Current League Status Discussion

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Hey Guys, I wanted to use this thread to discuss and highlight concerns and issues regarding the league and moving forward. I've been out of the loop for a good amount of time on day-to-day issues, and I want to really give this league the jolt it needs for the rest of the year and beyond. Below are some things we need to have in order:

1. Are all of the admin/CO members doing their jobs and doing them well? Does anyone need any assistance/should we add anybody?
- I know there were concerns regarding the Trade Panel lately. I think we should add some, and remove others.
- Does Amy have control over Waivers now?

2. Do we have 30 committed league members? Who needs to be replaced?

3. Rules
- How have rule changes been working?
- Has there been any significant push for rule changes?
- Where do we stand on the debate for certain rule changes, and what have we said will change next year?

4. Any other issues/concerns?

Once we address these, we should be in good shape again.

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

I have some ideas on changing some rules (such as teams being able to exchange money from a player's contract in a trade, a weekly innings cap for pitching, and so on). Should something like this be discussed in the off-season?

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Griffin, post some details and start the discussion but the pitching cap idea has been largely played out and rejected.

Waivers have not been transfered yet, but I am about done with summer school and can look at it then.

Also, I fully support the expectation that all owners should check their ProBoards page. It markets each owner's activity and keeps everyone on the same page. Plus signing in at least a month is just not that difficult.

All in all, I am pretty happy with last year's rule adjustments. However, I think we should be able to buy-out contracts whenever you want. If you have the cap room, you should be able to use it. Punting an entire year is penalty enough during rebuilds.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I like the rules that are currently n place.

The activity of most owners is great, as is the willingness to want to get better through trading and free agency.

Just not sure that a minor league contracted player should be offered huge amounts AAS$3M, and then the real-life salary kick-in at say $0.5M once they debut. I think that maybe the AAS offered should be paid until the players protection years cease, this would achieve more genuine offers, with a similar risk attached the salaries offered to major and minor league players.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

A great point Donavan, but I really like that rule in place. The teams rebuilding usually have more payroll (royals for example) and he has gotten some great players with the higher bids (at least 2 over my bids). My payroll is more maxed out and I could not have bid as high. This allows rebuilding teams a better shot at signing good players over teams who are already built and keeps some balance there. Its just like MLB outbidding on foreign players, if you got the money go get them. If not get rid of someone, free up some money to go get them.

Nothing personal but for example because you spend 20 mil a year on Fielder, or xxxx on any players you have on your roster, doesn't mean the rule should be changed to help you get players that you can't afford because maybe you overspent on a player or more on your roster.

Most of the time people want rules changed to benefit their own team, not necessarily for the better of the league. Its natural and normal, its hard to take how a rule affected you out of the equation and look at it from a league wide rule. Thats why rule changes are mostly a waste of time and just open up another problem elswhere. Set them and forget them. This rule as it stands is absolutely great.

I hope you don't take it personal, I just happen to have been screwed by it twice this year...and love the rule still...(don't like the Royals for out bidding me but I don't like anyone anyways)

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Preston, Just 1 owners viewpoint.

Trade Panel- has been great, almost no vetos, and there hasn't been any outlandlishly bad trades or really bad trades at all this year, and thats hard for me to say on any year to not find one. The veto or 2 were even spot on but think it established a precident of what they would put up with. Completely a job well done by the Trade Panel.

Ties- hey only what 2 ties at this point, better than the World Cup or NHL still. Its fine (maybe because I think I am like 3-1 in the tie breaker or something), its a tie breaker, if it breaks ties its doing its job.

Min innings-only eliminating era/whip if you don't make the 30, still think this has affected more games than people realize. Someone should look at all games after the season and see how many teams won because they had W/Sv/H/K still available to count. I know of at least 2 games. There have and are still pitchers available all season long for teams to get their 30 innings a week. I think it was a rule change to appease a couple of people not for the better of the league as a whole, everyone who can't get 30 innings, simply isn't trying so they should lose all 6 pitching categories. at worst, era/whip/s/hd...if they can win Ks and Ws in under 30 innings, then kudos to them.

The rule change (s) I proposed are in suggestions or something.

I know the pick up of players on fantrax was the major one for me and just has to be addressed. If you can't pick up a player you wanted on fantrax, then its almost saying just replace that owner, especially after 30 days.


Giants - love the idea of exchanging cash but holy cow that would be a pain in the butt to track and deal with. I really wanted that too my first year while I rebuilt my team and really get what your saying but as many deals that I have done to rebuild my team, that would have actually been a pain in the butt for me and anyone keeping track of it.

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

There probably are things I haven't considered regarding these but here are some ideas I have had:

-innings cap: it seems to me at least that the non-ratio pitching categories are simply heavily weighted to favor the team that has more pitchers ( if you look at a graph for this year there is a great correlation with innings pitched and winning saves holds wins and strikeouts. What this is doing it seems is diluting the value of upper tier pitchers. There isn't a problem with hitters in this regard because most hitters play everyday so it balances naturally.

- trading money from players contracts - this would just promote more trades

I think some of the stat categories could be changed as well. And is there a reason for only having 2 outfield spots on the roster? Also on contract buyouts I think during the offseason only is prob best as otherwise teams not in contention could essentially buyout a contact with say 1week left in the season and thus not be penalized much. Just ideas though.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

If we did three outfielders per starting roster, American League teams would have an advantage of having a complete lineup (when we started, for example), while NL teams would not have starters in their UT spots. I would rather have all teams have full starting lineups with AL teams having a bench bat than the alternative.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

If we did three outfielders per starting roster, American League teams would have an advantage of having a complete lineup (when we started, for example), while NL teams would not have starters in their UT spots. I would rather have all teams have full starting lineups with AL teams having a bench bat than the alternative.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

actually see the point in the 2 OF reasoning when the league started, makes sense then.

Now, this league will never see all teams have full rosters, teams that rebuild (other than me) seem to punt the whole team. Like pitchers, there are plenty of hitters all season long available for bats.

Saw a 6 x 6 league the other day...using SV+HDs as 1 category and K/9 as another, with W, QS, ERA and Whip that was pretty sweet.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I appreciate the interest in discussing other stats categories and potential ways you think the league can improve, however, our current 6x6 system won't change, for many reasons.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

One thing I'd like to bring up is locking scoring results. Currently the league is set to "never lock" scoring results. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not.

It's the first time I've seen it, but as a result of a MLB scoring change 3 weeks after the fact the tie which had gone to the Cubs over the Nationals became a National win outright. Seemingly pitch counts changed which changed WHIP or ERA which broke the tie.

Thoughts?

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I do like the idea of adding another OF spot, I find that the current 2 OF roster really devalues OFers as a whole (and has affect how I have traded). That would obviously be put in place to affect both leagues. I like in a league this deep keeping holds and saves separate because it devalues starting pitching some, and allows you to compete without it (otherwise the league is dominated by teams with 9 starters).

In terms of teams not making rosters and AB and IP limits, I have gone through a tear it to the ground rebuild in a different 30 team league. It is sometimes necessary to strip mine a roster, the sheer boredom and rock bottom is not for everyone, it does infuse more players into the market as well. What I do want to make sure is happening is that teams are playing their "best" lineup and not intentionally making their lineup weaker by playing worse players to improve their draft stock.

In the end my only suggestions are as we move to a unified salary cap and tag system (and league system) we add in a 3rd OF spot to revalue OFers, and I would like to see at least discussing setting the pitching spots in the lineup to have a set number of starters and relievers each night. A preemptive way to look at the potential for a team to load up too heavy on starters or relievers.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

I actually would be a proponent of combining saves and holds, because of the fact that only 30 players can be accumulating saves at any given time. Thus, with 30 teams, closers become extremely overvalued trading commodities for a position so rife with volatility. I currently punt the category, and it's cost me a few games this year, full disclosure, but I do believe it's in the best interest of league-wide parity. Relievers who accumulate holds are more plentiful in a league with this many teams. At the same time, I understand Matt's issue. Maybe the fix would be to put a maximum number on pitching starts if we were to combine in order to prevent the inflation in value of a starter.

I also am in favor of a 3rd OF. It may have made sense not to have 3 OF in the NL when this began due to league makeup, but it shouldn't be an issue any longer.

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

I agree on adding a 3rd OF and combining Saves and Holds (maybe if we still want to value saves above holds as they are more rare, the points system could be coded so a save is 2 points and a hold is 1), and I think Dan's suggestion of some sort of starts cap would help balance the value of pitchers. Just some ideas on categories--if we combined the Saves and Holds, maybe R and RBI could be combined into a Runs Created category or something to balance the number of categories for hitting and pitching evenly.

I think it might be helpful as well to make the Strikeouts category some sort of ratio, probably K/9...this would also significantly push teams to reach the innings minimum, or they would lose another category automatically, while also making the category less about just having more innings pitched.

Maybe also make the SB a Net SB category (SB - CS) to better reflect actual value.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I see the point about saves, I also punt the category currently, but think about them when I'm signing relievers. I like separate Holds and Saves. I don't see the point in changing their value.

The only pitching change I'd support at the moment would be a change from Wins to Quality Starts which hasn't been mentioned really. As a category it makes much more sense in my opinion as it is a truer value of an individual player. I think the tiebreaker is working fine and I'd rather not tinker with K's, S, H, or SB.

I'd be ok with adding a 3rd OF, but I'm kind of lukewarm on it to be honest.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

What I would like to see is someone updating the spreadsheet again. Why have one if its not going to be updated or used? I know at one point someone was updating it, but I know it hasnt been updated since about late May. I KNOW how much work it is, but with so many teams not keeping an accurate proboards roster that is updated, the spreadsheet is important to track cap penalties and salary used. We dont want another Astros incident like last year do we?

I would be interested in adding another OF spot to the scoring as well. I like the way scoring is so far and wouldnt want to see any changes to it currently. Def dont want to see an innings cap. There is always enough pitching available if you want to look for it. Is it gonna be high quality arms, probably not but there have been plenty of SPs that I have seen signed in the past month alone and for cheap.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I could get behind the additional OF spot at this point in the league's progression. I'm absolutely against changing the scoring categories.