.png "Dynasty Sports Hub")
+- Dynasty Sports Hub (http://dynastysportshub.epizy.com)
+-- Forum: Baseball (http://dynastysportshub.epizy.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Baseball Leagues (http://dynastysportshub.epizy.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+---- Forum: National Pastime (http://dynastysportshub.epizy.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+----- Forum: National Pastime: History (http://dynastysportshub.epizy.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=118)
+----- Thread: Offseason rules proposals (/showthread.php?tid=11578)
Offseason rules proposals - tomviolence - 10-07-2022
Increase ABs for minors to 150 (currently 130) to be in line with other leagues on site.
Feel free to post other rules suggestions in the comments.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - MasterShonuff - 10-11-2022
I'd like to propose that during the bidding process for a FA that you have to have the cap space to accommodate your current bid. I don't think moves post bidding should be allowed. If you want to increase your bid during the posting/bidding process then a move needs to be made at that time to free up cap space to make your bid legal.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - jeffwp91 - 10-14-2022
I want to propose 2 rules:
1. The 5M nonkeep for the top tier of salaries increases by 1M? for every additional 5M. For instance, right now Suzuki can dropped for 5M per year which in absolute steal and well worth it. What's to stop a team that has talented youth to signing massive contracts of even greater than that if the penalty is 5M?
2. Institute a restructure tag for each team available every odd year or even year, so as to not have the option every season.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - MasterShonuff - 10-16-2022
(10-14-2022, 14:06)jeffwp91 Wrote: I want to propose 2 rules:
1. The 5M nonkeep for the top tier of salaries increases by 1M? for every additional 5M. For instance, right now Suzuki can dropped for 5M per year which in absolute steal and well worth it. What's to stop a team that has talented youth to signing massive contracts of even greater than that if the penalty is 5M?
2. Institute a restructure tag for each team available every odd year or even year, so as to not have the option every season.
I don't think tacking on another 1m is much of a deterrent, however I think you're on to something. Current rules have cap penalties increase after roughly a 50% annual average increase. Tier 2 goes at 8.1m -12m at 3m penalty; then when you hit tier 3 12.1m the penalty is 5m (increase of 2m). We could use that formula and say the next tier is 16.1m with a 7m penalty and so and so forth if you keep increasing your bid/raising the players annual average.
It's a weird situation to be in for sure tho when you have these insane average annuals. Like I'm not sure if the Cardinals will cut Suzuki. But what if he had a tremendous season? Pay a dude close to 40m for the first 2 seasons even with a good fantasy performance is 25% of a teams cap. That could be a penalty in itself but you do get the insurance of a crappy performance and you could wash your hands with him with a modest 5m penalty.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - jeffwp91 - 10-16-2022
Yea the 1M exact was more of a ?. I was just thinking that the tier stop at 5M was very low. Any thoughts on the restructure option?
RE: Offseason rules proposals - alanv25 - 10-17-2022
A year or two ago, there was some discussion about how an owner could do a lot of research on minor leaguers and post a bid on a prospect, only to lose him to an owner who did no research at all. There was talk about how we can give more credit to the owners who put the time in doing the research.
My manager at work actually thought of this idea when I was explaining this situation to him, that certain owners in our leagues do a lot of research on minor leaguers and post them on the board, but many times get outbid on them. So the owner who did no work to discover this prospect gets rewarded with the prospect.
This idea could be used for all free agents, but it also could be narrowed down to just prospects. The idea is that the owner who posts the first bid on the message board only has to match bids made by other owners.
So if owner 1 posts a bid for $1M, owner 2 would have to beat $1M with his bid. So let's say that owner 2 bids $1.5M. Then all that owner 1 would need to do is match owner 2's bid of $1.5M because owner 1 was the one who first posted this player.
For prospects, this would reward the owner who did the research and found the player. This would give owner 1 the edge in winning that prospect since he did the research and posted this player to the FA board.
I would just make this the rule for all free agents.
Also, this is an easy rule to remember. Once we see it a few times, it will be in our heads.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - jeffwp91 - 10-17-2022
Interesting idea. I do kind of like that because sometimes I didn't even post a player, knowing I'd be outbid by another team. Though this does assume that other players who didn't post a FA or prospect did less research.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - alanv25 - 10-18-2022
I don't know if we still have this rule, but when I first got this team, Adam Duvall was on it. he was coming off an injury and spent just about the whole year in the minors. Because he had over 130 or 150 major league AB, I forget which, based on the rule, I could not put him on my minor league roster.
So I kept him on my major league roster for more than half the season. So I was forced to keep a player who was playing in the minors on my major league squad, taking up a space that could have gone to a FA pickup.
I don't like this rule. I shouldn't have to use a major league roster spot for a player who is in the minors. This rule has come into play in other situations as well.
Since I also have a team in BTL, I was having trouble remembering which league needed 130 AB to qualify as a major leaguer and which league required 150 AB, and which league I could put an Adam Duvall on my minor league roster and which league I couldn't do this.
Some of us have teams in both leagues and these are two rules that I wish were the same.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - alanv25 - 10-18-2022
This is just something that the commish did in leagues that I was in for about 15 years. He had 30+ fantasy baseball leagues, and the entry fee was $200 per team per season. He closed down his fantasy service in about 2015.
He did something called a re-stocking draft. It was basically used to improve teams whose owners had left the league.
Let's say 2 owners leave the league. One of the teams has a .300 winning pct, and the other abandoned team was at .400.
The commish had a formula. I don't remember exactly how it went, but it was something like this.
If an abandoned team had a winning pct below .300, that team would get 4 major league players in the re-stocking draft.
If an abandoned team's winning pct was .300 to .400, it would get 3 major league players in the re-stocking draft.
If an abandoned team's winning pct was .400 to .500, that team would get 2 major league players in the re-stocking draft.
These players would come from the better teams in the league. So in the example, the abandoned team at .300 would get 3 players. The other abandoned team at .400 would get 2 players.
The way it worked is that would be 5 total players, so the top 5 teams with the best winning pct would submit a list to protect 12 players, and then the commish would take one player from each of these teams and put them on the two abandoned teams in order to make them more sellable.
I just thought I'd mention this in case it was needed.
RE: Offseason rules proposals - MasterShonuff - 10-18-2022
(10-17-2022, 02:08)alanv25 Wrote: A year or two ago, there was some discussion about how an owner could do a lot of research on minor leaguers and post a bid on a prospect, only to lose him to an owner who did no research at all. There was talk about how we can give more credit to the owners who put the time in doing the research.
My manager at work actually thought of this idea when I was explaining this situation to him, that certain owners in our leagues do a lot of research on minor leaguers and post them on the board, but many times get outbid on them. So the owner who did no work to discover this prospect gets rewarded with the prospect.
This idea could be used for all free agents, but it also could be narrowed down to just prospects. The idea is that the owner who posts the first bid on the message board only has to match bids made by other owners.
So if owner 1 posts a bid for $1M, owner 2 would have to beat $1M with his bid. So let's say that owner 2 bids $1.5M. Then all that owner 1 would need to do is match owner 2's bid of $1.5M because owner 1 was the one who first posted this player.
For prospects, this would reward the owner who did the research and found the player. This would give owner 1 the edge in winning that prospect since he did the research and posted this player to the FA board.
I would just make this the rule for all free agents.
Also, this is an easy rule to remember. Once we see it a few times, it will be in our heads.
I like where you are heading with this Alan. My thought process on this is adding another thing to your "match bid" to give the original poster/bidder the advantage. My idea is adding a "poker-betting" style to bidding process as well. My first thought is to speed up the bidding process significantly and eliminate the ever so popular 200k raises on 1m raises or 1m raises after there was a raise of 10m!
With this raising-requirement it still gives a lot of power to the original bidder and puts the raiser in a position to put their money where their bid is sort to speak!
If someone is not familiar with poker bidding process... The raiser must match or exceed the last bid on the player. You raise by 1m, the next bid/raise has to be at least 1m. You raise by 5m the next bid must come in at 5m or more etc.