I like auctions too but yeah, difficult with a group of this size.
Anyway you’re in the club now and your vote counts just as much as the next guy’s.
2 Likes
I do think saves are too highly valued as it is.
1 Like
Is that possible? For this established league, I would think that a 1 and 28, 29 pick < 1 and 15, 29 pick assuming it’s in reverse order of the previous year’s standings.
Is a straight draft possible? I believe it is. But I don’t see where your math is coming from. The difference between the straight order and the snake order is that, under a straight order (which we don’t have) the team that finished last the previous year would get the 1st, 15th and 29th picks (through the “first” three rounds of the draft) as opposed to, under the snake (which we do have) the 1st, 28th and 29th picks.
You are starting to overcomplicate things. League votes are simple, if the majority vote for a proposal to pass, it passes. If not, it fails.
Also, this league is not going to turn into a replica of MLB. We don’t need to shift the trade deadline around simply to match what MLB does.
The way the snake draft works out, it’s kind of like getting 2 picks every other round.
On the contrary, I’m trying to uncomplicate things. What’s complicating is not having a process to follow. I don’t think there’s anything particularly complicated about what I proposed above–certainly not less complicated than “We’ll talk about some things sort of and call a vote and as to when the changes will take effect, I’m not sure…” But fine, OK. Forget the mechanism. I’m just looking for some clarity about the procedure.
And as for switching the trade deadline so that it matches the bigs, why wouldn’t we? I ask this as a general question.
You can trade players in the offseason to improve your set of five keepers going into the draft. If you were to make a trade now, you and the other owner could post the details here (since the league can’t be renewed yet) and we can process it after the league on Yahoo is live again.
To your second question, Yahoo gives commissioners three or four potential dates as options for a trade deadline. They may not fall on August 2.
As for clarity about procedure. Right now, myself, @BillyD and @Ron_Brand are allowing the group to share and discuss thoughts about the league. Once we feel that has reached its course, we will send out a message through the site asking all owners to vote on the few issues agreed upon. I don’t have an exact date for that message to be delivered.
If eight owners vote to make a change, the change will pass and take effect for the 2024 season. If less than eight owners vote to change that rule, it fails, and we keep the current setting.
1 Like
Awesome, thank you.
In that case, here’s a post whose sole purpose is to collect in one place some as-yet-unproposed proposals:
An increase of keepers (to potentially 8)–
An introduction of keeper term lengths (starting from potentially 5 years)–
An abolition of losses as a statistical category–
A halving of wins from 10 to 5 points
OR a substitution of Quality Starts (7 points) for wins
An increase in the worth of holds to 3 points–
A substitution of a straight draft order over the current serpentine order–
A date for the trade deadline falling as close as possible to MLB’s–
The implementation of an annual deadline to make proposals for rule changes to take effect the following year–
The ability to trade draft picks—
I will gladly amend this post as needed, if useful.
1 Like
Is there a requirement of players traded in offseason being kept?
I would hate for an owner with 5 top players trading his #6 player for a player he has no intention of keeping just to help out a friend
I hope that never happens here. It’s hard enough as it is.
I’m not saying it would but absent of rules, people vary in ethics.
If there is no rule requiring traded players to be kept then an owner might do it simply feeling that it is acceptable.
And I may be the only person who thinks its not.
What happens if it is a 2 for 1 trade, or 3 for 2 or something like that?
For keepers I would suggest the following options
-
keep 5 and no limits
-
6 but 5 yr limit
-
7 but 4 yr limit
-
8 but 3 yr limit.
The bottom line is during the offseason any player traded then not kept wasn’t ever really acquired as value.
In a 1 for 2 deal if the 2nd owner only kept 1 then its really just a 1 for 1 trade. No reason to throw in the 2nd player.
I would add that a league vote could waive the requirement if something like an injury after the trade but before the keeper deadline reduces the players value.
My own proposals:
Replace Wins (10) with Quality Starts (7)
To me, this is about valuing starting pitching and relief pitching properly. Reliever value wouldn’t be based on vulture wins, and starters would be more accurately rewarded for their performance. But there are more QS to go around than there are wins (the league leaders usually end up between 25-30) so reducing their point value evens out the distribution to make it more in line with what starters get from Wins already—just more “accurately” if that makes sense.
Increase Holds value from 2 to 3
Largely the same reasoning as stated, and already proposed by Devin. Just a matter of boosting middle reliever value in an age when there are tons of ace setup men who aren’t racking up saves. Also helps keep the starter/reliever point balance more consistent since relievers wouldn’t get Win points under my first proposal.
5-year keeper limit
Sounds like there’s some support for this already but a 5-year limit can mean different things, so let’s get something concrete out there for discussion. I have no strong feelings about how to do it but the way I imagine it:
A player can only be protected for four consecutive drafts. So you take a player in the 2023 draft or acquire him through waivers/free agency/trade during 2023, you would be able to protect him from the 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027 drafts (so maximum five total years) before he must hit free agency again. Keeper restrictions follow a player through trades but are re-set if the player is released or not kept heading into a draft. The player may then be kept by the acquiring team per the above rules.
1 Like
I think that, historically, both teams involved in offseason trades have revised their keeper sets to reflect the trade. That seems to be the thing of singular importance there, ethically, IMO. There would be a pretty steep taboo I think against two teams making a trade that flagrantly benefits only one of them.
Unless I’m not understanding you…
1 Like
I could see where you might agree to a 2 for 1 but that second player might be planned as a keeper and then get hurt in the offseason, or get moved because a free agent was signed, or maybe some other considerations that would move them from being considered as a keeper to maybe not considered. I suppose you could just require that all offseason traded players must be kept.
I agree with this and don’t see the need for a rule along these lines. People could make junk trades midseason too, but the culture of this league is that it doesn’t happen.
1 Like