|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 2, 2012 16:58:55 GMT -8
The issue of expansion has been expressed before, and usually shot down. I do have two potential solid, active team owners who are very interested in joining The Denny's League. I think I have a way to make expansion to 14 total teams fairly seamless, and also appease most of you by adding 2 more playoff teams.
If we alter the roster requirements like this:
Eliminate 1 OF, 1 SP, 1 RP, and 2 bench spots
That would lower the TOTAL roster amount by 5 players for each team down to 30. That would also free up 60 players, exactly the right amount to cover the two potential new teams.
Eliminating 1 SP and 2 bench spots would also reduce the emphasis on SP's in the league by a small amount.
For an expansion draft, I would say each team can protect 12 players. Once a player is picked from your team, you can choose 2 more to protect. No more than 3 players could be plucked from any one teams' roster - and the expansion draft would last 12 rounds.
I would also figure out some sort of formula for draft pick compensation for players being picked from your teams during the expansion draft.
As far as draft slotting, I would place the expansion teams at picks 5 and 6 of the first round.
In moving to 14 teams, I think we would go to 2 7-team divisions. That would allow the two division winners to enjoy a bye-week while the 4 wild card teams battle to move on. Of course, this would require either adding an additional playoff week... or changing the championship to one two-week total points matchup.
I personally am really in favor of this move - as I think the added playoff teams would increase the competitiveness, and the two additional owners would be a real benefit to the league as well.
There are some other issues that would need to be addressed in expanding I am sure, so lay em on me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 2, 2012 17:27:13 GMT -8
I think this could...work but I see the need for bench players so losing 5 would suck.
The mlb has paternity leave,restricted lists,players get scratched and without having the ability to manuever can cripple a team.
Now since we do pay for moves this weekly moves from 3 to 5 could off set the lowering the limit to 30.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Sept 2, 2012 19:52:14 GMT -8
Joe, you're only losing 2 bench spots, not 5.
The two extra teams would mean $100 in the prize pool.
Would the schedule be division heavy or equal between divisions or the classic no cross playing between leagues?
What would happen to low draft picks (31+) that were traded?
Raise the weekly prize to $5? Raise the buy in amount by $10?
I think that the weekly move allowance is fine at 3, 4 at the max.
So far, I like what you got going on here Chris.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 3, 2012 8:26:44 GMT -8
For picks 31+ that were traded they would basically be a 30th round keeper. That, or they would just be "extra" keepers that don't cost draft picks.
I am definitely in with bumping the buy in to $60 and the weekly high score to $5. That would put $840 in the pot, minus $150 for CBS. $5 per week for 22 weeks ($110 total) leaves $590 for the top 4 teams, plus transaction fees.
I think the schedule would be as balanced as possible. So 44 games with 13 teams means each team 3 times and 5 teams 4 times. The extra 5 would be division games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 3, 2012 15:41:01 GMT -8
So in a few moments of free time I added up the records for the last 3 years, and came up with this proposal for realignment if we do expand. Surprisingly, it is pretty even with keeping the west coast owners in one division, and the east coast owners in the other - for the most part. Here are the divisions as I propose them - with the win totals for the last three years following the team name:
EASTERN DIVISION
Milwaukee - 91
North Carolina - 74
Alexandria - 69
Carolina - 65
Raleigh - 56
Durham - 17
Expansion #1
WESTERN DIVISION
Tattooine - 92
Hanover - 85
Marysville - 69
D-Town - 63
San Diego - 53
Chicago - 33
Expansion #2
That's a total of 372 wins back East and 395 out West.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 5, 2012 8:14:29 GMT -8
That would lower the TOTAL roster amount by 5 players for each team down to 30. That would also free up 60 players, exactly the right amount to cover the two potential new teams.
Eliminating 1 SP and 2 bench spots would also reduce the emphasis on SP's in the league by a small amount.
Doug what this does is not give you the ability move guys in an out.....and it rewards lame duck owners who set the lineup and can care less about the daily lineups...I love the ability to follow my team daily and injury replacements....
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 5, 2012 9:46:51 GMT -8
I like the idea primarily because it opens up more wildcards for the playoffs. That said, I do have some issues/suggestions.
1. I like deep rosters. In terms of cutting the roster:
A) I agree with Joe that 3 backup spots are too low. As a minimum, I would suggest 4 spots - allowing for 2 P and 2 H. In terms of hitters, you basically need a minimum of an IF and OF to give flexibility. 2 pitchers seem reasonable. Of course, everyone manages differently so if someone wanted 3 P or someone wants to take advantage of a catcher to fill a roster spot it is allowed. It also allows for being able to hold onto the 4th bench spot for a player that has a good lefty-right split. Also, with only 3 spots a lot of teams would be forced to drop that prospect that they picked up looking to the future. 4 bench spots is needed and also the bench is a spot for those role players that get drafted at the end (i.e. the back person on my bench shouldn't be an All Star).
B) If we are cutting positions, cut the RP from 6 per team to 4 (or even 3). We now have relievers going back to the back end of bullpens. It is essentially luck each week when you are looking at 72 RP like we do now. With 14 teams and 4 relievers, we would still be at 56 RP or on average half of all relievers are not closers. I think this would also result in more fair values for RP in the draft. Essentially the 5th and 6th RP on each team is already a wash of potential setup men and rookie RP who are starting. Cutting the RP to 4 would be a great improvement.
C) I like 5 OF but see how 4 should be adequate. I would not want additional cuts however. I would also like to keep the CF, RF, LF and OF being specific. It can add some strategy in the draft and pickups.
D) I agree that reducing the SP by 1 slot is a good compromise. I would even consider dropping 2, but I think that reducing the RP by 2 would reduce the number of SP/RP in addition to dropping the 1 SP.
E) I think I am also proposing 5 less players - drop 2 RP, drop 1 SP, drop 1 OF, and drop 1 bench.
2. Two seven team divisions seems fair for baseball with 22 weeks and 2 games per week. I like the split being East-West also. I ran a 14 team FF League for 2 seasons, and the better teams were rewarded as a result. I would propose that each division must have at least 2 teams in the playoff.
3. I do like the idea of playing in Division a few more games than out of Division. Makes those games count more. It also eliminates the 1 team from 1 division and 5 teams from 1 division possibility.
4. Have you considered the idea of the 6th place spot going to another criteria than record. For instance, the FFL I run we use the sites Power Ranking. It allows for a little more competition for the last spot and keeps the 5-9 teams interested longer.
5. Ideally the schedule would let you play everyone in your division the same number of times, but I am having trouble balancing perfectly. Is it possible with CBS to add one or two weeks with a triple header? Once again, I have had to do the same with FF due to a shorter season. Also if the numbers work better by ending the regular season in Week 21 or 20, that could allow some scheduling flexibility for playoffs. Also choosing a Champion in the last week of the season becomes dubious when all the stars on losing teams start being benched.
6. I will stand by my preference that the buy-in stay at $50. With 2 more teams, the pot is already increasing by $100. In Obama's economy incomes are not going up 20% a year (unless you are listening to the DNC speeches).
7. I will have to think about the expansion draft details and if any tweaks make sense. Overall, it seems fair though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 5, 2012 10:59:54 GMT -8
I only have a quick second, but my proposal still leaves 8 bench spots. The reduction in players is 1 OF, 1 SP, 1 RP, and 2 Bench.
I think an 8 man bench would be more than sufficient, considering that DL players do not count against that.
I'll give a more in-depth reply here a bit later....
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 5, 2012 16:36:28 GMT -8
can we expand minors to 5?.......and maybe adjust the salary of players?
lower f/a value?.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug - Tatooine Tusken-Raiders on Sept 6, 2012 11:45:38 GMT -8
I'd be fine with 3 or 5 minor leaguers. Currently the salary for these players is at or below the free agent price, $7, $5 or $3. Maybe add a $6 and $4?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 10, 2012 10:29:18 GMT -8
Here is a quick thought that popped into my head.... to keep the salaries and draft at the same level, we could keep the draft at 35 rounds. The final 5 rounds would be only for Minor Leaguers. So the minor league guys would have values of 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 10, 2012 11:28:07 GMT -8
So will the 1st round picks now be $30 and the 30th round pick is $1 OR are you proposing that we keep the 1st round pick at $35 and the 30th round picks (i.e. the last pick of rostered players) at $6?
Pros for the 1st are that $30 for 30 rounds is easier to explain. At the same time, would the salary of current players be reduced by $5 each? If not, it will be more difficult (finance wise and value wise) to keep Rnd 1-5 players.
In the 2nd scenario, the current values would remain constant and the top level players would be impacted less (indeed fewer picks may mean a little more money). At the same time an adjustment of $7 Free Agents may be necessary so that a free agent doesn't represent a second to last round pick.
In terms of the reduced roster size I am in support, but would really like to see RP reduced by 2-3 instead of 1. If you still want 30 instead of 35, I would consider keeping the 1 OF (or even add back 1 bench) at the expense of the 2nd RP. After all hitting is more fun, and at the bottom of the waiver wire there is at least some predictability and strategy in finding the hot hand in batters, but the there is no such thing as a hot streak for a setup man.
In terms of the minors, I am generally in favor of 5 versus 3. At the same time, I think that you need to find out why some owners do not participate in the minors draft. I could see in a couple years the haves and have nots developing between coaches using the minors and those that don't (Damn, I sound like a Democrat). After all Mike Trout was my minor league call-up this year, and that was a big part of me making the playoffs. Start adding 3 or 4 cheap stars (not even superstars) to teams from the minor leagues and some owners may just want to drop out over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Hanover Headhunters on Sept 10, 2012 14:36:05 GMT -8
i like the idea of two more teams, and i love the idea of a five rd minors draft. however im having a hard time wrapping my mind around the transactions that have already taken place in regaards to draft picks acquired and keepers that would fall in the 30-35 slots. stratigically we have been prepping our transactions towards next yr. and now the rules would change that govern them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintin - Alexandria Beetles on Sept 10, 2012 15:48:18 GMT -8
i'm all for limiting the desire and need for all of the lop sided trades that occur right around the trade deadline. more teams in the play-offs, more play-off teams, limits on draft pick trading, on and on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 10, 2012 18:55:51 GMT -8
I was thinking and the minors draft is great and I like 5 rounds but is there anyway we can add value to these youngsters?....like be able to keep an extra year or extend differently?
I see stud minors guys on minors slots all years since teams dont want to lose a year of eligibility mid year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Hanover Headhunters on Sept 11, 2012 5:44:34 GMT -8
i like mikes point about those who dont participate in the minors. i think it should be mandatory if you dont pick then the commish assigns you the next prospect in line per the baseball america top 100. not to reward those who dont want to participate, but it does become an issue where the rosters are lopsided esp. if we go to five man rosters for minor leagues. im all for going to full minor league rosters myself, 25 man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 11, 2012 16:27:48 GMT -8
I think there should be rules with minors though....
fave them eligible for 4 year extensions but treat them like any other player when they are called up we need to activate them but if they get demoted they can go back on the minors slot
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintin - Alexandria Beetles on Sept 11, 2012 17:50:44 GMT -8
I think there should be rules with minors though.... fave them eligible for 4 year extensions but treat them like any other player when they are called up we need to activate them but if they get demoted they can go back on the minors slot something along these lines would be a nice addition. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Hanover Headhunters on Sept 12, 2012 5:54:07 GMT -8
ive seen this done as well. as long as you have an open minors slot then you could move them back and forth. i would also like the opportunity to backfill a promotrd player by adding another minor leaguer, thus always having a full five. if we designate a percentage of the draft/roster as minors then we should be allowed to add/drop from those slots just like we do at the mlb level right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Hanover Headhunters on Sept 12, 2012 5:56:17 GMT -8
in other words if mike trout ends up in you lineup permenantly, you can add another minor leaguer to your roster. or if you draft an underperforming/injured player you wouldnt be tied to them all year as we have in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 13, 2012 13:34:00 GMT -8
I have been toying with how the schedule would work for 14 teams, and here is what I have come up with. The 2013 MLB season is 26 weeks. We would need 5 weeks for the playoffs, so 21 remain for the regular season.
I have set up the schedule so that each team would play their 6 division rivals 4 times each, and each team in the other division twice. This should create the fairest possible schedule. The problem is that there would be 44 total matchups. So to account for the extra two, weeks 10 and 11 would be triple header weeks. Each team will play 3 matchups. Here is the break down I came up with:
Weeks 1-6: Interdivision games
Weeks 7-9: Interleague games
Weeks 10 & 11: Triple-header weeks (Week 11 will also have one interleague matchup for wach team)
Weeks 10-14: Interdivision games
Week 15: Split week, one interdivision, one interleague game
Weeks 16-18: Interleague games
Weeks 19-21: Interdivision games
Week 22: Playoff round 1: 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5 (Top 2 seeds have byes)
Week 23: Playoff round 2: #1 seed plays lowest seeded winner of week 22, #2 seed plays higher seeded winner of week 22.
Weeks 24-26: Denny's League Championship Series
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 13, 2012 13:35:42 GMT -8
Also, I have rethought the roster changes... and I personally like Mike's idea of eliminating 2 RP's. So my proposal would now be to eliminate 2 RP, 1 SP, 2 Bench.
So, daily you would start 4 SPs and 4 RPs, and have a 8-man bench (Plus DL and Minors, of course).
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 13, 2012 13:52:36 GMT -8
fine.....I want to be clear on what players they can take in expansion,,,,how it effects me for the protecting salary cap and do the expansion guys have to abide by the cap for the expansion?
If not they can take 6 40$ players and more.....
just thinking out loud
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 13, 2012 13:58:44 GMT -8
They would definitely have to abide by the cap. However, they would only be able to take 12 players total... and no current team would lose more than 3 players. Each current team would be able to initially protect 12 players, then protect 2 more when one is selected from their team.
So in other words, I could lose my 13th best keeper, but protect two more, then lose my 16th best, protect two more and lose my 19th best keeper - and thats the maximum I would lose (If I had three players chosen from my squad. Some teams may not have anyone taken from them).
The expansion draft would be held over these boards, over an extended period of time.
**I'm not 100% set on these rules for the expansion draft - they're just my initial thoughts although they're pretty close to how it would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joe - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 13, 2012 14:10:38 GMT -8
I have all high priced players possibly...they take my few cheap studds..that does not help me then.
I made trades before all this expansion talk came up.
as did other teams
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris - D-Town Diamond Dusters on Sept 13, 2012 14:20:02 GMT -8
I made plenty of trades too... but even with hoarding as many cheap players as I did, I currently only have 17 players who I plan to keep. So based on the rules I outlined I would lose at most two of the guys I plan on keeping - one of which would be the second-to-last guy I kept. So while there would be a little damage to each current team I am confident it would be pretty minimal. If we were to not have a expansion draft though, the two new teams would stand almost zero chance of being competitive initially. That is my main concern - giving the newbies the chance to compete right away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 13, 2012 17:58:22 GMT -8
I have been toying with how the schedule would work for 14 teams, and here is what I have come up with. The 2013 MLB season is 26 weeks. We would need 5 weeks for the playoffs, so 21 remain for the regular season. I have set up the schedule so that each team would play their 6 division rivals 4 times each, and each team in the other division twice. This should create the fairest possible schedule. The problem is that there would be 44 total matchups. So to account for the extra two, weeks 10 and 11 would be triple header weeks. Each team will play 3 matchups. Here is the break down I came up with: Weeks 1-6: Interdivision games Weeks 7-9: Interleague games Weeks 10 & 11: Triple-header weeks (Week 11 will also have one interleague matchup for wach team) Weeks 10-14: Interdivision games Week 15: Split week, one interdivision, one interleague game Weeks 16-18: Interleague games Weeks 19-21: Interdivision games Week 22: Playoff round 1: 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5 (Top 2 seeds have byes) Week 23: Playoff round 2: #1 seed plays lowest seeded winner of week 22, #2 seed plays higher seeded winner of week 22. Weeks 24-26: Denny's League Championship Series I really like this suggestion if triple headers are possible. Note that for my FFL, I also used the double header week near the end of the season. Part of it was to avoid bye weeks, but it also kept additional teams in the playoff hunt longer. Also note that I heard that MLB was doing away with having the intra-league games all at once and going to a schedule with an intraleague game held every day of the year. That may affect whether you want to look for the intralegue week. Also note that it may be better not to play the triple header during the intraleague week. There may be some teams willing to pick up DHs that are willing to sweat out 2 games in a week, but going 0-3 may be a heavy penalty for owning a DH. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 13, 2012 18:08:02 GMT -8
I am still confused on salaries with 30 team rosters. Would we leave them the same OR reduce all salaries by $5 to a maximum $30. If left the same, does a $7 keeper count as the 28th round (like now) or 23rd round. Whatever it is, we should try to work it out so 1st round players are worth $30 eventually (& hopefully it doesn't take a few seasons to work out).
My other confusion on the keeper draft. When you say, we can protect our top 12 keepers do you mean (1)we can keep the 12 highest dollar keepers or (2)do we get to choose which 12 players are our best keepers. I can see a situation where a $35 player may be one owners favorite keeper while another has a $7 free agent as their favorite keeper. Given thi salary structure of the league, would a better method than protecting 12 players be to allow each owner to protect X players based on a salary limitation (say $180 or so)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 13, 2012 18:16:47 GMT -8
In terms of the minor leagues, I can see going to 5 OR allowing you to replenish the spot. If we do both, we really are getting into monitoring minor leaguers all year which is more work overall. I like just having 3 (or 5) that are on my bench that I can follow updates on through CBS. It is a much bigger task to monitor the minor league FA wire.
I do like the idea of being able to keep a minor leagur 4 years (essentially 3 plus the half year they are activated).
More critical though is that there be some way to bring a minor leaguer back down if the MLB team demotes a player back to the minors. I would have hated to be keeping a Brandon Belt for 2--3 years, have activated him for this season, and then watching him get demoted to the minors. For the MLB club it is simply a delay, for a FFL owner it is abandoning someone you may have held a couple years. There should be rules and limits (Fantasy can only demote to minors if MLB did AND possibly limit to one time demotion. The minors should be fun, not frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike - N.C. Pine Tar Sluggers on Sept 13, 2012 18:17:39 GMT -8
Is there any way to separate this thread. There is expansion, minors, roster size, etc all embedded above.
|
|
