games played - inn pitched

[Deleted]

we may need to adjust the rules concerning the above. the current rule is that you field a valid line-up and do what you want with your pitching staff.
games played. other than the catcher position, i would need a REALLY GOOD REASON why you cant acquire a different catcher when you reach -61, thats MINUS SIXTY-ONE, games played at that position. or -55 at OF or others at -30-ish at other positions. or when ur 2B'man cant see and is still in the line-up when you have a capable replacement ready to go. and several havent signed-in to yahoo since the beginning of the month. how can you adjust ur roster then?
inn pitched. max at 1440. several teams arent going to come close to that number.

how about a minimum # that you have to reach?

END OF RANT

[Deleted]

i dont know how many of you fall into the same situation as me....i'm still at work at 6pm CST with no way to adjust my line-up. no internet access on my phone and certainly none at work. in the mornings i will set my line-up and hope for the best.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

OK. Some good points by Chicago. I don't think we've ever had any cases of active 'tanking' in this league. Of course, anytime you are running a dynasty league with a minor league draft, it is a concern. High draft picks are valuable. No doubt about it. You can make your team better by losing. So while I don't think we have anyone who is actively tanking, I think it is a good idea to put some rules into play to keep owners competitive through the end of the season even when they are not in the running for anything. That is to say, we need to provide incentives (I'm open to either positive or negative incentives) for owners to keep setting their lineups and putting their best lineup on the field every day until game 162.

To that end, I proposed we come up with some minimums as far as games played and innings is concerned. I think the limits should be reasonable. My first guess is 1350 innings pitched, and -25 games for position players (-40 for catchers and outfielders). Again, that's off the top of my head. If you fail to reach those limits without extenuating circumstances (trust the judgment of your co-commish office I guess) then you lose draft pick(s). Simple, right?

We all know Cashman is a demanding league. It is also the best and most fun league I've ever been in. It is that way because of the owners. Just like I appreciate all the work Chicago puts into the league, I appreciate those owners who set their lineups and continue to make FA bids even though the difference might be between 5th and 6th place. That's what makes this league fun...and great.

Any thoughts?

[Deleted]

yes, of course, not tanking but since football season is upon us more like "eh, baseball is over". plus the fact of another run-a-way most of the season with philly and with kc and minn going at it leaves the rest of us waiting 'till next year.

[Deleted]

I like the idea of minimum innings/ games. Yahoo allows the commish to step in if you allow it and adjust your line up. That being said, if you go a week or two without signing in or emailing the commish and your team is tanking due to DLs or poor lineup management then the commish should be able to field a team.for you to ensure you hit your minimum numbers.

The alternative is to manage your team or send an email to someone to let them know what is going on. That's my two cents.

[Minnesota Twins]

what if you don't take away the pick completely, but you take their first round pick and move it to the bottom of the round, so tanking de-values your pick instead of increasing value?

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Love that suggestion by the Twins. Thanks for that.

Also, I like the idea of a positive incentive. If you are active (someone help me come up with a metric), you get a supplemental round pick (comes after the 5th round).

[torontobluejays]

I see no reason to add more rules to this league. It is just going to create more work for our overworked commissioner and his minion. If an owner does not want to get close to max games/innings, it is his decision. If we create a rule that you must meet a minimum number of games or innings, nothing would prevent an owner from picking up a warm body and sticking him into his lineup. He can be non-competitive with players in his lineup as opposed to non-competitive without players Obviously, we want everyone to be competitive. Unfortunately, injuries, suspensions and bad seasons can hurt every owner (except for Pittsburgh).

If we really want to prevent people from tanking, why not pass a rule that the teams that finish with the two worse records lose their franchise. That will ensure competitiveness.

[Deleted]

hmmmmm, the chicago minions.....i like it!

[Deleted]

I think this is a good idea. I agree a rule needs to be into effect. Minimum games played and innings pitched.

Also, do we not have a rule in place about having a player in your active lineup and on the DL, and not bidding on a player in free agency?

[Admin]

the rule is to have a valid line-up. and there have been several instances of the commish notifying the manager about such. after a warning a manager has the next silent bid period to acquire a player. iirc only once a penalty was handed down.
i try to monitor the rosters on a regular basis but if you notice something just contact me or pitts.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

The problem is that you can have a valid lineup and still obviously tank. If you have players who don't play but once or twice a week in your lineup while you have better players on your bench....I'd think some folks would take offense. Of course, we can continue to handle that on a case by case basis as long as the league is willing to trust the commish's judgment. The problem gets to cases where people say 'well so and so did the same thing and you didn't say anything."

I understand Toronto's objection. At the same time, we can make the limits very reasonable and easy to reach. I dunno. If given the choice, I just like things to be black and white because I don't like being accused of partiality.

[Deleted]

so,whats it gonna be? minimum innings limit to reach this year or not?
the season is upon us

[Deleted]

I am in favor for an innings limit of 1300. That way all teams must compete to the end, and account for injuries and demotions.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Last year 3 teams did not have 1300 IP. 1 team did not have 1300 Games played.
That's where I would set the limit. (I'd be ok with a lower inning limit. maybe 1250). I wouldn't go to the level of individual positions for games played. Do it 'in total'.

Also, my suggestion is that if you don't reach one of those limits, your 1st round pick is moved to the back of the line. If you don't reach both, you lose your 1st round pick.

What say you all?