|
| Posted by: Species
- SuperDude [07724916] Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 18:18
As much as the 2018 offseason may be the outlier (given Greggo / Lyman's additions in late September and the teams they inherited needing significant overhauls), it is possible that G20 has evolved into an almost 12-month cycle, where the offseason needs it's own thread. So here we are.
With most of 2019's administration already done (save for lotteries), I am opening this thread for offseason business:
- Rule discussion
- Rule proposals
- Rule votes
- Trade talk / trade commercials
....AND, even though we are literally just about to play the first Wild Card game here on October 1st, given the incredible activity of the 2018 offseason, while the 2019 season is fresh in all of our minds, I want a roll call of teams that are fully and completely dedicated to not only returning for 2020 but to be active in league business, league discussions and trade activity!
Please consider this before committing. I would rather replace unsure teams early in the offseason so any incoming managers can truly put their own stamps on their teams. This was so wildly successful last year that I am implementing a commitment roll call on an annual basis.
Make your pledge on the metaphorical bible (or whichever religious text you prefer) here and now.
|
| | | 1 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 18:32
|
Potential rule changes to consider this offseason:
IL spots:
- How many?
- Eligibility - do we expand it to promoted prospects? Any other eligibility?
So-called "Post keeper trades"
Some angst was felt about trades after the keeper deadline this year:
- Are they collusionary because they are obviously negotiated before the deadline
- Should they be somehow curtailed - and if so, how in the heck do you do that? What is the difference between making a trade before the Supplemental Draft and AFTER it?
- Should we legislate against re-acquiring a player post-keeper that you traded earlier in the offseason?
We implemented additional SP slots in our starting lineups this year. While it did not alter the total number of roster spots overall, IMO it provided great flexibility and I think was a positive. I see no need to change the rule, but it was new so any feedback is appreciated.
Feel free to add your own.
|
|
| | | 2 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 19:00
|
Note: Lyman and Greggo got 1 free pass into our prize pool, being new teams. Now you must decide if you are in or out forever. It's only $15 per team. But you can't defer until you are good, so you must decide this offseason.
|
|
| | | 3 | darkside
ID: 2822316
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 06:38
|
Congrats on the title, Species, and thanks for the commish’ing. I’m in for next year.
|
|
| | | 4 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 08:49
|
i might be missing it in the trade list above, but Greggo and i had a trade with Brian Anderson and Tommy Millone that saw me acquire his 4th round pick for my 6th. (post 445 in regular season thread)...
|
|
| | | 5 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 10:59
|
4: Yes, you are correct, thank you. I have added it to the consitution.
That brings up an administrative request. When posting a trade, please clearly state what the trade is in fashion similar to this:
Trade Announcement:
Species receives
Aaron Judge
GO's 2021 1st
Great One receives
Max Scherzer
Species' 2021 10th
-----------------------
Using "Trade Announcement" every time will make searching the thread much easier.
I SHOULD have picked up Tree's trade, but unless I catch it and update the constitution right away, the one-liner that Tree posted is much harder to pick out of the dozens of posts around that timeframe.
Not Tree's fault by any means - I missed it - but it would be a huge help if we can describe the trade in full, for both clarity and posterity.
|
|
| | | 6 | Fosten
ID: 4492529
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 11:08
|
Congratulations on the title Species! Amazing run by Meatwads! Great rebuild by Thumqer!
I thoroughly enjoy this league, look forward to returning in 2020, and hope to see the Mobsters on the podium this time next season!
I am, however, confused by the demerits counting.
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.
Shouldn’t it be?
Tree - 5 short = 1 demerit
Greggo - 18 short = 2 demerit
Fosten - 37 short = 3 demerits
Khahan - 42 short = 3 demerits
Not that I want the demerit, but I accept it. Dummy me forgot to watch my pace in early September, and then the rainout of the Tigers-White Sox doubleheader during the last week of the season put me under 1345. Ban the 161 game season! (Whether or not this is a worthwhile barometer for measuring league activity is a debate for another time. Note: I was 5th in transactions, but 19th in GP.)
IL: I would love to see the IL expanded to include ALL PLAYERS (keepers, promoted prospects, re-drafts, free agents, waiver wire pickups, and Jim Bob down the street who helps when my refrigerator goes bad).
Post-keeper trades: I'm not sure how to best regulate post-keeper trades. The best solution I've read so far was Thumqers idea of making the 9 keeper spots trade-able.
SP Slots: Seemed to work well. The old way worked well too. Good either way.
|
|
| | | 7 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 11:52
|
6: You are correct on demerits. Guru pointed it out and I have made the corrections. I posted it on the regular season thread.
|
|
| | | 8 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 12:45
|
NOTE: I *hope* to be able to enter in the trades and update the draft grids sometime this weekend. I can only do it from home so that is not a guarantee.
|
|
| | | 9 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 13:32
|
I believe there was some sentiment expressed during the season to reduce the IP maximum and minimum. I know that we did reduce the max by 50 IP a year ago, but it does seem as though more and more teams are now using at least one "opener" rather than five true starters, which reduces the number of pitchers who can rack up true starter IPs.
|
|
| | | 10 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 13:43
|
I, Thumper, solemnly swear to return for another season of filling people’s inbox with Trade emails.
|
|
| | | 11 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 13:50
|
I would like to see IL expanded to at least promoted prospects and drafted players. I had constant issues with useful players going on the IL that I couldn't put there - Lowe, Hiura, Marwin Gonzalez (whom I traded for, but was drafted). Not to mention Frazier getting demoted for half the season. My scant bench was a constant issue.
|
|
| | | 12 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 14:04
|
[9] I just did a quick tally.
In 2019, there were 3519 instances when a pitcher worked at least 5 innings. Those pitchers averaged 5.98 IP. So only about 72% of the time did a team have a pitcher who lasted 5 IP or more.
In 2018, there were 3714 instances of at least 5 IP, with an average of 6.05 IP.
In 2017, there were 3822 instances of at least 5 IP, with an average of 6.09 IP.
So in just two seasons, the number of pitchers achieving at least 5 IP has dropped 8%, and the average IP of those pitchers has also dropped by almost 2%.
|
|
| | | 13 | Tree
ID: 217372011
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 14:31
|
I have been saying for a couple years now that the game was changing - much like the NFL has gone to RBBC, MLB has gravitated towards opening pitchers.
I made about 150 moves this year, most of which were to avoid being significantly under the minimums, and it wasn't much fun at all.
I'd rather have been playing to improve my position in the standings, not to meet some arbitrary minimum that has no bearing on the actual game we're playing.
On that note, isn't it also time we leveled the playing field a bit and put a transaction cap in place?
|
|
| | | 14 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 15:28
|
I'm for expanding the IL to include prospects and 10th keepers.
|
|
| | | 15 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 15:37
|
I would support a transaction cap. Maybe 180? (about 1 per day)
|
|
| | | 16 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 16:05
|
Also for expanding the IL spots and making them eligible for prospects or 10th keepers.
I’m not sure I understand a reason why we should cap roster moves... can someone explain why they want to cap them please?
|
|
| | | 17 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 17:10
|
The idea for a transaction cap would be to limit the use of the FA pool so as not to essentially make it a "21st man".
One could argue that a keeper league such as this should be won with a primary core of players, and not decided by how many moves a manager makes.
There are also some managers that have the time and inclination to make those moves, while others can't, or choose not to. Some would say that this creates an un-level playing field.
I'm personally in favor of a transactions cap mostly for the first argument. I want to play fantasy sports so that I can mimic being the GM of a real team as much as possible. And while I do love Fantasy sports, it's not my #1 hobby, so a micro-transaction game is not my cup of tea.
|
|
| | | 18 | Meatwads
ID: 43056268
Wed, Oct 02, 2019, 17:56
|
I wasn't expecting to jump right into a transaction cap discussion, but here we go!
Can someone explain why they want umlimited transactions, and why that's good for the most people/league as a whole? It seems to me this is something that's brought up every year, and somehow swept under the rug without anyone who supports keeping things the same even having to defend it.
I would also support a transaction cap. I couldn't have said it better myself than Nerfherders just did. I'll throw out some other reasons to support it as they come into my head.
As I've said to a few managers in private, a caps limit would only effect how a few habitual line-steppers play this league. It really wouldn't change anything besides closing a loophole that has caused issues of some kind for maybe a decade. And I've given these particular managers ample opportunity to explain to me in private why their way is better. I've yet to hear a coherent argument to keep the way the league the way it is. If anything it's been a dismissive stance they take. So on that note, I'm calling out whoever wants to defend unlimited transactions!!
Regardless of my personal opinions on this, I feel if it's brought to a vote, that will speak for itself. But I'm open to having someone who supports unlimited transactions changing my mind with logic.
|
|
| | | 19 | Slizz
ID: 53336714
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 14:01
|
More rules ::eyeroll::
If you need an answer for commitment for 2020 right away...I will choose to hang it up. I’d like to defer my decision, but I don’t have it in me to play another year with some of the shenanigans that went down.
With a moves cap I’m definitely out.
|
|
| | | 20 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 14:28
|
How is a moves cap more effective than limits? If I see a guy I want, I pick him up. I don’t have to consider any other factors- is this move better than having an extra game at the end of the year.
How is making more moves an actual advantage? This year, it obviously wasn’t. And what rule would you like to implement? Every proposal I’ve heard hurts me and literally no other team.
Last offseason, we knocked it out of the park. I support expanding IL.
|
|
| | | 21 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 14:36
|
Nerf, thanks for laying out the reasons. I can definitely understand that viewpoint. With that in mind I’m still in favor of no cap on additions, as someone who enjoys the fact that I can plug in some pleb catcher to try and squeeze out any stats he’ll give me when my main catcher is out. I’m fortunate that I have time to be able to spend on doing that kind of deep diving and adding without having to worry about a cap. Real GM’s cycle through cheap players / Option them / Fake IL them too, and I enjoy being able to stream players. I know pitching limits are a concern for some here too, and one way to keep up with those is streaming SP which is less likely to happen if we have to burn one of a limited amount of additions to stream a guy.
|
|
| | | 22 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 15:09
|
Slizz - but I don’t have it in me to play another year with some of the shenanigans that went down.
With a moves cap I’m definitely out.
i'd be curious as to what shenanigans you're referring to, because it's in the eye of the beholder.
to me, unlimited moves are shenanigans.
Hen - How is a moves cap more effective than limits? If I see a guy I want, I pick him up. I don’t have to consider any other factors
so, do you feel that way about minimums?
because with minimums, i can't always pick up the guy i want - instead i have to consider other factors.
------
Unlimited moved, and minimums are ways to keep good teams strong, and make it more difficult for weaker teams to improve.
|
|
| | | 23 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 15:35
|
My drastic suggestion:
-Weekly adds/drops with a FAAB budget. Daily lineup changes. Lower GP max to 162 and ip limit another 50. Do away with minimums.
Weekly add/drops would aid those that actually can’t watch the news wire 24/7. Would give everyone a chance at picking up the new closer but with added strategy.
Still in favor of minimums in our current setup and would be against a straight transaction cap.
|
|
| | | 24 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 15:40
|
Weaker teams can add just as many people and should have more expendable roster spots though
|
|
| | | 25 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 17:13
|
I have historically been against something along the lines of a moves cap. The reason for that was my affinity for the general foundation upon which this league was founded:
- This league is not supposed to be like every other / standard league - it is supposed to be harder and engender better overall play
- The league founders wanted "the best 'TEAM'" - not just the best 'starting lineup' to earn a title. That is why we originally had a 170 GP max and a 1400 IP max. The churn and overall quality of your 1 through 23 spots would determine the winner.
bmd has pointed out before (and rightfully so) that the 'Founding Fathers' are gone and we do not have to do what they did 16 years ago. But as the caretaker of this league, trusted with keeping its traditions intact, I am sensitive to upholding those traditions.
I will say this: I am vehemently against dumbing down this league just to make it easier for the layman to compete. That is not to pick on ANY manager -- but anyone who wants "set it and forget it" types of leagues needs to go somewhere else. So I will definitely fight against suggestions to make this like any other public league.
That said, in this case, perhaps a compromise can be made. Not to pick on blue hen, but he is the obvious outlier so we might as well call a spade a spade. While the Founding Fathers of this league wanted a high activity league, taking things to that type of extreme goes beyond what I feel was probably intended. This groundswell has been building for a while, so perhaps we can "try out" a moves cap - perhaps at a higher level than the 180 number that has been thrown out and we can see how it goes -- does it engender the more even playing field we seek without dumbing this league down? We could then re-evaluate its success after the 2020 season.
Open to thoughts and proposals.
|
|
| | | 26 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 17:15
|
19: There is not a "today" urgency in your decision. But I probably do want commitments within the next 2 weeks. If we are going to have any manager turnover, I want it done EARLY in the offseason so managers may put their own stamps on their teams.
|
|
| | | 27 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 17:20
|
Weaker teams can add just as many people and should have more expendable roster spots though
probably just the opposite.
Calhoun, Tucker, L. Urias, J. Urias, Pablo Lopez, Lamet, and Montas are all players who are likely keepers in this league (and players a young team would not want to dump) and got fairly limited playing time this season.
If your trying to build a team, you don't have much flexibility at all.
|
|
| | | 28 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 10:12
|
I hope to run the lottery later today...
|
|
| | | 29 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:12
|
Will be selecting momentarily. Audit copies of random numbers will sent to Species, Tosh, and youngroman. Prospect draft lottery will run first, followed by supplemental draft lottery. Stand by...
|
|
| | | 30 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:18
|
2020 Prospect draft lottery results:
Pick #1: mjd
Pick #2: Khahan
Pick #3: Tree
mjd was the "#5 seed" (8.1% chance of selection), Khahan the #3 seed (after demerit - 14.8%), and Tree the #1 seed (25%)
|
|
| | | 32 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:21
|
I feel like everyone's 3rd grade teacher. Only darkside, Fosten, Thumper and slizz (albeit half way) actually answered the question I posed via leaguewide email about all teams' intention to return AND your dedication to league business. When I send out an email asking for each of your response and attention, I MEAN IT. Pretty please....with sugar on top.
NO MORE "The Tree Defense", which indicates "I thought by my posting other things in the thread that it was implied that I am in"
I want every team (but Thumper, darkside and Fosten) to answer the following question:
Question: Please indicate your intention to return and dedication to participating in league business, league discussions, league votes and respond promptly to trade discussions and offers:
1) I am returning and am completely dedicated to participating in league business, discussions and trade offers....oh and I am going to beat your ass Species so watch out.
2) I am returning and will do my best to participate in league business, discussions and trade offers.
3) I am concerned about my dedication to stay up with league business, discussions and trade talks. I am thinking about whether I want to stay in G20.
4) I am out.
Please do so in the following format:
Post #32: 1
|
|
| | | 33 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:25
|
2020 Supplemental draft lottery results:
Pick #1: Tree
Pick #2: youngroman
Pick #3: Lyman
Tree gets the top pick from the #1 spot (25%), youngroman was in the #4 slot (10.9%), and Lyman in the #2 hole (20%).
So no major upsets in either lottery.
Lottery details are in the linked spreadsheet:
http://rotoguru1.com/base/G20/G20-Oct19-14x4_balls.xls
|
|
| | | 34 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:26
|
Post #32: 1.5
|
|
| | | 35 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 12:42
|
30 / 33:
THANK YOU Guru.
I did not get to the draft grids this weekend, and am traveling or otherwise busy on business 3 out of 5 nights this week and over the weekend. MAYBE next Monday when it is a Holiday. Sorry guys.
|
|
| | | 36 | GO
ID: 14143919
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:01
|
1.5
|
|
| | | 37 | Slizz
ID: 53336714
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:10
|
The league started its drift further away from what founding fathers intended with the implementation of prospects. As fun as it is to mine prospects, the pool of 60 / "hard cap" allowed teams to complete quicker rebuilds. The subsequent expansion of the pool to 100 (& trading draft slots) is fools gold. It will make it harder for the "younger" / bad teams to rebuild despite their accumulation of what they believe to be long term assets. Obviously, the thought is that those assets will help them get out from the bottom, but it will only prolong the rebuilding process from 1-2 seasons to 3-4+ to never. Then the team will be hamstrung for 2-3 seasons to come and the cycle will just repeat itself. At least with the pool of 60 / hard cap / get down to 3 prospects, the teams retained their picks the next season, still had their pick of shiny new toys, and could get those upside fringy type upside keepers as part of their 9. Unlike now, the old way promoted parity.
Another gripe of mine is the separate keeper deadlines. It opens the door for plenty of shady dealings in order to circumvent the 9 keeper ruling (the entire Archie Bradley & David Price mess). The dealing & shadiness surrounding those dealings left an awful taste for me and it was highly disrespectful to every other manager not involved. I'm sure even if that loophole was closed there will be creative ways to circumvent it. This is supposed to be fun, not aggravating.
On to the "moves cap". As stated above, if it passes I'm out. I don't want to have to deal with worrying about moves because the Cubs play what feels like 50% of their games before 1PM EST when no other team plays until 7PM. This happened to me a handful of times because of that. Most, if not all, of the Cubs players (& their opponent) are owned so I would go and see who is available in the later games. I'd speculatively pick one of those players up (say the 7pm games) only to see that he's benched and there isn't a damn thing you can do because of the Cubs lock. (I know playing on Yahoo would fix this mess as they allow pickups up until the game so its more of a ESPN issue). With a moves cap, it would only increase my frustration as you'd lose a move on top of that. Just one more thing to worry about on top of everything else in this league.
Now, I always joke with WG, BH, and Species about the moves cap, but WG is 100% right with respect to Blue Hen and his moves. Blue Hen will dump a bunch of players and block others from picking them up in hopes they start and when he finds out that they're not starting, he'll drop them and they will likely go to waivers and cannot get picked up again until they clear days later. Its smart strategy, but also ridiculous to damn near triple the next 5 teams.
6 out of the 20 teams eclipsed 200 moves (210, 257, 268, 274, 282, and 660)
5 out of the 20 above above 250 (257, 268, 274, 282, and 660)
Only blue hen was above 300 with a grand total of 660!!!!.
< 25% of the league making more than 250 moves / year is not a small number. That number is fluid depending who is competing, but its definitely a benchmark that is consistent historically tp have < 20% of the league making that many moves. I have a compromise / idea (in an attempt to come to some middle ground):
Ref and I came up with the first "conditional" trade relative to saves years back and maybe we are looking at it wrong. Based on the number of saves a RP got, the higher draft pick that Ref would give me. Sure its a headache to track for the commissioner, but it was a creative way to get a guy who was risk averse to trade with me. If the player stunk it up for him, he gives me next to nothing but if its good for him he's not complaining giving the better pick...which brings me to my suggestion. Instead of a MOVES CAP, i'd be open to a "MOVES TAX"...something along the lines of:
250-270 Moves - Warning Zone / Zero Demerits
270-280 moves - 1 demerits
280-290 moves - 2 demerits
290-300 moves - 4 demerits
300-325 moves - 5 demerits
FOR EXAMPLE: Team A makes 600 moves and wins the league.
REMEDY: Don't limit the demerits to a single round...Hypothetically speaking, TEAM A gets 20 demerits for his 600 moves. He forfeits the 1st round pick and is moved back 20 spots to round 2 and the same applies for the remainder of the draft and p-draft. Something along those lines.
As for weekly waivers / add drops - These types of leagues were implemented before the internet when leagues had to agree on a newspaper for scoring and check box scores manually. Imagine keeping tabs of daily moves back in the day / pre internet...Doing it once a week is more for tradition so that way it was easier to manually track the box scores when computing weekly standings. Its beyond me why leagues still operate that way when everything can be tracked digitally.
I'm 100% not bluffing when I say I'm on the fence in returning. The lack of integrity by some managers combined with the above reasons legitimately have me wondering if its even worth it to come back.
Post #32: 3
|
|
| | | 38 | Tosh
Dude
ID: 057721710
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 13:23
|
Post #32: 1.5
|
|
| | | 39 | youngroman
ID: 15510187
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 14:04
|
Post #32: 2
|
|
| | | 40 | Meatwads
ID: 5095013
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 15:13
|
Post #32 - 1
|
|
| | | 41 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 18:51
|
Post #32: 1
|
|
| | | 42 | ttucowboy
ID: 5691267
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:13
|
I personally think it’s absurd to pinwheel through multiple FAs as lineups come out, using one roster spot, while trying to make up your mind on a stream for that day. I’m not even sure if it’s logistically possible, but I’d support being forced to hold your add through the next lock. This would curtail some of the streaming abuse that goes on.
|
|
| | | 43 | ttucowboy
ID: 5691267
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:15
|
Oh and I’m in for 2020. Will hope the injury gods don’t shit down my throat next year.
|
|
| | | 44 | ttucowboy
ID: 5691267
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:17
|
Post #32 - 1
|
|
| | | 45 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 19:24
|
37: the moves tax is interesting alternative! Curious as to other manager's thoughts.
|
|
| | | 46 | GO
ID: 14143919
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 20:35
|
Tax seems like a reasonable compromise. You should win based on the performance of your core team (and luck of avoiding injuries, trades etc). Not the ability to bludgeon your way to categorical dominance.
|
|
| | | 47 | Tree
ID: 217372011
Mon, Oct 07, 2019, 23:48
|
Post #32: 1
Also, I am definitely intrigued by the Hen tax.
|
|
| | | 48 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 00:07
|
Post #32 - 1
For what it’s worth, I’d vote against the BH tax but would be open to a rule that says you have to keep added players through a lock, or other solutions that reduce my desire to make moves. Perhaps eliminating catcher slots, says the guy holding Will Smith.
Strongly in favor of a rule that puts both deadlines at the same time, and also one that prohibits trading between the deadline and the last pick in the S draft.
Would also vote yes on rules that limit the champion to 8 keepers and that set the draft order alphabetically by rotoguru handle, provided there is no shenanigans from BMD.
|
|
| | | 49 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 11:22
|
Post #32: 1.5
Also, I am definitely intrigued by the Hen tax.
|
|
| | | 50 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 14:37
|
I’m in.
|
|
| | | 51 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 21:58
|
#32 - right now I'm in and dedicated for 2020. However in August I started nursing school. This semester is more than manageable but I wont know about next semester until January. Work load picks up next semester and the semester after that I have clinicals. I'm always dedicated to any league I'm in and if I feel I can't give it my all will reconsider. Therefore for the question posed I have to say:
#32: 3
As long as semester 2 is a manageable workload I'm in 100% a solid #2. If not I'll talk to the powers that be as soon as I know.
For Slizz in post 37 - I agree to the extent that more assets to work with can make the extremes more extreme. A good manager can have a quicker turn around time. A bad one will have a longer turn around time. But I think with more assets the normal manager will have a more stable time.
For the other part of Slizz's post about a moves cap, I think this is a complicated situation. Picking up players to block others from getting them and having no intention of using them is simply dirty play. If the purpose of a moves cap is to stop this - well it wont. As long as manager are physically able to do this, it will happen. I dont think the moves cap will actually accomplish what Slizz intends (though I'm with him on the intent). But a hard cap is tricky - too low and it stymies active managers. Too high and it has no value.
I think as a league we need to ask ourselves - Is the 'bad' behavior we're seeing so egregious that it needs to stop? If the answer is no, then there is no need to do anything.
If the answer is yes we have 3 choices:
1. Make a change the prevents the behavior from carrying over into future years. Not discourage the behavior, prevent it.
2. Ask the manager(s) to self-correct and bring their behavior in line with league expectations (which really are generally accepted good etiquette and manners)
3. Ask the manager(s) to leave
4. Eliminate waivers (for the specific behavior that we're discussing - adding players then dropping them before game time of the same lock out)
If you stay competitive in the league by in-season micromanaging and generally ('scuse my french) pissing on the draft, then a demerit system is neither a punishment nor a deterrent. Its just something that may potentially affect a manager doing high move volume for the right reasons. Personally I think for 2020 we go with #2. Bad behavior is no different in my eyes than abandoning your team. Have a conversation with the manager in question, lay out expectations ask for self-correction. If that fails, remove them from the league. But for people who want a solution here is what I would propose:
Look at all the moves and eliminate the extreme (660). The next highest number of moves is 282. Round this up to 300 for some padding and put the moves cap at 300. Simple, straight forward and resolves the problem without really punishing the rest of the league but without saying,"here's a slap on the wrist" (I think its also important to note that since we only have 1 seasons worth of data due to the way espn changed, we may have to revisit this number after next season)
Note I'm not really in favor of a moves cap. Again my preference would be to ask the problematic manager(s) to self-correct their behavior. Just trying to offer a different perspective to the best result for the problem presented.
|
|
| | | 52 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 11:16
|
Teams appropriately responding to Commissioner Requested Action:
Did it the first time:
darkside
Thumper
slizz
Fosten
Responded to Post #32:
Guru
GO
slizz
Tosh
youngroman
Meatwads
Lyman
ttucowboy
Tree
blue hen
mjd
bmd (albeit an incomplete)
Khahan
Crickets:
Greggo
Nerfherders (although he has posted here)
WG
|
|
| | | 53 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 12:49
|
My $.02 on the moves cap from the perspective of just 1 manager out of 20:
- I like the creativity of the 'hen tax', but in the end I agree that it is not a deterrent. I love compromises, particularly if a valued manager is considering leaving over the subject. But I just do not think the tax does enough.
- I appreciate the sentiment of Khahan's suggestion - counsel the 'offender' - but I have a preference for "black and white". Bean has it right (and much to his shock, I did value what he had to say over his years here) -- you need defined rules, and the more subjectivity their is to things, the less enforceable it becomes.
Say what you want about blue hen, he gets creative and seeks to do so within the rules. Admittedly there are times where a toenail or two wanders across the line or perhaps into a gray area, but I do not want to restrict creativity. That's the sign of a good manager.
If the momentum towards doing "something" about the number of moves that border somewhere around obsessive or worse, a simple moves cap seems most appropriate. I am not too inclined to go weekly waivers - if you want that go to your nearest H2H league.
Seeking more input to arrive closer to a consensus.
|
|
| | | 54 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 12:56
|
1.25
|
|
| | | 55 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 15:16
|
Species, I didn’t see a number that says “will forget to mark my keepers”.
|
|
| | | 56 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 17:12
|
55: bhahahaahaha. So true. Good one.
I also want to focus our discussions on a couple of the other rules under consideration this offseason:
IL Spots:
- eligibility? Include called up prospects?
- total number?
The limited IL experiment was a great success. The league never had them before, and the founders WANTED teams to have to make "hard choices" when players got injured - i.e. make this league harder than other common leagues. In my opinion, our compromise of restricting IL eligibility to keepers kept that history of hard choices intact.
I do not want to go crazy and just have anyone and everyone eligible. I am supportive of having called up prospects being added to the eligible pool. The general feeling when we implemented the concept was (something to the effect of) "Why penalize me when my key keepers go down?". Called up prospects are key strategic players in a team's overall build. I can see letting them be protected.
The other side of that coin could be: Yeah, but you released them in order to get a new P-pick.....that is the trade-off.
So called "Post-keeper" trades:
Many teams were up in arms about trades made after the 9 keeper deadline. Some teams are concerned about these pre-arranged trades and are worried about collusion (I guess).
I want us to talk this out during this offseason. So far there has only been one suggested solution: ban trades between the keeper deadline and the end of the Supplemental Draft. Any other thoughts or ideas? This isn't "speak now or forever hold our peace"....but I would much rather attack this up front and avoid controversy later.
GP and IP minimums are always a hot topic
Feel free to add your own.
|
|
| | | 57 | ttucowboy
ID: 5691267
Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 17:49
|
Whether Bh was being serious or not, I agree that both deadlines should be at the same time which would effectively remove the post keeper trade stuff. The deals seem shady by nature and I realize that’s not the intent, but can’t change the perception. I think the benefit of added strategy is significantly outweighed by the bad taste it leaves in people’s mouths. Simple solution is get rid of the ability to make them. I don’t care what type of value is being exchanged, no team should ever look like a feeder team for another and that’s what has started to happen in some instances.
|
|
| | | 58 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 10:39
|
Post keeper trades: I’d like to see a rule like “You can’t trade a keeper in the first month unless you receive one in return”. That should kill most of the shenanigans. Ideally, we wouldn’t need this but judging by the last two seasons we certainly do.
|
|
| | | 60 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 12:06
|
I agree. Put an end to post keeper trades by whatever means.
|
|
| | | 61 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 17:39
|
i'd be interested to know specific trades that were of concern as mentioned above.
|
|
| | | 62 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 22:48
|
Tree, go to this years preseason thread to get refreshed. The Archie Bradley deal was probably the worst offender. It’s shady backdoor deals(keep this player and I’ll trade xyz after the deadline).
I don’t know when or who started it but I wish it was never a thing. Keepers shouldn’t be placeholders for other teams. If we want to keep it legal then let’s just let people trade keeper slots away.
|
|
| | | 63 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 23:47
|
Tree, go to this years preseason thread to get refreshed.
ah yea, all the Greggo deals, which is ironically said he would vote in favor of banning.
in fact, i flat out called the deals "collusion" at the time. man, i'm definitely forgetting stuff in my old age.
we definitely need to ban that $hit, and i really don't think it would take much to make that happen.
the anger was strong - to the point where i could see continuing to allow such deals costing the league a quarter of the current owners, if not half.
oh, and post 117 in that thread. LMAO. come on now, got a bridge to sell too?
|
|
| | | 64 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 00:14
|
Reason I said 1 month: Keepers were declared March 10. Start of the season was March 28th. 1 month would make open trading season start on April 10th. Basically only 2 weeks of the regular season where you can’t trade a keeper for picks(keeper for keeper trades would still be allowed). I think this would significantly cut down on any shenanigans.
|
|
| | | 65 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 15:14
|
I think the suggestion that keepers can’t be traded for a month UNLESS a keeper is being exchanged both ways is a good one.
|
|
| | | 67 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 15:25
|
62: I thought my 2017 Encarnacion trade was the first 'post-keeper trade', but actually it was slizz with the MadBum + Gregory Polanco for Lucas Giolito and a slew of picks that was the first on March 16, 2016. Someone is getting the last laugh on that one, although it took a lot longer than we would have thought!
Obviously I am a proponent of post-keeper trades and have used them for several seasons now -- both in buying (2017, 2019) and selling (2018 reload). Personally, I don't see why a team cannot choose to do with their keeper spots whatever they want to do. If it is more profitable for them to pick up Player X for cheap on November 1st and sell them at a profit on March 18th (at the cost of a keeper spot), shouldn't that be their choice?
A prime example of this in real life baseball is in the Rule 5 draft. Deals are made where teams with high Rule 5 picks will pick a player and immediately flip them to another team.
I completely understand and agree that there is risk of falling into grey areas with these deals. I agree that some of these deals are akin to "I will buy your keeper spot off of you" for some price. I ask again - is that necessarily wrong?
So long as their is fair, equitable market value exchanged in these deals, I see nothing wrong with them. I fully acknowledge that there is a risk of some sort of collusion. We have to police that and the sensitivity in recent seasons should make managers very cautious when executing these types of trades.
|
|
| | | 68 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 16:05
|
64/65: I can visualize some sort of restriction of trading one of your 9 keepers, but I think we would have to vet that out a bit more than just "you must get a keeper back". Are you telling me that someone can't trade one (or more) of their 9 keepers in exchange for Wander Franco? Franco isn't a keeper but undoubtedly has significant value. Or trading a #80 ranked keeper for the #1 pick in our p-draft?
Are teams going to be mad if I trade one keeper for THREE keepers 2 minutes after the deadline? "He circumvented the keeper limit!" -- but it was keeper for keeper.
So many nuances. Keep the ideas flowing.
|
|
| | | 69 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 17:49
|
I’m pretty strongly in support of no trades between keeper deadline and end of p draft. Even though I made plenty- trades before the draft, and during.
I am surprised to learn that making a high number of moves is sinister and should be punished. Clearly, a large part of this league feels that way, but I’m not clear on why 250 moves is perfectly fine, but 600 moves is treated with evil intent and deserves a slap on the wrist. And since about 150 of my moves were picking up a catcher, I’m also surprised that there isn’t more support for removing the catcher slot.
I’m intrigued by the idea of forcing people to hold keepers longer.
|
|
| | | 70 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 00:45
|
“ Are teams going to be mad if I trade one keeper for THREE keepers 2 minutes after the deadline? "He circumvented the keeper limit!" -- but it was keeper for keeper.”
I actually wanted to add that the number of keepers traded should equal the ones coming back. People keep pushing the boundaries of legality and for what? They make the league more top heavy and discourage middle of the road teams from trying to compete. That’s the exact opposite of what a 20 team league needs. Like I said, if we want to keep post keeper trades then just allow teams to trade a keeper slot, at least that’s not under the table dealing and it’s basically the same thing as a post keeper trade.
It’s a one month freeze, if someone wants Wander Franco, trade for him now(I’d love to see the return of that package). I feel like keepers should be keepers and not placeholders for another team. I think it forces teams that are tanking to take an active approach to improving rather than a kicking a can down the road for the next prospect draft or prospect.
|
|
| | | 71 | Nerfherders
ID: 347152518
Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 07:41
|
Sorry I’ve been on vacation for a week with very limited internet. No time to read all this but yes I’m in fully. Will be gone until the 22nd
|
|
| | | 72 | ttucowboy
ID: 5691267
Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 15:45
|
Effective immediately, I quit. The direction this league is going is not enjoyable and to have a commish try and sweep things under the rug is not acceptable. Best of luck to all. I’m out
|
|
| | | 73 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 21:03
|
I’m done defending. Just tell me what the rules are and do your best.
Pete, please don’t quit.
|
|
| | | 74 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 16:02
|
i fully acknowledge that there is a risk of some sort of collusion.
Fixed that for ya.
|
|
| | | 75 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 20:25
|
Back from a nice weekend.
Pete, sorry to have you go. I don't know what piece of straw broke the camel's back. I don't know what I am sweeping under the rug and I don't know what direction the league is going that you are worried about. Honestly it seems like there is momentum to adjust the total number of moves and there is groundswell to do some sort of post-keeper trade restriction. Wouldn't those be directions that you might have supported in the past when they were discussed???
So right now we have 1 opening. slizz is on the fence. If anyone has friends in other leagues they want to offer up, please let me know. You can post here or just shoot me an email or text.
I have one last request: if you are going to accuse people of collusion, you better come with a little more than innuendo. Do not expect me to police / govern things through some weird back channel. Let's direct our attention to improvements to make the league better. If you want to end a certain practice in this league, please tell me how the proposal makes the league better.
|
|
| | | 76 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 18:46
|
If you want to end a certain practice in this league, please tell me how the proposal makes the league better
If you're doing something to reduce even the mere impression of collusion, it makes the league better.
|
|
| | | 77 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 22:40
|
Agree with Tree. Post keeper trades were a necessary evil, but they’re icky. Let’s ditch em.
|
|
| | | 78 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 12:38
|
Not to derail but at some point Maybe we can vote on a move to Yahoo? I find it much better than ESPN
Pete, you will be greatly missed 😔
|
|
| | | 79 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 16:36
|
I agree that Yahoo is better than ESPN. World's better, actually. The ease of use, design and features at Yahoo have ALWAYS been superior to ESPN. My two cents, for what it's worth.
|
|
| | | 80 | Slizz
ID: 53336714
Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 16:44
|
Make that 2 openings. Due to recent events, I cannot be in this league anymore...good luck.
|
|
| | | 81 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 11:36
|
G20 Managers:
So, after a couple of body blows where two guys I call friends have decided to leave our league based upon their unhappiness with the direction, I had to take a step back and assess where I have gone wrong. While I have a clear vision for what I want this league to be, I have to remember there are 20 different managers with differing ways of going about competing. I cannot be defensive when my vision for the league is challenged. I got defensive about post-keeper trades, and I realize now I did not really listen to several managers and their legitimate concerns about the practice. I reached out to a few trusted managers privately to help me get a broader view.
So, I have to realize that the recent practice of 'post-keeper trades' created a couple of different issues within the league:
1) The grouping of teams in the middle of the pack - those that neither mortgage the heck out of themselves for a run at the top nor sell of their assets like pimps at a Vegas convention - can feel like their season is over between the keeper deadline and the supplemental draft as more aggressive teams add keeper-level talent. Those managers may like their teams and want to see them play out, so they don't sell and are in this strange middle ground that can be deflating.
Admittedly, while I heard those cries in the past, my general perspective (as one manager who DID either go for it all or sell off like a pimp) was, roughly -- why aren't you joining in as well? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
2) Even the mere possibility of collusion creates distrust and a uneasy cloud over the league.
I was defensive about this as well. Why? Because I care about this league and the people in it, and behind the scenes I spend a decent amount of time talking to managers about their teams and strategies. When there is a questionable trade, I usually contact that manager to hear their side of the story first. What motivated them to make this deal? How did they value the players and picks involved? What are both the short and long term plays involved?
There were more than a few whispers (if not out-and-out shouts) regarding some of the trades this offseason. In those cases, I reached out to each of the managers to hear them out. Some of those were over the phone, others were via text. The rationale provided by one manager verbally made sense to me. He has a method of evaluating players based upon a handful of analytics that he values. One might argue the legitimacy of the breakout that the data suggests or question whether this manager is looking at the best metrics, but this manager at least has a plan of action that is rational. So I believed him.
Another manager was shocked by the implication doubting his integrity. He spoke at length about why he would not do that and offered to take the time to reach out to any manager one-on-one to talk through any trade concern they had. I put one such person in touch with them, and that manager admitted that their concerns were lowered greatly by just hearing that person out.
-----------------------------------
So, I am more open to thoughtful, reasonable ways to manage this. The negative perception seems to have permeated to the point that it needs to be addressed in some way. So far the two ideas that have come up are to:
- Create a moratorium on keeper trades between the keeper deadline and the end of the Supplemental Draft
- Create a restriction on keeper trades for 30 days from the keeper deadline - that any trades must involve an equal number of keepers traded between the two teams
We could use more ideas, or at least need to more broadly vet out the ideas that have already been presented.
|
|
| | | 82 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:12
|
Following up on post 81, while I am sincerely embracing my 'mea culpa' on post-keeper trades, it is important to set an expectation of how far I am willing to have this go.
By this, I mean that there is only so far I am willing to bend as it pertains to the challenge that this league was founded upon. I know that is my usual soapbox, but I believe in it so firmly:
- this league is supposed to be hard
- this league is NOT supposed to be a common 'public' league that is bland
- this league SHOULD reward innovation and creativity (which, admittedly, results in some managers taking that creativity to the very edge of reasonable)
- just like in MLB, this league should have teams that are:
A) Contending and aggressive
B) Tearing it down and rebuilding
C) Struggling to choose between the two (or struggle in the standings out of their decision to do NEITHER of the above)
If you want a league to be "fair" and "easier", you honestly need to go somewhere else. Or, if the majority of managers disagree with me, then let me know and I will gladly resign.
But until that day, I am doing what I feel a good commissioner should be doing. I am going to create the culture based upon both:
1) What this league was founded upon
2) My interpretation of those founding principles, while evolving with the times to make it even better
I can be wrong and I accept that. But I am unwavering of my vision of what the league should be and there is only so far I am willing to go, so I will do my best to navigate that.....and I need all of your help to do so.
|
|
| | | 83 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 12:23
|
Items on the G20 Agenda:
1) Further explore a rule change to modify "post-keeper trades"
2) Explore the moves cap, moves tax or other to reduce the 'taxi squad' mentality of unlimited moves.
3) Recruit 2 replacement managers (and hopefully not more)
4) I need to get the draft grids updated
5) Some groundswell to move to Yahoo is out there
6) I need to make some trades! :)
|
|
| | | 84 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 13:54
|
Here’s my proposal for the post keeper trade freeze. I believe a month is a good length to prevent teams keeping guys that they just want to trade. I think keepers should be keepers and not placeholders for better teams.
“ Starting at the keeper declaration deadline, there will be a 1 month freeze on trades that involve unequal amounts of keepers being swapped. For example this would bar trades like: Team A trades keeper abc to Team B for a 1st round pick. This also includes trades where multiple keepers are involved. The amount of keepers traded has to be the same amount coming back. This does NOT include prospect keepers, prospect draft selections, supplemental draft selections, or future picks.”
|
|
| | | 85 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 16:09
|
Are we seriously considering rules that restrict managers options?
|
|
| | | 86 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 17:10
|
I missed alot while I was out of the country, but I would say the option of stopping keeper trades until the supp draft is the best solution. I would also make those two dates closer to each other. For example, in my keeper, the equivalent of the keeper deadline is two days before the start of the draft, and that's only so that I can do the admin necessary in between.
Also, is there any reason why we can't do the prospect draft after the supp draft?
|
|
| | | 87 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 08:43
|
- just like in MLB, this league should have teams that are:
A) Contending and aggressive
B) Tearing it down and rebuilding
C) Struggling to choose between the two (or struggle in the standings out of their decision to do NEITHER of the above)
get rid of GP and IP minimums. MLB doesn't have them, and it restricts severely teams B and C above, especially C. if i've got players in every slot, i'm making transactions, and i'm participating in discussions, that should prove my activity and dedication to this league.
i spent half the season picking up players just to hit the damned minimums, not to work on rebuilding my team.
----------------------
i don't like the keeper-for-keeper restriction. it implies that all keepers are equal, and in a league with 180 of them (not including prospects), that's not the case.
ban them from the time we name them until the draft is completed.
if we need some sort of restriction for the first month of the season, add a trade review board - one manager from the top 5 finishers the season before, one from 6 to 10, one from 11 to 15, and one from 16 to 30, with the commish casting a deciding a vote in case of a 2-2 tie.
|
|
| | | 88 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:22
|
87: Fair points. However, like in government, even the best intentions can have unforeseen consequences.
I completely agree with Tree's point about bmd's suggestion, which I think is just too narrow. bmd wants to avoid teams from simply having more keepers than all of the other teams. Okay, but as Tree notes not all keepers are equal. If I trade the 165th best keeper and a slew of prospects and picks for the 25th best keeper, I presume people are still going to be up in arms........or the equity bmd is seeking at the "starting line" of the season is not exactly being met.
Quite simply, there is no equity at the starting line of this league:
1) Teams can build up a treasure trove of supplemental picks (see Species, 2019) that grant a material advantage over other teams.
2) Conversely, the Meatwads closer sellout has left his cupboard pretty barren (before he unloads assets this offseason of course).
3) Teams can have strong 10th keepers to start the season (see Species, 2019).
As this is being talked about out loud, perhaps there is no viable way to govern the equity of team makeups at the start of the season....perhaps we stick to some way to at least lessen the possibility of collusion?
|
|
| | | 89 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 11:37
|
87: Part II
My concern with eliminating minimums is that I have heard from probably a half a dozen managers since we implemented minimums about how they have either:
1) Paid much better attention to the league from June on because of the need to meet minimums. Basically saying it stopped them from becoming disengaged.
2) They fought for every stat from beginning to end.
Both points are really important - but let me tell you as a contending team I looked at every point I could gain or lose down the stretch. Let me tell you, there were plenty of 10th-ish place teams still fighting all the way to the end - and that is the way it should be! Leaders should not be able to coast to victory in the counting stat categories due to the lack of effort of non-contending teams.
This only changed after we instituted minimums.
Tree, love you man, but you have been an almost lone voice in that fight. We did listen to your concerns (that were echoed by some) and lowered both GP and IP maximums and included demerit forgiveness as a compromising move. I think the league has been fair on this point......so barring a groundswell of additional support (and managers should NOT be shy just because I am poo-pooing it at the moment) I think your proposal is going to remain stuck in the appropriations committee.
|
|
| | | 90 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 13:27
|
Species, throw out another suggestion then. There’s been multiple people that have been in favor of some type of solution to ban post keeper trades. Just in the last month, Mjd, blue hen, Tree, Thumqer, and myself. Haven’t seen much opposition to it besides from you. I still haven’t heard a good reason for keeping it. It just seems crazy that a team can negotiate a team to keep a player for them. “Keep “xyz” and I’ll trade you my 2021 first round pick for him after keepers are declared. “ I’m sure someone will try to get around any rule we implement but a rule to limit the above is way better than just allowing what happened this spring to continue.
Sounds like a month may be too much of a change. I threw out that timeline because I talked to a few managers who thought that was about the right timeline. However, definitely ok to shortening it so more people can get behind it.
|
|
| | | 91 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 14:28
|
90: Sorry, I didn't mean to come off too negative, but I know what I would do strategically if the 'keeper for keeper' rule came into play - and I am not sure that the rule does what we are trying to have it do.
Of course, I am not sure the moratorium does that either. We are all just fishing right now.
|
|
| | | 92 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 14:51
|
Pro- freeze til end of supp (even eliminating in-draft trades!)
Anti- month keeper moratorium
Pro- minimums, and I think the penalty should be stronger, and we should forgive demerits if a manager quits
Anti- moves cap, but whatever, do what you want. Strongly prefer lowering maximums
Pro- ESPN, but I get it
Anti- Faab and rolling waivers. Life is inconsistent, deadlines are annoying.
Pro- Another IL slot or two, whatever it takes to shut up the guys who complain
Anti- IL for non-keepers, including prospects since there will be an inconsistent number
Pro- Species. This is hard, thanks for doing it.
Anti- catcher
|
|
| | | 93 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 15:43
|
I'm just going to throw out one other thing that has become an issue wince the GP minimums - Catcher. I typically acquire a primary catcher and get his backup to fill in when the primary sits. But this means I have to diligently keep track of which guy is starting, which is increasingly difficult if they play on the west coast. I'm assuming most teams go to the FA pool every time their catcher is out. It's almost a necessity to fill that spot because a catcher in this day and age is only good for about 120 games.
Anyway, my proposal is similar to Ottoneu's solution. For anyone who hasn't played, Ottoneu allows for 162 games at catcher just like every other position, however they have two active roster slots. This way, you can have a catching tandem and just leave them in the lineup. Less machinations would be involved in switching out that catcher every 4th day.
The only thing I'm not sure about is if ESPN/Yahoo would allow for that setup. I think you could set each to 82, and if you have a full time catcher, you'd just switch slots when he maxed one out.
|
|
| | | 94 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 16:44
|
@<93> love that idea, and something GO has mentioned before - selecting a team for their catcher spot so whoever catches for that team fills that spot. Not sure if it’s a capable option on our platform though
|
|
| | | 95 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Wed, Oct 30, 2019, 19:39
|
Man, I really like the Team catcher idea.
|
|
| | | 96 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Nov 04, 2019, 09:44
|
To me, it’s less about number of games than quality. Most days, that slot is better used on another position. And if you reach for an actual good catcher to make up for it, you’re overvaluing catchers- and based on the overvaluing a single position for relievers, we should probably do something about that.
|
|
| | | 97 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 05, 2019, 20:09
|
Okay, it is time for the Commissioner to get his head out of his a$$ and get the league moving.
1)I have finally updated the Supplemental and Prospect Draft Grids and requested that Guru embed the grids into this thread.
Noteworthy is the fact that Thumper has traded "his last" many times and his 14th twice (which defaults to his next best pick automatically). That is perfectly fine of course. It is important to note that I process trades linearly. So I start with the earliest trade and move down the list. In Thumper's case for example, on 7/10/19 Thumper acquires GO's 13th, but has traded "his last" many times before that. What that is going to mean is that his 11th and 12th picks are going to be gone to complete previous trades. The next trade by Thumper for "his last" after 7/10/19 will include GO's 13th - which at the time of the next trade was "his last" at that moment. That is probably clear as mud, so please don't hesitate to ask if I need to clarify that logic better.
2) We need to recruit 2 new managers. I have had 2 managers contact me with referrals. The way I have done it in the past is to have some offline discussions with potential managers to get a sense for their experience and whether they are a fit for our league. If you have people in mind, please have them: 1) read through our Regular Season and Offseason threads; 2) read through our Constitution; and 3) contact me via email to express their interest in joining G20.
3) We need more discourse for the various rule changes that have been proposed. I also need to (again) be a better listener and contribute more positively to the discussion when I disagree.
Trades can happen while we both recruit new managers and consider rule changes. However, keep in mind that in doing so you run the risk of both: 1) limiting your market - the new managers could be as trigger-happy as Lyman and Greggo were last offseason; and 2) if we change a rule it is possible we would implement it for the 2020 season. That is not normal, but it could happen.
|
|
| | | 98 | GO
ID: 14143919
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 11:17
|
Can commish check if Team Catcher is even a thing om ESPN? I think i saw they have TeamQB option... so maybe.
|
|
| | | 99 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 13:12
|
Posting the Slizz / TTU Cowboy rosters per request. Hoping I have the prospects down right...
Slizz Roster
MLB Roster
Jurickson Profar, OAK
Yoan Moncada, CHW
Nico Hoerner, CHC
Victor Robles, WSH
Raimel Tapia, COL
Carlos Correa, HOU
Jeff McNeil, NYM
Abraham Toro, HOU
Jeter Downs, LAD
Bobby Bradley, CLE
Franchy Cordero, SDP
Byron Buxton, MIN
Giovanny Gallegos, STL
Joe Kelly, LAD
Dustin May, LAD
Robert Stephenson, CIN
Will Harris, HOU
James Karinchak, CLE
Yu Darvish, CHC
Joe Musgrove, PIT
Drew Pomeranz, MIL
Luis Patino, SDP
Taijuan Walker, ARI
German Marquez, COL
Chris Archer, PIT
Minors
Jo Adell, LAA
Taylor Trammell, SDP
Nolan Gorman, STL
Ronny Mauricio, NYM
TTU Cowboy Roster
MLB Roster
Zach Collins, CHW
Ji man Choi, TB
Danny Santana, TEX
Roberto Nunez, BAL
Trevor Story, COL
Giancarlo Stanton, NYY
Aristides Aquino, CIN
Kyle Lewis, SEA
Nelson Cruz, MIN
Brian Dozier, WSH
Kris Bryant, CHC
Ian Desmond, COL
Jarrod Dyson, ARI
Michael Lorenzen, CIN
Mitch Haniger, SEA
Kirby Yates, SDP
Adam Ottovino, NYY
Joe Jimenez, DET
MIke Minor, TEX
Rafael Montero, TEX
Alec Mills, CHC
Patrick Corbin, WSH
Robby Ray, ARI
Matthew Boyd, DET
Jon Gray, COL
Minors
None- I think?
|
|
| | | 100 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 13:44
|
Thanks Thumper. I had it completely stuck in my head that I would cut-and-paste the rosters, which I could not do because ESPN Fantasy is blocked at work. I should have just wrote them down like you did! LMAO
Two corrections: 1) Slizz has Nick Senzel (added below); 2) ttucowboy had Christin Stewart on his prospect list. He exceeded limits so he gets automatically 'called up' to his roster. He can only be kept in that team's 9.
Slizz Roster
MLB Roster
Jurickson Profar, OAK
Yoan Moncada, CHW
Nico Hoerner, CHC
Victor Robles, WSH
Raimel Tapia, COL
Nick Senzel, CIN
Carlos Correa, HOU
Jeff McNeil, NYM
Abraham Toro, HOU
Jeter Downs, LAD
Bobby Bradley, CLE
Franchy Cordero, SDP
Byron Buxton, MIN
Giovanny Gallegos, STL
Joe Kelly, LAD
Dustin May, LAD
Robert Stephenson, CIN
Will Harris, HOU
James Karinchak, CLE
Yu Darvish, CHC
Joe Musgrove, PIT
Drew Pomeranz, MIL
Luis Patino, SDP
Taijuan Walker, ARI
German Marquez, COL
Chris Archer, PIT
Minors
Jo Adell, LAA
Taylor Trammell, SDP
Nolan Gorman, STL
Ronny Mauricio, NYM
|
|
| | | 101 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 18:19
|
Also putting at the top of our inboxes are the two largest rule changes that seem to be a priority:
1) Post-keep trades
Do we prefer bmd's "keeper for keeper only" trade proposal for 30 days?
Do we prefer a general moratorium on trades from the keeper deadline to some other date? If so, what date? Start of the regular season? Or some point early in the regular season?
2) Moves cap
The sentiment is undeniable that some form of restriction on moves is needed for this league.
- any options besides a straight cap?
- if not, what's the right number? 200? 250? 300?
Let's finalize our proposals so we may put them to a vote.
|
|
| | | 102 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 22:46
|
1) post keeper trades - against a moratorium or restriction on managers abilities to trade of any kind. Neither proposal suits me.
2) Moves cap - based on last season's move counter I'd say 300 with the understanding that in 2021 it may need adjusted again since we only have 1 seasons' worth of data to go by.
|
|
| | | 103 | WG
ID: 89402220
Wed, Nov 06, 2019, 23:52
|
I don't really see the point in a post-keeper trade moratorium, as I think managers will still just agree to something and wait it out. But I would still vote for some limitation over nothing at all. Most of all I'd prefer managers be considerate to others and not make trades they know will piss people off. Like not hitting accept on a trade in which they know they are paying below market value, or one that might be taking advantage of another manager's misunderstanding of rules or valuations, or one that may have an appearance of impropriety. This is probably asking too much of people, though.
What about instead of a blanket moratorium on post-keep trades, something instead that prevents a trade that crosses the pre and post line? Like if I trade for Knebel pre-keep I'm precluded from trading him (for some period) post-keep? That would at least make more difficult the "acquire this guy, keep him, and trade him to me after the deadline" type of trades. But again, the two managers could just agree offline and wait it out.
Absolutely feel we should implement a moves cap or some restriction that prevents the ability to add anyone, anytime, with no repercussion.
Also strongly feel there should be some type of trade review or committee put in place. Appreciate all the hard work Species does for this league, but his own investigation and determinations don't necessarily do anything to change my own mind on trades... I'm sure others feel the same way too. I don't believe collusion is the only thing that should veto or block a trade but imbalance should as well, for the betterment of the league. The manager seemingly getting the worse end of a deal being ok with it is not a good enough reason in my opinion for allowing a trade if 10 others strongly feel its not ok. If a large majority of the league can't seem to understand one side's rationale for doing a trade, I think that's a problem. I believe we have seen a few examples of that over the years, and I'm sure I have also been involved in some of those. Would have no problem with a trade of mine being scrutinized or needing amending if I learned many others had an issue with it.
|
|
| | | 104 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 01:04
|
1) Post-keep trades - Neither A or B. Keep it the same. But if I am forced to pick one option, I'd choose option B.
2) Moves cap - 300
|
|
| | | 105 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 12:20
|
103: WG reminds us of a good point. During the season (or actually, after the draft is completed) our rules mandate that all trades go through ESPN to allow for a veto vote. However, during the off-season, it falls to a plain commissioner review. The intention there was to speed up pre-season trades, particularly when they involve draft picks DURING the draft.
I would be all for a trade review committee. Perhaps a 5-person panel that the commissioner does NOT sit on? The commissioner could then break a tie (if there ever was one on a 5-person panel) or mediate.
So, on that issue, the question becomes:
- Yes or no to trade review committee (seems like an easy yes - doesn't hurt anyone)
- If yes, do we dump the ESPN veto process and use it for ALL trades?
- Or is it used for offseason trades only and we use the automatic veto process during the season
|
|
| | | 106 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 12:38
|
I like WG's idea of "If you trade a player pre-keepers, and he's kept, he cannot be traded until X Date." I think that would take care of that little loophole. That date could be like, April 15th, or 3 weeks into the season.
300 transactions hardly moves the needle. That only affects two managers. How about one per day? A typical season has 183 days with a game, so 183.
|
|
| | | 107 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Thu, Nov 07, 2019, 14:08
|
Agree with Nerf. 300 is basically unlimited.
|
|
| | | 108 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 00:45
|
#106 - the idea of 300 is that it is there to stop extremes. We actually had a small handful of managers approach that number.
But before we put a restrictive number of moves down answer this question: is the 282 moves made by beastiemiked excessive in your eyes? If so what is excessive? If not, why cut it down?
We actually had 4 managers over 200 but under 300 moves. So that's 20% of the league that could potentially approach the cap.
At 183 we have 6 managers over the cap last year and another 1 within 4 so basically in danger of the cap limiting their managing style. 7/20 managers would have a problem later in the season. That hardly seems excessive to me. It seems more like a standard way of playing.
The idea of 300 IS to be unlimited except for the extreme cases. I dont want to see yet another rule in place that restricts managers choices and strategies.
|
|
| | | 109 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 09:25
|
Agree with Khahan, I believed the motivation for a moves cap was for extreme cases only, which I’m ok with. If it’s for more than that then we’re changing the game more than I want.
I’m good with a trade committee, I’m curious to know if we think that would have solved any particular trade issues...
|
|
| | | 110 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 12:00
|
I guess I just have a different view of what a keeper league should be. I made more moves than I ever had before because I was in contention, and still came in second-to-last.
How about a middle ground of 250? That's roughly 9-10 moves a week. That still seems like a ridiculous amount to me.
|
|
| | | 111 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 13:14
|
Moves cap:
It appears there is enough interest in having one. We have differing opinions on how high it will be. I will put it to a vote with two options and we will let the majority rule.
Someone gave me a good point via text. If we move to Yahoo, we can structure it so pickups are only valid for the next day. Amongst the pet peeves observed by managers is the practice of checking lineups before the first lock and picking up multiple players that are starting that particular day. This is not really a skill - certain teams had both the time and the desire to focus that much energy towards that - so why reward those teams?
So, perhaps the combination of a high moves cap with a move to Yahoo would both eliminate the extreme and put everyone on the same playing field of guessing what players will play the next day.
Post-keep trades:
We are moving towards this and need to finalize our proposal so we may put it to a vote. The challenge is that there are different sides of the overall problem, and thus there are different solutions depending on the view of the problem. We have these basic viewpoints:
bmd suggestion: limit trades in the first 30 days to equal the number of keepers on each side of the trade.
Rationale: Stops teams from loading up on additional keepers before the league ever starts so that more teams stay engaged and feel they have a chance.
Accusations of collusion / shady deals / pre-arranged deals on each side of the keeper deadline: This one is much murkier, but a lot of distrust has crept into the league and we will destroy ourselves if we do not address it.
The challenge is that much of this is very subjective while some of it is objective. Example of objective: I tell manager X that I am interested in Charlie Morton but don't have a keeper spot. I tell manager X that I would pay a 1st round prospect pick for him after the keeper deadline. Team X decides it is worth it to go get Morton from an unrelated 3rd team (at some cost - let's just say a 5th round supplemental pick) and flip him to me for a 1st round p-pick. In the eyes of manager X, they traded a S5 (and a keeper spot) for a P1 and are happy as clams as they are rebuilding.
- I argued for years that there was nothing wrong with this practice because I felt there was value for value.
- I dismissed many arguments that disagreed with me, did not listen nor did I foster discussion on the topic (which is my 'job').
- I was wrong to do so and it has cost us a good manager / managers. I regret this and I apologize to you all.
Example of subjective: Collusion accusations at worst, or just bad/lopsided deals at best. This one is hard because here you are talking about either someone's integrity or someone's fantasy baseball acumen. Either way this gets very PERSONAL, so I take it really seriously. I do a lot of work behind the scenes to challenge managers on their trades when they are controversial. But some (if not many) trades over last year's offseason just set too many managers off.
My proposed direction is to focus our discussion on the overall moratorium on trades from the Keeper Deadline to some date after. This proposal would still address bmd's concerns about keeper stacking, and hopefully significantly impede any side-deals and deadline-skirting deals as articulately described by WG in post 103. This moratorium I think addresses the 'objective' side of the controversy. We just need to decide how long that moratorium would be.
I would couple the moratorium with a Trade Review Committee. The trade review committee would rule on ALL trades and police collusion. The trades would still be completed in ESPN or Yahoo (once the Supplemental Draft is finalized) and have 48 hours to opine. If the review committee overturns the trade, the Commissioner (who is NOT on the committee) would then execute the veto and we move on. This hopefully results in a more fair representation of the league's views on a trade from a collusion or imbalance standpoint outside of the perception of the commissioner. We would have a broader representation of opinions and not have it be 100% on one person.
The question then becomes:
- How many members on the committee? 5? 7?
- Simply majority required to overturn?
- Unanimous?
- 2/3 or 3/4 majority?
Keep in mind that teams involved in trades are obviously removed from voting on their own trades, so I am not sure 5 is enough.
Thoughts please.
|
|
| | | 112 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 13:18
|
NOTE: I am out of the country starting November 15th for 10 days. It is my goal to have these items voted upon by then. I would greatly appreciate everyone's input. I ask that we try to be as productive as possible. I think everyone's hard feelings have been clearly articulated, so it is time to turn our attention towards the solution.
I am trying to craft a compromise. I know that these suggestions are not going to satisfy everyone. Many managers will still have a bone to pick with one aspect of these changes or another. We will not be able to satisfy them all......but hopefully the compromises reasonable address the vast majority of the concerns as best we can.
|
|
| | | 113 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 16:11
|
Not voting yet, but what is basically on the table is this (with clarifying questions before finalizing proposal for vote):
1) Move to Yahoo - Yes or No
- preferred interface
- better waiver controls to combat excessive in-day 'who-is-in-the-lineup' machinations
2) Total season moves cap - Yes or No
- If yes, total of 250 or 300?
3) Keeper trade moratorium
- From the keeper deadline for how many days?
- Number of days is better than a date since the deadline will move around
- In-draft trades for picks, prospects, prospect picks, etc. still allowed
4) Establishment of Trade Review Committee - Yes or no
- How many members? Maybe 7?
- How are members established? Volunteer with league confirmation vote?
- How much of a majority to overturn? Simple? 2/3? 3/4?
|
|
| | | 114 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Nov 08, 2019, 16:11
|
I have a negative reaction to making all pickups deferred to next day.
I'm not a good one to advise on the solution to keeper pick swaps, because I don't really see these as a problem - even though I don't think I've ever been involved in one. I'd even be open to allowing teams to trade away a keeper spot (before the keeper deadline) in return for extra supplemental picks.
I have reservations about a trade review committee. I am not at all interested in being on it. And even if there are enough volunteers, I can foresee difficulty in getting all members to review each trade on short turnaround.
Moves cap: I'd support capping at the pace of one per day or higher.
I'm also still inclined to support reducing the IP cap by another 50 or so (with a commensurate reduction in the IP minimums.) It is much more difficult to find viable F/A starting pitchers than it is to find viable F/A hitters.
|
|
| | | 115 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 00:21
|
bmd suggestion: limit trades in the first 30 days to equal the number of keepers on each side of the trade.
No disrespect, but I don't like this proposal at all. For this reason: April 17, 2019 Slizz trades Vidal Brujan to Lyman for Chris Archer.
Slizz decided early on he was going to make a go at it and I was able to capitalize - which for a team in rebuild was quite a nice stroke of luck. If this game is supposed to simulate MLB, then it would seem no restrictions are necessary on pre or early season trading.
|
|
| | | 116 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 09:44
|
1. yahoo - yes.
2. cap - 300
3. Moratorium -0. Should not be any dead time during active season where we cannot make a trade.
4. Trade committee - good idea. It directly addresses some of the problem trades that some see in this league. I'd suggest if we do this, we shelve the moratorium and see how the trade committee works. As always I'm in favor of KISS - keep it simple stupid.
5 man committee. A trade is assumed to have passed committee review unless an objection is raised. Then it goes to trade committee for review.
|
|
| | | 117 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 15:57
|
1. Yahoo - Yes!!!
2. Cap - 250 (I feel as though I make a lot of moves, but I doubt I'll ever sniff 250. So my choosing of 250 is a compromise to those who are in favor of 300 or unlimited moves and to those who are in the one move per day camp, which is roughly 180 moves.)
3. Moratorium - No change. I've only been in the league for one season but, honestly, I'm not even sure what happened to bring forth this measure to be voted upon. David Price? I agree with whomever suggested no trading restrictions be enacted for the months of March/April.
4. Trade committee - Not in favor of. I think the trade committee should always be the 18 managers who are not involved in the trade. I think if any 4 of those managers vote against the deal, then the deal should probably be nixed.
|
|
| | | 118 | GO
ID: 14143919
Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 18:48
|
To confirm, someone vetted that Yahoo can handle this many teams?
|
|
| | | 119 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 21:45
|
And note that a move to Yahoo May make it harder to maintain our league history.
|
|
| | | 120 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 13:11
|
I have negative reactions when I see unbalanced trades that significantly alter the competitive landscape of the current season we are in. People always use the keeper aspect as justification to allow any trade that involves a guy with a modicum of upside. Sure, these players may someday attain as much value as the vets or more established players they are being traded for, or they may not. What is more certain is that the vet going to the contender for cheap or little current cost will have a big impact on their team and the standings. I would rather piss off these managers by disallowing these types of trades than allowing them and pissing off all the managers at the top who have worked hard to get their teams in a position to win, only to find their path made much tougher. That’s why I pitched the trade review committee.
I also think it’s important to look at the totality of circumstances. The players values today (weighed most heavily, obviously, based on my above thoughts), the potential future values, what the market is for those players, what other similar trades looked like, whether it seems the manager has a proper grasp on rules, what a manager could have done instead, whether managers are friends in real life, etc.
|
|
| | | 121 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Mon, Nov 11, 2019, 22:37
|
In general, I'm fairly ambivalent about all of the rule changes currently on the table. That said, as someone who did a piss poor job of managing IP and ran out in early September, I'm very opposed to lowering the IP max. But, business at hand...
1 - I much prefer the UX of yahoo, but haven't thought much about it. I don't really care about the league history risk blue hen mentioned (perhaps that's because I've long been mediocre/bad), so that's not a big deterrent. The pickup/waiver process Guru brings up is a definite loss. I also appreciate they improved the timing of their starting information. One downside is, in my experience, their app just didn't work sometimes. Could be my phone, but I had problems.
2 - In theory, I don't like the idea of caps. Especially one that primarily/only targets one manager. I haven't looked at any data, so it's hard to know what the 'right' move is. I wouldn't be opposed to trying. I might abstain from the yes/no but cast a vote for the limit.
3 - Moratorium...I don't see a need. I just assume collusion isn't happening in this league. At least not by my definition. I mean, how long have I been playing with most of you? 10 years? 20? Without collusion, I don't see that this addresses anything. If y'all are cheating, let me know and I'll give up my spot. I've got so much other stuff going on in life that this is a welcome respite from reality. It isn't important The idea of cheating in this is like...stealing candy at Halloween. I just don't understand it.
4 - Trade committee...see answer to number 3. No.
Thanks, Species, for continuing to be a fair commish. I think you're always doing your best to be objective and make the league better. I appreciate you owning the fact that you're a human and have biases. I trust you. Keep doing your thing.
|
|
| | | 122 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 13:25
|
[114] My comment on reducing the IP max is related to the research I presented in post [12], showing evidence that the number of true SPs continues to decline.
An alternative would be to open up another 1-2 pitching slots. Each relief slot should provide an extra 45-60 IP for a season. There are plenty of viable relievers on the F/A list. But the number of viable "true starters" continues to shrink. And that trend could continue.
Only three teams hit the IP max of 1350 last year. And only two other teams were within 50 of the limit.
|
|
| | | 123 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 13:30
|
Welcome back from a long weekend - and thank you to any veterans we have in this group!
I'm sure other managers will chime in soon. I am happy that we have heard from:
Guru
Lyman
Khahan
darkside
....at least in the context of expressing their thoughts on the proposals at hand. We have had other comments but we need a broader sampling of managers and those that comment need to address all of the proposals. For all of the previous comments on the board coupled with the many comments made privately between managers and either directly or indirectly provided to me, there should be a lot more participation. If you have been upset about something in the past and you are not speaking up now, that is on you.
Please provide your thoughts and forward the discussion so we may put it to a vote. Pretty please.
|
|
| | | 124 | Tree
ID: 77532019
Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 14:59
|
1. no more pitching spots. the waiver wire is thin enough as is.
why make it more complicated than simply reducing the minimum IPs.
2. move cap. nothing insane, but we still need it. let's be real - call it the Blue Hen rule. cap it at 300. it won't affect, literally, 95 percent of the league.
3. trade moratorium. i don't know what the solution is, but we do need to prevent these lopsided deals that basically have a team tanking before the season even begins.
4. trade review committee. i like it. we'll never get enough response from the majority of a 20 team league to over turn it.
put 5 people on the trader committee. the commish, and one person each representing the previous year finishes 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, and 16-20.
the commmish only votes or even comments in the case of a 2-2 tie.
|
|
| | | 125 | youngroman
ID: 15510187
Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 15:38
|
my thoughts:
1) ESPN. I like their API and believe their platform has more future potential than Yahoo. haven't played at Yahoo for a few years until we switched G20 hoops there and I am not as impressed as some other managers are.
2) no moves cap
I'd rather implement:
- if you add a player you need to hold him for 1 scoring period. no pickups in the evening, 1st replacement in the morning, 2nd at noon and final just before rosters look. if you pick up a player he should be yours for 1 day.
or
- if you add a player and drop him in the same scoring period he does not end up on waivers. avoids blocking of players for pickups by other teams.
I doubt that any of these features is available at ESPN or Yahoo.
I would also think about a lower games played cap for catchers, something like 140 instead of the 165 that we currently have.
regarding the IP limit and the ever growing number of bullpen games and pitchers getting pulled earlier I see 2 options:
- reduce IP limit
- do something so that middle relievers are more valuable or worth adding to our rosters. more pitcher slots would help but the bench for hitting will be very short, especially if you face some injuries. I don't know if there is a stat that values good relievers higher than average starters and closers
3) keeper trade moratorium
personally I'd like no trades until 2 weeks into the season, but I guess I am the minority. 2 weeks would give every manager the chance to assess his team (keepers + draft) and if he might be able to compete these season.
on the other side I do not want to forbid in-draft trades which does not work well with a 2 week no-trade period.
I'd combine the deadlines for announcing keepers and prospects to close any potential loopholes that some of you mentioned in earlier discussions.
4) trade review
I don't believe that we need such a committee, but I guess for the integrity of our league it would be better to take some of the burden of deciding commish-things away from Species. I don't know what would be the ideal size of the committee, but I believe that it should be a as low as possible (5?) to have a quick decision making process, but high enough to be meaningful in case 1 or 2 members of the committee are unavailable / not allowed to vote or abstain. majority should be 2/3 or higher.
|
|
| | | 126 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 18:56
|
Lots of good thoughts above, some of which are helping shape my point of view.
1. I favor Yahoo, but am not a fan of forcing pickups made today to only be on the roster tomorrow. Just makes addressing immediate needs more complicated
2. No moves cap, if there needs to be one then 300. I’m not sure why people think a guy added and dropped same day is blocked from other Teams? Last year BH added and dropped Adam Haseley the day he was called up. I added him like 15 mins after BH dropped him
3. Moratorium - in general not a fan of one, but I am for a smart one that specifically addresses the primary concern (stacking teams/collusion) while not sacrificing flexibility and creativity of teams being able to go in whichever direction they choose. A middle ground I think may work is something like the below:
Between the keeper deadline and the first 2 weeks of the season, a keeper may not be traded unless-
A. An equal number of keepers are being sent/received for all teams involved
B. A single keeper can be traded without a keeper in return as long as the team receives 2 of: a top 50 prospect (per MLB.com), a 1st round supplemental pick, a 1st or 2nd prospect pick
Trades that don’t have keepers involved during this time (I.e. trading supp picks) wouldn’t have any limitation. I would allow a 1st and 2nd round prospect pick to be traded together too. If a team is looking to get an extra keeper early in the season, this forces that they are paying up and removes someone getting a side deal on the cheap.
4. Generally prefer to structure rules so that a committee isn’t necessary. I am for it on the basis that only extreme scenarios where collusion (or something like it) is STRONGLY evident. This gets to be a slippery slope
|
|
| | | 127 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 13:03
|
I don't think trades need a committee. I think a simple 24 hour approval window will take care of that. During the draft, obviously, we can't have a delay, so maybe that just goes to Species to approve.
If the limit has to be 300, then so be it, but I'd prefer it smaller.
|
|
| | | 128 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 21:45
|
1. Far prefer ESPN. A lot more faith in the future of the platform.
2. No moves cap, or make it as high as possible, or it won’t make much difference, or it didn’t actually give any material advantage. I do prefer a moves cap to some kind of rolling waivers. Just want to be able to get a guy when the mood strikes- in football I think of all these guys I want on Tuesday, then forget to act on it. But whatever, do what you will and I’ll adjust.
3. No trading keepers until April 20, all other trades allowed, if you want. Trading a guy I drafted or a pick during the draft seems reasonable.
4. I vote against the committee. I’d like someone to step up as deputy commish and help Species continue to keep us honest.
|
|
| | | 129 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 11:33
|
Thank you to all of the managers that have posted their thoughts on these issues. As noted by someone, when you hear other managers' perspectives and thought processes it can help us all with our own viewpoints. This is also a very eye-opening inasmuch as the variety of perspectives. I have received vehement communication from separate groupings of managers voicing significant displeasure with one aspect or another (all 'quotes' are paraphrased):
Managers X, Y and Z say:
"There is collusion going on!! This has to stop or this league is going to $hit! I might even quit! We need a moratorium on post-keeper trades to manage this."
Managers G, H and I say:
"Some of these post-keeper trades are just too imbalanced and I have no idea why you let them go through!"
Managers A, B, C and D say:
"Something has to be done about unlimited transactions. Using the waiver wire as your bench and catcher positions is NOT an indication of skill and needs to be stopped! I might even quit over this!"
Managers J and K say:
"Capping transactions? Ridiculous!"
Managers Q, R and S say:
"We need to drop the minimums and let managers decide for themselves how to build their teams!"
NOTE: we are all entitled to our opinions and positions. The fact that so many of us are passionate about this league to get that pissed off is a good thing! I am in no way trying to out or quote any one particular manager. In EACH example above, there are multiple managers expressing these thoughts, both publicly and (quite often) privately.
I am challenged to bring consensus and compromise given the disparity between the various positions affecting the league right now. The term "herding cats" seems appropriate. BUT WE ARE IN DESPERATE NEED TO ADDRESS POST-KEEPER TRADES AND SOMEHOW MANAGE WAIVER WIRE ABUSE or we run the risk of having this league fall apart. As such, this is my ask as I put this to a formal vote:
Understanding that one or more of the solutions may not be optimal, or be inconvenient, please realize how critical it is to address the most vehement objections with these votes.
Trust me, I am amongst the last to advocate 'bad law' in reaction to some extremes. But, as always, we can try something out and adjust later if necessary.
|
|
| | | 130 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 11:54
|
** League Vote **
1) Post-keeper trade moratorium:
There will be a moratorium on trades involving keepers for a period of 30 days from the date of the keeper deadline.
NOTE: Trades involving prospects, prospect picks and supplemental picks may continue to transact as normal.
Vote: Yes or no
2) Maximum number of moves in a season:
Managers may only make a maximum of 300 moves in a season.
Vote: Yes or no
3) Trade review committee:
For all offseason and preseason trades, a Committee of five (5) members (which will NOT include the Commissioner) will review the trade. This committee should consider all angles of the trade to consider potential collusion as well as trade imbalance.
The committee would have to cast a minimum of four (4) votes to overturn. The committee will have two (2) alternates in case of either: a) a committee member is involved in the trade: or b) a committee member is unavailable. In the event that a committee member is unresponsive and their vote is required to complete the process, the Commissioner will step in and vote.
The committee has up to 48 hours to overturn. The committee may take less time if the voters cast their votes sooner. Votes are tabulated by the Commissioner and can be received either by email or text message. The Commissioner will then communicate the outcome of the committee's review.
NOTE: In-season trades will continue to be governed by our league site's trade voting process.
Vote: Yes or no
I am deferring consideration of the move to Yahoo pending further investigation of their mechanics and commissioner authorities.
|
|
| | | 131 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 13:14
|
Yes to all: 1, 2, and 3.
|
|
| | | 132 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 14:22
|
My votes
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
|
|
| | | 133 | youngroman
ID: 15510187
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 15:09
|
1 yes
2 no
3 no
|
|
| | | 134 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 15:12
|
1 No
2 Yes
3 Yes
|
|
| | | 135 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 15:37
|
FYI - I am out of the country for the next week and will be incommunicado. Might sneak in some texts while the wife isn't looking.....but that's probably about it!
Reminder: Please provide me with your nominations to replace the departed managers. We need trade business to get moving once the administrative priorities are completed. Hopefully we can do that upon my return.
|
|
| | | 136 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 16:35
|
1. Yes
2. No
3. No
|
|
| | | 137 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 18:22
|
I noticed there was a free agent add after the end of the season. I have reversed that.
|
|
| | | 138 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 18:55
|
Yes to all.
|
|
| | | 139 | darkside
ID: 2010251419
Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 20:25
|
1. Abstain. I see both sides, but genuinely don’t care and don’t see a reason to cancel out someone else’s vote.
2. No
3. No
|
|
| | | 140 | Tosh
Dude
ID: 057721710
Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 15:11
|
1 No
2 Yes
3 Yes
|
|
| | | 141 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 12:13
|
1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
|
|
| | | 142 | GO
ID: 112192620
Sun, Nov 17, 2019, 22:59
|
1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
|
|
| | | 143 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:55
|
1.No
2.No
3.Yes
Yahoo same day transactions would be my preference.
|
|
| | | 144 | Meatwads
ID: 43056268
Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 17:13
|
1. Yes - I've gone back and forth on this one, but decided it's best to vote this way because of how aggressive some members of the league felt about this last season. It clearly caused a lot of issues and while I prefer to let managers have freedom to do what they think is best, I'd rather lock it down than give anyone the chance to abuse it, or even give the impression. We can revisit this once the trust has been re-established.
2. Yes - I've long been a supporter of putting a moves cap in place, or at least some kind of FAAB, weekly moves. I still believe 300 is far too many, and is basically still unlimited. I prefer a more real-life GM experience. Having unlimited access to sign guys to 10 minute contracts isn't how GMs build teams or interact with their rosters. I want keepers, drafting, scouting, stashing, trading, prospects, timely aggressive moves to be rewarded. I want to limit people's ability to make up for their blunders with little/no consequence. I don't believe anyone should be able to overcome an inability to accurately assess talent by overwhelming the league with transactions and free lotto tickets.
3. Yes - I'm not sure a trade committee will ultimately be our best option long term, but if it will make the league feel more at ease about everything being legitimate, I'm on board. Besides, I don't have a better idea. I think trust has become an issue, so we need to get that handled. I think communication could go a long way to curing some of the hard feelings people have developed.
P.S. I definitely favor switching to Yahoo. Again, this is something that can be revisited in the future if ESPN or someone else steps up. Surprisingly I find myself leaning towards next day transactions. That would do wonders for the excessive streaming that's caused so much debate. At least with next day transactions there will have to be some kind of planning that goes beyond a few minutes.
|
|
| | | 145 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 17:51
|
Votes so far:
1. 6-5 Yes
2. 7-5 Yes
3. 8-4 Yes
None have passed yet.
I agree with Meatwads on all accounts as far reasoning for my votes. They are different / not as far as I would have gone, but better than the status quo.
|
|
| | | 146 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 23:19
|
Meat hit it out of the park with number two above. Good lord. Beautifully put.
|
|
| | | 147 | Species
ID: 351051122
Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 12:05
|
Nerf's vote tallies are accurate. These teams still need to vote:
Khahan
Greggo
BMD
Fosten
WG
I also have not voted. I prefer to let the rest of the league have their say. Obviously ttycowboy and slizz are not voting.
Not sure the rules address this. But I would lean towards determining that our league has 18 members at the moment, so a majority is 10 to pass these rule changes.
|
|
| | | 148 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 13:26
|
Sorry, missed 130 somehow. Thought the votes were on the earlier post which I see was just a discussion post.
1. NO
2. yes
3. yes
|
|
| | | 149 | Fosten
ID: 4492529
Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 11:53
|
Great points everyone! I don't have a strong opinion either way. The fun is in the strategy, so as long as the rules are clearly defined, I am game.
1) No. Doesn’t feel like the right solution. Would rather see us embrace tradable keeper spots. If I have a guy who isn't going to play in April, can I trade him away before keepers and reacquire him after 30 days?
2) Sure. Not sure this is necessary, but might help create some parity or at least perceived parity. Any lower than 300, and minimums might also need adjusted. I had 257 moves last year, and still missed the GP minimums.
3) Unsure. How about everyone votes on trades thru the ESPN site? Seems easiest. Need x of 20 vetoes to block. If we go committee, maybe consider annually rotating board members.
I would be against the move to Yahoo, since youngroman and blue hen are proficient in scripting ESPN for historical data.
|
|
| | | 150 | Species
ID: 351051122
Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 17:50
|
149: For official count purposes, I am interpreting these as:
1 No
2 Yes
3 No
.....unless Fosten clarifies otherwise
|
|
| | | 151 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:28
|
1. Yes
2. Yes, although I wish the number was lower, something like 6 per week. I don't think the massive streaming rewards excellence at all.
3. Yes
|
|
| | | 152 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:31
|
Amen to what Tree said in 146.
|
|
| | | 153 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:33
|
I am flying out of the country to sail around The Virgin Islands, and will be out of range for cell phone/computer usage for the next 8 days.
|
|
| | | 154 | WG
ID: 89402220
Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 13:52
|
Yes
Yes
Yes
|
|
| | | 155 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 12:33
|
1. 8-7 in favor (not passed yet)
2. 11-5 in favor (passed)
3. 11-5 in favor (passed)
Only BMD and Species haven't voted.
|
|
| | | 156 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 12:54
|
155: All accurate, thanks!
I have pinged bmd to advise that his vote is a potentially deciding vote and is greatly needed.
darkside abstained from Proposal 1 and could choose to make a vote based upon some of the viewpoints and comments made.
I am only voting if necessary.
|
|
| | | 157 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 13:03
|
Sorry for the delay. Yes to all.
|
|
| | | 158 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 15:22
|
Given how tight the voting for the first question is, I wonder if there is some better solution to consider. Clearly, a continuation of the status quo is not widely desired, but the remedy suggested does not seem to be a consensus solution.
To me, the solution proposed seemed like an overreaction to a more narrow problem - which is why I voted against.
Would this type of proposal solve that issue:
After the keeper deadline (and for 30 days thereafter), any manager who desires to trade away a kept player must first post a declaration (both at the forum and also via league-wide email) that the player is "on the block" in order to alert all managers that the player is available. The objective of any acceptable trade would also be listed (i.e., supplemental and/or prospect picks, closers, etc.)
All teams would have the opportunity to respond with offers for several days before any offer could be accepted. This would presumably help to control for the following situations:
1. A pre-keeper swap could not be executed with a certain "quid pro quo" swap to be executed after the keeper date.
2. All managers would be aware that a player was available for trade, eliminating the complaint that "if I had known so-and-so was available, I would have come up with a better offer than the one accepted ..."
While some of the previously suspicious trades might still go through, there would at least be full transparency, and no trade could be executed that was pre-conditioned on a post-keeper reversal. Further, if any such trade is then challenged, the accepting manager would need to disclose what competing offers (if any) were rejected, and why.
Would this solve the problem? Or is the problem broader than what I have surmised?
|
|
| | | 159 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 18:44
|
158: I agree with most of Guru's observations and find all of these things to be true:
- There is a problem that needs to be addressed
- The proposal is perhaps an overreaction
- We cannot do nothing - the damage done by last years trades is too significant
- I put forth what I thought was the easiest solution
We sit here with 9 votes to pass, with one abstention and me having yet to vote. With only 18 managers 10 will have it pass.
It is now Thanksgiving week, so I can't expect managers to chime in over the next couple of days with any last minute solutions. So, I am going to delay my vote until Wednesday December 4th to allow for either:
1) Support of Guru's suggestion
2) Reconsideration of bmd's 'keeper for keeper' only for 30 days suggestion
3) Thoughts/proposals for a better suggestion
I despise kicking the can down the road, but I do not want to implement a restrictive rule when, as Guru noted, it really is about as close to a 50/50 split as you can get.
Honestly Greg the team owner/manager would vote no. But Greg the Commissioner really needs to vote yes, and absent a more palatable option with a broader consensus, that is what I will do.
|
|
| | | 160 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 23:15
|
I'd like to 2nd (or 3rd?) Guru's proposal in 158.
Can we move to trash the initial vote and start a new vote for #1 only that involves Guru's proposal?
|
|
| | | 161 | Nerfherders
ID: 2211442615
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 12:05
|
I'm fine with Guru's proposal.
|
|
| | | 162 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 13:54
|
I think the proposal helps, but I am in general not a big fan of having to load up post-deadline keepers before the season to get ahead in the league. if I’m in the minority I can accept that for what it is and play it that way.
If the proposal passes, it should only apply for post keeper deadline deals. If I’m discussing a trade with a manager pre-deadline and we end up with an agreement on players that weren’t posted, I wouldn’t want to wait to make a deal until having to post the players. I feel the post-deadline issue was the concern, not pre-deadline offseason deals
Also think the trade committee (which passed) should hopefully put concerns of shady deals at ease.
|
|
| | | 163 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 14:54
|
Keep the comments coming!
This is also the last call for nominations for new, replacement managers. I have two viable candidates but want to make sure we have given all managers the opportunity to invite a connection of theirs to the league.
|
|
| | | 164 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 23:41
|
Thumper summed it up well. This goes against the spirit of trading.
|
|
| | | 165 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 09:22
|
My suggested proposal does say "After the keeper deadline (and for 30 days thereafter)..."
If may be that the question is: do you want a more and transparent - albeit perhaps sluggish - way to trade keepers after the deadline (and for 30 days thereafter), or do you just want to outlaw it altogether?
|
|
| | | 166 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 11:43
|
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving!!
My self-imposed deadline to finalize the post-keeper trade vote is this Wednesday. Please read posts 158 on and post your thoughts on this alternative. This is a very close vote that should be considered carefully.
|
|
| | | 167 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 12:16
|
Please welcome two new members to our league!
I would like to welcome Ross Aarons and Daniel Honig to the Gurupie 20 Baseball League. Both guys are experienced fantasy players, playing in a league with (and beating!) Thumper over the past few years. They are very competitive and addicted to fantasy news and advanced stats. I love the energy they exhibited in some emails we exchanged back-and-forth. Both guys have been perusing the message board and constitution for a few weeks as well.
In the case of multiple vacancies, our history dictates that a random coin flip will determine which manager gets the privilege of choosing their franchise. This is done on a COMPLETE basis - major league roster, prospects, and picks (or lack thereof). Below are the two rosters.....Ross and Daniel will need to click on the supplemental and prospect draft grids in the opening post to ascertain the desirability of each teams' respective draft positions. HINT: TTU Cowboy mortgaged a few picks!
TTU Cowboy Roster
MLB Roster
Zach Collins, CHW
Ji man Choi, TB
Danny Santana, TEX
Roberto Nunez, BAL
Trevor Story, COL
Giancarlo Stanton, NYY
Aristides Aquino, CIN
Kyle Lewis, SEA
Nelson Cruz, MIN
Brian Dozier, WSH
Kris Bryant, CHC
Ian Desmond, COL
Jarrod Dyson, ARI
Michael Lorenzen, CIN
Mitch Haniger, SEA
Kirby Yates, SDP
Adam Ottovino, NYY
Joe Jimenez, DET
MIke Minor, TEX
Rafael Montero, TEX
Alec Mills, CHC
Patrick Corbin, WSH
Robby Ray, ARI
Matthew Boyd, DET
Jon Gray, COL
Minors
None
Slizz roster
MLB Roster
Jurickson Profar, OAK
Yoan Moncada, CHW
Nico Hoerner, CHC
Victor Robles, WSH
Raimel Tapia, COL
Nick Senzel, CIN
Carlos Correa, HOU
Jeff McNeil, NYM
Abraham Toro, HOU
Jeter Downs, LAD
Bobby Bradley, CLE
Franchy Cordero, SDP
Byron Buxton, MIN
Giovanny Gallegos, STL
Joe Kelly, LAD
Dustin May, LAD
Robert Stephenson, CIN
Will Harris, HOU
James Karinchak, CLE
Yu Darvish, CHC
Joe Musgrove, PIT
Drew Pomeranz, MIL
Luis Patino, SDP
Taijuan Walker, ARI
German Marquez, COL
Chris Archer, PIT
Minors
Jo Adell, LAA
Taylor Trammell, SDP
Nolan Gorman, STL
Ronny Mauricio, NYM
|
|
| | | 168 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 12:55
|
Expansion Draft Idea:
An idea has cropped up over the years when multiple teams have been available - the idea being an expansion draft between the incoming managers.
Pros:
- Gives incoming teams a much greater say in what type of team they inherit.
- FUN! Fun for them to fight over players. Fun for us to watch the expansion draft.
Cons:
- You still have to 'own' a franchise, and are stuck with the picks of a franchise.
- When there is only 1 vacancy, the incoming team just gets what they get - so it isn't necessarily equitable vs. an expansion draft.
What are the league's thoughts on this concept??? Please set aside the "but *I* didn't get to do an expansion draft!" perspective - that cow is out of the barn.
In this case, with such a disparaging gap in the value of each franchise's pick set, the two new managers and I would mutually negotiate some kind of offset to the team that gets the poorer set of picks prior to the coin flip.
|
|
| | | 169 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 13:30
|
I think an expansion draft is a good idea, particularly when there are multiple teams available. I would consider the expansion pool to include all players from those two rosters plus all currently-unrostered free agents (perhaps excluding F/A players who are still prospect eligible) - and would hold the draft ASAP.
In this particular case, maybe each team should also be able to draft (as prospects) two of the four current prospects.
One complicating factor - outstanding draft pick trades. These would have to be dealt with somehow.
Devil's probably in the details, but the concept seems fairer than a strict winner-take-all coin flip.
|
|
| | | 170 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 13:42
|
Welcome to Ross and Dan!
I’ve been playing these guys in fantasy for a very long time. Dan used to keep his old MLB video game updated by manually trading the players in the offseason to match up with the MLB moves. Ross breaks down all the big MLB trades and signings with me. They’re good analytical managers who like trading and are fun to play with, but slightly less fun when I lose to them :)
Slizz and TTU Cowboy are great friends and fantasy managers, but I’m glad two strong managers will replace them.
I love the idea of drafting teams between the slizz/TTU pool. Since Slizz has much better draft capital, I think it would make sense for the winner to choose between 1st pick in the MLB and Prospect draft (of this pool) or Slizz’ team picks as opposed to TTU. It makes sense to me that there would be an MLB and Minors draft between them and I’d note that Nick Senzel and Christin Stewart would also be considered in the MLB pool as they’d be automatically called up as MLB Keepers.
|
|
| | | 171 | DonkeyKong6000
ID: 561143213
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 14:44
|
Thanks guys, Ross here. Really excited to be joining the league and looking forward to getting started!
A quick intro: I've been playing fantasy baseball in some fashion since 2005, when Dan, Nick and I were in middle school together in eastern PA. I currently work in healthcare and live in Chicago - I remain a Phillies fan despite living just a few miles north of Wrigley. I've played in a number of keeper leagues over the years, although G20 will be the deepest dynasty league I've played in. It seems like you guys have built a pretty special league and I'm excited to be a part of it.
Best way to reach me would be through email at rhaarons at gmail dot com or by text (I'd be happy to share my mobile # on an email thread once we're started). I'm always looking to talk trades so don't hesitate to reach out.
Lastly, I like the idea of an expansion draft, but would be fine just inheriting one of the open spots if that's what the rest of the league prefers. I do agree with Thumqer that we should find a way to even out the trade pick disparity between the two teams if we do go the expansion draft route.
P.S. The DonkeyKong handle is in honor of my favorite video game of all time, Donkey Kong Country for SNES. It narrowly beats MVP Baseball 2005.
|
|
| | | 172 | Bean
ID: 26119214
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 15:09
|
Afternoon, G20. This is Dan. Pumped to be joining what Nick tells me is a super intense, but very fun league!
Like Ross said, I grew up with Ross and Nick and have been playing fantasy baseball since the early 2000s. Back then, Nick and I would use our study hall in the library to draw up trades on pieces of paper and store them in the largest book we could find, the 1,300 page Grey's Anatomy book. If lucky, you could go back to page number 1119 and find all of our mock trades. This is all to say that I love talking fantasy, especially trades, and keep an eye daily to Fangraphs to try and educate myself.
I currently work in finance and live in Philadelphia where I cheer on all four major Philly sports teams. The best way to reach me would be text or email at daniel dot honig 17 at gmail dot com.
I'm perfectly fine with whichever method of choosing a team you all deem best. I know there's a lot of work ahead to get up to speed with this league and I'm looking forward to the challenge.
Let's get this thing going!
|
|
| | | 173 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 15:31
|
Nick just informed me that Bean was a handle of a previous user. I'll roll with my second choice then to avoid confusion.
|
|
| | | 174 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 20:06
|
Another two Phillie fans! Excellent....add blue hen to that and we have a flock of 'em! If only I had some Phillies to trade! Welcome, guys.
However, not so sure I want to actually accept anyone who ranks Donkey Kong over MVP Baseball or Baseball Stars on SNES!! ;)
|
|
| | | 175 | GO
ID: 141062421
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 21:35
|
Baseball Stars undisputed #1 for anyone who wants to build a team!
|
|
| | | 176 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Dec 02, 2019, 21:44
|
Welcome two more Phillie fans. We used to be far outnumbered.
I generally oppose the expansion draft but don’t feel strongly about it. Two cons I see is building a too-strong contender if the managers are unbalanced, and it’s also an issue to divvy up the franchise history, said the league historian.
Not worried about the picks- why not alternate the picks that do exist? It’ll still add up to 28.
|
|
| | | 177 | GO
ID: 141062421
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 08:41
|
Also, it should be noted since moving here I've been transitioning... with my Phillies sponsor Thumqer encouraging me every day. My selection of Bohm last year was a testament to that.
|
|
| | | 178 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 15:23
|
Welcome aboard newbies, sorry to hear you root for Philadelphia.
the only thing worse than rooting for the Phillies is rooting for the Eagles, one of the suckiest franchises ever. :D (How 'bout them Cowboys!?!?!?)
let's get these teams settled so we can start the hot stove league i know you guys want to steal the players of mine that your buddy Thumqer is after! :D
|
|
| | | 179 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 15:36
|
Rule Change Vote:
Our rules indicate that replacement managers "are recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state".
This rule change vote proposes to ADD to the existing rule to allow for an "Expansion Draft" when there are more than 1 franchise available. This would be optional and the incoming parties would have to agree. Otherwise, the old rule would stand and a coin flip would determine who gets first pick of what franchise. Here is the exact proposed language:
"In cases where there are multiple franchises available, the incoming managers will have the ability to mutually agree to an 'expansion draft' of the vacated teams' rosters. The teams will take turns drafting from BOTH the major league and prospect rosters of the vacated teams. All prospects drafted in this manner REMAIN on the prospect list for their new team. This is optional and requires a 100% positive vote of all managers involved.
Because incoming managers do inherit a franchise, and thus are bound to the draft pick trades and seeding - both positively and negatively - left by the previous franchise, the Commissioner shall be empowered to negotiate consideration in favor of one team or the other based upon their relative draft capital position. This must be 100% agreed upon by all parties for the Expansion Draft option to be able to be exercised. "
|
|
| | | 180 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 15:41
|
I vote yes
|
|
| | | 181 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 15:57
|
I vote no
|
|
| | | 182 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 16:01
|
Yes- love it
|
|
| | | 183 | GO
ID: 14143919
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 18:01
|
Yes, love it. We do this in F101. Fairest way to divide up teams and let new manager put a stamp on his or her new squad.
The "first pick" of the draft should be choice of franchise (history, traded picks, subsequent draft order for real draft).
You do need to note id the expansion draft is snake or straight and exactly how many picks... til both are picked clean?
|
|
| | | 184 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 18:04
|
183: Definitely the entirety of both teams.
I would do snake.......but one of the offsetting factors for the correction of draft capital (and this year is a very good example) could be that we do this particular expansion draft as straight to give the one team that advantage.
|
|
| | | 185 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 21:02
|
Hey all. Still checking in. I've got 3 finals between today and Monday (and had one this morning) so I dont really have a lot of time right now. Short answer - go with the expansion draft.
Also, now that we have 2 managers, should we get their votes on those standing questions from 130?
|
|
| | | 186 | Species
ID: 351051122
Tue, Dec 03, 2019, 21:17
|
185: No. I chose to settle league business before providing the invites. Our new leaguemates do not have the context to really properly vote on the proposals.
|
|
| | | 187 | youngroman
ID: 301342313
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 04:18
|
regarding Guru's proposal:
I would be fine with an open trade board. it would be like the posting process for players from Korea.
regarding the expansion draft:
i am fine with yes or no.
if the decision is for an expansion draft, the only question I have is how to handle traded picks? some possibilities:
1) they stay with their teams, if one of the teams sold out in the past this would be a disadvantage, if one of the teams traded up this would be an advantage
2) they are evenly distributed: highest pick to team 1, 2nd highest pick to team 2, potential advantage/disadvantage hits all new teams
3) include them as possible assets in the expansion draft. so a draft pick can be chosen instead of a player
|
|
| | | 188 | darkside
ID: 50115448
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 09:54
|
I still don’t feel strongly enough about post-keeper trades to cancel out someone else’s vote. I’ll continue to abstain.
I like the expansion draft idea and vote yes.
|
|
| | | 189 | Meatwads
ID: 43056268
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 10:47
|
1. Welcome to the league Ross and Dan! I'm happy you guys decided to join and I look forward to competing against you for years to come. I know you both have Thumper to discuss the league with, but feel free to reach out to me via text or email, if you want another perspective.
2. I like the idea of posting who's available. Using the "On the block" method is something I think should be standard for most managers, and mandatory if there are any concerns. It always confused me why someone would trade away a player who has league wide appeal, but only negotiate with one team. The only reason someone wouldn't want to make the entire league aware (that I can think of) is because they want to quietly get a deal they shouldn't be able to. As for the "spirit of trading" that Blue Hen mentioned in post 164, everyone disregard that. That's like Ted Bundy giving a lecture on ethics.
3. I vote YES for an expansion draft. Right when I heard the idea from Species, I liked it. If we have the ability to give new managers a chance to mold their teams from the start, I think we do it. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of including free agents in the expansion draft. I would lean towards saying no to that, if it's part of the situation.
|
|
| | | 190 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 12:37
|
I officially vote yes on the expansion draft proposal.
187: Good thoughts on how to even up the 'draft capital' considerations. Those are all variations that we have been considering. I think I like your option #2 -- just alternate the picks of the teams involved. Whoever loses the coin flip for the first pick in the draft then gets the first pick in BOTH the supplemental and prospect drafts of the departed managers.
|
|
| | | 191 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 14:16
|
Yes to both the expansion draft and 158.
|
|
| | | 192 | Tosh
Dude
ID: 057721710
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 16:48
|
I would vote yes on the expansion draft.
I would do a coin flip. The winner gets to select which set of draft picks they want. The loser gets first pick in the draft.
youngroman option 2 is also good.
|
|
| | | 193 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 17:45
|
I am officially going with the youngroman proposal 2 option and am clarifying the rule proposal as follows (with changes in italics):
Rule Change Vote:
Our rules indicate that replacement managers "are recruited to take over the vacated team in its exact state".
This rule change vote proposes to ADD to the existing rule to allow for an "Expansion Draft" when there are more than 1 franchise available. This would be optional and the incoming parties would have to agree. Otherwise, the old rule would stand and a coin flip would determine who gets first pick of what franchise. Here is the exact proposed language:
"In cases where there are multiple franchises available, the incoming managers will have the ability to mutually agree to an 'expansion draft' of the vacated teams' rosters. The teams will take turns drafting from BOTH the major league and prospect rosters of the vacated teams. All prospects drafted in this manner REMAIN on the prospect list for their new team. This is optional and requires a 100% positive vote of all managers involved. A random coin-flip will be used to determine which franchise receives the first pick in said draft. The other franchise then gets the first pick in both the Supplemental and Prospect drafts as outlined below.
Normally incoming managers inherit a franchise, and thus are bound to the draft pick trades and seeding - both positively and negatively - left by the previous franchise. In order to address any inequity in draft capital, ALL picks - both Supplemental and Prospect - will alternate between the two franchises. For example:
Franchise A has picks in rounds 1, 1, 2, 3 and 4
Franchise B has picks in rounds 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8
The two incoming franchises would then receive:
A) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
B) 1, 3, 4, 6, 8
|
|
| | | 194 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 18:37
|
Okay, we have had some decent feedback on Guru's suggestion in post 158. 6 in support, with 2 comments of not exactly no but definitely not in support.
We are still around the Holidays, and I have heard from several managers with a variety of personal issues currently that is impeding their ability to participate in the discussion. As such, I need to bring a certain amount of finality to the post-keeper trade vote.
I am officially voting yes on the post-keeper trade moratorium.. That allows me to put the three rule changes (and a 4th once we get 1 more Yes vote on the 'expansion draft') into play, update the constitution and move on.
HOWEVER, just because we are passing this now, that does not mean we cannot overturn this approval and replace it with some version of the Guru Post 158 version. So please keep the conversation moving, and if there is sufficient support to the compromising proposition of a public trade availability board, we can have that vote be made as a REPLACEMENT of the complete trade moratorium.
Need one more yes vote on the Expansion Draft. Anyone? Bueller?
|
|
| | | 195 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 18:58
|
Yes on Guru's post keeper solution.
Yes on expansion draft.
Yes on no more rule changes / endless debates until after the 2021 season.
|
|
| | | 196 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 19:17
|
Expansion vote passes. Thanks.
Guru - if you would be so kind as to do a random coin flip between Donkey Kong and Jon Dowd. I will establish a separate thread for this purpose.
|
|
| | | 197 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Wed, Dec 04, 2019, 22:13
|
Yes on guru's keeper solution instead of telling managers we cannot actively trade a player. I'm sorry but the idea that we are told we cannot actively pursue trading a player is anathema to everything this league is about and an horrendous solution.
|
|
| | | 198 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 08:51
|
excited to watch the expansion draft...looks fun!
|
|
| | | 199 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 10:43
|
It’s going to be exciting to see! Donkey Kong/Jon Dowd and I are doing a conference call early next week to clear up remaining questions on rules. Since that forms a base of understanding of player valuation they will draft shortly after that conference.
...all other managers who want to get into some action... I am looking to BUY early and often this offseason. I’ve already reached out to a few of you, but please reach out if you want to get ahead of the rest of the league. I have all of the below that I’m willing to part with to improve my keepers from any position.
- Any MLB asset not named Acuna
- Casey Mize (prospect)
- Nolan Jones (p)
- Jazz Chisholm (p)
- Luis Garcia, PHI (p)
- p 1.07
- p 1.08
- p 1.19
- 6 p picks round 2 onward
- high supplemental picks
|
|
| | | 200 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 13:54
|
I was patiently waiting for league business to be over but I can't wait anymore, so here's my for sale sign.
These are potential keepers that may be available this offseason:
Omar Narvaez - just traded to Brewers. .350 OBP plus 22 HR. (I also have Tom Murphy, who hit 18 HR in 260 AB last year)
Didi Gregorius - 16 HR in about half a season
Lorenzo Cain - A down year but played through a few injuries last season.
Clint Frazier - The forever in-the-doghouse OF just needs a new home or a chance.
Tommy Edman - Came out of nowhere to have a solid season down the stretch. 59 R and 15 SB in half a season.
Brandon Lowe - Not sure if I want to trade him but might be available at the right price.
Kenta Maeda - He quietly puts up good numbers every season.
Alex Colome - Same for Colome.
Madison Bumgarner - Finally had an injury free season and was very solid.
Joey Lucchesi - Young, solid, in a good home park.
Masa Tanaka - Had a bit of a down year in the ERA dept but pretty good everywhere else.
I have to keep four of the above, but they can be had. I'd love to be able to bundle a few to get one keeper back.
|
|
| | | 201 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Thu, Dec 05, 2019, 16:23
|
Probably unlikely I'll be able to move any of these players, many of which have big-time talent and are in situations where they can put up elite fantasy production, but here's a list of players available from team Lyman.
1B Luke Voit - Put up MONSTER numbers in the first half before succumbing to a power-sapping hernia which limited him dearly at the dish and put him on the shelf for much of the second half. First half numbers? In 78 games had a .393 OBP, 17 HR, 50 RBI, 53 runs and 49 walks. Feel free to extrapolate that to 156 games, and best of luck finding that kind of 1B production in the draft. Infielders Gregorious, Encarnacion and Bird are all out of the way, and the Yankees are injury prone, so Voit should see regular AB's at 1B and DH. He's a beast in a beastly lineup, playing in the best park in the AL. If healthy, at worst he is a top-100 overall player. With a full season of at-bats he's a legitimate top-50 overall fantasy threat. Fangraphs' Paul Sporer even wrote in November that "a top-5 season at 1B isn't out of the question."
1B-2B Michael Chavis - Always had premium power and showcased that skill early and often in his rookie season. During the first half delivered 15 HR, 48 RBI and a respectable .332 OBP before a shoulder injury sapped his power and landed him on the DL. Plays in a great park for offense and in a great lineup that includes, Betts, J.D. Martinez, Devers, Bogaerts, Benintendi, etc. He's ESPN-eligible at both 1B and 2B and - dare I say - a sure bet to crank at least 30 HR should he stay healthy.
SS Dansby Swanson - Yet another of my players that was breaking out before missing a month with a deep bone bruise to his foot. Dansby delivered 17 HR, 57 RBI and 58 runs in the first half. 0 HR, 8 RBI and 19 runs in an injury-plagued second half. He raked in the postseason. Swanson is only 25 and before the foot injury appeared to be on the verge of a 30 HR / 15 SB season with high RBI and runs totals.
OF David Dahl - You all know the narrative. When healthy he's no worse than a top-25 outfielder with the potential for much, much more. And Coors Field is still the best park to hit in baseball history. I have reasonable expectations regarding a return for Dahl.
OF Drew Waters - Got a taste of Triple-A last year and should rise to the Majors in 2020. I have reasonable expectations on a return for Waters.
OF Trent Grisham - This guy seems like a potential badass and, apparently, the Padres agree, having traded uber-prospect Luis Urias to acquire him. The home park is less favorable, but the lineup around him might be better (Machado, Tatis, and a solid supporting cast with the Padres vs Yellich and Hiura and not much else for the Brewers). A true speed/power threat with a superb batting eye which leads to high walk totals and an elite OBP (.407 overall in 2019 MiLB and a whopping .471 in 134 Triple-A at-bats). Cranked a total of 31 HR across three levels in 2019 and stole 38 bases as recently as 2017. A ton of potential here, but my glut of outfielders has me listening to offers.
OF Jesse Winker - Not going to try and sell this guy other than to say, if he stays healthy and starts 150 games, he's got the power to go yard 30+ times and sport an OBP of over .400. This guy is Joey Votto-lite if he can acheive 600 plate appearances. My expectations on return value are reasonable regarding Winker.
Also have starting pitchers Caleb Smith and Sean Manaea available. Smith is, in my opinion, way better than he showed in what proved a dismal second half. He had 88 K's and a 1.01 WHIP in 72 innings during the first half, before a hip injury cost him a month and he appeared to wear down as his first full season in the Majors wore on. PitcherList placed Caleb in its top-20 SP for much of the season (even during his second half struggles), so I'm not the only believer. He pitches in a great pitcher's park and has a legit chance at 200 strikeouts with a heavier load in 2020.
I also have prospect SP Brent Honeywell available. I'm not giving him away though.
If you have my cell number, feel free to text with any offers or trade ideas. Otherwise, email me thru the ESPN site and we can exchange phone numbers and talk trade.
|
|
| | | 202 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 18:18
|
might as well put my list up here as well.
who's available?
Any OF on my roster - this includes Joey Gallo, Max Kepler, Willie Calhoun, Bryan Reynolds, Kyle Tucker, Austin Hays, and Ramon Laureano.
Sal Perez - one of the game's best catchers. which is all relative, i suppose.
SPs Corbin Burnes, Logan Webb, Pablo Lopez, and Danielson Lamet.
most players on my roster are theoretically available, but i'm not likely to move anyone named Torres or Urias.
i'm mostly looking for picks, but there are obviously some players i'd be interested in, and a combination of picks and players could also work out.
in other words, i'm open.
|
|
| | | 203 | Tree
ID: 55911315
Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 18:32
|
Oh yea, my email, for the newcomers.
|
|
| | | 204 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Sat, Dec 07, 2019, 09:08
|
with all the discussions we're having, i think it's really important for us to not forget to review changes we need to make in our game that reflect significant changes happening in the MLB game.
posts 12 and 13 above should be addressed seriously and we should make changes accordingly.
Guru provided actual, vital data, and i provided a shrill voice for those of us in the proletariat.
|
|
| | | 205 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 17:17
|
Updates:
Expansion Draft: The picks in both the Supplemental and Prospect Drafts have been entered. Jon Dowd got the first pick in each, and every pick thereafter alternated.
Thumper is giving Ross and Aaron a "Gurupie 1A" rule review this upcoming week. The draft will start at their convenience - although we do want it to move ahead sooner rather than later so teams may reach out to them to talk trade.
Rule Changes: The 4 rule changes have all been added to the Constitution. We can still consider the Guru 158 counter proposal. We have time to do that.
|
|
| | | 206 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 17:53
|
Species' Offseason Commercial:
The champs have some top 100 assets available to teams looking to fill out their offseason rosters.
Core top 30 guys - harder to get
Mookie Betts
Anthony Rendon
Max Scherzer
Jacob DeGrom
Probably not keeping 2 1st basemen - want one?
Jose Abreu - 6 year averages of .349 obp, 30 HR, 102 RBI
Carlos Santana - merely posted a .397 obp with 110 runs, 34 HR and 93 rbi
Probably keeping 2 of these 3 middle infielders
Jonathan Villar (2b/SS) - only one of the most valuable middle infielders of 2019: 111 runs, 24 HR and 40 sb
Eduardo Escobar (2b/3b) - 2b-eligible with 35 HR, a very quiet 118 RBI (4th in NL) and 94 runs
Corey Seager - sort of a slow year after hip surgery in the offseason, but still produced 19 HR, 87 rbi and 82 runs in only 134 games. On a 162-game basis both runs and rbi are 100 or more.
Outfielders
Michael Brantley thrived in Houston and was NOT a product of alleged Houston at-home cheating. His home vs. road splits are basically identical. Great season with .372 obp, 22 HR, 90 rbi and 88 runs
Joc Pederson and Cole Calhoun are 33+ home run bats.
I might have an ace available
I am debating the value of just keeping Charlie Morton. He of the 3.05 ERA, 1.08 WHIP, 16 wins and 240 strikeouts.
Closer-palooza!
Brandon Workman - stabilized the Boston bullpen to the tune of 16 saves, 15 holds, a 1.88 era, 1.03 whip and a 13.06 K/9
Taylor Rogers - the clear closer in MIN posted 30 saves, a 2.61 era and 1.00 whip with a 11.74 K/9
Craig Kimbrel - struggled with control after signing in July but has the makings of a huge comeback for the Cubs
2-for-1s, 3-for-1s or outright sales all considered. Most interested in a keeper upgrade but will also flip select assets for picks. Inquire within!!
|
|
| | | 207 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 13:11
|
All: The expansion draft has been completed:
DonkeyKong6000 Final Roster:
Trevor Story
Carlos Correa
Victor Robles
Yoan Moncada
Nick Senzel
Jeff McNeil
Byron Buxton
Kyle Lewis
Abraham Toro
Bobby Bradley
Yu Darvish
Dustin May
Robbie Ray
Mike Minor
Joe Jimenez
Giovanny Gallegos
Luis Patino
Joe Musgrove
Chris Archer
Adam Ottavino
James Karinchak
Will Harris
Robert Stephenson
Alec Mills
Rafael Montero
Michael Lorenzen
Prospects:
Taylor Trammell
Nolan Gorman
|
|
| | | 208 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 13:12
|
Jon Dowd Final Roster:
Kris Bryant
Giancarlo Stanton
Mitch Haniger
Nelson Cruz
Aristedes Aquino
Jurickson Profar
Renato Nunez
Brian Dozier
Ian Desmond
Raimel Tapia
Nico Hoerner
Danny Santana
Jeter Downs
Franchy Cordero
Zack Collins
Ji-Man Choi
Jarrod Dyson
Patrick Corbin
German Marquez
Kirby Yates
Matthew Boyd
Jon Gray
Taijuan Walker
Joe Kelly
Drew Pomeranz
Prospects:
Jo Adell
Ronny Mauricio
|
|
| | | 209 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 13:51
|
I hope to have some time either tonight or tomorrow night to make the exact adjustments to the new team rosters on ESPN - although if Guru or Tosh find themselves sick on the couch with their laptops and beat me to it, that would be wonderful! :)
Best of luck to our new suckers uuhhhh, managers! Welcome to G20, and don't be shy!
|
|
| | | 210 | DK6000
ID: 561143213
Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 13:56
|
DonkeyKong offseason commercial:
Nearly everyone on my roster is available, but most notably I'm open to shopping Trevor Story. Will be looking for a cornerstone of comparable value that fits into the youth profile of my team.
Feel free to email me at rhaarons at gmail dot com and we can exchange cell numbers.
|
|
| | | 211 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 22:49
|
Okay, I have moved almost all of the players from the expansion draft onto their new respective teams.....with the following exceptions:
Donkey Kong:
James Karinchak
Will Harris
Robert Stephenson
Jon Dowd:
Zack Collins
Jarrod Dyson
WHY?
Each of these franchises had players on the IL, allowing them to exceed 23 players on their squad. Nobody is on the IL anymore, so we have no room on their rosters.
My decree is that these teams retain the rights to these players as potential keepers. Not their fault that the mechanics of our new expansion draft kind of throw a monkey wrench here.....
Good luck Dan and Ross!
|
|
| | | 212 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 22:26
|
Looking to sell some keepers. Looking for supplemental picks or 2 for 1 type deals. Not all the guys on the tiers are viewed equally. I’m not much of a December trader but wanted to get my list out in case anyone had itchy trigger fingers.
Tier 1 - not really looking to trade
Tatis Jr
Vlad Jr
Flaherty
Bauer
Tier 2 - could be had for right price
Willson Contreras
Cavan Biggio
Marcus Semien(legit beast last year)
Benintendi
Emilio Pagan
Gavin Lux(still a prospect/10th keeper)
Mackenzie Gore(top 3 pitching prospect)
Tier 3 - cheaper but still keeper worthy
Franmil Reyes - 37 homeruns last year and clear pathway to more at bats this year
Ryan McMahon - dying young beakout. Great buy low time for a potential Coors all star.
Julio Rodriguez - 18 year old that will be top 20 prospect on almost every list this year.
Kevin Newman - who? Very solid obp and sb guy with some pop. Very cheap.
Sandy Alcantara - put it together in the 2nd half. Loads of potential.
Mike Foltynewicz - cheap, see 2018 numbers for potential
Domingo German - has a domestic violence suspension incoming but was very good last year and has loads of potential
Jordan Hicks - will be out for most of the year. Should be a top 5 closer in 2021.
|
|
| | | 213 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 15:12
|
To all you 2:1 keeper consolidators, I’ll consider trading Arenado in the right deal. He’s still 28 and is a top 10 Dynasty player, so you have to bring it with the offers. I’m not set on trading him - but will pull the trigger if the price is right.
|
|
| | | 214 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 18:02
|
Please note that the following prospects have exceeded limits and will be removed from the Prospect List when I have time:
Danny Jansen
Fernando Tatis, Jr.
Sandy Alcantara
Yordan Alvarez (313 AB - ouch)
Francisco Mejia
Keston Hiura (314 AB)
All of these players, with the exception of Mejia, are on the major league rosters of their teams. They are now treated like any other potential keeper - they are only eligible to kept in a teams 9 keepers.
Mejia is not on Guru's roster. Guru still retains rights to Mejia through the Keeper Deadline. If he wanted to keep him, he can let us know and we can assign him to his roster. That is probably a low probability, so I will consider the matter done unless he speaks up to the contrary.
Lastly, I will be doing some analysis of our prospect draft keepers and prospect picks and providing a refresher of how our new rules are applied this year. It is funky because we had to take into account a two-step implementation of our new 5-round system. Stay tuned.
|
|
| | | 215 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 21:50
|
The rules state that to remain a prospect, a player must have less than 300 career AB.
I've looked at two sources (MLB.com and RotoWire), and both show Mejia with only 295 career ABs.
If so, shouldn't he remain prospect eligible? What am I missing?
|
|
| | | 216 | Species
ID: 351051122
Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 22:18
|
215: I stand corrected! My mistake....I saw plate appearances vs at bats. Mejia is still a viable prospect
|
|
| | | 217 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 20:47
|
2020 Prospect Draft Discussion
I have been wanting to refresh our collective understanding of the changes to our prospect draft and prospect keeper rules for the 2020 season. As you should recall, we voted in two changes that took effect this year:
1) Expand draft to 5 rounds
2) Allow teams to use another team's pick to either keep one of your own prospects OR exceed 3 keepers*
*This was one of the conditions of the rule changes. When we voted these changes in during the 2018 offseason, some teams had excess 2019 picks and would end up with more than 3 prospects. In going to a 5 round draft, if we extended our keepers to 5, those teams that stocked up in 2019 picks prior to the rule change would have a big advantage. So, we kept our previous limit of 3 of your own keepers for the 2020 keeper deadline.
Going through several real-life examples should help us all understand the mechanics of this upcoming keeper deadline and draft:
Greggo owns 5 prospects: Puk, India, Edwards, Garcia and Manning (Yordan exceeded limits and will be removed. The implementation of the rules would normally dictate that he may only keep 3 of those 5. However, he owns 7 picks, including 3 from other teams:
1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 5th
He earned the right to keep all 5 if he wants to, and would retain his 1st and 2nd round picks.
Fosten owns five prospects: Keller, Sanchez, Hayes, Larnach and Toussant. He owns three of his own picks (2, 3 and 4) and THREE 5th round picks from other teams. As such, he too would have the right to keep all 5 prospects. He forfeits his 3rd and 4th and the three 5th rounders from other teams and would retain his own 2nd in the process.
Lyman is a good example where you are short picks. He owns five prospects: Honeywell, Franco, Kirilloff, Brujan and Lowe. But he only owns 4 draft picks -- his own 1, 2, 4 and 5. He is limited to keeping THREE of his own guys. He could, however, acquire two more picks from other teams and keep all 5 if he wants.
I hope it clarifies the landscape. If you have questions or what a situation clarified, post here or hit me up directly.
|
|
| | | 218 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 11:54
|
I have a question about my own particular situation. I traded 2 p-picks last season with the idea that we were expanding to 5 prospect picks this off-season.
I have McKay and O'Neill as prospects, and my 1st, 4th, and 5th prospect picks. Do I get to keep my two prospects and get 3 picks?
|
|
| | | 219 | Species
ID: 351051122
Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 13:25
|
218: No. You can keep both prospects - forfeiting your 4th and 5th round picks....and have your 1st to use in the draft.
The new rules are beneficial to you, in that the 4th and 5th rounders we added allow you to keep your prospects.
|
|
| | | 220 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 22:34
|
New Trade Review Committee
Congratulations to our new Trade Review Committee Members!
Tree
Thumper
WG
Nerfherders
mjd
The two alternates are Tosh and GO. In a worst case scenario where a member is unresponsive, the Commissioner may step in and vote.
Our new rule requires that offseason trades be reviewed by this new committee. It takes 4 out of 5 votes to veto offseason trades. The committee has up to 48 hours to overturn. The committee may take less time if the voters cast their votes sooner. Votes are tabulated by the Commissioner and can be received either by email or text message. The Commissioner will then communicate the outcome of the committees review.
The committee is encouraged to talk between themselves the merits, or lack thereof, of any trade presented for review. If a trade is sufficiently balanced and there is no notable scent of collusion, the committee may opine in as little time necessary.
NOTE: In-season trades will continue to be governed by our league sites trade voting process.
|
|
| | | 221 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 14:09
|
I'm happy to be part of the committee!
|
|
| | | 222 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 18:32
|
So are we scrapping the, "cant trade certain players for 30 days" rule for the committee? Or are we going with Guru's proposal or is the ban on trading still part of the rule set?
|
|
| | | 223 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 10:34
|
looking forward to being on the committee; equally looking forward to not having any trades that really cause controversy or stir the pot, so to speak :D
|
|
| | | 224 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 13:31
|
All -- When I voted in favor of the complete 30-day moratorium a few weeks ago, I desperately wanted to put the constant votes and discussions behind us for a while, get our new league mates up and running so trading season could really get moving. We have finished all of our offseason administrative needs and are now on a fairly benign offseason schedule.
While the Holidays may find us traveling and not exactly focused on fantasy baseball, I have the time now so I am putting this out there and putting "The Guru Proposal" to a vote.
|
|
| | | 225 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 13:34
|
Rule Change / Update Vote:
It is proposed to modify our current 30-day complete moratorium on trading keepers after the keeper deadline each March. Instead, the rule will be replaced with the following compromise:
After the keeper deadline (and for 30 days thereafter), any manager who desires to trade away a kept player must first post a declaration (both at the forum and also via league-wide email) that the player is "on the block" in order to alert all managers that the player is available. The objective of any acceptable trade would also be listed (i.e., supplemental and/or prospect picks, closers, etc.)
All teams would have the opportunity to respond with offers for several days before any offer could be accepted. This would presumably help to control for the following situations:
1. A pre-keeper swap could not be executed with a certain "quid pro quo" swap to be executed after the keeper date.
2. All managers would be aware that a player was available for trade, eliminating the complaint that "if I had known so-and-so was available, I would have come up with a better offer than the one accepted ..."
While some of the previously suspicious trades might still go through, there would at least be full transparency, and no trade could be executed that was pre-conditioned on a post-keeper reversal. Further, if any such trade is then challenged, the accepting manager would need to disclose what competing offers (if any) were rejected, and why.
Vote Yes or No
|
|
| | | 226 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 13:34
|
I vote yes.
I think this change, combined with the Trade Committee review, should sufficiently alleviate concerns about 'side deals' and collusion.
|
|
| | | 227 | Nerfherders
ID: 347152518
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 15:06
|
Yes for me
|
|
| | | 228 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 16:25
|
let's narrow down that "several days" to something specific?
|
|
| | | 229 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 16:49
|
No.
Part of the reason for the rule is for teams to keep players that will help them long term. Not act as an additional 10th keeper for a team competing. This basically still screws middle of the road teams.
Outside of the post keeper trades, how many trades happened with keepers during this month long furlough last year? I counted zero. The rule is to stop arms racing and give teams in the middle a reason to draft to compete. This addendum wouldn’t change anything on why the rule was originally formulated.
|
|
| | | 230 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 17:47
|
Yes.
|
|
| | | 231 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 18:18
|
would suggest that "several days" be defined as "48 hours"
|
|
| | | 232 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 18:29
|
228: Fair. But I am going to suggest 72 hours. As such, the text of that portion would be:
"All teams would have the opportunity to respond with offers for 72 hours before any offer could be accepted."
|
|
| | | 233 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 21:30
|
I vote no. By the way, Dylan Carlson is available.
|
|
| | | 234 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 09:20
|
What’s stopping a team from listing all of their 9 as on the block so they can trade any or all of them? I’m leaning No
|
|
| | | 235 | darkside
ID: 4011502414
Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 15:50
|
I think this is a good compromise. I vote yes.
|
|
| | | 236 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 18:09
|
I vote no.
72 hrs or 48 will be an impediment to last minute deals. Keeper and trade deadline deals would not be possible.
|
|
| | | 237 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 09:06
|
What’s stopping a team from listing all of their 9 as on the block so they can trade any or all of them?
imho, that's where the trade committee comes in....
|
|
| | | 238 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 12:36
|
[236] yes, but without this amendment, the moratorium defaults to 30 days, not 72 hours. Which is the more severe impediment?
Perhaps we should try to build in a longer gap between keeper declarations and the draft?
|
|
| | | 239 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 14:19
|
Only if we're delaying the draft.
I'm not fond of naming keepers any earlier than we already do.
|
|
| | | 240 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 16:30
|
I’d ask everyone to go read through the posts last year surrounding the post keeper trades before voting on the change to a rule that has passed. Ask wg how he felt about them. Ask blue hen how he made a post keeper deal and then the deal got nullified only for another manager to make a very similar trade that didn’t get nullified. Ask Peter N and Slizz why they quit the league. Ask Ref, our founding commish, why he quit. The post keeper trades were not the sole reason but they definitely were a reason. The perpetual pushing the limits of the rules and the win at all costs.
In 2018 and 2019 there were zero trades in 30 days of the keeper freeze that involved keepers that weren’t “post keeper trades”. The 30 days freeze is the draft and about 10-12 regular season games. After that, game on.
I’ve said it before but keepers should be keepers and not placeholders for better teams. I just want teams to be on a level keeper playing field when the draft and season start(same amount of keepers). We shouldn’t encourage arms races and tanking.
|
|
| | | 241 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Wed, Dec 25, 2019, 16:35
|
The perpetual pushing the limits of the rules and the win at all costs.
this. i talked to Slizz a lot about it. he was beyond frustrated.
for me, as a team near the bottom, i've got a good squad and i shouldn't be in 19th place, so it's also getting increasingly frustrating. the lack of parity in this league hurts it significantly - a team like mine not being able to move parts to contenders at the deadline, simply because no one thought that they had a chance of winning - sucks a lot of the fun out of it.
BMD - are you suggesting something longer than 30 days? maybe a hold until the ASB?
|
|
| | | 242 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 12:36
|
Tree, definitely not. IMO, 30 days seems long enough. Judging by trading patterns in past years that seems to be when the first in season trades start happening. I don't want to hold back trading after the season gets going. I'm just trying to stop or severely discourage the post keeper trades and give the middle of the road teams a reason to draft to compete.
|
|
| | | 243 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 14:01
|
BMD - just making sure.
i really do think this is where the trade committee comes into play.
while i've always been a big part of the "there has to be collusion to overturn", i've also felt "for the betterment of the league" is also a reason to overturn, but it's gotta be particularly awful.
|
|
| | | 244 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 15:48
|
I’d rather not have to let these be decided on a case by case basis from the committee, though. I’m voting No
|
|
| | | 245 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 23:47
|
I vote yes on the compromise because I honestly cannot fathom a league that says, "you can't trade players"
|
|
| | | 246 | youngroman
ID: 25116273
Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 04:06
|
After thinking about it, here are some of my thoughts about 225:
1. what is preventing me to put all my keepers on the block at all times?
2. what if I only put keeper A and B on the block and during discussions you end up with a potential trade of A + C for D + E of another manager? is it necessary that my C and/or his D+E are also on the block forcing a delay of a few days until this trade may get through? is this a scenario where the new committee will get involved, delaying the trade by a few days?
I could only put my worst keeper on the block and during negotiations with my intended trade partner I bring up the idea of including my #1 keeper.
my vote for 225 is still yes.
|
|
| | | 247 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 13:18
|
234, 246: Those are good questions and identify a potential loophole.
The only real answer is: Because every damned manager better well understand what the INTENT of this rule really is!
1) Every one of us knows that this rule is a 'check and balance' to quid-pro-quo deals that are trying to skirt limits or straddle trade consideration on both sides of the keeper deadline. While the trade committee will help in this regard, it might not be enough.
2) Every one of us can see that the proposed rule change is a compromise to allow responsible, equitable trading while trying to avoid the issues noted in 1) above.
Just please.....pretty please.....do not be that guy that purposefully seeks to circumvent the intent of this rule. I will not react kindly to it.
----------------------
The vote currently stands at 6 for and 3 against. A reminder to everyone, the total 30-day moratorium passed and will be in effect. This proposal is to replace that rule.
Not to pick on DK and JD, but I am excluding them from this vote. They simply lack the context of the issue that permeated the league in recent years to fairly consider the change. As such, this vote would take a majority of 10 managers out of the 18 that may cast votes.
|
|
| | | 248 | Meatwads
ID: 211112714
Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 15:26
|
I vote NO. The whole reason the new rule was implemented is to stop any form of post-keeper trading, or even the impression it’s occurring.
I personally don’t have an issue with them, but the majority seems to want them eliminated completely. I don’t see any reason to leave open a loophole.
Everyone can live with their choices for a month. Besides, we can all still trade every day with the free agents, with no risk involved. I see that as a much bigger issue than a couple teams adding an extra pitcher before the supplemental draft, but that’s a story for another day.
|
|
| | | 249 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 22:31
|
I vote yes on the revision. I think the time wait should be 24 hours - not 48 or 72. That's too much time for a potential trade partner to bail on an already-agreed-upon deal. This is an active league, nobody should need two or three days to check email/messageboard. I think if you're only checking the site every 2-or-3 days, you're probably not going to make a lot of noise in the standings of an active, competitive 20-teamer anyway. Let's not be prisoners to inactivity by waiting 2-or-3 days to announce a deal involving a keeper that many managers may have no interest in obtaining in the first place.
|
|
| | | 250 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Fri, Dec 27, 2019, 23:06
|
I vote No.
|
|
| | | 251 | Species
ID: 351051122
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 15:34
|
Still to vote:
Tree
WG
Tosh
Fosten
GO
While I excluded DK and JD from the vote.. .they can certainly register their thoughts and opinions.
|
|
| | | 252 | Khahan
ID: 367431722
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 17:21
|
So the vote stands at 7-5 to get rid of a moratorium on trades during the season. Please, everybody think about what I just said. We have a new rule in place restricting our ability to make trades involving certain players. A rule actually passed a vote to STOP us from being able to trade players. And now there is a close vote to modify that rule.
We've already lost multiple good managers because of the actions of a very few people. Now those actions are restricting EVERYBODY from being active participants in this league. Rather than deal with the people involved our solution is truly to stop every manager from being able to make trades.
I don't even care how the vote turns out at this point. How we, as a league, got to a point that we would rather keep managers in the league who do shady things and just try to regulate out loopholes rather than correct those managers or remove them. We've already lost multiple managers because of these actions. Add one more to the list.
Between this and my time being a bit more limited due to school I think its best if I say, "Adios," and walk away.
|
|
| | | 253 | GO
ID: 141062421
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 17:50
|
I vote no to additional trade regulation.
|
|
| | | 254 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 19:19
|
I cast my vote for whatever gets good managers to return and shady managers to leave.
|
|
| | | 255 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 19:24
|
I'm not "walking away," as Khahan put it. But I do believe - despite the commissioner's earnest attempts at making everyone happy - that this whole trade moratorium on keepers is foolish and a bad idea. I've been playing in competitive keeper leagues for 20 years and have never heard of anything such as a moratorium on trades until May or mid-April or 3 days after the draft or whatever. I have no understanding of how restricting my right to trade what will probably be my 9 most-tradeable assets helps my 17th place team, as I've seen suggested in this forum. Making trades has become increasingly and frustratingly near-impossible for me, and now the right to trade a keeper that is off to a hot start in April (ala Chris Archer) and might net a legit prospect
(ala Vidal Brujan) is in peril. That's regressive, not progressive.
|
|
| | | 256 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 19:41
|
The bigger issue is the reality that some unscrupulous owners force us to even have these conversations.
That's why I'm torn. My 19th place team is damned if I do, damned if I don't.
|
|
| | | 257 | Tosh
Dude
ID: 057721710
Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 21:39
|
I'm voting YES.
I'm generally against rules that restrict trading. But enough people I respect think it's good for the league ... so I'm following that herd.
|
|
| | | 258 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 00:43
|
If it passes or fails it looks like it’ll be close and we’re back to where one side won’t be happy. Instead of that could we lock keepers until after the supplemental? That gives everyone an even footing during the draft and only locks everyone out of trading keepers for less than 2 weeks. I feel like that’s a fair compromise. If it’s truly awful for one side then we can vote to remove it next year or extend it.
|
|
| | | 259 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 01:15
|
Or we could get serious and call out the shady crap and put a stop to it.
These changes are just going to end up making everyone unhappy, and sooner or later the same managers who don't feel that circumventing rules is a big deal will just find a way to do it here too.
|
|
| | | 260 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 09:06
|
Agree with BMD in the previous post.
Tree, can you be more specific? Which shady trades are you talking about? I want to make sure everyone is on the same page rather than general distaste.
|
|
| | | 261 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 12:36
|
Tree - I do not try to out-and-out suppress opinions here.....but my reaction to 254, 256 and 259 is to just ask you WHY?
- Why start stirring this pot that we have been trying to heal from sore feelings from last year?
- Why bring up all of the sore feelings when we have tried our hardest to address them via rule?
- Why make it personal?
I understand where you are going and what you mean. I took our departing colleagues' departures very personally - hell they basically said I was the reason for leaving. Sure that sucked, but I took their criticism and have spent way too much time trying use that as motivation to correct the error of my ways. And here we are again. We do not need this.
I am not kicking any perceived offenders out. However I have had very pointed discussions with some managers and they are very clear on my expectations for their activity this year. If that, plus the rules we have crafted to try to eliminate collusion-like moves this year are not good enough to placate your feelings, I just do not know what more to say at this point. But I do have to say that the continuation of bitching about the 2019 trades is wholly counter productive and we really need to move on.
|
|
| | | 262 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 12:55
|
Regarding the current rule vote:
I agree with many of the points of view that look at this rule change as a bit over the top or an overreaction to the activity from the 2019 preseason. But the vehemence of the concerned group - including our departed colleagues - was strong enough that we had to do SOMETHING. That something was passing a pretty strong, some-would-say oppressing rule. I cast the passing vote to bring some finality to it.....knowing that we could adjust it later.
As we now vote on a compromise, we find ourselves on the same carousel going around and around. Or perhaps the best analogy is that we are in a mirror maze at the circus and are having trouble finding our way. It seems that, no matter what happens, some portion of the league will be unhappy. I would not mind going for bmd's latest suggestion for compromise - I just worry that managers are getting sick of the continuous debate.
I would like to praise bmd for championing his point of view. At least he has cared enough to voice his opinions articulately and consistently. Too often I get opinions on the subject of the day privately. This league needs more of us to articulate ourselves in the open so that it doesn't seem like I am making up groups of people that are upset about something.
Who else would feel okay if we just went with a shortened trade moratorium from the Keeper Deadline until the end of the Supplemental Draft?
|
|
| | | 263 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 19:19
|
Re 261.
Why? Post 252.
I'm not stirring the pot, because the reality is that even after numerous suggestions, rule changes, votes on rules changes, and the like, people are still leaving the league because we've got owners who will bend and circumvent rules no matter what, and eventually what's going to come of this league?
Two answers - either it implodes and ceases to be, or we continue to come up with rules to avoid the bigger issue, rules that eventually make this no longer fantasy baseball as most of us know it.
How many good owners, really good owners, owners we've played with for years - if not decades - recently left this league because of shenanigans?
If the answer is "one", that's a lot. If the answer is "more than one," that's too many.
|
|
| | | 264 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 11:51
|
263 -- fair points.
I plead guilty.
I plead guilty to not only fostering something moving towards a win-at-all-costs type of mentality, but also from being very motivated by it. When blue hen and I tied in 2011, it was not until later that I actually realized what his streaming strategy was - I should have owned him that year but he did something that (at least back then) was inventive and I was left with a tie instead of an easy-ish victory. After that, I *wanted* to have to be the best and do more than other leagues. Then when you win, that champagne tastes so much sweeter. Winning a High School State Championship is great. Winning the Super Bowl is much greater.
I plead guilty for 'inventing' the post-keeper trade. I have to correct myself - previously I noted that slizz made the first such trade. I missed my own post-keep trade when I acquired Mark Melancon (who was incredible) in 2016. Semi-ironically, it was bmd who made the most post-keeper trades in 2016, selling two players in a "Guru Compromise Rule" way by posting that he was selling those players to the highest bidder.
I plead guilty to strongly fanning the flames of the post-keeper bandwagon in 2017 with two big trades where I purchased a bat and a closer. Further, in 2018 I also sold players in post-keeper deals.
I plead guilty to ignoring or dismissing questions about this general practice and the relative benefit or detriment to the league. My basic rationale included aspects of "as long as there is fair value transacted, it is fine" and "well, so what if it tilts the balance of power a bit -- other teams should step up and make their own trades to keep up".
I also plead very guilty to actually believing people when they give me very good reasons for a trade when questions of collusion come up. I am talking about actual conversations on the phone (shocker in today's age) where I can directly question (with actual verbal inflection!) the party and hear their replies first hand. I may have often questioned their rationale as to why they made the trade they did, but if they have a well thought out reason for doing so (often citing advanced metrics) then I consider it legitimate, no matter what the opposing media might say behind the scenes.
I BASICALLY HAVE TO EAT IT THAT PETE AND SLIZZ LEFT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE REASONS. These guys are friends of mine so these are bitter pills to swallow. So, instead of being butt-hurt and throwing in the towel, I have endeavored to get a clue and change -- spending months and dozens upon dozens of posts trying to repair the damage and achieve compromise.
---------------------------------------
.....and that leaves us with Tree's point in 263. We as a league have to decide if it is worth it to make the compromises we have or if the damage is too far gone to ever trust and have a legitimate league again. Tree is right -- if we have to make so many rules against the appearance or suggestion of collusion and guard against over-aggressive shifts in power before the Supplemental Draft even starts, maybe it is too late and the league has simply run its course.
Another option is new leadership. Like with managers in MLB, sometimes you just stop listening to the same voice going on...and on....and on and someone else needs to take the reins.
In terms of trying to repair the damage and craft a league that can go on from here, I have exhausted all that I am capable of at this point. If it is not good enough, then the league must decide what it wants to do.
|
|
| | | 265 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:39
|
I'll try to keep this short and simple: Anyone complaining about the job the commissioner is doing is misguided, including the three managers who punked out and quit the league. There have been some frustrating aspects in the one calendar year I have been in the league, but the commish has been very generous with his time and obviously cares deeply about finding solutions to the issues at hand and keeping the league moving forward. Commissioning a fantasy league is a thankless job and Greg deserves a ton of respect and credit for all the time and effort he puts forth. At the risk of being charged with butt-kissing, I feel this needed to be said. Happy New Year
|
|
| | | 266 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 13:47
|
To be clear, at the end of 264 I am not saying that I refuse to continue as Commissioner. I was trying to say that I have done all I can to address the concerns - no matter how real, exaggerated, amplified or imagined they may be - and if what I have tried to do is not enough, I do not know what IS enough and I have exhausted my ideas (let alone my energy on it).
I would equally volunteer to step down for the betterment of the league.
265: I appreciate the sentiment, but my post is not about pining for appreciation -- I just want things to be addressed so we may move on. If that can't happen, then we need to just acknowledge it.
|
|
| | | 267 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 13:49
|
let me be clear - i do not blame any one person for this, and that includes our commish.
as a league, we let it get to this point, in part because as Species pointed out, there is a certain amount of honor and integrity we expect in fantasy sports, and we put faith in that, didn't speak up sooner, and as a result a few people ran amok.
I've first read about fantasy baseball in 1985 or so, when i discovered Glenn Waggoner's seminal book on it, and still take great joy in thinking about Daniel Okrent's team the Okrent Fenokees.
I've been playing fantasy baseball in one format or another since 1987 - almost certainly longer than some folks in this league have been alive - and it's a bit of a bummer that i now have to review every trade, every trade offer, every trade opportunity to see if someone is trying to skirt the system, and that i'm in a league that has to make rules because people actually think it's acceptable to behave in such a manner.
we all want to "win" a trade, but there's a dramatic difference in winning a trade (Thumper and I have talked at length about the trade in which i obtained Gallo), and exploiting a trade or the opportunity to trade.
it's one reason i don't ever expect to win this league. i couldn't fathom savoring a victory if i took advantage of loopholes in rules. it would leave such a vile taste in my mouth, i'd be so disgusted with myself.
anyway, it appears that at this point, it is what it is. i've got a good core with torres and bichette and gallo and laureano and tucker and some young SPs, so i've got a chance of finishing in the top 10 next season. I'll play out 2020 fairly and to the strongest of my ability, and we'll see what happens after that.
|
|
| | | 268 | Fosten
ID: 71111419
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 18:06
|
I vote No on 158. I vote Yes on... Happy New Year everyone!
|
|
| | | 269 | GO
ID: 14143919
Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 20:58
|
Wondering if Pete and Slizz as now independent observers would have any ideas on how they could keep things in check going forward. How it could have been better policed etc. Did they email you thoughts on the topic Species like a sort of exit interview?
Or does anyone else wants to step up and take the ball and run with this specific issue since Species brain is likely fried on the topic at this point. Give the poor man a break as he has tried every angle.
I truly don't particularly care either way but am exhausted just reading this never ending back and forth.
|
|
| | | 271 | WG
ID: 89402220
Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 11:23
|
To be honest, I'm a bit unsure of what changes were agreed to previously and will be implemented moving forward. That's on me though, as I've been a bit removed from reading and comprehending the offseason goings on. Would like to say though that I think Species has done a heck of a job handling this Kobayashi Maru-like mess. Appreciate his understanding, composure, and willingness to hear and address all sentiments throughout all this.
At the risk of coming off as contradictory based on how I previously voted; if voting simply on the Guru Proposal, I vote no. I think each manager should have the common sense to know whether advertising that their valuable keeper is on the block is most beneficial, which it almost always is. But if I have negotiations with someone and don't want to involve others strategically, that should be my right. I think this posting of who is available will just get messy, and some good issues were raised above as well.
|
|
| | | 272 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 12:03
|
Thank you. WG's vote officially votes down 'The Guru Proposal' in post 158. That means we are currently left with a 30-day moratorium on trading keepers from the day of the Keeper Deadline. Please note that Supplemental Picks, Prospect Picks and Prospects may all still be traded at any time.
We need to recruit one more manager. Gurupie19 just isn't as cool as Gurupie20.
|
|
| | | 273 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 13:05
|
Khahan's Team:
Christian Vazquez, C, BOS
Justin Smoak, 1b, MIL
Scooter Gennett, 2b, Fa
Matt Chapman, 3b, OAK
Hansel Alberto, 2b/SS/3b, BAL
Rhys Hoskins, 1b, PHI
Marcell Ozuna, OF, FA
Jason Heyward, OF, CHC
Mike Yastrzemski, OF, SF
Stephen Piscotty, OF, OAK
Kolton Wong, 2b, STL
Logan Forsythe, FA
Nomar Mazara, OF, CHW
Aaron Nola, SP, PHI
Tyler Glasnow, SP, TB
Daniel Norris, SP, DET
Rick Porcello, SP, NYM
Jordan Yamomoto, SP, MIA
Clay Buchholz, SP, FA
Hector Santiago, SP/RP, FA
Stephen Matz, SP, NYM
Framber Valdez, SP/RP, HOU
Matt Strahm, SP, SD
Prospects:
Carter Kieboom, SS, WAS
Taylor Widener, SP, ARI
Joey Bart, C, SF
This team also owns the #2 overall pick in our prospect draft.
Honestly a pretty strong list of building blocks to work with. I was surprised.
|
|
| | | 274 | beastiemiked
ID: 481162721
Thu, Jan 02, 2020, 19:14
|
Sad to see Khahan go. He'll be missed.
Let's get his team filled and move on. Let's try to hold off any rule discussions for 2021 until November(unless it's a clarification or question). Maybe it's just me but I feel like they drag this league down when they are discussed(and complained about) in season. I know I'm guilty as charged there so my goal this year is to not do that.
Props to Species. Commishing a league is hard, commishing a league with a bunch of older guys that are set in their ways is even harder.
Here's to a fun season. Welcome to the new managers.
|
|
| | | 275 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 12:45
|
Echoing BMD, I’ll miss Khahan too. He’s a good dude and good league mate. G20 has suffered some hits this offseason and pretty much everyone has shown how passionate they are about the league through the debates. We might not have the perfect formula down but we are all learning as we go. I think we’ve made enough changes and spoke out enough to point out the primary concerns of 2019 out there. There is MUCH more communication and visibility into trading situations now than ever before, and I think we are ready to turn the page as a league and see how it goes for 2020.
There are lots of opportunities ahead for 2020-
1. How will the 3 new managers fare? The expansion draft has shown two different strategies already
2. Are some rebuilding teams changing their approach to Win now mode? It feels like it
3. Who is going to take advantage of my itch to trade this offseason?
I’m looking forward to new challenges in G20 this year. And someone please trade with me.
|
|
| | | 276 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 12:48
|
Last year Opening Day was March 28th. This year it is March 26th.
Last year's calendar was this:
- Keepers due Sunday March 10th, Noon ET
- Prospect keepers due Monday March 11th, Noon ET
- Prospect draft starts Tuesday March 12th, Noon ET
- Supplemental draft opens Friday March 15th
- Supplemental draft clock starts Saturday March 16th
We will have to decide whether to move everything up a day or so or whether to roll the dice and hope we finish the supplemental draft fast.
|
|
| | | 277 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 13:52
|
I have excellent news. We have successfully recruited longtime Gurupie "MattG" to take Khahan's place in G20.
Matt -- please 'introduce' yourself to the group, and offer the best ways for you to be contacted. Most of us are connected via text these days, but that is up to you. The one thing we do, however, is NOT post any phone numbers on the board - share them (if you want) via email. But do provide your preferred email address.
Get ready to be approached! This league likes to talk over the offseason. With the rule discussions hopefully behind us for 2020, many managers are itching to get some real action under way. You are going to have to figure out really soon whether you want to build for your highest 2020 finish or look to the longer term.
Please feel free to hit me up with any continued questions......or of course post them here and the group will get back to you.
Welcome to G20!
|
|
| | | 278 | Matt G
ID: 45031313
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 14:31
|
Guess who's back, back again, Matt G's back, tell a friend.
Actually this is one league I've never been a member of yet and I think thats mainly because the 20 owner thing scared me off for a bit. Also in the past I've been more of a football guy having great success in multiple leagues there. However, I find that the football field is a bit leveled now with all the rankings and podcasts and that it is very difficult to just outwork someone when all the work is done already. Knowing every 3rd string back is no longer beneficial.
So lets see, I've been browsing these boards since 97 I believe? Long Time RIBC owner won AA 2 years ago and have two top 5 finishes in the most recent RIBC seasons. I also joined another deep (16 team) dynasty league with lots of weird rules, salaries etc and have cashed 2 of 4 years there as well. I am finding that baseball is my thing now as I can put the work in and see success, with it being a daily thing, you can put the work in.
I also run the NBBL which is a very unique and different league, a few gents here are in that WG, Tree.
Anyhow, lets see Favorite team is the Minnesota Twins and I'm absolutely thrilled about the upcoming season, holding out hope that they have a big signing in the pipeline (Donaldson please???) and I'm an east coaster for now, planning to move West in the next couple of years.
Email or text is the best way to get in touch with me. If you want me number just email me, though some of you probably already have it.
As for my team, I've not decided if I am in full rebuild mode yet or if I'm going to put together a scrappy team and go from there. I would like to take some time over the next couple weeks to go over everyone's rosters and see where I think I can improve over last year, how I can build from within while remaining relevant, etc.
I have one vacation planned at this time and that is 1/11 - 1/18... I'll probably be in touch after that.
|
|
| | | 279 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 15:04
|
Welcome Matt G!
Looking forward to chatting G20 with you sometime. I have one Randy Dobnak with your name all over him 😜
|
|
| | | 280 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 16:42
|
welcome aboard MattG!
|
|
| | | 281 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 16:45
|
Welcome Matt G! As a veteran to this league it is good to see some new faces joining.
|
|
| | | 282 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 23:19
|
Lol
|
|
| | | 283 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 12:36
|
New guys, welcome. Here’s my email address.
|
|
| | | 284 | Matt G
ID: 45031313
Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 13:52
|
thanks for the welcomes and the emails, I'm still evaluating my team and the league before determining where I want to go.
|
|
| | | 285 | darkside
ID: 39025413
Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 14:57
|
Welcome, all. Matt G...nice to see a longtime Gurupie join us. I remember you from Smallworld days but don't think we've been in a league together (except maybe when I still did the RIBC).
Regarding the rules...I said early on in this rule debate that I'm constantly working under the assumption that folks aren't trying to screw me by colluding. If I'm wrong, shame on you. At the end of the day, this is a game. A truly meaningless game that I play because I like it. I don't care if I win, but always try to put forth a solid squad and pay attention. These rule changes will have no impact on my strategy, so I just don't care.
Most of the folks that have come and gone in this league are solid and I expect that to continue. Perhaps I'm being a fool, but I don't have the time or energy to try to discern who's working above board and who's not. If these rules help make that easier, great. If they make it harder, eh, such is life. I wish the best to all of you and hope you're looking up at me in the standings (though history suggests that won't be the case). Happy new year and looking forward to another fun season!
|
|
| | | 286 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 06, 2020, 12:46
|
** It is a New Year in G20 **
I am making my own resolutions for G20 this year. IN with:
- An attention to actually playing dynasty baseball instead of debating rules
- New blood - sad to see old friends go but fun to get to know some new managers
- Some new rules to address some overdue .... culture adjustments
- Some new contenders! There are several teams with some really interesting keeper sets that can surprise this year.
- Some trades! While last year was a record year, it truly was an anomaly. That said, I know several managers who have been rattling some cages. Don't be left in the cold waiting for Spring Training!
OUT with:
- Bad blood. Let's allow the new rules to play out this year. Between the moratorium and the trading committee, I feel we have done a lot to dissuade any previously undesirable practices.
- More rule change discussions. Again, this offseason was also an anomaly in this vein. While the changes made perhaps were not perfect, we can see how they go and adjust. Nothing is written in stone.
Best of luck to everyone.
|
|
| | | 287 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Jan 06, 2020, 14:19
|
Time to author one of my favorite posts. Considering we have three new managers this year, I think this exercise is one of the most valuable examples of the attention required to your prospect lists and rankings if you want to have success in G20.
As I have noted previously, while prospects are fickle - for every Mike Trout there are 5 or 6 Brandon Wood-types out there (former #3 ranked prospect....SS with 40 HR power) - the fact of the matter is that in G20, most of your studs are originally acquired in our prospect draft. Using CBS Sportsline's December 19th 2020 Dynasty League Top 150 rankings, we find:
1 - Acuna (acquired in 2017 prospect draft)
2 - Bellinger (2016)
3 - Trout (2010)
4 - Yelich (2012)
5 - Betts (2014)
6 - Bregman (2016)
7 - Soto (2017)
8 - Lindor (2012)
9 - Arenado (2011)
10- Tatis (2018)
11- Alvarez (2018)
12- Cole (2011)
13- Turner (2015)
14- Story (2016)
15- Devers (2016)
16- Jo. Ramirez
17- Torres (2016)
18- Bieber
19- Flaherty (2018)
20- Buehler
21- Freeman (2009)
22- DeGrom
23- Rendon (2012)
24- Guerrero Jr (2017)
25- Alonso
26- Albies (2016)
27- Hiura (2018)
28- Bichette (2018)
29- Bogaerts (2014)
30- Clevinger
31- Judge (2016)
32- Harper (2010)
33- Giolito (2015)
34- Castillo
35- Nola
36- Meadows (2015)
37- Paddack
38- Snell
39- Severino (2016)
40- Marte
As with last year, a full 75% (okay, technically 29 out of 40 - close enough) of the top 40 dynasty league players have come from our Prospect Draft. Of those that didn't, several were top prospects (Buehler, Alonso, Paddack and Snell) that were sniped off of the waiver wire during the previous season and kept in a team's 9 keepers. Guys like JoRam, DeGrom and Clevinger kind of sprang from nowhere to become studs while Bieber, Castillo, Nola and Marte just upped their games to get into this territory.
The moral to the story: If you want a top tier stud keeper, more than likely you are going to have to acquire them BEFORE they are studs. Do not ignore the value of the prospect draft!
This is the first year of the prospect draft going 5 rounds and 100 prospects deep. I for one cannot wait to explore the nuances available in this new, deeper draft!
|
|
| | | 288 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 18:38
|
TRADE
WG gets
Michael Brantley
Brandon Workman
Taylor Rogers
2020 10.15
Species gets
Charlie Blackmon
2020 7.17
|
|
| | | 289 | Species
ID: 351051122
Tue, Jan 07, 2020, 22:06
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 290 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 07:48
|
now that we've got our manager roster filled, and WG kicked off the trading season, because, of course he did, i'm looking to make some moves.
Among most available players are:
Max Kepler
Miguel Andujar
Frankie Montas
Sal Perez
Danelson Lamet
Brian Reynolds
i'm looking mostly for a 1b or draft picks. not looking to gain MORE players, but looking to whittle mine down.
|
|
| | | 291 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 17:54
|
<288> Trade was approved by the committee
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
Jon Dowd receives
Nolan Arenado, 3B, COL
Andrew McCutchen, OF, PHI
Jazz Chisholm (p), SS, MIA
s8.18
P1.19
Thumper receives
Trevor Story, SS, COL
Nelson Cruz, DH, MIN
Yu Darvish, SP, CHI
Danny Santana, 1B/OF, TEX
Joe Jimenez, RP, DET
Giovanny Gallegos, RP, STL
s2.09
s4.20
p2.09
Donkey Kong receives
Kris Bryant, 3B/OF, CHI
Jo Adell (p), OF, LAA
s6.19
p5.18
Jon Dowd and DK to confirm. Hot stove szn!
|
|
| | | 292 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 17:56
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 293 | DK6000
ID: 561143213
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 17:56
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 294 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 18:18
|
Would help to see what each team gives and gets, imho
|
|
| | | 295 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 18:46
|
3 Team Deal
Jon Dowd sends:Bryant, Cruz, Adell, Danny Santana, s4.20, p2.09
Jon Dowd receives: Arenado, McCutchen, Chisholm, s8.18, p1.19
Thumper sends: Arenado, McCutchen, Chisholm, s8.18, p1.19, p5.18, s6.19
Thumper receives:Story, Cruz, Darvish, Danny Santana, Jimenez, Gallegos, s2.09, s4.20, p2.09
DK sends: Story, Darvish, Jimenez, Gallegos, s2.09
DK receives:Bryant, Adell, s6.19, p5.18
|
|
| | | 296 | Species
ID: 351051122
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 20:38
|
Sufficient members of the Trade Committee have opined to allow the trade.
Good luck to all 3 teams!!
|
|
| | | 297 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Wed, Jan 08, 2020, 21:18
|
Will Smith the catcher is available. Would like to include him with Votto, Encarnacion, or Donaldson for a better corner infidel.
|
|
| | | 298 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 09:21
|
Big bounce back candidates available very cheaply.
Khris Davis- had 10 HR in his first 31 games (translation, 52 HR for 162 game pace) with the juiced ball but got hurt and played through the injury all season and it showed
Wil Myers- Padres looking to trade him, but will likely need Castellanos/Ozuna to sign somewhere first. Wasn’t given the full opportunity to work thru an early season slump but Still has the Power/Speed combo
Both guys were Top 50 assets just a year ago.
|
|
| | | 299 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 11:07
|
My trade candidates - see post #200.
They're still all available. Would like to package them in 2 or 3 for 1's.
|
|
| | | 300 | WG
ID: 89402220
Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 01:14
|
Have a couple decent SP for probably 2 keeper slots. Open to trading one or more. Ideally, SP+SP for SP, or SP+Michael Brantley for hitter. Let me know if any interest, thanks.
Luis Severino - 15th on Pitcher List
Zack Greinke - 19th on Pitcher List, 5th SP on Player Rater last year
Lance Lynn - 24th on Pitcher List, 18th SP on Player Rater last year
Sonny Gray - 27th on Pitcher List, 17th SP on Player Rater last year
|
|
| | | 301 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 09:01
|
Starting to get good bites on Laureano and Kepler as our hot stove league finally starts to heat up.
One of these guys is likely going to be gone soon.
|
|
| | | 302 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 16:44
|
It’s come up in a trade discussion, posting in case there is more interest but I’m open to dealing Chris Paddack (#41, Fantrax dynasty) + Casey Mize (#7 MLB pipeline) or Nolan Jones (#37 MLB Pipeline) or p 1.07/1.08 for an elite (Top 15) young player
|
|
| | | 303 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 13:54
|
291/295: All picks have been updated in both the Constitution and the draft grids.
Players for JD and DK have been moved to their rosters.
Thumper needs to drop 4 guys to make room on his roster. Sadly, the ESPN system is also requiring him to move Jameson Taillon off of IR, as in ESPN all of the previously IR'd players are now listed DTD.
This is not how we intended the IR to work. It is my position that Thumper should not be penalized a roster spot due to the limitations of ESPN's system. As such, he will need to designate a 5th player to "drop" so we can get all of the newly acquired players onto his roster. However, Thumper will retain rights to that player until the keeper deadline. Most likely it will not matter, but that is how we are going to do it.
|
|
| | | 304 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Jan 12, 2020, 14:13
|
Team Species has assets that are available:
One of: Jose Abreu or Carlos "be sure to sort your rankings by OBP" Santana
One of: Corey Seager or Eduardo Escobar. Admittedly I am much more inclined to hold Seager - youth, and a 100 run / 100 rbi pace (82 and 87 in only 134 games), but will listen on both.
Joc Pederson: 36 bombs is 36 bombs - and in only 450 at bats was good enough for 8th in all of baseball last year in HR/AB. Obviously he is platooned, so if you have the focus to substitute him vs LHP, you can have an OF spot with truly premium production.
Craig Kimbrel: He was terrible last year, but with a normal offseason and spring training, odds are he will return to top 10 closer status. Cishek just left CHC, so Kimbrel's contract and experience make him a lock to keep the closer role in 2020.
Supplemental and prospect picks or 2-for-1s all considered.
|
|
| | | 305 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 10:26
|
Looking to move Cavan Biggio or Gavin Lux. Lux is still a prospect so he’s a 10th keeper(can call him up after keepers are declared AND don’t have to keep him as a prospect). Looking to package one of them with another one or two of my players for an upgrade or possibly a package of picks and/or prospects. Would probably prefer a package of picks but open to any ideas.
|
|
| | | 306 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 14:28
|
Trade Announcement
GO Receives
Shane Bieber, SP, CLE
Casey Mize (prospect), SP, DET
Thumper’s last supplemental pick
Thumper Receives
Freddie Freeman, 1B, ATL
P 2.07
S 2.18 (originally Thumper’s pick)
GO to confirm
|
|
| | | 307 | GO
ID: 14143919
Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 14:32
|
Confirmed.
|
|
| | | 308 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 10:42
|
Some fairly cheap keepers and their prices
Franmil Reyes - 3rd round supp pick
Ryan McMahon - 4th round supp pick
Sandy Alcantara - 5th round supp pick
Julio Rodriguez(elite prospect but would need to be kept as one your 9 keepers) - 6th round supp pick
Mike Folty, - 6th round supp pick
Jordan Hicks - 6th round supp pick
Domingo German - 6th round supp pick
Would also be open to prospect picks.
|
|
| | | 309 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 15:31
|
If anyone has a need for late prospect picks to hold a prospect, I have many to trade. Open to dealing some for supplemental picks or other things, such as 2021 prospect picks.
|
|
| | | 310 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 16:16
|
306: The trade committee has reviewed and approved.
|
|
| | | 311 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 16:57
|
Trade Announcement
Guru receives:
Charlie Blackmon
Corey Seager
Eduardo Escobar
Species receives:
Francisco Lindor
Guru will drop Kipnis and Pujols.
|
|
| | | 312 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 17:29
|
confirmed.
But this was a really tough one for me to pull the trigger on.
Yes, it does fit. Santana was also tempting, but the positional misfit was enough to chase me away.
If Seager can regain some mojo, then it will work out. But my fear is that two years from now, I'll look back and regret it.
|
|
| | | 313 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 22:45
|
Available for trade -
Supp pick 1.3
Supp pick 2.2
Supp pick 3.2
Supp pick 4.2
Supp pick 5.2
Seeking young, productive players with upside. Mostly interested in acquiring SP, OF, 3B but young talent is young talent, so I'll consider all other positions except catcher. Text me, if you have my number. If not, email stanfrank at the hoo and we can exchange phone numbers for texting and/or hammer something out via email. Text is always the preferred method though.
|
|
| | | 314 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 12:30
|
311 approved by the committee
|
|
| | | 315 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 13:27
|
314: I would like to thank Thumper for stepping up and taking a leadership role in the trade committee. Sadly he will be excusing himself from that duty quite often......but on his own he has begun to foster a collaborative approach to reviewing the trades. He is making sure it is at least discussed on a high level - not rubber-stamped too easily or quickly.
This is excellent and I applaud it. I encourage committee members to talk it out in Thumper's absence when he is involved in the deal.
|
|
| | | 316 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 20:21
|
Final warning call on Gavin Lux. Looking to finalize any deal for him by tomorrow afternoon/evening.
|
|
| | | 317 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 22:33
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
TREE receives
Michael Chavis
Lyman's Supp pick 6.2
LYMAN receives
Frankie Montas
Tree's Supp pick 9.1
|
|
| | | 318 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 22:54
|
Confirmed.
|
|
| | | 319 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 14:17
|
Trade Announcement
MJD receives:
Gavin Lux
8.10 supp
10.10 supp
11.10 supp
BMD receives:
1.05 supp
2.17 supp
3.05 supp
1.17 ppick
|
|
| | | 320 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 14:18
|
confirmed
|
|
| | | 321 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 14:41
|
319: Ballsy on both sides. Love it!
bmd has basically told us all he is going all-out for 2020. No sneaking up on anyone now!
mjd does what it takes to secure a top prospect who is MLB-ready. Pricey but how often do you get a potential Dustin Pedroia for just picks?
|
|
| | | 322 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 14:57
|
317 is approved
Huge trade in 319! Congrats gents
|
|
| | | 323 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 15:01
|
Thanks to everyone that reached out to me. Appreciate the patience and great offers.
|
|
| | | 324 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 15:22
|
Tough bidding war drove up the price a bit, but keeping all my pitching assets (for now) was huge.
|
|
| | | 325 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 15:39
|
Speaking of assets... I’m exploring any offers for my picks, including p 1.07 + p 1.08 and my 3 p2’s and p3’s. I’m looking for impact players at any position.
It’s looking like a deep prospect draft! ...and might be for the last time with the expansion to 5 rounds this year which will thin out the 2021 pool.
|
|
| | | 326 | Lyman
ID: 290311615
Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 16:31
|
I swear, if it's proven that Altuve, Bregman, Reddick, et al were wearing buzzers on their nipples... the fate of Shoeless Joe Jackson comes to mind. Unbelievable.
|
|
| | | 327 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 08:01
|
That would be so bad. It doesn’t logically make sense though for the Stros to need trash can banging AND buzzers to both tell them the incoming pitch
|
|
| | | 328 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 10:21
|
I think Thumper should have to drop Bregman due to his crimes. Otherwise, he's a cheater just like his player!
|
|
| | | 329 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 10:57
|
Hey Dowd wanna trade for Bregman?
|
|
| | | 330 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 11:50
|
I would never sully my good name for some cheat wins...
|
|
| | | 331 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 11:56
|
But... how much? :)
|
|
| | | 332 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 12:16
|
If Altuve is a cheater I think it’s only fair that blue hen vacates his titles.
|
|
| | | 333 | Species
ID: 351051122
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 13:30
|
For the record, Michael Brantley's 2019 home/road splits were basically identical. In fact his road OPS was slightly higher. ;)
It is such a shame, but we all turn a bit of a blind eye to an extent in this vein.
- NCAA recruiting
- NFL: deflategate, NE videotaping scandals
- Gotta figure peeps bend the rules in NASCAR
- Gotta figure someone is using an illegal golf club or juiced golf balls on the PGA tour
- You think Sampras never pulled his racket strings tighter than regulation?
Doesn't make ANY of it okay for certain. Astros were 4 - 0 at home in the 2017 ALCS vs NYY. I am pissed....it is f**led up big time. Such a shame.
|
|
| | | 334 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 14:20
|
Bregman was way better on the road in 2019 than home... but if the buzzer is true that could travel?
Don’t forget blood doping Bikers on the Tour de France Species!
|
|
| | | 335 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 14:20
|
Also LOL @ 332. Agreed
|
|
| | | 336 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 14:28
|
319 is approved
|
|
| | | 337 | Matt G
ID: 45031313
Sun, Jan 19, 2020, 16:58
|
After Looking over my team, I believe I have a strategy pegged... Looking to get a little younger and focus on building.
First name on the block is Marcel Ozuna.
|
|
| | | 338 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 18:40
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
LYMAN RECEIVES
Julio Rodriguez, Sea OF
BMD's 2021 13th round Supp pick
BMD RECEIVES
Lyman's 2021 6th round Supp pick
Lyman drops Victor Caratini
|
|
| | | 339 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Mon, Jan 20, 2020, 19:51
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 340 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 13:23
|
338 is approved, congrats guys
|
|
| | | 341 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 14:52
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
LYMAN RECEIVES
Max Kepler, OF Twins
Tree's 2020 Supp pick 12.1
TREE RECEIVES
Lyman's 2020 Supp pick 3.2
Lyman drops Chris Taylor
|
|
| | | 342 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 15:02
|
confirmed.
|
|
| | | 343 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 08:26
|
341 is approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 344 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 22, 2020, 22:56
|
All trades since January 8th have been entered into the Constitution and Draft Grids.
ESPN brought their Fantasy Baseball site down to prepare it for the 2020 season. This has taken between 1 and 2 weeks in the past. Be patient.
|
|
| | | 345 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 14:31
|
Listening to offers on Alex Bregman... so far I’ve traded all the big names I’ve mentioned to folks this offseason (Arenado and Bieber). Need at least one younger top tier dynasty asset in return.
|
|
| | | 346 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 12:21
|
Last year Opening Day was March 28th. This year it is March 26th.
Last years calendar was this:
- Keepers due Sunday March 10th, Noon ET
- Prospect keepers due Monday March 11th, Noon ET
- Prospect draft starts Tuesday March 12th, Noon ET
- Supplemental draft opens Friday March 15th
- Supplemental draft clock starts Saturday March 16th
I am leaning towards starting the entire calendar on Monday March 9th and then keeping the same cadence:
Proposed 2020 Deadlines:
- Keepers due Monday March 9th, Noon ET
- Prospect keepers due Tuesday March 10th, Noon ET
- Prospect draft starts Wednesday March 11th, Noon ET
- Supplemental draft opens Saturday March 14th
- Supplemental draft clock starts Sunday March 15th, Noon ET
|
|
| | | 347 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 12:48
|
Prospect draft has two extra rounds this year, right? That's 40 extra picks, potentially. Does this schedule allow ample time for that draft to conclude before the supplemental draft starts?
|
|
| | | 348 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Jan 26, 2020, 13:13
|
347: Ack....good point.
Last year it only took 2 days, so we are pretty efficient. I might just keep the schedule and push out the start of the supplemental clock if it comes to that (?).
|
|
| | | 349 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 12:41
|
Looking to move my 2nd round Prospect pick in a deal for someone’s 5th.
|
|
| | | 350 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 13:31
|
Remember last year we had Japan games on the 20th or something like that, and we opened the league before-hand to use any drafted players or keepers for those games. I'm pretty sure we were still drafting the last rounds during those games.
But this year we don't have that.
|
|
| | | 351 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 16:51
|
Taking final offers on Bregman
|
|
| | | 352 | GO
ID: 14143919
Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 20:27
|
Use your best... JUDGEment!
|
|
| | | 353 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 09:46
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
WG Receives
Alex Bregman, SS/3B, HOU
Thumper Receives
Bryce Harper, OF, PHI
Sonny Gray, SP, CIN
WG to confirm. Thanks to everyone who spent the time chatting with me on trade scenarios.
|
|
| | | 354 | WG
ID: 89402220
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 09:48
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 355 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 11:04
|
in all the personnel issues we had this off season, i feel this important discussion got lost.
i believe it is imperative that we look seriously at saves+hold as a category, vs simple saves.
a reality is this - for those of who play both G20 and G24, a closer, in its scarcity, holds as much value in G20 as a QB does in G24, and that's silly.
The case for saves plus holds
"Saves are the only statistic in standard leagues that are limited to the ninth inning. Any hitter at any time can contribute to runs, home runs, runs batted in, stolen bases, or batting average. Any pitcher at any time can contribute to wins, strikeouts, ERA, or WHIP. Yet saves can only be recorded by the pitcher who throws the last pitch of the game. This automatically limits the pool of players eligible for a save leaving many relievers underutilized.
"To figure out how limiting that player pool actually is, let’s look at saves leaders for 2017. Thirty pitchers had fourteen or more saves. If we include holds, that pool of players explodes from thirty to ninety-eight. Sixty-eight pitchers are being left on the waiver wire because they don’t throw the last pitch of the game."
(to update the above, last season had 31 pitchers with 14 or more saves and the pool again explodes to 90+ players if we include holds)
the entire premise that such a small pool of players can make a difference in winning or losing this league, is silly.
|
|
| | | 356 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 11:26
|
I am all for Saves + Holds
|
|
| | | 357 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 15:13
|
I'd consider holds+saves. I hate closers.
BTW, I've gotten some interest in p-1.01 and am currently fielding offers for anyone interested.
|
|
| | | 358 | Species
ID: 351051122
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 17:24
|
All discussions are welcomed.
Please note -- any consideration of this rule change must:
1) Be completed by the start of the Supplemental Draft
2) May not be implemented until AT LEAST 2021, if not 2022, due to roster composition issues
Rationale: trades have been made for 2020 with closers in mind. We cannot undermine those moves with a rule change of this magnitude.
This type of rule change would also alter 2020 supplemental draft strategies, so if we do it everyone needs to know by then.
|
|
| | | 359 | WG
ID: 89402220
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 19:11
|
RE 349:
Also open to moving one of my prospects in some deal so I can hang on to my p2:
Kristian Robinson (#8 Fantrax, #10 Dynasty Guru)
Nate Pearson (#6 Rotoballer)
George Valera (#48 Fantrax)
Hunter Greene (#78 DG)
Have the following prospects on active roster:
Nick Solak (#46 Rotoballer, #48 DG)
Deivi Garcia (#72 DG, #78 Rotoballer)
Lastly, open to trading Alex Bregman.
|
|
| | | 360 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 22:15
|
Looking to move one of these guys:
Joey Votto
David Price
Dee Gordon
Dylan Carlson
Ian Happ
Jake Bauers
Will Smith the catcher
Looking to add one more keeper.
|
|
| | | 361 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 22:34
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
WG RECEIVES
David Dahl
LYMAN RECEIVES
Nick Solak
|
|
| | | 362 | WG
ID: 89402220
Tue, Jan 28, 2020, 23:46
|
confirmed
|
|
| | | 363 | Matt G
ID: 5101299
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:01
|
Trade Announcement
Matt G Receives
David Dahl
Luis Severino
Hunter Greene
WG Receives
Aaron Nola
Marcel Ozuna
|
|
| | | 364 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:04
|
re 358 - absolutely. i would never advocate a rule change such as this have immediate implementation.
i imagine that if we get a point, it'll be similar to other votes where it's an "implement before 2021" or "implement before 2022" sort of thing.
|
|
| | | 365 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 10:19
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 366 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 11:21
|
361 is approved
|
|
| | | 367 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:15
|
Don’t love “saves” but prefer it way more than “saves+hold”. Holds can be a streamed category and I think it’s an even more useless stat than saves. I like the limited quantity of closers. If you are competing on any given year, it’s not hard to accumulate closers. Check out Meatwads final roster last year.
|
|
| | | 368 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:55
|
Note: even though ESPN is active and we can now propose and transact trades through the site, the Trade Review Committee still has authority to approve during the offseason. As such, we need the Trade Committee to review the WG/Thumper trade in Post 353.
Thumper has taken a bit of a "Chairman" role on the committee, which is great. But if he is involved in the trade, one of the alternates must step in. Someone else on the committee also has to take some leadership to get a quorum and opine on the trade at hand. I have emailed the remaining committee members - both Thumper and WG are on the committee so both are excluded - to get together to review.
Once the review is done - as has happened with the trade in Post 361 - I can use Commish powers to push the trade through on ESPN immediately and not be subject to the normal 48 hour processing window.
The Trade Committee was created to review offseason and preseason trades. Once the regular season starts, our normal veto process, as tabulated by veto votes in ESPN, will return. Note: I do not push through in-season trades before the veto period ends. Please take that into account when timing the completion of your in-season trades.
|
|
| | | 369 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 13:54
|
My trade list again:
Omar Narvaez - just traded to Brewers. .350 OBP plus 22 HR. (I also have Tom Murphy, who hit 18 HR in 260 AB last year)
Didi Gregorius - 16 HR in about half a season
Lorenzo Cain - A down year but played through a few injuries last season.
Clint Frazier - The forever in-the-doghouse OF just needs a new home or a chance.
Tommy Edman - Came out of nowhere to have a solid season down the stretch. 59 R and 15 SB in half a season.
Brandon Lowe - Not sure if I want to trade him but might be available at the right price.
Kenta Maeda - He quietly puts up good numbers every season.
Alex Colome - Same for Colome.
Madison Bumgarner - Finally had an injury free season and was very solid.
Joey Lucchesi - Young, solid, in a good home park.
Masa Tanaka - Had a bit of a down year in the ERA dept but pretty good everywhere else.
I'm willing to bundle for a young SP or SS.
|
|
| | | 370 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 13:57
|
I'd probably vote for saves+holds for this league because of the scarcity of saves, but I understand the streaming issues involved with that stat. I wish there was a better number - one singular number - that rated RP's actual contributions. The only thing I can think of is WPA, but how do you quantify a stat like that?
|
|
| | | 371 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 14:26
|
363 also approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 372 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 19:09
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
TEAM MJD RECEIVES
Michael Conforto
LYMAN RECEIVES
MJD 2020 P-1.01
|
|
| | | 373 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 19:14
|
confirmed
|
|
| | | 374 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 19:33
|
In the all-important "Trades Completed" category:
Lyman leads with 5
WG 4
Thumper 3
mjd, Tree, bmd and Species 2
Matt G, Guru, BGO, Dowd, DK 1
ZERO for: blue hen, Nerfherders, Meatwads, Greggo, Fosten, Tosh, youngroman and darkside
Pitchers and catchers report in 2 weeks!!!!
|
|
| | | 375 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 03:50
|
1) I am for saves + holds over saves. 2) Welcome to our new league members. 3) I am also open to trade offers. I have been seriously secluded in a recording studio for a couple of weeks, and will be back in soon. However, I am definitely interested in talking trades. Open to moving veteran players for good prospects, prospect picks or higher supplemental picks than I currently own.
|
|
| | | 376 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 07:06
|
372 is approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 377 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 08:38
|
Holds can be a streamed category and I think it’s an even more useless stat than saves.
wins is a streamed category. is that an argument against it?
I like the limited quantity of closers. If you are competing on any given year, it’s not hard to accumulate closers.
exactly. why should a guy who plays one inning be more valuable than a guy who plays every day and bashes 30 homers?
i suggested S+H because i believe there's an imbalance with the value of closers.
i'd be for any category change that increased the pool of available players, but i'm not sure what other categories are available to us.
i don't want relievers to be completely irrelevant in our league, i just want such a small pool to be less critical to success.
|
|
| | | 378 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:39
|
Another option is to simply eliminate non-K counting stats, including wins, and replacing those categories with ratios. Without the league-mandated innings pitched minimum, using ratios can be dangerous because it allows a manager to load up on elite relievers, therefore keeping the ERA and WHIP ratios nice and tidy enroute to potentially winning all the pitching categories (not including K's) while only accumulating a few hundred innings pitched. But with our innings minimum rule, a manager would still need to generously deploy starting pitching in order to reach the innings pitched minimum and not finish last in K's. Closers and late-inning specialists would still have enormous value in our game as ratio helpers, without the focus on team-generated stats such as wins, saves and holds. K/BB ratio is one of the pitching ratios I use in another league, and I find it a very useful stat in determining a pitcher's real-life value. It also keeps relief pitchers in the conversation and on rosters because relievers tend to have a higher K/BB ratio. So anyway, these are just some thoughts on the saves/holds conversation.
|
|
| | | 379 | Lyman
ID: 2910361920
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:52
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
NORFOLK NEPTUNES RECEIVES
Max Kepler
Nick Solak
LYMAN RECEIVES
Matt Chapman
Hector Santiago
Neptune to confirm.
|
|
| | | 380 | Matt G
ID: 5101299
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 11:58
|
Confirm post 379
|
|
| | | 381 | beastiemiked
ID: 35282121
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 12:16
|
Wins are much harder to stream since only one is given out per game.
Holds dwarves the amount of saves. Last year 52 players had 5 saves or more. 168 had 5 or more holds. Adding all those extra counting numbers will just make it so holds + saves are only dominated by the teams at the top who are actively rotating middle relievers(which isnt fun imo). There are no saves that are easily picked up off the wire.
I think it ultimately would severely limit trades in season. That limited supply of saves drives the trade market and keeps lower tier teams active to potentially pick up a closer they could flip later in the season.
|
|
| | | 382 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 12:22
|
Note for the record. 353 was approved by the committee (and they just forgot to post).
|
|
| | | 384 | GO
ID: 14143919
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 21:35
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 385 | WG
ID: 89402220
Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 21:53
|
TRADE
GO gets
Aaron Nola
Whit Merrifield
WG gets
Shane Bieber
GO's 2021 P1
Note: I posted the wrong year before
|
|
| | | 386 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 08:26
|
379 is approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 387 | GO
ID: 14143919
Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 10:51
|
Guys I am still exploring moving in my reshuffle
Judge
Xander
McCullers
Looking for...
Veteran SP
Speedy SS eligible
2020 prospect pick
Cheap closer
Old 1B for this year only type
|
|
| | | 388 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 13:17
|
385 is approved, nice trade
|
|
| | | 389 | Matt G
ID: 45031313
Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 15:22
|
Trade Announcement
Matt G receives
Dylan Carlson
Will Smith
David Price
Blue Hen Receives
Rhys Hoskins
Scooter Gennett
Clay Buchholz
|
|
| | | 390 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 20:11
|
Confirm, although it’s Forsythe, as on ESPN
|
|
| | | 391 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 10:17
|
389 passes
|
|
| | | 392 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 12:59
|
Looking to sell the following for prospect picks:
Edwin Encarnacion
Joey Votto
Dee Gordon
Ian Happ
Jake Bauers
Alex Verdugo
Ryan Pressly
Andres Munoz
|
|
| | | 393 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 18:19
|
Anyone with an early 1st round supplemental pick looking to trade? I’d trade
A prospect pick
An s2 + s5 for your 1 and 14
An s3 + s4 for your 1 and 14
Hit me up!
|
|
| | | 394 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Tue, Feb 04, 2020, 23:43
|
Make that Alex Verdugo, just traded for Mookie Betts and David Price, leaving an extreme pitchers’ park for a hitters’ park. Looking for prospect picks, even late ones, for Verdugo.
|
|
| | | 395 | Meatwads
ID: 411649
Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 16:48
|
I want to let everyone know that I’ve been getting some serious offers for Christian Yelich, so I’m listening to anyone that wants to get involved. I view him as one of the top 5 players in fantasy baseball in his prime. Over the past two seasons, his statistics have been every bit as good as Mike Trout, so it won’t be cheap.
A combination of talented players and prospect picks would get my attention. My priorities when it comes to the return is (1) winning this season and (2) overall value. I’m open to multi-player packages.
Besides that, everyone knows I have about 8-10 closers available. I don’t want to harass the league about acquiring them, but I would expect the market to pick up as the draft approaches. So keep me in mind if you need one. Assume I could deal any of them at any moment. So if you want a specific one, let me know sooner than later.
|
|
| | | 396 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 14:52
|
FOUR TEAM TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
Meatwads sends
Christian Yelich
Carlos Carrasco
Hector Neris
Meatwads Receives
Aaron Judge
Yoan Moncada
P 2.07
Great One sends
Aaron Judge
Xander Bogaerts
Lance McCullers
Great One Receives
Bryce Harper
Carlos Carrasco
Danny Santana
Hector Neris
P 4.18
Donkey Kong sends
Yoan Moncada
Donkey Kong receives
Xander Bogaerts
Lance McCullers
Thumper sends
Bryce Harper
Danny Santana
P 2.07
P 4.18
Thumper receives
Christian Yelich
Everyone to confirm. Is this the first 4 teamer in G20 history?
|
|
| | | 397 | DK6000
ID: 561143213
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 14:56
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 398 | Meatwads
ID: 411649
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 15:19
|
Confirmed.
|
|
| | | 399 | GO
ID: 14143919
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 15:37
|
I don't know... maybe i back out...
Confirmed!
|
|
| | | 400 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 17:01
|
HUGE! Congrats guys. Thank goodness a 3rd member of the Trade Committee was not involved!! ;)
|
|
| | | 401 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 20:47
|
I feel left out. Who's up for a 20-team trade?
|
|
| | | 402 | Lyman
ID: 206491223
Thu, Feb 06, 2020, 20:58
|
Prospect pick 1.4 is available. If you see the value in this pick (it's pretty easy to imagine which four players will go with the first four picks), then shoot me an offer. Not looking for any one thing in particular, but would be open to trading the pick if the right offer comes my way.
|
|
| | | 404 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 14:34
|
In addition to Verdugo, I’m looking for a home for Dee Gordon. Rotowire recently updated his projection to 31 steals. If you’re contending, and short on steals, 31 from a middle infielder would be huge. Just looking for a p pick- let me know.
|
|
| | | 405 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Sun, Feb 09, 2020, 11:00
|
the trade in 396 is approved, but only if the voting members of the trade committee get to pick one player each from the deal.
kidding. DEAL APPROVED.
|
|
| | | 406 | DK6000
ID: 561143213
Sun, Feb 09, 2020, 14:08
|
Robbie Ray, Mike Minor, and Lance McCullers are all available - looking for p picks or 2021 supplemental picks in return.
In addition, I'm willing to swap my 2020 supplemental picks (4.09, 5.06, 5.17, 6.09, 6.19) for 2021 supplemental picks. This can be in combination with the pitchers above as well.
Let me know if you're interested!
|
|
| | | 407 | Fosten
ID: 4311441513
Sun, Feb 09, 2020, 18:43
|
Hello all. I've enjoyed watching the action so far, but as you may have noticed, I've folded every hand and stayed out of early trades. ATTN new managers: There is prevailing belief in this league that you need to have your keepers set by January. Don't believe the hype! The panic-inducing "You're gonna miss out!" fears are pure propaganda. Keeper deadline is March.
For those who haven't spent all of their off-season budget, you are in luck! Fosten's Wacky Waiving Inflatable Flailing Arm Tube Man Sales are returning! To save all of you some time, I have decided to write up several reasons why you DO NOT want my players. Hopefully, we can get this out of the way now and speed up negotiations!
Studs
- Paul Goldschmidt - Washed up. This guy was supposed to put up MVP numbers last year and didn't. If you take away the two-week hot streak he put together mid-summer, he's similar to any other 1B you can get in the 17th round. Save your money and go with CJ Cron.
- DJ LeMaiheu - A fluke. Coors-assisted numbers. Yankees-assisted numbers. When is this guy going to play for a real team like Miami? Then we'll see what he can do.
- Zack Wheeler - No longer Amazin'. Tell me if you've heard this one before. Player signs with Philadelphia. Player sucks. Repeat.
B+ Hitters
- Scott Kingery - Some would rank him in the top 100. Some would say that he strikes out too much and the Phillies don't have a running game. You're probably that guy.
- Mallex Smith - Is Billy Hamilton even ranked in the top 600 this year? Fosten is the only manager who values steals. What a dork.
- Justin Upton - Bum knees and bum toes. I thought he retired?
B+ Pitchers
- Yonny Chirinos - The catcher?
- Brusdar Graterol - NOT the future ace of the Boston Red Sox.
- Griffin Canning - NOT the future ace of the Mike Trout/Anthony Rendon team.
My schedule is fairly busy over the next two weeks, so expect me to respond to trade inquires at a leisurely pace. I enjoy trading with friendly managers, I prefer chatting about something other than baseball, and I'm more interested in philosophy than statistics. Be mindful that I am seeking to complete trades sometime around late-February/early-March, so there is no need to rush. If this sounds like something you'd be in to, let's Netflix and chill. Peace yo.
|
|
| | | 408 | Lyman
ID: 290311615
Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 11:11
|
TRADE ANNOUNCEMENT
NEPTUNE RECEIVES
Alex Kirilloff
Brent Honeywell
LYMAN RECEIVES
Carter Kieboom
|
|
| | | 409 | Matt G
ID: 45031313
Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 11:25
|
RE 408
Confirmed.
|
|
| | | 410 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Feb 10, 2020, 18:44
|
408 is approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 411 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 13:27
|
Happy pitchers and catchers day!
I’m looking to add a keeper if there any impactful players available. Willing to work with you on what you want in return.
|
|
| | | 412 | GO
ID: 14143919
Tue, Feb 11, 2020, 22:50
|
begin a new quest for a long term SS. Some of the chips I could piece together... speed important to me for this slot.
Brendan Rodgers, 2B, COL (prospect, 10th likely)
Casey Mize, SP, Det (prospect, 10th likely)
Ketel Marte, 2B/OF, AZ
Whit Merrifled, 2B/OF, KC
Carlos Carrasco, SP, CLE
Hector Neris, CP, PHI
Ryan Yarbrough, SP, TB
Luke Weaver, SP, AZ
Ross Stripling, SP, trade
Supp pick 1.07
|
|
| | | 413 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 11:32
|
Proposed 2020 Deadlines:
- Keepers due Monday March 9th, Noon ET
- Prospect keepers due Tuesday March 10th, Noon ET
- Prospect draft starts Wednesday March 11th, Noon ET
- Supplemental draft opens Saturday March 14th*
- Supplemental draft clock starts Sunday March 15th, Noon ET*
*I am going to roll with the above schedule. However, given the 2 additional rounds in the prospect draft, we may have to adjust the start of the Supplemental Draft to accommodate.
|
|
| | | 414 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 11:51
|
Does anyone have a link to the draft grids?
|
|
| | | 415 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 11:58
|
Links are on the header of this thread.
|
|
| | | 416 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 14:52
|
Looking to trade away 2020 picks for 2021 picks from you.
|
|
| | | 417 | mjd
ID: 34954210
Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 15:47
|
I'm game.
|
|
| | | 418 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 18:13
|
Looking to upgrade my middle infield/1B and have Giancarlo Stanton and Kirby Yates on the block ready to find a new home.
|
|
| | | 419 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 20:14
|
Is there a trade that needs to be posted?
|
|
| | | 420 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 20:17
|
Trade Announcement
BH receives:
Robbie Ray
5.6
8.9
Donkey Kong receives:
Alex Verdugo
13.3
12.11
|
|
| | | 421 | DK6000
ID: 561143213
Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 21:14
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 422 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 15:40
|
420 is approved (insert weed joke), congrats
|
|
| | | 423 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 10:12
|
Open to dealing one of my Prospect picks (I believe I have 1,2,2,3,4,5; and probably wouldn’t trade the 1) if someone takes it with Michael Brantley for an upgrade.
|
|
| | | 424 | WG
Donor
ID: 35338278
Tue, Feb 18, 2020, 14:20
|
Also looking to move Zack Greinke if anyone is in win now.
|
|
| | | 425 | GO
ID: 14143919
Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 13:22
|
TRADE
Dowd gets
Carrasco
Merrifield
Neris
GO gets
Giancarlo Stanton
|
|
| | | 426 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 13:23
|
Confirmed
|
|
| | | 427 | Jon Dowd
ID: 26119214
Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 15:09
|
Add German Marquez to the list of available players from Jon Dowd. German and Kirby Yates, officially on the block.
|
|
| | | 428 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 17:54
|
425 is approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 429 | WG
ID: 89402220
Wed, Feb 19, 2020, 21:04
|
2020 p3 + 2021 p1 on the block, looking for an upgrade on a keeper. Can also add (P) George Valera.
|
|
| | | 430 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 15:55
|
Young SP available for pick upgrades in either draft
Jose Urquidy - got a World Series start and the Astros pitching coach is saying he’s all but cemented the 4th SP spot. I can’t think of a more trustworthy person than an Astro coach. Rankings and projections haven’t caught up to the fact he’s a full time rotation guy with pristine Command
Spencer Howard/Ian Anderson- likely to go early in the prospect draft. Held on the MLB roster and will be in the bigs this year. I remember posting/trading Shane Bieber and Chris Paddack for a supplemental pick last offseason and it TOTALLY was a great idea for me *facepalm*
You can find me in your junk mail folder
|
|
| | | 431 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 18:20
|
You can find me in your junk mail folder
....that is much better than my inquiries, which are usually blocked! ;)
|
|
| | | 432 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 19:02
|
i've still got some young players i'm considering moving - mostly looking for picks at this point, but not opposed to the right deal.
Luis Urias
Miguel Andujar
Bryan Reynolds
Austin Hays
Sal Perez (not that young anymore, but still a top notch catcher)
Pablo Lopez
Corbin Burnes
most of these guys are on various break out / bounceback lists.
|
|
| | |
| | | 434 | Tree
ID: 571142323
Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 19:00
|
Trade announcement.
Tree trades
Miguel Andujar
To
Greggo
For
Supp pick 3.06
|
|
| | | 435 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 09:48
|
deal also includes my p10.01 in return.
|
|
| | | 436 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 10:24
|
10th round prospect pick, noted
|
|
| | | 437 | Tree
ID: 161118314
Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 13:04
|
lol s10.01 i hadn't had coffee yet.
|
|
| | | 438 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 14:35
|
Accept
|
|
| | | 439 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Sat, Feb 22, 2020, 15:28
|
434/435 approved, congrats
|
|
| | | 440 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 11:29
|
AND HERE WE GO! Keepers are due two weeks from tomorrow!
- Keepers due Monday March 9th, Noon ET
- Prospect keepers due Tuesday March 10th, Noon ET
- Prospect draft starts Wednesday March 11th, Noon ET
- Supplemental draft opens Saturday March 14th*
- Supplemental draft clock starts Sunday March 15th, Noon ET*
*I am going to roll with the above schedule. However, given the 2 additional rounds in the prospect draft, we may have to adjust the start of the Supplemental Draft to accommodate.
I am assigning each and every manager the task of auditing there own Supplemental and Prospect picks. I diligently track things but I am doing the work of the entire league (and a very active league at that) and I have oversights and make mistakes. I do not have the capacity to audit 2 years of trades for 20 teams.
As such, I am tasking each and every manager to audit their own picks, and to do so by Monday March 3rd, 12:00pm ET. Things are going to get hot-and-heavy after that and I just want to avoid any last minute hiccups with picks and pick order. I am going to have to enter in the entire draft into Draftime round by round so I want it accurate the first time. Each manager doing it for their own set of picks will be more efficient than me trying to do it for all 20.
We have 3 new managers who will probably have a lot of questions. Please do not be shy, in particular regarding the prospect draft, '10th keeper' rules and keeper restrictions. It is too important for you not to be completely fluent in the nuances so speak up publicly or privately.
The Champ is here and ready to defend the title! Come knock me off!
|
|
| | | 441 | Blue Hen
ID: 410452818
Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 13:23
|
Looking to upgrade my last keeper slot. Right now it’s between Edwin Encarnacion, Joey Votto, Ken Giles, and Robbie Ray for the last two slots. So either combining those four to upgrade two, or trading one or more for picks is on the table. Prefer P picks to S picks. Let’s talk.
|
|
| | | 442 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 16:17
|
Trade Announcement
Greggo Receives
Jose Urquidy, SP, HOU
Thumper Receives
P 3.17
|
|
| | | 443 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 16:22
|
Confirm
|
|
| | | 444 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Sun, Feb 23, 2020, 16:35
|
Roman's trade Tony Gonsolin to make room for Gonsolin
|
|
| | | 445 | Gregg Curry
ID: 38855205
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 01:16
|
Correction. Roman's trade Gonsolin to make room for Urquidy
|
|
| | | 446 | Thumqer
ID: 39230821
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 13:55
|
Another rule change I remembered from last year- I think “10th keepers” should be allowed to be placed on the IL, not just MLB Keepers
|
|
| | | 447 | Nerfherders
ID: 305301811
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 15:41
|
Something weird happened with this thread. It's now called '1' and has 1,582,528,693 replies.
|
|
| | | 448 | Species
SuperDude
ID: 07724916
Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 17:32
|
I thought we were a chatty group, but this is ridiculous.
It was kind of time to transition to a preseason thread anyway. Hopefully Guru can add links to our Constitution and Draft Grids in short order. But please move all discussions to the new Preseason Thread.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|