I'm not a part of this in anyway but just popped in my head: "Fine me, I'm already fined. Fine me, I'm already fined! Abuse of power!"

I won the 2013 title on a tiebreaker that I would’ve lost under my proposed rule. If I remember correctly, that was the one that moved us to change the rule from just ERA to a joint batting/pitching tiebreaker.

Which was an improvement.

What I’m arguing here is that if we score matchups every week of the season on 14 unique categories, and those 14 unique categories count evenly in the standings for 24 weeks or whatever the regular season is, why do two of them count more than the rest of them, progressively, when the games matter the most.

This is some Manfred ghost runner shit - ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS.

Yes, the division champs with byes already have an advantage by not playing a first round matchup. They’ve earned that. But this doesn’t just apply to the semis. This would apply to matchups in the first round - with no byes - and to potential final matchups, where the opponents could both have already attained byes or have come from the wild card round.

This isn’t a proposed extra advantage on top of a bye. This is a “the scores count the same as every other matchup all season” proposal. And by doing so, a tie must be broken in another form or fashion.

If I’m the 6 seed in the playoffs, I enter each week knowing I have to score more points than my opponent - no matter what the categories I find those points in are. Because they all count the same. To be the man you gotta beat the man.

We cut it back because people were complaining about the draft not being deep but I don't think the minor leaguers truly effect it all that much especially with some of the other changes we made...3 round cost, 9th round first chance for new keepers, etc. I would be willing to compromise at 6 this season with the extra DL and the new DH and keep it at that for 2-3 seasons and see how that works.

Definitely voting 3 then

True. But not all teams in our leagues make transactions. I know one player has been sitting on an IL spot and came back weeks ago.

I prefer 2 as well, but 4 was just an option to close the loophole that currently exists.

That sounds like a Shut the Hell up problem

Do we want to add a designated hitter position to the C&B lineups, starting in 2023?

This seems like a bad idea. You’re completely giving up on the counting stats with your 6th rp

I think this is an easy one...it's not used all that often and it'll make people have to decide on/between F1s a little earlier especially if we raise the cost by a round.

Nope. This simply means a player drafted in the first eight rounds would not be Keeper eligible. A player drafted in Round 9, then having a Round 7 value the next year, is perfectly acceptable--as it is now.

I’d like five with a greater incentive to keep those guys once they make the bigs... which could coincide with a change to the keeper structure.

I’d actually be ok with a hybrid of this.

If you promote a minor leaguer and keep him, (or trade for someone else’s promoted minor leaguer before he goes back to the FA pool) it’s a 25.

Undrafted FA’s are a 20. Or pick a number.