|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 1, 2017 1:27:59 GMT -5
A couple of rules change suggestions for 2018...
1) As I've mentioned in the past, at some point in the future (2018, 2019), I think we should change the saves category to saves+holds (still one category). It basically makes a hold as valuable as a save. With the rash of injuries that have plagued baseball seemingly more and more throughout the years, and me not wanting to have to sit at my computer or phone in order to pick up the closer-du-jour that becomes available when a guy gets injured or traded, in order to keep up in the saves race...that way, guys can still pick up a setup man to be able to compete in the category.
When I reviewed this in 2015 for another league I run (consequently, we ended up switching the category in that league), I saw that in 2014, 17 closers had 30 saves or more. By comparison, only 4 pitchers had 30 holds or more. Therefore, closers will still have significant weight in the league, but making a category switch would give more weight to the best setup men in the game, and also not cripple teams in April who lose closer(s) to injury. It seems as if you can find some type of help in all other 9 categories on the waiver wire consistently, but obviously saves are limited, and I think this change will make the league better and more competitive.
2) For those in Fantasy GM league, you're probably familiar with this, especially since Justin basically bought out his entire new team this week. We don't have it in the rules in this league, but I think it is a great rule and should be added to this league as well. For 2018, a team can "buyout" a player's contract up until the day the season starts. Here is how the rule is written in Fantasy GM League, and I think the same format would apply in this league:
Prior to the start of each season the commish will give teams a chance to exercise a buy-out option on any player(s) under contract, both on major league rosters and released lists. The buy-out option allows teams to reduce the years on a player contract but increases the salary at which that player is signed. If you choose to exercise the buy-out option on any player, the player contract length will be half the original length but the player salary will be doubled. For example, if you choose to exercise the buy-out option on a player with a 4/2 contract then that player would now be under a 8/1 contract for the upcoming season. All buy-out options must be posted prior to the start of the season.
Please reply here to give your thoughts on these proposed rules changes. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Apr 1, 2017 2:56:06 GMT -5
Against the 1st rule change.
Some of us have invested $ in closers for saves.
Would make those investments worth lots less even with fewer holds among the top set up men.
At least wait a few years so we can plan for it.
OK with the 2nd rule change.
|
|
|
|
Post by SOL on Apr 1, 2017 7:27:31 GMT -5
Good with both
Not sure a couple of years would help with the first rule change, these wouldn't be until next year anyways.
For clarification, would the 2nd rule change apply if it put a player above top salary? i.e. 8/2 becomes 16/1?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Beast on Apr 1, 2017 9:30:50 GMT -5
Definitely in for both, and I have a feeling that if you did that same research at the end of this year, those numbers will look drastically different than 2014. Setup men and middle relievers just get more and more work. I've always like holds but now it's even more relevant, some of the most exciting guys in the game are middle relief and setup
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Apr 1, 2017 11:34:05 GMT -5
Probably wouldn't want many closers, if any, if we counted holds too.
In other leagues that combine saves/holds and didn't invest in closers at all.
Strategy worked prior years.
Too many holds available.
With 5 year contracts the fact that it is for next year is little consolation if you have a closer under contract for 2 or more years.
If we are changing to that rule then we should allow our owners to release closers at no cost if they don't want them under the new rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Apr 1, 2017 12:20:25 GMT -5
I agree with Scott.
The first rule change waters down the value of closers, and hurts any team with a long-term closer contract.
(Just so there's no misunderstanding of motives, this does not affect my team.)
Either allow long-term notice prior to the rule change or do as Scott suggests and allow teams to cancel closer contracts.
No opinion to the second suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Apr 1, 2017 12:27:32 GMT -5
I think the rules should address the trading of minor league draft picks, especially in the future.
Sometimes, future draft picks are used to make an uneven trade seem more even. But the value of later-round milb draft picks are suspect.
This year there was a trade involving milb draft picks, and the team receiving a fifth-round draft pick didn't even use it. I think there should be a limit on which rounds can be used for trade bait. As a starter, I will throw out the third round because everyone is still usually active in the draft that round.
Thoughts?
(Yes, I know this suggestion takes focus away from the original post, but look at the title of this thread.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 1, 2017 12:52:16 GMT -5
Against the 1st rule change. Some of us have invested $ in closers for saves. Would make those investments worth lots less even with fewer holds among the top set up men. At least wait a few years so we can plan for it. OK with the 2nd rule change. Regarding the first rule, I understand your concern, and that's the reason I added 2018 & 2019 to the original post. I'll do a quick review of the closer situation in the league and try to come up with a more specific/fair way to approve the rule change, so that it would be seamless. |
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 1, 2017 13:21:55 GMT -5
I think the rules should address the trading of minor league draft picks, especially in the future. Sometimes, future draft picks are used to make an uneven trade seem more even. But the value of later-round milb draft picks are suspect. This year there was a trade involving milb draft picks, and the team receiving a fifth-round draft pick didn't even use it. I think there should be a limit on which rounds can be used for trade bait. As a starter, I will throw out the third round because everyone is still usually active in the draft that round. Thoughts? (Yes, I know this suggestion takes focus away from the original post, but look at the title of this thread.) I spoke with Reggie about the non-use of the pick even before your post. He said he will be revoking his pass and using the pick to fill his minors roster to 12 before passing. There was a misunderstanding there. I'm sure no one would have any objection with that. I don't...as everyone is entitled to their picks.
That being said, I don't think that the 5th round pick had any bearing on the weight of that trade in particular one way or the other. However, I agree with you about value of later round picks. I have no problem trading for later round picks if I feel (or hope) that my targeted players will be there, knowing that I'm getting value elsewhere in the trade. I did that with Bryzzo getting his 4th for my 3rd, while picking up a second rounder next season (to spin to SOL in the trade I made with him earlier in the draft...LOL).
Unless the trade is egregious, I don't see limiting the trading of anything really, but understand your concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 1, 2017 13:26:49 GMT -5
For clarification, would the 2nd rule change apply if it put a player above top salary? i.e. 8/2 becomes 16/1? Good question. This has been brought up in the other league, but no player with a value dollar over 4 has ever been bought out, so it has never needed to really be addressed.
Since you're buying out a player that 99% of the time is underperforming, I think I would be fine with it. However, it would obviously severely hamper your cap space for the year (or two you would have left on a four year buyout).
I'm interested to hear the thoughts of other on this. I'm basically indifferent one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Apr 4, 2017 10:37:07 GMT -5
As of today, I believe there are 10 players currently signed for longer than two years that would possibly be affected by a single category change from saves only to saves+holds.
Therefore, I propose we plan to change the category for the 2019 season, and offer the owners that own the ten players affected the option to void their contracts (prior to first round bids in the 2019 pre-season) and make them non-loyalty free agents.
H4B - Reed 4/4, Ramos 5/3, Herrera 4/5, Capps 1/5
Panthers - Bedrosian 1/3
4th St - Robertson 5/4
Soultakers - Miller 3/3, Storen 2/4
Cobesters - Chapman 10/3, Rondon 2/3
|
|
|
|
Post by Machado About Nothing on Apr 4, 2017 11:13:39 GMT -5
As of today, I believe there are 10 players currently signed for longer than two years that would possibly be affected by a single category change from saves only to saves+holds. Therefore, I propose we plan to change the category for the 2019 season, and offer the owners that own the ten players affected the option to void their contracts (prior to first round bids in the 2019 pre-season) and make them non-loyalty free agents. H4B - Reed 4/4, Ramos 5/3, Herrera 4/5, Capps 1/5 Panthers - Bedrosian 1/3 4th St - Robertson 5/4 Soultakers - Miller 3/3, Storen 2/4 Cobesters - Chapman 10/3, Rondon 2/3 This seems like a reasonable solution to me (although you can see I'm not impacted by this). We'd also want to send a reminder before next year's bidding. I'm fine with the second proposal too, even if it puts someone over $10. |
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Apr 4, 2017 14:33:39 GMT -5
That seems fair especially for Chapman being maxed salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soultakers on Apr 4, 2017 14:52:44 GMT -5
I have an idea. What are your thoughts on paying part of a salary in a trade to get some of the released players back in play.
For example bryzzo has heyward for 10/4 and he picked him up and traded him away but paid 6 million per year and the other team pays the 4 for 4 years. More players would put back into play and give just a little Salary relief on the teams trading them away.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Beast on Apr 4, 2017 15:41:48 GMT -5
As of today, I believe there are 10 players currently signed for longer than two years that would possibly be affected by a single category change from saves only to saves+holds. Therefore, I propose we plan to change the category for the 2019 season, and offer the owners that own the ten players affected the option to void their contracts (prior to first round bids in the 2019 pre-season) and make them non-loyalty free agents. H4B - Reed 4/4, Ramos 5/3, Herrera 4/5, Capps 1/5 Panthers - Bedrosian 1/3 4th St - Robertson 5/4 Soultakers - Miller 3/3, Storen 2/4 Cobesters - Chapman 10/3, Rondon 2/3 This seems like a reasonable solution to me (although you can see I'm not impacted by this). We'd also want to send a reminder before next year's bidding. I'm fine with the second proposal too, even if it puts someone over $10. I don't agree on completely wiping away a players salary. Especially if a team is able to do it for more than one...I'd be willing to listen to ppls opinions on lowering the cost, not the years. But definitely not getting rid of the whole contract. |
|
