|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 17, 2007 16:54:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 17, 2007 17:09:15 GMT -5
We have 5 votes/tallies so far.
- 3 for Option C - 2 for Option B
|
|
|
Post by TribeFanInAZ on Apr 18, 2007 10:06:51 GMT -5
Just throwing something out there, in light of Winker's suggested "Innings Pitched" caveat for Option C... What about making it the same standards as MLB uses for Rookie of the Year eligibility?
"Eligibility requirements were set forth in 1971 with a rookie formally defined as:
1.) A player with less than 130 at-bats, 2.) A pitcher with less than 50 innings pitched, or 3.) Anyone with less than 45 days on any Major League roster."
We could get rid of #3 if you want, because that will be hard to track.
50 Innings is equivalent to roughly 10 starts for a Starting Pitcher and roughly 45 appearances for a Relief Pitcher.
|
|
|
Post by zemtech on Apr 18, 2007 16:57:52 GMT -5
1. I like the 2 catchers rule it makes things more challenging. 2. I dont like the way this league tries to restrict teams from being able to build. Everytime I get a few young players devoloped some teams want to find ways to take them away from me without compenstaion! and if I ttade them then I have to decide weather I should keep the guys I traded for. 3. I hope that someday to have rules that benefit all teams and not a select few! I sorry I feel that some f these rules will screw my team over in the long run! 4. I dont think a suplimental draft should not be given for any managers. The regular draft is suppose to help any team that is finishing last qnd give them a chance to compete isnt that why at the start of the season i have to surrender 12 players! 5. It also bothers me that some of these owners arent active and these are the guys who will get the 1st draft choice. Its hard to tell the differance between the teams that are just bad and the teams that the managers gave up on. Guys Thank You for listening!!! Have a good day! I like the oldies!!!!
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 24, 2007 7:56:51 GMT -5
I agree TFAZ. Let's insitute C as what is listed above. It kind of coincides with the MLB rules and easier to follow.
Zem......it's hard to keep all of your players. I think keeping 18 of your 30 players at year's end is a good a challenging way to try and give everyone a chance to compete.
If guys / teams are not active, at year's end is when I look to fill those teams - if teams are consistently inactive.
My computer has had a virus or something. So my time has been limited on here, as I've been using my bro's computer to check email and such.
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 27, 2007 18:38:58 GMT -5
Option C is now going to be part of our rules for the league. You can view an updated version on the first page of this topic under rule #7.
7a. If one of your prospects (either from your Taxi Squad or not on your list) is brought up to the majors, you may or may not make a spot for him on your Major League Roster. You have the choice to keep him on your Taxi Squad or to put him on your major league roster. If he is sent back down, you can take him off of your Major League Roster and put him on your Taxi Squad. If a prospect, on your minor league roster, was brought up and is kept on your minor league roster, he may stay there for the rest of the current year.
7b. If a prospect was brought up the previous season and starts the new season no the major league roster and had less than, or equal to, 1.) 130 at-bats 2.) 50 innings pitched 3.) 30 appearances the previous season, then he does not have to be added to the following season's roster right away. But if the prospect does exceed any of those outlined, then he must be added to the major league roster within the first 8 days of the season.............
7c. If the promoted prospect is placed on the major league roster, the only way to put him back onto the Taxi Squad, is if he is sent down by his major league team - which goes for all players.
(So in essance we own the rights to all of our major league and minor league roster, unless their rights are waived - this does not include those minor leaguers that are not on the 20 man Taxi Squad - we own their rights, yes, unless they are traded, brought up and not put on a roster, or a "claim" is put on them by another team.)
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on Apr 27, 2007 18:49:53 GMT -5
**********Also......we can now look into the rule that speaks of our governing and ownership of all of our minor league players. Right now, we have exclusive rights to our 20 man "taxi squad" and then we have rights to all the others, unless someone puts a one-time claim to them and then they would have to add them to their 20 man taxi squad, if the owner didn't want to put them on his taxi squad.
Anyway............we can exclude this rule and just have total say over all of our minor league system and their would be no claims every allowed. The only reason then for the 20 man taxi squad would be to protect those guys from real life trades and even if traded we would still keep their rights. The rights of those not on the protected list and also traded in real life, we would lose their rights to them to the team acquiring them.
Thoughts on any of the above mentioned information?
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on May 5, 2007 12:16:22 GMT -5
Russell Martin should now belong to WVTF and the D-Rays.
I've outlined a few things on the league site on yahoo. Please read them. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by fantasygeek on May 7, 2007 8:22:39 GMT -5
I like the rule where we control the rights to every player on our big league team's roster (except for those already acquired by other teams)
This makes it more of an actual franchise league.
The rules are set for this year, but if y'all want to change it for next year, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by zemtech on May 9, 2007 11:31:10 GMT -5
I like the rule where we control the rights to every player on our big league team's roster (except for those already acquired by other teams) This makes it more of an actual franchise league. The rules are set for this year, but if y'all want to change it for next year, I'm all for it. I agree I'm all for it to!!!
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on May 9, 2007 12:10:38 GMT -5
The problem is, guys like Joe Smith of the Mets..............he was a young guy called up that is not on my 20 man Taxi Squad. So this hits a gray area. People don't know if they can pick him up in yahoo or not. I haven't decided to pick him up yet, as I wanted to see if he actually sticks. I don't think we should be penalized as an organization for not picking up every young player that is brought up (and them not being on our minor league roster). People would be losing young players left and right.
Which is why.........since there is no rule outlying this...........I wanted to implement something now...soon to avoid this. My thinking is that we own all of our minor leaguers rights. If someone is called up that is not on the minor league roster, we should still have the option to pick him up or not. If we do, then great. The only way to take him off your yahoo roster, then (and keep his rights) would be if he was sent back down and then we could do the same.
|
|
|
Post by TribeFanInAZ on May 10, 2007 17:43:13 GMT -5
Personally, I don't care if someone picks up one of my minor leaguers that I have not protected. I had the chance to do the research and determine if he was good enough to protect. Chances are, such a player isn't going to be a HUGE impact guy in the big leagues if you haven't put him on your Major League roster or Minor League roster (50 guys deep into your fantasy organization).
In my opinion, if such a guy gets called up to the Majors, then the owner wanting that player (Owner B) could "post a claim" on the league website. At that point, the owner whose organization is being raided (Owner A) has the opportunity to "pull back the player" into their organization by (at least) adding him to their Minor League protected list (thereby "unprotecting" someone else) OR by adding that player to their Major League roster (thereby "waiving" someone else). If Owner A is willing to let that player go, then they can post a message saying that they will not contest that player being added by Owner B.
The remaining question would be: what happens if Owner B cuts "Joe Smith"?? If he clears waivers and re-enters the Free Agent Pool, then would the rights revert back to Owner A? Therefore, if Owner C wanted to add "Joe Smith", then he would have to post a similar claim to Owner A...
There are just too many dang possible scenarios to dream up here...
|
|
|
Post by HaggsTown on May 14, 2007 12:28:45 GMT -5
That's fine. TFAZ for the most part, you are correct that in doing some research that this sort of thing won't happen much. But there will be chances that it does happen. And for those teams where guys chose certain teams with top minor league organizations, and then acquiring some other minor leaguers via free agency or draft - that there are chances that there will be some pretty good minor leaguers that are called up that aren't protected.
Like you said, I think Osborne did a good job with Joe Smith. I had plent of time to pick him up, but I let Osborne know that if wants to pick him up then fine. If he doesn't then I probably will. I think that being in numerous leagues and multiple franchise leagues, plus working, plus having a family, plus other lively things, it's just quite possibe that every little player from every little organization won't be picked up right away.
|
|