3 Outfielders

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

This was briefly discussed before, but I think having 3 OF spots per roster would be good for the league and help balance out player's positional values.

It made sense, I believe, when the league was created to have the 2 OF spots only, but I don't think this is an issue any more.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I agree with this.

[Deleted]

if we added a 3 outfielder position then would we still have the UT spot?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

---

Sept 19, 2014 10:49:54 GMT -8 @jeremy said:

if we added a 3 outfielder position then would we still have the UT spot?

I believe so, right? I think we should just add the OF spot, or else DH types are useless, which wouldn't make sense.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

i'm fine w having 9 starting positions offensively

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I am good with this, I feel like outfielders have been really undervalued because of the lack of starting spots for them

[Deleted]

It's a yes for me as well.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

This idea makes sense, but definitely favors the better teams who have many MLB players, including everyday MLB players on the bench, whilst the weaker teams already struggle to fill their line-ups with active everyday MLB players.

For the equality of the competition I would leave the 2 x OF's in place, as it means more teams can be competitive.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2014 15:09:34 GMT -8 Rays GM (Donavan) said:

This idea makes sense, but definitely favors the better teams who have many MLB players, including everyday MLB players on the bench, whilst the weaker teams already struggle to fill their line-ups with active everyday MLB players.

For the equality of the competition I would leave the 2 x OF's in place, as it means more teams can be competitive.

I agree and say leave it with 2 OF

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I love the idea of 3 OF, but and a major butt...this is a dynasty league. Owners build a dynasty of a team based on the current rules in place when their rebuilding starts.

This is the problem with changing rules, now you want to add a position when teams built their dynasty based on a 2 OF system. To keep changing different rules just keeps changing the strategy for the dynasty's rebuild and maintain plans.

Before I started rebuilding I would have voted for 3 OF in a second, now I vote no.

This is why constant rule changes actually work against a dynasty system, if this were a yearly league, with only a few protected...you can change rules at will but your running a dynasty league...much different.

This rule change would cause much more money spent on OFers, less money on other positions, more OF prospects taken...and cause dynasty strategies to seriously change. You can't rebuild teams based on rule changes every season in a dynasty league. I was told to rebuild my team based on the rules listed, now you just keep changing the rules, what 5 last year and maybe another 5 this year?

Is anyone else in other more long standing dynasty leagues? they are long standing because the rules don't change.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

I dont see this as a major rule change because of the availability of OFs. I would vote for a 3 OF if we put it to a vote. I think that would help bring down prices on other positions because now you must allocate a few more dollars on another OF. I think the first 2 yrs of this league, change was needed but never done, now we have a good set of active GMs and we can put final touches on a solid league.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

I'm indifferent on this one. If put to it, I'd probably vote no, but with no real conviction.

[Deleted]

I don't think this is a good idea at all and here is why because the MLB only starts 255 position players on a given night with all teams playing and you guys expect us as a league 270 with 9 starting position players that gives teams with a lot of mlb starting position players a big adventage in my eyes.

[Giants GM (Griffin)]

If some are concerned about adjusting the rules after they have been planning with certain rules in mind (which is clearly a legitimate issue with this proposed change), we could also look at a 2-year solution, where this year an extra utility spot is added...then the following season that position converts into a strict OF-only spot. Because Outfielders are more readily available now, most teams would probably put an OF in that utility spot (but it would not be required).

Just an idea.

[Deleted]

Sept 20, 2014 19:32:06 GMT -8 Giants GM (Griffin) said:

If some are concerned about adjusting the rules after they have been planning with certain rules in mind (which is clearly a legitimate issue with this proposed change), we could also look at a 2-year solution, where this year an extra utility spot is added...then the following season that position converts into a strict OF-only spot. Because Outfielders are more readily available now, most teams would probably put an OF in that utility spot (but it would not be required).

Just an idea.

But if you make a 30 team league start 9 position players when all 30 teams in the MlB are playing only 255 on a given night with all 30 teams it gives certain teams an advantage and the other 15 or so teams a disadvantage

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

To me OF is the easiest position to fill, major league teams are all carrying at least 5 OFs and OF might be the most common second position, it is much harder to find 2 MIs that are competent or even a catcher getting steady ABs. MLB teams are no longer trotting out the same lineup every night, look at platoons and margins or don't play in 30 team leagues.

I just get the feeling we are going through the pitching argument all over again with regards to scarcity, this is a deep league there is roster tension. Yes it would also change strategy, this rule has had me trade away OF prospects that I wouldn't have with 3 OF slots. That is why we are proposing it now with a full offseason.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

I am with the scarcity issue crowd. Skeptical about adding the ninth offensive spot. This coming from a team with five+ OF on my team

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

This discussion has brought to light many different issues.

1. Changing rules in a dynasty league.

Although it may appear to some that I am in favor of making changes to rules on a regular basis, I do wish to have as few changes as possible. I also believe in trying to make the rules fair and open enough to allow owners the opportunity to employ many different strategies to build a team. If a rule change may adversely affect the strategy an owner has been using, then I carefully weigh the importance of making the change. I do believe in making these changes now while the league is in its infancy. Make changes now, none later.

2. Position scarcity

Can we discuss and fully understand all of the ramifications of adding another position player before making this kind of decision.

We have been discussing the depth of pitchers and trying to come up with a solution; which is a whole different discussion for another thread.

3. If we were to make a rule change of this magnitude, we would need to slowly phase in the change over a period of years.