PDA

View Full Version : MLB Dynasty Farm System



Deckie007
10-02-2014, 09:23 PM
Currently we have 30 MiLB spots.

Options are:

- Keep the same
- Increase to 35
- Increase to another number - specify number if you vote this option

What say you? Votes are public, so if you take the Jonas option we'll all know.

Habspatrol
10-02-2014, 09:43 PM
I think 30 is a pretty good cap.

MindzEye
10-02-2014, 10:04 PM
35-40 is the way to go imo. The bust factor in MLB prospects is massive. There's a reason that MLB teams have 6-7 affiliate teams and not just 1-2 like NHL clubs have.

Montana
10-02-2014, 10:48 PM
Keep as is.....with a 19 team league it'll be difficult enough to keep everyone's interested and engaged for a full season (and managing a squad year after year. We lost 2-3 teams just last year). So adding more minor league spots primarily helps those that pay more attention and are more engaged, ie - the top teams. (If I'm not mistaken we already have teams who don't fill their 30 alloted slots as it is.....or at least I know we did last year)

Mild thing, but I think sticking with what we have slightly helps parity....versus allowing the rich to get richer.


30 man limit also makes for difficult decisions on who to keep and who to cut, resulting in more strategy and a slightly higher difficulty level.

Habspatrol
10-02-2014, 10:59 PM
I agree, and it's not so bad to have some prospects with some promise available on the wire.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 12:06 AM
I agree, and it's not so bad to have some prospects with some promise available on the wire.

There is, without a doubt, 5 future impact players who aren't owned right now. That's just the nature of MLB prospects. There's always going to be prospects with promise available on the wire, always. We could have 50 man prospect groups and legit MLB players would slip through the cracks.

axlsalinger
10-03-2014, 04:30 AM
Keep as is.....with a 19 team league it'll be difficult enough to keep everyone's interested and engaged for a full season (and managing a squad year after year. We lost 2-3 teams just last year). So adding more minor league spots primarily helps those that pay more attention and are more engaged, ie - the top teams. (If I'm not mistaken we already have teams who don't fill their 30 alloted slots as it is.....or at least I know we did last year)

Mild thing, but I think sticking with what we have slightly helps parity....versus allowing the rich to get richer.


30 man limit also makes for difficult decisions on who to keep and who to cut, resulting in more strategy and a slightly higher difficulty level.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:01 AM
There is, without a doubt, 5 future impact players who aren't owned right now. That's just the nature of MLB prospects. There's always going to be prospects with promise available on the wire, always. We could have 50 man prospect groups and legit MLB players would slip through the cracks.

I completely understand what you're saying. I'm in a league that only had 10 minors spots last year and it was painful. We upped it to 20 for next year so that should be better but still I'd like 25 or 30.

Problem is, like Montana said... guys like me, you, Montana and a couple others who spend an unhealthy amount of time looking at prospects will have more and more of an advantage the bigger the system becomes. At some point we need to be forced to make those tough decisions rather than just hoarding more prospects. Is 30 the ideal number? Or is 35 or 40 or 60? I don't know. But imo 30 seems like a very fair number for everyone. You're definitely not forced to drop blue chippers... and with the high bust factor you can weed out your busts from time to time and add more promising kids.

The Green Hornet
10-03-2014, 01:11 PM
i think we should up it to 40 eventually, adding 5 spots in each of the next two drafts.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 03:20 PM
Problem is, like Montana said... guys like me, you, Montana and a couple others who spend an unhealthy amount of time looking at prospects will have more and more of an advantage the bigger the system becomes.

I mean this sincerely: This is a cash league, **** anyone who isn't willing to do the leg work to find prospects. If you don't want to put in the work, you don't deserve the spoils.


At some point we need to be forced to make those tough decisions rather than just hoarding more prospects. Is 30 the ideal number? Or is 35 or 40 or 60? I don't know. But imo 30 seems like a very fair number for everyone. You're definitely not forced to drop blue chippers... and with the high bust factor you can weed out your busts from time to time and add more promising kids.

30 isn't enough for someone willing to put in that work. Nobody is required to put in that work, but if others are willing to, to their advantage, why are we limiting them to 30? I can very honestly state that I don't have a single prospect worth dropping, and could immediately add 15 or more that most owners would agree, are worth owning. Like I mentioned previously, there's a reason why MLB clubs have a half dozen affiliates instead of just 1-2.

I'm already in a position where I'd have to drop some pretty good ****ing prospects just to fit my draft picks in. Who do I cut? Pretty much everyone I have is on their MLB clubs top 10 prospects list this season, or projects to be next season. Why are we nerfing the league to make it needlessly harder for the owners willing to put in more work?

IMO, when you start making rules because "people don't want to have to try harder in a league where the winner gets 350-400 bucks", you're making rules for the wrong reason.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 03:20 PM
i think we should up it to 40 eventually, adding 5 spots in each of the next two drafts.

This is what I agree with. I would be fine with it stopping at 40.

Blueman
10-03-2014, 03:22 PM
I like 30, and cash or not cash, that is plenty with 19 teams.

Make a tough decision. I dropped Pompey this year, big whoop. Make the call and move on.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 03:26 PM
You made an ugly mistake, not a "tough decision". Pompey wasn't your 30th best prospect. Let's not conflate the two.

Blueman
10-03-2014, 03:28 PM
I made a decision, you may think it is an ugly mistake. I don't really care if it was. My point is that I had to make a decision which, as it turns out, was good for the league.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 03:31 PM
I mean this sincerely: This is a cash league, **** anyone who isn't willing to do the leg work to find prospects. If you don't want to put in the work, you don't deserve the spoils.



30 isn't enough for someone willing to put in that work. Nobody is required to put in that work, but if others are willing to, to their advantage, why are we limiting them to 30? I can very honestly state that I don't have a single prospect worth dropping, and could immediately add 15 or more that most owners would agree, are worth owning. Like I mentioned previously, there's a reason why MLB clubs have a half dozen affiliates instead of just 1-2.

I'm already in a position where I'd have to drop some pretty good ****ing prospects just to fit my draft picks in. Who do I cut? Pretty much everyone I have is on their MLB clubs top 10 prospects list this season, or projects to be next season. Why are we nerfing the league to make it needlessly harder for the owners willing to put in more work?

IMO, when you start making rules because "people don't want to have to try harder in a league where the winner gets 350-400 bucks", you're making rules for the wrong reason.

Hey, I'm one of the guys that thinks these should be daily change leagues but most seemed to want to cut down on the amount of time they had to put in to compete. This falls into the same category.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 03:38 PM
Hey, I'm one of the guys that thinks these should be daily change leagues but most seemed to want to cut down on the amount of time they had to put in to compete. This falls into the same category.

I think the difference is choice vs necessity.

I choose to dig for prospects because I can do it on my time (I spend a lot of time in airports, and one of things I like to do during that time is hit the prospect blogs and stats sites hard), I don't want to play in a daily league because I don't want my potential success to be chained to my ability to set my lineups daily. I often pull 105+ hour weeks, where my fantasy team is the furthest thing from my mind.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 03:46 PM
I think the difference is choice vs necessity.

I choose to dig for prospects because I can do it on my time (I spend a lot of time in airports, and one of things I like to do during that time is hit the prospect blogs and stats sites hard), I don't want to play in a daily league because I don't want my potential success to be chained to my ability to set my lineups daily. I often pull 105+ hour weeks, where my fantasy team is the furthest thing from my mind.

So more minor spots works better for you. Daily changes works better for me. And really, you can still continue with your hobby. It's not like having a watch list full of good prospects is a bad thing.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 04:02 PM
So more minor spots works better for you. Daily changes works better for me. And really, you can still continue with your hobby. It's not like having a watch list full of good prospects is a bad thing.

The thing that works better for me, has no impact on league scoring aside from potential generation of roster players. The thing that works better for you, could mean dozens of additional points per season in gap between our teams because I work 14-15 hr a day shut downs a bunch of times a year.

Like I said...the difference between choice & necessity. I could choose to read up on the Texas Rangers farm system today and do stat digging, with no immediate consequence should I not, vs the the very real consequence of being at an immediate competitive disadvantage by not being able to pay as much attention to my lineup as you can. Just a quick example...platoons. You would have the ability, in a daily league, to carry platoon bats on your bench and match them up Vs the appropriate pitching. I'm simply not able to manage my team in that way when I'm at work.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 04:43 PM
The thing that works better for me, has no impact on league scoring aside from potential generation of roster players. The thing that works better for you, could mean dozens of additional points per season in gap between our teams because I work 14-15 hr a day shut downs a bunch of times a year.
Well there's still a games played cap so ultimately it would boil down to a matter of me preferring this player over that player on any given day. So you could set your lineup for the week and leave it if you please, and change it midweek if you want even if you don't set your lineup every day like I do.


Like I said...the difference between choice & necessity. I could choose to read up on the Texas Rangers farm system today and do stat digging, with no immediate consequence should I not, vs the the very real consequence of being at an immediate competitive disadvantage by not being able to pay as much attention to my lineup as you can. Just a quick example...platoons. You would have the ability, in a daily league, to carry platoon bats on your bench and match them up Vs the appropriate pitching. I'm simply not able to manage my team in that way when I'm at work.

You having all that extra time in airports and whatnot to devote to studying prospects gives you a much bigger advantage the bigger the roster gets.

This is definitely a case of you arguing for what's best for you rather than what's best for the league. Hell it would be better for my team too since I also spend a fair bit of time researching prospects.

axlsalinger
10-03-2014, 04:50 PM
There is no legitimate reason to have more than 30 minor league spots in a league this big.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 05:13 PM
If we're truly trying to mimic MLB there absolutely is a good reason to do it. I'd love to have 50 spots. That being said, if the majority of the league wants it capped at 30, that's what we'll do. I will point out that our hockey league has 500 minor league spots with a shorter development curve and this league has 570 with a much longer curve, which makes little sense. No way the gap between baseball and hockey should be that little given the huge gap between depth of talent and sheer playable players between the two along with the typically longer development time. It's perfectly acceptable for a baseball player to take 5 + years to develop out of high school. If a hockey player (outside of goalies) takes that long out of junior, he's usually called a bust.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 06:19 PM
If we're truly trying to mimic MLB there absolutely is a good reason to do it. I'd love to have 50 spots. That being said, if the majority of the league wants it capped at 30, that's what we'll do. I will point out that our hockey league has 500 minor league spots with a shorter development curve and this league has 570 with a much longer curve, which makes little sense. No way the gap between baseball and hockey should be that little given the huge gap between depth of talent and sheer playable players between the two along with the typically longer development time. It's perfectly acceptable for a baseball player to take 5 + years to develop out of high school. If a hockey player (outside of goalies) takes that long out of junior, he's usually called a bust.

Well lets be honest with ourselves here. We're kinda trying to mimic baseball/hockey in these leagues but there are a lot of things we definitely don't try to match for various reasons. Most notably the weekly changes. Hell, there are several times a year that you'll miss a whole weeks worth of production cause a player will get injured on Monday or Tuesday. Or one of your star players will return from injury on a Tuesday and you're stuck with a scrub instead of your stud.

The draft itself is way different than the NHL and MLB drafts. We draft current players off other people's teams.

Our roster sizes are not the same as MLB/NHL either.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 06:30 PM
Our roster sizes are not the same as MLB/NHL either.


The MLB roster is...I designed it that way :)

25 man roster
5 man pitching staff
5 man BP

8 starting batting positions
1 util (essentially DH)

6 reserves to be split among batters/pitching depending on the manager's preference.


The draft itself is way different than the NHL and MLB drafts. We draft current players off other people's teams.


That's as closely as you can mimic FA in a dynasty league without a cap.

You keep harping on the lineup thing, cause I know it would benefit you greatly, but I love the weekly lineup. Hell, I've dumped a bunch of my daily leagues because I prefer the weekly ones due to their not needing to be micro managed daily. I'm like Mindz. I love scouting, scouring Fangraphs and Baseball reference to find diamonds in the rough.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 07:30 PM
There is no legitimate reason to have more than 30 minor league spots in a league this big.

Sure there is. I don't have any prospects worth dropping, have multiple young players on my big league roster that qualify for the minors (despite finishing 5th)....and have draft picks coming up with no room to put any of them.

How is that not legitimate? These leagues started out as a bunch of guys shit talking over who had the best eye for young talent. I'm trying to prove that's me.

The Green Hornet
10-03-2014, 07:44 PM
Problem is, like Montana said... guys like me, you, Montana and a couple others who spend an unhealthy amount of time looking at prospects will have more and more of an advantage the bigger the system becomes. At some point we need to be forced to make those tough decisions rather than just hoarding more prospects. Is 30 the ideal number? Or is 35 or 40 or 60? I don't know. But imo 30 seems like a very fair number for everyone. You're definitely not forced to drop blue chippers... and with the high bust factor you can weed out your busts from time to time and add more promising kids.

i really hate this line of thinking. why are we bubble wrapping our kids for **** sakes? that is the one thing i dislike about our leagues here, is the coddling of other managers. if you put in more time studying prospects and think you have an advantage in finding them why should you be punished over somebody who can't be bother to even fill out there full minor leagues? why are we protecting managers who make bad drops or **** up their protected list. its a competitive money league

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 07:50 PM
i really hate this line of thinking. why are we bubble wrapping our kids for **** sakes? that is the one thing i dislike about our leagues here, is the coddling of other managers. if you put in more time studying prospects and think you have an advantage in finding them why should you be punished over somebody who can't be bother to even fill out there full minor leagues? why are we protecting managers who make bad drops or **** up their protected list. its a competitive money league

Agree with most of this. Seems ludicrous we limit the amount of prospects someone can collect to a unreasonably small amount because some managers aren't interested in doing their homework. It's not helping the lazy managers, it's punishing the good ones, and that's not what these leagues are about.

axlsalinger
10-03-2014, 07:58 PM
19 teams x 55-man rosters = 1045 owned players. Even if this league was comprised of MLB scouts and a $1000 entry fee, that is still more than enough owned players.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 08:10 PM
You keep harping on the lineup thing, cause I know it would benefit you greatly, but I love the weekly lineup. Hell, I've dumped a bunch of my daily leagues because I prefer the weekly ones due to their not needing to be micro managed daily.

I'd prefer daily lineup changes because of the injury issue mainly and partially matchups... but I'm by no means trying to talk anyone into going to daily because I know that a bunch of you prefer weekly even though it significantly different than the NHL/MLB. They don't set their lineup Monday and have to live and die with it no matter the injuries or matchups.

And being able to replace an injured player is not micro managing... it's flat out basic managing/coaching.


I'm like Mindz. I love scouting, scouring Fangraphs and Baseball reference to find diamonds in the rough.
Hey I'm with you... and we have 30 spots to fill up. But I'm not so sure everyone has the time and they've prefer not needing to micro scout in order to fill 40-50 spots.

hairnova
10-03-2014, 08:18 PM
There's also an option to set lineups to semi-weekly.

Montana
10-03-2014, 08:21 PM
I'm like Mindz. I love scouting, scouring Fangraphs and Baseball reference to find diamonds in the rough.

This is a league 1,000+ players deep with 570 of them being minor leaguers.....this literally describes every manager in the league.

To pretend that because some managers who aren't in competition don't feel like spending an equal amount hours learning about the 600th best prospect in the minors, doesn't mean they don't love all of the things you just mentioned.

To try and pretend that's the case, or to imply they're somehow being "coddled" as GH said....is just being disengenuous.

Blueman
10-03-2014, 08:40 PM
there's a strategy for 30 man farm teams. embrace it. use it to your advantage.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 08:57 PM
This is a league 1,000+ players deep with 570 of them being minor leaguers.....this literally describes every manager in the league.

To pretend that because some managers who aren't in competition don't feel like spending an equal amount hours learning about the 600th best prospect in the minors, doesn't mean they don't love all of the things you just mentioned.

To try and pretend that's the case, or to imply they're somehow being "coddled" as GH said....is just being disengenuous.

Ok....so why no more spots? If all the managers are scouting heavily, why shouldn't we allow for more minor spots? Surely that would benefit everyone, no matter where they are in the standings? Don't managers lower in the standings need more kicks at the can to rise?

Montana
10-03-2014, 09:06 PM
The idea that you're not doing any scouting unless you're able to work your way down to the 600th best players in the minors, is absurd.

Hell, no one has used their prospects to their advantage more than I have.....I literally just won the title off of my ability picking prospects. I realize that what's best for me and my interests isn't nexessarily going to be what's best for the league as a whole.

With 19 managers, we're going to have people with varrying levels of interest and more importantly free time, to immerse themselves in knowledge of guys outside the top 600 prospects. Doesn't mean they're bad managers tho, or aren't quality members of our league.

It's not a binary discussion where those happy with 30 prospects don't love scouting, and only those that want unlimited slots visit Fangraphs or read baseball prospectus.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:05 PM
This is a league 1,000+ players deep with 570 of them being minor leaguers.....this literally describes every manager in the league.

To pretend that because some managers who aren't in competition don't feel like spending an equal amount hours learning about the 600th best prospect in the minors, doesn't mean they don't love all of the things you just mentioned.

To try and pretend that's the case, or to imply they're somehow being "coddled" as GH said....is just being disengenuous.

Then those owners don't have to engage in it, why hold back those that want to? If it matters as little as I keep being told here, surely there's no reason to keep us from doing it? There's no requirement to hold 40 prospects...if you want 20, have 20...30...sure why not? 12? Whatever floats your boat.

There's a reason to want additional slots, and none to oppose it. Nobody 'has' to use them.

Montana
10-03-2014, 10:09 PM
I definitely wouldn't argue there's not benefit to it......in fact I've been arguing the complete opposite.

Making a change solely to benefit a handful of us, and detriment of the rest, isn't a change I have any interest in.

It's not about me, what's best for me, what makes my team even better......it's what I think is best for the entire 19 managers, and specifically the longevity of the league and continuity of managers from season to season.

I don't want to see the league continuing to bleed managers every year, with it being harder and harder to find people willing to pay to take over shittier and shittier teams with barren minor league systems.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:11 PM
there's a strategy for 30 man farm teams. embrace it. use it to your advantage.



I don't really think you should be...you know....talking here. Anyone who drops Dalton Pompey in the middle of a break out season clearly doesn't speak from any sort of expertise when it comes to prospect farming.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:13 PM
I definitely wouldn't argue there's not benefit to it......in fact I've been arguing the complete opposite.

Making a change solely to benefit a handful of us, and detriment of the rest, isn't a change I have any interest in.

Everyone can use the slots. It benefits anyone who wants to spend the time. If you aren't interested, don't use them.

axlsalinger
10-03-2014, 10:15 PM
I definitely wouldn't argue there's not benefit to it......in fact I've been arguing the complete opposite.

Making a change solely to benefit a handful of us, and detriment of the rest, isn't a change I have any interest in.

It's not about me, what's best for me, what makes my team even better......it's what I think is best for the entire 19 managers, and specifically the longevity of the league and continuity of managers from season to season.

I don't want to see the league continuing to bleed managers every year, with it being harder and harder to find people willing to pay to take over shittier and shittier teams with barren minor league systems.

Once again, this.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised this point is so hard for people to understand.

Montana
10-03-2014, 10:16 PM
It benefits anyone who wants to spend the time.


No sh*t, haha.


I'm saying we shouldn't institute a rule just so a handful of us can increase of chances of success even more. If 19 guys wanted such a rule, obviously I'd be all for it. Especially since I'd benefit the most.

Like I say, such things aren't always about we want invidually.....but what's best for the entire 19 teams.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:17 PM
So...um...by not allowing managers to add to their talent bases we make sure the league stays competitive?

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:20 PM
Once again, this.

To be honest, I'm a little surprised this point is so hard for people to understand.


Because having more slots = better for teams at the bottom.

The more young guys a rebuilding team can stash, the better.

This isn't the NHL where a bunch of top 5 picks means much of **** all to a rebuilding club. if other owners don't understand that, I don't really know what else to say. "Tanking" doesn't really work in the NHL often, in MLB it's a hilarious strategy. The only way for the bottom tier clubs to get out of the bottom is to stockpile as many young players as they can.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:21 PM
I don't really think you should be...you know....talking here. Anyone who drops Dalton Pompey in the middle of a break out season clearly doesn't speak from any sort of expertise when it comes to prospect farming.

He's a member of the league... and he definitely has every right to talk here.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:22 PM
Everyone can use the slots. It benefits anyone who wants to spend the time. If you aren't interested, don't use them.

Everyone can make daily changes, it benefits anyone who wants to spend the time. If you aren't interested, don't change your lineup daily.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:24 PM
He's a member of the league... and he definitely has every right to talk here.

Of course he does, but if he's going to dismiss the opinions of other owners like he has, he deserves to get reminded that his track record doesn't really support his opinion meaning for much of **** all.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:25 PM
Because having more slots = better for teams at the bottom.

The more young guys a rebuilding team can stash, the better.

This isn't the NHL where a bunch of top 5 picks means much of **** all to a rebuilding club. if other owners don't understand that, I don't really know what else to say. "Tanking" doesn't really work in the NHL often, in MLB it's a hilarious strategy. The only way for the bottom tier clubs to get out of the bottom is to stockpile as many young players as they can.

But many of the teams at the bottom don't have the time or knowledge to dig 700-900 prospects deep. The few of us at the top are into that shit and we'd be reaping the benefits more than the rest.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:26 PM
No sh*t, haha.


I'm saying we shouldn't institute a rule just so a handful of us can increase of chances of success even more. If 19 guys wanted such a rule, obviously I'd be all for it. Especially since I'd benefit the most.

Like I say, such things aren't always about we want invidually.....but what's best for the entire 19 teams.

I'm still having a hard time figuring this out.

Manager 1 spends 30 minutes a week checking on his minor league team and checking a scouting blog here and there. He wants to increase the minor league spots.
Manager 2 just wants to draft his 5 players a year and set his lineup weekly, doing add/drops here and there when needed. He wants to keep things the same.

Should manager 2 be catered to because he doesn't want to do any research to improve his long term outlook?

That's what I'm seeing suggested.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:28 PM
But many of the teams at the bottom don't have the time or knowledge to dig 700-900 prospects deep. The few of us at the top are into that shit and we'd be reaping the benefits more than the rest.

So you're saying that no one near the bottom is "into baseball enough" or smart enough to scout?

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:31 PM
Of course he does, but if he's going to dismiss the opinions of other owners like he has, he deserves to get reminded that his track record doesn't really support his opinion meaning for much of **** all.

And really, a guy like him who may not be as savvy/interested when it comes to prospects, or have the time for spending hours a week/month researching 700, 800, 900 prospects deep are exactly the guys that are going to be hurt more and more the deeper we go.

By no means would I suggest that we have a shallow system of 10 or 15... but 30 is quite significant. You still benefit greatly from your knowledge/interest in deep prospects. You can flip guys that are coming of age and add more of the prospects you like from your deep watch list... and add others to your starting lineup. But if we keep going deeper guy like you and me are gaining more and more of an advantage.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:32 PM
Everyone can make daily changes, it benefits anyone who wants to spend the time. If you aren't interested, don't change your lineup daily.

You're like a dog with a bone on this one. There are 7 weekly deadlines you need to meet with a daily lineup league. Not everyone's schedule permits that. Research can be done at any time for any amount of time the manager is willing or able to put into it. Some love scouting, some just want to check BA's top 100 list every few months. Others are in between. If I work a lot of hours or travel a tonne, taking advantage of platoons, etc. is difficult and most definitely gives managers with more time on their hands a leg up.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:32 PM
So you're saying that no one near the bottom is "into baseball enough" or smart enough to scout?

No I'm not saying that, or I would have said that. I'm saying many of the teams at the bottom don't have the time or knowledge to dig 700-900 prospects deep.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 10:35 PM
knowledge ≠ intelligence ?

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:41 PM
And really, a guy like him who may not be as savvy/interested when it comes to prospects, or have the time for spending hours a week/month researching 700, 800, 900 prospects deep are exactly the guys that are going to be hurt more and more the deeper we go.

Then they're being hurt now by a 30 man system. If they're not willing to put in the work to manage 40, they're probably not managing 30 and they'll stay in the bottom end of the standings for a long time.



By no means would I suggest that we have a shallow system of 10 or 15... but 30 is quite significant. You still benefit greatly from your knowledge/interest in deep prospects. You can flip guys that are coming of age and add more of the prospects you like from your deep watch list... and add others to your starting lineup. But if we keep going deeper guy like you and me are gaining more and more of an advantage.

It's an advantage we already have, that there's only one way to counter. By said owners getting involved in managing their prospect groups.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:44 PM
You're like a dog with a bone on this one. There are 7 weekly deadlines you need to meet with a daily lineup league. Not everyone's schedule permits that. Research can be done at any time for any amount of time the manager is willing or able to put into it. Some love scouting, some just want to check BA's top 100 list every few months. Others are in between.

And you're like a dodgeball player dodging a clear parallel. You're rationalizing the expanded system cause it fits your interests while dismissing the daily changes cause it doesn't fit your interests.

In a daily change league you can set your lineup once a week and leave it. Or you can go through the entire week and change the individual days. It can be done at any time for any amount of time the manager is willing or able to put into it. With games played limits you gain no statistical advantage, just the advantage that your research/knowledge gives you.

Again, I'm not fighting for daily changes because I know that many don't want it... but it's exactly the same as the expanded rosters. In fact it's not as impactful. I can use daily changes to gain an advantage in any given week cause I paid more attention than the next guy... but if he decides to start paying more attention he can instantly rectify the situation. With adding more and more minors spots the actual quality of the teams of the few of us who do a lot of research continues to get further and further ahead of the guys who don't have as much time/interest in digging 700-900+ prospects deep.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:48 PM
Then they're being hurt now by a 30 man system. If they're not willing to put in the work to manage 40, they're probably not managing 30 and they'll stay in the bottom end of the standings for a long time.
You're right, but we need to draw the line somewhere. Imo 30 is the number, some may think 10, 20 or 60. I'm arguing that 30 is that number.



It's an advantage we already have, that there's only one way to counter. By said owners getting involved in managing their prospect groups.

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I wish everyone was super invested in these leagues and played it 100% all out all year every year like I do. But widening the advantage that I already have due to my unhealthy passion for fantasy sports isn't the way to make that happen.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:48 PM
knowledge ≠ intelligence ?

?

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 10:51 PM
I'm still having a hard time figuring this out.

Manager 1 spends 30 minutes a week checking on his minor league team and checking a scouting blog here and there. He wants to increase the minor league spots.
Manager 2 just wants to draft his 5 players a year and set his lineup weekly, doing add/drops here and there when needed. He wants to keep things the same.

Should manager 2 be catered to because he doesn't want to do any research to improve his long term outlook?

That's what I'm seeing suggested.

Manager 1 already has an "advantage" based on his interest/knowledge and would increase said advantage by changing the current settings.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 10:55 PM
In a daily change league you can set your lineup once a week and leave it

Yes, but you're at a distinct disadvantage every time there is any reason to make a roster change that you miss. Like I also pointed out, in baseball, if would give someone else the ability to play platoons...which could be a huge advantage over owners who didn't have the ability.

You've really yet to address any of the points I've made about this, but continue to use this as some sort of parallel...which for reasons I've pointed out, it isn't.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:04 PM
And you're like a dodgeball player dodging a clear parallel. You're rationalizing the expanded system cause it fits your interests while dismissing the daily changes cause it doesn't fit your interests.

In a daily change league you can set your lineup once a week and leave it. Or you can go through the entire week and change the individual days. It can be done at any time for any amount of time the manager is willing or able to put into it. With games played limits you gain no statistical advantage, just the advantage that your research/knowledge gives you.

Again, I'm not fighting for daily changes because I know that many don't want it... but it's exactly the same as the expanded rosters. In fact it's not as impactful. I can use daily changes to gain an advantage in any given week cause I paid more attention than the next guy... but if he decides to start paying more attention he can instantly rectify the situation. With adding more and more minors spots the actual quality of the teams of the few of us who do a lot of research continues to get further and further ahead of the guys who don't have as much time/interest in digging 700-900+ prospects deep.

You always say that. The two aren't parallels. Being able to make injury or platoon subs mid week is huge. It also would downright dishonest to change it to a daily league as the league was sold to prospective managers as a weekly league focusing on team development and talent evaluation, not whether you can get home before 7pm to make sure your lineup is set. I've always made it clear that I wanted to expand the minor league slots. But I did say it would be subject to review, so we're reviewing.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:05 PM
Manager 1 already has an "advantage" based on his interest/knowledge and would increase said advantage by changing the current settings.

When you learn about google it's gonna blow your mind.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:06 PM
Yes, but you're at a distinct disadvantage every time there is any reason to make a roster change that you miss. Like I also pointed out, in baseball, if would give someone else the ability to play platoons...which could be a huge advantage over owners who didn't have the ability.

You've really yet to address any of the points I've made about this, but continue to use this as some sort of parallel...which for reasons I've pointed out, it isn't.

Why am I at an advantage? Everyone is allowed to make changes. We all still have a gp cap. And lets not act like you're unable to get online for days at a time every week. I see you on here virtually every single day, just like almost every other manager in this league. If you like I can go through the logs and tell you exactly how many days in the past 3 months you haven't been on.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:09 PM
No I'm not saying that, or I would have said that. I'm saying many of the teams at the bottom don't have the time or knowledge to dig 700-900 prospects deep.

Cool. Can I see the results of your survey of said managers? I'm sure you asked them all and wouldn't assume their incompetence and lack of time.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:10 PM
When you learn about google it's gonna blow your mind.

Again, I'm one of the guys that would benefit most from an increase. However, it seems that many other managers don't have the time/desire to dig 1000 prospects deep.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:11 PM
Why am I at an advantage? Everyone is allowed to make changes. We all still have a gp cap. And lets not act like you're unable to get online for days at a time every week. I see you on here virtually every single day, just like almost every other manager in this league. If you like I can go through the logs and tell you exactly how many days in the past 3 months you haven't been on.

Mindz isn't arguing this for him. He's doing it for all the poor managers near the bottom that don't have the time or knowledge to set their lineups daily.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:12 PM
Cool. Can I see the results of your survey of said managers? I'm sure you asked them all and wouldn't assume their incompetence and lack of time.




Increase to 35
3 30.00%

Increase to ?
1 10.00%

Keep the Same (30)
6 60.00%

Plus 9 managers didn't have the time/interest to reply.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:14 PM
Plus 9 managers didn't have the time/interest to reply.

But you, Montana, and Axl are 50% of that 6. So basically, 2 unknown managers + Blueman, and 9 managers who didn't reply yet because they don't frequent the board. You work for Fox News?

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:16 PM
But you, Montana, and Axl are 50% of that 6. So basically, 3 unknown managers. You work for Fox News?

But it's just you Mindz and GH who voted for an increase.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 11:18 PM
And lets not act like you're unable to get online for days at a time every week. I see you on here virtually every single day

Are you ****ing serious? I go radio silent pretty frequently for a few days at a time. You don't notice when I'm not here for a day or two though, so let's not be dishonest and pretend that you keep track of how many times I miss a day or two.

Of all the ridiculous bullshit arguments.

Let's also not pretend that sneaking a few short posts at various parts of the day requires the same effort as accessing a site that doesn't get through work place web filters, to manage the daily minutiae of a fantasy baseball team.

Like I've said a few times now. It's choice Vs necessity. I can choose to scouting prospects at my leisure (which is kind of a big deal when you're working 13-15 hour days pretty regularly), whereas I'd have no ****ing choice but to manage my roster well on a daily basis if I wanted to remain competitive with the top clubs in the league.

Deckie007
10-03-2014, 11:20 PM
But it's just you Mindz and GH who voted for an increase.

Nope...a 4th person voted for an increase, just not 35. So it's 6/4

Why do we assume the missing 9 will all vote for the status quo?

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:27 PM
Are you ****ing serious? I go radio silent pretty frequently for a few days at a time. You don't notice when I'm not here for a day or two though, so let's not be dishonest and pretend that you keep track of how many times I miss a day or two.

Of all the ridiculous bullshit arguments.

Eeeeaaasy tiger. I didn't literally mean that I keep track of you and you're here every day... but you're here virtually every day. Honestly... you figure how many days a month do you have internet access? 20? 25? 28? Definitely more than enough to set up your lineup.

Point being that you don't want daily changes cause it doesn't benefit you, but you want as many minor league spots as possible because it does benefit you.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:28 PM
Nope...a 4th person voted for an increase, just not 35. So it's 6/4

Why do we assume the missing 9 will all vote for the status quo?

I don't. I just said that they haven't had the time/interest to vote yet.

MindzEye
10-03-2014, 11:38 PM
Eeeeaaasy tiger. I didn't literally mean that I keep track of you and you're here every day... but you're here virtually every day. Honestly... you figure how many days a month do you have internet access? 20? 25? 28? Definitely more than enough to set up your lineup.

How do you not get this though? it's not about being online enough to set my lineups, it's about pretty regularly not having the ability to make the lineup changes that make daily lineup changes appealing. The benefit of daily over weekly is that you can use platoons, switch out injured, suspended, resting players, etc and not lose the points. Especially with my losing 2 hours to EST time change, that would be a huge disadvantage for me...on top of having to find a way to access a site that I can't get at work by 5pm (when I work until 6:30+ most nights) to make the type of changes that other owners would thrive off of.


Point being that you don't want daily changes cause it doesn't benefit you, but you want as many minor league spots as possible because it does benefit you.

I don't want daily changes because it's a massive disadvantage for me, not because it simply doesn't "benefit" me. I want more minor league spots because the nature of baseball's prospect development almost makes it a necessity if we're trying to do things right. Deckie pointed it out earlier pretty well. It's pretty ridiculous that our hockey league is 25 deep in a 20 team league, and our baseball league is 30 man deep in a 19 team league. The gulf between the two leagues when it comes to development of prospects is ****ing immense. In the NHL, Zetterburg & Datsyuk are scouting freaks of nature....all star players taken outside of the first 200 picks in the draft? Insane. In MLB that's almost an annual occurrence.

Habspatrol
10-03-2014, 11:48 PM
At this point I think we've all more than stated our cases. Guess we'll see what happens with the vote.

Honestly I'd love to have seen a 19-0 vote in favour of expanding to 50 spots. That would mean that everyone is fully invested in and interested in scouring 1000 prospects deep to do everything they can possibly do to be as competitive in the long term as possible. I just don't believe that we have that many people that are THAT committed.

axlsalinger
10-03-2014, 11:52 PM
We don't. But I don't think even most dynasty leagues comprised of hardcore prospect junkies have that many minor league spots.

Montana
10-04-2014, 12:00 AM
This is unquestionably in the top 0.01% of leagues that have this kind of depth of prospects.....which is why it's kinda silly to paint managers who are in this league and active, as somehow being lesser managers if they don't wish to further expand their knowledge base of prospects to the 600-800 range.

The Green Hornet
10-04-2014, 07:47 AM
the smaller the prospect pool the bigger the advantage for the top teams who are most likely to trade prospects as there is a better quality of prospect available to replenish the system with. if you like the prospects kept to 30 that's fine but lets please stop pretending it is for the benefit of the teams at the bottom

Metalleaf
10-04-2014, 11:11 AM
I voted for 35 as I felt the increase wasn't super ridiculous.

axlsalinger
10-04-2014, 01:52 PM
the smaller the prospect pool the bigger the advantage for the top teams who are most likely to trade prospects as there is a better quality of prospect available to replenish the system with. if you like the prospects kept to 30 that's fine but lets please stop pretending it is for the benefit of the teams at the bottom

There are 570 prospect keepers, which is a ridiculously large amount. As Montana mentioned, it is silly that some people are actually pretending that this is a "small" number.

MindzEye
10-04-2014, 02:06 PM
There are 570 prospect keepers, which is a ridiculously large amount. As Montana mentioned, it is silly that some people are actually pretending that this is a "small" number.

When you consider that our hockey league has 500 and that functions pretty well, then consider the massive difference between MLB & NHL prospect development, 570 starts to feel kind of small in a hurry. I mean, nobody batted a ****ing eyelash about increasing to 25 per team in the NHL league.

Habspatrol
10-04-2014, 02:16 PM
the smaller the prospect pool the bigger the advantage for the top teams who are most likely to trade prospects as there is a better quality of prospect available to replenish the system with. if you like the prospects kept to 30 that's fine but lets please stop pretending it is for the benefit of the teams at the bottom

That's about the dumbest and most blatant spin job I've ever seen.

Impressive.

The Green Hornet
10-04-2014, 02:49 PM
That's about the dumbest and most blatant spin job I've ever seen.

Impressive.


its a completely dishonest bullshit argument to say limiting the prospects is to the benefit of the teams at the bottom of the standings

Habspatrol
10-04-2014, 02:50 PM
its a completely dishonest bullshit argument to say limiting the prospects is to the benefit of the teams at the bottom of the standings

But of course you know that is not what I was arguing.

Sid Bream's Wheels
10-04-2014, 03:01 PM
I voted to up the limit. I thought this was decided at the beginning of the year. In one of the threads it was stated that we were upping to 35 for 2015. I made trades at the end of this year with that in mind.

I don't think an increased limit helps the top teams over the bottom ones. The teams that will do well are the teams that are more active with trades and on the wire. This is how it should be.

Habspatrol
10-04-2014, 03:09 PM
I voted to up the limit. I thought this was decided at the beginning of the year. In one of the threads it was stated that we were upping to 35 for 2015. I made trades at the end of this year with that in mind.

I don't think an increased limit helps the top teams over the bottom ones. The teams that will do well are the teams that are more active with trades and on the wire. This is how it should be.

Please don't allow anyone to misconstrue the argument being made. Nobody is claiming that it helps the teams at the top over the teams at the bottom. It's that it helps the teams with more time and interest in digging 700, 800, 900 prospects deep.

When these leagues (NHL as well) were created a lot of managers talked about not wanting to have to invest a ridiculous amount of time on them.

Ironically I am one of the guys that spends a shitload of time on these leagues and personally wouldn't mind an increase but it just doesn't seem fair to me. That said, if some of these other people don't speak up soon I'm going to stop wasting my time on this argument and get back to studying prospects.

The Green Hornet
10-04-2014, 03:25 PM
So adding more minor league spots primarily helps those that pay more attention and are more engaged, ie - the top teams.


To pretend that because some managers who aren't in competition don't feel like spending an equal amount hours learning about the 600th best prospect in the minors, doesn't mean they don't love all of the things you just mentioned.


But many of the teams at the bottom don't have the time or knowledge to dig 700-900 prospects deep. The few of us at the top are into that shit and we'd be reaping the benefits more than the rest.

funny HP but i read it a few times in here

Sid Bream's Wheels
10-04-2014, 03:43 PM
I don't think anyone will ever have to dig 900 prospects deep. Right now we're less than 500. 19x30 minus the 80 or so that are no longer rookie eligible, but qualify for our milb due to our league settings. There are more than few team top prospects still available, and it doesn't take much "research" those guys.

Habspatrol
10-04-2014, 03:43 PM
funny HP but i read it a few times in here

Only one of those comments are mine and all of them had the same meaning and you know it. At least argue the merits of your position rather than be dishonest about the other person's position. I mean I could sit here and try to spin what you guys have been saying but it would be pointless and dishonest.

I'll say it one more time and try to be clearer so there's nothing for you to spin.

Having 20 spots, 30, 50 or even 100 has the same benefit or disadvantage for teams in last place, 7th place or 1st place. This is nothing to do with where anyone is in the standings. It is 100% about how much time and or desire managers have to dig 200, 300, 500, 800, 1000 or 2000 prospects deep. Any time I alluded to teams at the top or teams at the bottom it was in relation to the fact that teams that spend more time tend to be higher in the standings than managers that don't have the time/desire to spend on the league.

So things like adding more prospect spots or daily changes or anything else that gives people with more time to spend on the league is an advantage will only create wider gaps between the teams with time and the teams with less time.

MindzEye
10-04-2014, 06:30 PM
I voted to up the limit. I thought this was decided at the beginning of the year. In one of the threads it was stated that we were upping to 35 for 2015. I made trades at the end of this year with that in mind.

I was under a similar impression, and also planned my roster accordingly as I mentioned earlier.


I don't think an increased limit helps the top teams over the bottom ones. The teams that will do well are the teams that are more active with trades and on the wire. This is how it should be.

I agree with this. What a prospect limit increase does is helps good owners to potentially produce more MLB assets internally, and it helps any owner hold on to more kids for longer. As teams lower in the standings will often/should often be playing more young players, it benefits them imo.

The only type of owner it doesn't benefit, is any owner not interested in generating more assets through their prospect development. That guy probably isn't trying very hard via trade or waiver addition either...so when do we put a cap on those transactions to help those poor bastards out?