|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 23:22:20 GMT -5
I'm 100 against a lottery for ALL the teams that miss the playoffs. Not only will this kill my vibe for the following season if my team sucks it also kills my trade value of that potential top pick. A lot of people target a team that is doing bad for their first pick and it allows the teams struggling to make a deal that could help them contend sooner. I'm all for the bottom 5 being a lottery like Amy suggested but I can tell you if I finish bottom 5 and get a 20+ pick I'll be out. Not to mention it creates a potential for others to think the lottery is rigged. I personally think if a team is proven to "tank it" they should be removed. But if your rebuilding and not competing that shouldn't be viewed negatively. I share your concern with having the lottery being all 22 teams and agree a tiered lottery makes more sense. I'd be pretty pissed if I finished 6th overall, didn't tank and still got the 19th overall pick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 23:28:45 GMT -5
Honestly the only teams that have a true advantage of tanking is 1-5. After that the players are really a crapshoot and this whole lottery for 22 is creating more headache then it's worth.
I would lottery the top 5 and move on. The 1 and 2 pick is what everyone usually wants. If they completely tank it and don't get that 1 or 2 they will feel real dumb later.
I was winless last year in another league. And got the 5 in a lottery. Sucked. Especially because I wasn't tanking. I had all prospects who I traded away this offseason after 2 years of building them up. BUT. It prevented the rest of the league from getting pissed.
I think lottery for all the missed playoff teams is overkill
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 23:40:40 GMT -5
A lottery AT ALL is overkill. Worst record gets 1st pick. We kick out GMs who perpetually suck just to get picks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 0:26:33 GMT -5
I'm in a league where the bottom 6 are in a lottery draft, and honestly I have been in it 2 years with the worst record (I was rebuilding not tanking) and ended up with 5th and 6th pick. That to me was insane. The difference in those picks were huge for a team trying to completely rebuild. I'd be ok with a bottom 5 or so lottery, but not necessarily like it. I think as long as we have punishment in line for teams obviously tanking (like a stripping of picks or something) then that would solve any problems. Also in MLB tanking isn't the best option. No one player will turn around an entire franchise. Guys like trout don't come along every year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 0:32:11 GMT -5
That's terrible Tav and something that I wouldn't want to happen in this League. The team with the worst record should receive the first pick. This lottery nonsense is only used in Basketball and hockey because of teams like the sixers. We don't need it here!
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 4:33:28 GMT -5
Let's just end this pick lottery nonsense and get on with each GM building his club as he sees fit. Pretty easy to spot the miserable owner whose only plan is to win a Rd #1.1 draft pick. Everyone else gets a pass from us.
Give the bottom teams the picks they "earned" with a terrible year and worry about more meaningful things.
We've run several leagues and the hardest thing for leagues to survive are badly run clubs or owners frustrated with finishing at or near the bottom every year, who then quit and need replacement. And we completely reject those who claim that those bottom feeder-owners will do poorly no matter if you give them fifty Rd #1 picks. Nor do we worry that some clearly-excellent team will somehow manipulate its way into a favorable draft position and undeservedly wrangle an early pick.
Give bottom teams a chance by ensuring they have access to highly ranked players in their draft future and the league will be better top to bottom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 10:29:40 GMT -5
I'm 100 against a lottery for ALL the teams that miss the playoffs. Not only will this kill my vibe for the following season if my team sucks it also kills my trade value of that potential top pick. A lot of people target a team that is doing bad for their first pick and it allows the teams struggling to make a deal that could help them contend sooner. I'm all for the bottom 5 being a lottery like Amy suggested but I can tell you if I finish bottom 5 and get a 20+ pick I'll be out. Not to mention it creates a potential for others to think the lottery is rigged. I personally think if a team is proven to "tank it" they should be removed. But if your rebuilding and not competing that shouldn't be viewed negatively. I've got to say I fully agree with Rangers here. I get that were all pretty much equal teams at this point after the initial draft. But, everyone has there own way of creating teams in dynasty leagues. We shouldn't penalize a team if they prefer to build through prospects versus established players at the big league level. My concern isn't the owner who trades for prospects and picks at the cost of near term big league success, my concern is the owner who neglects his/her team and doesn't do anything with it for long periods of time at all. Baseball in an imperfect sport with imbalances all over the place. This creates the opportunity for others to seek out those imbalances and use them to their benefit. Let owners use those imbalances in our league to their benefit. Just my opinion, but I like strategy, I hate inactivity in running teams. My opinion is we should be looking for inactive owners versus the strategists who employ prospecting. With all that being said I'm here and will go along with whatever the league decides.
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 10:38:14 GMT -5
Very well put, Ron. Thanks for commenting. We agree the problem isn't about some owner "sneaking" into a high draft pick. If we have owners actively trying to float whatever strategy they fancy, we have a better league than one where we try to squeeze all owners into some sort of snug corset and keep tugging at the strings to make it an even tighter fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 8:59:54 GMT -5
I vote against the winners getting richer too, I vote for the worst to be first in the next years draft. If someone is tanking remove them from the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 10:18:53 GMT -5
I see a lot of people saying get rid of the "tankers" and stuff like that. But what is a tank? I think you clearly need to see that trading off all your MLB for minors league prospects is in reality, "tanking".
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 23, 2015 15:36:18 GMT -5
Very well put, Ron. Thanks for commenting. We agree the problem isn't about some owner "sneaking" into a high draft pick. If we have owners actively trying to float whatever strategy they fancy, we have a better league than one where we try to squeeze all owners into some sort of snug corset and keep tugging at the strings to make it an even tighter fit. It was never about trying to limit strategy. Owners could still do all the things they could before. It would be choosing not to reward tank sell-offs with a pick, but if teams still wanted to deal MLBers for MiLBers, owners would not have been limited. As things are done currently, if you are rebuilding with a thin roster, the pick priority rules punish rebuilding teams that don't shed MLBers in order to get a higher pick because other teams that do will slip ahead of them. Without this pick priority, rebuilding teams might choose more often to keep MLB guys as part of rebuilding, so there's a certain added strategic flexibility by not having a carrot dangling out there for selling off. Dodgers has made a path and thats fine. But the pick priority is no less of corset than the lotto, probably more so. It just chooses to reward managers for selling off. Now, I know you have said you plan to sell-off so I understand why you want that, its good for your team if we award you a high pick because you sold all your major leaguers. But we were looking at this from a league-perspective and all 30 teams. And not every team will choose to sell off or want to fell forced to in order to get pick priority, so we were looking for a rule which would not discriminate based on whether you sold off or not, right now we have a rule that's biased towards selling-off. We were looking for something more neutral is all. Where teams could choose to sell or not sell off. And that decision wouldn't be so influenced by pick priority.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Mar 23, 2015 19:32:44 GMT -5
Well said Tim. This is why I encourage owners to rethink their vote. It kind of sucks having some in the league who have sold off all of their MLers and have 60 prospects on their roster. Bottom 5 lottery wouldn't remove this strategy but wouldn't reward it to the extent it's rewarded now.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Mar 23, 2015 19:33:57 GMT -5
It's not all about 'worst team, top pick' really. Little more nuanced than that. I'm sure you, Scott and Rob are all terrible people, but I think you're doing a wonderful job thinking about how to put together this league.
|
|
|
Post by z - Gaz on Mar 24, 2015 1:40:23 GMT -5
I think that there is a bit too much over thinking here. The worst team should get the first pick as it's what logic dictates.
However, if teams deliberately tank they should have that pick dropped by 10 spots on first warning and then removed on second warning. Otherwise it's basically cheating.
I'm also worried about teams who sell off all their players but more so because it automatically makes the league a bit less interesting. How can it be enjoyable to not compete for at least 4 years? And there's no guarantee on the vast majority of prospects becoming big league stars. I'd be all for a minimum MLB roster of say 10 players at all times. It is easy to police if GM's keep their rosters up to date, if they don't then they'd probably need to be replaced anyway for inactivity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 6:53:43 GMT -5
-Minimum MLB active roster requirements.
-Selling MLB assets for prospects IS NOT TANKING.
-Tanking is intentionally NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM MLB ACTIVE ROSTER REQUIREMENT....& INTENTIONALLY NOT STARTING A FULL LINEUP ON FANTRAX(as full a starting lineup as possible).
If an owner is caught doing either they are warned and up for review. If the behavior continues strike 2 is a sanction. Strike 3 is removal from the League.
Being that lineups are set once a week in this League it will be easy to monitor.
However...OF MUCH GREATER IMPORTANCE IS INACTIVITY. Inactivity is 1000 time worse than tanking. It destroys a League.
I appreciate the proactive measures that the leadership of this League is willing to persue. Before each offseason I would like to see each GM QUICKLY reviewed. Inactive GMs should be contacted and warned or removed...depending on their response to the inquiry.
These are my thoughts...thanks for the great League!
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Nov 7, 2015 12:24:00 GMT -5
We will now be allowing FYPD picks to be traded during a very specific window.
Starting in the offseason, the upcoming FYPD picks may be traded; however, we must have a full house or league managements ok before the offseason trading will open up. This means that in the offseason, once full, you may trade picks from the upcoming draft up until the close of the draft. Upon close of the draft, you can obviously trade those players picked but will not be able to trade next years draft picks until the following offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Feb 14, 2016 14:37:12 GMT -5
A clarification of Rule 10: Releasing Players and Waivers System has been made. The addition of a second exception to waiver penalties reads as follows... "EXCEPTION 2: This applies to PP (protected prospect) players only. Owners will have the opportunity to waive any PP players without penalty beginning after the completion of the League's playoffs and ending once Unrestricted Free Agency has begun. This is akin to choosing to non-tender a player in their arbitration years."
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 11, 2016 10:02:13 GMT -5
We decided to go ahead and suffer the penalty and not fight it any longer. But implementing penalties against clubs that decide to trade off valuable assets to restructure their teams are almost always trying to improve long-term rather than short term. If the bottom teams improve they become the top teams. There should be not punishment for taking the rebuild approach.
Draft pick penalties amount to a tax against rebuilding teams. Have no idea how it helps anyone except the top teams. Certainly doesn't help the league to have the same teams at the top every year.
Royals said in exactly and succinctly back when this discussion was still seriously being discussed:
Tanking is only when u choose to not start your optimum Fantrax lineup(MLB roster). IT IS NOT WHEN A GM TRADES AWAY ASSETS DURING THE SEASON OR AT THE TRADE DEADLINE. That's called strategy and it's employed by smart GMs in almost every sport.
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 11, 2016 10:11:30 GMT -5
We decided to go ahead and suffer the penalty and not fight it any longer. But implementing penalties against clubs that decide to trade off valuable assets to restructure their teams are almost always trying to improve long-term rather than short term. If the bottom teams improve they become the top teams. There should be not punishment for taking the rebuild approach. Draft pick penalties amount to a tax against rebuilding teams. Have no idea how it helps anyone except the top teams. Certainly doesn't help the league to have the same teams at the top every year. Royals said in exactly and succinctly: Tanking is only when u choose to not start your optimum Fantrax lineup(MLB roster). IT IS NOT WHEN A GM TRADES AWAY ASSETS DURING THE SEASON OR AT THE TRADE DEADLINE. That's called strategy and it's employed by smart GMs in almost every sport.this was decided long ago after much league discussion. there's no need grind that axe again.
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 11, 2016 10:20:36 GMT -5
Not grinding the axe so much as honing it. The topic came up in a recent trade discussion; reopened an old wound. Honestly can't see how it hampers the league in any way to have team owners employ their unique strategies. If trading your valuable MLB players to accrue picks and prospects works so well that it's a threat to top teams, then the bottom teams will become the top teams and have to employ a new strategy.
If the mediocre teams have no choice but to slog along in the middle year after year, there is no real point to any strategy.
|
|