2018 MLB Off Season Thread

hairnova said:

One thing I'd like to see is the league start to use the draft room on Fantrax for our drafts.

We'd just have to drop any of our unprotected players into free agency and then pick them back up after the draft is complete.

Anyone opposed to this?

Click to expand...

+1

I'd like that as well. So much better than drafting on here.

Might as well implement that then.

We also might want to think about starting some kind of rules committee because I find whenever we wait for votes/opinions from everyone in the league, nothing gets done.

We should also try to think of something to protect against managers doing what GH did.....trade away a ton of his future first round picks, then just bailing.

Montana said:

We should also try to think of something to protect against managers doing what GH did.....trade away a ton of his future first round picks, then just bailing.

Click to expand...

Trading your next 4 first round picks is probably a little excessive for a dynasty league. I don't know if it's as simple as just saying that you can't trade picks more than 2 years ahead of time (which presumably we could edit in the league rules?).

If someone really wants to go all in, we can't really prevent them from doing that - I could have all my future picks around but still have a bare prospect pool and no young talent on the roster, and that might be worse than simply dealing away all my picks. But agreed that it really makes it hard to get someone to come into a real rebuild - back when I thought it might be just B21's team up for grabs, I messaged one or two people, and it's impossible to sell a team when you have to start with "so they were a bottom-4 last year, but doesn't have their first round pick..."

I agree with not allowing teams to deal picks so far into the future. We're currently allowed to trade 2023 picks, let's make it 2-3 years max. (It's an easy fix on Fantrax.)

I'm definitely opposed to limiting the manner in which people can use their assets. As it pertains to B21's team, he had (has) a really strong, young nucleus at the ML level. His team wasn't far off from competing, he took a shot and then got completely destroyed with injuries. I don't think he had any expectation to end up with a top 5 pick again. I figured he'd finish in the top 5, as opposed to the bottom 5, after he made all of his moves early in the year. On top of that, you at least have to give him some credit for recognizing his season was going off the rails and picking up another 1st round pick to help offset the loss of his.

I'm a believer in allowing everyone to manage their team however they see fit. And, limiting their ability to trade picks seems counterintuitive to the point of the league. Next we'd be setting limits on how many top 25 prospects a guy can move in a year. Or how many players under 25 they can sell. I don't think we can intervene on all of that stuff.

I do certainly agree that we should cut down on how many years worth of picks that we have available to us. That'll help remedy the problem. I think a rolling 3 years makes sense overall, but I'd be onboard with whatever the consensus thinks. BUT, you can never safeguard against a guy trading all of his 1st round picks for Mat effing Latos, unless we go to voting on trades. Which is something I don't think anyone wants to do.

From my perspective, we have had two major issues and they basically go hand in hand. We have a quitting issue. And, we have an issue wherein virtually nobody feels as though they have a shot to win, so they end up quitting hahaha.

We're in a position where we can refresh this thing. I'm excited to see how it all shakes out and hopefully the league will get back on track.

I'm also going to throw this out there. I hate the 20 GP limit to gain position eligibility. It's too much and it should be 10. There, I said it. Flame away, fellas hahaha

Tully78 said:

I'm also going to throw this out there. I hate the 20 GP limit to gain position eligibility. It's too much and it should be 10. There, I said it. Flame away, fellas hahaha

Click to expand...

I look at this and for some guys, I'd agree that the 20 is too restrictive. So a guy like Altherr, who's a corner OF who played 19 games in CF, I don't have a problem with him being rated in CF. Even a guy like Matt Olson only played 12 games in RF, but given that he only played 50 games last year, it feels like that should be "enough" to be listed as a RF this year.

But then you get other cases - Freeman played 16 games at 3B. Is that enough that someone should be able to set him as their starting 3B all year this year? Or Rizzo, who played 10 outs at 2B, it feels like a mockery of the system to be able to use him as your starting 2B. Even a guy like Chris Taylor only played 14 games at SS, is that enough that he should take up a starting SS position in the league?

While it's frustrating for building your team, and while it's especially annoying if you have a corner OF who's in the midst of moving from RF to LF or vice versa, it does make for a bit more strategic considerations. And you can still gain eligibility mid-season, so whenever Stanton gets his 10 games in LF he'll start getting carded as a LF for the rest of the season.

As for the other point, I certainly don't want to go down having a veto or voting on trades. The shorter pick trading window is probably a fairly easy thing to do - letting us trade up to 2020 right now is probably fine. For example, Mindz has been rebuilding for a few years now, yet has no changes to his picks in 2020 and beyond. So that would be 3 years, including the current year.

UWHabs said:

Even a guy like Matt Olson only played 12 games in RF, but given that he only played 50 games last year, it feels like that should be "enough" to be listed as a RF this year.

Click to expand...

I feel like Matt Olson is an ideal example of someone our rules perfectly apply to.

He played 43 games last at first base, 12 in RF. He earned dual eligibility last season and could play at both, and this year (to my knowledge) is pegged to be their every day first baseman, while holding only 1b eligibility.

There'd be little logic to him having RF eligibility this season, while potentially rarely/never playing there.......on the other hand, if he was their starting RF this year, and our current set up missed carrying over his eligibility, the "miss" is rectified 10 games into our season when he'd earn it again.

Which is ultimately what our current set up is aiming for.....guys having eligibility at the positions they play full time.

------------

Re:trading draft picks.....I was thinking maybe managers could be allowed to trade picks from any season they've paid for. You pay for this coming season, you can deal your 2019 pick.....want to deal your 2020 too? Prepay for 2020 so we know you aren't bailing....people commited to staying long term, can pay/trade picks as they please....people not fully commited to future years, can trade the picks from the upcoming season.

You own what you've paid for.

Jose Ramirez is slated to be the full time 3B for the Indians this year with Kipnis shifting back as full time 2B. Should we remove Ramirez' 2B eligibility? There's little logic in allowing him to be played there, right?

Of course, I'm just playing devil's advocate, my friend. Not ill intent meant. I'm just saying that we can pretty much make reasonable argument for whichever stance we believe in.

As for only being able to trade picks for the seasons that have been paid for, I can't say that I'm a huge fan of that. But, I can certainly see the value in the idea. It would be an advantage for everyone who wants to pay up, that's for sure. Perhaps it would also help to keep guys in the league long term, as well.

Tully78 said:

Jose Ramirez is slated to be the full time 3B for the Indians this year with Kipnis shifting back as full time 2B. Should we remove Ramirez' 2B eligibility? There's little logic in allowing him to be played there, right?

Click to expand...

In an ideal system yes. If he's a full time 3B in 2018, we would want him to only have 3b eligibility.....In a perfect world.

...but it'd be way too much work for the commish to have to manually adjust for every player that applied to, so we aim for a system that comes closest to what our goals are. Which is guys having eligibility at their primary position.

The fact Jose Ramirez is one of the outliers.....and might benefit from eligibility at a position he won't play this year, but received because he played 70+ games at the position last year.....is the kind of outlier we're fine having.

Lowering the threshold for GP to maintain eligibility year to year tho, only increases the number of potential outliers, where a guy has eligibility at a position he no longer plays. (For one extra year).

I only engage in online debates when statements are wildly absurd hahaha.

While there is certainly a fair amount of conjecture in the above statement, I can see where you are coming from and understand your point. We shall agree to disagree, good sir.

Like I said, if nobody feels the same way as I do, I’m happy to keep it as is.

Montana said:

Re:trading draft picks.....I was thinking maybe managers could be allowed to trade picks from any season they've paid for. You pay for this coming season, you can deal your 2019 pick.....want to deal your 2020 too? Prepay for 2020 so we know you aren't bailing....people commited to staying long term, can pay/trade picks as they please....people not fully commited to future years, can trade the picks from the upcoming season.

You own what you've paid for.

Click to expand...

That's pretty interesting. I really like the concept. It could be a bit of a logistical issue. Someone would have to "hold" that money, and I don't want to.

I haven't chimed in yet but I will now:

- The dispersal draft is great and hopefully it gets the league going again
- Draft room in Fantrax is great as well. Will the draft be conducted in one day then? If so we should set a date soon
- Keep the eligibility as it is, I've really liked the system we have, if we go to 10 games we'll get the crazy eligibility options some players get on Yahoo.
- And I do agree that we should do something about the draft picks, either option Montana suggested would be good. Or simply keep it to 2 years of picks that you can move.

As soon as we can we should start setting dates for everything so people can plan ahead; send out emails, PM's and update the MLB Dynasty Rules.

I agree with everything Matrim said.

We'll set some deadlines soon. I want to give it one more shot to find another manager. I really don't want to contract another team.

All good trying to find another manager, as long as they are a legitimate addition. I’d hate to settle for someone again and end up doing this dance before next season.

I like my managers/teams the same way I like my trades: quality over quantity. Or, drunk. It’s why I love Bull so much, he can help you out with either and/or both qualifications.

Habspatrol said:

That's pretty interesting. I really like the concept. It could be a bit of a logistical issue. Someone would have to "hold" that money, and I don't want to.

Click to expand...

I'm not positive...but I think there might be something that allows for that through Fantrax Treasurer.

Matrim said:

- Draft room in Fantrax is great as well. Will the draft be conducted in one day then? If so we should set a date soon

Click to expand...

No it'd still be a slow draft, we'd just do it directly on Fantrax instead of here.

I think these drafts are far too important to the future of everyone's teams to rattle off in one night... plus you can never get everyone present at one time.

What should we do with future picks, in regards to the dispersal draft?

The 2018 picks are going into the draft but what do we do with 2019/2020/2021?