|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Jan 28, 2019 19:55:51 GMT -6
Free Agency begins next week 2-5-19 @ Noon EST. Please post your 2 franchise players before then if you have not already done so.
As far as league changes/voting we only have 1 new rule this season:
During the season each team must have a minimum of 23 active players on their MLB roster.
I don't think anyone brought up any other changes for this season but if I forgot something please let me know and we can vote on it before free agency.
I believe yahoo opens this Thursday. I'll try to get rosters updated on there ASAP and send invites to new owners.
Spring training is right around the corner! I can't wait for another great season!!!!
Let me know if anyone has any questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 8:52:55 GMT -6
Hey guys, Maeda is pitching Sunday. I'm an active owner. I'm leading my division and I'm sitting in 3rd place overall. I get the rule but it doesn't apply in this situation. Feel we need to look at "roster violations" on a team to team basis. I have 8 starters on the IL. EIGHT! Most of them are scheduled to be back early next week. I'm fielding a competitive team this week and Hopefully I can pull out a win. It's a long season. I have 1m, a full roster and a young minor league system. I think I've made the playoffs every year since joining the league. It would be irresponsible of me to panic in week 8 because 8 of my players are IL'd. It's a 10 day IL now. I can afford to sit and make adjustments accordingly to weather the storm for a week or two. It's a challenge and part of the fun. This is a marathon not a sprint. I'm good at fantasy baseball. I'm competitive. Please look at roster violations on a team to team basis. I'm enjoying this season so please dont kick me out. -Royals I agree with Paul. I think this rule is flawed as sometimes teams gets hit with many injuries and it doesn't make sense to make signings just to make them. Especially now that MLB teams use this fairly new 10 Day DL more freely.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on May 24, 2019 9:19:54 GMT -6
The rule may be harsh but for now it is the rule. I’ve been competitive, won my division, have had a large number of key players injured, and have had to make cuts I didn’t wanna make in order to not be in violation. I’ve also had the least amount of cap to work with since the start of offseason so if I could make it happen, then everyone else can. The rule can be revisited in the off-season but for now it is the rule and should be applied unconditionally.
|
|
|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on May 24, 2019 9:38:19 GMT -6
I get it that you guys may not like the rule and I understand the reasons why. From an administration standpoint if we don't have this rule we get teams completely tanking every year and e-mailing them doesn't seem to work well or even at all sometimes. We can replace owners repeatedly and this still seemed to be the case 6 years in. Since replacing owners doesn't work it was either this or changing how the draft order is decided. Draft Lottery etc but that won't necessarily stop the tanking as well as a minimum active player requirement will. I personally like a competitive league and without a rule in place we were having teams starting 4 pitchers with 10 spots, fielding 13 minor leaguers on a 25 MLB roster, etc which is completely unacceptable if you want a free league that is competitive. I agree the rule might be a pain in the ass sometimes but the results are effective as the league is very competitive this season even if it is a bit forced. If any of you guys have any suggestions for a better or more efficient rule towards roster violations please let me know so we can discuss them.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on May 24, 2019 10:16:42 GMT -6
I think the rule has largely been good for the league. A few years ago, we had teams with like 15 active players at the end of the year, which is obviously ridiculous.
It has also led to a weeding out of owners who weren't committed to putting in the effort to keep their teams even semi-competitive. We now have the best group of competitive managers we've had since I've been in the league.
Tom deserves credit for staying on top of everything and ensuring that the rule is enforced. I'm sure some managers haven't been happy with him, but anyone who is focused on doing what's best for the league above all deserves respect, IMO.
I do think the rule could be adjusted a bit after the season is out to strike a better balance between ensuring that teams aren't tanking and offering everyone the freedom to maintain their rosters as they see fit.
Since the MLB went to the 10-day IL, players placed on the list have increased by 31 percent. As of right now, we have 96 players on the DL in Hot Stove.
The 23-man limit has also led to more active MLB players being signed, which is why the free agent pool is largely a barren wasteland right now.
The spirit of the 23-man limit was to prevent teams from tanking. The Royals clearly aren't tanking.
Maybe we consider dropping it 22 active players to add a little freedom or come up with a way to offset it for DL players or something along those lines. I don't have a perfect suggestion right now.
As I said, the rule has been good for HS, but could still be tweaked a bit to strike the right balance for the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2019 11:15:25 GMT -6
I agree with the Royals. The 23 man requirement is too restrictive. Those of us who are trying end up in a spot where we have to pick up useless players with the little money we have left just to have active players on the bench, or risk being in violation. I have had Brett Anderson sitting on my bench for 3 weeks. Haven’t put him in. Haven’t received a single stat from him. His presence on my roster has had zero impact on my results. But I’ve had to keep him on there to satisfy an arbitrary number of active players who don’t need to be playing. I have my eye on guys I want to pick up who are not eligible yet, but will become eligible over the next few weeks. If we are forced to pick up a random player who is of no use just to have him sit on the bench, that hinders our ability to get the players who will help us later on. I fully support a minimum number of active players, but I think 20 is good. I would like to propose an idea. What if, instead of requiring active players on the bench, we require that every day we have to field a team of active players. There are very few reasons to keep an IL player or NA player in your starting lineup, or to leave an empty roster spot in your active lineup. Multiple days in a row of utilizing an IL, NA, or vacant spot in the starting lineup would become the basis for warnings and replacement. I can have 23 players active on my roster and not put them in. If I have 2 NA players on my roster and utilize them in my starting lineup instead of active players, I’d say that’s worse than not having a minimum number of active players. But if we are required to field an active roster every day, that would force us to keep an extra player or two around just in case. Thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Rob(Mariners GM) on May 24, 2019 11:35:42 GMT -6
I’m in total agreement with the Royals on this subject. Teams now use the 10 day much more often now and it’s almost impossible to keep a full roster if you have no money. You really have to get lucky on your minor league system and hope you have some guys to fill in.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff(Cardinals GM) on May 24, 2019 12:03:47 GMT -6
I think it’s important to also consider after free agent bidding to fill out our teams I tried leaving 8-10 million in reserves as guys will get hurt and you need extra cap to pick up players I realize there is often slim Pickens as I just put I bid in on Carlos Gomez as nimmo is hurt again just part of game and feel your pain if you have 8 guys on DL, sorry
Agreed this can be looked at next year as don’t like rule changes mid year. Thanks for great league and thanks to Tom for helping us ensure we are all playing by same rules
|
|
|
Post by Darren(Twins GM) on May 24, 2019 16:29:45 GMT -6
I personally like the rule. It's all about how you run your team. Injuries are a part of the game. We all have to make tough decisions. We all have a 40 man roster. How you design it is up to you. There are ways to keep your roster valid. (trades, F/A). I definitely don't think it should be a team by team basis. This can cause many other issues.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on May 24, 2019 18:21:24 GMT -6
The rule is the rule for a reason. We never had to address tanking before someone came into the league and we are all aware of who that some is.
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on May 24, 2019 21:00:11 GMT -6
The rule was put into place because there were a few teams taking advantage and as other owners have said tanking. I don't have a problem if an owner is below 23 active players and he has a player or two coming off the DL in a few days if they can make the effort to message me and give me the specifics. Sending private emails in the past didn't work, so sending out public emails was the only way to get peoples attention. The rule is designed for owners like the ones we have gotten rid of this year. Owners like the Royals who are trying are entitled to a little leeway there just needs to be some communication. I refuse to accept the excuse that a owner has a lot of players on the DL and can't field a team. Last year and a few owners know this I had between 8 to 13 players on the DL all of last year and I still fielded a full team. If an owner makes the comments that he's not doing anything else to his team it's not fair that he has all of these players on the DL and won't give up any players on his team might want to consider looking for another league. Every GM in fantasy or real life has to decisions and deals they may not want to but that's how life goes. Changing out some of the inactive owners has made the league more competitive and that's what we all want.
|
|