and put this to a vote. No way do we kick a guy out of the league for voicing his opinion.
As for the rest of your vote I am with you 100%.
But tduncan stays
|
| 45 | sledge
ID: 211241916
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 01:41
|
1300 IP
daily roster changes - noon est cutoff time
no waiver wire transaction limits
aug 21 trade deadline
|
| 46 | sledge
ID: 211241916
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 01:42
|
blockaa - how do you get your writing to be smaller than everyone else
|
| 47 | Khahan
ID: 12432113
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 08:07
|
Guy, we are getting no where trying to vote for 3 or 4 things at at a time.
So far, for dealing with pitchers we have 4 votes for a games started limit and 2 votes for an innings pitched limit. Once we decide which of those formats we are goign with, we can decide exactly what the limit will be. Lets put the name calling and other issues aside and focus on 1 thing at a time. We'll get a lot more done.
If we get 3 more votes for GS limit, that is a majority (7 out of 12), then we can focus on choosing what the limit is.
|
| 48 | sledge
ID: 211241916
Thu, Feb 28, 2002, 09:58
|
I'll vote for either 162 games start with 162 relief appearances or 1300 IP. It comes out about the same either way. Any more than the 162 and you are just abusing the system. That's the season 162 games. Whether it's hitters or pitchers 162 games.
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|