0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What do you mean by expansion style protection rules?Basehock like the Vegas Golden Knights. New owners select players from an unprotected list. I thought it might change the depth and could lower the transactions while also increasing the other teams attractiveness to new owners. However, the amount of orphan teams is higher than the fantrax owner list suggests and an increase in teams likely raises the transactions back up so I see the need for a limit.
What do you mean by expansion style protection y
1) I could probably get a person or two to join from Wonderboy2) Transaction limit. I wouldn't limit yearly transactions. Lets add a column with MLB options to the sheets. After the three options are done, they must clear waivers. 3) I will volunteer to help with sheets. I think we should look at the daily service time adder as well. I did it in Wonderboy and it wasn't hard but just one more step. 4) I agree. This site is on its last legs it seems like. 5) Contraction. I think 30 teams makes it more realistic. Has the idea of making it a money league ever been talked about? It always seems people are more competitive if money is on the line.6) Minor league signings. Yes, this needs to be increased. Perhaps allow the 'finding' team a multiplier? Say like a 50% multiplier where if the finding team closes on the deal, the salary hit is only half of the bid. I think there are some other things to look at: A) Scheduling. I have a format for 162 game schedule where it plays out exactly like MLB.B) Offseason FA. I am in a hockey league that uses REAL time bidding on Google Sheet. This will limit the work that has to be done by leaders of league. It is very, very innovative. I could share a copy from my buddy Alex. C) Draft Pick Trading. It is not allowed in MLB, and specific owners in the past just trade all of their picks. This leaves the farm barren. D) Salary Caps. I think winning should be rewarded. Have variable caps been discussed?E) 40man active rosters. That's too many players because not every team will have a playable roster. What do you guys think?
To touch on the topics you brought upA) Im interested. Jeremy (Phillies) re-did our schedule already for last year though and it was much better than years past imo. He is our resident schedule expert so I'd be interested to see what he thinks. B) im definitely interested. PM me more info on this when you get a chance. Worth looking into. C) I've always wondered this as well but it's a definitely in the fabric of the league. We've recently implemented some rules to prevent teams from just selling off a bunch of future picks. Personally, I would be okay with curtailing it more. Not sure if that would have owners support though. D) I like the idea of every team having the same. Rewarding winning teams with more money just creates more imbalance and I want more parity in the league not less. E) Was more of an admin thing. 40man mimics real life. It's only actually 25 "active" roster spots. If you put the 15 extra on the farm it just creates more needless roster shuffling. This helps simplify spreadsheets. Love the discussion!