|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 10, 2011 13:51:00 GMT -5
Starting in the 2012 season, we want to enact some sort of post season roster freeze. This is something both Jim and I are adamant about. We do not want;
a) Teams to dump old vets and snatch up young call-ups. The goal of this league is to force teams to build their teams through the drafts and trades. We also don't want...
b) Teams in the playoffs to stream players, especially pitching. What transpired this season in the finals is a prime example of what we are talking about. We do not want the finals decided by which team got the hottest pitching off the waiver wire the final week of the season. We want the team who has built their team the best to win.
Both Jim and I believe, that for the long term health of the league, that a post season roster freeze is a must at this point. However, we also understand that there are some concerns about injuries and replacing players. This is the time to discuss these issues. While I will say that me and Jim are going to insist on a roster freeze of some sort, the details are still up in the air as to how we will do it. Fire away guys!
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Oct 10, 2011 14:30:55 GMT -5
a) Teams to dump old vets and snatch up young call-ups. The goal of this league is to force teams to build their teams through the drafts and trades. To say "force teams to build through drafts and trades" sounds a little unfair, but the sentiment is right. As a dynasty league, the idea is to put your team together year by year, and it seems wrong to me to allow teams that are out of the playoffs to get a jump start on next year while the playoff teams have to worry about about competing. Especially with baseball, where you have September call ups, it just seems unfair to me to allow a certain segment of the league access to players before everybody else. b) Teams in the playoffs to stream players, especially pitching. What transpired this season in the finals is a prime example of what we are talking about. We do not want the finals decided by which team got the hottest pitching off the waiver wire the final week of the season. We want the team who has built their team the best to win. Look, I'm not going to vilify the Bomberz or Faithful, as they acted within the confines of the rules, but during the finals he added six pitchers that ended up scoring 157.4 points. Likewise Fenway Faithful added five players that accounted for 57.5 points. That hundred point difference ended up deciding the matchup, and it just seems wrong to me that a league of this scope, where the emphasis is on building a strong team each year starting with the draft, moving on to the waiver draft, and then throughout the season with trades and smart adds, that the champion should be decided by adds made in that final week. I have implemented a full postseason roster freeze in my hockey league, and I think it has worked out very well.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 14:38:41 GMT -5
I didn't see this thread here, so I'll keep my comments about the roster freeze here.
There is a middle ground to this very large issue. You will lose owners if a hard freeze is enacted.
If a team has a player go on the DL or is out for the season, a playoff team HAS GOT TO BE ALLOWED TO PICK A REPLACEMENT UP! I said it before and I'll say it again, it is absurd to have that right taken away.
In that same vain, it's absurd that a team can stock up on SPs in the playoffs.....use who got you there. I 100% agree with that and support that. But, if I lose a player in our playoffs, that's not something I can control and I absolutely should be able to replace that player with a free agent. I'm shocked that this part of the roster freeze is being glossed over so flippantly and haphazardly.
A full roster freeze is NOT an acceptable solution to the very real problem of stocking up in the playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Oct 10, 2011 15:13:27 GMT -5
OK, let me get myself prepared before I reply . . . There we go, lol. If a team has a player go on the DL or is out for the season, a playoff team HAS GOT TO BE ALLOWED TO PICK A REPLACEMENT UP! I said it before and I'll say it again, it is absurd to have that right taken away. Every team has five bench spots, and in the case of injury these are the players you should be relying on. If we're looking to our real world counterparts as examples, how many times in recent history can you think of a player getting hurt in the postseason being replaced in the starting lineup by somebody who wasn't on that teams bench when the aforementioned player was hurt? I honestly don't know, so if you can think of some examples I'm all ears. So what if you are so devastated by injuries that you don't have enough bench players? Well then I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to win the title anyway. It sucks I know, but it's the truth. Let's look at this another way. The whole point in adding a roster freeze at all, whether total or partial, is to prevent the championship from being decided by a postseason waiver claim (or 5). So if we don't Team A winning the championship because he dropped a bench player to add a hot hand, how is it any fairer to allow Team B to win the championship by adding that hot hand because he was lucky enough to have one of his players get injured? Everybody is assuming that the guy that gets injured is your superstar. What if he's your bench player who you are only starting on off days anyway? In the case of the latter you could potentially be replacing a player that wasn't contributing to your roster at all with a hot bat that is currently out performing your starter, and in the case of the former you're not going to be able to replace that production regardless.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 10, 2011 15:37:08 GMT -5
Ok, just spit balling here. How about something like we allow playoffs teams to add waiver players under the following conditions:
1) They can only add players to their roster from the waiver wire if it is to replace a player CURRENTLY on their roster who has been DLed
2) We cap the number of times a team can do this (say twice?)
3) We lock the potential LTIR after the last game of the regular season. Any player added off the waiver wire would have to fit on their active roster (IE, the player being replaced would have to be cut or put on the active roster IR)
4) No NON PLAYOFF TEAMS may add waiver wire players regardless of injuries
5) Players added by Playoff teams MUST BE DROPPED after the end of the playoffs
What d you guys think? Just trying to find some middle ground
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 15:47:44 GMT -5
Ok, just spit balling here. How about something like we allow playoffs teams to add waiver players under the following conditions: 1) They can only add players to their roster from the waiver wire if it is to replace a player CURRENTLY on their roster who has been DLed 2) We cap the number of times a team can do this (say twice?) 3) We lock the potential LTIR after the last game of the regular season. Any player added off the waiver wire would have to fit on their active roster (IE, the player being replaced would have to be cut or put on the active roster IR) 4) No NON PLAYOFF TEAMS may add waiver wire players regardless of injuries 5) Players added by Playoff teams MUST BE DROPPED after the end of the playoffs What d you guys think? Just trying to find some middle ground I'm on board with this fully except the added player must be dropped. The team will have to drop someone before the season starts anyway since we can't have players on the DL once the season starts. This is all I'm saying...this solution here is all I'm fighting for. A hard freeze is not acceptable at all, but the current system isn't either...this is fair and allows a team to still manage themselves should they make the playoffs, where you need to scratch and claw sometimes to stay alive.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 10, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
I agree. Which is why I don't see the issue with being forced to drop these players after the playoffs. It isn't fair to allow playoff teams to keep a player who was added AFTER the freeze when every other team didn't have the same crack at said player. Being allowed to add players after the freeze should only be allowed under very specific circumstances in my opinion. I am all for allowing the playoff teams to do everything reasonable to keep competing towards a title, but at the same time, after the season is over they should have to be forced to put the added players back on the wire so EVERY TEAM has a crack at them in the waiver draft
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 16:02:09 GMT -5
fair enough....be good to hear other peoples thoughts, cuz so far it's been the "Randy's argumentative show"
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Oct 10, 2011 16:34:17 GMT -5
fair enough....be good to hear other peoples thoughts, cuz so far it's been the "Randy's argumentative show" "I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job." ~ Margaret Thatcher In response to Ed's middle ground solutions, I still feel like a partial freeze is unfair. Either allow adds or don't, but to allow adds only after a guy is hurt can potentially create an unfair situation where a team is improved and wins a playoff round through no fault of his own, and instead wins simply because of dumb luck. If a player is available, he should be available to everybody. If he's unavailable, he should unavailable to everybody. Let's say I'm playing you in the finals next year Randy (I'm going with you and I because you know Ed has NO SHOT, lol). On Tuesday my 5th bench player gets put on the DL with hemorrhoids or something, so now I'm able to add a guy. Rather than add a player to replace my 5th bench player, I decide to add a white hot SS, since my SS hasn't gotten a hit since Christmas. This guy was a September call up and has been absolutely killing the ball, but because of the partial roster freeze nobody could add him. Now I get to add him because my pine rider, a guy who has had zero impact on the finals thus far, and would have had zero impact on the finals had he stayed healthy, got hurt. Naturally I start the hot hand over my ice cold SS, and this guy goes on a tear, scoring 25 points over the course of the week. My starting SS, now on my bench, only scored 10 points over the same span. The final score of the finals is 454 - 446, and I'm crowned champ.The extra 15 points that I was allowed to gain because of the injury won me the league. So how is the above scenario any better than allowing teams to stream SPs off the waiver wire? At least with a total roster freeze the determining factor in case of injuries is your bench, which gets back to your ability to build a team. Allowing a guy to get an add while excluding the other from doing so just doesn't seem right to me.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 16:41:30 GMT -5
The scenario you just laid out, that's baseball man. I'd much rather lose that way, than to lose because my SS went down I didn't have the freedom to replace him, which in turn then could allow you to still win by 9 stinking points because I had no shot at making up the lost points.
Round and round and round we could go. We can't put a system in place that will make every possible situation 100% perfect, but baseball isn't a perfect sport and fantasy isn't either.
And it's dramatically different than streaming because we are saying you are allowed to pick up one player to replace an injured player. Streaming is adding and dropping over and over again for no other reason than to get more starts. Apples to oranges comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Jim W. (Springfield Isotopes) on Oct 10, 2011 17:09:11 GMT -5
The scenario you just laid out, that's baseball man. I'd much rather lose that way, than to lose because my SS went down I didn't have the freedom to replace him, which in turn then could allow you to still win by 9 stinking points because I had no shot at making up the lost points. But it's not baseball. Major league baseball teams are not allowed to add free agents to their playoff roster, and they certainly can't do it mid series. My understanding is that if a player gets hurt and is unable to play they can call up another player from within the organization, but only if he plays the same position as the injured player, and only with the approval of the commissioner. If it were me, I'd rather be in a situation where I knew that if there were injuries both my opponent and I would be relying on the strength of our respective bench players, something I have control over and something that is determined throughout the year, as opposed to my opponent being able to pick up some hot bat or arm off the waiver wire. It gets back to building a strong roster, top to bottom, and adds weight to bench positions. Getting to snatch a guy off the wire because of an injury takes the championship out of my and my opponent's hands and could potentially make luck the deciding factor. Of these two scenarios I'd rather have the former. Yes, luck plays a factor in real life baseball as well as fantasy baseball, but so do injuries. If Justin Verlander blows him arm out tomorrow, are the Detroit Tigers going to get to sign a free agent SP to replace him? No, they're going to have to find somebody in the organization, either off the bench or from the farm. The fate of the team would then rely on the organizations ability to put together the best group of players, from top to bottom throughout the system, they possibly could. Given the makeup of this league, I think that would be the preferable way to handle injuries in our postseason as well. Round and round and round we could go. We can't put a system in place that will make every possible situation 100% perfect, but baseball isn't a perfect sport and fantasy isn't either. And it's dramatically different than streaming because we are saying you are allowed to pick up one player to replace an injured player. Streaming is adding and dropping over and over again for no other reason than to get more starts. Apples to oranges comparison. You're absolutely right, there is no perfect solution. All I'm trying to do is find the best solution. With regards to this vs. streaming, I'll agree that they're pretty different scenarios, but they share one common element. Both take the result away from the team building you've done all offseason and all year long, and make the determining factor luck, whether it's the luck of having a guy get injured so you can add the hot bat, or the luck involved in finding five SPs all going on the same day so you can maximize GSs. I'd rather have the championship be determined by my ability to put together the best team I possibly can throughout the season than by whether or not a guy gets hurt so I can add the hot hand. Nothing has to be decided right now, and I'd love to hear what everybody else has to say about it. There are some owners in this league that are also in my hockey league, where we have a full on postseason roster freeze, and I'd love to hear what they have to say about it.
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 17:23:51 GMT -5
Yes, luck plays a factor in real life baseball as well as fantasy baseball, but so do injuries. If Justin Verlander blows him arm out tomorrow, are the Detroit Tigers going to get to sign a free agent SP to replace him? No, they're going to have to find somebody in the organization, either off the bench or from the farm. The fate of the team would then rely on the organizations ability to put together the best group of players, from top to bottom throughout the system, they possibly could. Given the makeup of this league, I think that would be the preferable way to handle injuries in our postseason as well. EXACTLY. And if we had the ability to call up someone from our farm team and force him to start an actual MLB game, then we could play this game of comparison, but we don't. You make it sound like we should all have a farm team full of starting MLB players....(yet we want to be able to fill our milb team with as many foreign players as possible...but I digress). So we have to be allowed to fill the roster spot, just like the majors do, within the realistic realms of fantasy which is to use our free agent pool of players. MLB teams can call up one of the many different MLB ready players they have at their disposal. They can make a RP make a start in a pinch. We are at the mercies of what the MLB teams do and we don't have any say in making our long relief guy to make a spot start or moving our backup 2B to SS to fill a need which a real MLB team does. This comparison from fantasy to MLB can only go so far, then you have to suck it up and own the fact that this is fantasy and it all can't be the same. The middle ground solution is BEYOND fair to everyone....even making the playoff team drop the picked up replacement player. A roster freeze is NOT fair at all to a team that is fighting to win. (not sure I've communicated my feeling on that enough )
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 10, 2011 18:53:25 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Randy's last post. While I do think there needs to be a roster freeze in some form (for all the reason's Jim has given) I do concede to the notion that the playoff teams need to be able to replace bodies should the need arise. I really do think something along the line of what I've laid out above might be the way to go. Perhaps there are a few more conditions we might need to add? Would love to hear from what other people think of this.
|
|
|
Post by hungoverheroes on Oct 10, 2011 20:09:03 GMT -5
i throw my 2 cents in the ring. I dont like the idea of picking up players / pitchers for a playoff series to win a week. I agree with what jim says in that you build a team the whole year, thats who you should win the playoffs with.
if you have a DL player, i like the idea of maybe two picks per playoffs.
but really isnt that what your bench and farm team is about?
i see the counter points, but nothing is worse than losing a week from some player that was hot, scooped from the wire and pluged in. its a hard one. HH
|
|
|
Post by Fenway Faithful on Oct 10, 2011 22:20:11 GMT -5
Another random idea, not sure if this would be too labor intensive but figured I'd throw it out there.
If we want to be like the majors as much as we can and this freeze is of that much importance....how about creating a 5 player "taxi squad" or some other fancy name. Pretty much this would be a 5 player team that would all be major league players....our 4A type players. We'd be allowed X amount of callups/demotions in a year. More thought and ruling could be put around it, but in essence this would allow rosters to be frozen at the end of the regular season and it'd be up to the owner to manage his call ups accordingly and to have the appropriate backups on the taxi squad.
Want you guys (Jim/Ed) to know I appreciate all you put into the league and I'm definitely not trying to be a thorn on various issues. I'm thinking of the betterment of the league, as you guys are and am thinking of alternative solutions.
Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 11, 2011 14:31:42 GMT -5
I personally believe that if we are going to allow adds in the post season, that something along the lines of what I've laid out above is the way to go. I really do think that the right to add a waiver wire player in the post season should only be given under very specific conditions. Having a separate group of players that teams could use just seems off to me. Outside of having a process by which waiver wire players could be added in the playoffs, the only other idea I have would be to allow all playoff teams to have say 2 adds at their disposal in the playoffs. So , a team would be allowed to make 2 waiver adds but once they did they would not be allowed to make any more under any circumstances. I still like my first idea better but options are good.
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 13, 2011 20:42:13 GMT -5
OK, since only four people have weighed in on this I think we're gonna start winding it down. From what I can gather we have three options out there;
OPTION A
1)Playoff teams can only add players to their roster from the waiver wire if it is to replace a player CURRENTLY on their roster who has been placed on the MLB DL.
2) Playoff teams may only add 2 players per season in the playoffs.
3) Potential LTIR will be locked after the last game of the regular season. Any player added off the waiver wire would have to fit on team's active roster (IE, the player being replaced would have to be cut or put on the active roster IR). If a player is cut, he is a free agent. Teams cutting players hold no rights to this player once the player has been cut.
4) No NON PLAYOFF TEAMS may add waiver wire players regardless of injuries
5) Players added by Playoff teams MUST BE DROPPED after the end of the playoffs
OPTION B
2 adds per playoff team cap. Non-Playoff teams are exempt from waiver adds of any kind. Any player added off the waiver wire once the regular season ends must be dropped after the playoffs.
OPTION C
Total Post season Roster Freeze. No waiver adds of any kind, under any circumstances, by any team
If there are any other ideas or tweaks to these options speak now. If we don't get anything else on this I think we'll put it up for vote on Monday.
|
|
|
Post by MacGruber BOOM on Oct 19, 2011 22:45:01 GMT -5
I'm for Option C. The only adds I can see is if a player goes down and there is a farm team player that plays the same position that is ready to go. Then by all means bring him off the farm team and start his fantasy big league career. As far as I'm concerned we all play games in the "post season", even if we are not in the top 6 we are still playing. So we set our rosters for the postseason and that is it until the next season begins. Go Cards!
|
|
|
Post by 2008worldchamps on Oct 21, 2011 15:09:09 GMT -5
I'll be perfectly honest. Coming into this off-season I was totally ready to vote for option C. It works very well in our hockey league and I think it would work well here. I have to say though, through the conversations we've had here, I'm now leaning stronger towards options A or B. Randy has made some very valid points. I do feel that being able to add a player should only be allowed under very specific conditions. Isnt is fair to say that a team in the playoffs should be allowed to do everything reasonable to compete? Not that I would be totally upset if option C ends up winning but I do think options A and B are something to strongly consider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2011 5:40:38 GMT -5
I refuse to vote. Two adds? Come on. Yes I see where you're going, but if someone is going to dump a player where a team can actually obtain him, I don't see anything wrong with it. The league is setup for pitchers to fail anyway, so if they want to stream, I say all the power to them.
I see where you're going with this, trying to mimic the playoffs, but limiting an owner's moves is just plain ole grumpy and takes out the fun in this league.
|
|