|
Post by WWaS? on Jan 28, 2017 14:50:51 GMT -5
Let me know what you think.
1. Abolish the trade-review committee. - If there is a trade that seems unbalanced to the point of needing a veto, we can discuss it as a league.
2. Trades involving draft picks should be labeled as such - We do this in another league I am in and it saves the mods from having to go thru all the trades to keep track of pics - (ie. WWAS/FBWO trade * 2018 picks included)
3. Increasing the minors roster - It may keep the later rounds of our draft more interesting.
4. Setting a date in the offseason for in-eligible DL players to come off the DL - This was brought up this past offseason. Maybe November 1st? - We'll have to agree on a resource to use.
If you have any ideas, please feel free to add them to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on Jan 28, 2017 14:57:25 GMT -5
For number 4, shouldn't we use the MLB.com list posted earlier in the offseason? Unless there is something more reliable.
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on Jan 28, 2017 15:03:27 GMT -5
Yep, we can. I just want everyone to be on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by Reid (FBWO) on Jan 28, 2017 18:25:20 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding another 2-5 MiLB spots. I certainly know players that won't get drafted here that I'd like to roster.
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on Jan 28, 2017 18:35:51 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind adding another 2-5 MiLB spots. I certainly know players that won't get drafted here that I'd like to roster. My only question to that is when would the spots be added? Seems there would be a mad dash unless we said after next year's draft there are 22-25 spots.
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on Jan 28, 2017 19:13:00 GMT -5
With one add per day, it wouldn't be too crazy. I was thinking of maybe keeping 20 until the draft next year, then adding the extra spots via the draft. Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Roto P on Jan 28, 2017 20:09:44 GMT -5
I believe we should correct the flaws in our current system before we expand. Here are several suggestions to equalize minor league opportunities.
#1 No minor league player cut during the yearly MiLB draft can be picked up until after the conclusion of the draft. A date and time (please don't make it midnight) would be selected and announced when cut players are available. My suggestion would be 7 pm or have a vote. This year the draft was scheduled to begin on Jan 27th and when I returned from being out of the country (which was posted) on January 25th, players had already been picked up that were released due to draft picks. Truly bogus. I am assuming most people don't work from home giving a unfair advantage to certain individuals.
#2 The MiLB minor league draft would remain at 5 rounds. Most teams don't use all five already.
#3 Expand minor league roster by 2 players each of the next three years for a total of 26 players. Expansion cannot occur until five days after the MiLB draft. This would allow the cut players from the draft to have already been selected prior to expansion.
#4 Allow each owner the ability to challenge a trade. Once case is stated have a league vote.
#5 At some point during the off season all roster will be equal. My suggestion would be prior to the minor league draft where all rosters are equal. If the guy is on the DL and you desire to keep him, cut a player until the conclusion of the MiLB draft.
|
|
|
Post by Reid (FBWO) on Jan 28, 2017 21:27:19 GMT -5
What's the point of 4 and 5? We haven't had a trade issue in the 3 years we've been in the league. And I'm not seeing hey 5 would be necesssary?
|
|
|
Post by Roto P on Jan 28, 2017 21:49:36 GMT -5
Reid,
#4 I believe all owners should have the opportunity to express their opinion concerning a league trade vs. the committee approach.
#5 At some point during the season all rosters should be equal. There is no need to have a disabled list during the off season. If you want to protect a guy that is on the DL that's fine. But you should not have the opportunity to protect more players than any other team. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on Jan 28, 2017 22:09:38 GMT -5
1. I'm good with. If others don't have an issue, we can discuss it at a later date. 2. Ok 3. I don't want to expand by that many, and I wouldn't want to break it up over 3 years. One and done. 4. Not a chance. The only way a trade is vetoed, is if it's considered collusion. If a trade is obviously veto worthy, it will challenged. You are allowed to give your opinion on trades, you cannot ask for them to be undone just because you don't like it. 5. Are we going to bring this issue up again. We've already agreed to the DL system we have in place.
I do not speak for the league, these are my personal views. I encourage others to speak freely.
I apologize for this league's 'flaws' but it runs pretty good most of the time. We've got a good group of guys and if a situation arises, we deal with it. I like a league with a little wiggle room and that's how I wish to run this one.
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on Jan 28, 2017 22:20:24 GMT -5
#4 Allow each owner the ability to challenge a trade. Once case is stated have a league vote. Maybe after a trade is announced on the board, any owner has 24 or 48 hours to post a case as why they think the trade is unfair and then the current trade committee will vote? I think having everyone vote in the league will be timely and could delay guys from getting to their new team.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Choppers on Jan 28, 2017 23:17:28 GMT -5
Let me know what you think. 1. Abolish the trade-review committee. - If there is a trade that seems unbalanced to the point of needing a veto, we can discuss it as a league. 2. Trades involving draft picks should be labeled as such - We do this in another league I am in and it saves the mods from having to go thru all the trades to keep track of pics - (ie. WWAS/FBWO trade * 2018 picks included) 3. Increasing the minors roster - It may keep the later rounds of our draft more interesting. 4. Setting a date in the offseason for in-eligible DL players to come off the DL - This was brought up this past offseason. Maybe November 1st? - We'll have to agree on a resource to use. If you have any ideas, please feel free to add them to the discussion. I'm good with all of these
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Choppers on Jan 28, 2017 23:38:57 GMT -5
I'm definitely NOT for adding the ability to speak out against trades. Completely agree with Wwas, trades should really only be vetoed if it's collusion. There are unique cases where a brand new owner may make a trade that is extremely one sided by not knowing the complexity of the league yet, but those trades will get called out anyway and are rare.
Allowing owners not involved in a trade to speak against it opens wayyyyy too much drama and unnecessary debate and gives others owners the chance to just complain about trades because they don't want one team getting player X. We have 15 great owners now and I don't see anyone colluding so adding a system to opening dispute trades seems like it would be bad for business.
|
|
|
Post by Carebears on Jan 28, 2017 23:54:38 GMT -5
I like the ideas. Just please don't expand the minors rosters by very much. I like having to make decisions in this league. In another 17 team league I am in, we have 50 man minors. Everybody and their dog is owned but guys get dropped left and right when they hit the majors because teams don't have room for them
|
|
|
Post by DOG on Jan 29, 2017 0:18:19 GMT -5
I agree with Carebears that minors shouldn't be expanded too far for the same reasons. I think if minors want to be expanded we should consider expanding the MLB roster too. Extra util, go to 5 OF or whatever. That could be hashed out. My opinion on trades is that there should be no intervention unless collusion is suspected, though I can relate to being a new member and getting bombarded with trade requests that could be not great. I think with this group that shit would get called out right away. One thing I'd like to add is this: As I understand it, Minor Leaguers who are over the ab/ip limit can be kept in the minors in the offseason till the start of the new season while DL guys need to be added to the roster if they are not projected to start the season on the DL. To me, this feels like an inconsistency. I feel like whatever date we decide DL guys need to come off the DL, guys in the minors over the limits should be promoted as well.
|
|
|
Post by WWaS? on Jan 29, 2017 8:39:13 GMT -5
'I feel like whatever date we decide DL guys need to come off the DL, guys in the minors over the limits should be promoted as well.'
Obviously we'd have to discuss this as a group, but I think it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Abe Lincoln on Jan 29, 2017 9:27:18 GMT -5
'I feel like whatever date we decide DL guys need to come off the DL, guys in the minors over the limits should be promoted as well.' Obviously we'd have to discuss this as a group, but I think it makes sense. I like this too. Seems fair.
|
|
|
Post by Roto P on Jan 29, 2017 10:14:43 GMT -5
I believe all the suggestions have great merit. Like the idea of expanding the active roster.
There appears to be a overreaction to my trade challenge but Thunder's comments were right on target.
Also like the firm date on DL and activating minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Choppers on Jan 29, 2017 10:39:17 GMT -5
Wasn't trying to crush the trade challenge idea, it's just that another league I'm in had issues with this sort of deal in the past and it got ugly at times.
|
|
|
Post by Roto P on Jan 29, 2017 12:34:49 GMT -5
No, I can understand. This league is far better than some I have been in regarding fair trades.
|
|