|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Rob) on Mar 25, 2015 9:37:30 GMT -5
It has come to my attention that some of the owners would like a minimum AB/IP rule for the regular season in order to avoid all the stuff that was mentioned before about tanking. Instead of me just putting some random rule into effect I thought I would use another poll to see what you would like to have as a minimum. You are also free to discuss the matter with me if you feel it this is unfair. Like always I welcome the discussion and any feedback that you would like to provide.
If a rule would like this were to take effect we would then have a punishment for not meeting the requirements which is yet to be determined.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 25, 2015 9:52:39 GMT -5
Idea here is to create minimum competitive rosters with a standard that is easy to police. It seems like most of the league is in favor of having some sort of roster requirements. The min IP/AB structure is just a way for us to keep the admin simple. The idea is that everyone has to put up some roster, but it leaves a lot of flexibility to how you do it.
Note that as Dodgers mentioned those numbers are for the regular season. No minimums apply for the post-season of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 10:18:57 GMT -5
Nice idea, but if a team is just under whatever is voted in, they would be penalized.
I recommend a lower AB/INN level accrued at a weekly interval. This way a team can't tank at the end of the season after hitting the mark and figuring they have no chance to win.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 25, 2015 10:33:09 GMT -5
Shouldn't the rule be set up in such a way as to promote owners competing in any way they judge best and not so restrictive as to use the rule against any chosen approach to winning?
Some owners may see competing every year as the "right way to go"; while others don't mind taking more round-about steps to achieve long-term objectives.
Too many required innings pitched or at bats shouldn't hamstring approach, just a means to prevent total scuttling of the ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 25, 2015 10:38:33 GMT -5
Nice idea, but if a team is just under whatever is voted in, they would be penalized. I recommend a lower AB/INN level accrued at a weekly interval. This way a team can't tank at the end of the season after hitting the mark and figuring they have no chance to win. I don't think Rob wants to police this on a weekly basis. Nor do I. Several managers have expressed wanting to have some sort of minimum in place and this is the easiest to enforce. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Rob) on Mar 25, 2015 10:43:20 GMT -5
The purpose of the rule is not to restrict how you build your roster, but that you at least field something at the Major League level. Just like in real life where teams like the Astros and Cubs are working towards the future, but they are still able to field a roster at the Major League level. I also view it as a competitive balance issue and I don't want to see a team have zeroes in all categories because they have nothing but minor leaguers. If you want to rebuild that is fine, but at least field something at the Major League level while doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Rob) on Mar 25, 2015 10:47:20 GMT -5
Nice idea, but if a team is just under whatever is voted in, they would be penalized. I recommend a lower AB/INN level accrued at a weekly interval. This way a team can't tank at the end of the season after hitting the mark and figuring they have no chance to win. I don't think Rob wants to police this on a weekly basis. Nor do I. Several managers have expressed wanting to have some sort of minimum in place and this is the easiest to enforce. Yes what Scott said. It is easier to have seasonal benchmarks then weekly marks since it is easier to police those. And to just get this out of the way before it is mentioned, I understand injuries happen and that may make you fall short of the minimum marks for the season, but that will be taken under consideration if you don't meet those marks and if the injuries are the true cause why you don't meet the marks then we will give you an exemption. |
|
|
|
Post by z - Gaz on Mar 26, 2015 8:12:39 GMT -5
This seems a good idea. As long as there is a review for teams who do fall below the limits before a punishment is dished out. Hopefully this means that teams will still have to field a skeleton staff even if they trade away more productive big league guys.
You will however get guys taking the equivalent of 5 Edwin Jackson's just so they can really suck! And when they have 5 Jackson's they will try to blame their woes on anything they can, sunshine, moonlight, good times and even boogie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 19:12:01 GMT -5
I think there is too much fuss about tanking. It's usually obvious if someone is tanking. Tanking shouldn't be confused with rebuild. If I trade all of my MLB talent for top tier MiLB players and I can't meet ABs because of it and 3 years from now I'm sitting with an excellent squad. How would it make sense for me to be penalized for that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 19:53:44 GMT -5
So if 600/1200 is a minimum, can teams bench their players after they reach that mark?
I think you guys are making too much of "TANKING"
If international prospects like Puig and Abreu were apart of the draft then I would understand but making a big deal of prospects who are at least few years away is overthinking a little.
Just my 5 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Ryan) on Mar 26, 2015 21:23:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure how I feel about minimum inning or at bat benchmarks. If we go with some sort of roster rule I think I'd prefer to have minimum roster quantity requirements. Something like a requirement of 10 active MLB guys seems pretty easy to fill and I think it would be more effective for the whole season than a minimum at bat/innings pitched number would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 26, 2015 21:36:44 GMT -5
In real life, every team carries 25 active major leaguers.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 5:46:58 GMT -5
I'm new to the Dynasty world so please forgive my ignorance but this is something I don't get... I joined 3 leagues to start myself out in this season. One of them is a cash league (gambling issues) but the two other are free. Seems like there is more complaining/bending the rules/tanking talk going on in the 2 free ones. Figured the money one people would be trying to get away with murder to win cash lol. I thought this was suppose to resemble MLB baseball but it's appearing to be like something else. There are 30 teams in MLB that put 25 out there for 162 games a season plus have huge farm systems and huge drafts to build those farms. That there is the reason I wanted to play Dynasty because that sounds like a challenge to win. I get why people do what they do in dumping their MLB talent for young guns for the hope of success in the long run but that there seems like a different type of game. I just don't get why people would play if they can't look at their team everyday/week (I like the week thing, gives me a little life here) and plug and play players into their lineups. Not just get a bunch of young players and come back in 4 to 7 years and hope they made the journey. Maybe play dynasty MiLB if it's just a love of MiLB players. I don't know.. maybe after a few years I'll be doing the same but as for now I'd like to not take last place in any fantasy sports game. I'll find a way to win instead of be a shit club. Sorry fellas/ladies... just trying to understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 27, 2015 6:01:53 GMT -5
As you said, Jeff, there are 30 teams and just so many good players available. Owners can take more than one approach to be competitive. Some owners don't mind the journey to the top, even if it is a little longer. Watching the slow ascent of your players can be just as rewarding as winning the first year. In fact, if you build correctly an watch your spending, you can maintain that ascent longer; with the right assembly, you can stay on top for years. There can be a great deal of the satisfaction in slowly building a successful franchise.
Some guys prefer winning right now; some owners are more patient. Doesn't make one guy right and the other wrong: Some folks just like strawberry better; some prefer vanilla. Everyone should have whatever flavor they prefer.
(Notice we didn't make any suggestions!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Mar 27, 2015 8:28:56 GMT -5
Down with the fetishization of prospects and the illusion of playing the long game!  |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 27, 2015 8:31:48 GMT -5
Sounds as though Brad prefers strawberry. heh
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Mar 27, 2015 8:40:25 GMT -5
I'm a neopolitan man. I get bored with just one flavor.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 27, 2015 8:51:45 GMT -5
You're right, Brad, Neapolitan is great. Love the three flavors! Some people like it in a dish with a big spoon; others like a tiny spoon, though. Some even like a coupla scoops of it in a waffle cone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 9:19:06 GMT -5
LOL I understand everyone has their own way and why they do it in here. I guess im just saying 30 MLB teams still put men on the field, even though some suck they still make an attempt. In my opinion, having teams that don't fill a roster with MLB players would some how effect the entire league because would it cause juggernaut teams? Then you'd have a ton of teams in "rebuild mode" dumping their MLB players creating more juggernaut teams then what's the sense of playing in such a huge league? Why not just play in a 10 team re-draft league or make a smaller dynasty league with fewer teams? I don't know. Like I said, just trying to wrap my head around the dance some do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2015 9:20:31 GMT -5
Don't let your wife hear that one Brad!
|
|
