Position Eligibility Requirements

[bravesfan4]

For pitchers its not a big concern. Its the hitters is where it is a concern. If a player didnt play 50 games at a position for a whole year he shouldnt be considered eligible at that position. Think about it. We dont designate individual positions. So Omar Infante did not play more than 10 games in the OF so next year he should not be allowed to play that spot. For a current year I would go with 25. You have to raise the bar, its a way better alternative than getting rid of Defense.

[Colby]

Another option is to have our own system of positions that is reflected in the official rosters.  I can override positions in Fantrax.  In all honesty, this wouldn't be too difficult with our own position eligibility requirements.  Players eligible for multiple positions in our system (C-CI-MI-OF) are not as many as a traditional fantasy league.  We could even base those requirements off of the minors which is something that we would all like to do.  Basically, if you, as a GM, see that your player has eclipsed our requirements then you can go to a special thread here at the board and request the position upgrade.

[Canada8999]

Sounds good to me...

[lp815]

I'm alright with that. However, are we still increasing those requirements?

[Colby]

I'm alright with that. However, are we still increasing those requirements?

Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.

We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts.  Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?

1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline.  The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season.  At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline.  Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position.  If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.

[Canada8999]

Yes... we need to... here is my suggestion.

We have a 50 GP and 40 IP rule for the establishment of the major league clock on prospect contracts.  Why note use those same numbers for position eligibility?

1) A minor league player called up from the EDR will immediately have their eligibility analyzed.
2) All players eligible for multiple positions will be analyzed at the trade deadline.  The rule can be 50 GP and 40 IP for the past and current season.  At the trade deadline, only the current season will count - similarly to how the 2008 rankings were phased out for contract extensions at the trade deadline.  Players hurt for the year may end up losing out on this, but they can regain position eligibility once they hit those numbers again.
3) Players are always eligible for at least one position.  If they were eligible for multiple positions and then became ineligible for such positions, positions will be removed in order of when they first became eligible for such positions in the first place.

I strongly disagree with 2 - you cant have a player lose eligibility mid season.

[rcankosy]

I agree.  You can't lose eligibility at a position once you have it.

[Colby]

I agree.  You can't lose eligibility at a position once you have it.

Fair enough... that makes things easier for me.  Position removal can take place at the end of the season (after the draft). 

[bridgestone]

I strongly disagree with 2 - you cant have a player lose eligibility mid season.

I like what Colby is suggesting in his 1st and 3rd points.  I also support much of the rule changes (I don't think we have many) in place for the upcoming season such as weekly lineups and the new position eligibility rules.

[MillerTime]

Good with 1st and 3rd points.  I like the approach.