+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    It's time for fantasy baseball gdn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    your face

    Proposed Amendment

    In light of the issue of illegal rosters by virtue of having, for example, a RP in an SP slot, we should amend the constitution to provide for a specific penalty. Currently it does not.

    Let's discuss this here before settling on a proposal and putting it to vote.

    In addition, has the number of votes required to veto a trade always been 8 even with 20 teams? I wonder if it might be more appropriate to have the number be 9: 20 teams - 2 trading teams = 18 teams. Half of the remaining teams is 9.

  2. #2
    NYYF Legend

    The FUTURE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    North Carolina

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    I agree 100% there should be a penalty. Maybe lowest scoring pitcher that week or 0 ??




    I am fine with 8 objections; although that could've been changed when we went to 18 teams - 2 trading teams = 16/2 = 8. ??

  3. #3
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    This causes a potential problem. Last season I was on the verge of having no choice but to start a reliever. Reason being was due to there being zero SPs available, me getting a rash of injuries and demotions to both the pen and the minors, added on top of the fact that our minor league draft was still going on and no one being promoted could be taken.

    I got lucky and didn’t have to. But I even posted that I may have to do it.

    What do we do when a deep league runs out of starting pitchers? If we were 12-14 I could see it. But we do run into circumstances.

    I realize in this particular case I’m going to be reaping the benefits of a penalty. But I’m still trying to call it down the middle. Because I’ve been in that position.

  4. #4
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Oh, as for the objections, I believe this was the logic:

    20 teams.
    - 2 (teams involved in trade)
    - 1 (commissioner does not vote, he/she would be the deciding vote if necessary)

    making the deciding number 8 out of 17.

    I don't care if it goes to 9, but that's the logic as I remember it when it was decided.

    While we're talking about trades, I would like to again add that objections should be verified by a post in this forum. Reasons you don't object:
    One team is the best team in the league (this HAS happened)
    you don't like it
    you would have given more
    one team is in your division, perhaps ahead of you, and makes them better
    you dont like the owner

    Every team, despite record, should be able to improve as much as they can for as long as they can. As long as there is no collusion involved.

    the only reason should be because it upsets the balance of the league. Not one particular team.
    oh, and also if you tank in April. That's just complete BS.

    My 2 cents.

  5. #5
    It's time for fantasy baseball gdn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    your face

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitman23 View Post
    Oh, as for the objections, I believe this was the logic:

    20 teams.
    - 2 (teams involved in trade)
    - 1 (commissioner does not vote, he/she would be the deciding vote if necessary)

    making the deciding number 8 out of 17.

    I don't care if it goes to 9, but that's the logic as I remember it when it was decided.

    While we're talking about trades, I would like to again add that objections should be verified by a post in this forum. Reasons you don't object:
    One team is the best team in the league (this HAS happened)
    you don't like it
    you would have given more
    one team is in your division, perhaps ahead of you, and makes them better
    you dont like the owner

    Every team, despite record, should be able to improve as much as they can for as long as they can. As long as there is no collusion involved.

    the only reason should be because it upsets the balance of the league. Not one particular team.
    oh, and also if you tank in April. That's just complete BS.

    My 2 cents.
    I agree with all of this. I think we can keep it at 8, unless there's a strong preference to change to 9.

  6. #6
    It's time for fantasy baseball gdn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    your face

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitman23 View Post
    This causes a potential problem. Last season I was on the verge of having no choice but to start a reliever. Reason being was due to there being zero SPs available, me getting a rash of injuries and demotions to both the pen and the minors, added on top of the fact that our minor league draft was still going on and no one being promoted could be taken.

    I got lucky and didn’t have to. But I even posted that I may have to do it.

    What do we do when a deep league runs out of starting pitchers? If we were 12-14 I could see it. But we do run into circumstances.

    I realize in this particular case I’m going to be reaping the benefits of a penalty. But I’m still trying to call it down the middle. Because I’ve been in that position.
    Well but then we might as well allow someone to leave the slot empty. I think if we're going to stick to 5 SP + 3 RP then failure to follow that means a penalty. I'm fine with the penalty being 0 points for that player that week, so it's not like you're getting a net loss if you simply cannot fill that position.

  7. #7
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by gdn View Post
    Well but then we might as well allow someone to leave the slot empty. I think if we're going to stick to 5 SP + 3 RP then failure to follow that means a penalty. I'm fine with the penalty being 0 points for that player that week, so it's not like you're getting a net loss if you simply cannot fill that position.
    I don't think leaving the spot empty is good. You get an illegal roster and doesn't CBS give your entire team a big fat 0??

    I've never been a fan of the negative points thing anyway. I always felt that if the dude is in illegally, zero points should be ample penalty. Especially if it's something like an RP being in a SP slot. This also runs into what I was trying to get on top of before our season started. What do we do with openers? Some players could be set to be an opener but realistically he's a reliever who starts a game. And sometimes he gets skipped when the start is set on Monday.

    I'm a little soft on this penalty only because with the amount of teams we have and how dynamic rotations are in baseball now. You can't be sure about anyone's start or open or anything. And since we're so deep we actually can run out of pitchers. None of us have 5. We all get as many as possible. As soon as someone gets promoted or moved into the rotation he's gobbled up. And if a team loses a pitcher or two for various reasons (demotion, injury, sent to the minors, etc) they are kinda eff'd as it is. Handing them negative points is like kicking them while down.

    Just my opinion. Something to think about before we penalize.

  8. #8
    NYYF Legend

    JDPNYY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    I feel your pain more than my own

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by gdn View Post
    In light of the issue of illegal rosters by virtue of having, for example, a RP in an SP slot, we should amend the constitution to provide for a specific penalty. Currently it does not.

    Let's discuss this here before settling on a proposal and putting it to vote.

    In addition, has the number of votes required to veto a trade always been 8 even with 20 teams? I wonder if it might be more appropriate to have the number be 9: 20 teams - 2 trading teams = 18 teams. Half of the remaining teams is 9.
    There should be a penalty using the worst score of a free agent Starting Pitcher. There are starting pitchers. Because there are guys with negative scores each week. You should have to fill your roster properly or pay a penalty.


    Keep the objections at 8. That's plenty to send it to the Commish.

  9. #9
    First Name: Keninovich hardrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    We just don't know

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    How often does a trade get nullified? In my three years in the league the only trades that didn't go through were ones where the owner pressed the wrong button and begged for forgiveness.



    I think it should be 5 objections to blow a trade up. That would be 25% of the league. So a trade has to be "approved" by 75%, including the teams involved.



    I agree with Hitman. The zero is enough of a penalty. Pitching has become more fluid and unpredictable.

  10. #10
    It's time for fantasy baseball gdn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    your face

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by hardrain View Post
    How often does a trade get nullified? In my three years in the league the only trades that didn't go through were ones where the owner pressed the wrong button and begged for forgiveness.



    I think it should be 5 objections to blow a trade up. That would be 25% of the league. So a trade has to be "approved" by 75%, including the teams involved.



    I agree with Hitman. The zero is enough of a penalty. Pitching has become more fluid and unpredictable.
    I've had trades blocked in the past three years...

  11. #11
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    I’m just tossing this out there, but would the problem be solved, and would it sparkle with everyone, that we have 4 SP, 3 RP, and one generic/swingman P you can use at your discretion?

    I know we try to imitate real baseball as much as possible. But again taking into account our 20 teams, teams going with openers, and the amount of injuries, spot starts, demotions, etc, it may be a reasonable option.

    Just something to ponder.

  12. #12
    2013 NYYFans Fantasy Champ miko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    ON Canada

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Amend this Trebek!

  13. #13
    First Name: Keninovich hardrain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    We just don't know

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by gdn View Post
    I've had trades blocked in the past three years...
    ok. guess I am wrong, just seemed to be there was no blockage.

  14. #14
    Do not vex me mortal Hitman23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Long Island

    Re: Proposed Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by hardrain View Post
    ok. guess I am wrong, just seemed to be there was no blockage.
    There haven't been as many as there's been in the past, but yeah we've had a few. Obviously you haven't been involved, which is why you probably don't realize, and that makes you either a good trader, or your access to vote on trades is in good hands.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts