[DevSop]

Disagree

[Attitude Adjuster]

Agree with Dev to disagree.

[Lucky]

I disagree as well. For one, I HATE having to promote a guy when the big club promotes him. It kills a lot of the appeal of minor leaguers. Jeff Clement is in my minors and in Seattle. He's not starting and he's struggling. I don't want to have to lose him or deal with the hassles. Part of the idea of this minor league system is supposed to be (IMO) being able to stash reinforcements on the bench. Not just move to the head of the line on prospects who probably will suck and you'll drop because they're hurting your team.

I know the situation that prompted GM's question in the first place. If a guy gets sent down like Rich Hill or Francisco Liriano have that's clearly a pain in the ass for their owners. But to me, the idea of the minor league keepers is to help you out if you're ahead of the game and see the next stars coming. Not give you an extra roster spot where you can stash someone if he's struggling enough that the big club sends him down. If you never take advantage of a rookie when he gets called up I think its a nice weapon to have to be able to stash him. But once he's done a full season in the majors (or 2 or 3 like Hill) I just think he should be off the table, period. He's no longer a prospect or a minor leaguer.

I mean, by this logic can I send down a 10 year star who is starting a couple of games in AA in a rehab assignment? Just seems to go against the basic idea of the minor leaguers, to me. Which is to reward people for seeing someone coming, not give everyone some extra DL/NA spots.

[Sparty]

I guess I was misunderstood.

I'd say it shouldn't apply to MiKeepers. If you draft them in the MiDraft, you should be able to let them sit there. I'm saying ML guys who are sent down (like Hill/Liriano), should be able to be sent down, provided we have a spot on our MiRoster or can clear one. Once they are brought back up, we have to bring them back up (i.e. pick them up from FA), as well, or release them outright. You could say this rule could apply to anyone selected in our major league draft.

And rehab assignments shouldn't count. They're still technically on the DL.

If the player still has options, we should have options.

[Lucky]

I'm just inclined to disagree. A guy like Hill retaining his options and allowing the Cubs to do something silly is one thing. But to me the MiKeepers is intended to reward you for foresight and planning. Allowing you to shuttle a guy back and forth like some teams do with players or giving you a break when the rare established player gets sent down just isn't in the spirit of it to me.

But if the group wants it I'll play along. It would mean I'd never again have to count the number of days a player spent on the major league roster. But I personally don't mind doing that to maintain what I believe is the spirit of the system.

[Attitude Adjuster]

(EDIT: Ahh, Hell in a handbasket. If I'd just read the 2008 Keepers and Cost thread before I wrote this, everything would fine. I'll keep he original question here in case anyone else thinks the same way I did without doing thorough research.)



Question for Lucky/everyone that we probably should clarify before the Keepers deadline.

Last year I had four free agents that I made my Keepers. They were randomly placed in Rounds 22 through 25. At the time I had no problem with that. But now I realize that since I'm keeping Eric Byrnes again this year, he essentially went from a Round 25 Keeper (in 2008, but slotted into Round 22) to Round 20 in 2009 simply because of where Lucky randomly placed him last year. I've lost three rounds of value due to a blind draw.

I know this might be a drag (and I'm not even sure I like this idea), but if owners have multiple FA keepers, can they decide which round in the draft they are slotted into so at least it's the owner's responsibility if this happens to them?

For instance, I had four FA guys last year. I could choose to have put Hamilton at 25, Lincecum at 24, Byrnes at 23 and Carmona at 22. It wouldn't make much difference, but at least I'd know I screwed myself rather than it being a random occurence.

Thoughts?

[The Jewish Cunthead]

I have no problem deciding what your FA keepers cost.

[Lucky]

Yeah, in case you didn't check that thread or the rules the simple answer is that if AA had 4 guys who cost a 25th Rd Keeper last year that's what they were. One of them may have ended up costing AA a 22nd simply because he ran out of picks in the 25th, but he's still a 25th for record keeping purposes. So no loss of value as AA was afraid. The 2009 Draft ignores where a keeper was actually kept, just what his value cost was supposed to be.

Like I said in the other thread, give me a couple of days and I'll get things orderly and easy to understand. Or at least as easy as I'm capable of making it.

[Grover]

I'd just like to quickly chime in on the minor league roster thing (even though it's well after the fact).

I personally never understood why we could leave players on our minor league rosters after they have been called up to the majors. This is pretty much the only league I've ever been in that uses minor league rosters that allows for us to just leave a guy on that minor league roster even if he has been on a major league roster for an extended period of time.

I say that if a player has been on a major league roster for 30 days continuously, you have to bring him off your minor league roster. He's no longer a minor leaguer. Thirty days gives you plenty of a buffer to account for the shuttling that some real life clubs do with minor leaguers.

If a player gets sent to the minors, whether a established major leaguer or a prospect, you should be able to put him on your minor league roster, if you want.

Also, if we were to expand the bench spots by 2 or 3, this would give some flex in moving players around, if need be.

Just my 2 cents. If things stay the same, I can easily keep rolling with it.

[Lucky]

Honestly? Because it sounds like a lot of fucking work for me. I'm always saying "This is no big deal." But it can be a pain in the ass. I've got it mostly streamlined but one of the biggest pains in the ass is keeping track of the minor leaguers, counting their days on the roster, dealing with when people draft players off others' lists. And sometimes it a real hassle keeping an eye on the league while you're also trying to keep an eye on your own team. We all have those runs during the season where you're busy or distracted and its a pain to find 5 minutes each day to check out your fantasy teams. Its the nature of fantasy baseball and why its so much different than the once a week nature of fantasy football. But the commish stuff just adds extra stuff to do and eliminates the option of saying "fuck it, I don't care if I miss some starts because I'm too tired to check." You could end up screwing other people now.

While your suggestion may make things more realistic and maybe fairer... it also seems like it demands I set aside time each day/week/2 weeks to go over all the minor league keepers, see if they're in the majors, and keep track of their time put in. I've got to be on the ball for Day 30 to tell you to elevate him or lose him. I'd probably be able to streamline it with an Excel file and some work... but its a whole bunch of extra work and a regular job that I'm not really jumping to do. And I don't really see another way to do it without having someone manage it.

The way I have it set up was at least in part done because it meant I only had to look at the list once or twice a year and waste an hour or so on it. Much more inviting than spending an hour or so every couple of weeks looking up 60 guys and keeping track of a file to see when they near 30 days.

If people really want it I can try and figure out a way to deal with it. But I kind of set the Minor League idea up to be a cool extra for owners but not be too much of a pain in the ass for me. I know other leagues' commishes do more work than I do... but I know in other leagues I'm in commishes insist they don't have to buy in to make up for the work they do. And in other leagues people just pay extra just to cover the cost a professional league system or to pay the guy keeping track. At the risk of sounding all martyry... I'm getting nothing out of running this beyond a league I really enjoy playing. So I try to keep it as simple as my mind will let me.

That rant's probably a little more "woe is me" than I intended. I enjoy being commish and its really not that bad. But there are weeks during the season I hate it and days I'm so tired that I skip looking at any of my fantasy teams but I do look at C&B to make sure there's nothing I have to address for someone else. And I'm debating telling a 2nd Keeper League I started last year that I'm done as commish because it doesn't seem worth the extra work. So I'm happy to do more work if its for something really worth it. So if people think this is worth it, please be honest and say so. But if its not a big deal (and this doesn't strike me as a huge one) I'm all for "simple." As hard as that may be to believe.


And I've debated expanding the rosters. I actually put some thought last season into making it a 40 man roster with 27/13 just for the "realism." But the truth is that our rosters are all ready pretty big and with the minor league system we miss out on a lot of the mid season additions that exist in most free agent pools. I find our league pretty shallow as it is. I can't be the only one who mid season goes looking for someone in the free agent pool and curses because every half way decent option there is is a minor league keeper. And lord knows as much as I like the "MI" and "LF/CF/RF" nature of our league it doesn't making filling needs any easier. So while expanding the roster 1-3 spots might allow for minor leaguers it also will probably just lead to even shallower free agent pools than we see in the 20 team OO league.

As it is I really wanted to do the 40 Man Roster thing but after thinking about it I put debate to actually taking away a couple of roster spots this season.

[Jack Quinn]

I do like the idea of being able to send a ML player to the minors if the team sends him down. I can't imagine it happens all that often, especially with good players (I know Willis and Frenchy were exceptions last year) but if it is going to be a ton more work for you, then I can live without it

[Mikey]

Jan 27, 2009 11:42:03 GMT -5 Jack Quinn said:

especially with good players (I know Willis and Frenchy were exceptions last year)

I thought you said good players.

My take is that you should be able to keep a guy in your system for as long as you wish, until the player remains on an MLB 25 man roster for a full season (or even 81 games actually played, whatever). And once you call a guy up, you can't reassign him.

This saves the hassle of tracking days and who only got a September call up. Also gives the owner the freedom of "calling guys up" later. I know the counter argument to this is that an owner can horde a young bunch of guys playing in the bigs, but it would only be for one year max, and if the guys were producing, they'd be getting called up anyway.

[Lucky]

I just think hording young players has an extra bit of impact in this league where the pool is shallow. If the minor league rules can throw a few more talents out there, good. At least that's the way I see it. Maybe I'm alone in thinking the pool is too shallow.

I feel basically the same way for the random dudes like Rich Hill who start sucking and get sent down. It just means you get to horde a player. The Minor League system is meant to award those who see stars coming. Not to provide an out for those who draft a guy who has a horrible start to the season and whose team sends him down. It just feels a bit against the basic nature of it. And shallows the pool.

But if the league wants these or any changes I'm open to listening.

[Mikey]

I am completely against adding roster slots. Major or minor.

And I was just thinking out loud regarding minor league eligibility. I think it's fine as is.

[Attitude Adjuster]

I actually think what MIke was talking about is what we curently have. If a Minor Leaguer comes up, you have the choice of keeping him in the Minors or bring him up. Once he has 45 (60?--whatever) days, he's a major leaguer for life. Now you can keep him down for the rest of the season (hoarding) if you want, but the next year you have to make a decision. I don't think you can hoard when there's only five guys on each Minor League list. Finally, if a full-on Major Leaguer gets sent down, we know one thing--HE SUCKS! Keep him on your major league roster if you really think it's worth it. But 99 percent of the time HE AIN'T WORTH IT.

Keep everything as it is. Cause old people, you know, don't like change.

[Grover]

Jan 27, 2009 11:20:38 GMT -5 Lucky said:

Honestly? Because it sounds like a lot of fucking work for me.

I think this is a completely reasonable point of view, to tell the truth.

You do all the work in this league - and there is more work for you to do then in a "common" league or in a bigger money league where a paid for website does a lot of the bitch work.

To me, if the answer is "man, I just don't want to do it", that's totally fine with me, because you do a hell of a lot for this league without asking for much from any of us.

So, my point is: you do plenty and I'm not really going to even begin to push for a rule change that puts more on your plate.

As far as adding/removing roster spots, I like that rosters are the size that they are and probably wouldn't personally want it changed unless it made sense to do so because of another rule change.

If I was going to campaign for one rule change, it would be to drop one scoring stat from both pitching and hitting - batting average and holds, would be my vote. My reasoning is that holds are basically treated like an afterthought for most people and you can almost ignore them on draft day and still add guys off the waiver wire later and score plenty of holds. BA I would cut just because I feel like it's a redundant category since we already count OBP.

Other then that, I think I'm going to climb back into my hole now...things were running so smooth...

[Lucky]

ESPN League is up and running.

games.espn.go.com/flb/leagueoffice?leagueId=4146

Same setup as last year. If anyone wants anything changed now is the time to push for it. We start drafting in 10 days (or sooner) so speak now or forever hold your peace. Or at least wait until next year.

[DevSop]

What if we change a few things to take into account the negatives that go along with them.

Instead of Stolen Bases, I see that ESPN has a Net Stolen Bases category which I assume is SB - (CS + PO).
Instead of Saves, what if we use save % which I assume will take into account blown saves.
I also would like to add CG to the pitchers side, but I can't think of a hitting category to balance it. The main option I see is we could eliminate OPS and just separate it into OBP and SLG.

[Mikey]

Save % each week would suck. Because a "save" is such a goofy ass stat in the first place, adding the % to it makes it even goofier, particularly on a week by week basis. Sure, there are unfair saves just as there are unfair blown saves, but the quantity - or lack thereof - of saves makes save % too volatile in my opinion to be a valid stat.

I like net steals though, but don't think CG is a good idea.

[Lucky]

I've played in leagues that have weird stats like CG or Shutouts and it strikes me as bizarre and sucky. You can't draft for that shit. There's only a handful of guys who do that consistently. And it just sort of happens. So that stat ends up being a crap shoot every week. I'm against it but the rest of the league can speak.

Save % I think I'm against too. The thing is that a blown save is going to already hurt you. Your ERA and WHIP are going to take a hit and you have a good chance of picking up a L. So adding this just makes it worse. Plus it makes a pretty shallow pool (30 closers) even more shallow and makes Saves an even bigger commodity than they already are.

Same with SB%. I guess in theory those two balance each other out but its the same thing. An already tough stat category to win gets even harder. Now not only are you stuck with the best SB guys often doing hell on your other stats... but they might not even do that well with S%. And meanwhile you're going to keep getting penalized for every time one of your non SB guys gets caught off base.

Its not that Net Steals is a BAD idea in my mind. Its that its a whole new aspect of the game and a pretty drastic change that totally changes the values of our players. I think I could be talked into that one a lot quicker than SV% or CG but it feels like something I don't love adding in 10 days before the draft after I've already kept Rios and Braun in part for SB.

[Mikey]

Feb 5, 2009 16:17:10 GMT -5 Lucky said:

10 days before the draft

But yeah, this.

[Lucky]

Yeah, to be honest I didn't see any changes being made when I suggested that. Definitely not drastic ones. Maybe this is the time we discuss whether we REALLY need MI/CI/OF on the rosters. Or if HLDs is worth as much as I think it is or if it should go away because its weird like many have suggested to me. But any kind of stat changes seem late into things AFTER keepers get declared.

I was probably thinking more "Hey, lets have a later trade deadline" or "Lets have 2 week playoffs" or "lets restructure the divisions." Something that doesn't change the way we prepare for the season a little late in the game. but if a stat change is wanted enough, cool.

Speaking of, DO we want to restructure the divisions? Cupcakes have kind of dominated for the last 2 years and I know we had some talk to trying to make things more even. At the same time some folks seemed deeply opposed to that and called us all whiners. But do we want to do that before the season starts up?

[Mikey]

I like the rosters just as is. Would argue against any modification, either subtracting or adding slots.

I like the trade deadline as is. If changed, meh, no biggie.

I like holds, because without them, there's practically ZERO reason to even look at middle relievers, which if you look at roster numbers, make up practically 18-20% of the league. Why ignore that subset of players? I'd fight against eliminating this, as well.

Division realignment? I don't care. I think it'd be fun if we did, but could care less if we didn't.

[Sparty]

Well, a team from Bananas did take home the title last season.

And I like keeping the divisions the way it is. As silly as it sounds , it builds up rivalries.

As far as the MI/CI/OF thing, I think eliminating MI and CI would broaden the talent pool a bit.

I like holds, personally.

[Lucky]

For the record I like the stats, categories, etc as is as well. I was just running off stuff. And really, I don't care about the division stuff. I'm kind of annoyed that for 2 years running the #2 team in Cupcakes has had a better record than the guy who got a bye in Bananas... but I also can live with it being part of the retardness of sports and just annoying me come September if it happens again. Which there's no real reason to assume it will based off of 2 seasons.