|
Post by Mike Hulse on Aug 7, 2014 8:47:54 GMT -5
1. Number of DL slots, and measures to prevent parking healthy players on the DL.
2. Availability of undrafted rookie-eligible players.
3. Should we implement a trade deadline near the end of the season?
4. Handling of injured players during September.
5. Minor match options for 2015.
Add any other baseball rules suggestions below. This list serves as a reminder for items to be discussed/decided next winter prior to the 2015 MLB season.
|
|
|
Post by bbozorth on Aug 20, 2014 17:41:43 GMT -5
I am a BIG supporter of increasing the DL. Since you will still have to pay for adding players, a manager will have to hold in reserve money for him to pick up players. And when the player returns from the DL, he still will have to pay, unless someone else picks him up. I have had up to 8 players on the DL at one time this year and it has devasted my ability to compete. I would like to see at least 5 DL slots if not higher. I don't think a high numeber would hurt competition, but rather help. The guys you will get are usually not the biggest contributors, but at least they keep you afloat. Imagine if a major league team were restricted to 2 DL slots......doesn't work does it?
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Aug 20, 2014 18:03:59 GMT -5
The H2H league that some us are in has 5 DL slots and it works ok. As long as we all have the same number it's fair. lol
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Aug 20, 2014 20:07:20 GMT -5
Bob - I agree with you, and I know from earlier correspondence that Dean does too. If we are trying to emulate MLB teams, they don't have a restrictive limit on the number or players they can put on the list. Nothing could be worse than having to release an injured player who is under contract, but then gets picked up by another team right before he comes off the DL.
|
|
|
Post by Wright Stuff on Aug 21, 2014 9:36:58 GMT -5
agree with Bob and Scott
at least 5 because of the increased frequency of elbow / shoulder injuries of pitchers
In that other league I lost 5 pitchers before the season started; 3 of whom will not pitch this year.
In this league I lost Harvey and Medlin before season began; thus have really had only 1 DL spot all year
|
|
|
Post by bbozorth on Aug 21, 2014 9:57:04 GMT -5
I currently have 5 on the DL Cargo, Wacha, Springer, Ryu & Hosmer. I also had to cut a couple others. That about fills the bench too. If we had the higher DL 5-7, at least it gives you flexibility if you can afford to pick up someone to fill in.
|
|
|
Post by gandrus on Aug 21, 2014 12:49:41 GMT -5
I had as many as 7 on the DL this year. Currently at 3, my minimum all season. I think it's a good idea to raise the number of DL slots for our teams too.
And if someone ends up with 7 or so on DL, they can only hoard the extra players until theirs become healthy, as long as ESPN forces DL players to come off the DL. Does anyone know if they force players off the DL slots? I'm not sure they there's a check on ESPN (but pretty sure there is on Yahoo).
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Aug 23, 2014 20:52:56 GMT -5
Gary - the way ESPN is set up, you can park a healthy player on DL until you want to add an FA. But as a league, we don't allow it. The DL is for injured players, not intended to provide another bench spot to hide players that you don't want to play but also don't want to drop. This also came up in the GM Fantasy league last year. There is not a fixed time limit written into our rules, but so far, it hasn't become a problem here. That's one factor that will get worse if we increase the number of DL slots - more of a tendency to park players on the DL. (Not suggesting that we don't raise the DL spots, but when we do, we need to address this other problem at the same time.)
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Dec 8, 2014 20:18:35 GMT -5
I added Rookie Match Options as a topic for rules discussion because 2015 is the first year that this rule comes into effect. The rule says: 17. Match Options: The owner of a minor league player with an expiring contract will have the right to match the highest bid made for that player during the following season's bid rounds and retain the player on those contract terms. The high bidder whose bid was matched will receive compensation of the matching team's first round pick in that year's minor league draft. Each team may exercise match options only twice per year. If the matching team's first round pick has already been forfeited for an earlier match option, than the high bidder will get the second round pick. Match options will not come into play until the 2015 baseball season - the oldest minor league contracts in this league expire after the 2014 season.
The rule is pretty straightforward, but there is one situation that is not covered by the original rule - what if a team has already traded away their first two minor league picks for that year? Do they forfeit the right to match or do they drop down to their lower draft picks? Also, if a team has two first round picks and matches twice, do they lose the two first round picks, or one first round and one second round? (These are not hypothetical questions - there are teams in the league that are in these situations for 2015.)
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Dec 8, 2014 23:18:00 GMT -5
Assumed you would need to have the pick(s) available in order to use the match option. Saved my picks so I could use the 2 options if necessary.
Would think matching owner would lose highest pick they own for both if they use both options.
|
|
|
Post by 4th St Clubhouse on Dec 9, 2014 0:53:51 GMT -5
I agree it seems you must have the picks available to use the match option.
On the second item, it seem like you would still give up one first round and one second round. You shouldn't be penalized against the other players because you traded to get an extra first round pick.
|
|
|
Post by Wright Stuff on Dec 9, 2014 16:10:46 GMT -5
I agree you must have the 1st and/or 2nd pick available to use match option
On the second, I would have agreed with Scott, but I think Ron has a very valid point. Losing a second 1st pick would be too severe a penalty
|
|
|
Post by Brooklyn Cobesters on Dec 9, 2014 17:20:53 GMT -5
OK either way but it is an option. If you don't want to lose your 2nd 1st round pick if you have 2 then you can forego the 2nd option.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hulse on Dec 9, 2014 21:14:30 GMT -5
To me, it's a fairness issue. If you have two 1st round picks, it's because you traded away value. No reason to be punished for that. This case doesn't exist yet, but what if a team owns two firsts and no seconds? (I know, this is out on a tangent, but just trying to cover all the bases before we get into the practical applications.
|
|
|
Post by Penumbraville Panthers on Dec 11, 2014 10:14:24 GMT -5
I'm in agreement with 1st & 2nd. I don't think owner should be penalized for owning a second 1st round pick. In answer to your last question, I think it is ok to use two firsts, since you're theoretically giving up more value than the 1st and 2nd required by the rule.
I think the rule should be written that you must give up a pick equal to or greater in value (better pick) than your original pick in the round. This will disallow people to trade from (for the sake of discussion) the first pick in the 2nd round down to the last pick in the 2nd round, but still use that pick on a match option.
|
|