|
| Posted by: Species
- Dude [07724916] Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 15:42
What a preseason.
Blockbuster trades.
No less than FIVE teams making moves back-and-forth in an all out war against the tyranny of blue hen's back-to-back titles!
....and two very good drafts. Great job, everyone.
With a GREAT thank you to Tosh, the totality of our preseason is over (thank gawd!). Tosh has re-entered our entire keepers, draft and roster moves in ESPN, and now the remaining player universe is on waivers.
Please check your rosters for accuracy!
But outside of any corrections there, the season is open for business. Waiver claims, trades and free agent moves are all ready to go.
I would encourage any and all managers to post their draft / preseason thoughts -- good moves, shrewd trades, ballsy trades and thoughts on preseason favorites all welcomed.
Good luck to all. I look forward to a very fun, competitive season. |
| | | 1 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 15:42
|
Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 14:42 The draft has now been re-set, and re-entered. Unfortunately, ESPN did not allow to make roster changes to the keepers while entering draft results, so it made the process a little trickier.
So I had to -
- Re-set the draft
- Enter the 10th/11th keepers
- Enter the draft results - ESPN did not allow going over 23 players.
- Close the draft
- Process all the in-draft trades.
- Go back and add additional draftees, so that everyone has 23 players.
- Set the Waiver order
I think I did it correctly. But it is possible that I missed a trade.
PLEASE CHECK YOUR ROSTER FOR ACCURACY!!
|
|
| | | 2 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 15:59
|
My roster is accurate.
Looking to add an older outfielder, if anyone has one to give. Among things I can offer - Will Smith, who will be out a while but has a good line at saves and other value later in the season and next year.
|
|
| | | 3 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 16:57
|
Constitution
Prospects - 300AB 110_IP/40_GP to remain a prospect.
(Draft Rounds 1-3, '04; 4-5, '05; 6-8, '06; 9-11, '07; 12-14, '08; 15-17, '09; 18-20, '10; 21-23, '11; 24-26, '12; 27-29 '13; 30-32 '14; 33-35 '15; 36-38 '16)
MGR: #, Name,Pos,Team,(# Call-ups)
Bean: 34.09 Nick Gordon, SS, MIN; 35.02 Raul Mondesi, SS, KC; 36.03 Byung-Ho Park, 1b, MIN
bmd: 34.03 Matt Olson, 1b, OAK; 36.06 Andrew Benintendi, OF, BOS; 35.12 Ryan McMahon, 3b, COL; 37.07 Tyler Stephenson, C, CIN
Blue Hen: Rafael Devers, 3b, BOS; 36.01 Brendan Rodgers, SS, COL; 36.07 Jose Berrios, SP, MIN; 36.16 Jose DeLeon, SP, LAD; 37.05 Bobby Bradley, 1b, CLE
Darkside: Max Kepler, OF, MIN; 37.11 Ozhaino Albies, SS, Atl; 38.04 Michael Fulmer, SP, Det
Meatwads: 36.11 Franklin Barreto, SS, OAK; 37.08 Kenta Maeda, SP, LAD; 37.09 Lucius Fox, SS, SFG; 38.01 Francis Martes, SP, HOU
Great One: 28.07 David Dahl, OF, COL; 33.01 Yoan Moncada, 2b, BOS; 34.01 Greg Bird, 1b, NYY; 36.20 Sean Newcomb, SP, ATL; 37.15 Carson Fulmer, SP, CHW
Guru: 25.03 Albert Almora,OF,CHC; 36.17 Victor Robles, OF, WAS; 37.13 Brett Phillips, OF, Mil
Jaydog: 31.08 Austin Meadows, OF, PIT; 33.19 Dilson Herrera, 2b, NYM; 36.02 Dansby Swanson, SS, ATL
Judy: 33.13 Robert Stephenson, SP, CIN; 37.03 Roman Quinn, OF, PHI
mjd: 24.04 Mark Appel, SP, PHI; 30.17 Lucas Gioloto, P, WAS; 36.08 Jorge Mateo, SS, NYY; 36.15 Brady Aiken, SP, CLE
Nerfherders: 30.07 Clint Frazier, OF, CLE; 36.05 Anderson Espinoza, SP BOS; 37.02 Cody Bellinger, 1b, LAD
Peter N: 33.03 Hunter Harvey, SP, BAL; 37.04 Trevor Story, SS, COL
Tree: 32.05 Julio Urias, P, LAD; 33.05 Aaron Judge, OF, NYY 36.04 AJ Reed, 1b, HOU; 37.01 Tim Anderson, SS, CHW
Fosten: 34.05 Trea Turner, SS, WAS/SD; 36.09 Bradley Zimmer, OF, CLE; 37.06 Archie Bradley, SP, ARI
Slizz:
Species: 36.10 Nick Williams, OF, PHI; 38.02 Eddy Julio Martinez, OF CHC
Khahan: 35.03 Josh Bell, OF, PIT; 36.18 Alex Bregman, SS, HOU; 37.14 Dominic Smith 1st NYM
Tosh: 23.01 Dylan Bundy,P,BAL; 37.12 Anthony Alford, OF, TOR
wg: 32.03 JP Crawford, SS, PHI; 36.19 Gleyber Torres, SS, CHC
youngroman: 36.13 Shohei Otani, SP, Hokkaido; 37.10 Cody Reed, SP, CIN; 38.03 Aaron Altherr, OF, PHI
The following managers have had their 2017 Prospect Draft selections altered via trade:
3-16-16 mjd receives slizz' last round prospect pick (Bumgarner / Giolito)
3-20-16 bmd receives Pete's 2nd (2016 pick swap)
3-22-16 Meatwads receives Khahan's 1st (Dozier)
These managers have had their 2017 Supplemental Draft selections altered via trade:
3-19-16 bmd receives Pete's 1st and 2nd (Beltre + 2016 2nd) for his last 2 picks
3-20-16 bmd receives blue hen's 7th for his 9th (2016 pick swap)
These managers have had their 2018 Supplemental Draft selections altered via trade:
3-19-16 Great One receives WG's 5th for his 9th (Grichuk / P-Pick)
3-20-16 bmd receives WG's 1st and 4th for his last 2 (Blackmon)
3-23-16 mjd receives WG's 7th for his 10th (Plouffe)
3-23-16 mjd receives Species' 6th for his 9th ('16 pick swap)
The following managers have had their 2018 Prospect Draft selections altered via trade:
3-20-16 bmd receives WG's 2nd (Blackmon)
Previous Champions
2003 (tie) Ref and StL Cards
2004 Ref
2005 Ref
2006 Beastiemiked
2007 Twarpy
2008 Ref
2009 Peter N
2010 Species
2011 (tie) Species and blue hen
2012 Toral
2013 Wazaaap Guy
2014 blue hen
2015 blue hen
Commissioner:
"Species" gmrobinson1@yahoo.com - "Tosh" lodnar@gmail.com - "Guru" (Treasurer) davehall@rotoguru2.com
Positions
C - 1 1B - 1 2B - 1 3B - 1 SS - 1 OF - 3 DH - 1 P - 6
Active - 15; Bench - 8; Total - 23; Must have active players on roster at each position
Returning Managers
As commissioners, we reserve the right NOT to extend an invitation to (or remove) any manager for any reason. Primary reason for being excluded would be abusive behavior, purposeful rules violations (ie colluding on a trade), inactivity (ie leaving injured/OUT players in as starters or not actively trying to improve your team), not participating in league business or repeated delays/unresponsive, or failure to pay your share of league fees. If an owner is removed or NOT invited back, a new owner will be recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state. All monies will be forfeited.
Trade Policy
If there are 7 votes against the trade it will be sent to the commishs to be vetoed. There will be a min. of one full day to vote before the trade will be approved if the max objections are not reached. Everyone will be emailed by ESPN automatically as soon as the trade is accepted so they may review it. Make sure your email notifications are set up! Please check the site daily.
Trades involving draft picks/prospects will be listed in the trade and can also be posted on our leagues bulletin board and/or our thread at rotoguru.com. Note that off-season and pre-season (before draft is complete) trades will still be approved by the commishs.
Trades for draft picks - be they Supplemental or Prospect picks - may only be consummated within two drafts from the date of the trade. Example: in March 2015 before the Supplemental Draft, one can only trade either 2015 or 2016 picks. In June 2015, one could trade either 2016 or 2017 picks, etc.
Trade deadline - the trade deadline is the last day in August available in the ESPN website.
Minimums for GP and IP:
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1375 GP by hitters over the course of a season. For each 15 games of shortfall, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 games of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1200 IP over the course of a season. For every shortfall of 15 IP, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 IP of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
GP and IP demerits will be combined for each team.
If a team finishes “in the money” for prize pool purposes (ranked 1-6), then demerits will be ignored.
For lottery teams, the following penalties will be applied to every pick in the next year’s supplement draft:
If a team accumulates more than 10 demerits, then it will be removed from the lottery and assigned the 14th pick in all rounds (i.e., behind all lottery teams, but ahead of any prize pool teams.)
For teams with less than 10 demerits, that team is pushed forward one place in the supplemental draft rankings for each demerit. For example, if a team finishes in last place (20th) and has 5 demerits, then that team will be treated in the draft rankings as though it finished in 15th place (and the teams actually finishing in places 16-20 will each move down one place.)
If more than one lottery team has a demerit, then the lottery rankings will be successively applied starting with the worst finisher and then moving up to the next worst finisher, etc.
Keepers
There will be 9 players available to be kept heading into the season. You will have a deadline to post your keepers. You may change your keepers up until the deadline.
Players drafted in the Rule 4 draft the previous June are not eligible to be kept as keepers. This rule applies even if that player has played in the major leagues. All Rule 4 draftees must go through at least one Prospect Draft prior to being eligible as keepers.
2016 Prize Pool
There are 19 of 20 people in the prize pool @ $15 each. That means there is $285 to distribute. Teams are required to always be in it or out of it once they committed to it in 2005. These will be the payouts: 1st $110; 2nd 65; 3rd 45; 4th 30; 5th 20; 6th 15. If a non-participant places 1st-6th, his money will be reallocated so there is always a 100% payout. 1st-5th place will be moved up a spot in the prize money and the 6th place $15 will go to the treasury to help defray dues costs to all. Dues are used to pay for the league champion trophy and draft.
Supplemental and Prospect Draft Lotteries:
The lotteries for both the Supplemental and Prospect Drafts will be conducted within 30 days of the end of the previous season.
Timing of the Keeper Deadline, Prospect Draft and Supplemental Draft
Each March, as proposed by a Commissioner, the league hold the following events, in this order:
1) Keeper Deadline: all teams must designate their keepers. They may designate up to 9.
NOTE: At this time, once the Keeper Deadline has passed, managers may also call up prospects to their active roster. In this scenario, those prospects are separate from their 9 keepers.
ADDITIONALLY: Once the keeper deadline has passed, managers may exceed 9 or more players by trade.
2) Prospect Keeper Deadline: Managers designate their Prospect Keepers. They may designate up to 3.
3) Prospect draft picks are assigned and the Prospect Draft is commenced per our rules below.
4) The Supplemental Draft is completed.
Supplemental Draft, FA Pickups and Waivers
The Draft will be held prior to every season after Keepers are announced. A "NBA style" lottery will determine the top three selections. The lottery for the following season will be completed within 30 days of the end of regular season. Picks 4 - 20 and all picks in subsequent rounds will be in inverse order of previous years finish and will not snake.
Players must be available in the ESPN player pool to be drafted or added during the season via FA or WW. No amateur player may be drafted or picked up via FA or WW if the player in question still has amateur status or is a prospect. Also, if a player is drafted in the June MLB draft, while he may be freely picked up and used on a roster, please note that per our keeper rules they may not be kept the following season. All Rule 4 draftees must go through one Prospect Draft before they become keeper eligible.
There is a 3 hour per draft pick time limit and a cumulative time limit of 12 hours. (Subject to change). You may not exceed 23 players. You may not drop a player (or add a non-drafted player if you are short) until waivers have been turned on. You may trade for extra picks and you may trade your excess picks as long as it is done before the preceeding pick has been made. If you make a duplicate pick, the draft will continue and you may correct that pick at any time. Once you have been skipped, you will continue to be skipped until you are caught up. If a clock runs out, the next person on the clock will be charged for any time before his pick. If you are skipped due to a pick or c clock, you may still post your selection at any time.
Waivers will begin the season in the same order as the supplemental draft. Lottery picks and traded draft picks will not be considered when determining the waiver order.
Prospect Rules
Prospect Draft: The Prospect Draft will be held during the preseason after keepers are finalized (but before the Supplemental Draft). Drafts will be in inverse order of the final standings of the previous year and will not snake. A "NBA style" lottery will determine the top three selections. The lottery for the following season will be completed within 30 days of the end of regular season. Picks 4 - 20 and all picks in subsequent rounds will be in inverse order and will not snake. Players will be selected on our thread at rotoguru.com if possible. If that site is down, our draft will continue on the bulletin board of our page if we have knowledge of all picks selected previously. Ties will be broken by a dice roll. There will be up to 3 rounds.
A draft-eligible prospect is defined as a hitter that has less than 150 Major League at bats or a pitcher with less than both 55 Major League innings pitched and 20 Major League games pitched. Further, to be eligible, the player must be a professional baseball player, defined as one of the following:
- Under contract with a MLB team's system. This does not require them to have been assigned to a minor league team at the time of the draft.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) league.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Korea's Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) league.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Cuba's top professional league, the Serie Nacional.
Amateur players in High School, College or otherwise subject to the Rule 4 draft are not eligible.
There will be a 3 hour per pick clock and a 4 hour cumulative clock to draft. If you are skipped, you may make your selection at any time. Time will not accrue from midnight to 8 am ET, though anyone may select during that time if their pick is up. Once the draft concludes, the only way to add a prospect is via trade or future drafts. After the draft, you may bring this player on your active roster at any time (as long as hes in the ESPN database) by dropping a player.
Managers may call-up and then send down their prospect up to two times without losing their rights as a prospect as long as that player has not hit the maximum ABs/IP/GP threshold. Once a commish allows the call-up, he will add the number of times that player has been called-up next to his name in the Prospect List below. At the end of the season, all prospects on the roster will be considered optioned so they won't have to be counted as a keeper so long as they have not hit their threshold. Before a commish will option or send-down a prospect, he will look at the stats for that player including games played that day if the lineup freeze has passed. If a prospect is renounced or hits his threshold while on your roster (called up), his name will be removed from your prospect list.
All prospects are listed above. It is each managers responsibility to alert a commish when your prospect is entered into the ESPN database so an email alert can be attached.
Before the season at the keeper deadline all hitters must have less than 300 ABs and pitchers less than 110 IP or 40 GP or they must be moved to your active roster or released. Managers must monitor their own prospects. If they are later to have found to be over the max. at that deadline, the player will be immediately removed as a prospect and put on waivers.
At the prospect draft keeper deadline, all managers must have no more than 3 keepers on their prospect list. They may keep all three or none as long as none have been traded, (see below) but they will only get as many draft picks as it takes to max their prospects at three, barring a trade.
Prospect draft picks are assigned after your prospect keepers are announced. So if you have 3 prospect keepers, you dont have a prospect draft pick to trade. You may trade a pick at any time, but if you have traded a prospect draft pick, you may only declare two keepers. If youve traded two picks, you can only keep one and if youve traded all three, you may keep none. Once prospects have been declared and draft picks assigned, a manager may again exceed three prospects via trade.
|
|
| | | 4 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 21:56
|
My team looks good. Thanks, Tosh, Species, and everyone else that helped move the draft along. Looking forward to baseball!
|
|
| | | 5 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 00:16
|
Big shout out to the commishes for doing an excellent job! I know we like to keep you on your toes with all the trades. Keep up the good work!
|
|
| | | 6 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 00:24
|
I added the rounds to these trades. Figured it would help with future accounting.
2017
3-19-16 bmd receives Pete's 1st and 2nd (Beltre + 2016 2nd) for his 13th and 14th round picks
2018
3-20-16 bmd receives WG's 1st and 4th for his 13th and 14th round picks (Blackmon)
|
|
| | | 7 | GO
ID: 2111117
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 08:50
|
Can a moderator put that constitution in the first post so it's easier to find and doesn't get hidden?
|
|
| | | 8 | slizz
ID: 3556212
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 14:41
|
TEAM SLIZZ DRAFT DIARY
Wow...hard to believe that we are already beginning a new season already. Seems like yesterday we were watching the Royals grind through the playoffs and hoist that trophy. That, or the fact that chasing a 2 year old around makes time go by faster. Either way, I'm ready for the new season.
2015 didn't end as I wanted it to, but it served as a reminder I am trending in the right direction. With a little luck, I just might be able to compete for the title in 2016! I took a different strategy going into the offseason and tried to load up on players who, in my opinion, would make for solid 9th keepers on many of the teams in this league. That strategy did not pan out as the only player that I got significant interest (more than 3 teams had offers ready) was Jurickson Profar. Not a single bite on Teixeria, Quintana, Maybin, etc. Nevertheless, the 2016 Slizz Draft Diary:
KEEPERS
Selecting 9 keepers wasn't that hard for me this time around. The bigger challenge was getting down to 9. I anchored down and was comfortable going into the season-battle with the following players:
1B - Eric Hosmer
2B - Anthony Rendon
3B - Nolan Arenado
SS - Carlos Correa
OF - Adam Jones
SP - Jose Fernandez
SP - Marcus Stroman
SP - Kevin Gausman
RP - Wade Davis
5 hitters, 4 pitchers. Ideally, I would have liked to go with 6 hitters / 3 pitchers. I flirted with keeping Rusney Castillo another season given his upside and toolshed. If he can tap into it, he will be a Top 40 player and must keep. Same with Cameron Maybin. At the end of the day, it was just too hard to pass up keeping Gausman, especially after reading this gem from DG:
There is nothing more valuable in a dynasty format than a legitimate fantasy ace. According to ESPN’s player rater, the three most valuable assets in 2015 were starting pitchers. They are not easy to find and more difficult to acquire, unless you can get your hands on them before they break out. They come in all shapes and sizes and often sneak up on us. Who was Jacob deGrom and why didn’t we see that coming? Who is that man wearing Jake Arrieta’s body? What is a Dallas Keuchel? How do we get our hands on the next one before it happens and we are left standing alone in the waiver wire cold?
I don’t know and if I did, this wouldn’t the be moment you’ve read something I’ve written for the first time. What I do know is that I, along with every other dynasty owner, spend all off-season searching for that guy. My search has been narrowed down to one. He comes with the pedigree and checks all of the boxes.
After being drafted 4th overall in 2012, Kevin Gausman flew through Baltimore’s system and made his major league debut in May of 2013, less than a year from the day he was drafted. What he didn’t do was dominate. He pitched to a 5.66 ERA in 20 appearances and was forced to start 2014 in the minors. We ranked him 131st overall in our 2014 overall rankings and that seemed appropriate. For reference, Gerrit Cole debuted in 2013 as well and ranked 39th before the 2014 season. The 2014 season didn’t do a whole lot to convince Gausman owners that they’d be collecting a return on their initial investment, as he pitched to 3.57 ERA in 20 starts, but the strikeouts weren’t there.
Prior to last year, Gausman’s ranking peaked at 100th overall in our rankings and it’s quite possible (and maybe a bit understandable) that the Gausman owner in your league was tired of waiting or willing to listen. If he was, he is more than likely still in the same boat.
Dominant right-handed starting pitchers tend to have several things in common. They throw hard, they get swings and misses, and they induce weak contact. Last year, Kevin Gausman displayed the characteristics of an ace. A league average strand rate and a couple of extra fly balls leaving the yard kept his ERA and ERA estimators up enough to hide his strengths from less savvy owners.
According to PITCHf/x, Gausman’s average four-seam fastball velocity in 2015 was the 8th hardest among pitchers who pitched 110 innings or more, tied with Matt Harvey and Carlos Martinez.
His 2015 swinging strike rate was 10.9 percent, 26th among pitchers who pitched as many innings or more. His zone contact rate of 83.8 percent tied for 10th best among pitchers in that same group. The list of right-handed starting pitchers in 2015 who had better swinging strike and zone contact rates than Gausman is short and pretty eye-opening, with the exception of one guy who should probably be in the bullpen: Max Scherzer, Chris Archer, Danny Salazar, Matt Harvey and Rubby de la Rosa.
According to Fangraphs’ soft-hit rate, Gausman induced soft contact on 23.5 percent of the balls he allowed in play. That was fourth best among pitchers who pitched 110 innings or more in 2015, behind Dallas Keuchel and in front of Jake Arrieta.
When it comes together like it did in his final start of 2015, you get this wonderful display of dominance.
Consider me sold! I am all in on Gausman in all my leagues...except G20 now!
THE STEPHEN STRASBURG TRADE
Tree "lost" the coin flip. Instead of getting a team that could potentially contend right out the gate, he got Ref's squad. While it wasn't barren on talent, it was definitely short 4 keepers, and that can't be disputed.
I've spoke to Tree on IM and just recently, text (Football 101). Therefore, it was somewhat of a warm welcome to open up trade talks. I asked him what he was thinking for his long-term plans and goals were for the franchise. In short, it was to embrace a rebuild and to mold the team in a direction he wanted. To be honest, it's easier to do that with Ref's squad than R9's as you're pretty much married to the elite guys on the squad. Ref's squad is almost like a blank canvas.
I told him to look over my team and mentioned that I was working on a deal with Ref about acquiring Strasburg. He said he would look it over and get back to me. Over the course of a week (during his G20 transition), we shot texts back and forth and he said he had interest in the following players:
Stroman
Gausman
Profar
Rusney
Aaron Judge (I made it clear from the onset that Giolito was not going anywhere).
Before I made an official offer (and this is a franchise altering one), I ran a hypothetical scenario by a couple credible sources and asked the following: In a 20 team, 9 keeper, 5x5 league - Gausman and Stroman for Strasburg. Thoughts?
The response varied:
Brett Sayre (Dynasty Guru / Baseball Prospectus) - Stroman / Gausman. He has Stroman #23 and Strasburg #17. Published that piece on Gausman above. To him, it was a slam dunk for whoever got those two.
Matt Foreman (Rotoworld) - "Strasburg will be the best of those in 2016, by 2018 that likely won't be the case. Depends what your 2016 motives are."
Ray Guifoyle (faketeams) - Leans Strasburg. No explanation given.
WG - Thinks I could've given just Stroman.
I started running scenarios on my app and it only improved my team by 4 points, on average. The cowboy in me says shake things up and do it. I made the initial offer of:
Stroman
Gausman
McGee / Storen
Tree counters that he has no interest in those closers and asked about Profar instead. Now, I know what you're thinking - how could he not want a closer?
Tree is rebuilding. A closer is a luxury on a squad that is rebuilding and a waste unless the closer is elite. Sure he could trade it mid-season for a future pick, but that's not going to replace a 9th keeper. Tree asked about Profar again. This time, I ask about working Yasiel Puig into a deal.
I love this deal for Tree. He gets a potential G20 cornerstone player in Profar, two (2) aces in Stroman and Gausman, and a 9th keeper lottery ticket in Rusney Castillo. If all else fails, he will have 3/4 of those as keepers going into 2017, barring injury.
THE YASIEL PUIG TRADE
I needed to get faster. I have some power bats with modest speed, but lacked a 20 SB+ on my team. Carlos Correa is my burner FYI. In the past 3 seasons, I have finished with single digits in the SB department. In order to compete with the big dogs, I needed to up that number significantly. I looked at teams who could be sellers and after navigating the G20 landscape and came down to the following players:
1) Jason Heyward
2) Gregory Polanco
3) Christian Yelich
4) Yasiel Puig
Jason Heyward & Gregory Polanco: MJD will acknowledge that I made an impressive play for Heyward, but he didn't want to part with him only to see him blossom as a star elsewhere, which I respect.
Why Heyward? If the Cubs can make the very average Dexter Fowler an all-star 20/20 player, what can they do with someone who actually has star-level talent?
An offer was made which would've caused eyes to roll given how rich it was for a guy who has averaged only 15 HR/season. MJD ultimately rejected because he's a believer too. I'm very bullish on Heyward and think 20 HR / 35-40 SB.
I then tried for Heyward Jr. in Gregory Polanco, but MJD told me to get back to him after the Super Bowl. Things came up and by the time I got back to it I was closing in on Puig. I think Polanco will get on base at a decent clip, maybe hit 15 HR, and steal 25-30 SB.
Christian Yelich: No offer was made to Meatwads. Why Yelich?
Speed. Why didn't I bother pursuing? He hits four ground balls for every fly ball. He's simply not going to hit enough HR to justify giving up Adam Jones and those other stats up for. Age notwithstanding, the #'s just won't be there even if I made the trade straight up. He is a fine keeper, but unless he's stealing bases like Dee Gordon, its hard to justify on my end for an outfielder.
Yasiel Puig:
My last target. I needed a guy who was inside the Top 100 and offered some upside. Puig was bad last season. Some people love Puig and still believe, some see a mirage who has no plate discipline. His ranking is all over the place from as high as 40 to 100+. Jones is as high as 38 to as low as 63. Up until last year, he was a consistent top 24 player.
Me? I'm banking that 2015 was an aberration for Puig and not the norm. My hope for him?
2015 Lorenzo Cain: 15 HR / 25-30 SB. That might be a tad aggressive as SB's are becoming more scarce with the sabermetric movement in baseball.
If he doesn't hit those benchmarks I'm in some trouble because Adam Jones is going to do just fine:
3 season average of 29 HR / 87 R / 95 RBI
Included in that average is last year where he missed 25 games due to injury. His first one in 4 seasons. I see that as an outlier and expect him to mash 30 HR / 90-100 Runs / 110+ RBI given how awesome that Orioles lineup is.
He also gets Aaron Judge as a transition from Jones. Judge is a top 20 prospect, will be a 10th keeper in 2017 given the Aaron Hicks signing (he's gonna be under 300 AB), and allows Tree to compete as soon as next season.
THE JACOBY ELLSBURY TRADE
Probably the easiest negotiation in the history of my G20 trades. Amit (WG) and I speak on a regular basis. We always discussed making a deal for either Alex Gordon, Jacoby Ellsbury, or Billy Burns. I told him to do his shopping and if he ends up having to cut a couple, I will make a fair offer.
I was content going into the season with Jake McGee (granted I would like to have that back given the big trade I made one day later), but if I could upgrade my outfield position, I could focus on pitching in the draft.
THE BIG DEAL - LUCAS GIOLITO TRADE
**FULL DISCLOSURE - I NEVER thought this was going to happen. I woke up going into the prospect draft fully expecting to grab Victor Robles or Max Kepler at 15.**
Keepers are posted and the prospect draft had just opened. I get a text from MJD asking if I am still interested in Heyward. I'm thinking to myself "hell yes", but reply, "of course", and something to the effect of "but I just closed a deal for Yasiel Puig as I thought you moved on."
MJD said he realized that he would rather rebuild than try to compete this year and encouraged me to "strike while the iron is hot". MJD really wanted Profar on his team and LOVED the haul Tree received from the Strasburg deal. I informed him that I'm pretty thin on what I could give, but would definitely part ways with Prospect Draft 1.15 for Jason Heyward. I made it clear that I had no intentions of trading Lucas Giolito to acquire Heyward. We each agreed that he would need more than 1.15 for Heyward, and with that said, I didn't think I had the horses to get a deal done.
MJD sent me another text message as the prospect draft was moving along and this time offered to throw Madison Bumgarner in the mix. Believe me, I am close to turning that deal down too because I can see Jose and Giolito anchoring down my staff for the next 7 plus seasons. It was always my plan and it was so close to happening. I leaked the deal to WG and he can't believe i'm considering saying "no".
MJD takes Jorge Mateo and informed me he is going to pass on a JP Crawford deal with WG. I begrudgingly depart with Giolito and two picks...going all in for 2016. While its nice to be stocked for 2017 and beyond, MJD reminder to "strike while the iron is hot" gives my team its first opportunity ever to compete for a title.
I forget where I read this but someone likened the Madden "Create a player" to Brady Aiken. You get the perfect pitcher with all the attributes, but run out of points when it comes to UCL health...if somehow he can rebound from that UCL injury, MJD is going to have a lethal 1-2 for the next several years.
I agree with Species - if Polanco blossoms into a star, the deal will reflect very favorably on me. That said, I remember getting killed for my deal with Ref back in 2013. The core of the deal was like this:
Matt Holliday
Relief Pitching
Ref gets 1st rd pick back (Puig)
for
Anthony Rendon
Xander Bogaerts (traded for Jose Fernandez)
Cameron Maybin
That deal changed the landscape of my team. Ref got 2-3 really good seasons of Holliday and eventually parted ways with him. Maybe MJD gets the same with those picks. Same with Pete and The Giancarlo Stanton trade...it netted him Kris Bryant by way of Eric Hosmer. BH isn't complaining either because he was able to flip the assets from pete for more assets...let the deals play out.
PROSPECT DRAFT
I spent a good 3 hours reading about prospects and compiling a spreadsheet with rankings across 7 websites. I proceeded to narrow it down to my own personal rankings on how I see these players will fit my team.
Here it is (can't figure out how to paste excel without losing the rest of the text):
1 Benintendi, Andrew - OF (didn't expect to get him, but was crossing my fingers. 5 tool player who gets on base and can potentially deliver on a 20/20 season...plus serious 10th keeper in 2017 which is awesome!)
2 Robles, Victor - OF (Love his speed. LOVE LOVE LOVE it. He could potentially be a 10-15 HR / 50 SB guy in his prime. Thats a top 10 pick in any format)
3 Kepler, Max - OF (Kepler is like Benintendi Light. Not a whole lot to go on because he grew up in Germany. He's big and built like a 1st baseman, but has the athleticism of a Center Fielder. We don't know the outcome of how he will fare, but he could be as good as Josh Hamilton in his prime, albeit less power a tad more speed)
4 Diaz, Yusniel - OF (secret - wont tell ;P)
5 Zimmer, Bradley - OF (The good Gerardo Parra)
6 Martinez, Eddy Julio - OF (Cubs threw him some $$$ and if he develops and tears up the minors, what a bargain for species!)
7 Happ, Ian - 2B/OF (Top college bat in the Rule 4 draft...should be solid, but not great. If he plays 2B would be a huge bonus)
8 Rodgers, Brendan - SS (won't get him, just on the board because i can cross him off)
9 Tucker, Kyle - OF (Most potential of a hitter in the draft. Unorthodox approach where he could be a total bust, or a total dream...will have to wait and see)
10 Reed, A.J. - 1B (won't get him, just on the board because i can cross him off)
11 Swanson, Dansby - SS (won't get him, just on the board because i can cross him off)
12 Otani, Shohei - SP (Agree that hes awesome, but wont be here for another 4-5 years as it makes 0 financial sense for his posting team)
13 Williams, Nick - OF (if this was AVG% vs OB%, he should be 1.01)
14 Espinoza, Anderson - SP (electric arm, next Pedro?)
15 Margot, Manny - OF (speed but plays in SD)
16 Phillips, Brett - OF (athlete who got Car-Gomez, must be good?)
17 Alford, Anthony - OF (solid athlete and lots of Carl Crawford potential)
18 Smith, Dom - 1B (Safest bet for a .300 hitter in the minors...power?)
19 Anderson, Tim - SS (best athlete in the minors...game needs polish)
20 Clark, Trent - OF (Saw he went 1.10 in a DG first year player draft...lots of speed)
21 Mateo, Jorge - SS (one trick pony...50+ SB from SS...but I have correa!)
22 de Leon, Jose - SP (great numbers and will continue to be an asset for the Dodgers - didn't need a SP)
24 Maeda, Kenta - SP (honestly took off my board when his fastball was hovering around 84 in his first spring training game)
25 Berrios, Jose - SP (not a fan. Think he will struggle as he has with every promotion and will have exhausted his prospect eligibility)
26 Bregman, Alex - 2B/SS (toolsy player who got taken 1.02 in the Rule 4 draft. Obvious upside)
27 Guerra, Javier - SS (Only because Law has him so high...gifted bat)
As you can see, It is dominated by OF. It was a position of need as I boasted a strong core of infield keepers and had Jose / Giolito / Strasburg anchoring down 2017 and beyond...of course that changed with the mjd trade. My position of weakness became a position of strength with Puig, Polanco, Ellsbury.
I figured that I would get Max Kepler on my team as no way our resident Nationals fan, Tim Mullen (Darkside), would let Robles slip past him. Kepler should be up in 2016, offers Michael Brantley type upside, and could be a 10th keep in 2017.
2016 SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT
1.15 - Patrick Corbin, SP, ARI
I was torn on where to go in the s-draft. I know power is a premium in the league, but at the same time, I need more innings to round out my staff. Nevertheless, the decision was made easier when Meatwads took my boy, Jake McGee, at 12. My queue was:
1) McGee
2) Corbin / Quintana (model of consistency...look at Q's last 3 seasons)
3) Teixeria
I saw there were 5-6 bats available at my disposal (Teix, Pedro, Gordon, Kendrys, Holliday, & Grandy), but only one pitcher stood out to me since Q was taken by Species. That was Patrick Corbin. I figured if all else fails, I could nab Chris Carter later (Round 5) an get 30 HR that way because I didn't expect Big Teix to be there Rd. 2. Corbin it is!!
Patrick Corbin went through his adjustment period post Tommy John by waiting at least 1.5 seasons to get back to the mound. When he returned, he added 2 ticks to his fastball, the strikeouts were up, the walks were down, FIP was down from 2014, and his ground ball rate was up. All those are excellent signs going into the 2015 season. Not to mention he's going to be the #3 or #4 SP in Arizona.
To quote BP: He'd be good enough to start Opening Day for a third of the leagues teams, if no longer the Diamondbacks. Good enough for me.
2.15 – Pedro Alvarez, 1B/DH, BAL
My target was Will Smith in Round 2. I figured with his ADP and where he has been going that there was a decent chance I might be able to nab him in Round 2. Granted, ADP can be thrown out the window in the G20 S-Draft because of the leagues depth. After the first round, a player taken in the 2nd could easily go in the 4th or 5th depending how everyone views him. You have to lock up your players because they might not be there the next round. BH saw an opportunity to trade up at a moderate cost to get Will Smith and my first reaction is “SHIT” when I see the name on the board. I sent BH a text to congratulate him because I think Smith is going to be awesome. His slider is lethal and if he pitched anywhere outside of Milwaukee, he would be kept. EDITORS NOTE: This was a blessing in disguise because Smith tore his LCL and is going to miss “Significant” time.
Since Smith was gone and every reliever left I was not a fan of. Boxberger is good for saves but I think he has been lucky because his WHIP is pretty bad and JJ Hoover is likely going to be relegated to a committee. As a contender, I can’t risk my 2nd pick on that. So, I had to shift my focus back to the bats. To my surprise, most of the bats I was considering at 1.15 were there for my disposal in Round 2:
-Pedro
-Gordon
-Holliday
-Kendrys
Since I went Corbin in Round 1, do I play it safe and take Alex Gordon? I google “Alex Gordon Fantasy” and the first article that comes up is from rotoworld stating how uninteresting he is from a fantasy perspective. He’s great depth and will certainly get on base at a clip greater than .350, hit 15 HR, and sprinkle in 5 SB. What’s not to like? Really he’s just a solid cog for any team…just boring. Anyone who knows me knows that I don’t like to play it safe with the boring players, so with Judy going Pedro 3 in RIBC, he figures to be on half of the teams radars. I don’t see any pitchers that screamed “TAKE ME”, so Pedro it is. Lets roll the dice and hope to not crap out!!! Baltimore is a great hitters park, especially for Lefty Bats and if Pedro can experience any type of resurgence, he could be a top 50 player and hit 40 HR.
3.15 – Jimmy Nelson, SP, MIL
3rd Round Targets – Jimmy Nelson / Trevor Bauer
Every mock I had done, those two (2) were available for my disposal. Once I knew that, I began to really research both pitchers. I owned Bauer last year and the only thing that held me back from taking him is that he has some off days….and boy are those off days bad. Even his best game as a pro he had 6 walks. I feel that eventually he’s going to figure out how to throw strikes consistently and when that day comes…fantasy goodness!
Jimmy Nelson had gone around pick 260 in RIBC AA…and I didn’t have a 4th round pick, so there was little to no chance he would be there for me in the 5th. Jimmy Nelson came into the MLB as a 2 pitch pitcher who completely dominated the minor leagues. He was humbled when he got to the MLB and found early success in 2015, but scouts caught up to him and significantly struggled after the 3rd time through a lineup. That said, Jimmy has slowly been developing a knuckle curve to accompany his 94mph fastball and lethal slider. With another offseason of developing that 3rd pitch, he could be an ace. As Guru will attest, Nelson had 7+ outings that rivaled David Price and Gerritt Cole’s good ones…but for every good outing there was a bad one. To quote BP again: Ideally, Nelson would get a bit more vertical movement on his knuckle-curve oer the winter, which would help him change eye levels better. A relentless worker, he's posed for a true breakout.
He’s only 26. Throws 94, has a lethal punchout pitch (slider), and if that 3rd pitch becomes an asset, Nelson will be a top SP. Sounds like another pitcher we all love...Tyson Ross.
5.15 – Hunter Strickland, RP, SF
Round 5 is the last pick that you can get a consistent picture of where a player is taken. Why is that? You’re now past pick 260 & Prospects, so now its just getting your guy regardless of where he might be ranked. Strickland is a guy who really popped out at me. He throws 96-97 MPH, doesn’t walk a ton of batters as evidenced by his sub 1.00 WHIP, and strikes out hitters at a clip of 9k/9. On top of that, Strickland pitches for a winner and is part of a bullpen that the lead horse (Casilla) is said to be on a short leash. If he does close games, that would be a huge coup for me because absent any changes, I am only looking at 50 saves on the year. Good enough for 7-10 pts.
Now Strickland has slowly been developing secondary offerings so he can keep hitters off balance and as per CSN Bay Area, he has been the most impressive player in Giants camp. After making the pick, I got a text from BH that he was taking Strickland had I not, so it was definitely the right pick in that round!
6.06 – Andrew Cashner, SP, SDG
Will the real Andrew Cashner please stand up?
Is he the top 150 player from 2014?
Is he the dud from 2015?
At pick 286, its at least worth a flier to see what Cashner can do. My theory? Yasmani Grandal is so good at framing pitches. BP sings Grandals praises as he is the best in the business at framing pitches. Going from Grandal to Norris is like going from Ruth’s Chris to Applebees for a steak. I think Cashner never accounted for that and never adjusted his game.
As per rotowire, Cashner’s fastballs and sinkers outside of the zone had a 19% called strike rate (Best in the MLB) and in 2015 that number dropped to 13%. Additionally, he couldn’t pitch to lefties. His strikeout % went up, but that’s in part of his pitch count per hitter was increasing as well. Grandal is gone, but I’m hoping that he can get back to that 2014 form realizing that he’s not going to get the called strikes that he once did. Afterall, he pitches in Petco, Dodger Stadium, & AT&T Park for the majority of his games. It’s worth a shot!
6.15 – Aaron Hicks, OF, NYY
I see him as an extremely valuable piece to my squad considering I own Jacoby Ellsbury. As the #49 ranked outfielder on Razzball (They are banking on someone in NYY’s outfield eventually getting hurt), Hicks could have some upside. Razzball spent some time comparing Hicks to Pollock as another late bloomer and illustrated that he has improved his game each year in the show:
2013 .192 avg with a k-rate of 27%
2014 .215 avg with a k-rate of 25%
2015 .277 avg with a k-rate of 17%
It’s not out of the question that he could steal 4 bags a month and hit 2-3 HRs to accompany that. Should that happen, Hicks is now talked of as a keeper. At minimum, Hicks can provide me with a number of games started to fill up the outfield slots with the upside of the occasional HR and elusive SB.
7.15 – Kelvin Herrera, RP, KC
Wade Davis insurance. Figured he would be the setup guy. Appears he’s just the 7th inning guy, so he will likely be cut. I saw a guy with a lethal fastball and 9k/9, but now I see a guy who belongs on waivers because there are tons like him.
8.15 – Jace Peterson, 2B, ATL
After I made the Herrera pick, I got a call from my realtor that we finally sold our house and the offer on the house we wanted was accepted! YAY ME! As for G20, that became secondary because as anyone who has sold & bought knows how stressful and time consuming it can be. On top of having one toddler to entertain, I didn’t have much time to think about the G20 draft anymore. Having to setup inspections, secure loans, work with attorneys, etc. took the time I would otherwise use for fantasy baseball.
Thank god for the planning done in advance…I had an idea of who I liked, jotted down their names in my iPhone’s notes section and just went off that. I remember reading a Jace Peterson sleeper somewhere and figured that I could always use some infield help, so it seemed like a good pick. Peterson got on base at a .400 clip in the minors, has some speed, so its not out of the question that he could be a serviceable backup who steals the occasional base. Was also considering Joe Mauer, but Mauer really offers no upside at this point. He would only stabilize my OB% and give me a 3rd 1B.
9.19 – Kevin Jepsen, RP, MIN
Insurance on Glen Perkins. He filled in admirably for the Twins last season when called to duty. Maybe Perkins trips over his cat and he gets the job out of Spring Training…haha
This is the point in the draft where the players could easily be cut. If Perkins is healthy, no need to burn a spot because his ratios aren’t that of Betances…
10.15 – Homer Bailey, SP, CIN
Ugh…I always fall sucker for guys coming off of injuries. I shouldn’t do it, but I do! He’s a $100 million arm who will be back in May...looking to ride this one out. Never know when a starter will go down for TJ. #1 SP upside and won't be a dead spot on my team for long.
10.19 – Yadier Molina, C, STL
I need to field a catcher, don’t I? Who better than Yadier!?!
His injuries with his thumb are hopefully behind him. When healthy, he won’t hurt my OB% and hits high enough in the STL lineup to give me some RBI opportunities. It’s slim pickings as I was faced with choosing between Yaider, Jason Castro, or Robinson Chirinos. Felt he was the best of what was left.
11.15 – Joakim Soria, RP, KC
I pull up the updated Bullpen Depth Chart Matrix and see that Herrera is the setup man. Gee I would’ve liked to know that before I made my pick at 7. At least I am able to secure Soria and Wade Davis insurance in the 11th.
I was pleasantly surprised to learn that in 2012 he added 2 ticks to his fastball, making it his fastest season ever. Now back in KC, he should be a solid setup guy, insurance, provide good ratios, and at least 9k/9.
QUICK THOUGHTS ON EACH TEAM
*Species - The 2016 Favorite. While you did go really conservative in the draft, its something that you could afford to do because you wanted to shore up the categories. Good luck!
*Blue Hen - You know BH is not going to go away silently. I expect a moves record in order to three-peat!
*WG - Never count this man out. Most power in the game and the Dickerson trade was a game changer for his team. He will feature all 5 categories. If his pitching pans out, watch out!
*Pete - Love the Texas Bravado Pete has...he got some awesome hitting and if his pitching takes a step forward, Pete could get in the top 3.
*Guru - Quietly had an awesome draft, likely locked up Oakland's closer towards the end and will be a tough out.
*Khahan - I see how he is making the team his, but in doing so he is going to have to work for a top 5 finish. WIth Kershaw and Grienke, that won't be hard!
*Tosh - Last years surprise...Tosh is going to be around for the long haul because of his pitching and stround foundation.
*darkside - can we also call him a darkhorse for 2016? Quietly has one of the best rosters in G20. Has power, speed, and like Pete, needs some of that pitching to breakout
*Fosten - Looking forward to the season with one of the new guys. Has a lot of young talent acquired in the draft, can it have an instant impact to mesh with his two superstars?!?
*Youngroman - The G20 sabermetrician got off to a great start with Brandon Belt and a lot of buy low candidates. I expect him to be in the mix.
*Meatwads - Got great value on the Dozier trade to upgrade his hitting, made some excellent draft picks, and also positioned himself nicely for the future
*Judy - She is a G20 wildcard...if Peraza stays up, she will be in good shape this season and beyond. Her "babies" as she likes to put them are finally in school and lets see what they can do!
*Bean - The Rockies got a huge boost with the news Osuna is the Toronto closer. Bean is doing things his way and with some luck could find himself in the top 10 despite finishing dead last in 2015.
*Jaydog - despite the finish, jaydog actually has a decent team. Good pitching, good hitting...just would like to see more moves and active management from him.
*Nerf - hit the reset button with the trade to Species. His team lacked talent and as I posted earlier, he is nicely positioned for 2017 and beyond.
*BMD - same as Nerf. BMD has made no qualms that he wanted a fresh start as the team got stale.
*GO - GO's team reminds me alot of my 2014 team. It wasn't expected to do much, but the young parts were there to breakout. I finished 7th with a 19th projection. It's only a matter of time before hes back in the money.
*MJD - MJD made it clear that he wanted to rebuild things his way. He needs some hitting within the infield. If Mateo is billy hamilton, but IF only...
*Tree - You never know what you're getting when a new manager takes over a total rebuild, and Tree was 100% the right manager for Ref's old team. It got stale and old...fast, featuring only 5-6 keepers (that's generous) going into the season. It was basically a blank canvas to paint...Tree did that and then some. Honestly? If you were committed to the rebuild, it was the better of the two teams to get. R9's squad was tough to do anything with because you're never going to get equal value for your stars in Trout and Goldschmidt considering you have 7 other 6th-9th keepers to accompany them. One is almost "stuck" with those 9. To trade one would require lots of assets and force him to cut a guy like Billy Hamilton. Didn't make sense. Tree was able to do whatever he wanted with Ref's squad because he could make trades to acquire youthful talent by volume. Tree did just that and then some with a super strong draft! In 2017, his roster is going to feature the following keepers to go along with his current roster:
1B - AJ Reed (10th)
2B - Jurickson Profar
SS - Tim Anderson (11th)
OF - Jesse Winker (OB% Machine)
OF - Aaron Judge (12th)
SP - Julio Urias (13th)
Others:
Starlin Castro (only 26...NYY breakout expected)
Brett Lawrie (is age 26 the year he finally breaks out?)
Sean Manaea (total steal...wanted him but wasn't going to burn a spot for him)
Jameson Taillon (will be up in 2016...wil he live up to the top 5 prospect he was before TJ?)
Shae Simmons (possible stud)
Tree will have all of his prospect draft picks in 2017 to go along with a good core.
Good job and good luck in 2016!!!
|
|
| | | 9 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 20:02
|
6: bmd --- I used "last 2 picks" purposely because that is exactly what you posted. I interpreted the wording of your posted trades to mean that those 2 picks could be any pick owned by those managers - conceivably both being in the 14th.
I hate to take it so literally, but that's what I had to work with.
|
|
| | | 10 | Tree
ID: 211133217
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 22:20
|
Slizz - *AWESOME* write up. positively awesome.
as for my dealing, you nailed it. i love winning a championship, but i love building a championship more. it's nice to inherit a contending team, but there is a distinct pleasure in building a champion.
for me, moving Strasburg was a no-brainer. when healthy, he's a stud, and can be a key part to a championship team.
except for me, it just feels like he's never healthy. and i loathe players like that. the iron was hot. he's healthy, and someone wanted him. the haul was a bunch of maybes, but with my rebuild, i'd rather go with them, than with an injury waiting to happen in Strasburg.
with Profar, Gausman, Stroman, Judge, and Castillo, i feel the odds are in my favor with a couple breaking out.
in a way, it reminds me of one of my personal favorite fantasy trades. taking over another rebuild team prior to the 2004 season, i moved Jeff Kent for Luis Castillo and Carl Crawford.
at the time, Kent was coming off a pretty incredible run of seven straight 20+ HR/100+ RBI seasons, in which most of which his Avg floated around .300.
Crawford had just finished a solid rookie season, and Castillo was a serviceable second baseman.
Kent still had one or two more good years left, but he was 35 when i moved him. Castillo ended up giving me Avg, SB, and Runs, while Crawford provided all that, plus modest power numbers.
the deal ended up playing a pivotal role in moving a team that had routinely finished in the bottom five teams of a 14 team league, into one that finished in the top 3 five straight times, with one championship and four second place finishes.
i'm not saying i'll have the same success in a league this team, but i like the pieces i have.
and finally, my draft. basically, i was shocked at some of the people around when i picked. Taillon, Manaea, and especially Simmons all shocked me. i feel like everyone just forgot about Simmons being Kimbrel, Jr a year ago.
anyway, thanks for your write up, and thanks for the kind words on my rebuild.
see you in a season or two, when i'm looking in my rear view mirror. ;o)
|
|
| | | 11 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Wed, Mar 30, 2016, 22:56
|
I had a really rough draft. My queue kept getting torn to shreds right before me.
Round 1 I had no illusions about McCullers, Burns, Grichuk or D'Arnaud getting to me. But I had targetted LeMaheiu and he got snagged 2 spots before me.
Round 2 as my pick drew closer I narrowed it down to Iwakuma with Heaney as a back up. Iwakuma went and a few hours later when it was my turn heaney (as he did in every single draft) slipped my mind.
Round 3 I was really hope for Walker or Panik. Round 4, Matt Moore went 3 picks before me.
Round 7 I had my heart set on travis shaw. I had started taking him in all other leagues. I would have taken him in 6 but didn't have a pick. Again pick 12 took my guy. That's 3 round that pick 12 took my prime target and each time was a different manager.
Round 8 i was all set for Arod - 2 picks before my pick and round 1 Moss went the pick before me.
I think the sheer volume of picks per round - 20 each, really screwed with me this draft.
|
|
| | | 12 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, Mar 31, 2016, 10:42
|
Thanks a ton to Species (and a metric ton to Tosh and Guru) for organizing and running this league. It's hard work. In Species' case, I think you should put more effort in, so it negatively impacts your team.
Also want to say that it's really nice having the new guys around - Bean, Khahan, Tree, Meatwads, Fosten. That's a quarter of the league that has been infused with new life, and it's obvious from this draft that you guys are serious and here for the long run.
Just let me win a few more flags before you start dominating.
|
|
| | | 13 | Nerfherders
ID: 161121811
Thu, Mar 31, 2016, 17:37
|
Nerfherders 2016 Offseason Review
2015 In Review:
Going into the 2015 season I felt like I was in pretty good shape. I had six viable pitchers, including five starters, all of whom had ERA's of 3.50 or less. I only had three hitters, but my goal was to draft hitters with the first 5 picks in the draft to help fill those missing spots. It all went about as bad as it possibly could. Five of those six pitchers underperformed, at best. Two were hurt for most of the season, and the other three were basically bad. While my three hitter keepers played up to expectations, the hitters I got in the draft were horrid - Napoli, Asdrubal, Alcantera, Jennings, Pagan, Aoki. None of these players were in my lineup by September. I did pick up some pretty good players as FA: Matt Duffy, Khris Davis, Justin Bour, Travis Shaw. Besides Davis, these are not really keeper quality players. Nevertheless, it's the hand I was dealt, and I had every intention of going into the season with these keepers:
Frazier
Cruz
Scherzer
Doolittle
Shields
Buxton (10th)
Davis
Duffy
Bour
One of Gattis/Cishek/Hoover
I had also collected some hurt players as keeper options: Sanchez, Bucholz, Span. I was looking everywhere I could for keeper options.
Not an inspiring group, to say the least.
The Trade:
It was very soon after the season ended that Species contacted me about trading Cruz. I didn't necessarily balk, but it was too soon to think about a trade, so I deferred until after the holidays. Then I forgot about it. When he came back to me I had to think about it really hard. It meant breaking down the team to its roots and building it back up. No more half-ass marginal keepers which is basically what I’ve had every year. Species was eager to work with me and offer alot, but really he was in such great shape he was offering me pieces he didn't really have any use for anyways. It's a flawed system in my opinion, but beside that I had some really great players being offered, or at least the potential for great players, which is not something I've had for a while. So I had to take the deal. I got 3 really young prospects, a 4th player with alot of upside, and a pick upgrade for a guy who is great, but won't be great for many more years.
The problem of course is these three prospects were traded as active players, which means I had to keep them. This meant that my ability to field a solid team in 2016 was all but over, as I instantly had three keepers that will be riding the pine for most of, if not all of the year.
The Keepers:
So now my keepers looked like this:
Scherzer
Frazier
Shields
Doolittle
Davis
Myers
Brinson
Snell
Arcia
Buxton (10th)
Any ideas of piecing together a decent team in 2016 went out the window. This team was built for 2017. However, I couldn't just go into the draft trying to gather all of the young talent I could find because there was this niggling little thing that was passed last fall - the GP and IP minimums. I could not afford even one demerit (it feels like I am in boot camp or something), so I had to draft such that I had as many mediocre players as I could that would play every day. But first...
Prospect Draft:
I had thought about wiping away all of my prospects and starting fresh, but Clint Frazier had a bit of a rebound last year and he is still young, so I decided to keep him. Taillon was out - another young pitcher derailed by injuries. I didn't have a precise list other than the BA top 100, which I used a guidepost. I knew I wanted at least one pitcher, so I took Espinoza with the first pick. He is really young but he has an amazing arm. The second pick confused me a little but I settled for Bellinger. Anyone hitting 30 HR at his age has to be considered a talent. Forecasting those picks is tough, but they are all really young and probably not MLB ready next year, but I will have 3 ready-made prospects for next year anyways. Oh, and by the way, I currently have five players in the BA top 19, and seven in the top 54.
The Draft:
I was in a unique position with my team. I am not playing for this year. I do not even want to try to win this year so that I can continue to maximize my rebuild. How do I do this without tanking? How does one tank without tanking? I knew I didn’t have to worry as much about getting future value in the draft, because I already have future value, so my strategy was to collect some future value early in the draft, and then make sure I got the most *volume* of production I could, regardless of the quality of production. While doing this I tried to favor upside where I could get it. It meant I was going after guaranteed every day players and starting pitchers over relief pitchers. I also kept my eye out for players who might have trade value later.
‘1.01 Lance McCullers. I had the luxury of the first pick in the draft, but I have to admit I did not fully like my choices here. There was no Jose Altuve Mark II. Based purely on keeper value, I had to go with McCullers. The only available player with a higher keeper value was D’arnaud, but I couldn’t see taking a catcher with the first pick. I had McCullers as a prospect in another league for years, and he did nothing in the minors so I released him. How he finally figured it out at the major league level is a mystery to me, and it’s still a concern that perhaps last year was a fluke. Even so, the upside is spectacular when you consider what he did last year.
‘2.04 Marcel Ozuna. He was highest on my keepers rankings at this spot, and I am looking to have him bounce back and have a good year like 2014. He should also play every day, which is a bonus.
‘3.04 Dexter Fowler. Not as much of an upside pick but I love having this guy on my team. He doesn’t do any one thing well but he does a little bit of everything but RBI’s. I am hoping he will either be a keeper next year or more likely trade bait for late in the season. He will also play a lot barring injury.
‘4.04 Mike Fiers. He seemed to be a pretty good steal at this point in the draft. He has a great K rate, is on a good team, and still has some upside left in him. Most importantly he is going to get me innings.
‘5.04 Howie Kendrick. He is not a great player any more but he gets the job done. I just hope he is done with the injury bug and he can play.
‘6.04 Yan Gomes. A catcher with some upside. He certainly has the power potential.
‘6.12 Anibal Sanchez. Just take the ball every 5th day Anibal. It is all I am asking for you to do.
‘7.04 Matt Wisler. This was a reach because he’s not projected to be that good, but he is one of the youngest starters in the majors so there’s only room for improvement. I just need him to take the ball every 5th day.
‘9.04 Andrelton Simmons. I needed a SS to play while Arcia is in the minors, so we have Simmons, who I liked slightly better than Asdrubal Cabrera because he’s younger. Again, I just need Simmons to play every day. (If defense was a fantasy stat, keeper baby!)
’10.04 Melky Cabrera. Technically he will be a backup but considering some of my starters’ injury histories, he will probably get a lot of playing time. Again, just trying to get the GP as high as I can.
’11.04 Wily Peralta. He is also young and somehow the ace for the Brewers. Yikes. Not expecting much here but he certainly has upside.
’12.04 Brett Cecil. I don’t know why I took Cecil here. There was no reason to take a reliever just for ratios since I don’t really care about stat accumulation. I should have been more thoughtful and taken someone who was next in line for saves that I could trade later.
’13.04 Mark Canha. I wanted a backup 2B here but I couldn’t find anyone that I liked. So I went for a 1B backup with Canha instead. This guy was surprisingly good last year and maybe he will improve if he gets the playing time.
|
|
| | | 14 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 14:01
|
Important, I think
Folks, I am dropping out of the prize pool. I still plan to be an active and competitive member of G20, but I'm not planning to participate (contributing or receiving) in the prize pool, effective immediately.
I talked through this with Species. If there are any questions or issues, please bring them up with him directly; I'd rather not let this linger here on the message forum.
|
|
| | | 15 | GO
ID: 47227520
Fri, Apr 01, 2016, 22:11
|
You should, I ran projections and I'm slated to beat you by 40 points.
|
|
| | | 16 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Sat, Apr 02, 2016, 23:07
|
Calling up Trevor Story
|
|
| | | 17 | Meatwads
ID: 181121414
Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 03:00
|
Calling up Kenta Maeda
|
|
| | | 18 | Tree
ID: 211133217
Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 11:05
|
question. extreme newbie question.
i may just be missing it. do we have a DL and if so, how do i place someone on it?
|
|
| | | 19 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 11:14
|
Tree - no dl
Was proposed to add, but easily shot down. In a league this deep it would only encourage hoarding.
|
|
| | | 20 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 11:47
|
an addendum:
Would only encourage hoarding on a thin roster pool.
It's strategy too as I might love a DL player but don't wanna waste my spot!
|
|
| | | 21 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Sun, Apr 03, 2016, 19:32
|
I'd like to move either Trevor Story or Elvis Andrus. Looking for OF or SP. If interested, let me know.
|
|
| | | 22 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Apr 04, 2016, 11:04
|
Post 14:
A message to all members: bh has a very good reason for excluding himself from the prize pool. If anyone would like an explanation, please reach out to me privately.
Since we are making an exception and granting bh the opportunity to withdraw from the prize pool, I feel it only fair to make the same one-time offer to the entire league. This change is permanent, whether you are opting in or opting out.
Please advise if you desire to use this exception.
|
|
| | | 23 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Tue, Apr 05, 2016, 07:19
|
Sure wish ESPN would not lock players when the game is ppd i.e., never started.
I left 1R, 1HR and 3 Rbi on the bench because I could not sub for McCann.
|
|
| | | 24 | GO
ID: 47227520
Wed, Apr 06, 2016, 22:31
|
The new app I don't think notes players in the free agent pool as in the starting lineup. Anyone else agree or am I missing something?
|
|
| | | 25 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 14:06
|
If you haven't voted in the league poll, you should!
|
|
| | | 26 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 18:13
|
So sad for schwarber.
|
|
| | | 27 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 18:16
|
Can someone explain why ESPN keeps opening up. In Tuesday not today. I click on today, get it, hit recycle and it goes back to Tuesday. This is very annoying.
How do I fix it?
|
|
| | | 28 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Fri, Apr 08, 2016, 18:19
|
Will he still retain C-eligibility in 2017?
Not that I'm trying to help BH 3-peat, but if so, a rebuilding team would be silly not to inquire. ;)
|
|
| | | 29 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 21:33
|
Team Species 2016 Preseason Report
Been meaning to write this up for a while......
Nearing the offseason, 2015:
After the pieces just didn't fall into place for me (or anyone else versus the blue hen onslaught) in 2015, I immediately started my plan to tweak my roster and get the few pieces I needed to jump into contention for 2016. This was accomplished in two ways:
1) I picked up several very top prospects whose value I thought would significantly increase in the offseason due to their strong 2015s. This included Alex Reyes, Minor League Pitcher of the Year Blake Snell, Texas OF Lewis Brinson and Brewers SS Orlando Arcia. Sure enough - I hit the jackpot on nearly every one, as all 4 of these guys ended up in the top 20 of many high regarded prospect lists.
Then a very late season trade of young Red Sox studs reshaped my team when GO and I swapped Mookie Betts for Xander Bogaerts. GO had been searching for his SS anchor for years.......both Betts and Bogaerts were basically the same age, with Betts showing perhaps more top end upside, albeit at a more common position. For me, with Corey Seager ready to promote from the prospect list, this was a slam dunk trade for me that helped balance my roster heading into the offseason.
Offseason targets
Immediately after the season ended I assessed my roster and found that I was short two of the most key things in a championship roster: Speed and Power. I had many good players, but too many of them were in the 100-130 range of keeper quality, and I really needed more top 50 players.
I immediately saw Nelson Cruz as a target that made sense. He was coming off back-to-back 40 HR seasons, but after the Biogenesis scandal and at age 35, enough questions surrounded him that (in my opinion) it made very little sense for Nerfherders to hold onto him. There was no way he would be ready to contend while Cruz was still productive - I just had to convince him that it was time to retool his team and my young top prospects were worth investing in. I planted the seed in November......followed up in January and the discussions continued.
I made no bones about the likelihood that none of the prospects would be up until "Super Two" arbitration statuses pass for each of them in June. I gave him his choice of 4 pieces -- any 4 of the prospects and a list of other players. I think he chose well in taking Wil Myers as the 4th piece to go with 3 of the 4 prospects. I threw in a small pick upgrade and I had my 35 HR bat that I was looking for. Whether Cruz has keeper value or not for 2017 was immaterial - with Sano and Seager coming off the prospect list, I am unlikely to have room for him next year.
The second target of my offseason was Dee Gordon. As a second baseman with league-leading steals he was a perfect fit in my infield. Like with Nerf, I emailed Judy to plant the seed in November......she said to hit her back up after football......which I did.
I felt Judy was in need of an ace to go along with up-and-coming Danny Salazar. With Harvey and deGrom in tow I felt after 10 years it was time to let go of Felix. It was not easy.....it has been a joy to have this stud anchor my rotation for that long and lead me to two G20 titles. But you have to give up to get something, so he was first on my list to offer. After that I had (now) Reds 2b/CF Jose Peraza on my offer list. As perhaps a Dee Gordon 'lite' - upside of a decent hitting, 30-35 sb 2b - he was worth taking the chance for Judy as a possible replacement. After that I included a list of veterans that Judy could choose from - and with Fielder DH only Judy liked getting a replacement 1b in high-OBP Carlos Santana. I threw in a pick upgrade and the deal was done in mid-February.
Lastly I needed a keeper closer. I had a strong one in Roberto Osuna until the Blue Jays had to go muddle things with the trade for Drew Storen. I sent a few feelers out there to get a moderate closer in case the Toronto closer situation never clarified. Which it didn't......so I was 'forced' to trade with WG for Miami's AJ Ramos. When Carter Capps' arm was blown off, it gave me the security I needed in my keeper closer.
Keepers and pre-draft trade:
With those trades I had a very solid core to work with:
1b Abreu
2b Gordon
SS Seager (10th keeper)
3b Longoria (meh, but you have to have a 3b)
OF Betts
OF Cruz
OF Gardner (meh, but 85 runs, 15 HR and 20 steals)
DH/OF Sano (11th keeper)
SP Harvey
SP deGrom
RP Ramos
You know those offseason trade targets? Well, trying to work a post-keeper trade for a closer was also on my laundry list. Meatwads was in full rebuild mode, and after some failed Miguel Sano discussions (on me) I pitched the thought of trading one of my 3 prospect picks for one of his closers. Well, Jansen is a top 3 closer and perhaps the most valuable keeper closer in the game, so I set my sights on Mark Melancon. At his age and with moderately declining stuff, he might be good for 1 or 2 more years. Considering the value of a closer in-season is usually a 4th round pick (roughly - think of the "Rex Brothers" sliding scale), I convinced Meatwads that closers can lose all of their value in the blink of an eye and that my 2nd round prospect pick was more valuable than a 4th round supplemental. We agreed on the trade a week or so before the keeper deadline and executed it after keepers ran. This gave me a second strong closer and really made my targets for the supplemental draft very easy.....
Prospect Draft:
Not THAT much to say here. I had my 1st and my 3rd. For my first pick, after the usual suspects that went in the first8 picks (the Shortstops, Reed, Benintendi and Berrios), I wanted Jorge Mateo. Bit of a homer pick as a Yankee fan, and a hedge against Seager eventually moving to 3b.......but he was sniped right in front of me. After him, I considered Robles and Kepler before jumping on the HIGH upside of Philly OF Nick Williams. I felt that if Williams continued his development path that he would be an easy top 5 prospect in 2017 and a GREAT 10th keeper candidate. The Phillies have nobody as good as him in their OF and if he has a strong first half he could end up called up after the All Star break to pop his cherry in the majors.
For my 3rd round pick, before the draft I already knew that I would take Shohei Otani there if he was available. Somewhat surprisingly he went in Round 1, so I was left with looking for high upside. IMO, a 3rd rounder is either for taking a ML-ready guy as a 10th keeper or going for the highest upside possible. I chose Cuban phenom Eddy Julio Martinez of the Cubs. He will either explode in the minors like a Puig or be a Rusney-like bust. Either way, I will know during 2016 and can either jettison him or have a highly valuable asset.
Supplemental Draft:
This had to be the easiest Supplemental Draft ever. I had EVERY starting position player filled except catcher. I had 2 stud SP and 2 strong closers. I didn't need upside. I needed as close to sure things as I could.
- Jose Quintana was an easy pick in round 1 as a highly underrated, steady and reliable SP.
- I took a shot at Steve Cishek with the first of my 2 second rounders. He hasn't had a save opp yet, but I hope he can regain past closer glory. He really only had a bad 1/3 of the season in the past 3 years. I gave serious consideration to Jeff Samardzjia.
- With my other 2nd, I took boring Iwakuma. I value solid ratios. Chen was another consideration.
- There were only 2 other picks worth mentioning. As round 3 was unfolding, and Pete was making huge moves, I saw he was in need of a good OF bat, and Curtis Granderson stuck out like a sore thumb as the strongest bat left. I frantically hit up Fosten and successfully moved from 3.13 to 3.09 and sniped Granderson in front of Pete (who did want him). Granderson has sucked ass to date, but he will come around.
- The other pick worth noting was a possible post-hype sleeper SP in Aaron Sanchez at 9.15. I actually contacted Tree to try to move up to 9.03 to get him. He didn't see my message and he picked....but amazingly (after another attempt or two at trading up) Sanchez fell to me and had a great first start. His ability to handle a full season workload is rightfully in question........I will keep my fingers crossed.
In-season management:
After seeing blue hen wipe the floor with us the past couple of years, I vowed to do my best to keep up and take more advantage of streaming opportunities this year to build up GP and counting stats. So far in the first week I successfully got 5 games from streaming to take the place of rainouts and off days from my normal starters......with great success so far:
.400 OBP, 6 runs, 2 HR, 4 RBI and 1 SB
I can't let up and must maximize games and safely increase IP for strikeouts and win possibilities.
So far, even with some really slow starts from Norris, Betts, Cruz, Sano (ugh), Granderson and Harvey I am sitting in the top 5 and can move up quickly if those guys start hitting. But there is no rest......no days off......if I am going to try to stay close to "even" in terms of the value from daily management from guys like bh, WG and slizz I cannot stop.
|
|
| | | 30 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 12:32
|
Great recap, Species. Good to see someone else embrace regular lineup changes. Here's hoping it works- but not too well.
|
|
| | | 31 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 13:20
|
Go vote in the league poll, 9 of you who haven't!
|
|
| | | 32 | GO
ID: 2111117
Tue, Apr 12, 2016, 13:51
|
That on the app anywhere cause that's more or less all I have anymore.
|
|
| | | 33 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Wed, Apr 13, 2016, 08:48
|
I'm out of town for a few days. My line is set thru Sunday. But if Im unresponsive to trade requests etc its only cause I'm not here.
|
|
| | | 34 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 21:29
|
For those looking for a shortstop, I have Story and Andrus available. If interested, let me know.
|
|
| | | 35 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Apr 15, 2016, 23:23
|
Man, what's with Giles???
|
|
| | | 36 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 00:08
|
More importantly, what's with you passing on Velasquez? ;P
|
|
| | | 37 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 19:29
|
Got him in AAA...
Somebody grabbed him the round I wanted him in G20...
|
|
| | | 38 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sat, Apr 16, 2016, 19:33
|
Heyward and Tanaka are still on the block for future assets.
|
|
| | | 39 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 13:32
|
Only 15 votes in the League Poll. Even eliminating GO's vote, that means 4 of you are still passing up the chance to predict someone will beat BH.
We're almost 10 percent through the season at this point. Four teams are over 150 points, and I'd say all four could have been expected there. Somehow Meatwads' rebuilding effort has landed him in 9th place, as of today. And Fosten, who I thought would contend, is in 14th place, no thanks to his pitching.
Anyone looking to make some moves?
|
|
| | | 40 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Apr 20, 2016, 20:14
|
I am calling up Byung Ho Park, 1B, MIN.
|
|
| | | 41 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 17:01
|
40: Noted
It is worth noting that it has been noticed that a team or teams have had injured or inactive players in their lineups at times this year. Please note that this is no longer against our rules. When we instituted the minimum GP and IP rules, we eliminated the vague "must keep enough healthy players to fill your team" rule we used to have.
While the total number of GP we came up with was determined using an assumption of GP by position, the rule was crafted by only taking the gross number of games into account. If you want to ignore your Catcher, go for it, just hit the TOTAL number of GP.
|
|
| | | 42 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 17:38
|
FYI
The limits calculation is way off base....
|
|
| | | 43 | GO
ID: 47227520
Fri, Apr 22, 2016, 22:53
|
Broke 100 - And staying on HR pace with BH and Species. Can't stop this squad on the way to 1st place!
|
|
| | | 44 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 15:31
|
Chris Carter available. Looking for draft picks(prospect or supp),
|
|
| | | 45 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 09:38
|
Looking to move JP Crawford for a SP or swap for a SP prospect if anyone is interested...
|
|
| | | 46 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Wed, Apr 27, 2016, 10:11
|
Looking to move Kyle Schwarber. Looking for a package including a starting pitcher and a high-strikeout closer.
|
|
| | | 47 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 12:45
|
It is great to see 6 or 7 teams jumping in-and-out of contention on a nightly basis. A lot of hot starts have propelled teams towards the top:
Tosh - Mark Trumbo, Starling Marte, Brock Holt have combined with the we-already-knew-they-were-amazing Chris Sale and Jake Arrieta to give Tosh a solid base.
slizz - He has had an amazing start considering how many people are in the 'cold' list. Polanco, Arenado, Machado and Hosmer have all started strong.
darkside has rode strong starts from Carpenter, Cespedes, Suarez (what a steal), Zimmerman, Joe Ross, E. Ramirez and Latos to a top 3 spot.
WG has rode his studs in Harper, Joey Bats and Crush Davis but paired them with great starts from Castillo and Shaw along with Matt More and Tropeano.
However, some cold starts for expected contenders have drawn them down. Can these stars turn it around and give these paper contenders a chance to rise?
Team slizz is already in 2nd, but has seen cold starts from Jose Fernandez, Patrick Corbin, Madison Bumgarner, Jacoby Ellsbury and Yasiel Puig. Dayum....what happens when those guys heat up?
darkside lost AJ Pollack to injury and Pujols and Odor have started a bit slow.
blue hen has suffered from slow starts from Miguel Cabrera, Joey Votto and Delino Deshields, along with the injury to Kyle Schwarber. Scott Kazmir and Jake Odorizzi haven't helped the cause on the pitching side either.
Team Species has the following players all with OBPs below .302: Derek Norris (finally cut), Jose Abreu, Dee Gordon, Corey Seager, Mookie Betts and Evan Longoria. Combine that with the very UN-ace like start from Matt Harvey and Jacob DeGrom losing a couple of starts to injury and family leave and Iwakuma's pedestrian start, and I am actually shocked to be in 7th place.
Thank goodness for all 3 closers (Cishek has gotten off to a great start to solidify his role - thank gawd), Jose Quintana and Aaron Sanchez, as well as Miguel Sano finding some semblance of batting eye (16 walks)
A lot will be clarified over the next month. Who will fall after their hot starts? Will other teams rise after some slow starts?
|
|
| | | 48 | GO
ID: 47227520
Thu, Apr 28, 2016, 22:37
|
Species, you forgot a key analysis.
Post 15 wasn't far off.. only ahead of Blue Hen by a few points at the moment. But I suppose if you extrapolate that over the full season... I've got him right where I want him!
|
|
| | | 49 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 09:23
|
Yep, somebody please trade me a serviceable player or two...
|
|
| | | 50 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 16:11
|
Wow!
Dee gordon out 80 days. That'll put a dent in your SB stats.
|
|
| | | 51 | GO
ID: 47227520
Fri, Apr 29, 2016, 22:53
|
Top 5! no hits allowed by Conley? boy oh boy... who's next? WG? Slizz?
|
|
| | | 52 | GO
ID: 47227520
Thu, May 05, 2016, 09:36
|
This league playing the quiet game? almost a week since anyone has said anything... wake up people!
|
|
| | | 53 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, May 05, 2016, 09:55
|
With this year's prohibitive favorite in 13th place, Team Blue Hen is looking to do something drastic. Couple options for you to choose from.
Offering:
- Package of prospects/youth, most likely Schwarber, Devers, ERod, Domingo, Deshields, DeLeon, Eickhoff, Alex Wood
- Oldie but goodie slugger (like Tulo, Votto, Miggy)
- Jose Altuve
Looking for a package including:
- High strikeout closer with a stable job
- Reliable, 15-30 ranked starting pitcher
- Keeper-level outfielder, preferably including speed
- Replacements for whoever I trade (like a 2B if it's Altuve)
I've had some conversations with a couple of you, so I'm starting to get an idea what the market is here. Anyone else who is interested, now's the time to get involved - hoping to avoid the "I can't believe you traded Miggy and I didn't get to make an offer" emails later.
|
|
| | | 54 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Thu, May 05, 2016, 23:33
|
Chris Carter with another hr. Miller Park had the highest hr park factor last year(thanks ESPN Blurb!). Can be had for a 3rd round supplemental pick in 2017 or 2018.
|
|
| | | 55 | WG
ID: 35338278
Fri, May 06, 2016, 11:19
|
WG gets Chris Carter and BMD 2017 supp 12
BMD gets WG 2017 supp 3
|
|
| | | 56 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Fri, May 06, 2016, 13:39
|
Confirm.
|
|
| | | 57 | Meatwads
ID: 142562814
Fri, May 06, 2016, 14:58
|
Trade Announcement
Species gets :
Jed Lowrie, 2B/3B, OAK
2017 - 14th round pick
Meatwads gets :
Tommy La Stella, 2B, CHC
2017 - 8th round pick
|
|
| | | 58 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Fri, May 06, 2016, 15:01
|
Interesting. And here I thought it was Carter for Pagan straight up, which in my eyes is a pretty fair trade, especially in real baseball - maybe advantage Pagan there.
|
|
| | | 59 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, May 06, 2016, 15:17
|
58: Carter's rise to a .339 obp YTD has increased his stock. Not sure he will keep it up, but with a reasonable obp his 30 HR can now play in our league.
57: Confirmed
|
|
| | | 60 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Fri, May 06, 2016, 15:33
|
He's the #23 ranked player according to our player rater. Obviously he won't keep up his pace but he's averaged 30 homeruns the past 3 years and still maintained a .300+ OBP. I'm assuming if he would've stayed in the AL he would've been drafted higher. He'll help WG and if he manages to maintain a decent OBP and hit 30+ hr's he could potentially be a keeper for him or someone else.
I actually think he's worth more than I got but most of the contenders have 1b so I couldn't be too greedy.
|
|
| | | 61 | GO
ID: 2111117
Fri, May 06, 2016, 18:40
|
Does Pagan even have a job? How would he be valued over the power Carter is showing.
|
|
| | | 62 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, May 09, 2016, 16:32
|
Someone stop hacking into darkside's account. He doesn't pick up players to stream. WTH? ;)
Great seeing everyone active. The GP column is really strong up and down the league.
|
|
| | | 63 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Mon, May 09, 2016, 17:03
|
Too true, Species. Too true. I figured my run was a fluke, but my team keeps playing well, so I figured I'd see about helping them out here and there. Watch out if I get Perkins and Pollock back this year!
|
|
| | | 64 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Mon, May 09, 2016, 20:37
|
...and look where it gets me! A clunker from Young against a weak NYY lineup and Smoak not starting. I should go back on auto pilot.
|
|
| | | 66 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, May 11, 2016, 18:35
|
** Fantasy Sports Memorandum **
To: Mark Trumbo
From: Species
Date: May 11, 2016
Re: Hitting out of your effing mind
--------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Trumbo -
This memorandum is to remind you that you are a career .253 hitter with a .304 on base percentage. Please immediately cease and desist with this ridiculous .320 batting average and .371 on base percentage (before your two bombs today, btw), effective immediately. You are hereby called to regress back to your normal suckiness.
Thank you.
PS - tell Nick Castellanos the same thing, if you don't mind.
|
|
| | | 67 | Mark Trumbo
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, May 12, 2016, 18:20
|
You know who else stunk until he reached the age of 29-30?
Jose Bautista
It's go time!
|
|
| | | 68 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Thu, May 12, 2016, 21:03
|
I'm not sure what the record is for worst ERA, but my team has to be making a strong case for breaking it!
|
|
| | | 69 | Species
ID: 54740122
Thu, May 12, 2016, 23:54
|
67: Trumbo / Castellanos 0 for 8 with a walk tonight.
Glad they got the memo!!!
|
|
| | | 70 | Nerfherders
ID: 161121811
Fri, May 13, 2016, 13:47
|
RE 68 I am right there with you, until I had a couple good outings from Wisler and Scherzer. But I am also starting Wily Peralta every start on purpose. :P
|
|
| | | 71 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, May 13, 2016, 13:50
|
68: Well Pete, you will be 'proud' to know that going back as far as we can with ESPN (which is only back to 2011), the answer to your question is an easy "YES". Your nearly 5.00 ERA is far outpacing the record Team slizz put up in 2012: 4.65 ERA.
|
|
| | | 72 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Sat, May 14, 2016, 08:23
|
Just moved into my new house. Worst experience ever (packing up my old house that is...)
That said, I plan on being more active in the latter half of the season...
Anyhow, I want to trade Eduardo Nunez to someone. He's burning a hole in my roster. Dude is a legit play, just don't have room for him on my starting roster. Here is his slash line:
.356/.398/14/2/12/6
SS/3B eligibility and he's always been a solid hitter, just terrible at defense (does that matter for fantasy?)...I can't afford to start him over Arenado or Correa (duh!). Given my teams makeup, I need a power guy at UT and he isn't quite that. I would rather trade him for a closer, power bat, or a s draft pick.
|
|
| | | 74 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sat, May 14, 2016, 12:13
|
Trade Announcement
Tosh trades Alexei Ramirez, SD SS to mjd
Tosh trades Didi Gregorius, NYY SS to mjd
Tosh trades Ricky Nolasco, Min SP to mjd
mjd trades Alcides Escobar, KC SS to Tosh
mjd trades C.J. Cron, LAA 1B to Tosh
mjd trades Masahiro Tanaka, NYY SP to Tosh
mjd gets 1st rd p-picks in 2017 and 2018
|
|
| | | 75 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Sat, May 14, 2016, 12:31
|
74 - confirmed
|
|
| | | 76 | Slizz
ID: 52001222
Sat, May 14, 2016, 12:51
|
Nice trade, Tosh.
Trying to make things interesting with me eh? ;)
Expensive but as BH has said in the past "flags fly forever".
|
|
| | | 77 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sat, May 14, 2016, 14:00
|
And thanks to the other managers who made offers for Tanaka.
Sorry we couldn't get something done.
|
|
| | | 78 | blue hen
Dude
ID: 710321114
Thu, May 19, 2016, 16:13
|
Folks, still looking to make a deal to keep up with these masterminds. I have to improve my pitching (both SP and RP), and could use an outfielder.
In play:
- Kyle Schwarber: You already know plenty about him, but don't forget the career 42.5 home runs per 162 games, including postseason.
- Rafael Devers: #7 overall prospect, according to Keith Law - "The bat would profile at first base, of course, with the power and contact upside there, but the potential for above-average defense at third on top of 30-35 homers and a high batting average (even if it's without a high OBP) is what makes him a top-10 prospect."
- Brendan Rodgers: #11 overall prospect, according to Keith Law - "I had Rodgers as the No. 1 player in the 2015 draft class, so for Colorado to get him with the third pick looks like one of the best values of the first round -- even more so after Rodgers had a strong debut in the Pioneer League, where he was sent right after signing because Colorado is the only club without a complex-league team."
- Jose Berrios: 1.06 ERA in the minors this year with 20 strikeouts in 17 innings. And he's more than a year younger than Tyler Glasnow, to name one. Very likely 10th keeper for 2017.
- Jose De Leon: 12.4 K/9 in his career, 16.2 K/9 this season. And he'll get to pitch home games in Dodger stadium. Very likely 10th keeper for 2017.
Also: Eduardo Rodriguez (23), Delino Deshields (23), Domingo Santana (23), Jerad Eickhoff (25).
Let's get this conversation started!
|
|
| | | 79 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Sat, May 28, 2016, 22:46
|
Trade Announcement
Pete gets:
Delino Deshields
Jerad Eickhoff
BH gets:
Cody Allen
Matt Holliday
|
|
| | | 80 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Sat, May 28, 2016, 23:11
|
Nice trade! Good for both teams. Well done.
|
|
| | | 81 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Tue, May 31, 2016, 06:43
|
Calling up Michael Fulmer for the first time.
|
|
| | | 82 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Jun 01, 2016, 09:49
|
Team Blue Hen June 1st Report
Well, didn't exactly expect to be here, but here we are. As of this morning, Team Blue Hen is in 6th place, and closer to 3rd than to 7th. On April 1st, that might have seemed like terrible news, but given where we were two weeks ago, it seems to be getting better.
Let's go around the horn:
Keepers
Kyle Schwarber is the biggest issue, going out for the year. But Delino Deshields and Joey Gallo haven't done much at all, and Troy Tulowitzki, Joey Votto, and Gerrit Cole have played far below expectations. That's 6 out of 11 keepers underperforming. On the flip side, Zach Britton and Jose Altuve have exceeded expections, cementing spots at the top of their positional ranks.
Draft
Like the keepers, some things just didn't work out. First round pick Eduardo Rodriguez had missed the entire year before coming back strong yesterday. Second round pick Will Smith was expected to miss the entire year, but came back yesterday (and was astutely picked up again by me). Alex Wood and Domingo Santana, who have been brilliant at times, are both now injured. After Jeremy Jeffress, the best pick so far has probably been Scott Kazmir, who has been quite good lately. But not the kind of draft that's enough to overcome the issues with keepers.
Waivers and Streaming
The big news here is Adam Duvall. Plucked off the scrap heap, Duvall is currently 4th in the NL in homers, and led baseball with 11 homers in May. At 27, we might have found something good here. We've seen a few decent streaming options, but are still waiting for a second waiver wire pickup to match Duvall.
Down On The Farm
We'll start with Bobby Bradley, who is 7th in the Carolina League in OPS despite being the 5th youngest player in the league. Solid return for Dellin Betances? Looking good so far. Next up is Joey Gallo, who is 2nd in the PCL in OPS... despite being the 10th youngest player in the league. See a trend here? Let's not forget Jose Berrios, who dominated the International League before getting called up... and is the youngest player in the league. All told, there is plenty of talent down on the farm (didn't even mention Devers or Rodgers), and I have the luxury of waiting for it or using it in trade. Anyone got an offer?
Other Teams
Slizz is going to be tough to beat this year. WG and Species are always up there despite this year's struggles. And Guru, Tosh, and Darkside have talented teams. I'll call this a legit 7-team race, a far cry from last year.
Overall
Obviously, not where we expected this team to be, but the trends are pointing upward right now, and we should see good returns on the recent trade (Holliday already has a homer, and Allen is much needed). 2016 won't be an easy win for Team Blue Hen, but if it comes, it'll be a hard fought one.
|
|
| | | 83 | Meatwads
ID: 142562814
Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 11:36
|
Trade Announcement
WG trades
Chris Davis, 1B/OF, BAL
Blake Swihart, C/OF, BOS
2017 5th round pick
Meatwads trades
Carlos Carrasco, SP, CLE
Kenta Maeda, SP, LAD
Jake McGee, RP, COL
2017 13th round pick
|
|
| | | 84 | Slizz
ID: 3759216
Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 17:10
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
Matt Bush (Slizz) for S. Oh (Pete N)
Straight up.
|
|
| | | 86 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 17:56
|
Trade fever, it's catchy.
|
|
| | | 87 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Jun 02, 2016, 20:56
|
Anyone want fielder or maybe paps?
Need slugger in return...
|
|
| | | 88 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 15:24
|
Looking to trade hitting for pitching, and perhaps youth for experience. Let me know what you're thinking.
|
|
| | | 89 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 15:51
|
E3 and kinsler are available for the right deal.
|
|
| | | 90 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Fri, Jun 03, 2016, 18:59
|
Calhoun and Jaso both available for cheap.
|
|
| | | 91 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 20:04
|
Calhoun trade includes WG's 6th for my 11th
|
|
| | | 92 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Sun, Jun 05, 2016, 22:48
|
Tony Cingrani available for anyone that needs saves.
|
|
| | | 93 | Khahan
ID: 3452668
Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 09:26
|
Marco Estrada available. Having a spectacular year. 2.41 ERA, .91 whip 63k's on a loaded Toronto offense.
|
|
| | | 94 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 09:05
|
Friendly reminder that we have a minimum GP limit. It's 1375 GP. That averages out to about 153 GP per position. I know I'm going to have to adjust as most of my guys probably won't even play 153 games even though they are regulars but get 1 game off a week.
Have a limit with pitchers too but it's easier to "catch" up to that limit if you fall behind.
|
|
| | | 95 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 11:40
|
Looking to move a prospect or other youngster for a stud starting pitcher. I'm talking about top 10 or 15 starting pitcher, somebody who is generally unavailable except for in a trade like this. All the young guys are on the table- Schwarber, Rodgers, Devers, ERod, Domingo, Berrios, De Leon, and maybe even Gallo.
Let me know.
|
|
| | | 96 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 15:09
|
94 -- good reminder, bmd. I emailed one manager a while ago to remind them as well.
|
|
| | | 97 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 15:43
|
It's going to be a rude awakening when a third of the teams find themselves under the GP and get demerits or whatever the heck you are calling it.
I am right on the line with the GP limits and I have had a full roster of everyday players for the entire season.
|
|
| | | 98 | GO
ID: 47227520
Tue, Jun 07, 2016, 22:06
|
How aggressive are those minimums? sounds like it might be a bit much.
|
|
| | | 99 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 10:23
|
Max games played is 1458. 1375 minimum so you need to reach 94% of the maximum. The issue I see is that some players just don't play every day and especially not 94% of games. That means teams are going to be forced into finding waiver wire pickups on days off and essentially rotating them. Fielding a healthy team is probably no longer going to be good enough.
That said I voted yes on these limits. I think there should be a minimum games played but probably should be lower. Guess we will see how it plays out and can tweak it next year if there's others that feel the same way.
|
|
| | | 100 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 16:37
|
99: I'm sure we considered how difficult it would be to meet the minimums. My vague recollection (and I am both too lazy and too busy to look back) was that we considered existing activity / average GP when proposing the minimum. I completely agree that if we find it is too onerous, we can adjust downward.
PS - Rajai Davis trade includes my 2018 5th for GO's 2018 10th.
|
|
| | | 101 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 17:44
|
I love it when a deal is win-win. My Nelson Cruz for Wil Myers + prospects deal is looking good on both sides:
Wil Myers hit his 11th and 12th HR today and has some tasty stats now: 12 HR, 38 runs, 33 rbi and 7 steals. .325 obp is a bit pedestrian, but those are awesome counting stats. If any one of the 3 prospects becomes a star, or if 2 become solid keepers/regulars, it's a steal for Nerf.
Nelson Cruz has been great. His .385 obp leads my team, and he has 15 HR, 34 runs and 43 rbi. No complaints.
|
|
| | | 102 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 19:28
|
We really didn't have a great discussion over the GP limits. I addressed my concerns over the number proposed, and voted no based on that number alone. BTW here is the rule and penalties that were voted in:
Proposal #1: Minimums for GP and IP:
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1375 GP by hitters over the course of a season. For each 15 games of shortfall, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 games of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1200 IP over the course of a season. For every shortfall of 15 IP, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 IP of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
GP and IP demerits will be combined for each team.
If a team finishes “in the money” for prize pool purposes (ranked 1-6), then demerits will be ignored.
For lottery teams, the following penalties will be applied to every pick in the next year’s supplement draft:
If a team accumulates more than 10 demerits, then it will be removed from the lottery and assigned the 14th pick in all rounds (i.e., behind all lottery teams, but ahead of any prize pool teams.)
For teams with less than 10 demerits, that team is pushed forward one place in the supplemental draft rankings for each demerit. For example, if a team finishes in last place (20th) and has 5 demerits, then that team will be treated in the draft rankings as though it finished in 15th place (and the teams actually finishing in places 16-20 will each move down one place.)
If more than one lottery team has a demerit, then the lottery rankings will be successively applied starting with the worst finisher and then moving up to the next worst finisher, etc.
Rationale: the primary incentive for a team to fall short of GP or IP minimums is to improve draft standing for the following year.
|
|
| | | 103 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 19:33
|
And yes Species, so far, so good on that trade. But really it was Cruz for those prospects + Myers. Myers was kind of the throw in. I would have hoped Snell would be up by now, but they passed him over for Andriese when they had an open spot. My team is actually better than last year's and I've started Wily Peralta and Anibal Sanchez every start, on purpose, punted steals and saves, and basically have gone for GP / IP over, you know, actual baseball skill.
|
|
| | | 104 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 20:01
|
I wish the ESPN limits figures were more accurate. I have started Franco and Russell in every game they have played and I am behind by 21 on Russell and 18 on Franco.
I do not understand how those ESPN limits figures can be accurate.
|
|
| | | 105 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 20:08
|
So the negative limits can total no more than 83 games?According to ESPN I am at 158 so far (40 at C).
I have a couple of flex positions players that I use to fill spots; I have every position except 3B filled with a rostered flex player, even catcher. I set my lineups ahead of time to cover for off days, so how can these figures be accurate???
Seriously?
Somebody else tell me where they are... I need a frame of reference.
|
|
| | | 106 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 20:24
|
Max = 1458
Min = 1375
Diff = 83
|
|
| | | 107 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 00:50
|
I'm with Judy here - I dont understand how the pace listed on ESPN can be accurate. For the record I dont have a problem with a rule requiring limits and activity. I'm in every day setting line ups.
Looking at first base I'm going to fall short of the average limit by 18 games. I just counted back and there were 9 days I had no 1st baseman going (1 of those days, he was rested and my back up 1st base was in utility, by the time I knew A-gone was rested, Joseph's game was already starting).
So in 10 weeks I've had 9 days total without stats from a player at 1st base. Considering teams have 1 day off each week how can I be under pace?
For the OF I'm even further off pace according to ESPN - on pace for -46. Thru the course of the season I've had 24 no-stat slots in the 3 OF slots. That's actually a better pace than 1st base (same pace I'd be missing 27 games in the OF since there are 3x).
The rule is the rule and I'm not arguing we should suddenly change it or not enforce it. Just asking that we make sure we're as accurate as possible because espn doesn't seem to be.
|
|
| | | 108 | youngroman
ID: 57047243
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 05:59
|
to date there were 889 MLB games this season. thats 59 games per team. the minimum GP limit is about 94% of all MLB games. this means that if you have 56 games played in each slot you are on track to reach the minimum number of games. 56*9 = 504 on the season, which means all but 1 team are on track to reach that goal.
pitching looks worse. the magic number there is 439 innings if you want to reach the minimum or 512 innings if you are going for the maximum.
|
|
| | | 109 | Slizz
ID: 3759216
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 07:56
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
WG trades:
2017 2nd round s-draft pick
Wellington Castillo, C, AZ
Slizz trades:
2017 3rd round s-draft pick
Eduardo Nunez, 3B/SS, MIN
|
|
| | | 110 | Slizz
ID: 3759216
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 07:57
|
Anyone want Wellington Castillo for a bag of balls?
|
|
| | | 111 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 09:28
|
My 1B Carlos Santana has played 59 games, but ESPN says he is -18 in limits?
Same for UTIL Fielder is at 57 but is -18 in limits.
I don't get it.
|
|
| | | 112 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 09:29
|
Anyone want Papelbon? Somewhat cheap?
|
|
| | | 113 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 10:26
|
For those of you without MBAs, the limit is 180 games per position. So if you played a guy every single day of the season, you'd fall short.
|
|
| | | 114 | WG
ID: 35338278
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 11:41
|
TRADES
WG gets Ian Kinsler
Tree gets Gleyber Torres (p), Ketel Marte, Randall Grichuk
WG gets Sonny Gray and Elvis Andrus
Pete gets Jason Kipnis and Tyson Ross
|
|
| | | 115 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 12:05
|
For some reason the max in this league is not 162, but something larger. That is why you are seeing -18's.
|
|
| | | 116 | Tree
ID: 59243137
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 12:11
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 117 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 13:38
|
How did it get to be 180?
That's crazy...and unreachable...unless you swap, swap, swap until your eyeballs drop out!
|
|
| | | 118 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 15:25
|
I blame Ref, of course.
|
|
| | | 119 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 16:41
|
I thought it was supposed to be 170? 180 is actually impossible because there are only 179 days where a baseball game is played.
|
|
| | | 120 | Judy
ID: 92552311
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 17:48
|
I see a motion to change the limits coming to a movie theatre near you soon😙
|
|
| | | 121 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 18:35
|
The lower limit is much more important.
A change in the upper limit would be significant rule change.
If I'm trying to make the lower limit and I'm maxed at a few positions, it could be a potential problem.
|
|
| | | 123 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 18:56
|
170 is fine IMO.
ESPN makes it more confusing than it has to be.
|
|
| | | 124 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 22:26
|
Confirming trade with Species
Francisco Cervelli/2017 round 10 pick to species
Sean Rodriguez/2017 round 6 pick to Khahan
|
|
| | | 125 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 10:24
|
124: confirmed
|
|
| | | 126 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 09:04
|
Cingrani with another save. He's available along with my 2017 10th rounder for a 2017 5th rounder.
|
|
| | | 127 | Tree
ID: 59243137
Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 13:48
|
And another trade..
What an awesome week for trades...
|
|
| | | 128 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 16:20
|
Trade Announcement
BMD trades:
Tony Cingrani
2018 12th round pick
Pete trades:
Jeremy Hellickson
2018 6th round pick
BMD to confirm on the pick exchange.
|
|
| | | 129 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 17:43
|
Confirm. I love these wide open races. Win win for both teams.
|
|
| | | 130 | WG
ID: 35338278
Sun, Jun 12, 2016, 12:42
|
The Ketel Marte-Elvis Andrus swap includes my 2017 7 for Tree's 2017 9.
|
|
| | | 131 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sun, Jun 12, 2016, 18:26
|
So we gonna do anything about the crazy minimum limits?
|
|
| | | 132 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 19:12
|
Judy 131 - did you get a chance to review youngroman's post # 108?
According to his calculations (which I would trust emplicitly), only 1 team (cough.....Tree) is NOT on pace to reach our minimum GP for hitters.
It does appear that many teams need to step up their rotation of pitchers. As of the 8th you needed 439 innings to be on pace. I would guess there were 6 teams that were short of that pace effective that date. Maybe 7.
Any rule change of this nature would go into effect for 2017 anyway. Any objection to seeing how this year goes and adjusting then?
|
|
| | | 133 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 19:34
|
Curtis Granderson available. Looking for a pick or high strikeout reliever (I don't mean a closer).
|
|
| | | 134 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jun 14, 2016, 11:48
|
Looking to trade Josh Donaldson if I can get a top tier starting pitcher and a keeper-quality third baseman. Let me know.
|
|
| | | 135 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Tue, Jun 14, 2016, 15:58
|
#113. Looks like limit is 170.
|
|
| | | 136 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jun 14, 2016, 17:11
|
Yep, looks like you're correct, and my MBA should just go down the trash chute.
|
|
| | | 137 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 14:35
|
TRADE
WG gets Kang and Pearce
Mjd gets Shaw, Calhoun, 2018-6
|
|
| | | 138 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 14:37
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 139 | Khahan
ID: 264552518
Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 14:46
|
I'm in Boston for the week so have patience if I'm slow to respond to any trade talks.
|
|
| | | 140 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jun 15, 2016, 23:17
|
Sending Kenta Maeda down
|
|
| | | 141 | WG
ID: 35338278
Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 15:33
|
TRADE
WG gets Beltran and Ziegler
Bean gets Maeda (p), Cozart, and Pagan
|
|
| | | 142 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 16:01
|
Nice trade.
A reminder for Bean:
Maeda is still a prospect. He has been "called up" and then sent down once. Hence, he has a "(1)" next to his name on the prospect list. Maeda has one more call up (and corresponding "send down") left.
To clarify the mechanics of our rules, using him as an example:
If he remains on the prospect list:
- If he exceeds the 110 IP limit, he can technically stay on the prospect list through the rest of the regular season. No other team can use him.
- However, as our rules state, any prospects still on the prospect list at the end of the season who have exceeded prospect limits are automatically called up to that team's main roster, lose prospect eligibility and are removed from the prospect list. Any such players may be retained in the 9 keepers as normal.
- If he does not exceed the 110 IP limit, he remains eligible for the prospect list and could be used in 2017 in a "10th keeper" move.
If he gets called up by Bean before reaching 110 IP:
- He remains on the prospect list until he passes 110 IP.
- If he is on the active roster once he surpasses 110 IP he is removed from the prospect list and is treated as any normal player on the roster.
- But if he blows out his arm before reaching 110 IP (he is at 81.2 IP currently), Bean retains one more "send down", and retains all prospect rights and can keep him on the prospect list going forward (or do the "10th keeper" move).
If he gets called up by Bean AFTER surpassing 110 IP:
- He is no longer a prospect, is removed from the prospect list and is treated like any normal player on your roster.
Any questions?
|
|
| | | 143 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Jun 22, 2016, 14:00
|
Trade Announcement
WG receives:
Jose Berrios (p)
Carlos Estevez
2017 BH's 14th
BH receives
Sonny Gray
2017 WG's 8th (becomes WG's 4th on the day Estevez saves his 19th game of 2016)
|
|
| | | 144 | Slizz
ID: 3759216
Sat, Jun 25, 2016, 10:23
|
I feel bad that I haven't been as proactive on the boards this year...only posting trade announcements or team needs. For those wanting to talk shop, I am quite accessible via text as I communicate that way with almost half the league. Shoot me an email for my number.
That said, I am looking to consolidate roster spots for the home stretch. That means I am looking to get rid of some excess fat. A prime example would be Steven Moya.
Moya is a 24 year old power bat who went for 35 HR/ 16 SB in AA, and hit to the tune of .298/.330/13 HR through 50 games in AAA this year. Now, with an everyday gig in Detroit (by way of the JD Martinez injury), he is a luxury to me. I originally picked him up as a stream and he hasn't disappointed...unless I bench Prince Fielder, he's not cracking my starting lineup (or 2017 keepers).
I am looking to trade him for cheap. A rebuilder or someone looking for next year would, in my opinion, be wise to acquire him for the power upside.
|
|
| | | 145 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jul 01, 2016, 12:10
|
Team Blue Hen July 1st Report
Standings: 130 points, 7th place. 3 points out of 6th (YR), 35.5 points out of 1st (Slizz). 82 hitting, 48 pitching.
Best cats: Home Runs (20), Runs (17), Saves (17).
Worst cats: Wins (3), ERA (8), WHIP (6)
Here we are, July 1. 3 months down, 3 months to go. Obviously, this isn't where Team BH expected to be, but it's better than the 13th place ranking on May 1.
More importantly, three teams are clearly better than Team BH (Slizz, WG, Species), and two are about the same as Team BH (Tosh, Guru). Slizz is clearly the class of the league at the moment, and Guru is interesting because he's off the IP pace by about 300 innings, and is at 5 and 8 in W and K. If he can get some good streams in, he can move up a lot. In recorded G20 history (on ESPN), Guru has never made more than 46 moves in a season, and likely won't make up those innings without doing so.
Given that situation, there's very little motivation for Team BH to go all in, using youth to make a run in 2016. Even with 3 or 4 trades, it'll still be a crapshoot. We've already used young guys like Deshields, Eickhoff, Berrios, and Estevez to get more established players, and would be open to more moves like that, but we need to keep an eye on the future. Would definitely move Eduardo Rodriguez, Adam Duvall, Brendan Rodgers, or Kyle Schwarber in the right deal.
As you can see from the points breakdown, pitching is a definite weakness at the moment. Adding Cody Allen and Sonny Gray should help that quite a bit. Could use another big SP or two.
This is always a bittersweet time of the season. We're at full tilt, but we can finally see winter looming on the horizon. Part of me wishes we could stay in late June forever. But the good news is, there's enough season left to make some big moves, and that's what I aim to do. See you in August!
|
|
| | | 146 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sun, Jul 03, 2016, 10:31
|
Sending Byung Ho Park to minors to mirror the MLB move.
|
|
| | | 147 | Fosten
ID: 56640312
Sun, Jul 03, 2016, 13:41
|
Hey folks, I'm calling up Archie Bradley to my main roster. Thanks.
|
|
| | | 148 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Mon, Jul 04, 2016, 23:47
|
Mark Teixeira can be had for cheap.
|
|
| | | 149 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 10:02
|
i've got several players on the market..
for hitters i've got HanRam, Kendrys Morales, Starlin Castro, and possibly Brett Lawrie.
pitching wise, Happ, Griffin, and Wainwright are all available also.
i'm looking for picks, prospect picks, or upgrades. i feel i've got a solid vibrant core of guys coming back, but if there's a chance to add one or two stronger players in a multi player deal, i'm game...
|
|
| | | 150 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 16:27
|
Welp.
Matt Harvey's diagnosis was not the best.
I took the chance on him when he went for TJ surgery, and for my rebuilding team it was a good investment. It could be worth it for a rebuilding team to stow him away and see how he comes back in 2017.
I would not be looking for a keeper-quality player in return. I would be most interested in a starting pitcher who can help me in 2016.
Inquire within.
|
|
| | | 151 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Thu, Jul 07, 2016, 22:23
|
All the beds in my hospital are full. I can't take anymore DL players. But my team is like a DL magnet.
|
|
| | | 152 | WG
ID: 35338278
Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 14:46
|
TRADE
GO gets David Price, Seth Smith, Chad Green
Fosten gets Steven Matz and Jung Ho Kang
WG gets Carlos Martinez, Tanner Roark, Michael Saunders, Jordy Mercer, Carson Fulmer (p)
|
|
| | | 153 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 15:38
|
Nice trade.
I'll call WG the winner, since he got the most total overall value, and a flashpoint in CMart. GO looks pretty good since he got Price, who is presumably a very tradeable asset for a rebuilding team. And Fosten got Matz, who I'm guessing is his favorite player.
|
|
| | | 154 | GO
ID: 2111117
Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 15:47
|
Just excited to be part of a G20 three-way!
|
|
| | | 155 | Fosten
ID: 18651814
Fri, Jul 08, 2016, 15:51
|
Matz is Park Place, Syndergaard is Boardwalk. youngroman, anyway I could acquire both, so I can start building hotels?
|
|
| | | 156 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sun, Jul 10, 2016, 21:58
|
Jose Reyes available. Super cheap.
|
|
| | | 157 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Jul 11, 2016, 09:25
|
Fosten, you've got Mike Trout. Pretty sure you can acquire anyone.
|
|
| | | 158 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:50
|
Looking to move some pitching for youth or hitting. If any interest in Jon Lester, Steven Wright, Tanner Roark, Matt Shoemaker, or some combo of these guys, please let me know.
|
|
| | | 159 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 13:06
|
Looking to sacrifice Evan Longoria for SP help. Still only 30, Longoria is one of 3 third baseman in ML history to hit 20+ homers in 8 of his first 9 seasons (Eddie Mathews and Scott Rolen the others). With 21 bombs already, he is well on his way to a 30 HR season.
I don't necessarily need keeper-quality/young in return (although that might require a pick/other consideration back) either.
|
|
| | | 160 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 13:52
|
As a reminder, we instituted a Trade Deadline starting this year. This is to be the latest date in August available on the ESPN website.
For this year, the trade deadline is Friday August 26th, 12:00pm ET
|
|
| | | 161 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 16:14
|
Please note that Trevor Story has exceeded prospect limits, is on Pete's roster, and has been removed from the prospect list.
Maeda and M. Fullmer are approaching the limit as well.
|
|
| | | 162 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Jul 18, 2016, 21:50
|
From what you wrote in <142>, I have no obligation to give him a roster spot, nor do I suffer any loss of player rights if I do not promote him, correct?
|
|
| | | 163 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 09:38
|
Correct, you can leave him alone until March, if you desire.
|
|
| | | 164 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 14:46
|
162: Yes, that is correct. You retain his rights throughout the 2016 season by doing nothing.
|
|
| | | 165 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 16:16
|
Offering Miguel Cabrera, Josh Donaldson, or Joey Votto for a like-quality pitcher.
|
|
| | | 166 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jul 20, 2016, 20:00
|
Tree gets Michael Saunders, Steven Wright, Ryon Healy, Carson Fulmer (p), 2018-8
WG gets Adam Jones, Adam Wainwright
|
|
| | | 167 | Khahan
ID: 40618218
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 09:18
|
I'm heading out for vacation tomorrow evening. Another week in the heart of the Adirondacks with limited to no access to email or internet. I'll need to pick up trade talks with a few of you when I get home the following weekend.
That is, of course, assuming the rest of my team doesn't hit the DL in the next week or so.
|
|
| | | 168 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 12:24
|
137 and 166:
I take what is posted here literally. In both of these trades it is not specified as to whether WG gets a pick back. So, in the tally of trades on ESPN, I don't say that he does.
If the intention was to get a pick back, all trades must specify so. I will not assume that someone's 14th (or any other pick) is coming back to you.
|
|
| | | 169 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 12:58
|
137-WG gets my 2018 14th
|
|
| | | 170 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 13:52
|
Stanton begat Fielder. Fielder begat Moncada. Moncada begat Rodgers. Rodgers begat...
Trade Announcement
WG gets:
Brendan Rodgers, SS, COL (p)
Brandon Maurer, RP, SD
BH gets:
Jon Lester, SP, CHC
Adam Wainwright, SP, STL
Also:
In the previous deal, the pick contingent on Estevez save total now becomes a straight 6th rounder.
|
|
| | | 171 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 13:53
|
(straight 6th to BH)
|
|
| | | 172 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jul 21, 2016, 17:58
|
169 and 170 noted.
It looks like Tree has added his prospect Tim Anderson to his roster. Tree, our practice for adding (calling up) and dropping (sending down) our prospects is to announce those movements on the board. Not a big deal, but helpful to the league and the Commissioners to note the callups.
|
|
| | | 173 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:22
|
Some insight or something here. I needed pitching, so I got it.
You've probably heard about how the Stanton deal is the gift that keeps on giving. But some parts of that deal now stand alone for value and interesting tidbits. For example, the Prince Fielder trade (to Great One for Cole, LaRoche, Romo and two picks) is now responsible for four of my stud pitchers. One of the picks turned out to be Moncada, who turned into Berrios and Rodgers, who turned into Sonny Gray (for Berrios), Adam Wainwright (for Rodgers), and Jon Lester (for Rodgers). Along with Cole, that's a pretty good haul for Prince Fielder, who is now on waivers.
|
|
| | | 174 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 11:44
|
Yeah Prince's career might be in jeopardy...good riddance.
|
|
| | | 175 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 16:31
|
thanks!
|
|
| | | 176 | Jaydog
ID: 106132311
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 12:13
|
Trade Announcement
Jaydog trades David Ortiz and his 2017 12th round draft pick to Species for Matt Harvey and his 7th round draft pick.
Appreciated all of the action on Ortiz... I was holding on, hoping my team would put it together to push the top spots, but it was clear I couldn't make it happen. Lots of good offers from several teams for Ortiz's services, but felt Harvey gave me the most upside of any player being offered. Injury outlook is concerning, but if he even comes close to the Harvey that we've seen, he's a top 10 pitcher for a few months of Ortiz. Now... if Ortiz fools us all and comes back for another season...
|
|
| | | 177 | Jaydog
ID: 106132311
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 12:15
|
I would still consider trading Jeff Samardzija, Rick Porcello, and/or Steven Vogt in the right deal. Would be interested in adding an offensive keeper and/or prospect.
|
|
| | | 178 | Species
ID: 46252312
Sat, Jul 23, 2016, 13:25
|
176: Confirmed
Thanks Jaydog!
|
|
| | | 179 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 01:19
|
Since being drafted in 2011, prospect Dylan Bundy has never appeared on a G20 roster. That changes now.
|
|
| | | 180 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 09:15
|
I was just thinking about that. Awesome.
I can't top it, but I will say that Joey Gallo also has not had a game played or plate appearance in G20 either, and that could change tonight (or definitely tomorrow).
|
|
| | | 181 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 08:58
|
looking to move Steven Wright and JA Happ.
essentially, i'm looking for solid players who get steady ABs...
|
|
| | | 182 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 09:42
|
Looking to package a pitcher with a hitter to get a better pitcher.
For example:
- Jon Lester + Adam Duvall = Sidd Finch
- Adam Wainwright + Matt Holliday = Sandy Koufax
- Jake Odorizzi + Travis Jankowski = Randy Johnson
- Sonny Gray + Evan Gattis = Loof Lirpa
- (pitcher special) Scott Kazmir + Hector Santiago = Billy Chapel
Also looking to add a closer on the cheap.
|
|
| | | 183 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 21:07
|
For the Pujols/Corbin trade, I get Slizz's 2017 supplemental 4th and he gets my 9th.
|
|
| | | 184 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 21:53
|
Confirmed!
|
|
| | | 185 | GO
ID: 2111117
Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 23:15
|
Puig!
|
|
| | | 186 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 11:06
|
#PuigYourFriend
|
|
| | | 187 | Khahan
ID: 3776311
Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 12:06
|
Trade Announcement
Khahan sends Zach Greinke, Adrian Gonzalez to WG
WG sends Chris Carter, Tanner Roark to WG
No draft picks involved in trade
Reasoning - Agon and Greinke both are a bit long in the tooth. When I took over the team last year my 1st goal was to get younger. Tanner Roark certainly accomplishes that. He was a highly touted prospect that flopped last year. But this year, he's doing exactly what people hoped he would - pitch well. His ERA/WHIP are very nice and he's on a strong offensive team for good run support. His K/9 is a little lower than I'd like but think it will be improving. He's 29 vs Greinke's 33.
Carter will tank my OBP but his counting stats are where I'd like to see them. He should help transition to hopefully a better developed Tommy Joseph next year and help get me to Dominic Smith in the next year or two.
|
|
| | | 188 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 17:39
|
i've got pitching to move....
looking for a keeper level player, preferably in the OF.
|
|
| | | 189 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 19:48
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
Pete N trades:
Mike Napoli, 1B/DH, CLE
Tony Cingrani, RP, CIN
Slizz trades:
Yasiel Puig, OF, LAD
No picks
Slizz then will trade Mike Napoli to WG for Tony Watson,
|
|
| | | 190 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 19:49
|
Net deal
Pete gets Puig
Slizz gets Watson and Cingrani
WG gets Napoli
|
|
| | | 191 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 12:01
|
189 / 190: The league should be advised that the veto period for this 3-way deal is the veto period of 'part 1'.
ESPN doesn't have a mechanism to accomplish a 3-way deal, so I am going to manually put the 2nd part through after the first part goes through via the website.
Any votes to veto the 3-way deal should be made on the Puig/Napoli deal that is under review.
|
|
| | | 192 | WG
ID: 35338278
Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 12:36
|
TRADE
WG gets JA Happ and Chris Tillman
Tree gets Adam Jones, Matt Andriese, and Scott Schebler
|
|
| | | 193 | WG
ID: 35338278
Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 12:45
|
OLDER TRADE
WG gets Yasmani Grandal and Martin Prado
Bean gets Evan Longoria and Will Harris
|
|
| | | 194 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 12:50
|
I am looking for some SP help down the stretch. I am not looking for a keeper type - just some solid ratios from a player on a fairly good team that can get some wins.
I would like to offer Steve Cishek for consideration. He is hurt with a hip injury and could be out for the year. But whether it is with the Mariners or whether he is traded, his closer experience, 1.07 WHIP and 62K in 47 innings should get many team's attention to be their closer in 2017.
|
|
| | | 195 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 10:53
|
i'd like to discuss the GP minimum in this league.
i don't think i realized this when i started, but i think it's absurd and needs to be re-assessed.
i understand the need for a GP minimum. but i think averaging 153 games per slot is pretty nuts, and it doesn't indicate whether someone is intentionally tanking, but rather, now requires us to chase games, which i don't think was the intent of the original rule.
i don't expect the rule to suddenly change, but it think it's worthy of discussion, and i'll put my team up as an example, and maybe we can make a change for next year.
i'm clearly not trying to tank. i am working hard to not be in last place, and i'm moving up the standings - but it is going to take a small miracle for me to hit the minimums.
there's got to be a better way.
|
|
| | | 196 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 15:59
|
I've been saying this since the rule was proposed, and yet it passed with flying colors.
153 GP per position is absurd. It's turned what should be trying to improve my team with apt FA moves into a mini-game of chasing games, especially since I started with a catcher in Gomes that played a little less than most starting catchers.
I have now resorted to wasting a roster spot on the Reds backup catcher, and using phone alerts from two different systems to remind myself to check their starting lineups everyday so I get the right starter in. I have also dumped a couple promising SP's to get more hitters to help fill off-days.
I do not believe this was or should be the intent of the rule.
|
|
| | | 197 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 21:56
|
My trade with WG includes two prospects in addition to the active players listed.
Guru gets Jose Berrios, SP
WG gets Victor Robles, OF
|
|
| | | 198 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Tue, Aug 09, 2016, 23:09
|
If anybody wants Wacha as a potential keeper he can be had for very cheap.
|
|
| | | 199 | Species
ID: 46252312
Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 00:13
|
195 / 196:
Absolutely we can discuss it. Obviously any changes take effect for next year, but sure, we can talk practicalities about the limits.
My vague recollection - without going back to the thread / discussion- was that the numbers seemed reasonable, and that the vast majority of teams made those limits in the previous year. Aren't there like 180 actual game days in the season? Is 153 out of 180 that hard?
That said, it certainly was in the back of my mind that we would assess how well the new limit played out in 2016 and adjust if necessary.
|
|
| | | 200 | WG
ID: 35338278
Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 00:24
|
Confirming 197
|
|
| | | 201 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 11:44
|
Re: game limits.
In 2015, 8 teams were short of the 1375 threshold. But three of those were within 10, so only five teams were materially short. Those five teams finished 10th, 13th, 18th, 19th, and 20th.
So it seems that if we had a 1375 GP limit in 2015, it's likely that 15/20 would have hit that number.
The five teams who fell materially short were under by 115, 49, 17, 80, and 78.
I have no problem with the GP limit at 1375. I believe the league was built with 8 bench spots because it was expected that some bench hitters should be material contributors.
The intent of the limit was not only to discourage tanking. It was to ensure that all teams had an incentive to stay active throughout. This has an impact on the overall league standings.
Without the limit, teams that were out of contention had no incentive to stay engaged. Now there is at least some potential cost to disengagement. But if you think your team is better served by keeping more inactive players on the roster and falling short of the minimums, maybe it's worth the demerits. Dropping a few spots in the draft isn't necessarily a draconian penalty.
|
|
| | | 202 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 14:59
|
I am not against having a GP limit, I just think the number is too high, for either purposes of not tanking or to be engaged. Also, not everyone uses their bench the same way. Me, as a rebuilding team, made a trade that gave me 3 players that were in the minors for a good part of the season, and then also Buxton who's been up and down all year. That severely limited my bench options and ability to fill in on off-days. It would be same for any team who suffers a rash of injuries to their keepers.
There's a difference between keeping engaged and having to play specifically to get my GP up above the limit.
I crunched some numbers - The top 180 players in games played in 2015 averaged 144 games played. That is roughly 1300 per team. That presumably would be the limit if you had a team full of starters without significant injuries and left it alone. If you wanted some more activity I could see raising the limit to 1350. Even with my limited bench I wouldnt have had to be doing all the extra work for games if the limit was at 1350.
|
|
| | | 203 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 10, 2016, 17:51
|
Good discussion. All points of view are valuable.
I would like to hear from any other teams that are struggling with the GP limit and how it affected the management of their team.
Any concerns with the IP limit?
|
|
| | | 204 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 09:01
|
I get why it's in place. I think they are too high though. I also thing there are better ways to promote activity. I would suggest some but I don't think I've ever had a proposal pass here.
I've basically been rotating pitchers not based on how they will help my team but more on how likely they'll eat up innings so I'll get to the threshold. Same with hitters. I've picked up so horrible hitters because I know they are more likely to play than another hitter even though the other hitter is way better fantasy wise. I've also had to start dropping guys that have value, like middle relievers I couldn't hold because I needed the extra hitters in case one of mine got the day off.
I'm really worried about September since a lot of regulars get more days off. I shouldn't be glued to a computer at 6:30 ET when I'm in 19th place. That's not fun for me.
|
|
| | | 205 | GO
ID: 29613422
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 09:29
|
Too high.
|
|
| | | 206 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 19:56
|
I like the merit of the GP min and do not have a problem with the current number (worth noting I have slim to no chance of hitting it). I mismanaged my catcher position which is a big reason why I'm in a deep hole and having to play catchup.
|
|
| | | 207 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 20:01
|
I should also add that I drafted for these limits as well. Knowing I wasn't going to be in contention I went for guys who were going to get the ball every fifth day but were by no means fantasy quality pitchers. Same on offense with guys like Simmons. You know he is going to start every game because of his defense. I drafted one reliever and cut him about 2 weeks in. Since Doolittle went on the DL I have had no relievers at all. Because of this, my IP actually zoomed to the top of the league so I have cut back on starts in the last month or so.
|
|
| | | 208 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 22:21
|
Trade Announcement
Pete trades:
Drew Smyly
2017 12th round pick
Slizz trades:
Freddy Galvis
2017 7th round pick
|
|
| | | 209 | Slizz
ID: 306442210
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 22:22
|
Trade Announcement
Slizz trades:
Freddy Galvis, SS, PHI
2017 7th rd s-draft
Pete N trades:
Drew Smyly, P, TB
2017 12th rd s-draft
|
|
| | | 210 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Thu, Aug 11, 2016, 23:07
|
When I first suggested the idea of minimum GP/IP, I considered that if an owner who fell below the mins had played more games/innings, then he would have increased all counting stats. This would have resulted in a higher standing. So the penalty just puts him back where he belongs kinda.
If the entire league falls below the mins equally, then the entire league gets hit with the penalty equally. The trick is to get less of a penalty than the other guy.
I am OK with the mins as is. I'd like to see the max go down though. Does anyone ever reach those?
|
|
| | | 211 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 08:58
|
I've basically been rotating pitchers not based on how they will help my team but more on how likely they'll eat up innings so I'll get to the threshold. Same with hitters. I've picked up so horrible hitters because I know they are more likely to play than another hitter even though the other hitter is way better fantasy wise.
THIS! EXACTLY THIS!
the GP / IP minimum forces this, and thusly, negates the intent of the rule, to keep people from tanking. while not tanking, one is, in essence tanking, because they're chasing IP and GP, and not stats that matter in the standings.
sure, it's keeping teams active, which is nice, but the goal is to win and finish as highly in the standing, and there comes a point (as above), where the GP discourages that, and forces one to play a different game.
I considered that if an owner who fell below the mins had played more games/innings, then he would have increased all counting stats/
this, as we've seen, isn't necessarily the case.
|
|
| | | 212 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Aug 12, 2016, 09:08
|
Agree with almost all of what Bean said in 210. The penalty only serves to put you back where you belong. It's ok to take it, if that's the best thing for your team.
In 204, BMD says there are better ways to keep teams engaged. Can you share some? Anything we haven't already covered?
|
|
| | | 213 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 10:51
|
All ---- please note that Aaron Altherr is a prospect on youngroman's prospect list.
Two teams have picked him up......requiring me to manually drop them from their rosters.
This might be a good time to review the prospect list, as many other prospects may start to get called up.
Best of luck down the stretch.
|
|
| | | 214 | Tree
ID: 2073469
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 12:18
|
Re: gp minimum.
I'm going to be blunt here.
The gp minimum puts me in a bind, and may force me to do something I've never done before - and that's intentionally tank this season.
I have always played out a season - even if I had no chance of finishing in the money, finishing as high in the standings as possible.
I took over this team, and have worked very hard to turn it into a team that I believe can seriously contend within the next couple seasons.
In the process, I've slowly climbed up the standings from last place, and a top 13 finish isn't unrealistic. Heck, if I'd played HanRam (stupid bogus back injury), i'd be even closer to that.
But i have to look at the penalties I'll likely be assessed for not hitting minimums, and determine whether it's in the best interest of my team to keep playing, and take a smaller penalty, or just take a powder, and larger penalty.
This is why I believe the gp minimum - at 153 games is absurd - it is forcing me to actually consider something that goes against everything I believe, because it may be in my team's best interest to not do so well, because of an statistic (games played) that should have no bearing on where I finish in the standings.
It's an awful, uncomfortable position to be in, but it's exactly what this rule is forcing.
ONE catcher eligible mlb player would have met our GP minimum last season, and I believe he played most of his games in another position.
Five mlb second basemen played 153 or more games last year. In fact, with the exception of OF, not one single position had even TEN players meet our GP minimum.
Requiring 153 games in baseball is like requiring your QB or RB to play in 15 of 16 games.
And this?
If the entire league falls below the mins equally, then the entire league gets hit with the penalty equally. The trick is to get less of a penalty than the other guy.
To also be blunt, that is stupid. So now one of categories is "less of a penalty than the other guy"?
Is this what we want? A league that wants to turn something punitive into an actual category? Come on..
I'm not saying we get rid of GP minimums, I'm just saying that should be reasonable and based on more than an arbitrary number.
If we're serious, and we're trying to be the best league possible, we should go back over the last several years, and look at the mlb median or mean for GP at each position, and match our GP minimums accordingly.
|
|
| | | 215 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 17:16
|
I am 229 IP behind, so I am grabbing anyone on the starter list whose era is less than 5 and sometimes that is hard to do!!
|
|
| | | 216 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 17:20
|
Would love to see prospect list in alphabetical order. Much easier to check...
|
|
| | | 217 | WG
ID: 35338278
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 17:56
|
TRADE
WG gets Nick Markakis and 2017-9
Judy gets Gary Sanchez and 2017-8
|
|
| | | 218 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Sat, Aug 13, 2016, 18:23
|
bh, I've talked about having some penalties for the last 3 placed teams. Nothing major but something like they have to contribute $5 extra the next year. That didn't go over well. I've also talked about extending the prize pool out further down to say like 10th place. Obviously it would be small but $5 is still something.
There are some fun alternatives too. Something like 1 category is randomly picked at the end of the year. Whichever non money team has the highest point total in that category gets "X Amount" as a prize. This doesn't even have to be random. We could just have the top non money team with the highest point total in each category gets $1.
Just throwing out some ideas.
|
|
| | | 219 | GO
ID: 2111117
Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 10:05
|
Tree raises some good points. The minimum may not have the desired impact if it just becomes apparent to an owner they need to fight to finish last - and that will still get me the 5th pick or so when the dust settles because everyone is tanking. Now everyone realizes this and it can become a battle of who can tank worst and we are in a worse spot than before.
Judy re: prospect list. I also asked several times to several people to put the prospect list in the opening post as well because not all my devices can open that drop-down and it gets lost, making ctrl+f useless. Alphabetical would also be beneficial as well. Both ways in the opening post along with constitution would be ideal.
|
|
| | | 220 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 13:57
|
(only looking at GP right now, not IP)
i am currently on pace for 1293 games..that would give me five demerits (where am i?!?! junior high!?!)...
i currently have 934 games. that would give me...a a lot of demerits...if i sat everyone right now.
i'm currently in 16th place. the way things move around in this league, finishing in the top 13 isn't unreasonable, but realistically, i'm looking at finishing between 16th and 18th..with five demerits, enough to push me out of the lottery.
so, i'm basically looking at being pushed out of the lottery whether i play my season out, or sit everybody down.
if i sit everyone, i'll move to the 14th pick, because i'll have more than ten demerits.
if i play everyone, and finish 13th with five demerits, i've REALLY screwed myself.
if i play everyone and finish 16th to 19th, with five demerits, i'll fall out of the lottery, anywhere from 11th to 14th.
seriously - there is zero incentive for me to be bothered at this point, which is the exact opposite goal of these minimums.
i implore this league to take a serious, hard look at this.
|
|
| | | 221 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 17:06
|
<220> Seems you have some decisions to make
|
|
| | | 222 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 20:53
|
no, it seems the league really oughta review this Bean.
if the league is ok with a rule that encourages tanking, well, i suppose it is what it is.
|
|
| | | 223 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 09:39
|
I agree with Tree's points.
One thing to note, there's a difference between tanking to win later, and pure apathy. I actually don't mind the first, as long as there are rules to maintain a full active lineup.
|
|
| | | 224 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 11:00
|
<222> Cmon now, real baseball teams have to field a full line up every day. Why shouldn't we? Maybe if we gave four outs to be incorporated into team OPS for every missing GP you would appreciate that.
Tanking in keeper leagues is inevitable, ask the NBA. I prefer its out in the open, with enforceable restrictions, rather than some big charade couched in "good sportsmanship".
Abandonment of this new rule would return us to being rewarded for apathy and acting skills vs strategy and baseball acumen.
Find something to take its place and I am all for it.
|
|
| | | 225 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 11:14
|
223: I actually don't mind the first, as long as there are rules to maintain a full active lineup.
Remember (and Tree wouldn't because he wasn't here, for example), it was our ambiguous rule about keeping a complete lineup that led us to the minimum GP and IP rules in the first place. While PERHAPS the numbers are too high, I think we can all agree that having a clear, concise rule is an improvement over a vague, hard-to-police rule about fielding a complete lineup.
Many rules that get crafted have, at times, unintended consequences. In my opinion, the league wants to have active, engaged teams from top to bottom. I joined and love this league because it is VERY DIFFICULT to win. I am working harder this year than any other.......and the skill required to stream in order to gain GP and IP is all the greater when everyone in the league is engaged.
We do need to balance it with reasonable minimums and offering flexibility for rebuilders to manage their rosters for their best long term benefit. I think that is reasonable. What level is the 'best' level? That is to be determined, but let me be clear that it was always my intent to take a look at this new rule after it played out in 2016 and consider adjustments if necessary.
Tree - the one polite rebuttal I would have towards your plight here in mid-August is that you made only 7 pickups in the first 2 months of the year (and 4 of those were SP). I know I personally emailed you at least twice during that time to remind you of the GP and IP minimums and to suggest you work to improve them. Now you are scrambling, but you had a lot of time to be building up GP (in particular) earlier in the year. So, while I am understanding of your position and we will look at the GP/IP minimums this offseason, at the same time this was also your own doing as well.
|
|
| | | 227 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Mon, Aug 15, 2016, 19:25
|
The more I think about it, the more I kinda like the limits. I think they might be a little high but they force bad teams into decisions. I had to drop Joe Musgrove back in June because I had Reyes and Contreras and couldn't justify holding 3 guys in the minors(plus Cobb). I think decisions like that are vital to this league. In years past, I could've fielded a complete crap team and have my bench full of minor leaguers and potential closers. Couldn't do that this year.
|
|
| | | 228 | Tree
ID: 444512518
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 08:06
|
you made only 7 pickups in the first 2 months of the year (and 4 of those were SP). I know I personally emailed you at least twice during that time to remind you of the GP and IP minimums and to suggest you work to improve them.
indeed. in a leaguejthis size, one that is ultra competitive, no smart new player is going to arbitrarily drop players to meet some high minimums.
bottom line is this - there is a flaw in this rule if it's forcing a team to basically sit on the sidelines to preserve his or position in the standings - that it's literally forcing someone to the sidelines for the last 6+ weeks of the season because it's better to not play games than to play them.
the league owes it to itself to review the number of games required. maybe it's just me?
maybe i am so troubled by this rule because i believe the opposite of BH when he says he finds it acceptable to tank to win later - personally, i never find it acceptable to tank, and maybe that's why i feel strongly that this number is too high - i don't believe it's EVER ok to tank.
|
|
| | | 229 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 21:54
|
Looking to move Sonny Gray if the price is right.
|
|
| | | 230 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 22:30
|
227 - Those decisions make it tougher on a rebuilding team.
|
|
| | | 231 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 23:12
|
<227>personally, i never find it acceptable to tank
Isn't trading all of your best players for prospects a form of tanking? Or is there a nuance I don't see?
|
|
| | | 232 | GO
ID: 29613422
Tue, Aug 16, 2016, 23:38
|
Thats called long term planning. Not setting a lineup, purposely sitting the better option would be forms of tanking.
|
|
| | | 233 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 02:14
|
<232> purposely sitting the better option According to whom? Both the words "Purposely" and "better". And here is the slippery slope that brings in subjective reasoning that I can not accept.
You can neither determine someone's intent, nor can you question another's judgement in "better" options. Go ahead and try to quantify either of these and you will fail, and you will just be wasting a lot of time trying while pissing everyone off with your selective judgement.
So all you have is subjective judgement, which is EXACTLY my objection and why I think trying to enforce this has been, and always will be impossible while maintaining fairness. Nearly forty years of commissioning leagues has taught me this, cause I have tried it your way and watched friendships strained over it. You CANNOT eliminate tanking, so quit trying. Find ENFORCEABLE, OBJECTIVE rules to limit it is the best you can do.
|
|
| | | 234 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:12
|
Again, I care less about tanking than apathy. Even though Tree made very few moves early in the year, I don't think anyone can accuse him of apathy.
Bean's mostly right, and Species said it previously as well - objective answers go a lot father than subjective when talking about rule stretching. Maybe not for apathy, but definitely for rule stretching.
|
|
| | | 235 | Tree
ID: 2073469
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 10:42
|
231 and 233, are, quite frankly, bull$hit.
Anyone who thinks building for the future, is somehow akin to benching everyone, is just being intentionally obtuse.
We've all been playing this game a long time. You can talk about subjective and objective all day long, but intuition is an equally big factor, and we know when someone is building for the future, and when they're tanking.
|
|
| | | 236 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 11:34
|
We have two separate things here:
1) Appropriate limits on Games Played and Innings pitched
2) What I generally term "the spirit of the league" - which is not tanking, staying engaged and doing all in your power to improve your team (be that in the immediate or for the long haul)
I do not think the GP / IP rule encourages tanking. Yes, I suppose in Tree's very specific example the argument can be made that it could be in his best interests to eat the demerits. Fine. But most of the time I believe the rule is straightforward and does what is intended:
- keeps teams engaged
- raises the level of competition
I think there is probably a downward adjustment that may be necessary to give rebuilding teams a bit more roster flexibility. Considering how I went all "Astros" on my rebuilds (taking things down to the nubs), I cringe a little thinking of trying to balance my version of a rebuild with GP and IP limits that we have now. Perhaps we consider 1350 but not much lower (if at all).
On the other side you have the spirit of the G20 leagues. Some of the covenants that are in my mind for this include:
- Stay active (board chatter, rule changes)
- Be responsive (to emails, trade offers)
- Have a plan (seek trades, seek improvement, don't just draft and then make daily lineup changes)
I agree with Bean - this is not readily enforceable by rule and is completely subjective. As the person trying to "enforce" that spirit, it is very difficult. That said, our constitution clearly outlines this spirit in one of the first terms of our constitution:
Returning Managers
As commissioners, we reserve the right NOT to extend an invitation to (or remove) any manager for any reason. Primary reason for being excluded would be abusive behavior, purposeful rules violations (ie colluding on a trade), inactivity (ie leaving injured/OUT players in as starters or not actively trying to improve your team), not participating in league business or repeated delays/unresponsive, or failure to pay your share of league fees. If an owner is removed or NOT invited back, a new owner will be recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state. All monies will be forfeited.
That verbiage has been in the Baseball constitution since I got here in 2004. I would encourage all members to keep this in mind as you consider your activities in the league.
|
|
| | | 237 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 12:54
|
<235> So let me get this straight. I can sacrifice this season's result, provided I do it by adding prospects still in the minors or on the MLB bench even if it means that I don't have enough Major League starters to field a lineup every day. Can we add that specific allowable tanking mechanism to the rules please?
Any others that I am allowed to put in my tool kit? You are all welcome to tell me what covert tricks you are using that ultimately move you up the draft order. Can we document which ones are specifically not allowed. If, for example, you want to mandate promotion, be sure to specifically mention exact stats limits to apply when determining any transaction, including season, 30 days and 7 day stats, how many hype articles etc.
Exactly how long do we have to decide to promote a player from the minors after their MLB team has promoted them? What if the MLB team sends the player back down, how long do we have to demote our player? What specific penalty should be applied to someone who doesn't adhere to this timeline?
All I want is to have the tanking rules spelled out BY THE COMMISSIONER, so that I can follow them, know the penalty for not following them, and have confidence that the rules are being applied to everyone equally, preferably because its a mechanism that could be automated.
Too much to ask?
|
|
| | | 238 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 13:16
|
237: Actually, yes. That's a lot to heap onto a commissioner. There's a lot of detail needed in there, and we as a league have tried to capture as much of it as possible. But more than once when a commish (usually Species) has tried to lay down the law as he best sees fit, he gets yelled at for not running things properly through the league, or pandering to some interests.
Bean, would you care to take a stab at drawing up some rules, that foster competitiveness, punish apathy, minimize tanking, and generally make the league better? I am not asking you this to mock you; I am serious - you obviously have some strong opinions here (that's a good thing) and also some very good ideas about how this league can and should work. I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
Also want to take some time to compliment Species on his work as commissioner of G20. It's thankless and tireless, and he manages to do it in about as fair a way imaginable, and all the while kicks all our asses in the standings. Thank you!
|
|
| | | 239 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 14:18
|
<238> BH, I echo your applause for Species. Few realize the difficulty that a commish has to go through when too much of his daily routine is absorbed with constant line up/roster monitoring. You throw in all the finger pointing and bickering that can be caused from unenforceable, ambiguous rules and the frustration factor can be quite large. Let alone some jerk trying to tell you how to do the job.
You rock Species, seriously.
When it comes to tanking prohibition, my suggestion is, and has been, to decriminalize it. Setting GP/IP limits with specific penalties is the only easy way to do it, but its imperfect for many reasons. Given time for everyone to appreciate how they need to modify their managerial behavior, it will systematically improve participation and the associated "free and easy" tanking that comes with it. You'll have to be more creative if you want to tank.
The whole idea of reverse finish draft order is to sustain parity, and that's what we are really talking about. Who deserves the privilege of going first in the draft? If you want to sustain parity in a keeper league, reduce the number of keepers. It has a far bigger effect than draft order.
Though I am sure, given your background, that you have played with better, more dedicated managers than those here, Rotoguru does have a large pool of knowledgeable experienced players. Given enough time and dedication, any one of us could win almost any league, we're all pretty smart people. Hang out on the newswire and jump to the FA pool first for a whole season, and you'll likely finish high in every rotoguru league, if not win it. Most of us don't want to be required to do that for victory though, but we often relent because of our competitive nature.
That said, it seems to me that most of the leagues here have devolved to closer chasing and the guys who are most active on the waiver wire win. Even if you don't need that 6th closer on your squad, getting him gives you trade bait which can help you incrementally improve your team. That's why I would prefer to see a league where ALL players are permanently on the waiver wire. You have to sacrifice the ability to stream though, which, in this league, with its max GP/IP so high, would be very challenging to implement. Short of that, just do away with the Saves category.
|
|
| | | 240 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 16:06
|
Fair points, Bean, but I really like a league with this many keepers. In fact, I want more. That's because in a league like this, it's not really about keepers 1-6, it's about keepers 7-9. One year, I gambled on Zach Britton as my 9th keeper, and it worked out. Another year, Delino Deshields didn't work out so well. Who cares about Miguel Cabrera, he's a keeper no matter what. You can't have 9th keeper intrigue without 9 keepers.
So what are the specific limits and penalties you would propose?
|
|
| | | 241 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 16:53
|
well if its not about the top six, then I'll swap you my top 6 for yours, hows that?
I have already told you what I propose to do about tanking...exactly what we are doing and nothing more. Adding more rules accomplishes far too little, for far too much effort. Subjective interpretation of what constitutes tanking, and subjective interpretation of what constitutes appropriate commish response will inevitably be void of fairness. If you wanna tweak the number of GP or IP, have at it. This is the end state.
|
|
| | | 242 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 21:20
|
237 - to be perfectly honest I'd rather NOT have it spelled out. The moment something is codified we all lose. New rules should be to guide the type of league we have to operate in. Not define how we manage our teams. If its spelled out that, "you have x days to put somebody down in the minors after they are demoted" somebody gets put in a situation where they a) lose that player because they are out of call ups or b) are forced to use a call up knowing full well that player is to be called up again by the big league team in a week or two.
Now, nobody please focus on those specific examples. They are just illustrations of the bigger point. Tanking is defined as abandoning your team. If you aren't abandoning your team, you are fine. If Species sees something that looks out of whack and questions you on it and you can give an appropriate response (I'm paying attention, I didn't send Mark Hamill down because I'm sure he's getting a september call up and I'm almost out of options for him) then I'm sure Species will be fine with that.
If Species says, "Hey, this guy was demoted last week and still on your roster, whats going on?" and your response is, "Oh, I didn't notice..." then there is a problem. We have a rule in place. Codifying it further will just cause the law of unintended consequences to pop up a bit more. And when it does, people will ask for a new rule or a tweak to a rule and that new change will have unintended consequences and so on and so forth.
We have a rule. It is, admittedly, subjective in nature. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. There are some objective criteria to it. Dont violate those criteria and you are fine.
With that said, I fully realize I voted for a 'max innings' limit a minor league rostered player can stay on waivers without being called up. To me, one is fine and helps push the spirit of the league. The other is not and helps create unwanted circumstances. So be it. :)
|
|
| | | 243 | Khahan
ID: 51120619
Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 21:22
|
Maybe I should have read more before responding. 239 sounds like Bean and I are actually on the same page - less rules is generally good.
|
|
| | | 244 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 11:40
|
One thing I want to throw in here is complimenting the entire league on being extremely active this year. Last year at this time, nobody even realized we had a trade deadline. A ton of teams are making moves, pondering trades, and posting smack (Slizz, you stink!).
Especially nice to see new managers Tree, Bean, and Khahan right in the middle of this rules debate.
I have seen the future of G20, and it is good.
|
|
| | | 246 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 15:33
|
When I recently lost 3 starting hitters to the DL within a couple of days ... it became much harder to reach the GP standards.
The FA list is pretty sparse. The most active available players are middle infielders, and I need OFers.
|
|
| | | 247 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 20:54
|
Sorry to have missed all the fun conversation--I was on vacation.
I had to look up the minimums just now. I voted for the rule because I assumed I'd be able to meet the minimums, not because I did any figuring, but because of Guru's review of the data and how I've always played. Even when I was rebuilding I didn't roster minor league players I tended to have a bench that could fill holes on Monday, Thursday and days my main guys got breaks. I've never finished higher than 4th, so perhaps my style isn't the best example :)
Even though I'm not sure I'll make them, I like that we have the minimums. I don't know we have the right number, but it was chosen based on solid analysis of league data by a retired actuary, so I'm hard pressed to think that a full season with the rule in place will provide enough evidence that the numbers are really off. That said, I'm always game to revote on new numbers based on similarly solid analysis and consideration.
And, for the record, I don't buy that it encourages tanking. I see what Tree is saying, but just as his post 235 talks about being intentionally obtuse, I'd say the suggestion of sitting players is similarly ridiculous and I would absolutely expect that person to be booted from the league. Just because you can do something that might help you, doesn't mean you should.
|
|
| | | 248 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 21:11
|
Guys, I am gonna tell ya, I am not promoting Kenta Maeda intentionally JUST to make the point. There are a million ways to tank. I am doing it as obvious as I can, and waiting for you all to call me out on it. Just as a warning, as soon as a single one of you attempts to call the kettle black, I will respond with a vengeance. Any one wanna take me on? You cannot stop tanking. You can only "stretch the rules" and pretend that you are holier than thou. Lets stop this charade.
|
|
| | | 249 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 21:48
|
Look, if you are having fun figuring out how the hell you are gonna get out of the rut you are in, and it means you are getting some enjoyment out of scheming to get out of it, great, you're enjoying it, you are staying active, and maybe you'll be here next year. Reality is that on average you wont win this league, deal with it. Don't criminalize others out of your frustration.
|
|
| | | 250 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 02:25
|
It's tough to get a "reward" for tanking when we have GP / IP minimums and teams are penalized with demerits if they don't meet those minimums. I think the current system is great. It's resulted in more activity and managers have been more engaged.
Tree, whether he wants to admit it or not, and myself are in a bind regarding the GP min because we did not properly manage the balance between looking towards the future while still maintaining an active/competitive lineup.
This is an elite deep league. As a result, tough decisions should be expected. Stashing a bunch of prospects on your major league bench is now damn near impossible. I like that, especially since we already have the ability to keep up to 3 prospects each year down in the farm (via trade or through the prospect draft). I also like that the new GP / IP mins have resulted in more challenges / difficult decisions.
|
|
| | | 251 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 02:37
|
Bean - it seems the one most worried about tanking and actively doing it is you. I'm not even sure exactly what you are arguing at this point. In one breath you seem to want to have rules upon rules upon rules with every little detail spelled out. In the next post you state you think adding more rules accomplishes too little.
So which is it? Do you want to make a point about tanking and get things clarified and spelled out or do you want rules removed?
Rather than playing games and contradicting yoursel - just state your position.
|
|
| | | 252 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 04:09
|
Life has caught up to me...I am not nearly as active on the boards as I once was. Between the perils of home ownership and helping out with my 2 girls (toddler and infant), I have a limited time to dedicate to posting on the boards. It seems like yesterday I would put my oldest down for a nap and crafted lengthy posts.
I am happy with the league, it's rules, and leadership as it stands. This is a quasi-dynasty league because you can only keep 9. The 9 keeper limit allows teams like Tree to do overhauls in a shorter period of time compared to dynasties where you can keep 14 plus. Species has proven this to be true with his stellar season so far...same for me - went from hopeless (32 points) 3 years ago to having a damn good core and perennial contender.
G20 has a generous bench size and even if 8 of your keepers happen to be injured, one can still field a complete lineup! Blue "2 in the 1st" Hen has gone an entire season with a dead spot (Schwarber) and really hasn't missed a beat offensively. His struggles have been in pitching where he can't seem to buy a win or QS...
I get the need to want to sit on every player that seems like he would be a good keeper bet, but that's part of the intrigue to G20...it forces you to make tough decisions on cutting players like WG with Ketel Marte or BMD with musgrove. At the end of the day, you can only keep 9. I think that's more than fair.
The limits were established as a reasonable average as Youngroman crunched in 2015 thread post 567:
...I looked at how many teams would have been penalized since 2011. for 2015 I assume 85 GP + 77 IP for the last 11 days
1385 GP: 12, 10, 11, 6, 7
1350 GP: 5, 7, 5, 4, 4
1325 GP: 2, 5, 5, 1, 3
162*8 = 1296 GP: 2, 2, 2, 1, 1
lowest ever: 1242, 1251, 1264, 1278 (all the same team), 1278, 1279, 1290, 1294
highest ever: 1505
maximum: 1532
1250 IP, 8, 10, 7, 8, 10
1200 IP: 8, 9, 5, 3, 8
1150 IP: 6, 6, 4, 3, 2
1100 IP: 2, 4, 3, 2, 2
1050 IP: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2
1000 IP: 1, 2, 3, 1, 2
lowest ever: 718.2, 814.2 (both the same team), 937.1, 962.2, 971.2, 972, 981, 989, 997.1
highest ever: 1427.2
maximum: 1400 + 6 starts
I see a trend that managers tend to use more GP/IP every year. based on these stats 1150 IP looks like a good value for such a system. 1385 GP might be too high.
Quite frankly, this shouldn't be an issue to hit the minimums. I feel the whole argument is akin to losing the forest to save a tree. If it's to be tweaked, the tweak should be minimal.
Pete echoes my thoughts completely in post 250.
|
|
| | | 253 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 04:12
|
Just re-read the post...no pun intended on my losing the forest to save a tree. Haha
|
|
| | | 254 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 04:12
|
Just re-read the post...no pun intended on my losing the forest to save a tree. Haha
|
|
| | | 255 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 12:55
|
<251> Khahan, my point is tanking is within the rules now, yet comments are still coming out that speak negative about those who are doing it. There has been pointing to some "spirit of the league" statements yet when its all said and done there is no enforcement. If you want to enforce a principal, you need to turn it into a well written precise rule is all I was getting at. I am not advocating those rules.
Once you adopt this rule, it is now enforceable but it also obligates the commish to police it. So maybe you'll get the desired result, but at what price? That is why I think any new rule better be worth the trouble. When it comes to all the flavors of tanking, you'll likely not find a good cost/benefit result by creating a lot of rules.
So, if it seems like I am contradicting myself, it was probably sarcasm I was intending to convey in some of what I wrote.
As far as I can see tanking is allowed in this league now, with no ramifications as long as you can achieve the GP/IP mins. So if anyone would like to call me out for bad sportsmanship, expect the same in return. Clear enough now?
|
|
| | | 256 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 14:04
|
with no ramifications as long as you can achieve the GP/IP mins.
Gotcha. That makes sense.
|
|
| | | 257 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 14:28
|
I'm not sure it's so cut and dry. I believe the language Species quoted in 236 could be read as prohibiting tanking. At the least, I have always assumed that was one of the intentions.
Either way, if you try to end up in last place I think you suck and would rather not be in a league with you. On the other hand, I've had conversations with members who are appalled at my lack of desire to win (I love playing, but know I can't compete with the level of effort others put in), so perhaps I'm bitching about something that is just an extreme variation of my own behavior.
|
|
| | | 258 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 14:52
|
Lively discussion.
I think we are good. Tree's call to avoid tanking and his sharp distaste for it is a good thing. Bean's call to stick within the rules (or if you want to change something to implement a clear, concise and objective rule) and not complain when an owner manages their team within those rules is equally true and important.
I think the GP/IP rule provides the right mixture of penalty while encouraging a team's engagement/continued involvement. If you want to go all "Twarpy" on a rebuild and ignore GP/IP limits, you suffer defined consequences. There are many ways to skin the same cat / rebuild in G20 --- I am going to have fun watching who does what in response.
The 'spirit of the league' thing is more for the Commissioners to police. I tend to do so in private almost exclusively. It should not be a surprise when a team receives an email from me to ask about their team if I feel that something is going against that spirit.
|
|
| | | 259 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 16:09
|
A little OT but thoughts on prospects. Two rules I think would solve most of our issues:
1. Unlimited callups.
2. Once they hit prospect limits they have to be called up within 1 day.
With these two new rules and the GP and IP limits there's really wouldn't be an advantage to stash them if they are playing everyday.
Not calling anyone out about how they are currently managing their teams.
|
|
| | | 260 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 18:29
|
After having watched the poli league dispose of its mandatory callup rule. I would advise against creating one here. It was a source of much angst in the poli league.
For many seasons we have had a rule making callup required once prospects met threshold. You lost rights a week after the threshold was met. You had people parsing the definition of the rule repeatedly, and in the end it was just a poach fest by people ready to pounce on their first opportunity from inattentive owners.
It was voted by a clear majority to do away with it next year. Thresholds are applied at the beginning of the season only now. Callups are unlimited.
Also, the commish no longer has to police thresholds, though there is still an occasional manager accidentally picking up a prospect of another team, much like here.
Anyway, As you may have surmised, I am not a big fan of mandatory call ups. I'll likely go on a rant if its seriously proposed again.
|
|
| | | 261 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 18:38
|
BTW, Judy...we use an alphabetic prospect list in the poli league like you suggested earlier, and yes its a lot easier to locate another manager's prospect that way. In yahoo, keepers can also be marked with "K" and we mark all prospects with that K to reduce the likelihood of accidentally pick up further. Still mistakes are made. I don't believe ESPN allows for keeper marking in that way.
|
|
| | | 262 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 19:27
|
It would only be mandatory after they reached their threshold. That's a crap ton of at bats/innings pitched. If they aren't good enough to be on your roster then they won't be kept next season so it shouldn't matter if another team wants him.
I don't really want play with teams that would somehow miss the callup of a prospect. It's not like there wouldn't be plenty of warning.
|
|
| | | 263 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 23:57
|
Question - if I call up Bregman and Bell and they are on my roster when the season ends but still under the cap, can I still consider them on my prospect list next year for 2017?
|
|
| | | 264 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 19:01
|
<262> These are the thresholds per the rules: 150 Major League at bats or a pitcher with less than both 55 Major League innings pitched and 20 Major League games pitched.
A quick list of the players who are on at least 10 percent of ESPN fantasy rosters, are near or have exceeded the thresholds, but are not rostered in our league:
Trea Turner, 67%, 145 AB, Fosten
David Dahl, 65%, 100 AB, GO
Max Kepler, 56%, 269 AB, darkside
Alex Bregman, 39%, 105 AB, Khahan
Kenta Maeda, 91%, 137 IP, bean
Julio Urias, 20%, 57 IP, Tree
Took me 15 mins to compile this list, but its just the prospects that are over 10%. Who would be making sure that there were "plenty of warning", you volunteering? What happens if no
warning is given?
|
|
| | | 265 | GO
ID: 17312218
Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 19:31
|
I love to be the bearer of bad news after all that research but those limits are the limits to be drafted as a prospect, not to retain that status. 300 AB for hitters for one.
|
|
| | | 266 | Species
ID: 46252312
Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 22:12
|
263: Yes. So long as both remain under 300 AB, by rule they would be sent down to the Prospect List at the end of the regular season.
Both would then be eligible to call up (and renounce if you so desire) after your 9 keepers next year.
|
|
| | | 267 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Mon, Aug 22, 2016, 23:25
|
Calling up Alex Bregman (1)
Calling up Josh Bell (1)
|
|
| | | 268 | Species
ID: 46252312
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 00:14
|
262 / 264
I would certainly support unlimited callups.
For mandatory callups once limits are reached, I would not argue against that either. I see what Bean is trying to avoid....and obviously in Poli it has been an issue.
If we were to consider it, first I would advocate a very public announcement of the prospect exceeding limits. It could be called out by anyone in the league. As far as the amount of time for a team to act, that can be up for debate. We need to avoid a manager on a 2 week safari in Kenya or climbing Everest with no internet access (or the like). I am leery of some kind of automatic free-for-all free agent lollapalooza where someone with the most accurate global clock gets the player at the appropriate time. Does espn allow me to put someone manually through waivers??
If we want to impose mandatory callup after reaching limits, someone needs to come up with a system that:
1) takes managers being inaccessible into account
2) has a reasonable way to equitably have said player be available to the league
|
|
| | | 269 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 09:50
|
I'm with Bean on the callups, if only to avoid ambiguity. If we do it, it should be within one week of public mention on the boards, plus waivers, and exceptions at commish's discretion. Otherwise, see you in March. Most owners in G20 would know when their own prospect hit limits, or at least they should.
I'd also strongly support decreasing the retention limits to match the draft limits.
Other rules I'd support:
- Can't standard keep a player who hasn't played a game this year.
- 10th keeper replaces earlier pick (1st rounder?)
- Elimination of conditional trades
- An additional late July prospect limit deadline, so a guy like Maeda would have to be called up
|
|
| | | 270 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 11:49
|
My proposal would be:
"
Once a prospect hits the limit, any team can announce they have reached the limit. In that post the waiver wire order should be copy and pasted. This post starts a week time clock. Within that time period the prospect owner can pick up that prospect. If done so, process is over. Within the week long time clock any team that wants the player announces it on the board publicly. At the end of the week, if player is not picked up by its original owner then whoever the highest on the waiver order announced they wanted the prospect would then have 24 hours to pick up the player. If not picked up in that time frame the next owner would get dibs, so on and so forth.
The original copy and paste of the waiver wire order is the order of dibs. Other waiver wire acquisitions within the week are separate and have no bearing on this order. Waiver wire not reordered regardless of the outcome.
"
Prospects hitting limits isn't something that happens overnight. If you go on a 2 week safari you should plan ahead and if one of your prospects is close to the limits then pick them up.
|
|
| | | 271 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 12:07
|
- Can't standard keep a player who hasn't played a game this year.
- 10th keeper replaces earlier pick (1st rounder?)
- Elimination of conditional trades
- An additional late July prospect limit deadline, so a guy like Maeda would have to be called up
1. What about guys that went down with season long injuries in spring training?
2. I've suggest losing a prospect pick in the past but nobody liked that.
3. Love this.
4. Anything that takes guys that should be rostered off the FA pool I like.
|
|
| | | 272 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 12:23
|
<271> question 1
- Can't standard keep a player who hasn't played a game this year.
1. What about guys that went down with season long injuries in spring training?
I meant, "hasn't played a game ever." Let's call this the Orlando Arcia rule. Like other managers, I stash prospects at the end of the year, hoping they rank highly on Keith Law's list in March, so I can trade them for picks. But keeping such players dilutes the prospect draft pool and even encourages something like tanking - Arcia didn't play half the season, for example.
If we're so eager to help rebuilding teams have options, let's add a 4th prospect slot.
|
|
| | | 273 | Khahan
ID: 497262313
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 14:27
|
I would be against unlimited call ups for the sole reason that (especially for a pitcher) it makes prospects an extra bench slot that is easily abused. I would, however, be in favor of increasing the number of call ups we get. The goal you guys are trying to reach is fine. I just think unlimited call ups opens up new avenues for abuse.
I like BMD's post in 270. I had typed something similar up this morning but wanted to think on it more before putting it thru. I had one additional requirement - it needed to be posted on the boards and a league-wide email sent. If the goal is to prevent sniping, then make sure you are preventing sniping of prospects.
We could also do something a little less ' hand holding' and say once a player hits hits limits (300 ABs) he has to be called up. If he's not called up by the time he hits 350 AB, he's fair game. (or 375)
It doesn't completely do away with the possible vulture pick up that Bean is worried about, but at the same time as BH said in 269 - owners in G20 should know when their prospects are hitting limits. It gives a padding of 3-4 weeks 'notice' something he should be aware of.
|
|
| | | 274 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 14:27
|
272 (as well as other posts) - I would like to make a HUGE distinction between rebuilding (particularly with prospects) and tanking:
To me, "tanking" involves the purposeful poor performance (which can include apathy, lack of waiver wire movements and lineup changes, amongst more malicious acts) of a manager for the purpose of improving draft position.
"Rebuilding" is often going to include the use of your roster space for purposes other than accumulating the best stats possible during the current season (which I believe is what blue hen is referring to). Stashing prospects and injured players (i.e. Harvey, Strasburg once he undergoes TJ again) can be a completely viable strategy to get your team to your own ultimate goal.
Personally, I think the GP/IP limit penalties help take care of both. If you tank to be last, a contributing factor is going to be because you didn't meet limits, and your draft position will suffer accordingly.
(Aside: YES, as in bmd's example in Post 204, the GP/IP limits can at times have a 'tanking'-like effect because you are starting players just to reach GP/IP limits that may be worse than other available players. I am not sure exactly how to fix or police that.)
If you are building for the long term, then the value of rostered prospects (i.e. Arcia, Brinson, others) has to be weighed by the cost of missing GP/IP limits. It may be worth it to a team to eat the demerits in order to keep these stud prospects. To me, it is wholly within my vision of the "spirit of the league" to do so, as long as you have a plan for improving your team.
|
|
| | | 275 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 15:39
|
Just to be clear, there is only one person this benefits, the sniper. I am not worried about my fair chance at the guys some manager leaves to be "sniped". I am worried that this manager's inattentiveness would now require me to keep an eye on his team as well as mine, just to maintain competitive equity with the sniper.
I do not covet some other guy's players, don't know why others do. Let him keep them the whole season, what's the damage, who is he hurting?
Not sure why anyone would think this is a necessary rule, it solves nothing and just creates resentment. All of this can be avoided by just ignoring the players on the prospect list, you cant have them unless you trade for them. Confounds me that for some reason some of you think the inherit rights to these players requires a challenge.
I've hear the argument that I shouldn't worry about this rule because:
1) No sane manager would leave them to fall to the FA list
2) G20 has only great managers
3) Therefore there would never be a worthwhile prospect affected by this rule
SO WHY DO IT?
We really dont need more rules that accomplish nothing.
|
|
| | | 276 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 15:42
|
How about a July 31 prospect checkin deadline? If a prospect is over the limits on July 31 and hasn't been called up, he is lost.
|
|
| | | 277 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 18:10
|
I can see where the idea of abolishing the stashing of prospects is tempting, but for a rebuilding team, this is mitigated by the fact that they have to be kept to have any real value. In my case Species was wise to snag Brinson, Arcia, and Snell, and dangle them for a roster upgrade (not knowing of course that Wil Myers would match Cruz in value). But the whole trade was predicated on the fact that these players would have to be kept at least until they showed something at the major league level. That's at least a two year commitment for me. Two, perhaps three keeper cycles before I even know what I have in those players.
|
|
| | | 278 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 19:55
|
Please note that Michael Fulmer and Archie Bradley have exceeded prospect limits, are on their owners' respective teams, and have been removed from the Prospect List.
I have added an alphabetical list of prospects to the constitution.
|
|
| | | 279 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 20:23
|
276: How about a July 31 prospect checkin deadline? If a prospect is over the limits on July 31 and hasn't been called up, he is lost.
At least this is simple and completely cut-and-dry. It is a one-time deadline, easy to remember, and easy to remind managers of.
|
|
| | | 280 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 20:32
|
IMO, It should be a rule because players that are above the prospect limits aren't prospects. It's a technicality that they are still allowed to sit in the FA pool in a limbo state. I don't think this is how we envisioned how prospects would work.
|
|
| | | 281 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Tue, Aug 23, 2016, 22:07
|
- 10th keeper replaces earlier pick (1st rounder?)
oooof..loathe this. presumably, this rule wouldn't kick in until the 2018 draft, but i've spent this season building my team into a squad that is going to have a ridiculous amount of keepers next season.
if this were to go into effect for 2017, it would go a long way towards destroying some of my strategy in building this team, and i'd believe it to be incredibly unfair. for years beyond, i'd really hate to see this strategy go by the wayside for anyone else.
|
|
| | | 282 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 09:40
|
Fair point by Tree - no way could changing 10th keepers to higher picks be enacted for 2017. He's looking at 3 10th keepers (12 total).
Sounds like July 31 second deadline has at least a modicum of support. Would love to hear some other opinions on it.
|
|
| | | 283 | Khahan
ID: 17142410
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 11:14
|
If we do anything at all, I'm fine w/ a July 31 check in date. But do we really need to do anything at all?
I think this is really in our face as an issue because BH had an insane team and prospect list last year and managed to make leaving valuable players on the FA list work for him. But for those members who have been around for years and years - does this happen often or was this just an aberration last year?
|
|
| | | 284 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 12:25
|
It happens often, because roster spots are so valuable. I'd say there are at least 5-6 players a year who fall into this category, even in non-2015 years.
|
|
| | | 285 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 15:50
|
Please note:
Our trade deadline is this Friday, August 26th, at 12:00pm Eastern
|
|
| | | 286 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 16:53
|
We have some great discussion going on......and I would like to summarize some of the topics being bandied about:
Prospects - should they be removed from the prospect list once they exceed limits?
- if they are on your roster at the time they exceed limits, they are removed currently.
- but those NOT on rosters (i.e. Maeda) remain the property of their team until the end of the year.
Allow unlimited prospect callups?
- Makes it easier for a team to 'take the risk' when their stud prospect gets called up.
- In the case of a SP, we would need to legislate against rotating that SP back and forth in between starts - i.e. once you send someone down, you can't call them back up for 14 days (or some period of time).
- Helps the FA pool be clearer of prospects that are taken.
- Helps the FA pool by having that manager use their prospect (and taking one less FA out of the pool).
GP / IP limits - too high?
- Rebuilders need to balance GP/IP limits and resulting demerits with putting forth the best team during the season. Should more flexibility be given? Are the limits too high?
- Counterpoint: the number of teams that have historically came up short were typically only 20-25% of the league. If those teams had been managed under our new system, would most of them have even been short in the first place?
Should calling up a Prospect involve some additional cost (draft pick?)?
- What if a team calls someone up 2 weeks into the season? Mid-June? Do they forfeit a pick in the following draft?
- Is it only for "10th keepers" prior to the season?
Should we eliminate conditional trades?
- Can lead to confusion when trading
- But what is the big deal? It is spelled out in the trade and typically consummated at the end of the season.
Do we consider a restriction on keeping a minor leaguer in your 9 keepers?
- It certainly thins the prospect pool.
- Otherwise, what is the harm? It is a lofty price to pay for a player who may/may not pan out.
- We do have our rule that states that all prospects must have gone through at least 1 prospect draft before they may be kept in your 9 keepers.
|
|
| | | 287 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 18:06
|
I 100% agree with Tree in post 281. The 10th keep strategy encourages more activity (via trade) and provides another avenue to improve your team. I don't see a valid reason to remove it.
|
|
| | | 288 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Aug 24, 2016, 20:53
|
following up the 10th keeper discussion.
what if a team has an 11th keeper? or 12th? or 13th?
it seems to me that denying a team draft picks because they were very good in collecting strong prospects, is a punitive, and doesn't really accomplish anything other than punishing some one for making smart moves.
|
|
| | | 289 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Aug 25, 2016, 09:37
|
I just said I'd support it, definitely not going to push it, and it seems like there is some strong opposition.
For the record, I don't think someone with a lot of 10th keepers is "very good in collecting strong prospects" - rather, I think they are good at aim for specific profile prospects, players who are likely to show their worth in under 300 AB in their rookie season. To me, that's pretty arbitrary, and arbitrary allows people to game the system.
To wit, there is very little correlation between which managers have the most 10th keepers, and which managers are best at evaluating prospects.
|
|
| | | 290 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:32
|
BTW Kenta Maeda was demoted to the minors today. How does that affect your thinking and associated rules modification?
|
|
| | | 291 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 13:04
|
Prospects - should they be removed from the prospect list once they exceed limits?
I feel like the 'end of the year' eligibility is something to make tracking easier. Its a little less work for the commissioners to monitor. It does also avoid the sniping situation that Bean has brought up. With that said, I'd still vote that they lose prospect status on the condition that the manager has some time period and notification to make a decision. So a conditional yes but we need a focused discussion on ideas ( wont present ideas now as I dont want to dilute the vote).
Allow unlimited prospect callups?
I'm still against unlimited call ups. Not just pitchers can be abused. "Oh look, my prospect doesn't have a game monday/thursday. I'll drop him, grab a guy off the FA wire and then drop that guy and recall my prospect." The league becomes who can micro-manage the best. My vote is still simply for increasing the # of call ups we have to achieve the goal of making prospect call ups feel less punitive.
GP / IP limits - too high?
I almost feel like we should do away with this. Does G20 really have managers you guys feel this rule needs to be in place for? And if so, why are they still in G20?
Should calling up a Prospect involve some additional cost (draft pick?)?
Only if unlimited call ups passes. If we dont have unlimited call up there is already a cost. And if we do have unlimited call ups I'm still not convinced we need this. I'd abstain and say this needs more discussion once we settle out other issues.
Should we eliminate conditional trades?
I'll be blunt - they annoy the piss out of me. But there is no reason to eliminate them. If managers feel they need conditions on a trade to make it worthwhile, that is up to them as managers of their team.
Do we consider a restriction on keeping a minor leaguer in your 9 keepers?
In our 9 keepers? I'd be fine with that. We have a minor league draft for a reason. Major leaguers cant be drafted in the minor league draft and the reverse should hold true.
I do still like the 10th keeper rule and while it feels like a end run around the rules I think it benefits both rebuilding and contending teams and rewards strategy and smart decision making. But we need a good solid player pool in the minor leagues to make the minor league draft work.
|
|
| | | 293 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 13:39
|
<286>
1) Prospects - should they be removed from the prospect list once they exceed limits?
Only once a year in the off season. Any other way is too much work for the commish and all the owners who want to try to compete.
2) Allow unlimited prospect callups?
Sure why not? Commish is tracking it for no reason.
3) GP / IP limits - too high?
Fine with minimums as is. Would like to consider lowering the maximums though.
4) Should calling up a Prospect involve some additional cost (draft pick?)?
No, Why is there a need for a penalty for a call up?
5) Should we eliminate conditional trades?
Who cares, other than the commish who has to track all this stuff? Be glad to support the commish if he doesn't want to.
6) Do we consider a restriction on keeping a minor leaguer in your 9 keepers?
Don't see a need for it. Though unlike Khahan, I am not a fan of the 10th Keeper rule. It just gives some players more keepers than others. Why make a rule that favors one owner over another for no apparent reason? Was this rule invented to help the top players or the bottom players? Seems like its just some cute trick.
|
|
| | | 294 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Sun, Aug 28, 2016, 13:18
|
"BTW Kenta Maeda was demoted to the minors today. How does that affect your thinking and associated rules modification?"
Nope. Dodgers are just skirting the mlb rules like you are for refusing to call him up.
|
|
| | | 295 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 16:43
|
293: I am not a fan of the 10th Keeper rule. It just gives some players more keepers than others. Why make a rule that favors one owner over another for no apparent reason? Was this rule invented to help the top players or the bottom players? Seems like its just some cute trick.
How so exactly?
The rule benefits all 20 teams equally. Each team has the opportunity to draft prospects for call up. In 2016, thirteen teams called up a total of twenty prospects. How does this only help the top players??
|
|
| | | 296 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 21:12
|
It just gives some players more keepers than others. Why make a rule that favors one owner over another for no apparent reason?
the rule favors owners who make skillful, shrewd, calculated moves...that's the reason - skills.
unlike that stupid GP minimum rule, which favors owners who like to play a game within a game, and has nothing to do with skills at all.
|
|
| | | 297 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 23:19
|
<295> The rule benefits all 20 teams equally. Each team has the opportunity to draft prospects for call up. In 2016, thirteen teams called up a total of twenty prospects. How does this only help the top players??
First it doesn't benefit all 20 owners equally, or you would be saying how each team received exactly one extra keeper in 2016. Second, I did not say it helps any one specific "type" of owner, in fact I think randomness governs the process to a greater degree than anything else.
<296> the rule favors owners who make skillful, shrewd, calculated moves...that's the reason - skills.
Exactly what is the skill that is employed when you enjoy receiving an extra keeper, simply because you drafted a prospect that did not exceed the limits the previous season? Are you saying that the skillful people are specifically drafting prospects that arent good enough to play for the MLB club the whole year, and choosing them over a guy who is definitely getting called up for the full season? Does this skill have a name? You can borrow the name "lucky" if you like, don't think any skills are called that yet, so its still available.
|
|
| | | 298 | GO
ID: 29613422
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 23:32
|
The skill is the ability to plan strategically long term and maximize a valuable asset. I've had several large offers where Dahl and Bird were targets because of their likely 10th keeper status heading into next year. And I knew as far back as last season this would likely be the case -- Bird was supposed to be my 10th THIS season, but got delayed a year. And Dahl I knew would be a mid-season callup so i decided to roll the dice and keep him. Thinking ahead nearly a year in advance of him being a 10th. I also wanted them as prospects because I knew they'd be called up and would open up prospect picks after made them 10th keepers --- and that was important because my team stinks, so I wanted top free picks available to me.
|
|
| | | 299 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 23:50
|
<298>Hmm, so the genesis of the rule was to modify the game so the goal was no longer find enjoyment in choosing the best players in the draft, but to instead find enjoyment by cleverly use the rules to your advantage. You'd select your players not because of their talent, but instead select them for when they are likely to be called up.
You voted for this rule believing that nobody else understood the nuances as well as you did? And this is a skill right? Kinda like embezzling is a skill? Sounds good to me, glad you're enjoying it. I'd rather we focus on the skill of the players.
|
|
| | | 300 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 00:10
|
Like I've said in the past, I think the 10th keeper rule stinks. It's benefit is derived from 99% luck. It gives the teams that get lucky with their players falling below the limits a huge advantage. You shouldn't be rooting for your prospects NOT to get called up too soon.
Get rid of it. Anyone that is currently a prospect can be "Grandfathered" into the 10th keeper rule. All new draftees cannot.
|
|
| | | 301 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 00:38
|
bmd you get one Bean merit for your comments in <300>, unfortunately it is countered by a Bean demerit for <294>. Anybody keeping score, Tree?
|
|
| | | 302 | GO
ID: 17312218
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 10:15
|
Seems to me that understanding the nuances of the rules and utilizing them as part of strategy is just next level thinking and should be expected in a league like this.
I don’t ever remember voting for the rule, I’m pretty sure it’s been around forever. I just got a list of rules and played by them.
No different than if someone said that triples were a category next year… well you know what kind of nuanced analysis of the rules I would conduct? I’d find draft some fast dudes. Deep stuff I know
|
|
| | | 303 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 11:20
|
Let's keep a good discussion going without baiting (in particular) or being argumentative (seemingly for the sake of being argumentative). Please stick to the issues at hand and let's endeavor to improve the league and make it as fun and competitive as we can.
bmd 300 -- I have heard you state your perspective over the last season or two that the '10th keeper' rule needs to be changed. I don't believe I have heard any substantive suggestions on how exactly to do that.
Like with GO, the Prospect Rules were here when I got here. Yes, they have been modified over time - specifically the additions of Japanese/Cuban/foreign players and the draft moving from the All-Star Break to the preseason - but the framework has been in place since early on. We can tweak it but the general concept is here to stay.
I agree that lucking into a ML-ready player can be a huge advantage - with Miguel Sano reaching only 285 (ish) at bats in 2015 gave me a high-quality 10th keeper to start 2016 as a prime example.
But how is that different than Major League Baseball itself? When this league was founded, the idea was to craft a deeper league that mirrored MLB more broadly than the leagues most of us were playing in back in 2003. Some teams have great farm systems and are fortunate when they have star players ready to step up into Major League roles right out of spring training (Corey Seager of LAD is another example). Why should G20 be any different?
I am happy to encourage the discussion of rule changes. I try to let the discussion flow so many managers can have their opinions heard so a consensus can build. But I also need managers to step up and champion some of those discussions when they want something changed, including the rough framework of the rule change being discussed.
|
|
| | | 304 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 12:33
|
<303>But how is that different than Major League Baseball itself?
The difference is that we have a very specific small number of keepers in a fantasy league, the MLB has four or five teams of prospects as well as a full roster of MLB players that they can keep the rights to. By allowing only certain owners to keep extra prospects simply because of an arbitrary number of IPs or ABs makes no sense from a parity perspective.
You could just as easily created a rule that says you are allowed to keep as many players as you got triples to borrow something from GO. That would make just as much sense as the current rule. Why not tell everyone simply that they may keep 9 MLB players and 3 prospects who have special rules applied...that would be a rule that WOULD apply equally to all owners.
Why must some people get additional keepers due to some quirky rule? There is already enough luck in the game. The rule sucks. "Because we have always done it this way" is not a good reason to keep it.
|
|
| | | 305 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 14:28
|
304: I am glad that you are asking questions and advocating parity for the league and equal treatment of all teams. I understand your perspective of wanting firm, concrete rules that apply equally to all teams.
My response in regards to our prospect system is still rooted in the sense that all teams have the opportunity to work within the rules of the system equally........and just like in real baseball, there are ebbs and flows as to which teams can call up the best prospects to benefit their respective franchises.
- Is it fair that the Cubs got all of these awesome young studs? Yeah, they drafted the right guys and they were the beneficiary of luck that they panned out and became viable major leaguers in close proximity of one another.
- Is it fair that the Angels are awful AND have a horrible farm system? Yeah, they made bad trades and signed too many free agents that forfeited high draft picks.
In G20 it is no different. This is a 'Dynasty' league (inasmuch as there is no limit to how long you can keep someone) and it takes luck and skill to make it work and the wheeling, dealing and planning of your prospects in tune with your major league roster has always been the most enjoyable part of this league for me personally.
You noted: "Because we have always done it this way" is not a good reason to keep it.
My response: Just because it can ebb and flow dependent upon luck (certainly) and skill (and thus not apply equally in every single season) is not necessarily a good reason to dump it.
If you would like to suggest a superior rule, please feel free.
----------------------------
The one proposal / thought / suggestion that has been expressed in the past that might be considered is the issuance of a new Prospect Draft pick when the '10th keeper' move is used. I do get that it is a bit of a 'double dip' (my words) to get the benefit of an extra player AND the use of a new draft pick a week later.
If we were to consider this, I would only support it if the prospect can still be called up AFTER the 9 keepers (i.e. - the 10th keeper move). Thoughts?
|
|
| | | 306 | Khahan
ID: 587283013
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 14:29
|
By your line of reasoning, Bean, nearly every rule should be abolished. They are almost all arbitrary to some degree.
But how does the 10th keeper rule not apply evenly to everybody? The rule itself is 100% neutral. Each and every manager can use it 0-3 times per year. Just because some managers get to use it and some don't doesn't make the rule itself bad. On a micro scale, that will always be the case - things will seem unfair. On a macro scale, looking at the rule usage over a longer term, though, I'm guessing you'll find either parity or the same managers benefiting from it regularly and the same managers being left with nothing. If its the second case then I think that illustrates what GO is getting at in 302 - that the rule rewards knowledgeable managers who do their homework.
When I took this team over last year I did a lot of homework on the 3 prospects I had. When it came draft time everything I read said Mazara would be up sooner rather than later, so I opted to keep him. It wasn't luck that I opted to keep him. Nor was it luck that he got called up. It was luck that it happened just a few weeks into the season.
I also looked at Josh Bell. Based on what I found I figured he'd be a September call up, still under thresholds at the end of the year so I decided to keep him down myself with the plan that he would be my 1st baseman of the future to replace an aging Adrian Gonzalez.
There was no luck involved in my decision making - its calculated risk. Leaving it up to luck would be to make those decisions on a whim or a hunch without any research. You can manage your team that way and some years you will get lucky, others you won't. But we shouldn't be making rules decisions based on results of random seasons or events. They should be made based off information on a larger scale. Just because you or I or BH or any other manager can get lucky or did get lucky once or twice is not a valid basis to declare the rule 'luck based' or ineffective or unfair.
|
|
| | | 307 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 15:26
|
<306 It wasn't luck that I opted to keep him. Nor was it luck that he got called up. It was luck that it happened just a few weeks into the season.
And that is my issue with the rule, we all draft guys we think will be called up, question is when. I do not dispute the skill of choosing the best prospect and understanding the odds of the guy being called up. It's the when will he be called up, how much will the manager use him, and god forbid, his health, that I find to be far more random. My thesis is that the reward for winning this dice roll far exceeds the degree to which skill is involved in the decision process.
The reward for falling one at bat or IP below the threshold is an additional keeper, that is what I have a problem with. Getting bonus keepers is a HUGE advantage, yet the degree to which "skill" plays into it is remarkably small. This rule has a far greater affect on parity than draft order and tanking could ever have, yet so many would prefer to look the other way when its seriously discussed.
Its a just a gimmick that some like, it has little to do with normal roster building decision processes..it depends on luck far more than skill.
|
|
| | | 308 | GO
ID: 17312218
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 16:22
|
Pretty sure the whole game is luck,so what's the difference?
Ask Blue Hen about luck of Kyle Schwarber this year. Or the crazy run of injuries I got last 2 years that pushed me into rebuild.
I believe I lost Profar by 1 AB or something close 2 years ago.
|
|
| | | 309 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 16:42
|
Agree with GO on the skill thing. The rule is a little arbitrary and luck based, but it is explicit and leads to a very specific action to take advantage of it. I disagree with that particular action because it doesn't "mirror MLB" as much as I'd like, but I do like the idea of rewarding people who understand how to interpret the rules.
|
|
| | | 310 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 16:45
|
Species, my suggestion is simple. You can't "call up" a prospect in the offseason until AFTER the prospect draft.
|
|
| | | 311 | Khahan
ID: 587283013
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 16:47
|
I think you may be conflating 2 different issues here Bean. You are worried about the luck factor on when a prospect gets called up, how often they are used by their manager etc. I don't disagree that we have no control over that and there is a but of luck riding over that. But those factors do not directly impact the '10th keeper' rule. They more directly impact, "can I keep this guy as a minor leaguer or not" rule. Those are threshold issues and I agree are more luck based than anything else.
But the 10th keeper rule really is more of a knowledge, research and calculated risk decision. Nomar Mazara was in the minors to begin the season. Again, everything I read told me he'd be called up well before September so I was making an educated guess the he would be over threshold at the end of the season and hence not eligible for my prospect list next year. Josh Bell was slated to be a September call up most likely. It seemed he would be under the threshold next year. So I made the decision to 10th keeper one and not the other.
When he actually does get called up, how many at-bats, is he platooned, sent back down etc - those are all made completely independent of the 10th keeper rule and since they all happen (or don't happen) well after the 10th keeper rule they have no affect on it at all.
Its also not a sure thing. The Rangers signed Ian Desmond and had a handful of other OF prospects they could have called up. I was risking losing Mazara as a prospect by doing this. There is a risk/reward with the 10th keeper rule which I find appealing.
|
|
| | | 312 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 17:37
|
<310> We had some tricks like the 10th keeper in the Poli league. It was basically a trick to grab more keepers through liberal interpretation of a quirk in the undocumented rules. The league was doing the regular draft before the prospect draft. Some managers had interpreted the promotion rules to allow them to promote their old prospects after the regular draft but before the prospect draft. Net result was to give them additional keepers. Being a new owner at the time, it seemed whoever could scream the loudest would get their way.
Easy fix, move the prospect draft to first and the quirk and all of its ramifications disappeared.
Well, everyone attended the funeral, we all paid our last respects and threw dirt on it. Rules were documented and new owners don't even realize the controversy ever occurred.
|
|
| | | 313 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Tue, Aug 30, 2016, 21:15
|
Are you saying that the skillful people are specifically drafting prospects that arent good enough to play for the MLB club the whole year, and choosing them over a guy who is definitely getting called up for the full season?
go look at the acquisitions i've made in my first year in this league. that will help answer your question.
It's benefit is derived from 99% luck. It gives the teams that get lucky with their players falling below the limits a huge advantage.
absolutely untrue. again, look at my team. i specifically made moves to acquire players like this.
Seems to me that understanding the nuances of the rules and utilizing them as part of strategy is just next level thinking and should be expected in a league like this.
this, exactly this. it's certainly more strategic than GP and IP minimums, which are asinine.
disregard the above. i wouldn't want to bait anyone, but i'm still annoyed at the GP minimums, and i'm equally as annoyed that a strategy i've employed this season is being called "luck".
In G20 it is no different. This is a 'Dynasty' league (inasmuch as there is no limit to how long you can keep someone) and it takes luck and skill to make it work and the wheeling, dealing and planning of your prospects in tune with your major league roster has always been the most enjoyable part of this league for me personally.
this. exactly this.
i joined this league because it's a challenging universe, and requires both short term and long term planning - some of that long-term planning
is the opportunity to work within the rules of the system equally and that the rule rewards knowledgeable managers who do their homework.
We had some tricks like the 10th keeper in the Poli league. It was basically a trick to grab more keepers through liberal interpretation of a quirk in the undocumented rules. The league was doing the regular draft before the prospect draft. Some managers had interpreted the promotion rules to allow them to promote their old prospects after the regular draft but before the prospect draft. Net result was to give them additional keepers.
horseshit.
it wasn't any sort of liberal interpretation, nor was it a quirk. it's how we played the game for a decade. and eventually, a decision was made to change the rule.
but that league is very different than this one, with roughly half the depth. prospects, and knowing how to use them properly, is significantly more instrumental in this game.
There is a risk/reward with the 10th keeper rule which I find appealing.
ditto. i made calculated moves, with some risk, because, man, it's fun as anything to rebuild a team from scratch. this rule has allowed me to remake this team in my own image, and now, i live or die with it.
in less than a season, this ranks as my favorite league to be involved in.
|
|
| | | 314 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 20:34
|
I have no objection to the 10th keeper, but also am not attached to it and would consider voting for something different.
My perception, right or wrong, is that for years I watched half the league do nothing but rebuild and not even try to compete in the current season. Given that, I'm a fan of the GP/IP minimum. A lack of engagement was, in my opinion, a real problem. I think it's better now. I may be wrong and would be happy to revote.
|
|
| | | 315 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 20:45
|
Actually, lack of engagement isn't the right word. Managers were engaged, just not in the current season.
I get rebuilding. It's a ton of fun. But, I definitely felt there needed to be more incentive to also give a sh!t about the current season and I think the GP/IP rule gets at that.
|
|
| | | 316 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Wed, Aug 31, 2016, 23:36
|
I made several major moves this year for prospects, fully expecting to be able to take full advantage of the 10th keeper rule in the next few years.
It's been a rule in this league forever and is available to every team who chooses to use it. More than a few championships have been won using this strategy.
Any rule change would about totally negate much of the work I'm doing to rebuild my team.
|
|
| | | 317 | youngroman
ID: 57047243
Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 04:19
|
the 10th keeper rule is a small loophole and I am basically ok with it. you need a basic understanding how far away a prospect is from the majors and try to pick players that get called up during the 2nd half of the season. this only reliably works for prospects that are expected to be called up in the same year. for elite prospects that you pick years ahead it is pure luck. it is up to you which type of prospects you draft. I try to have at least 1 player that is 10th keeper eligible. it does not work all the time though.
I see a bigger loophole: what rule forbids a team to acquire more than 3 prospects and call them up as 10th to 18th keeper. if this team does it right he trades a few picks away so that the picks he needs to forfeit because of the additional keepers are all in the last round.
what if the forfeited pick must not be the pick from the last round, but something like:
10th keeper = lose your 14th round pick
11th keeper = lose your 11th round pick
12th keeper = lose your 8th round pick
13th keeper = lose your 5th round pick
14th keeper = lose your 2nd round pick
If you are sure the prospect is worth it you call him up as 10th, 11th or 12th. if the draft pick is not worth it, then you don't call him up. if you don't have a 2nd round pick (or better) you can't call up a 14th keeper.
regarding minimums:
I am for minimums. we need to look if limits need to be adjusted, but I think 1 season with the current minimums is not enough for a good sample size. we need to do it a 2nd season, because managers will learn from this year and may adapt next season to try to have not too many injured players in their starting lineup for too long. if we still have a problem next season then we should look into lowering these numbers.
|
|
| | | 318 | Khahan
ID: 258719
Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 10:07
|
I see a bigger loophole: what rule forbids a team to acquire more than 3 prospects and call them up as 10th to 18th keeper. if this team does it right he trades a few picks away so that the picks he needs to forfeit because of the additional keepers are all in the last round
So what happens if a manager trades away his 14th round?
Also, what event are you worried about repeating? Sounds like an outlier event. With any rule there is the chance of an outlier happening. How often has the scenario you described occurred in this league? I'm guessing its an outlier and I just don't see the point in making simple rules more convoluted to avoid a situation that problem wont happen anyway (or happen so rarely its no really an issue).
And lets say it does happen more often than I guess. I believe my reaction is, "so what?" That manager either:
1. Is risking 3 picks in his draft on prospects who could be the next Delmon Young as easily as the next Mike Trout
2. Has worked his butt off to put himself in a position to be rewarded with a great line up with 9 keepers and 3 major league players.
3. Still only gets 9 keepers in the next season so while he kept 9 this season and 3 prospects, its a one year deal.
A restriction like you are proposing sounds like it does nothing more than discourage and punish hard work.
|
|
| | | 319 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 14:17
|
I agree with 317 on the minimums and 318 on the extra keepers.
My goal in this rebuild year was to continue accumulating future assets and meet the minimums.
Unless we want to put a 3 player cap on extra keepers. I don't recall anyone ever having more than 3. And the following year they must be among the 9 to keep them again.
As far as minimums, so far I'm having no problem meeting them, but I can only do that by checking my lineups daily, which is all the league is asking. Pay attention and it shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
| | | 320 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 17:43
|
I try to walk a fine line between fostering good discussion and allowing there to be too much distracting talk that isn't going anywhere. We have had several topics where an aspect of a rule has been questioned once or twice, but with some exception there hasn't been a vehement argument to change.
Eventually I need to try to "herd the cats" and get us focused. I am going to draw some generalizations about the discussions and clarify where I think they stand. This is NOT intended to squelch any ideas from continued discussion necessarily......so if you think I did that, please feel free to bring it up.
The 10th Keeper Rule
We have a couple "I don't like it" comments and Bean's perspective that he feels it is too random and does not benefit teams equally. This has been more than offset by managers who feel that the rule is a positive for the league , fosters trades and rebuilding. It is my conclusion that there is NOT sufficient support for a major change to this rule and in general consider it tabled.
That said, there is bmd's thought of Changing the timing of callups until after the Prospect Draft. The point of this rule would be to avoid the "double dip" of getting the benefit of a 10th keeper PLUS a new shiny Prospect Pick for that year's draft.
I can see this perspective.....and with the idea of changing the "10th keeper" rule in some other form being tabled, I would value manager's thoughts on this specific aspect of the 10th keeper / prospect draft rules.
Any change would not take effect until the 2018 draft (at a minimum). The argument could be made that any existing prospects would not be subject to a new callup date at all.
GP/IP limits - too high?
We are still a bit spread out on whether this is too high or not. I want to see the results and re-assess in the offseason. I consider this to be still on the table.
Restrict minor leaguers in your 9 keepers?
I do not see much support for a change of this nature. Barring some support, I will consider this issue tabled.
Unlimited prospect callups / require prospects who have hit limits to be called up
I think Unlimited prospect callups has been shot down.......but I am not quite ready to table the discussion about whether we change the rule to force prospects who have exceeded limits to be called up.
If there is a hot topic I missed, let me know.
|
|
| | | 321 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Sep 01, 2016, 20:59
|
I see a bigger loophole: what rule forbids a team to acquire more than 3 prospects and call them up as 10th to 18th keeper.
hi there.
what if the forfeited pick must not be the pick from the last round, but something like:
10th keeper = lose your 14th round pick
11th keeper = lose your 11th round pick
12th keeper = lose your 8th round pick
13th keeper = lose your 5th round pick
14th keeper = lose your 2nd round pick
as YR said, Any rule change would about totally negate much of the work I'm doing to rebuild my team.
But, I definitely felt there needed to be more incentive to also give a sh!t about the current season and I think the GP/IP rule gets at that.
maybe i'm the exception, but i'm in the middle of a rebuild, and solidly in 14th place. i think that says something positive about rebuilding teams not tanking.
|
|
| | | 322 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 13:00
|
The way picks are traded in this league, forfeiting picks for extra keepers could become complicated.
Plus there are picks traded 2 years out already.
|
|
| | | 323 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 14:18
|
<320> GP/IP limits - too high?
Fine with them as is, but if king for a day, would like to see minimum and maximum the same (say 162). Maximums are too high, not the minimums.
Change the rule to force prospects who have exceeded limits to be called up.
Makes for too much tracking and leads to sniping. Not in favor.
|
|
| | | 324 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 18:17
|
Obviously I'm heavily invested in prospects and future p-picks so I don't want any changes to the 10th keeper rule. It's a rule that's been a hallmark of this league forever. This is a prospect value league and always has been.
I'm not for any rule that decreases the value of prospects.
|
|
| | | 325 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 18:19
|
September call up #1 for robert Stephenson. A couple of starts for the kids, maybe some stats for me...
|
|
| | | 326 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 18:31
|
Late to the discussion due to commish in three football drafts at once.
Like 10th + keeper.
Limits are too high.
The rest? Whatever.
|
|
| | | 327 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 22:01
|
Bean - I respectfully disagree with you on the limits. They are fine. It all comes down to how one uses their bench. Holding on the the crappy CJ Crons of the world in hope they breakout isn't worth missing a start to me. Absent my late-season injuries I was going to hit 170 on all positions except outfield.
Re minimums - When youngroman crunched the data, only 2 teams fell below the minimums...it's a "you" problem. 90% of the league met the established thresholds. We aren't asking you to micromanage your respective squads...
Re 10th keeper - this is the best feature of g20. sometimes it's luck...but it really allows teams to rebuild & compete faster. I do not see any downside with it.
Re forcing a player to be rostered - for every Fulmer there is a Berrios. There is really no good solution for this. For a rebuilding squad, it is beyond moronic to roster any of their prospects once they are called up. It's more beneficial to try and find other players.
Allowing unlimited call ups would have an unintended consequence - my roster size now expands by one. On off days I would easily be able to send the player down to get a start.
However, I could get behind a rule where once a prospect exhausts eligibility, he should be rostered.
|
|
| | | 328 | Fosten
ID: 56640312
Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 12:26
|
Hey folks, with Neil Walker getting shutdown for the season, and Trea Turner at 248/300 PA, would need an injury to retain prospect eligibility, so I'll go ahead and callup Turner.
|
|
| | | 329 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 07:04
|
Holy crap, 9 HR yesterday - 3 from Dozier!
|
|
| | | 330 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Tue, Sep 06, 2016, 16:38
|
If prospect loses eligibility he should be rostered or become a FA.
|
|
| | | 331 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 09:38
|
Judy, you may want to re-read some of the discussion from above. If we went down that path, what would the specific rule be, and how would it be policed?
|
|
| | | 332 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 12:51
|
Sorry to be silent on this, but between some recent traveling and football preparations, I barely have time to keep my baseball rosters monitored.
In general, though, I like the limits as they are, and have not found them to be burdensome. One idea, though, is to keep the limits where they are now, but "forgive" 2 demerits before applying any penalties. So you could elect to fall a bit short in either GP or IP (or both) without immediately incurring a penalty.
I support the "10th keeper" rules as is.
Unlimited callups could be problematic. If you have a prospect-eligible SP, you could call him up for each start and then send him back down. If we do expand call-ups, perhaps we could require a minimum 5-day stay on the active roster unless the player is removed the active roster of his real team.
|
|
| | | 333 | Tree
ID: 2073469
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 12:57
|
One idea, though, is to keep the limits where they are now, but "forgive" 2 demerits before applying any penalties. So you could elect to fall a bit short in either GP or IP (or both) without immediately incurring a penalty
Thats why they pay guru the big Bucks. I really like this compromise idea.
|
|
| | | 334 | Khahan
ID: 57852712
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 13:53
|
331 - actually I think its important to find out if people are in favor of leaving prospects over the limits as is or if they need to be called up. I would love to simply get a vote and find out if the majority of us feel the need to change this. We can work out refined details later.
Otherwise we have people putting up a suggested change then we have arguments over whether we need a change, whether we need that particular change etc. Lets just decide if we need a change or not first.
|
|
| | | 335 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 14:47
|
Khahan - I think there was significant support for it last year...however, the issue was how long should we allow the owner to pickup said player once they exhaust limits?
We never ironed out that aspect before putting to a vote.
|
|
| | | 336 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 16:57
|
I vote "yes" for calling up (at least for having discussion), but agree that it has to be a rock solid solution. I'd be in favor of an ASG-timed cutoff. Also strongly support lowering the keeper limits from 300/110 to 150/55 (matching draft eligibility).
|
|
| | | 337 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 20:24
|
330. BH. Discussion was way too rambling to follow, so I just stated what I feel.
|
|
| | | 338 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Sep 07, 2016, 22:29
|
as for prospects, i'd be in favor of simplicity.
1. one retains the right to a prospect throughout the season in which the prospect goes over the threshold.
2. once the prospect goes over the threshold, if the team that owns that prospect picks him up, than that prospect is no longer a prospect, and must be kept on the roster if the owner wants to retain that player's rights.
3. until the prospect crosses the threshold, the owner can recall the player unlimited times.
|
|
| | | 339 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 09:21
|
I'd only support Tree's third item if there was something like a 5 day limit to send him down. Prospects are not a 24th roster spot.
1 & 2 already exist in G20.
|
|
| | | 340 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 18:26
|
I'd much rather have a team's prospect be a 24th roster spot than the entire FA pool. Just sayin'.
|
|
| | | 341 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 09:18
|
yes, i realize 1 and 2 already exist. it seems simple. i see no reason to complicate it.
as for number 3, i just feel that the more we have to police, the more complicated it gets. i've seen in other leagues that continually try to complicate rules, which ultimately makes it less fun.
|
|
| | | 342 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sun, Sep 11, 2016, 07:18
|
Re limits.
I am beginning to realize, as I try to reach the IP limit, that maybe one of the reasons it is harder to reach is that today's SP only go 5/6 innings any more. Started 4 yesterday and got 6.0, 5.2, 5.0 and 3.0 out of them...
|
|
| | | 343 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Sep 15, 2016, 14:22
|
What a thrilling, three-team race down the stretch in G20 this year!! The standings and categories seem to change hourly as games progress.....it is both exciting and ulcer-generating at the same time. In looking at the standings as of this moment (11:15am PT), I see the following point possiblities:
Runs:
Species In a daily dogfight with bh - could lose a point
Slizz Could gain or lose a point. 10 runs behind and 8 runs ahead of other teams
Guru Pretty well settled at 20 points in runs with a 27 run lead
HR:
Species In a daily dogfight with Guru and WG. Could lose or gain 1 or .5 pts
Slizz Have a team 4 HR ahead, and teams 1, 2, 3 and 4 HR behind him. At risk.
Guru See Species. We are 6 and 7 HR ahead of the teams below us.
RBI
Species Can only gain by untying. Tied at this moment with other teams 2 and 9 rbi behind.
Slizz Leads the league. Has a team 8 rbi behind.
Guru Cannot lose (34 rbi ahead). Is 4 rbi behind a team and can gain.
SB
Species Unlikely to gain (5 sb behind) but a lot to lose. 2 teams 1 sb behind, another team 3 sb behind.
Slizz 3 sb behind a team. Unlikely to lose with a 6 sb lead.
Guru 4 sb behind a team. Has a team 2 sb behind and two teams 3 sb behind, so at risk.
OBP
Species Will not gain and unlikely to lose a point.
Slizz Could gain - .0006 behind a team. They are .0026 ahead of the next team.
Guru Will not lose and very unlikely to gain.
K
Species Unlikely to lose, with the next team 68 k behind. Could gain - 12 and 32 k behind.
Slizz Leads the league and has a 75 k lead.
Guru 4th from last. Could gain 1 or 2 points perhaps? Worth the risk to ratios?
Wins
Species 3 and 4 wins behind. At risk to lose with 1 team 1 win behind and 2 teams 3 wins behind.
Slizz Leads the league by 4. Unlikely to get caught, but its possible.
Guru Could gain - 1 and 5 wins behind the leaders. Has 3 and 4 win leads over the teams behind.
Saves
Species 9 saves behind - unlikely to gain. With an 8 save lead and Ramos back, unlikely to lose.
Slizz 3 and 7 saves behind and a bevy of closers. Can gain and highly unlikely to lose.
Guru Leads the league and highly unlikely to lose.
ERA
Species Very unlikely to gain. At modest risk of losing 1.
Slizz Has been in an unfathomable freefall. Can gain 1 but unlikely to lose.
Guru Leads the league comfortably. Barring a run of highly unsuccessful streams, will not lose.
WHIP
Species Longshot to gain. At risk of losing 1 or 2.
Guru Unlikely to lose, but has a higher risk here than ERA.
Slizz Can gain 1 or 2. Unlikely to lose.
By my count, I am the most at risk. I have it tallied as follows:
Possible gains Possible losses
Species 3 Species 9
Slizz 8 Slizz 5
Guru 4 Guru 4
Slizz has the most to gain (obviously), having lost the most over the last month. I have gained the most so I have the most to lose. Guru is most pigeon-holed so he either has to be perfect with his gains or hope Slizz and I come down.
It may come down to a final at bat, just like 2011 when Jake McGee's win cost bh a point and we tied. You never know........but it is going to cost me some more gray hairs as we find out!
|
|
| | | 344 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 20:31
|
Ok so my team didn't do too well this season, but look at my keepers for next year:
C. G Sanchez (in how many weeks?)
1B C Santana
2B J Peraza (about half a season in bigs)
3B. M Franco
SS A Russell
OF O Hererra
SP. F Hernandez
SP D Salazar
Closer (finally). K Giles
For sale: L Forsythe
J Bruce
Prospect:
SP R Stephenson
OF R Quinn (who is tearing it up in September call up)
Stats from those 6 position guys alone (minus Quinn too little data)
HR: 112
R: 336
BI: 366
SB: 52
I just need to draft well...
|
|
| | | 345 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 20:33
|
Also, do I have to drop Stephenson down to prospect list before the season ends or does he go there automatically when the season is over due to his IP?
|
|
| | | 346 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Fri, Sep 23, 2016, 22:43
|
Quinn up for Sam n Max
|
|
| | | 347 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 21:29
|
Same question for Quinn...
A reply please before season is over?
I am sure it is a post somewhere, and I am also sure some has the answer in his head.
Thanks.
|
|
| | | 348 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Sat, Sep 24, 2016, 23:23
|
You can keep both as prospects or 10th keepers without doing anything else.
|
|
| | | 349 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Sep 25, 2016, 13:21
|
345 / 346: No, you do NOT have to do anything with those two. So long as they are both under prospect limits, our rules dictate that they will be sent down automatically at season's end.
You retain all prospect / 10th keeper rights at that time.
|
|
| | | 350 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 12:37
|
Calling up De Leon. BTW, I'm using him for tonight and sending him down after the game.
|
|
| | | 351 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 19:55
|
Meatwads - I know you hit the minimums, but benching your entire team is a disservice to the rest of the league. It doesn't sit right with me, and goes counter to the whole "spirit of the league" mentality we've tried to establish.
That type of negligence could decide a pennant race and should have NO place in ANY league.
I am not saying go and stream players, but just field an active roster.
I'd love for others to weigh in and share their houghts...
|
|
| | | 352 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 23:09
|
I think it's kinda ridiculous.
|
|
| | | 353 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 00:19
|
Mandatory minimums, hooray! They'll keep people involved and prevent them from intentionally tanking! Hooray!
|
|
| | | 354 | Meatwads
ID: 142562814
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 05:05
|
I reached out to a prominent member of the league to ask about the strategy I had come up with. I asked him about the ethics and rules involved in the decision. I went so far as to offer to email the commish, but was told that it wasn't needed.
As was noted, I have meet all the requirements set forth by the league before the season began. Besides that, I have been active throughout, including setting my optimal lineup all season, even though it completely counters what my team needs.
The part I have a problem with is the public scrutiny when I haven't broke a rule and have reached limits that teams below me won't. Let's not pretend teams aren't carrying several players who aren't helping now and won't be keepers next season. All the while giving the illusion they are fielding an active team. But since I was transparent, planned and executed a strategy within the rules, I'm getting criticized.
All that being said, I have set my lineups for the remainder of the season. I didn't utilize the strategy to rock the boat or gain a secretive advantage. I did what I thought was best for my franchise within the rules. If it's viewed as negligence or ridiculous, obviously that wasn't the intention, nor do I agree.
|
|
| | | 355 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 09:52
|
I can't say that I would have taken this tactic (at least not 2016 BH; 2010 BH is another story), and it's pretty clear from the rules that the commish has leeway to "encourage" Meatwads to fill the roster.
From the rules: As commissioners, we reserve the right NOT to extend an invitation to (or remove) any manager for any reason. Primary reason for being excluded would be abusive behavior, purposeful rules violations (ie colluding on a trade), inactivity (ie leaving injured/OUT players in as starters or not actively trying to improve your team), not participating in league business or repeated delays/unresponsive, or failure to pay your share of league fees. If an owner is removed or NOT invited back, a new owner will be recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state. All monies will be forfeited.
That said, I'm not sure Meatwads has actually broken any rules and I don't think any punishment is warranted here. To wit: he is going to finish with more innings and more GP than these managers: Khahan, Fosten, Great One, and Jaydog. He made the 7th most moves, as well. We created a tangible punishment for inactivity and Meatwads won't get it. He is NOT the problem in this league.
|
|
| | | 356 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 10:15
|
<355> Concur
|
|
| | | 357 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 10:55
|
We can't have things both ways, at least as it pertains to an issue like this.
We REMOVED the ambiguous "must field a full lineup" rule that would have prohibited what Meatwads is doing. We replaced it with a simple quantitative rule for GP and IP minimums (which IMO was a good thing). We have had a lot of discussion around whether those limits are too high........and now we are mad when someone who met the minimums makes a strategic move.
Meatwads has done nothing wrong and has broken no rule. He can bench his entire lineup and I am fine with it. I think it is great strategy given the rules of the league.
Now, looking at the whole 'spirit of the league' argument, I appreciate where a tactic of this nature can rub people the wrong way. There is a tight race for the league title, and conceivably Meatwads' actions could have an effect on that.
The counter-argument is: wouldn't other managers' inactivity have an equal (or even greater) impact on the standings? What is a worse offense - benching your team upon hitting minimums or not working your roster/lineup most of the year in the first place?
Also consider this perspective: if Meatwads simply timed his daily lineups to perfectly meet minimums on Sunday October 4th (the last day of the season) instead of Sunday September 25th, would anyone be up in arms? He would have accomplished the same number of GP and IP......he just would have looked nicer doing so.
To me, it is a much greater problem when managers are apathetic, not involved and have no plan or vision for the future of their team. Yes, the portion of the rules quoted by bh in 355 talks about inactivity and leaving players out of your lineup. But that section of the constitution points towards apathy and not even paying enough attention to see that you have injured players in your lineup -- that is certainly not the case with Meatwads, who has met minimums, been active and made bold moves to mold the team in his image.
My official stance is that there is no violation of rules, and there is no violation of the spirit of the league.
|
|
| | | 358 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 18:13
|
My official stance is that there is no violation of rules, and there is no violation of the spirit of the league.
BTW - that doesn't mean the discussion has to stop. That is my ruling/interpretation, but it is everyone's league and everyone can voice their opinion.
-----------------------
On a different note, we have 1 confirmed opening in G20 Hoops and are likely to have a 2nd. If you are interested or know a strong Hoops player that might be, please let me know.
|
|
| | | 359 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 18:25
|
I've hit the IP minimum and 12 games away from the GP minimum, so I've benched everyone but my prospective keepers. It's a strategy like any other. My strat hasn't even worked as my players got hot down the stretch and moved up a spot in the standings. What can you do?
|
|
| | | 360 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 23:01
|
I've called up Max Kepler
|
|
| | | 361 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Fri, Sep 30, 2016, 09:20
|
To me, it is a much greater problem when managers are apathetic, not involved and have no plan or vision for the future of their team.
Yet we have such high minimums that they can negative affect teams building for the future.
|
|
| | | 362 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Sep 30, 2016, 09:43
|
We also have small rosters and lineups, which prevents the better managers from getting than many more good players than lesser managers. We also only keep 9 keepers and have a draft, which prevents managers from keeping helpful players.
This league has rules, and we are all playing within the same rules. If we're interested in increasing competitive balance in the league, then let's make some rules that encourage that. What would you propose better minimums to be?
|
|
| | | 363 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Sep 30, 2016, 12:22
|
PLEASE NOTE:
Free agent pickups are NOT ALLOWED once games start on Sunday. Any players you wish to stash for the offseason and be keeper eligible must be on your roster as of the daily roster freeze Sunday. Thankfully, all games start at the same time so that makes it easy.
Exception: Historically, playoff tiebreaker games have counted in the regular season statistics of players. IF wild card tiebreaking games count (I honestly have no idea - I assume so), free agent pickups for those teams participating in the tiebreaking games will be allowed.
Please post with any questions or clarifications.
|
|
| | | 364 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 11:34
|
The whole benching your whole team after your limits are hit needs to be strongly discouraged. It's against the spirit of fantasy. It's like dropping all your players in a non keeper league when you are out of it. Just because you are allowed to do it doesn't mean you should.
|
|
| | | 365 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 14:08
|
I agree with bmd. Perhaps we need both minimums and the old healthy lineup rule. Though much harder to enforce, I'm pretty sure having empty lineups was not an expectation when making the rule change.
|
|
| | | 366 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 14:59
|
I agree
|
|
| | | 367 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 19:50
|
Congrats Species! Hard fought and well deserved.
|
|
| | | 368 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 20:02
|
Good work, Species. It was a great season by several of the teams at the top and that your margin of victory wasn't razor thin is a testament to your efforts. Thanks for being commish and congrats on another championship.
|
|
| | | 369 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 21:50
|
Congrats Species!!!
|
|
| | | 370 | PeteN.
ID: 19721320
Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 22:15
|
Congrats Species! Well deserved
|
|
| | | 371 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 11:40
|
Congrats, Species!
|
|
| | | 372 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 11:41
|
Grats Species
|
|
| | | 373 | Tosh
ID: 538582122
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 13:07
|
Congrats Species!
|
|
| | | 374 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 21:02
|
Nicely done!!
|
|
| | | 375 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 21:26
|
Thanks guys. What a crazy year.
It seemed like so much went wrong. If you told me at the start of the season:
- Jacob deGrom would win 7 games
- Matt Harvey would get hurt and give me a 4.86 ERA and 1.47 WHIP.
- Dee Gordon would miss half the games via suspension.
- I would only have 4 players on my roster that would play over 110 games for me.
.....that I would somehow win, I would have said you were NUTS!!
Admittedly, a LOT has to go right in order to win, so it wasn't all bad:
- Aaron Sanchez vaulted himself into serious top 15 SP consideration in winning the AL ERA title.
- Mookie Betts became a serious MVP candidate.
- Corey Seager not only cruised to rookie of the year, but put up a top 10 MVP season.
- Jose Quintana was a model of consistency and put up a strong 3.25 ERA and 1.15 WHIP for me.
- Hisashi Iwakuma rung up 15 wins on my team....while his ratios were pedestrian, they weren't ratio killers either.
- Nelson Cruz had an amazing year with 43 HR, 104 RBI and a .360 obp.
- Evan Longoria gave me 20 HR (and 5 or 6 I missed on the bench) and served as valuable trade bait.
But it was the key trades and relatively successful streaming that added key counting stats to give me a chance:
- The David Ortiz trade was the key to the season. With slizz also hot on his trail, the winner of that trade (and I did not know he was going for it as well) had a huge upper hand down the stretch. When Matt Harvey went down, I went back to Jaydog - who I had originally acquired Harvey from - and eventually after careful consideration he agreed to my offer. Ortiz responded with 58 games of .364 obp, 14 HR and an incredible 46 RBI.
- The Trevor Plouffe injury pushed the Twins to make Miguel Sano their primary 3b. I couldn't necessary make the Ortiz trade without Sano getting 3b eligibility and trading away Longoria for pitching. A huge effect on my season.
- The Longoria for Tanaka trade was a big boost to my rotation in the wake of the Harvey injury. He responded with 76 IP, 65K, 7 wins and ratios of 2.93 and 1.06. Huge.
- Then Steve Cishek went down and (presumably) was going to lose his job to Edwin Diaz. I traded him for Ian Kennedy, who responded with 4 wins for me (I benched him for 2 wins I believe), 44 K and a 3.17 ERA.
- While Francisco Cervelli got hurt the day after I traded for him, upon his return he brought stability to my C spot and gave me an amazing .383 obp.....exactly what I needed after horribly mediocre obp the first half of the year.
- I have never streamed consistently before, but after being left in the dust in recent seasons by bh and WG, I realized that I HAD to step up my game. While I was far from perfect, and I am not going to calculate what my obp and pitching ratios were for my streaming, but a quick look shows I got 13 HR, 55 rbi, 61 runs and 6 sb from hitters and 5 wins from pitchers.
Still, heading into September it was anyone's race. I was extraordinarily fortunate on a variety of little decisions, breaks that went my way, the timing of being able to use Seager and Sano as '10th keepers', misfortune of others (slizz' pitching debacle was truly ridiculous to unprecedented), making some key trades at the right times and some positive performances.
This was the hardest I have ever worked for a fantasy league. Period. It paid off, barely!
This has been a great year overall for the league. We had our usual controversies and chatter, but that is good considering the new blood coming in over recent years. The competitiveness of the league is definitely improving.....which is awesome.
I am already looking forward to 2017! Best of luck in the offseason. Technically, trading is back open for business!
|
|
| | | 376 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 03, 2016, 21:28
|
Standings
1. Endangered Species 169
2. Thank You, Jose. 163
3. Roto Guru 157
4. Blue Hen 146
5. Wazaaap Guy 144
6. youngroman's Luschen 139.5
7. Team Tosh 138.5
8. Munson Mobsters 115.5
9. Giancarlo Inc 102
10. Bean's Rockies 90
11. Jay Dog 89
12. Mighty Meatwads 88
13. Fort Worth House Martins 83.5
14. Khahans Keepers 82
15. GO's Gaslight Anthem 81
16. darkside of the moon 79.5
17. Sam n Max G 73
18. ScruffyLookin' Nerfherders 66
19. beastiemike d 62.5
20. Team mjd 31
Updated Monday, October 3, 2016
|
|
| | | 378 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 10:52
|
Constitution
Prospects - 300AB 110_IP/40_GP to remain a prospect.
(Draft Rounds 1-3, '04; 4-5, '05; 6-8, '06; 9-11, '07; 12-14, '08; 15-17, '09; 18-20, '10; 21-23, '11; 24-26, '12; 27-29 '13; 30-32 '14; 33-35 '15; 36-38 '16)
MGR: #, Name,Pos,Team,(# Call-ups)
Bean: 34.09 Nick Gordon, SS, MIN; 35.02 Raul Mondesi, SS, KC; 36.03 Byung-Ho Park, 1b, MIN (1); 37.08 Kenta Maeda, SP, LAD (1);
bmd: 34.03 Matt Olson, 1b, OAK; 36.06 Andrew Benintendi, OF, BOS; 36.12 Ryan McMahon, 3b, COL; 37.07 Tyler Stephenson, C, CIN
Blue Hen: Rafael Devers, 3b, BOS; 36.16 Jose DeLeon, SP, LAD; 37.05 Bobby Bradley, 1b, CLE
Darkside: Max Kepler, OF, MIN; 37.11 Ozhaino Albies, SS, Atl; 38.04
Meatwads: 36.11 Franklin Barreto, SS, OAK; 37.09 Lucius Fox, SS, SFG; 38.01 Francis Martes, SP, HOU
Great One: 28.07 David Dahl, OF, COL; 33.01 Yoan Moncada, 2b, BOS; 34.01 Greg Bird, 1b, NYY; 36.20 Sean Newcomb, SP, ATL;
Guru: 25.03 Albert Almora,OF,CHC; 36.07 Jose Berrios, SP, MIN; 37.13 Brett Phillips, OF, Mil
Jaydog: 31.08 Austin Meadows, OF, PIT; 33.19 Dilson Herrera, 2b, NYM; 36.02 Dansby Swanson, SS, ATL
Judy: 33.13 Robert Stephenson, SP, CIN (1); 37.03 Roman Quinn, OF, PHI
mjd: 24.04 Mark Appel, SP, PHI; 30.17 Lucas Gioloto, P, WAS; 36.08 Jorge Mateo, SS, NYY; 36.15 Brady Aiken, SP, CLE
Nerfherders: 30.07 Clint Frazier, OF, NYY; 36.05 Anderson Espinoza, SP SD; 37.02 Cody Bellinger, 1b, LAD
Peter N: 33.03 Hunter Harvey, SP, BAL
Tree: 32.05 Julio Urias, P, LAD; 33.05 Aaron Judge, OF, NYY 36.04 AJ Reed, 1b, HOU; 36.19 Gleyber Torres, SS, NYY; 37.01 Tim Anderson, SS, CHW (1); 37.15 Carson Fulmer, SP, CHW
Fosten: 34.05 Trea Turner, SS, WAS/SD (1); 36.09 Bradley Zimmer, OF, CLE; 37.06 Archie Bradley, SP, ARI (1)
Slizz:
Species: 36.10 Nick Williams, OF, PHI; 38.02 Eddy Julio Martinez, OF CHC
Khahan: 35.03 Josh Bell, OF, PIT (1); 36.18 Alex Bregman, SS, HOU (1); 37.14 Dominic Smith 1st NYM
Tosh: 23.01 Dylan Bundy,P,BAL (1); 37.12 Anthony Alford, OF, TOR
wg: 32.03 JP Crawford, SS, PHI; 36.01 Brendan Rodgers, SS, COL; 36.17 Victor Robles, OF, WAS;
youngroman: 36.13 Shohei Otani, SP, Hokkaido; 37.10 Cody Reed, SP, CIN; 38.03 Aaron Altherr, OF, PHI
The following managers have had their 2017 Prospect Draft selections altered via trade:
3-16-16 mjd receives slizz' last round prospect pick (Bumgarner / Giolito)
3-20-16 bmd receives Pete's 2nd (2016 pick swap)
3-22-16 Meatwads receives Khahan's 1st (Dozier)
5-15-16 mjd receives Tosh's 1st (Tanaka)
These managers have had their 2017 Supplemental Draft selections altered via trade:
3-19-16 bmd receives Pete's 1st and 2nd (Beltre + 2016 2nd) for his last 2 picks
3-20-16 bmd receives blue hen's 7th for his 9th (2016 pick swap)
5-06-16 bmd receives WG's 3rd for his 12th (Carter)
5-06-16 Meatwads receives Species' 8th for his 14th (Lowrie)
6-02-16 Meatwads receives WG's 5th for his 13th (Crush / Carrasco etc)
6-06-16 bmd receives WG's 6th for his 11th (Calhoun)
6-09-16 slizz receives WG's 2nd for his 3rd (Nunez / Castillo)
6-09-16 Khahan receives Species' 6th for his 10th (Cervelli)
6-12-16 Tree receives WG's 7th for his 9th (Marte/Andrus)
6-22-16 blue hen receives WG's 6th for his 14th (Gray / Estevez)
7-23-16 Jaydog receives Species' 7th for his 12th (Ortiz)
8-01-16 darkside receives Slizz' 4th for his 9th (Pujols)
8-11-16 Pete receives Slizz' 7th for his 12th (Smyly)
8-13-16 WG receives Judy's 8th for his 9th (Sanchez / Markakis)
These managers have had their 2018 Supplemental Draft selections altered via trade:
3-19-16 Great One receives WG's 5th for his 9th (Grichuk / P-Pick)
3-20-16 bmd receives WG's 1st and 4th for his last 2 (Blackmon)
3-23-16 mjd receives WG's 7th for his 10th (Plouffe)
3-23-16 mjd receives Species' 6th for his 9th ('16 pick swap)
6-08-16 Great One receives Species' 5th for his 10th (R. Davis)
6-11-16 bmd receives PeteN's 6th for his 12th (Cingrani)
6-15-16 mjd receives WG's 6th for his 14th (Kang, Pearce)
7-20-16 Tree receives WG's 8th (Jones/Wainwright)
The following managers have had their 2018 Prospect Draft selections altered via trade:
3-20-16 bmd receives WG's 2nd (Blackmon)
5/15/16 mjd receives Tosh's 1st (Tanaka)
Previous Champions
2003 (tie) Ref and StL Cards
2004 Ref
2005 Ref
2006 Beastiemiked
2007 Twarpy
2008 Ref
2009 Peter N
2010 Species
2011 (tie) Species and blue hen
2012 Toral
2013 Wazaaap Guy
2014 blue hen
2015 blue hen
2016 Species
Commissioner:
"Species" gmrobinson1@yahoo.com - "Tosh" lodnar@gmail.com - "Guru" (Treasurer) davehall@rotoguru2.com
Positions
C - 1 1B - 1 2B - 1 3B - 1 SS - 1 OF - 3 DH - 1 P - 6
Active - 15; Bench - 8; Total - 23; Must have active players on roster at each position
Returning Managers
As commissioners, we reserve the right NOT to extend an invitation to (or remove) any manager for any reason. Primary reason for being excluded would be abusive behavior, purposeful rules violations (ie colluding on a trade), inactivity (ie leaving injured/OUT players in as starters or not actively trying to improve your team), not participating in league business or repeated delays/unresponsive, or failure to pay your share of league fees. If an owner is removed or NOT invited back, a new owner will be recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state. All monies will be forfeited.
Trade Policy
If there are 7 votes against the trade it will be sent to the commishs to be vetoed. There will be a min. of one full day to vote before the trade will be approved if the max objections are not reached. Everyone will be emailed by ESPN automatically as soon as the trade is accepted so they may review it. Make sure your email notifications are set up! Please check the site daily.
Trades involving draft picks/prospects will be listed in the trade and can also be posted on our leagues bulletin board and/or our thread at rotoguru.com. Note that off-season and pre-season (before draft is complete) trades will still be approved by the commishs.
Trades for draft picks - be they Supplemental or Prospect picks - may only be consummated within two drafts from the date of the trade. Example: in March 2015 before the Supplemental Draft, one can only trade either 2015 or 2016 picks. In June 2015, one could trade either 2016 or 2017 picks, etc.
Trade deadline - the trade deadline is the last day in August available in the ESPN website.
Minimums for GP and IP:
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1375 GP by hitters over the course of a season. For each 15 games of shortfall, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 games of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1200 IP over the course of a season. For every shortfall of 15 IP, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 IP of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
GP and IP demerits will be combined for each team.
If a team finishes “in the money” for prize pool purposes (ranked 1-6), then demerits will be ignored.
For lottery teams, the following penalties will be applied to every pick in the next year’s supplement draft:
If a team accumulates more than 10 demerits, then it will be removed from the lottery and assigned the 14th pick in all rounds (i.e., behind all lottery teams, but ahead of any prize pool teams.)
For teams with less than 10 demerits, that team is pushed forward one place in the supplemental draft rankings for each demerit. For example, if a team finishes in last place (20th) and has 5 demerits, then that team will be treated in the draft rankings as though it finished in 15th place (and the teams actually finishing in places 16-20 will each move down one place.)
If more than one lottery team has a demerit, then the lottery rankings will be successively applied starting with the worst finisher and then moving up to the next worst finisher, etc.
Keepers
There will be 9 players available to be kept heading into the season. You will have a deadline to post your keepers. You may change your keepers up until the deadline.
Players drafted in the Rule 4 draft the previous June are not eligible to be kept as keepers. This rule applies even if that player has played in the major leagues. All Rule 4 draftees must go through at least one Prospect Draft prior to being eligible as keepers.
2016 Prize Pool
There are 19 of 20 people in the prize pool @ $15 each. That means there is $285 to distribute. Teams are required to always be in it or out of it once they committed to it in 2005. These will be the payouts: 1st $110; 2nd 65; 3rd 45; 4th 30; 5th 20; 6th 15. If a non-participant places 1st-6th, his money will be reallocated so there is always a 100% payout. 1st-5th place will be moved up a spot in the prize money and the 6th place $15 will go to the treasury to help defray dues costs to all. Dues are used to pay for the league champion trophy and draft.
Supplemental and Prospect Draft Lotteries:
The lotteries for both the Supplemental and Prospect Drafts will be conducted within 30 days of the end of the previous season.
Timing of the Keeper Deadline, Prospect Draft and Supplemental Draft
Each March, as proposed by a Commissioner, the league hold the following events, in this order:
1) Keeper Deadline: all teams must designate their keepers. They may designate up to 9.
NOTE: At this time, once the Keeper Deadline has passed, managers may also call up prospects to their active roster. In this scenario, those prospects are separate from their 9 keepers.
ADDITIONALLY: Once the keeper deadline has passed, managers may exceed 9 or more players by trade.
2) Prospect Keeper Deadline: Managers designate their Prospect Keepers. They may designate up to 3.
3) Prospect draft picks are assigned and the Prospect Draft is commenced per our rules below.
4) The Supplemental Draft is completed.
Supplemental Draft, FA Pickups and Waivers
The Draft will be held prior to every season after Keepers are announced. A "NBA style" lottery will determine the top three selections. The lottery for the following season will be completed within 30 days of the end of regular season. Picks 4 - 20 and all picks in subsequent rounds will be in inverse order of previous years finish and will not snake.
Players must be available in the ESPN player pool to be drafted or added during the season via FA or WW. No amateur player may be drafted or picked up via FA or WW if the player in question still has amateur status or is a prospect. Also, if a player is drafted in the June MLB draft, while he may be freely picked up and used on a roster, please note that per our keeper rules they may not be kept the following season. All Rule 4 draftees must go through one Prospect Draft before they become keeper eligible.
There is a 3 hour per draft pick time limit and a cumulative time limit of 12 hours. (Subject to change). You may not exceed 23 players. You may not drop a player (or add a non-drafted player if you are short) until waivers have been turned on. You may trade for extra picks and you may trade your excess picks as long as it is done before the preceeding pick has been made. If you make a duplicate pick, the draft will continue and you may correct that pick at any time. Once you have been skipped, you will continue to be skipped until you are caught up. If a clock runs out, the next person on the clock will be charged for any time before his pick. If you are skipped due to a pick or c clock, you may still post your selection at any time.
Waivers will begin the season in the same order as the supplemental draft. Lottery picks and traded draft picks will not be considered when determining the waiver order.
Prospect Rules
Prospect Draft: The Prospect Draft will be held during the preseason after keepers are finalized (but before the Supplemental Draft). Drafts will be in inverse order of the final standings of the previous year and will not snake. A "NBA style" lottery will determine the top three selections. The lottery for the following season will be completed within 30 days of the end of regular season. Picks 4 - 20 and all picks in subsequent rounds will be in inverse order and will not snake. Players will be selected on our thread at rotoguru.com if possible. If that site is down, our draft will continue on the bulletin board of our page if we have knowledge of all picks selected previously. Ties will be broken by a dice roll. There will be up to 3 rounds.
A draft-eligible prospect is defined as a hitter that has less than 150 Major League at bats or a pitcher with less than both 55 Major League innings pitched and 20 Major League games pitched. Further, to be eligible, the player must be a professional baseball player, defined as one of the following:
- Under contract with a MLB team's system. This does not require them to have been assigned to a minor league team at the time of the draft.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Japan's Nippon Professional Baseball (NPB) league.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Korea's Korean Baseball Organization (KBO) league.
- A professional player playing in/having played in Cuba's top professional league, the Serie Nacional.
Amateur players in High School, College or otherwise subject to the Rule 4 draft are not eligible.
There will be a 3 hour per pick clock and a 4 hour cumulative clock to draft. If you are skipped, you may make your selection at any time. Time will not accrue from midnight to 8 am ET, though anyone may select during that time if their pick is up. Once the draft concludes, the only way to add a prospect is via trade or future drafts. After the draft, you may bring this player on your active roster at any time (as long as hes in the ESPN database) by dropping a player.
Managers may call-up and then send down their prospect up to two times without losing their rights as a prospect as long as that player has not hit the maximum ABs/IP/GP threshold. Once a commish allows the call-up, he will add the number of times that player has been called-up next to his name in the Prospect List below. At the end of the season, all prospects on the roster will be considered optioned so they won't have to be counted as a keeper so long as they have not hit their threshold. Before a commish will option or send-down a prospect, he will look at the stats for that player including games played that day if the lineup freeze has passed. If a prospect is renounced or hits his threshold while on your roster (called up), his name will be removed from your prospect list.
All prospects are listed above. It is each managers responsibility to alert a commish when your prospect is entered into the ESPN database so an email alert can be attached.
Before the season at the keeper deadline all hitters must have less than 300 ABs and pitchers less than 110 IP or 40 GP or they must be moved to your active roster or released. Managers must monitor their own prospects. If they are later to have found to be over the max. at that deadline, the player will be immediately removed as a prospect and put on waivers.
At the prospect draft keeper deadline, all managers must have no more than 3 keepers on their prospect list. They may keep all three or none as long as none have been traded, (see below) but they will only get as many draft picks as it takes to max their prospects at three, barring a trade.
Prospect draft picks are assigned after your prospect keepers are announced. So if you have 3 prospect keepers, you dont have a prospect draft pick to trade. You may trade a pick at any time, but if you have traded a prospect draft pick, you may only declare two keepers. If youve traded two picks, you can only keep one and if youve traded all three, you may keep none. Once prospects have been declared and draft picks assigned, a manager may again exceed three prospects via trade.
Alphabetical list of Prospects:
Brady Aiken
Ozhaino Albies
Anthony Alford
Albert Almora
Aaron Altherr
Tim Anderson
Mark Appel
Franklin Barreto
Josh Bell
Cody Bellinger
Andrew Benintendi
Jose Berrios
Greg Bird
Bobby Bradley
Alex Bregman
Dylan Bundy
JP Crawford
David Dahl
Jose DeLeon
Rafael Devers
Anderson Espinoza
Lucius Fox
Clint Frazier
Carson Fulmer
Lucas Giolito
Nick Gordon
Hunter Harvey
Aaron Judge
Max Kepler
Kenta Maeda
Francis Martes
Eddy Julio Martinez
Jorge Mateo
Ryan McMahon
Austin Meadows
Yoan Moncada
Raul Mondesi
Sean Newcomb
Matt Olson
Shohei Otani
Byung-Ho Park
Brett Phillips
Roman Quinn
AJ Reed
Cody Reed
Victor Robles
Brendan Rogers
Dominic Smith
Tyler Stephenson
Robert Stephenson
Gleyber Torres
Trea Turner
Julio Urias
Nick Williams
Bradley Zimmer
|
|
| | | 379 | slizz
ID: 3556212
Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 13:03
|
Congratulations Species on a hard fought championship. You loaded up with 2016 in mind and executed to perfection. I know it was a fight to the end, but it was hard fought and well-earned. Congratulations!
Slizz's G20 Recap:
I entered 2016 as a guy who hoped to compete for a top 5 finish. That all changed when MJD messaged me with heavy interest in a Lucas Giolito deal. Honestly? I wasn't gonna do it until realizing how stupid I was to throw away an opportunity at a potential championship. I always envisioned JF16 and Lucas anchoring my staff as an unstoppable force for the next 7-8 years. This deal gave me what amounted to 11 keepers in exchange for Giolito and future assets.
I gave up a chance to land my boy, Victor Robles, in the prospect draft and went "all-in" knowing I would still be projected for a 2nd or 3rd finish (behind species and BH)...that said, thought I could dominate pitching enough to maybe squeak in!
Preseason Trade Recaps
-Strasburg for Stroman, Gausman, Profar, Rusney
Safe to say Tree obliterated me in this trade longterm...mainly because Gausman proved to be a frontline ace and obtained some valuable keeper depth in the meantime. However, Strasburg gave me the wins, ratios, and strikeouts to lead me to a 2016 pennant, which is what its all about.
Longterm Tree is well positioned with 3/4 guys.
-Puig for Adam Jones & Aaron Judge
Good lord did I hose myself here. You couldn't even trade Puig for either straight up right about now. However, I don't have a problem with the trade and I would've done it again. Puig had that tantalizing upside but it appears that scouting and pitchers have figured him out. Can't win em all.
-Lucas Giolito & 2 prospect picks for Gregory Polanco & Madison Bumgarner
Heyward was too expensive and Polanco was more of a upside play. Needless to say I made the right move there in terms of getting Polanco instead of Heyward. Longterm, depending what MJD does with his prospects will determine the winner of this deal.
Regular Season
First half of the season went better than I could've expected, I was rolling in pitching and sputtering in the middle with hitting...it didn't matter, I was consistently low 160's.
The good:
Jose
Madbum
Strasburg
Nearly everytime they came to the mound, it was a win with excellent ratios and strikeouts. It was no coincidence that I went to the top with ERA, WHIP, & Wins and was on a pace that seemed that even with a slip up week here and there, I would still crush the competition.
Wade Davis churned along closing out games with his usual excellence
My hitters did their part to keep me at the top. They didn't do anything extraordinary...but they didn't stink it up either. On base was consistent, stolen bases towards the top, and as long as my hitting didn't tank, I would be ok with my pitching dominating.
My 4/5 in Corbin / Nelson weren't terrible. They were nerve-wracking, but they managed to keep it around 3-4 ER and didn't hurt my ratios a ton. (usually a QS and sub 1.30 WHIP). Combine those innings eaters with my thoroughbreds, I was looking great. Projected as +65 IP going into the ASB.
Second half was where it all fell apart:
There is a reason for this - Papelbon!
After trading for Papelbon, his stink carried over to Team Slizz and exited Judy's clubhouse. I made the trade mid-July...the wheels proceeded to come off the weeks after...lol
My closers, collectively, imploded all at once:
Herrera
Papelbon
Davis
Watson
Cingrani
Gave up a combined 24 ER in under 3 innings. Think about that for a second. Even if I threw 97 shutout innings after that, my ERA would still be 2.40, at best, for that 100 inning sample.
Jose, Madbum, and Strasburg couldn't figure out how to win...even vs teams like the Braves, Phillies, and Padres!
Pre-last week of July cumulative ERA / WHIP - 3.14 / 1.14
last week of July ERA / WHIP - 4.37 / 1.37
August ERA - 5.24 / 1.48
September ERA - 4.55 / 1.24
I had a commanding lead in both categories by .40something ERA and .08 WHIP and a generous 15-20 win lead. I thought no way that would evaporate even with week or so correction. When species talks about it being a ridiculous and unprecedented fall...he wasn't lying.
I made a trade for Pujols to buoy my RBI's / HR Total after losing out on Big Papi Ortiz. Boy did it help, but my HR totals never went up as I hoped. My RBI's went from from 12 to 20 and never looked back...something I never expected. I just thought I could get to 12 in HR to accompany the RBI rise...
When I reflect on what could've been, it comes down to my pitching. It was a 6 point swing that I never anticipated would happen. If I held serve, even with a minor correction, I would've finished with 171 to species' 167.
Let me be clear, that is not to take anything away from Species masterful job. He made the trades starting in 2014. Made more in the preseason. Made timely moves in-season and got the counting stats. I knew that and expected him to slowly rise to the top. I just thought my pitching would be enough to hold him off...in the end, he stayed consistent from beginning to the end. Me? I was a marathon runner at a great speed only to hit the runners wall around the 22 mile mark.
JOSE
RIP my friend. You were my favorite player to watch and own. No way I was ever trading you, unless it was for Mike Trout or Bryce Harper straight up.
One cannot replace a guy like Jose Fernandez. He was truly once in a generation player and nobody ever did it as good as he did given his age / time of service in MLB history. All fans, fantasy and casual, will be left wondering what could've been.
The Future
Losing Jose is a loss that just wont be replaced. I was planning to go into 2017 with 7 surefire top 30 players:
1B - Hosmer
3B - Arenado
SS - Correa
OF - Polanco
SP - Jose
SP - Strasburg
SP - Madbum
-----
3B/UT - Rendon (top 50)
RP - Wade Davis (top closer)
Its only 6 now, but I want to shake it up a bit.
I was texting Tree and I could field a potential top 10 team with my non-keepers:
1B - Pujols
2B - Hernan Perez
3B - Gurriel
OF - Ellsbury
OF - Domingo Santana
SP - Manaea
SP - Smyly
RP - Oh
RP - Watson / Cabrera / Herrera
I only post this as a hint that I'm open for business. For those looking for an upgrade (Pujols - 100 RBI's and 30+ HR) or keeper with upside (Santana, Perez, Manaea, etc), consider shopping with Slizz :P
|
|
| | | 380 | slizz
ID: 3556212
Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 13:19
|
I wanted to make a second post regarding the Meatwads situation. While I understand that one needs to do what is the best interest of their own team, as a member of G20, you also have an obligation to the other 19 members. That's the way I operate (my message is consistent on the G24 football boards as well regarding an issue like this dating back to 2014) and will continue to operate.
Also consider this perspective: if Meatwads simply timed his daily lineups to perfectly meet minimums on Sunday October 4th (the last day of the season) instead of Sunday September 25th, would anyone be up in arms? He would have accomplished the same number of GP and IP......he just would have looked nicer doing so
He didn't and it could've jeopardized the integrity at the top (it didn't this year).
There is an easy fix to this:
Once you've hit the minimum #'s, just field an active lineup.
It doesn't mean that you have to switch it up and stream catchers / pitchers etc. Don't make it so obvious that you hit your minimums and shut it down. Build for the future for all I care and pickup prospects / 2017 speculative adds.
This opens the door to every team saying "f it, let me get a better draft pick" during the last weeks of the season. If that ever happened (where multiple teams did this), G20 would die. That is not something that any of us would want.
Each owner has an obligation to the league, and if that negligence (like Meatwads stunt) alters a championship, it should come with severe consequences. Like I said in a previous post, it has no place in any league...even if the rules allow it.
|
|
| | | 381 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Oct 05, 2016, 14:00
|
Team Blue Hen 2016 Report
As lackluster as Team Blue Hen was in 2016, the team's monthly reports were even worse. I failed to keep all of you updated, entertained, and challenged. Maybe I'll most more next year. Maybe not.
The 2016 season certainly failed to live up to expectations for Team BH. After dominating in 2014 and 2015, this year was supposed to bridge the gap to the next contending team, and easily win a championship on its own.
This season came down to one thing: pitching. The hitting was world class (91 points), but it came down to pitching. Obviously, I knew this and attempted to capture pitching points wherever possible. Relief pitching was great, with Zach Britton, the best closer in baseball in 2016, and Chad Allen, who was elite and even managed to hold off an acquired superstar. But starting pitching was the issue. Here are some players I owned and tried to own.
Gerrit Cole and Jake Odorizzi
Cole was acquired for Prince Fielder in 2013, and Odorizzi was plucked up after following him for years. Both are young and potential cornerstones for years. After good 2015 seasons, both struggled in 2016, Cole was probably injured, and Odorizzi finished strong, giving plenty of hope for both in 2017.
Chris Sale and Jake Arrieta
Both were traded away in the Miguel Cabrera deal prior to 2015. Both would have helped this year, but it's hard to argue with Miggy after a big comeback year. Eventually, he'll get old, but for 2017, I am happy to own Miggy.
David Price
The last player left that was inherited back in 2008, I figured Price would struggle in Boston. He did, a bit, but finished well. Either way, I am happy to have included him in the deal that netted Donaldson.
Lance McCullers
Picked him up at the right time in 2015, but couldn't find a way to keep him. Thankfully he was only mediocre in 2016, but has a bright future. He was the #1 overall pick in the S draft, so I should have traded him. I almost did trade him for...
Zack Greinke
Was looking to deal McCullers and Odorizzi for Greinke in March, but Khahan wanted more. Of course, all three players struggled in 2016, so it wound up not mattering. Greinke could bounce back, but so could Odorizzi.
Jose Berrios and Jose De Leon
Took both in the p-draft (lost Moncada to get Berrios) and expected big time performance in 2016, for most of the year. Both were in the minors for a long time, and not great when called up. I kept the right guy, and De Leon is going to be a sweet 10th keeper next year.
Eduardo Rodriguez
When I missed out on Quintana, Hendricks, and Drew Storen in the draft, I figured ERod was a great pick. And he was, but he was injured and terrible early on and I dropped him right before he got great.
Alex Wood, Scott Kazmir, Phil Hughes
Oops
Daniel Mengden
Nope
Sonny Gray, Adam Wainwright, Jon Lester
Two of them were terrible. Lester looks like a 2017 keeper, and despite the high price (Moncada), hard to complain there.
So in short, pitching. And short of pitching.
That's all for now - more about other teams coming.
|
|
| | | 382 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 11:44
|
I'd like to bring up the GP/IP limits again now that the season is over. It looks like 7 teams failed to get to the limit in either GP or IP. Based on the rules we voted for last year, demerits should be calculated as such (I'm using team names here, so apologies).
Munson = 10+ (not even close)
Giancarlo = 1
JayDog = 3
FortWorth = 2
Khahan = 5
GO = 4
darkside = 1
(This was quickly done. Please feel free to check my math.)
The question is what to do with these numbers? Munson is out of the lottery completely because of the 10+ demerits. The rest of the teams move back at varying degrees, such that they tie themselves and other teams. So, do we put them in order and re-sort? That actually gives Fort Worth a *better* draft position. Or do we give those teams a number of lottery balls commensurate with their adjusted placing? The rules on this are not clear.
I am still in favor of lowering the GP limit. It was a daily struggle to make sure I could hit it. I was using *both* catchers for the Cincinnati Reds, and actually had an alert on my phone when their daily lineup was posted so I could make sure I had the right starter in. I also had a bunch of bench hitters I would have otherwise not had to waste a roster spot on, trying to fill every off day with a starter. All of that got me about 40-45 GP. Without that streaming, I wouldn't have come close to the limit, and I don't think a team should have to go to those extremes just to reach the GP limit.
|
|
| | | 383 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 14:48
|
Here is the rule. Last paragraph tells how to apply demerits:
Minimums for GP and IP:
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1375 GP by hitters over the course of a season. For each 15 games of shortfall, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 games of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
A team must accumulate a minimum of 1200 IP over the course of a season. For every shortfall of 15 IP, a team is assigned one demerit. Demerits will be integer values only. Thus, a team with 1-15 IP of shortfall will receive one demerit, 16-30 will receive 2 demerits, etc.
GP and IP demerits will be combined for each team.
If a team finishes “in the money” for prize pool purposes (ranked 1-6), then demerits will be ignored.
For lottery teams, the following penalties will be applied to every pick in the next year’s supplement draft:
If a team accumulates more than 10 demerits, then it will be removed from the lottery and assigned the 14th pick in all rounds (i.e., behind all lottery teams, but ahead of any prize pool teams.)
For teams with less than 10 demerits, that team is pushed forward one place in the supplemental draft rankings for each demerit. For example, if a team finishes in last place (20th) and has 5 demerits, then that team will be treated in the draft rankings as though it finished in 15th place (and the teams actually finishing in places 16-20 will each move down one place.)
If more than one lottery team has a demerit, then the lottery rankings will be successively applied starting with the worst finisher and then moving up to the next worst finisher, etc.
Here are the standings from <376> with demerits
01 00 Endangered Species
02 00 Thank You, Jose.
03 00 Roto Guru
04 00 Blue Hen
05 00 Wazaaap Guy
06 00 youngroman's Luschen
07 00 Team Tosh
08 10 Munson Mobsters
09 01 Giancarlo Inc
10 00 Bean's Rockies
11 03 Jay Dog
12 00 Mighty Meatwads
13 02 Fort Worth House Martins
14 06 Khahans Keepers
15 05 GO's Gaslight Anthem
16 01 darkside of the moon
17 00 Sam n Max G
18 00 ScruffyLookin' Nerfherders
19 00 beastiemike d
20 00 Team mjd
Standings with demerits applied given my rule interpretation:
01 00 Endangered Species
02 00 Thank You, Jose.
03 00 Roto Guru
04 00 Blue Hen
05 00 Wazaaap Guy
06 00 youngroman's Luschen
07 00 Munson Mobsters
08 00 Khahans Keepers
09 00 Jay Dog
10 00 GO's Gaslight Anthem
11 00 Giancarlo Inc
12 00 Team Tosh
13 00 Fort Worth House Martins
14 00 Bean's Rockies
15 00 darkside of the moon
16 00 Mighty Meatwads
17 00 Sam n Max G
18 00 ScruffyLookin' Nerfherders
19 00 beastiemike d
20 00 Team mjd
|
|
| | | 384 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 17:22
|
The wording does make it sound like it's a 'drop and re-sort' action being applied, which is fine, though confusing when several teams end up tied. Do tied teams end up in the same order of their original order? Do teams who had no demerits, now tied in rankings, move ahead of teams with demerits, or stay behind them? (And when I say ahead, I mean ahead in lottery ranking order, 1 being the worst team).
|
|
| | | 385 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 16:38
|
I'm definitely in a favor of a rule that punishes clearly active owners, who fielded players every day, yet rewards owners who intentionally tank and bench all players for the season's final two weeks.
/sarcasm
Using gp as an indicator of owner activity is absurd.
|
|
| | | 386 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Fri, Oct 07, 2016, 22:51
|
Using GP and IP as an indicator of staying active is not absurd. Having mins proved out to be beneficial this year. With that said, I don't agree with benching your entire lineup once you hit minimums. Call me stupid, but that goes against the spirit of competition and I personally would never tank (maybe that's why I haven't won in baseball since 2009?). Either way, this is an elite league and I look forward to making sure bh doesn't win next year!
|
|
| | | 387 | Species
ID: 46252312
Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 11:59
|
384: Good questions.
I will need to re-read the rule, but my initial reaction is....a team that finished worse in the standings would have a "tiebreaker" or the preferred priority for the higher lottery seeding when they end up tied after the assignment of demerits.
We may need to clarify the rule....and apply demerits in the order of reverse finish and let it play out in that fashion.
|
|
| | | 388 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 12:30
|
We voted in the rule that created the loophole. Now let's pass one that closes it.
I know it's hard to anticipate unintended consequences, but that's always the risk with an untried new rule. Fix one problem, create another.
|
|
| | | 389 | mjd
ID: 56311613
Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 12:43
|
Also I think the demerits need to be applied once the draft order is set. Losing draft spots was to be the consequence of the penalty, no?
|
|
| | | 390 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Oct 08, 2016, 15:56
|
388 - more rules create more loopholes. Again I ask - If the spirit of the rules is to make sure managers are staying active is it even needed in this league?
I fell behind on IP because I had a number of injuries to my pitching staff and quite frankly most days the pickings on the waiver wire were either pitchers on minor league lists or pitchers/match ups I wouldn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. But I was not inactive.
The people who are concerned about me falling under the IP limit as a sign of inactivity should also be concerned about players in the bigs that were left on minor league rosters. BUT the reality is - if the manager is active these results some people complain about are the results of active decision making. I was in multiple times a week, every week looking at probable starters, looking at relievers etc. I CHOSE not to make moves most days. Now I'm being punished by a rule (that I did know about) that is designed to encourage activity but the reality is - it only encourages visible activity. Its stated goal of punishing inactive managers is not being reached. In fact its having the opposite effect. Again I ask - are there managers in G20 that we are so concerned about that we need this rule? And if there are...why are they in G20? I've asked that question more than once and have not gotten an answer. Its not rhetorical. I would really like to know.
There should be no need for minimums in this league. And if there is a need for minimums then I think the answer is to address the situation with the individual managers that are causing concern. I know I was under mins. I'll gladly hold my daily activity up to the microscope, though.
|
|
| | | 391 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 14:03
|
Some relevant data:
Fewest roster moves (non add/drop/trade) in 2016.
Jaydog 192
Fosten 239
Khahan 280
Nerf 288
Tree 308
GO 323
Everyone else is over 400, led by Meatwads at 950, and 5 other teams over 570.
To cherrypick one point of context, Roman and Tosh combined for 36 add/drops but over 900 internal moves.
Anyway just some context. I agree that we are probably better with a rule like before ("be competitive, whatever that means") that a specific demerit system.
How inactive is too inactive? Jaydog only made 9 adds, but did move his roster around 192 times. That's about once a day on balance. But 39 of them (plus 3 adds and 1 trade) came after July 1st, so he clearly wasn't as engaged late in the season. Is that active enough?
For once, I'm not trying to judge here. I'm trying to get a sense of what the league wants. Is that level of activity enough for us? Was Jaydog active enough for us? What if there was a personal reason for it?
And Jaydog's not the only one. Fosten's near the bottom of both the adds and the moves lists, and just made the one trade on July 9. Where do we draw the line?
|
|
| | | 392 | Khahan
ID: 469451014
Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 15:45
|
That's kind of my point though, Blue Hen - a lack of moves is not necessarily indicative of a lack of involvement. There were many, many days I went in and made a conscious decision not to make a move (usually for pitchers as a streaming option) because the choices I had were horrible.
Think of it like a trade offer - you make a trade offer to me. I reject it so no trade is made. Were either of us inactive? Isn't that very different than you making an offer and never receiving a response?
I'm not sure where all this started. I know in the pre-season I simply made an inquiry for clarification and shortly after that the whole debate about changing occurred. If there was any connection to my inquiry and the rules change I never intended for that. I just wanted to make sure I understood the old rules properly to play by them. To be honest, I think the old rules with the 'active line up' were much better than the current rules with the forced minimums.
Any time the decision for a manager is, "do something that hurts my team now or not doing something that hurts my team later" there is a problem. Basically what I'm being told with the demerits for 'inactivity' is that thru out the season I should have chosen to stream pitchers who I think had crap match ups and would have gotten destroyed in era/whip with little chance for good k's or a W. This league is so deep and options are so thin that is exactly what happened most days.
I was aware of the mins, aware I was under them and an not trying to say the punishment shouldn't apply this year. But my god, the system is NOT working as intended.
|
|
| | | 393 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 10:50
|
390, 391, 392.
exactly. exactly. exactly.
i was active. i made sure my roster was set almost every day of the season. i never purposely benched my line up, i never ignored my line up, i checked in using the app when i was on vacation, and so forth.
GP isn't an indicator. it just becomes another stat you're chasing if you're worried about losing placement in a draft.
it seems simple enough. this is a fantastic, wonderful, competitive league.
this league is filled with very smart players, some of the best i've played against in my life, and it's reasonable that i've been playin fantasy ball for longer than anyone else here (going back to tabletop games like APBA in the 70s, to an old USA Today fantasy game where i had to check the box scores every morning in the late 1980s to the present online games).
because of that, the league should be able to judge when someone is inactive. i've played in other leagues, where the decision at the end of the season was simple - if someone abandoned their team, they were out. in this league, if it's clear someone isn't playing, then we contact them midseason and see what their intent is, and go from there.
a demerit system is juvenile. period.
...my god, the system is NOT working as intended.
|
|
| | | 394 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 21:11
|
382 and 383:
I have the following calculations for number of demerits (in reverse order of finish):
darkside 1 - 10 innings short
Great One 5 - 13 games short (1) and 52 innings short (4)
Khahan 6 - 15 games short (1) and 74 innings short (5)
Tree 2 - 28 games short
Jaydog 3 - 23 games short (2) and 11 innings short (1)
Pete N 1 - 13 games short
Fosten 18
Please review and advise if any of your calculations differ from mine. I see I was different than Nerf but on par with Bean.
The key verbiage of what is applied when is:
If more than one lottery team has a demerit, then the lottery rankings will be successively applied starting with the worst finisher and then moving up to the next worst finisher, etc.
So, as I applied it, I did the following:
1 - Noticed mjd, bmd, Nerf and Judy, the last 4 finishers, had no demerits.
2 - realized darkside was the worst finisher with demerits. He slid from 5th in the lottery to 6th. Interestingly, a team that also had demerits, Great One, benefitted from this and gained that one spot.
3 - Great One was the next worst finisher. He had already moved to 5th.......so with 5 demerits he moved from 5th to 10th. Ironically, this results in darkside receiving no penalty ultimately.
4 - Khahan was the next worst finisher. He has 6 demerits and moved from 6th (benefited from GO's drop) to 12th.
5 - Tree was the next worse finisher. He has 2 demerits. He is seeded 6th at this point (originally 8th) and drops to 8th.
6 - Jaydog was next. He has 3 demerits. Sitting 7th, he drops to 10th.
7 - Pete is next with 1 demerit. He drops from 11th to 12th.
8 - Fosten has 10+ demerits and is then dropped to 14th and is banned from the lottery. He was seeded 13th and drops 1 spot.
-----------------------
End result:
- Meatwads (with no demerits) gained 3 spots.
- Tree actually ends up gaining 1 spot (lol).
- Great One drops 2.
- Bean gains 2.
- Jaydog stayed the same.
- Khahan lost 4.
- Pete stayed the same.
- Tosh gained one.
- Fosten lost one and is out of the lottery.
|
|
| | | 395 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 21:12
|
So, based upon the above, it is clear that even a rule with great intentions can have unintended consequences.
That result, in and of itself, does not mean that the entire rule is garbage. Sure, it probably means an adjustment is in order, but I need everyone to keep their focus on our intent and make your arguments accordingly.
I DO NOT WANT a metaphorical Presidential Election-like series of memes or "A HA!! See! I told you this wouldn't work! You suck! I was right! Muh waaa ahhhh ahhhh" style headline grabbing perspectives. Let's try to be productive.
----------------------
My personal viewpoint is that some level of limits is a good thing. Some of the most vocal outcries against this rule are from those that are the newest. That observation is in no way to be interpreted as those newer managers' opinions mean less - far from it (I encourage new, untainted viewpoints). That being said, those of us that have experienced more and more inactivity and lack of attention over recent years have a greater buildup of frustration over that inactivity, and thus are a bit more attached to the concept.
We see the final results of the demerit system above. What else did we see this year? We saw the highest activity, the greatest competition for the best players off the waiver wire, and one of the more tightly contested finishes in recent memory. I felt that on a daily basis.
------------------
The calls to go back to the old system are painful for me because I am the one that has to write that email to guys I have known for a LONG time - in one case it was since before the turn of the century. IT SUCKS A$$ to have to go to someone and tell them their activity and attention to this league isn't good enough.
It is very subjective. To one manager I tried to ask out of the league, him showing up to the draft, making roster moves daily and finishing in the top half of the league was good enough. On the other hand, that manager made something like 4 or 5 posts in the league thread in 12 months......made NO trades.......made NO trade inquiries that I ever heard of (and I asked around).....made maybe 5 free agent moves.......and was slow to completely unresponsive to emails and trades.
Absent calling out someone publicly (NOT a fan), it is awful to have to police. While I hope people see my actions as commissioner to always be in the best interests of the league, the problem there is that my thoughts of what is best are based upon how *I* choose to act in the league. *MY* standards. And they are high. That doesn't necessarily jibe with perfectly legitimate owners who play for the fun and camaraderie as compared to my Ricky Bobby / Talladega Nights motto of: "If you're not first, you're LAST!".
Moral to the story: it is very difficult to craft the rules of the league to fit all of the managers and their styles of play. We as a league do the best we can.
|
|
| | | 396 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 23:36
|
Thanks Species. I think your example further strengthens the case AGAINST a demerit system. The manager in question came in, made the minimums but nothing else. Minimal posts, no trade offers extended or responded. I'm willing to bet next year's entry fee that myself, Tree and GO were all more active in the league by every other measure other than IP/GP than this particular manager and all 3 of us got demerits.
While I sympathize with the conundrums of commishing a league with long time friends and players (having done so myself in many leagues on these boards), isn't the conversation you are concerned about coming up either way? Either people get frustrated at inaction and the active players leave or people get apathetic and believe its ok because they aren't asked to leave when it happens.
Maybe we should ask managers who have felt apathetic the past year to kindly step out with no hard feelings with the understanding that if they leave on those terms and get the fire back they are on a short list for reinstatement? I'm just thinking of my own situation years ago. I joined up for about 1 1/2 seasons and left because of apathy. I had burnt out on fantasy baseball and didn't feel it was fair to the rest of the league or right for me to be in this league. Perhaps put the request out there with the understanding that anybody who doesn't take you up on it and doesn't follow thru with an active season next season will be removed and not get on that short list?
Just an option to consider if there truly are managers who are apathetic and uninterested. And if there aren't....well I go back to one of my earlier points - why the need for the rule in the first place?
|
|
| | | 397 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 13:02
|
<394> So, this is the new draft order?
01 Team mjd
02 beastiemike d
03 ScruffyLookin' Nerfherders
04 Sam n Max G
05 darkside of the moon
06 Mighty Meatwads
07 Fort Worth House Martins
08 GO's Gaslight Anthem
09 Bean's Rockies
10 Jay Dog
11 Khahans Keepers
12 Giancarlo Inc
13 Team Tosh
14 Munson Mobsters
15 youngroman's Luschen
16 Wazaaap Guy
17 Blue Hen
18 Roto Guru
19 Thank You, Jose.
20 Endangered Species
|
|
| | | 398 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 22:25
|
I was against the demerit system until I realized how much it increased my activity when I would've totally phoned in the last two months. September is absolutely brutal when you have NOTHING to play for. I wasn't a huge fan of having to rotate players in and out but I wouldn't have had that issue if I wouldn't have missed so many starts on off days in April and May. Heck, I think I went 2-3 weeks without a catcher in May.
I still made it past the limits with several GP's to spare. Also note, I had Alex Reyes and Alex Cobb the entire season. They combined for 68 innings pitched so there's plenty of roster space available to still stash injured players or minor league studs.
I don't think the one's against the demerits realize how bad some teams can phone it in. Before the demerits there were rebuilding teams that literally had 9 healthy players in their starting lineup and the rest of their team were either minor leaguers or guys out with full season injuries. The commish and other managers were constantly policing these teams. They were active but active in trying to pick up the long shot minor league keeper, not active in trying to improve any of their stats for this year.
Bottomline, this year wasn't perfect. However, I think it was an improvement from years past. I think a lot of teams fell under the threshold because they didn't realize how high they were until it was too late. Next year, if we keep these limits, I bet only 1-2 teams get a demerit.
|
|
| | | 399 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 13:30
|
Tree actually ends up gaining 1 spot (lol).
best system ever!!!! it rules!!!
ok. seriously. obviously the system doesn't work as intended.
i'm wondering if there is a way to measure daily line up changes, trades, waiver/free agent pick ups, and so forth to counter balance demerits "earned" for missing IP/GP minimums.
that being said, i'd personally have no problem asking someone to leave a league who wasn't trying. i have commished plenty of leagues, and it sucks, but it's part of the gig, and you get over it.
also on a personal level, i've never mailed it in. i've never felt there was nothing to play for in September - i always want to finish as high in the standings as possible even if it has an adverse effect on my draft position.
just my two cents, but to sum up i feel as if trades, FA/Waiver moves, and line up changes should play an important role in measuring activity.
|
|
| | | 400 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 13:57
|
Okay - let's do a straw poll. Nothing official.
What is your opinion on the Minimum GP/IP system? Choose one:
1) System is great. Limits are fine as they are.
2) System is fine, but the limits should be lowered.
3) System is poor and should be eliminated.
|
|
| | | 401 | GO
ID: 388562222
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 17:59
|
2) Lower limits
|
|
| | | 402 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 18:40
|
1) System is great. Limits are fine as they are.
|
|
| | | 403 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 20:48
|
OFFSEASON TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
Slizz trades:
Madison Bumgarner, SP, SF
Nerf trades:
Byron Buxton, OF, MIN
Robbie Ray, SP, ARI
|
|
| | | 404 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 20:56
|
2) Lower limits. My suggestion is 1350 for GP. I would also institute what Guru suggested and give a free pass on the first two demerits.
That should hopefully lower the amount of teams caught out on limits.
|
|
| | | 405 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 20:56
|
Oh good timing.. Confirmed!
|
|
| | | 406 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 20:58
|
Wow.
I love the ballsy early trading!
Team Species has SIX quality pitchers and is only likely to keep 3 or 4:
Jacob deGrom
Aaron Sanchez
Masahiro Tanaka
Jose Quintana
Mark Melancon
AJ Ramos
Get your studs here!
|
|
| | | 407 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 21:12
|
...and 2) keep IP as is, lower GP by 15.
By that metric, it would all but KO approximately 2/3rds of those who were not compliant. As a result, only 10% of the league would have been in violation, meaning that the limits are appropriate.
My only gripe is sitting everyone once limits have been achieved.
|
|
| | | 408 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 21:51
|
#3 for reasons I've already stated.
|
|
| | | 409 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Mon, Oct 17, 2016, 22:13
|
1
i don't think this year was a good gauge as a lot of teams didn't realize how high the limits were before it was too late.
|
|
| | | 410 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 09:32
|
Team BH has EIGHT quality pitchers and will probably only keep 3.
Gerrit Cole
Jon Lester
Jake Odorizzi
Sonny Gray
Jake Musgrove
Zach Britton
Cody Allen
Adam Conley
Let's get those offers coming.
|
|
| | | 411 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 11:03
|
Considering where my keepers are, I had to make that move. Buxton *might* end up being that guy we saw in September. Bumgarner *is* one of the best 5 pitchers in the bigs, and he's only 26. So now I have Bumgarner and Scherzer at the top of my rotation, to go along with McCullers and Snell. I can look forward to Brinson or Clint Frazier coming up next year to replace Buxton.
|
|
| | | 412 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 12:51
|
411: Slam dunk dude. Great move for you.
If the September Buxton is the 'real' Buxton, then a solid move for slizz.
Ray has tantalizing Ks......can he get his ratios in line????
|
|
| | | 413 | PeteN.
ID: 19721320
Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 15:05
|
I vote for #1
|
|
| | | 414 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 10:33
|
I'd also vote #1 and want to give a +1 to post 398. Maybe a +100. I'd also consider bringing back the full/healthy lineup rule. Seems likely monitoring of it would only need to happen near the end of the year once people reach limits.
As always, thanks, Species for your thoughtful and diligent approach to the league.
|
|
| | | 415 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 12:45
|
Vote #1 and also in favor of bringing back full/healthy lineup rule.
|
|
| | | 416 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 13:18
|
Voting for 2 and 3
Anything but 1. It needs to change, whether it be elimination, or reduction.
If we keep in any fashion, we need to start measuring trades, waiver pick ups, and daily line up changes as part of the algorithm.
If we keep in any fashion , I like guru's idea of forgiving some demerits.
|
|
| | | 417 | Meatwads
ID: 3197711
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 13:22
|
I'd like to let the league know that I am paying attention to this thread and will have a long message for the league, and specific managers, once basketball draft season is over. I've been paying very close attention to what's being said, who's saying it, and what their actions were this season. At that point, we can have a real discussion about what's going on in this league.
As for the straw poll, I vote #1.
|
|
| | | 418 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 13:32
|
I've been quiet, mostly because I don't have a strong opinion here. I don't particularly like the demerit system, but can see issues with the alternatives as well.
There are a couple owners who haven't been very active with their teams or on the boards for a couple years, and I'd support replacing them, although my days of pushing for that are done.
|
|
| | | 419 | youngroman
ID: 57047243
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 13:49
|
I vote for #1.
i'm with bmd in 409: some managers may have realized too late that they will miss the limits, so I assume less managers will be penalized in future seasons.
|
|
| | | 420 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 13:52
|
1 or 2. Maybe a small reduction in the GP minimums. Satisfied either way.
|
|
| | | 421 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 14:17
|
Man, I wish more people had supported my idea that the league winner only gets 8 keepers. Species is going to be hard to beat.
|
|
| | | 422 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 19, 2016, 18:03
|
Man, I wish more people had supported my idea that the league winner only gets 8 keepers. Species is going to be hard to beat.
And the postulating starts early!! ;)
I will translate the above for you: Don't trade with Species!! lol
|
|
| | | 423 | Slizz
ID: 2978203
Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 10:58
|
As anyone knows, I'm pretty bold when it comes to moves. If it works it works...I'm not gonna draw out the negotiation process as that usually kills a deal. If I lose the deal...so what? At least I tried like I did with Puig.
The trade for buxton took two emails and was an extremely easy negotiation (Thanks, Nerf!). The first was titled "Buxton" with the text "Bumgarner?"
I figured he could be interested as he had scherzer. He replied that he possibly had interest and I asked if he could throw in Ray -- deal done.
Nerf gets the bird in hand while I get two in the bush. In any dynasty league, the key is unearthing players before they breakout. Once they breakout or get paid, their value is inflated to a point where making a deal for equal value is too difficult (see Trout or Heyward).
Sometimes it's dumb luck and you accidentally fall into them (Correa), and sometimes it's making bold decisions and holding through the bad times (Rendon, Arenado, Hosmer). I'm hoping the slizz scouting department is right...I've been ripped on the value end for the deal from non-g20 members (my consultants) for not getting more for madbum.
The consensus opinion, G20 members included, is in order for this deal to work, Buxton needs to be pretty much September Buxton...I think he will be, but time will tell. As for Ray, just wanted to squat on his rights. No guarantee I keep. He had a hot September and I've always liked since the Fister trade.
A shame JF16 isn't around. That would be one nice set of keepers I'd have!
|
|
| | | 424 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 21:14
|
400
I vote #1
Just wish I did a better job of drafting SP. Also wish they would go more than 5/6 IP per outing...
|
|
| | | 425 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 21, 2016, 13:05
|
To get a sense for how the straw poll is going - as it pertains to the GP/IP limits rule - the early results are:
1) Limits are fine - 6.5
2) Rule is fine, lower the limits - 4
3) Abolish the rule - 0.5
While it is still up in the air as to whether we consider lowering the limits, I think it is fair to say that the GP/IP limit rule is going to stay.
There has been 1 call to consider other forms of activity to measure manager engagement.
The discussion should continue,- particularly including those managers who have so far failed to participate - but it appears fair to now focus our attention on appropriate limits and/or demerit calculation/application considerations.
|
|
| | | 426 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 14:15
|
If we are going strictly on games played, I think we need to look at it position by position.
Take catcher, for example. I am reasonably certain not one player played 153 (or whatever the minimum for that position is) games. In fact, I'm not sure anyone even played 145 games at that position, and I think only one player played more than 126 games at catcher. It almost makes this a two catcher League right now.
There's got to be a way to allow for minimums, without being forced to play someone overly scrubby, due to position scarcity and gp scarcity.
Also, I like the idea of forgiving a couple demerits, with perhaps more "forgiveness" earned via trades and/or free agent acquisitions.
|
|
| | | 427 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 16:32
|
Not sure if my post in [332] counted as my vote, but if not, I'd vote for option 2, with the only lowering being the 2-demerit forgiveness.
I don't like the idea of allowing a team to obviously tank once hitting the limits - but I know that policing this is problematic. I think we could just a have a general rule that any manager who appears to be attempting to tank (by overtly benching or dropping active players while leaving vacancies or inactive players as starters) risks being terminated from the league.
|
|
| | | 428 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 16:49
|
427: Two things:
1) Did I correctly follow the demerit assignment / draft pick penalty rules as you understood them (considering you authored it) as outlined in Post 394??
2) Isn't a demerit forgiveness akin to just lowering the limits? Or is that idea a 2017-only consideration?
|
|
| | | 429 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 17:32
|
426 - can we assign different minimums to different positions? For example say 1st has a min of 150 but C has a min of 130? (just making up numbers, not suggesting those actual minimums)
Or when we add up the figures at the end of the year can we just not use the catcher position?
|
|
| | | 430 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 18:07
|
Doing some cleanup of the prospect list.
Kenta Maeda (Bean) exceeded limits and, by rule, is being automatically 'called up' to his team. This results in someone being dropped. I dropped Sean Rodriguez to make room. You can choose to have someone else dropped if you prefer.
These players exceeded limits and have been removed from the prospect list. They are each already on their teams' respective season-ending rosters and are now treated like any other player, subject to normal keeper rules:
Max Kepler - darkside
Tim Anderson Tree
Trea Turner - Fosten
Archie Bradley - Fosten
Dylan Bundy - Tosh
|
|
| | | 431 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 18:31
|
426 / 429: When considering this rule, the tracking of GP as a simple number (given its reporting right on the standings page) was preferred over a GP/pos. True, we arrived at the total GP number after assuming a number of GP/pos, but the management of it by position was deemed excessive.
Only 6 teams missed the GP limit. Everyone had the same challenge with catchers. I got 121 games from the C position......yet I beat limits by 73 games.
|
|
| | | 432 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 18:40
|
We have yet to hear from WG, Jaydog and Fosten on the GP/IP issue and discussion.
I am also very concerned about Fosten, who has not returned an email from me to review his league activity. If someone has a phone number to text him......or IM him.......whatever......please do so.
Ignoring emails and required discussions - even in the offseason - is an issue.
|
|
| | | 433 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 19:48
|
[428]
1. Your description sounded OK, but I didn't go through the details mechanics to see if I get the same results
2. Not the same, as the "forgiveness" allows for falling short in either hitting or pitching.
|
|
| | | 434 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 19:56
|
[394] I don't think any lottery team gets banned from the lottery. I think Fosten just moves to the last lottery team.
|
|
| | | 435 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 24, 2016, 20:13
|
434: Incorrect. From the rules:
"If a team accumulates more than 10 demerits, then it will be removed from the lottery and assigned the 14th pick in all rounds (i.e., behind all lottery teams, but ahead of any prize pool teams.)
|
|
| | | 436 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 11:45
|
I was incorrect in post 430 on Maeda. We reworded our rules. Maeda can technically stay a prospect until the Prospect Keeper deadline. At that deadline, he must be called up to Bean's roster or released. Accordingly I have corrected the Rodriguez drop I did yesterday.
Basically it just means that he would be eligible to be kept in Bean's 9 keepers as normal. When/if he calls him up, however, he would need to designate a drop.
He is not eligible as a '10th keeper' because he has exceeded limits.
|
|
| | | 437 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 12:13
|
I had to use two catchers for most of the second half to get over the GP limits, subbing the Reds backup catcher whenever he got a start. In many ways, this was an easy choice because my team is still rebuilding - I didnt care what catcher I had in the first place. When Gomes went down I just found the first FA starting catcher and then also got his backup. Now if I had someone like Willson Contreras, who was good, possibly keeper-quality but didn't play every day because the Cubs had three catchers, I would have been in alot more trouble.
Every circumstance is different. I also had 3 players on the bench who only accounted for one season's worth of games, one of which never played in the majors. That cuts into one's GP options as well, being that I couldn't make up for a low GP catcher by having a couple positions over 162.
|
|
| | | 438 | WG
ID: 36217119
Tue, Oct 25, 2016, 23:53
|
Sorry for my late response. Forced to pick, I vote for 2.
But I pretty much agree with everything Tree says. Why was the GP minimum implemented in the first place? To promote activity and curtail tanking/apathy? But other things show activity too; like add/drops, lineup changes, trades, trade proposals, trade rejections, emails, board posts, etc. So why should you still be subject to penalty if you are overweight in all those other things yet underweight in GP? True, perhaps something like making 100 add/drops but just shuffling bench guys and not actually playing them (and having low GP) is bad for the league overall, but I don't think any manager is/was/or would ever do anything egregious like that... and it would still be part of a bigger plan and still be considered activity.
The last few posts seem to mention some sort of demerit forgiveness system proposed by Guru that I admittedly did not read before writing this post, but if GP minimums with accompanying penalties must stay in place then a penalty forgiveness policy seems like a good complement.
|
|
| | | 439 | Fosten
ID: 4097314
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 06:05
|
Hello folks, also sorry for the late response, had some personal emergencies at the end of the season. I have been following the discussion, but wanted to take the time to re-read the thread in its entirety (boy, its long!) to make sure I wasn’t missing something. I vote 2. I most agree with Tree and Khanan on this issue, as I don't feel the GP/IP minimums necessarily correlate with league activity.
What a year! I was happy to land Babe "Dan Murphy" Ruth in the sup draft, as well as acquiring Matz/Kang via trade. I was pretty bummed when Turner went 368/300 and I lost him as a prospect. Although I felt better, in no longer rooting for his demise, via (minor) injury (hangnail) to retain eligibility. Personally, I like how the limited call-ups add to the strategy, however I wouldn’t mind if it was more than 2. Relaxing it to 3 might get some of those top-tier guys off the FA list.
I echo everything Khanan said in posts 390 and 392. “I fell behind on IP because I had a number of injuries to my pitching staff and quite frankly most days the pickings on the waiver wire were either pitchers on minor league lists or pitchers/match ups I wouldn’t want to touch with a 10 foot pole. But I was not inactive… I was in multiple times a week, every week looking at probable starters, looking at relievers etc. I CHOSE not to make moves most days.” and “There were many, many days where I went in and made a conscious decision not make a move because the choices I had were horrible.”
My success/failure in most fantasy baseball leagues correlates with luck in drafting SP, and boy did I ever blow it drafting SP in G20 this year. Considering I only had one healthy starter (Verlander), I knew early-on I had no real chance to compete this season. My team often resembled a MASH unit, yet I was active on IM, set lineups daily, was 13th in add/drops, and was involved in a lot of trade talk. (Not trading Verlander to blue hen, was at times this season, a full-time job.)
Philosophically, I see the point that the minimum's rule doesn’t need to exist at all, but wonder what can of worms complete anarchy opens up? Seemingly, I’ve accidentally opened some of those worms, sorry not sorry! I also understand how minimums provide basic structure and strategy (though the cost-benefit can be debated), so I agree with Nerfherders re: 202, I just think they’re way too high. We’re all at different stages of our multi-year rebuilding processes, not every team has the same goals.
My position in the standings was unique, as I needed +23 for 7th place, -13.5 for 9th place. What would streaming crap pitchers have gotten me? A boost in K only (needed 15 W for 1 pt), a drop in ERA/WHIP, and the same 8th place finish. Since I wasn’t streaming crap hitters, I finished 1st in OBP and I because I had 3.5 closers, I finished 5th in saves. This follows with Tree’s logic Re: 211 that the rule "negates the intent of the rule, to keep people from tanking, while not tanking, one is essence tanking.” What also scares me is that Rumsfeld said there are known knowns!
I was fully aware that the demerits would put me at 14th in the draft, but for me, that only meant a 1 spot penalty, as 8th place picks 13th anyway. In my situation, that’s not much of a draconian penalty (re: 201 Guru) and I don’t mind that I’m banned from the lottery (I never win on scratch-offs anyway, last year was a fluke). Even if I could have streamed enough to get 6th, what is my gain? I would have made the money, drafted 15th instead of 14th, and also would have been ineligible for the lottery! Ding.
That said, if the 10+ rule is meant to prevent purposely tanking, it does seem somewhat obtuse in my scenario. With a 36.5 point difference between 7th and 9th, streaming was relatively inconsequential to my standing, and losing out on the lottery was an unrelated circumstance. Yet I understood it was a rule, I accept a small penalty, and I am fine with it. Why on earth would I drop bubble keepers, for little or no change in the standings, just to reach minimums? That seems opposite of smart baseball.
My strategy was to hold fringe keepers with the hopes of shopping them this winter much like Slizz did last year (re: 8 even tho it didn’t work out for him, must burn own hand on stove.). During the season, the more I read Slizz’s analysis aka. the “holding the CJ Crons of the world” dialog (re: 327), it did make me reconsider my approach. But I am looking to trade away big time talent this winter, so if I can find someone who is even slightly interested in adding a throw-in to the trade, it is a win.
And now for a few words from the Munson Mobsters Marketing Department: Top players available for trade: Carlos Gonzalez and Craig Kimbrel (or) Dave Robertson, Would you like to have acquire a top 5 hitter or a top 5 closer? Or both?! For the right price, these players could be yours. I also have a ton of bubble keepers for sale. There has got to be someone who likes Verlander or Iglesias or Walker or Renfroe or Bradley or Skaggs or Vizcaino as much as me! Generally, my strategy is to acquire your good players in exchange for my mediocre players, so if you feel that’s the right deal for you, get ahold of me!
Again, thanks to Species for his diligent commish duties, and to everyone for making this such an exciting league. I enjoy how this format makes you reconsider strategy again and again. The competition is the best around, and the intelligence of owners is apparent, as the dialog at times, does in fact, rival legal writing and MBA studies. Kudos to all.
|
|
| | | 440 | Jaydog
ID: 106132311
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 13:34
|
Hey guys,
Sorry it took so long to weigh in on this issue, although that in of itself likely tells you where my heads at. I like playing in this league. The deep rosters, and prospect system are interesting, and something I've enjoyed over the years. That being said, I'm concerned that I cannot keep up the level of activity that some members of the league feel is required.
I consider myself an active manager. I set my lineup each day, and rotate my pitchers in and out. Several of times per week I comb the waiver wire looking for upgrades, however in general always value the consistency and/or upside of my current players, over the instability of rotating players in and out. While this means that I generally make fewer add/drops than others, I do not think it makes me inactive by any measure of the term.
I am generally not in favor of a system that penalizes a manager based on any metric that does not offer any "context" around it. My team was in the hunt for the top half for most of the season, despite my trading Ortiz for some players that I feel will help me in the future. When my team fell out of contention late in the season, I felt it more important to hold onto my potential players and trade chips, versus dumping them to rotate in healthy, but generally useless players. I had a number of injured players late in the season that I could have dropped to get more games and/or innings, but I didn't want to lose the rights to any player that even had a smidge of value, just to increase my games played count. I only have a few players that are locks to be keepers, and several that are on the fence, so keeping those players, even though they weren't playing, seemed the best decision for my team. I was also penalized by the fact that I had several platoon players (Bour, Vogt, Harrison, etc..) that were difficult to predict their usage in Sept.
So with all of that in mind, while I accept the penalties set forth on my team, it's a system I disagree with. I personally think that my activity during the season specifically should be sufficient to be a useful contributor to the league, however if the league in general disagree's with me, I'm fine with that. If the league can find a replacement to take over my team, I have no problem turning over the reigns, however I'll also happily stay on if either a suitable replacement can't be found.
|
|
| | | 441 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 14:40
|
Well, like many, I believe I have an excess of "Keeper Quality" players for next year, so you are welcome to look at my roster and make offers. I have Maeda not on the roster as well, so as you are doing the math remember that he'll definitely be one of my keepers. These are my top 7 which will take a blockbuster to acquire:
Maeda
Lucroy
Pedroia
Longoria
Segura
Chapman
Osuna
The rest of my roster has some real promise for next year, decent stats for 2016, or both. There are two closers, three solid starters, two guys with 30+ HRs and a 20HR/20SB guy amongst them. The two I choose to keep will likely depend on off season activity, both within my roster and on their respective MLB rosters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so take a look and make an offer.
|
|
| | | 442 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 15:27
|
I do think there's an issue that being missed in much of the discussion.
Certainly, one rationale for the minimums in GP and IP are to discourage tanking, or at least to provide a cost to offset the benefit of otherwise qualifying for a higher draft choice.
But that's only part of it.
In a league with rotisserie scoring, a team that is not putting active players in a lineup can have a direct impact on teams that are nowhere near it in the standings. Most teams are competitive in at least a few categories - and by continuing to generate stats, these teams potentially provide some extra separation between the teams that are still striving to improve their standing.
I remember once looking at standings in September (not in 2016, but some prior season), and noticing that some of the teams I was chasing were going to easily accumulate some additional ranking points simply because they were likely to overtake other teams who were mailing it in.
Maybe getting some extra GP or IP isn't going to improve your team's own standing, especially if there is a large gap to reach the next level. But by staying "active", your team still can have a meaningful impact on the relative standings of other teams.
You don't necessarily need to continually make add/drop transactions to improve you GP or IP. Just try to make sure that all of your bench players are getting maximum usage. Granted, if a team is riddled with injuries, then there may not be enough active bench players to rely solely on that tactic. But if you then decide to keep a your bench full of injured players, that does have an impact on league standings from top to bottom, and I don't think it's unfair to assess a cost to those teams in return for their presumed benefit of keeping their longer term options available.
|
|
| | | 443 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 16:26
|
I definitely agree with the last point of Guru's - -- the effect on the standings as a whole is undoubtedly an issue. I was able to coast down the last week in starting pitching this year because the teams behind me in Ks (in particular) as well as wins were not streaming pitchers so my risk of losses in those categories was minimal. This allowed me to protect my standings in the pitching ratio categories. This also happened in a couple of hitting categories this year as well, and undoubtedly happens regularly.
After hearing everyone weight in, I think my suggestion is a compromise. I am recommending we lower the limits by 10 GP and 15 IP.
A quick look indicates that 3 of the 5 teams that fell short in GP would have been within 5 GP of that limit. In IP, only 4 teams would have fallen short of the limit at that level.
We recognize that the rule has different effects on different stages of your team's roster. As Guru notes, it is up to each manager to weigh the cost with the long term benefit to your team.
I suppose this is not as lenient as some might want - nor for that matter as stringent as others might want. But considering how few teams (2 in GP, 4 in IP) would not have made these new limits, I think it is a reasonable compromise.
Any last thoughts before I put it to a vote?
|
|
| | | 444 | WG
ID: 35338278
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 16:38
|
Agree with Guru's point, but a possible counter argument is that these 'forced' GPs and IPs are adversely affecting the percentage/ratio categories instead of the counting categories that inactivity affects. Personally, I believe all this is priced into the market/standings/league, outliers such as egregious tanking aside.
|
|
| | | 445 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 17:00
|
[443] - I'd still prefer the 2-demerit forgiveness approach, rather than independently knocking down each of the minimums. Gives a little more flexibility.
Under Species' proposal, 6 teams would still have at least one demerit (although three teams would have only 1).
Under the "forgive two" approach, only four teams would have a demerit. Essentially, two teams (Tree and and PeteN) would be able to trade off excess IP to get a lower effective GP limit. And GO would end up with only 3 demerits instead of 4.
|
|
| | | 446 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 18:46
|
Completely separate from the subject of GP/IP limits, a common thread in these discussions was the measurement of activity. The league should definitely understand that the two, while in some senses are hand-in-hand, are separate in my eyes as Commissioner.
The general rule about manager activity - specifically the one about the Commissioner's leeway to invite managers back - is something I take very seriously. It goes to my interpretations of the 'spirit of the league'. This spirit is not some phantom idealism......the founders of the league have explained it to me over the years since my arrival in 2005. Ref and rfs talked about it when I came on board, and Ref and I talked about it significantly as he transitioned out of the Commissioner's role.
What does this mean? What were some of the founding principles of G20?
- This league was founded on the basis of crafting a highly challenging league where normal participation wasn't good enough.
- Meaning, if you want to be in a plain, default public league, go for it, but there is no need for you to put in your application.
- If you want to be in G20, be prepared to be more involved and more active than other leagues. We go deeper......we have prospects.....you have to balance the short and long term simultaneously, just like MLB. Look at the Yankees over the past 5 years....an aging, crumbling roster (ARod, Teixeira, Sabathia, Beltran, Jeter) with no chance. Now? Perhaps the best farm system in baseball after dumping the aging and retooling their roster.
I have gotten better at trying to ensure that I only consider managers who fit those ideals. A few years back I started email 'interviews' of perspective new managers before awarding franchises. I query managers about prospect knowledge, activity, history in other leagues, etc. The reference from the referring manager is very important as well.
But the fact of the matter is that there is a fairly recognizable gap between those teams that are the most active (and by this I mean: active in pickups, GP, IP, trade discussions/proposals and league discussion) and those that are the least active. In a league as competitive as this, that is a problem and a source of frustration.
My personal feeling is:
- I want attention and activity in league discussions.
- I want teams to have a PLAN to improve. As sick as this was, my 2013 plan was to be ready in 2015.....I nearly made it but ultimately the same (basic) plan (revolving around Sano and Seager's MLB timing being big parts of it) occurred in 2016.
- I want teams to actively seek improvement.....and trades are a big part of that. I can count on ONE HAND how many times I have been approached for a trade that was not the result of me reaching out first / posting something. And I am probably talking about over the past 5 years.
- Taking some risks on trades, even if you miss, is better than never trying at all.
- Apathy and slow / no responses to email inquiries is a HUGE no-no and probably my biggest pet peeve that is going to result in the lack of an invitation back faster than anything else.
I struggle with the balance between crafting a culture of high accountability/competitiveness and letting teams play the way they want to play. There is little doubt which side of the ledger I am on....and I try to understand that there is a lot more to life than a fantasy league. Life circumstances change: career, kids, marriage, family and health among them.
But I have to make a choice and I choose to have this league aim high.
|
|
| | | 448 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 23:44
|
Post 441 - Bean I have players that I am sure are just waiting to get injured to trade away to you. Shoot me an email if you are interested in any of them. ;)
With that said, I dont really have room in my starting line up for Devon Travis. .340 career obp with 20 HR potential and a few (maybe 8-10) SB thrown in the mix at 2nd base. A nice draft pick upgrade or minor leaguer would do if you are looking for a solid 2nd.
|
|
| | | 449 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Tue, Nov 01, 2016, 11:18
|
I couldn't agree more with Guru's point regarding this being a roto league and every stat counts. Given that we have 3 prospect slots, there is more than enough room to field a competitive lineup each day and look towards the future. Also agree with Species in post 446. I am an OG for g24 football, g20 hoops and this league. I don't play every year for the money. Instead, I enjoy the camaraderie and elite competition. That should always remain priority number 1.
|
|
| | | 450 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Tue, Nov 01, 2016, 15:02
|
I also play for the elite competition and I'm disappointed when teams don't do their best to remain competitive.
As to the rules. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean you don't have to follow them. The current rules were voted in. The penalties should stand. Change them for next season or the year after. There are always going to be unexpected, unintended consequences.
|
|
| | | 451 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Nov 01, 2016, 18:28
|
I don't think anyone has suggested changing the rules retroactively.
We've just taken some revised standards and applied them to see how they would have impacted teams if the changes had been in effect this year.
|
|
| | | 452 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Wed, Nov 02, 2016, 16:06
|
446.
My team of keepers is very young:
C. Sanchez (great trade for me!)
Santana (another great trade)
Russell (my prospect, maybe via trade? Don't remember)
Franco (my prospect)
Peraza (a trade for the future, played ~ half the season)
Herrera (drafted I think)
Hernandez (another trade, injuries hurt here)
Salazar (my prospect I think, injured)
Giles (lost then regained closer role)
Prospects probably ready for 2017 9/10 keepers:
Stephenson
Quinn
My hitting stats were ok, but it is still weird to be 11 in RBI, 10 in HR and 17 in R. I gave away gordo so lost the SB, but since he got suspended it turned out to be a good move as I got peraza. I was horrible with mostly SP with low W and WHIP - the rest was somewhat acceptable. The waiver wire was generally empty for grabbing SP.
My bench had several multi position players on it and I tried to use them to fill gaps. I did leave stats on the bench sometimes when I had to guess who would be playing and who would be resting...
That said, with 20 picks before your next one it is tough for me to find gems in the draft. Not sure why...
I suspect I will have issues in 2018 when I should have 10 keeper quality players who are mostly young.
|
|
| | | 453 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Nov 02, 2016, 18:51
|
452: I love what you are doing with your team. You have done well in setting up your team going forward. I am very curious to see how Peraza does this year - I guess it depends on whether they jettison Phillips.......but the dude showed he can play.
Addison Russell humorously was drafted in the Prospect Draft as "Addison Brown, SS, OAK" by Slackjawed Yokel......and the team was then awarded to WG in 2014.......so you got him in trade with WG at some point.
You have kept Danny Salazar since 2014.....and he was not drafted in 2013 so my guess is you got him off the FA wire in 2013 at some point.
For kicks, I took a look at the 2013 keepers. The following players kept in 2013 are still with their same franchises (even if they have changed hands) today:
Dustin Pedroia (allhair / Bean)
Buster Posey and Yu Darvish (GL / Meatwads)
Johnny Cueto (Jaydog)
Clayton Kershaw and Andrew McCutcheon (Toral / Khahan)
Ben Zobrist and Kyle Seager (Guru)
Yoenis Cespedes and Jordan Zimmermann (darkside)
Robinson Cano, Hunter Pence and Cole Hamels (yr)
Hanley Ramirez and Edwin Encarnacion (Ref / Tree)
Jason Heyward (mjd)
Mike Trout, Paul Goldschmidt, Craig Kimbrel and Billy Hamilton (R9 / Fosten)
Bryce Harper (WG)
|
|
| | | 454 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 00:56
|
Peraza is Q for OF...
|
|
| | | 455 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 21:52
|
Speaking of Kershaw - taking offers.
|
|
| | | 456 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Nov 06, 2016, 14:41
|
Species asked me to check his revised lottery order, based on demerits.
I get the same order that Bean posted in [397], which is consistent with Species commentary in [394]
I'll plan to run the lottery on Monday.
|
|
| | | 457 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 14:15
|
Lottery results:
Supplemental Draft
1. Judy
2. GO
3. bmd
Prospect Draft
1. Judy
2. mjd
3. bmd
Judy hits the daily double!
Spreadsheet with details is here.
|
|
| | | 458 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Mon, Nov 07, 2016, 17:07
|
Wow!! Now I just need to not blow it!!!
😚😚😚🤔🤔🤔
|
|
| | | 459 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Nov 09, 2016, 17:54
|
** Team Species offseason commercial**
Unlike last year, I spent every roster spot I had to maximize games, play defense and ensure that if there were any extra regular season games that I would have options to cement the title.
That said, I still have some options on trades this offseason. I am going to make reference to ESPN's Tristan Cockroft's List of Top 250 Dynasty League players a lot below. A lot can change between now and March, and there are plenty of lists like his, but as a reference for now, his thoughts on the value of some of my players is very germane:
The "You can try, but highly unlikely to trade these guys" list:
Mookie Betts - how can you argue with a barely 24 year old OF who put up a .363 obp with 31 HR, 122 runs, 113 rbi while stealing 26 bags? He is simply one of the best players in fantasy, and ranks 7th on Cockroft's list.
Corey Seager - I was extraordinarily fortunate to draft him. This was the Bryant/G. Polanco/J. Abreu Prospect Draft, and I had the #1 and #4 slotted picks in the lottery. I got screwed and pushed down to 3rd and 6th in the lottery and lost out on some of the guys I wanted. My consolation prize was Seager 6th, who I nearly passed on for more ready prospects Joc Petersen and Yordano Ventura. I am thankful I stuck to my guns.
It is hard to argue with a rookie shortstop smacking 26 HR (albeit only driving in 72) and scoring 105 runs with a .365 obp. He is only going to get better. He ranks 9th on Cockroft's list.
Some irony: I traded Guru Francisco Lindor for the pick that became Seager. Another win-win trade, along with the other stud SS I traded away, Xander Bogaerts (for Betts, ironically)!
Miguel Sano - a bit polarizing given a high strikeout rate. Thankfully, in an OBP league his low BA is immaterial, and he gets enough walks to post respectable OBPs. His HR power is immense - and I am confident he will turn into an Adam Dunn-type in the middle of my lineup. Curious to see how long he stays at 3b......but I will enjoy the 2017 eligibility! He ranks 28th on Cockroft's keeper list.
Jose Abreu - A big second half made up for an embarrassing first half. He ended up with a quiet 25 HR, 100 RBI campaign while ringing up a decent .353 obp. I expect bigger things from him going forward. At 29, he has more than enough years of top 5 1b production in front of him. Cockroft ranks him 40th on his list
Jacob DeGrom - A weird year for him, but still a premier SP. While he turned 28 in June, he only has 3 years of major league wear on that arm and owns a lifetime 2.74 ERA and 1.10 whip with a K/9 over 9. Cockroft ranks him as the 8th best SP and 41st overall.
The "Probably more valuable to me in 2017 than to you" list:
Dee Gordon - I paid a big price for him, and despite his suspension he did just enough to get me the title. 30 sb in half the year = 60 sb for the year from my 2b. I will take that every year. His lack of hr and rbi have Cockroft ranking him 126th on his Dynasty list.
Nelson Cruz - While I couldn't predict what kind of season Wil Myers would have, if you told me I would get 43 HR, 105 rbi AND 96 runs with a .360 obp in 2016 I would do the trade all over again. Cruz ranks 159th on Cockroft's list, giving me some confidence about him for 2017. He owns 3 straight 40 HR seasons - why not make it 4???
The "Can't keep 4 Starting Pitchers" list:
Aaron Sanchez - Seized a spot in Toronto's rotation after a hot spring and never let go - going 15-2 while leading the American League in ERA at 3.00 and also posting a tidy 1.17 whip. He owns a lifetime 2.86 ERA and 1.15 whip. He also won Toronto's only playoff win this year.
This season was no fluke - Sanchez has been a longtime hard on for ESPN's Keith Law on his prospect lists. When Toronto was rumored to be trading for R.A. Dickey, Law advocated keeping Sanchez over Syndergaard in that deal. He admits to being wrong about Syndergaard harnessing his amazing stuff - but that doesn't detract from him being right about Sanchez. Sanchez ranks as the 15th best Dynasty SP at 63rd overall in Cockroft's rankings.
Jose Quintana - Quintana took even more steps forward for the White Sox this year, winning 13 games (with SEVERAL blown leads by their bullpen btw) while putting up career bests in ERA (3.20), whip (1.16) and strikeouts (181 in 192 IP).
Quintana is a model of consistency, never failing to register 200 IP in his 4 full big league seasons. He turns 28 in January and is ranked as the 24th best Dynasty league SP at 83rd overall.
Masahiro Tanaka - Only recently turned 28 in November, all Tanaka did in 2016 was post a career high 31 starts, accumulate 199.2 ip with a 3.07 era and 1.08 whip while going 14-4. Cockroft ranks him 112th overall.
The "Only going to keep 1 closer" list:
Mark Melancon - say what you want about his 91 mph fastball, all Melancon has done since taking over the closer spot in PIT in 2013 is save 147 games with a meager 16 blown saves. His WORST whip since then is 0.96 and his worst ERA is 2.23.
AJ Ramos - 72 saves in 2 years. ERAs of 2.80 and 2.30 the last 2 years. 160 strikeouts in 114.1 ip over that time. Next!
So..........more than likely 1 of my closers and 2 of my SP will be available by trade (many managers have received emails from me). If I haven't contacted you yet, please don't hesitate to reach out.
I also have prospect Nick Williams and/or Prospect picks available.
My trade preferences are keeper upgrades (2-for-1 / 3-for-1) and (mostly) supplemental pick upgrades. But pitchers ranked in the top 112 should not be seen as being able to be had cheap. We go 180 players deep in our keepers - so a player that can be in ANY team's top 6 keepers (top 120 overall) have material value.
Inquire within!!!
|
|
| | | 460 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:24
|
Looking to deal Troy Tulowitzki. Ideally, I'd package him with another keeper for one better keeper. For example: Tulowitzki and Zach Britton for Mike Trout. For example. Not a real offer. Please don't troll me. But let's get those offers coming.
|
|
| | | 461 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 11:58
|
**TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT**
Khahan sends:
Clayton Kershaw, 2018 5th rounder
Great One sends:
Michael Conforto
Greg Bird (prospect list)
A-aron Nola
Taijuan Walker
Sean newcomb (prospect)
2018 12th rounder
Trade analysis:
This trade is obviously all about the future for me. Michael Conforto now gives me an OF core group of McCutchen, Mazara, Conforto. Walker and Nola round out pitching keepers for this year, a rebuilding year for me. Both showed signs of being solid keeper potential pitchers and I get an off year like this to test them out. If all the players I get pan out to just their expectations (I expect Nola and Walker for example to both be capable of 3.20-3.50 era, 1.15-.121 whip and 180k's a year, Conforto 25 hr, .350 obp, bird a big slugging 1st baseman) I think I did pretty well in this deal. Add in the potential for newcomb. I'm getting 5 guys and I almost feel like 3 of them would need to flop for this to be a complete failure. I just dont think my team will be competitive for another 2 years or so and Kershaw will be kershaw for a very limited window. He's battled back injuries and will be starting his decline phase when I'm ready to be more competitive so I'll get what I can for him now. I spent time going after individual players (like betts, seager, altuve types) but when that didn't pan out I went for sheer volume.
My potential roster for 2017 now looks like this before we even draft the 1st player:
1st - Josh Bell (10th keeper)
2nd - Devon Travis/Brian Dozier
3rd- Alex Bregman (10th keeper)
SS - Johnathan Villar
OF - Andrew McCuthen, Nomar Mazara, Michael Conforto
SP - Aaron Nola, Taijuan Walker, Marco Estrada
prospects: Greg Bird, Dominic Smith, Sean Newcomb
So I have a pretty solid 9 with definitely 2 and potentially 3 10th keeper call ups. Plenty of question marks still (like how good will Villar be again, can nola and walker take the next step).
Btw - Josh Bell and Dominic Smith are ranked as the #1 and #4 top 1st base prospects. They are also ranked #20 and #54 in mlb's top 100 prospects currently. Greg Bird's status is up in the air after his injury made him miss all of 2016 but by all accounts he would have been playing. Tyler Austin continues to struggle in his current level which (unless they sign bautista) solidifies Bird's spot. He may actually be a 10th keeper call up as well. But point is - I have a loaded farm system for young 1st baseman. Inquire within. ;) Still available for trade - one of my 2nd basemen, McCutchen, one of my 1st basemen.
|
|
| | | 462 | GO
ID: 17312218
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 12:23
|
Confirmed. Giving up some of my youthful assets but still have more on the way.
|
|
| | | 463 | PeteN.
ID: 8550318
Sat, Nov 19, 2016, 13:42
|
Nice trade!
|
|
| | | 464 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 09:42
|
Nice trade, and makes a lot of sense. Great One clearly needed to do some consolidating and Kershaw, despite this years injuries and all the innings on his arm, is a good one to get.
I score this a win for GO, but Khahan definitely has some interesting pieces. A year ago, Conforto, Bird, Nola, and Walker would have been quite the haul. Can they recapture it?
|
|
| | | 465 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 14:45
|
Khahan, great doing business with you.
-Great One's Scouting Dept
|
|
| | | 466 | GO
ID: 388562222
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 09:53
|
And a tribute to the scouting dept. that I have all these decent valued guys to consolidate in the first place. A lot of these guys were his finds or tips. Same with the deal to consolidate a few guys for David Price.
|
|
| | | 467 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 12:12
|
Great trade. I love big moves.
Khahan definitely needs two top-50 players out of this bunch to make it work. I always loved Walker - he could be one of them. As a Yankee fan I am intrigued by Bird but worry he is more Brandon Belt than Joey Votto.
There is risk for GO as well. Kershaw turns 29 in March and has logged 9 ML seasons and nearly 1800 innings! Then there is the back issue. Don't get me wrong - I inquired about him but Khahan and I didn't match up. Maybe GO and I match up better?? :)
|
|
| | | 468 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 12:18
|
FYI -- last year offseason trades were completed upon the renewal of the league in ESPN the following year. We will do that again this year.......so Khahan will have to get his knife ready for cuts to fit all of these newly acquired players onto his roster. Same with other trades/transactions that put teams over the limit (such as Maeda to Bean via prospect callup).
|
|
| | | 469 | Khahan
ID: 710422214
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 15:42
|
I just want to make sure I'm approaching the 10th keeper issue properly (again, I know I asked about this last year). Basically we'll declare keepers and i'll 9 players. The next day I can declare Bregman, Josh Bell and if I want Greg Bird as '10th' keepers effectively giving me 12 keepers. This will leave dominic smith and sean newcomb as my prospects and since I traded away a prospect pick for Dozier I'll be set with 12 keepers, 2 prospects and nothing to do but trade until the sup draft. Is that all correct?
|
|
| | | 470 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 15:58
|
Yes, correct.
|
|
| | | 471 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 16:09
|
469: Confirmed
FYI --- something to keep in mind with offseason trading. Agreed to trades here in the thread are considered final.
Kershaw blows his elbow out throwing in the backyard? Too bad.
Buxton blows out his knee doing sprints at the local high school? Rotten luck.
|
|
| | | 472 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 19:44
|
Great trade guys. Was really close to working out a trade with Khanan but ultimately my team didn't have the other pieces to make dealing for him worth it. Basically decided my team still didn't stand a chance even with Kershaw. Kinda sad.
|
|
| | | 473 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Nov 22, 2016, 20:33
|
472 - tried to make it a 3-some. but we all know how hard those are to pull off. ;)
|
|
| | | 474 | Species
ID: 46252312
Sun, Dec 04, 2016, 23:00
|
Trade Announcement
mjd receives:
Aaron Sanchez
Species 2017 10th
2017 11th
2017 12th
Species receives:
mjd 2017 1st
2017 2nd
2017 3rd
|
|
| | | 475 | youngroman
ID: 28114413
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 05:21
|
based on latest news out of Japan, it looks like Shohei Otani might come over for the 2018 season. This is what I expected when I drafted him earlier this year.
the big question is: is ESPN prepared for a dual-threat player? I assume that Otani tries to sign with a MLB team that is at least open at playing him at DH for some games where he does not pitch. will I be able to get his offensive stats as well? I doubt it, but it would be nice. I guess this will cause some headaches in the fantasy industry on how to handle him.
|
|
| | | 476 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 09:45
|
475: I assume ESPN could give him both SP and DH eligibility. But, to get his hitting stats, you would have to place him ONLY in your hitting lineup at DH. I do not think there is a way to get his hitting stats on days that he starts.......or else you are messing with how NL starters do not get their hitting stats to 'count'.
I hope you are right in terms of his arrival. I can't wait to see him pitch in MLB.
|
|
| | | 477 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 10:27
|
Wow, our first 1-2-3 trade since Ellsbury!
I think this is the third time Sanchez has been traded. Guy gets around.
I think that's a steep price, especially for a player with really only one great full season, and especially especially for an AL pitcher in a hitters' park. But he clearly has talent, and if he was a guy MJD wanted, he wasn't afraid to pay up. Sure would have been worth it for my first three picks last year - and I wish I could get those three picks for one of my players (Zach Britton? Jake Odorizzi?).
Also great to see the offseason rolling along. Keep it up, guys.
|
|
| | | 478 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 10:29
|
Re: 476.
I'm fairly certain ESPN would have a lot of trouble handling a situation like this. At least, they weren't in a very good state before, when Micah Owings looked to play the field. But we'll see.
|
|
| | | 479 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 10:36
|
474 confirmed
|
|
| | | 480 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 11:12
|
477: I think that's a steep price, especially for a player with really only one great full season, and especially especially for an AL pitcher in a hitters' park.
Or, you can note that a 24 year old Sanchez has been groomed well by Toronto, having had a season and a half (mostly) in the bullpen leading up to last year....so he hasn't been thrown to the wolves with huge workloads.
Or, you can remember he led the difficult American League in ERA, posted a 15-2 record and won Toronto's only playoff game. For all of this talk about the difficult AL East, his lifetime batting average against those foes are paltry levels of .173, .185, .200 and .250 (TB, BOS, NYY, BAL respectively).
I sure as hell didn't want to trade him......and I didn't find many picks-only trades for young keepers in their prime - the closest I had was a 29 year old (and injured) Matt Kemp for a 1/2/3 plus a prospect pick to compare it to.
How many 24 year old ERA champions get traded in this league? Not many!
|
|
| | | 481 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 12:57
|
I'm still in the early stages of a complete overhaul. Certainly, that 1st rd pick had some potential upside for me, but without desirable players to trade and not wanting to trade a p-pick, my trade assets were very limited.
Could I bartered a better deal? Perhaps, but I got my guy and didn't have to give up a p-pick. Checked 2 boxes.
I also like the way Toronto has managed his IP. AL East didn't deter me.
|
|
| | | 482 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 13:26
|
We'll see how things pan out in a few years with Giolito and Sanchez at the top of my rotation and Betances in my pen.
|
|
| | | 483 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 13:50
|
I traded 23 year old Anthony Rizzo for a 1st and a 4th after months of trying. Sanchez is great, objectively, but I don't think similar players have gotten the same kind of return, historically.
|
|
| | | 484 | Species
ID: 46252312
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 16:05
|
483: Poor example.
The offseason you traded Rizzo, he had just flopped to a .233 average and a .419 slugging percentage. You sold upside (which was correct), not a league leading, established SP1.
(SP1 defined as a top 20 SP - which, in a 20 team league, is a SP1)
|
|
| | | 485 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Dec 05, 2016, 16:40
|
"Established" is pushing it here. But I don't think we need to dig deeper on this one - the value proposition is pretty clear for both sides.
|
|
| | | 486 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 13:56
|
mjd also loses that extra keeper slot. He's essentially given up his 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th keepers for Sanchez. Too much? I think so but only time will tell.
|
|
| | | 487 | Slizz
ID: 419523014
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 16:34
|
BMD - I'm not sure what you're talking about. He would still have his extra prospect keeps.
|
|
| | | 488 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 16:37
|
I don't think he meant prospect 10th keeper, he meant the guy he'd take in the first round.
|
|
| | | 489 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 16:47
|
I had a Prospect Draft conversation this week, and it is a good idea to ensure that all of our managers have a strong understanding of these critical rules.
Our constitution states:
At the prospect draft keeper deadline, all managers must have no more than 3 keepers on their prospect list. They may keep all three or none as long as none have been traded, (see below) but they will only get as many draft picks as it takes to max their prospects at three, barring a trade.
I get that this is a little convoluted, but what this is trying to say is that any picks you have traded for do not change the fact that you must get down to 3 or less.
Prospect draft picks are assigned after your prospect keepers are announced. So if you have 3 prospect keepers, you don't have a prospect draft pick to trade. You may trade a pick at any time, but if you have traded a prospect draft pick, you may only declare two keepers. If you've traded two picks, you can only keep one and if you've traded all three, you may keep none.
Let's look at a current example. Khahan traded his 2017 1st round pick to Meatwads.....but Khahan now has FIVE prospects after the Kershaw trade: Josh Bell, Alex Bregman, Dominic Smith, Greg Bird and Sean Newcomb.
He has already stated his intention to "10th keeper" Bell and Bregman.......but to satisfy his previous trade with Meatwads, he will have to do something with one of: Bird (10th keeper?), Smith or Newcomb.
Once prospects have been declared and draft picks assigned, a manager may again exceed three prospects via trade.
This is important. Literally once the keeper deadline has passed and everyone has gotten down to 3 prospects or less, trading season is open again for prospects and prospect picks. A manager could choose to trade 2017 picks to another team in that timeframe between the keeper deadline and the draft itself.
A prime example for 2017 is mjd. He has 3 prospects already AND additional prospect picks from slizz and Tosh. By the end of the draft he will have 5 prospects. Great. He can hold all 5 (or hell, trade for more!) for an entire year until the Prospect Keeper deadline in March, 2018.
PLEASE reach out - publicly or privately - with any questions, scenarios or what have you in regards to these critical rules.
|
|
| | | 490 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 17:52
|
Thanks.
How about an explanation of what happens when you trade for a p-pick. There are rules about this too, but not written in the constitution.
The one where you can't use a pick you traded for to keep a prospect.
|
|
| | | 491 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 18:11
|
489 - just assume now Ill be naming Bird as a 10th keeper. I have 2 prospects and traded away 1 pick so I effectively have no prospect picks to make in the draft.
With that said, I have a loaded set of 1st base prospects. More than 1 manager told me 1st base is the toughest to fill long term in this league. So if anybody is looking all you have to do is ask.
|
|
| | | 492 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Tue, Dec 06, 2016, 23:50
|
Slizz, basically I meant what bh said. 1st round pick is equivalent to a 10th keeper. I think it's insane trading away those early picks when you are rebuilding. The amount of talent in the first 3 rounds is still very very good. If you draft with the "future" in mind there is so much to be had even in round 3. This is especially true since most contending teams are scooping up the vets and closers in the first 3 rounds, guys that a rebuilding team wouldn't pick.
Here's a great example of last year's draft picks that are now in the top 100 dynasty ranking according to ESPN
Jonathan Villar Pick 4.18 rank 54
Scotty Piscotty Pick 1.11 rank 55
Daniel Murphy Pick 1.10 rank 59
Aaron Sanchez Pick 9.15 rank 63
Marcell Ozuna Pick 2.04 rank 68
Kyle Hendricks Pick 1.17 rank 71
Jean Segura Pick 2.01 rank 76
Jackie Bradley Jr Pick 4.10 rank 79
Jose Quintana Pick 1.13 rank 83
Roberto Osuna Pick 3.01 rank 99
Maybe Sanchez can turn that fastball into more k's. I have no idea. If he becomes a perennial top 20 SP he's worth it.
|
|
| | | 493 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 11:39
|
490: While the rules are perhaps a bit cryptic, I believe the rules already address this.
The process is linear, and the wording of the rules explains the process:
- You must be down to 3 keepers.
- You will be assigned as many (of your own) draft picks as it takes to get you to a total of 3 (although if you traded away a pick, you must make room to do so).
- Draft picks are then assigned.
- Draft pick trades are then processed ("Once prospects have been declared and draft picks assigned, a manager may again exceed three prospects via trade")
Again, not the best wording perhaps (and we can consider rewording it), but the concrete, tangible aspects of the rule:
i.e. you must get down to 3 keepers......You will be assigned as many draft picks as it takes to get you to a total of 3
......seem to already clarify that your owning of someone else's pick is just that. You own their pick and you get to use it in the draft. There is no allowance for (as one example) using that traded pick as a way of having more than 3 prospects.
Let me know if there's an aspect I can better clarify.......or if we should invest some time to reword the rules.
|
|
| | | 494 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 12:23
|
I think it should be made clear that, essentially, your prospect picks are not yours unless you have less than three prospects. At one time I attempted to trade a prospect pick but was told I would have to drop or call up a prospect in order to do that.
Alternatively, it would be interesting to make all first round prospect picks tradable regardless of whether they would be used by the owning manager or not.
For example, if I have three prospects I want to keep, but a top 5 prospect pick, I can trade that pick for a player or a regular draft pick or picks. The team that pick is traded to would then relinquish his next highest pick, whether that is a first or second rounder.
This would give teams who have a good prospect pool or a group of younger prospects some leverage and open up their options.
|
|
| | | 495 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 17:11
|
The rules are clear as to what happens if you trade AWAY a p-pick.
The problem is no clear rules on what happens if I trade FOR a p-pick.
Why can't I use the 3rd rd p-pick I got from slizz to cover one of my prospects? Not real clear.
|
|
| | | 496 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Dec 13, 2016, 22:20
|
493 - can I throw a few scenarios out to make sure I understand it properly.
1. I have 3 picks and no prospects I'm keeping. I trade a player for your 1st round pick. I get to make 4 picks (2 1st, 1 2nd, 1 3rd) in the draft.
2. I have 3 prospects I want to keep. During the course of the season I make trades to acquire a 4th prospect and a 4th prospect pick. When the time comes I first have to release a prospect (either 10th keeper call up or flat release) and then I only get 1 pick during the draft (because I'm keeping 3 prospects in those other slots). When the time comes I don't have the choice to keep 4 players. But I could keep 2 players and make 2 picks. Basically I can go 0 keeper 4 picks, 1 keeper 3 picks, 2 keepers 2 picks 3 keepers 1 pick but not 4 keepers 0 picks
3. I have 3 prospects and trade away a p-pick without acquiring another one. I have to drop/call up at least 1 of my 3 prospects. (this was already answered earlier, I'm just trying to be thorough)
|
|
| | | 497 | Species
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 17:21
|
494: I think it is perfectly clear that prospect picks are not assigned unless you have less than 3 prospects.....but that is my interpretation. Other nuances of the rules are a bit more convoluted.
I will endeavor to put some refreshed language on the table for a vote.
|
|
| | | 498 | Species
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 17:36
|
495: I agree it is not the clearest and needs updating.
The concept of leveraging traded picks in order to use them for extra prospects has been floated around previously.....in my opinion it did not have enough groundswell to consider a full vote.
I am all for a broader set of prospect rules - that would play to my strength. But the "rule of 60" - to limit the overall depth of prospects within our rules to 3 per team / 60 total - is one that I think makes sense as a balance between the prospect lovers and those that are not.
I think we can work with a rule that would allow someone with extra picks to keep more than 3 prospects. It would retain the "rule of 60".....but this needs to be championed and have some proposed language / terms to it.
For example, if we were to consider this, the price should be high - i.e. if you have an extra 1st round pick, you may use that pick to offset a 4th prospect.
|
|
| | | 499 | Species
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 17:48
|
496:
1) Correct.
2) Yes, but with a clarification:
During the course of the season I make trades to acquire a 4th prospect and a 4th prospect pick. When the time comes I first have to release a prospect (either 10th keeper call up or flat release) and then I only get 1 pick during the draft (because I'm keeping 3 prospects in those other slots).
This is all true, but it is important to distinguish that the only pick you are making is the pick that you traded for. The pick you traded for has NO bearing on how many keepers you may keep. You must get down to 3. You must get below that to be assigned any of your OWN picks.
3) Correct
|
|
| | | 500 | Khahan
ID: 4111281510
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 11:28
|
So one last scenario - I have say pick 4 in each round. I trade away my 2nd round pick and trade for another managers 1st round pick. Say its pick 10 in round 1. So I now have R1-4 R1-10 and R3-4. Can I keep 3 players or can I only keep 2 prospects with R1-10 only being able to be used as a pick?
493 indicates I can't keep more than 4 players by acquiring another manager's pick but can I use that pick to get back up to 3?
|
|
| | | 501 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 11:45
|
Me using someone else's pick that I traded for to cover one of my prospects does not break the rule of 60.
|
|
| | | 502 | Species
ID: 07724916
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 13:57
|
500: So one last scenario - I have say pick 4 in each round. I trade away my 2nd round pick and trade for another managers 1st round pick. Say its pick 10 in round 1. So I now have R1-4 R1-10 and R3-4. Can I keep 3 players or can I only keep 2 prospects with R1-10 only being able to be used as a pick?
Only keep 2 prospects with R1-10 being just a pick. See below.
493 indicates I can't keep more than 4 players by acquiring another manager's pick but can I use that pick to get back up to 3?
No.
Remember, BEFORE any trades are officially processed, the process of declaring keepers and having YOUR picks assigned to you is completed.
We will enforce the fact that other teams must get down below 3 prospects in order to satisfy the terms of their trades.
One clarification there: Like with the supplemental draft, if someone trades you a pick that they don't have - like a 2nd round prospect pick - the traded pick becomes the next highest round pick that team has.
An example: slizz traded his 'last' round prospect pick. He has no prospects right now, so there should be no issue with him sending his 3rd in that trade. But, say he trades for a prospect this offseason (and keeps him).......then that traded pick becomes his 2nd.
|
|
| | | 503 | Species
ID: 07724916
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 14:04
|
So.........what are the league's thoughts on the concept of being able to keep as many prospects as you have picks for?
- As mjd points out, it doesn't break the 'rule of 60' (which I believe we need to keep).
- It is likely to make the picks more valuable and increase trading.
Curious - what are the negatives to this concept?
Some might worry about teams 'hoarding' prospects. Well, that is true, but for each prospect they are keeping, they are paying a price for that privilege. That presents opportunity to those teams willing to trade their picks.
If we considered this, what is the price to do so? Must it be a 1st round pick? Or any pick?
What other positives and negatives do you see?
|
|
| | | 504 | Species
ID: 07724916
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 14:08
|
PS - the implementation for a rule change of this nature could not occur until AT LEAST the 2018 draft.
Considering some 2018 prospect picks have already been traded, I think an argument could easily be made that this can't take effect until the 2019 draft.
|
|
| | | 505 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 17:37
|
Any rule changes shouldn't take place before the pending deals are completed.
|
|
| | | 506 | mjd
ID: 509211014
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 18:01
|
502 I'm going to ask this question one more time. Where's the written rule that says I can't use the 3rd round pick I got from slizz to cover one of my prospects?
I made the deal as a third rd pick as I assumed I'd be able to use that pick, plus my 2nd and 3rd to cover my 3 prospects.
I've been in this league for over 5 years now and still don't fully understand the prospect rules despite reading them no less than 20 times.
There are some unwritten or unclear prospect rules that need clarification. Especially as it pertains to all traded p-draft pick scenarios.
|
|
| | | 507 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Thu, Dec 15, 2016, 21:04
|
504 - I understand for the sake of uniformity that a rule change like this should be for the next draft (2018). But honestly, I dont see how any trades would be affected even for the 2017. I'm fine with making this change for the 2018 draft rather than pushing it for 2019. If somebody has a trade that was made that would restrict them under the new rule I'd understand and gladly reconsider changing it to 2019. But barring that, 2018 seems fine. I just dont see how this proposed rule change would negatively affect anybody.
From post 3, here are our relevant current rules for prospects:
2) Prospect Keeper Deadline: Managers designate their Prospect Keepers. They may designate up to 3.
3) Prospect draft picks are assigned and the Prospect Draft is commenced per our rules below.
Prospect Draft: The Prospect Draft will be held during the preseason after keepers are finalized (but before the Supplemental Draft).
Prospect draft picks are assigned after your prospect keepers are announced. So if you have 3 prospect keepers, you dont have a prospect draft pick to trade. You may trade a pick at any time, but if you have traded a prospect draft pick, you may only declare two keepers. If youve traded two picks, you can only keep one and if youve traded all three, you may keep none. Once prospects have been declared and draft picks assigned, a manager may again exceed three prospects via trade.
I propose the following changes:
2) Prospect Keeper Deadline: Managers designate their Prospect Keepers. They may designate up to 3.
Simply put, eliminate any reference to a max number of picks and tie all prospects to slots. No matter what, we cannot 'create' a new slot. If I trade and acquire 5 prospects I need 5 slots to keep them. So if also trade and acquire 2 more slots for 5 total, the league is STILL at 60 slots. 2 other slots had to be given up. There is simply no way the league can suddenly have 61 or even 59 prospect draft slots. Whether those slots are used as picks or to keep a prospect doesn't matter. We get 60 slots as a league and they can be shuffled up any way trading shuffles them.
So the rules should be:
1. each manager gets 3 prospect slots
2. slots can be traded
3. slots can be used for either picks in the prospect draft or to name a prospect as a prospect keeper
4. Your total number of prospect picks and prospect keepers cannot exceed the total number of draft slots you have.
Very simple and straight forward.
|
|
| | | 508 | youngroman
ID: 57047243
Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 04:22
|
Khahan - under your proposed rules
which kind of prospect pick would be needed to keep a 4th prospect? is a 3rd round enough or must it be a 1st or 2nd?
what if I trade away my 1st and 2nd round picks for two 3rd round picks. can I still keep 3 prospects with my three 3rd round picks?
|
|
| | | 509 | Khahan
ID: 51116166
Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 07:07
|
P-keepers would slot into the highest available pick. So if you have 4 prospects, any 4th pick acquired will do. You'd assign all picks to each manager. Then each manager declares prospects keepers up to the total picks they have. You would then assig each prospect to the highest available keeper slot. Any slots left over become our prospect draft.
|
|
| | | 510 | Species
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 13:10
|
506: If I am understanding your point of view correctly, you are trying to argue that you should be able to keep 3 prospects AND still be awarded your own first round pick. Is that correct?
If so, I disagree with you and think, in that particular aspect, the rules are clear:
At the prospect draft keeper deadline, all managers must have no more than 3 keepers on their prospect list. They may keep all three or none as long as none have been traded, (see below) but they will only get as many draft picks as it takes to max their prospects at three, barring a trade.
You only get as many draft picks as it takes to max your prospects at three
Obviously it says "barring a trade". I suppose that nebulous verbiage could conceivably be used to support your argument, but that aspect of the rule has ALWAYS been ADMINISTERED as a separate action.
Not once has someone declared keepers and voiced: "and I'm using so-and-so's 2nd round pick to keep Ken Griffey, III, so I will have my own first round pick."
I am really sorry that you made a trade under a false assumption. I really am. We will fix it.
|
|
| | | 511 | Bean
ID: 41052279
Fri, Dec 16, 2016, 14:48
|
Since we can trade prospect slots, what prevents us to trade away regular keeper slots? Suffice it to say, I just don't get it, any of it.
|
|
| | | 512 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 19:36
|
510 - I tried this once... I had three prospects I wanted to keep, so I wanted to trade my first round prospect pick because I wasn't going to use it, and I was told, "That's fine, but you have to drop one of your prospects in order to do that." That turn of logic made no sense to me and still doesn't.
That prospect pick should be a commodity like everything else in this league, and trading it despite already having 3 prospects doesn't necessarily break the rule of 60. If the team it's being traded to already needs two prospects, they are simply moving up in the draft, getting two first rounders instead of a 1st and 2nd. You aren't trading slots as much as trading for opportunity - opportunity to get a better prospect, not more prospects.
|
|
| | | 513 | Tree
ID: 48192723
Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 13:43
|
I like the slot idea.
Five slots, can be any combination of prospect keepers and draft picks, after calling up the 10th keeper(s).
You can exceed five slots, but must be down to five by the time of the draft.
|
|
| | | 514 | taxman
ID: 371026520
Fri, Dec 23, 2016, 21:54
|
If you have an opening this year I am interested
|
|
| | | 515 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 23:11
|
I'm wondering what people would think of a category change for 2018 or 2019 if we moved from Saves to holds + saves.
We had this discussion in 2016 for ribc and it was met with very mixed results - almost 50/50 if I remember right. I'm just going to quote my arguments from the ribc thread where this was discussed:
"Saves is a very narrow category. Its easy to manage in 10 and even 12 team leagues. But when you start getting into leagues the size of ribc they can be problematic. Closer changes due to injury usually means the fastest on the draw benefits. ... Opening the Saves category to Save + Holds would presumably open up the very limited market and make a whole category much less volatile and susceptible to injuries, committees, or poor performance. Saves stands out because it truly is different from the other 10 categories. No other category has such a narrow focus with a rules-driven small pool.
Saves + holds creates a larger pool of players to take from so you are not necessarily down with no way to dig out just because 1 of 2 or 3 people you drafted solely for a specific category got injured. It alters the supply in the supply/demand equation. Last season(2015) there were 89 MLB players who had double digit steals. There were over 100 with double digit HR. There were 37 with double digit saves. There were 69 with double digit wins. But those pitchers with double digit wins - most who were drafted were expected to contribute to K's and ERA and/or WHIP. In fact only 5 of those pitchers didn't break triple digit K's.
There were 85 pitchers with double digit holds last season. This means you go from having a limited pool of players (89 total last year (2015), many of which were not even viable until after the season started) who are drafted primarily for a single stat*, to a pool of around 170. So if one of your drafted picks goes down and you are on vacation or in a meeting or asleep or just not the first one there, you aren't screwed.
Last year when Kimbrel got traded (so that was actually 2015), the Soria owner in each league lost unless he was the first to grab Grilli. And when Grilli went down, that owner lost unless he was the first to grab Jim Johnson. At least with an expanded pool if you dont get a guy who steps in, you can still actually manage your team and get players who will contribute to the category. The fact that its narrow creates a bit of strategy during the draft. It can create a bit of speculation during the season. But the reality is what it creates the most of is - luck of the draw. More than any other stat, losing a closer costs a team because unless you are lucky enough to be first to the WW, you are not replacing any of those stats.
It would suck going from Paul Goldschmidt down to say Brandon Moss. But at least Moss can fill in 1st base and continue adding to the HR and rbi totals, even if its not at the same pace as Goldschmidt. But if Kimbrel goes down this year, unless you drafted Uehara you lose. "
* - generally speaking yes, closers are drafted for saves and saves alone. What they contribute to k's, era/whip will determine which closer you are taking first, second, third etc. But if they weren't in a position to get saves either immediately or as a handcuff for the near future, you most likely aren't drafting relievers. There are of course exceptions, but they can be counted on your hand.
Considering many of the first in the ribc discussion thread were G20 members and were in favor of the change I'm curious what we, as a league, thought of the idea.
|
|
| | | 516 | Species
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 15:34
|
The largest difference between G20 and RIBC is the keeper factor. Moving to Saves plus Holds takes a certain amount of the keeper / dynasty factor out of the equation. Do we want that?
Admittedly there is a certain percentage of saves that turn over each year......so perhaps the argument self-corrects itself.
I guess my personal point of view (not in any official-like commissioner capacity) / question is: does this make it more easy or difficult? Does it encourage trading and offer chances for teams both on the way up and on the way down in their team journeys?
|
|
| | | 517 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Mon, Jan 02, 2017, 16:30
|
Last year there were only 42 players who achieved double digit saves 21of which were still under 20 saves. We are a 20 team league. This means whoever happens to have/draft 2 closers who a) dont get injured and b) dont lose their jobs has an inherent advantage over other teams just by virtue of luck during the season.
The size of our league puts us at odds with more traditional set ups right away because there is an inherent imbalance that exists. In fact in 2016 there were only 13 closers who kept the closers job job all season (including players like Melancon who were traded and stayed a closer). That means only half the league at most were able to hold onto even 1 closer.
Is there a correlation:
The following teams had more than 1 'whole season closer':
species (1st)
roto guru (3rd)
blue hen (4th)
team tosh (7th)
Munson Mobsters (8th)
Bean's Rockies (10th)
Every single manager who managed to have 2 full season closers on their roster on the last day of the season finished in the top half. Its really not a matter of is 'is saves + holds better/preferable to just saves.' Its a matter of resources. A flat 'saves only' category simply doesn't have enough resources.
And its not just simple 'addition' by adding holds where all the closers get thrown into a pool with all the hold guys. Now we are looking at picking and choosing viable closers and viable set up men to fill out our rosters as opposed to - guy I'm stuck with Tony Cingrani, hoping to fill out a category and grab 2-3 points at the bottom of the rung.
|
|
| | | 518 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 09:57
|
Extremely opposed to this change.
I have about a thousand reasons for this, but I'll limit it to a couple, using Khahan's own quotes.
Saves + holds creates a larger pool of players to take from so you are not necessarily down with no way to dig out just because 1 of 2 or 3 people you drafted solely for a specific category got injured.
If you want a league where it's easier to find players, G20 might not be the right choice for you.
Last year there were only 42 players who achieved double digit saves 21of which were still under 20 saves. We are a 20 team league. This means whoever happens to have/draft 2 closers who a) dont get injured and b) dont lose their jobs has an inherent advantage over other teams just by virtue of luck during the season.
Two ways you can win here: by drafting players unlikely to get injured or lose their job, or by paying attention and picking up replacements when it happens. Both are much more skill-related rather than luck related. In fact, since holds are more random and fluctuate from year to year, it's far more luck-based if you include holds.
Personally, I'd rather be in a 9 category league without saves before replacing saves with S+H.
|
|
| | | 519 | Khahan
ID: 4807310
Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 11:09
|
Two ways you can win here: by drafting players unlikely to get injured or lose their job, or by paying attention and picking up replacements when it happens. Both are much more skill-related rather than luck related. In fact, since holds are more random and fluctuate from year to year, it's far more luck-based if you include holds.
I wont disagree with your preference against the idea. I know it can simply boil down to a personal choice. But I have to strongly disagree with this statement that its more skill intensive. How is it skill intensive to a) draft a closer that doesn't get injured and b) be the first to the punch when a new and unexpected closer is named?
Yes, it takes a deeper knowledge to know who to handcuff or who is likely to get named and simply have him ahead of time. But the change to s+H takes just as much knowledge. You need to know who the good set up men are. You need to recognize a newly available commodity like Brad Hand (22 H+S, 2.92 era 1.11 whip 111k's in 98.1 IP) as being more valuable than what was expected of old established commodities like Huston Street. The need for knowledge and research is still there.
And please name me one other stat that is handled like saves and has as limited of a pool of players as saves. Going into a season, even assuming 4-5 teams have a 3 person closer by committee right there is MAYBE 45 (not even going to get into actual viable players you would want to roster) players who can contribute to that stat. What other stat is so limited? K's, era/whip? Every single pitcher contributes to them. W's? A few hundred to choose from but 70 contributed double digit wins
What about runs? 99 players contributed 70+ runs in 2016.
Rbi's? 96 contributed 70+ rbi's
SB - 79 contributed double digit steals
HR - 111 players hit 20+ HR
So lets review and tell me which counting stat stands out as simply lacking in resources when we go into a draft:
Saves - 45 total
wins - 70 viable
runs - 99 viable
rbi's - 96 viable
sb - 79 viable
hr - 111 viable
Going to saves + holds increases that 45 to the mid 90's. Right in line with every other counting stat. I can't argue with your dislike of the idea and I wont try. But simple logic and stats tells us this is a change that is a long time coming.
|
|
| | | 520 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 13:06
|
I don't want to recognize Brad Hand. I barely want to recognize AJ Ramos
|
|
| | | 521 | Bean
ID: 27592412
Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 14:12
|
Never liked the saves category, would like to see it go away in rotoguru leagues if not replaced with S+H. Too many league results are determined by people who simply load up on relievers that get the "closer job" out of the blue, and are then able to win the news cycle race. Even if you dont need saves you gain trade fodder.
If all players are put on waivers permanently, it would "fix" this problem. However, streamers would do their best to never let that happen in a democracy.
|
|
| | | 522 | Bmd
ID: 825715
Tue, Jan 03, 2017, 20:03
|
Closers are easy to find in a big league like this. The high turnover is great for competing teams. I really don't like holds.
|
|
| | | 523 | Species
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 11:37
|
One counter-argument to post 517:
I think the reason that most of the top 10 teams had more than one "full season" closer was because they were (mostly) the main teams that concentrated on competing well in saves, and hence they paid the price to do so. That was done via the use of high draft picks or by making trades to acquire them.
I kept one closer, traded a prospect pick for another one and further spent a high 2nd rounder to acquire a third closer (that did not make the 'full season' list).
Unless you have a young Jansen-type closer, teams not in contention SHOULD be speculating in potential closers and trading them to contenders. With the turnover, in my view it creates opportunity for all 20 teams if they are wise enough to choose the right speculative buys.
The more I think about it, the more I think the S + H idea takes away from trading. Am I missing something?
|
|
| | | 524 | Khahan
ID: 5609611
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 12:10
|
The more I think about it, the more I think the S + H idea takes away from trading. Am I missing something?
Again, look at the resource pool numbers I posted. People trade in season for HR and that has the largest pool of viable candidates. Increasing the smallest pool to bring it in line with other stats wont hurt trading.
I honestly don't think trading will be hurt or helped by this. The 2 main positives of this category are that it eases the effect of injuries (bringing it more in line with other stats) and reduces the impact of the 'race to the keyboard' when an injury occurs or a role change happens.
There are some drawbacks, though none on the level of the 2 positives I pointed out. There are other positives, but none on the scale of injury/race impact.
I think the reason that most of the top 10 teams had more than one "full season" closer was because they were (mostly) the main teams that concentrated on competing well in saves,/I
Yes, this is true, but it is a correlation that shouldn't be ignored. It is also just 1 season. I'd be curious if that correlation held true over most seasons.
|
|
| | | 525 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 12:52
|
I don't follow what you mean with the resource pool numbers. Those are arbitrary numbers. S+H means Betances will have consistent value, and a team won't trade for him hoping for an increase in value, which is the reason most trades happen.
|
|
| | | 526 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 12:55
|
Who is my second "whole season closer"? I had Britton, but only got partial seasons from Allen and Jeffress, plus 11 total from Bailey, Estevez, Maurer, and Feliz.
|
|
| | | 527 | Khahan
ID: 5609611
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 13:51
|
Those are arbitrary numbers
No, those are actual numbers. Pull up a list of player stats and check them for yourself.
|
|
| | | 528 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 14:24
|
What about runs? 99 players contributed 70+ runs in 2016.
Rbi's? 96 contributed 70+ rbi's
SB - 79 contributed double digit steals
HR - 111 players hit 20+ HR
99, 96, 79, 111 are actual numbers.
70, 70, 10, and 20 are arbitrary.
|
|
| | | 529 | Species
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 14:53
|
The 2 main positives of this category are that it eases the effect of injuries (bringing it more in line with other stats) and reduces the impact of the 'race to the keyboard' when an injury occurs or a role change happens.
I guess I get where Khahan is coming from with the whole scarcity issue, and comparing the number of viable players who can assist in a particular category and comparing them to one another. But:
1) That doesn't mean that each category HAS to be 'fair' or more even in regards to the viable contributors to said category.
2) That is part of the tradition of Fantasy Baseball. I hate having to manage for SB and it is often my achilles heel / downfall in fantasy leagues. For 2016 I refused to fall into that trap and got Dee Gordon to anchor that category and later traded for Rajai Davis to supplement. Like with saves, it is the price you have to pay to win.
I would agree with the "race to the keyboard comment" if it were 3 years ago. These days, nearly every decent set up man or bullpen committee member who might have a chance for saves is already rostered.
The only exceptions to that, typically, are non-strikeout/mediocre ratio guys behind highly established, top-tier closers. Sure, once in a great while when a Kimbrel gets hurt out of the blue there could be a run to pick up an Uehara-type. But as soon as there are whispers that a closer might have a sore elbow (days or weeks before that closer actually hits the DL), those setup men are long gone.
----------------------
But these are just my opinions as one team out of 20. We need to hear the points of view of more managers. Please.
|
|
| | | 530 | Khahan
ID: 5609611
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 15:06
|
Fair enough BH. I had to start somewhere for my list though, so I chose what I felt was a viable number for each counting category where it feels like that player is making a contribution or breaking even rather than hurting you if you had somebody else off waivers. But lets just go at it without any arbitrary numbers:
148 players had 1 or more saves
549 players had 1 or more wins
601 players had 1 or more runs
583 players had 1 or more rbis
497 players had 1 or more HR
378 players had 1 or more SB
So just going by a raw, "how many players actually contribute anything to this category" saves is less than half of the next lowest (its actually less than 40% of the next lowest).
Its not a matter of 'wanting it easier to find players' as BH puts it in 518. Its a matter of wanting a player pool that doesn't create an unfair balance by virtue of its size. Its a matter of wanting skill and knowledge to be the primary determining factors in the final standings for a category over luck and speed to the keyboard. I have yet to see a counter argument to that point.
|
|
| | | 531 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 16:06
|
Speed to the keyboard is a skill. You can't lump it in there with luck. Most of us have full time jobs, and many of us have kids, and there are plenty of blockers in our lives. I don't think people should be penalized for making G20 a life priority. I spend time looking at the waiver wire, you spend time researching Cuban defectors. We shouldn't and aren't tilting things in favor of one or the other.
|
|
| | | 532 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 16:07
|
I also want to say that I appreciate Khahan taking time to think about how to improve G20. That's always welcome here.
|
|
| | | 533 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 17:20
|
I'd be in favor of S+H, even if the only reason was to spice things up a bit. It would make dealing with relievers a little more interesting and perhaps a little less aggravating, especially at the trade deadline or during the off-season.
From my own selfish point of view, it would certainly help me since I punted saves last year and don't look to keep any closers. I only have or ever had 1 reliever on my roster the entire season. It is probably my biggest missing piece right now, and would be easier to manage if Holds were added.
And just as a piece of reference, here is the average saves by point total from 2012-2015:
115
101
97
94
87
81
78
67
61
56
50
46
43
39
37
33
29
19
13
6
The leader in the category averages 115 saves. If you can assume an average closer gets 30 saves, one will get you 4 points, 2 will get you 12 points, and 3 puts you in contention for #1. This tells me that there are 4 teams every year with at least the equivalent of 3 closers, which means that the other 16 teams are fighting over the other 18. In fact, the top 5 teams on average account for 43% of all the saves. As Khahan points out, there's just not enough resources to go around.
|
|
| | | 534 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Fri, Jan 06, 2017, 18:27
|
Thanks BH. I realize not everybody considers S+H to be an improvement. But its always good to discuss things.
And Nerf - thanks for the data. Being a stat driven activity, more data only helps. Seeing as how you looked at a 4 yr spread, I'd say we have a more solid foundation to examine.
|
|
| | | 535 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Sun, Jan 08, 2017, 17:22
|
I take that from my own personal player rater. I do a 4 year average of finishes to know what breakpoints I need in every category. I actually have all the data going back to 2003, but saves are one stat that are not going to change that much from year to year.
|
|
| | | 536 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 14:06
|
You have data from 2003?!?!? At the very least, I'd love to see the league records...
|
|
| | | 537 | Khahan
ID: 55046914
Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 15:46
|
I would love to see the data as well. It would be very interesting, regardless of what it shows on the issue at hand.
And to be clear, I'm not suggesting this change for 2017. I'd even be willing to consider it something that doesn't go into effect until 2019 if it does get to a vote and pass. It would be a change in player value that we would all need to absorb.
|
|
| | | 538 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 17:55
|
It's not in an easily digestible form as it is in a long list and doesn't even have team names attached to the stats from 2010 on. It's 2600 lines right now. I can post it if you really want to see it. You'd be amazed what the winning ERA's were back 10-12 years ago.
There used to be website Ref kept with all those stats. Maybe that was just for football? I know he gave me all the data (or showed me where it was) when I first started in the league so I could do my own analysis.
|
|
| | | 539 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 18:00
|
Yes, post it in another thread. Definitely want to see the top 10 in each category.
I have a spreadsheet that does a decent job matching up teams to franchises. I'll send it your way.
|
|
| | | 540 | Nerfherders
ID: 33543714
Mon, Jan 09, 2017, 18:02
|
I did some digging and found the website. It still exists!
http://www.angelfire.com/games5/gurupie/baseball.html
There was even a trophy and a plaque. Who knew?
|
|
| | | 541 | blue hen
ID: 5254718
Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 09:47
|
Not bad. Looks like Twarpy once got 99 in pitching, which is the record. BH has had perfect hitting twice.
|
|
| | | 542 | Blue hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Jan 10, 2017, 22:16
|
Looking to deal for a stud SP. Can include Joey Gallo, Sonny Gray, Troy Tulowitzki, Zach Britton, Adam Duvall, or picks.
Also looking at options to trade Jose Altuve. Impress me.
|
|
| | | 543 | Fosten
ID: 4097314
Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 22:45
|
Trade Announcement
Fosten trades
Justin Verlander
Craig Kimbrel
2017 1st round Prospect Pick
2017 2nd round Prospect Pick
2018 1st round Prospect Pick
Meatwads trades
Yu Darvish
Justin Upton
Francis Martes (p)
2017 2nd round Supplemental Pick
Trade Announcement
Fosten trades
2017 3rd round Supplemental Pick
Guru trades
Jose Berrios (p)
After much due diligence, I am happy these deals finally came to fruition. Obviously moving p-picks is never easy, but considering Darvish was one of my big off-season targets, I am excited we could make this work. Not sure what to expect from Berrios this year, but I still like his chances long-term. I would like to express my gratitude to both Meatwads and Guru for being fun and easy to work with, and I would highly recommend these gentleman as future trade partners. Thanks again. That said, the Munson Mobsters still have some off-season items for sale: Robertson, Iglesias, Renfroe, Kang, Shelby, Skaggs, ArchieB. These mid-range players could be packaged with a stud keeper or traded for picks. Inquire within. Happy New Year to all.
|
|
| | | 544 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sat, Jan 14, 2017, 23:04
|
confirmed
|
|
| | | 545 | Meatwads
ID: 142562814
Sun, Jan 15, 2017, 00:41
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 546 | Judy
ID: 35493114
Sun, Jan 15, 2017, 21:04
|
531
"Speed to the keyboard is a skill."
Only if you are near the d***ed thing. I cannot tell you how many times I read about a closer going down or a closer in waiting changing, run to the computer and find the guy has already been taken that day.
Most days there are many hours where I do not have access to a computer so being speedy has nothing to do with it if it is not there to dash to.
I support S+H as a category for both here (especially) and RIBC.
|
|
| | | 547 | Bean
ID: 27592412
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 14:26
|
<546>Was wondering if there were any other enlightened people on these forums. Camping in front of a PC all day might be considered a skill by some. However, I don't see it becoming an Olympic sport anytime soon.
|
|
| | | 548 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:26
|
543: Audit time!!
If I am following these trades correctly, the participants (from a Prospect standpoint) end up with the following:
Fosten ends up with Bradley Zimmer (whom he already had), Jose Berrios and Francis Martes.
He has also traded away all 3 2017 prospect picks.
I hope he knows that he will have to 10th keeper all three of them, because to fulfill his trades he can have zero prospects after the dealine. As I have explained in the past, the owning of another team's prospect picks has NO bearing on whether you are ever awarded prospect picks.
Meatwads ends up with Franklin Barreto and Lucius Fox. He has not traded any of his own picks plus owns a treasure trove of other teams' picks. As things stand now, he can keep both Barreto and Fox and he would be awarded his first round pick in the next draft.
Guru ends up with Almora and Phillips and if he does nothing else would be awarded his first round pick.
-----------------------------------
Fosten emailed me a few days ago, but I was busy and did not sit down to go through his scenario in advance. It is my guess that he did not intend to end up with 3 prospects that he could not keep after the trade deadline. As such, I am making the following Commissioner's Ruling:
Since Fosten attempted to clarify our rules for his trade in advance, I am giving him a one-time opportunity to re-work either of his trades. However, this MUST come with the 100% agreement of his trade partners. It is not their fault if Fosten did not correctly understand the rules. They are under NO obligation to do so.....Fosten will have to live with the consequences if he cannot renegotiate a new trade. I am setting a deadline of January 31, 2017 to re-negotiate either of these trades.
|
|
| | | 549 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:40
|
It is my guess that he did not intend to end up with 3 prospects that he could not keep after the trade deadline.
That should read: "...after the prospect keeper deadline."
|
|
| | | 550 | Fosten
ID: 550431817
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:41
|
I believe I traded two 2017 p-picks? And one p-2018 pick? Would I not have one 2017 p-slot left for Zimmer?
|
|
| | | 551 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:52
|
Traded your 3rd to Guru......
|
|
| | | 552 | Species
Dude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:53
|
LOL.......oops. 3rd round supplemental.
hahahaha.....ok, my mistake :)
Let this be a lesson to you all though! Pay attention! ;)
|
|
| | | 553 | Fosten
ID: 550431817
Mon, Jan 16, 2017, 19:57
|
All good Species. Thanks for double checking.
|
|
| | | 554 | Meatwads
ID: 142562814
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:05
|
548 -
Just for my own sanity, I want to clarify something. You mentioned my prospect situation, specifically Lucius Fox. Since he went on to post a paltry .582 OPS in Low-A ball last season, odds are not good I will be keeping him. If I were to release him, that would also open up my 2nd round p-pick. So I will be entering this p-draft with three 1sts and two 2nds, as well as Barretto.
All that being said, I am currently in the midst of a mega rebuild, and am interested in more p-picks. Either 2017 or 2018. I'm also interested in 2019 picks, after the draft occurs and they become tradeable. I'd also be willing to trade for an elite prospect and forfeit my 2nd p-pick. Basically my entire roster is on the trade block. CYelich probably being my franchise player at the moment, thus the hardest to acquire.
That leaves guys like BPosey, CDavis, BMiller, CGomez, JVerlander, KJansen, CKimbrel, EDiaz, DKeuchel, MPineda, VVelasquez, AWainwright, etc. Feel free to reach out to me if anyone is interested in mixing it up.
|
|
| | | 555 | slizz
ID: 3556212
Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 14:58
|
Now that football season is all but over (well...lets be serious, it was over for Bears fans after week 5) its time to focus on baseball! Like everyone in this league, I'm sure you're as excited as I am!
Off-season Trade Snippets
Man...I can't remember an offseason (during football season) where as many big deals have happened:
-Madbum for Buxton and Ray: Was a massive risk on my part. Credit to Nerf for pulling the trigger because as much as I love Buxton, the OB% could be a bit of a concern. I really really need Buxton to be close to September Buxton all season!
I think he is just scratching the surface of his talents...so hopefully he rewards me!
-GO's megadeal with Khahan for for Kershaw: GO is now a top 5 contender....Khahan has a surplus of young talent on the rise.
MJD shipping the early part of his draft to Species for Aaron Sanchez: Species can now defend his title by capturing some saves early in the draft by building depth! MJD now has two frontline starters he can potentially count on from 2017-on to go with his solid core he's building.
Fosten, Meatwads, and Guru megadeal: What a deal...its tough to evaluate it until Meatwads drafts, but all teams involved are happy.
SLIZZ OFFSEASON TRADE COMMERCIAL
Not that it should come as any surprise, but here are my likely keeps:
1B - Eric Hosmer
3B - Nolan Arenado
SS - Carlos Correa
OF - Gregory Polanco
OF - Byron Buxton
UT - Anthony Rendon
SP - Stephen Strasburg
RP - Wade Davis
1 more - probably a SP
As I've stated at season's end...I have a surplus of keepable players to sell. The leftovers are so good that I'm quite confident I could field a fringe top-10 team with them! ;)
That said, I have two (2) big names that can be had and I don't anticipate both being on my opening day roster. I'm not just dangling them out there to see what I can get:
STEPHEN STRASBURG, SP, WSH
I don't need to hype him up, we all know what he can do. Ideally, I would love to consolidate Strasburg and Rendon into something bigger.
ANTHONY RENDON, 3B, WSH
No, I do not hate the Nationals. Rendon just entered his prime years (26 years old) towards the end of last season. If Rendon still had 2B eligibility, he would be a keeper for me and off the table. He doesn't...he's at the hot corner where I happen to have the best hitting 3B in all of baseball, Nolan Arenado. Rendon is a top 45 Dynasty Keeper luxury (to me) who offers you a 20/20 infield bat with solid OB%. As of now, he's my 9th keeper, but I do not want to use that keeper spot on Utility.
That said, I am looking for a top prospect in exchange for Rendon on his own.
THE REST:
HITTERS:
Albert Pujols, 1B, LAA: The machine can still knock em in. While he isn't what he was in STL, he is good for 30 HR and 100+ RBI's. Would be looking to recoup what I paid for 1/3rd of a seasons' rental in a 4th round pick
Hernan Perez, 3B/OF, MIL: I honestly picked him up to stream and he never made it back to the WW. with 2B/3B/OF eiligiblity, he was highly effective for me all year as a swiss army knife who gave me Starling Marte-like production:
Hernan Perez's Best Starling Marte Impression
Looking for mid-rd pick.
Yulieski Gurriel, 3B, HOU: I forgot I had this guy. Seriously!
What is known about Yulieski Gurriel is he hit .335 in his 15 seasons in the Cuban league with 250 home runs and 1,018 RBI. Last year, Gurriel had 15 home runs in 174 at bats with an average of .500 (not a typo). He bats right-handed and the dimensions at Minute Maid Park seem to play to his strengths. Of course, numbers in Cuba are to be taken with a grain of salt as the parks are smaller and it is not known the level of competition he has faced.
Also, trying to predict how a player will transition to the majors along with the culture of being a major league player is hard to do. Gurriel is 32 years old, or at least this is what is being reported, so there should not be the fear of facing the top level of competition as he has played in the World Baseball Classic and in the Olympics.
Gurriel had a higher average than Yoenis Cespedes (.319) with his slugging percentage only five points below the All-Star Mets outfielder. But his numbers are below Jose Abreu. Gurriel is ahead of Yasmany Tomas...
Surprise me!
Domingo Santana, OF, MIL: Santana has the physical profile to become a Fantasy difference maker. 25 HR power and double-digit steals in the top half of a lineup have plenty of value. Towards the end of the season, he was getting on base at a clip of .345% in 246 AB. At only age 24, he makes for a fine keeper with tons of upside. Kind of like Carlos Gonzalez years ago...Looking for draft pick compensation.
Jacoby Ellsbury, OF, NYY: Mid-late round pick. For someone looking for a 9th keeper cheap, he is your guy.
PITCHERS:
Sean Manaea, SP, OAK: Leaning towards keeping. Former #1 overall Rule 4 draft prospect until he got hip surgery. Pitches in Oakland, 8k/9, awesome ERA and WHIP, and I only expect him to improve. Of course, I'm open to packaging him for an upgrade where possible.
Robbie Ray, SP, AZ: I traded MadBum to squat on his rights for an offseason...but the more I read the more I like. Juiciest K/9 ratio in baseball after the late Jose Fernandez. If he can eliminate his hard hit % (worst in baseball), his #'s across the board should rise.
Drew Smyly, SP, SEA: We all know Smyly has the potential of a frontline starter. That said, Smyly has yet to put it together, consistently, over the course of a season...you'll get one starter where he's Scherzer-esque followed by an egg. I think with another year of seasoning and now moving from the scary AL East to the rather pedestrian AL West, (& playing 1/2 his games in pitcher-friendly Safeco) he makes for a solid 8-9th keep with upside.
CLOSERS:
Wade Davis, RP, CHC: Likely keeping. Most consistent RP and second best in the biz behind Britton.
Seung-hwan "The final Boss" Oh, RP, STL: Competing for my last keeper spot. Would like to make the decision easier. As a probable 1st round s-draft pick, am looking to trade for a 2 round discount (rd 3).
Tony Watson, RP, PIT: Pirates closer. Good ratios, 35-40 saves.
Mauricio Cabrera, RP, ATL: The next Chapman? 103mph fastball and delivers the goods.
Carter Capps, RP, SD: A personal favorite of mine...health issues? yes. His 2015 ratios are the best of any closer / RP...even dwarfs Betances.
PROSPECTS ON MY ROSTER:
Rowdy Tellez, 1B, TOR: The premier power hitting 1B in the minor leagues. With Encarnacion departing and only Smoak in his way, now is the chance to get your hands on the games next great slugger. Had a .900 OPS in 2016.
Alex Verdugo, UT, LAD: Got him as a pure upside play, much like Species got Lewis Brinson the season before. As per Keith Law one year ago: Only Corey Seager has a higher ceiling among Dodgers position-player prospects than Verdugo, who has special ability at the plate and when he's throwing, although ultimately he's going to end up in right field. At the plate, Verdugo has great bat speed and the ability to make quick adjustments, reacting well even when seeing an off-speed pitch in a fastball count. He started slow in Great Lakes, but those adjustments kicked in around the Midwest League All-Star break, after which he hit .349/.372/.460 with only 16 Ks in 200 plate appearances. He was then promoted to Rancho Cucamonga and raked.
He looks like a 20-homer, high-batting-average hitter who can play plus defense in a corner with a 70 arm and add a little value on the bases.
I'm hoping he rises to the Top 10 (much like Bogaerts leap from the 80's to #1 overall) when Law releases his top prospects in the coming weeks.
Willy Adames, SS, TB: With the WW picked dry, I am going with pure upside.
Like I said earlier, my team is loaded with talent that can help those in need of filling out their keepers. Please email me if interested!!!
jayrsherby@gmail.com
|
|
|
|