-
To pick up where we were pre-auction, here's an off-the-wall house rule idea:
No offseason salary cap, but teams are only allowed five total cuts from Dec. 15 (30 days after arbitration ends) through Jan. 31. This would continue to force teams to cut dead weight early, but allow teams much more flexibility to operate above $400 (or $450).
Too weird?
-
Full disclosure, I will be dropping Diaz soon, but if anyone wants to lock him in for next year at his current cost I'd happily move him for anything vaguely interesting.
-
Yeah, I got issues. Got too wrapped up with work and missed the endings of most of the early nominations lol. $109 in cap space, grief/*facepalm*
-
Slow draft is complete and rosters have been imported. there were some issues on the import, so i made commish transactions to fix those. Rosters should be complete now so please review and let me know if any issues, otherwise, we are officially in preseason mode! thanks everyone
-
I've got a live draft in another Otto league Sunday evening at 7PM Eastern time. I might not be able to join for the first hour or two, based on travel plans. Anyone here want to open the draft for me?
-
Draft Day!!!
-
Sorry guys I’ve been dealing with two sick kids this weekend and haven’t had a chance to catch up on the message board discussion here. Draft begins today at 10 AM! (1.5 hours from now) each team gets one nomination for the first few days and we’ll take it from there.. if you’re 100% out on a player you can use the pass button on a player. If the entire league passes on an ongoing auction it ends and we can speed things up a little bit. See everyone in the draft room!!
-
{3/2) I understand the concern of shopping overpriced role or star players when everyone knows they will be cut but I'd also rather have more players available for trade. You never know whos willing to pay the extra $ for cost certainty. We have a great league with engaged teams and I think utilizing the trade block can help cut down questions regarding what a team is looking for and who they are willing to trade. You gotta give something to get something right! +2 to discussing til opening day
-
{2/2) As Weather said and A Team alluded to, the vanilla Ottoneu is the best platform out there IMO. I'm good with keeping our custom rules as it adds another dynamic. If we keep our custom rules, I'd like to put out there again some sort of cut deadline/allow trade talks before cutting to get legal. Not criticizing Miami because I should have done the same, there's an advantage to waiting to cut to get legal since there is real world FA movement/trades that can affect player value.
-
(1/2) I would be open to discussing the amount of arb$ given out as well. My initial thought is (0,0,0,3.3.3,6,5,4,3,2,1). This could promote competition for 3rd (or higher) while not offering too many arb$ to an obviously competitive team and to Weather's point of long-term competitive balance. And possibly increase incentive for teams at the bottom to stay competitive and push for higher arb$. The risk here is teams keep overpriced players to improve their standing instead of possibly trading.
-
2/2 By removing players from rosters pre-keepers, you're removing any potential trades and follow-up trades that can be made utilizing them. I think it probably comes down to deciding how much flexibility and leeway you want everyone to have, right? After the rules are decided, it's still up to each manager to determine what they see as the best path forward for their team.
-
+1 to continuing discussions up until Opening Day
I think that any discussions regarding league rules are an ideal way to shake up perspectives and thought processes. Having a debate with yourself can only lead to so many different paths. Personally, I'm very flexible and open to league majority. Gun to my head, I'd vote to remove the restriction since, by definition, that's what it is: a restriction. The more variables a team has to manage, the greater the potential number of outco
-
Also -- I'd be fine continuing these discussions up until opening day. This is all small enough potatoes that it shouldn't affect draft strategies.
-
Another thought: what about turning the volume down on the arb coupons? (Say: 0-0-0-8-6-4-2-0-0-0-0-0)
Carp has some good points: that the decline in trades also correlates with our adopting the coupons, and that there's danger in having too many house rules when the vanilla game is the best thing in fantasy. This particular option gives indirect incentive to 1st-3rd, keeps the race for teams in the middle, and helps salaries rise faster (good for long-term competitive balance).
-
As a quick follow up. Would the league be open to allowing trade discussion BEFORE teams have to make cuts to get legal. Each year there's 1 to 2 players that get cut that I would have targeted and in hoping for more trades, maybe we have a cut deadline of 2? 3? weeks after arbitration to allow trade discussion before cuts?
-
Really appreciate all the engagement and discussion. There were several good points in wanting to keep the cut rule and I'm good with status quo. Really looking forward to Monday kicking off the draft!
-
I think it's worth voting on at least to get everyone's opinion because some people feel strongly about it and we haven't heard from everyone. Just my opinion though. I love that this league is pragmatic about important topics.
-
That being said, I do hope we can pick up the trading some more this year! finally a *regular* offseason and preseason once again.. looking forward to next week's draft 🙌
-
looking at the offseason pre-deadline cuts, it does seem the most interesting cuts came from Carp's roster, and for a couple guys on reasonable salaries.. it does knock some of the wind out of their sails from not being able to recycle some of that value for cheap keepers, and yet Carp will still be one of the projected favorites this year even so! any use in going to a vote here? I'm probably comfortable keeping status quo, if there's not strong favorability on changing things
-
+1 to JJ. Allowing teams to keep dubious assets also makes it harder to read other teams plans ... in a bad way. If I see (for example) that someone's only 3B is a $40 guy who hasn't been good in three years -- I'm not going to try to trade my 3B to them. Maybe they'll keep that guy! The more of this sort of gamesmanship we skip, the more trades happen.
-
Sorry, on mobile. “ more time you downs shopping ” downs should be spend.
“Bad assets that get shipped” should be shopped.
-
I like the cut rule. Without it we do have more players to trade, sure. But many of those players aren’t keepers and the more time you downs shopping non-keeper assets, the less actually quality trades happen. I prefer the cut rule as it reduces the bad assets that get shipped and increases the quality of trade offers that do happen. The cut rule also forces you to asses your team earlier and understand your team needs which also should encourage trades to fill holes.
-
Personally I'd rather have more players as options to trade for than pushing into the draft.
-
Ottoneu is the best platform and best finance structure I've played. Arbitration is a great way to keep everyone competitive. The arb coupons we have double down on helping teams that finish 4th or lower. This could be a perfect storm of our cut rule removing players from the trade market and arb coupons keeping salaries more desirable and also off the trade market. I imagine the lack of trades is also in decline due to arb coupons and the cut rule.
-
For me I do enough no trade, redrafts every year. This League separates itself as we get to trade, manage salaries, and cultivate a MiLB roster. I agree the number of trades have weakened, both in frequency and substance. I want more activity in the offseason and more trades throughout.
-
(3/2) but if there's pushback already on the message board and nobody besides carp feels strongly in favor of changing the rule, then it'll save me creating a poll.. just something i wanted to iron out before we start bidding on guys
-
(2/2) which not only means more trading in the offseason, but more trading in-season too if teams have extra incentive to buy in-season... i'm in favor of completely removing the restriction as we're all now pretty generally aligned on values, and there isn't much expectation that teams will really be able to flip high salaries for stud keepers the ensuing offseason, but i also don't think it'll prevent teams from buying, or really have a major impact either way, so i'm open to majority rule
-
i initially borrowed the rule from the other ottoneu league i played in at the time as a factor to limit 'rich stay rich' kinda trades in the offseason, but i think as we've all played multiple years together, it's much tougher to pull off a legit trade in the offseason when the league sees you're at $600 salary and need to cut, i really had to twist WR's arm just to get Nico Hoerner for Juan Soto! it would allow buying teams to at least possibly recoup some offseason value from buying (1/2)
-
Our three offseasons under the $400 rule: 39, 22, and 23 trades.
Our two offseasons under the $450 rule: 9 and 11 trades.
Re: competitive balance -- I think the biggest threat to long-term league viability is having multiple teams that believe they're more than a year away from competing, so I'd prefer erring on the side of pushing good players into the auction rather than making sure the best teams can max out their offseasons.
-
Those are good points, I may be changing my mind. I'm game for whatever brings more trading!
-
For me Im glad this got brought up because I think the current rule weakens the trade market and decreased activity because there are less stars available. Also Im not sure buyers should be penalized after the season since buyers are usually already giving up young players or good contacts in order to win-now. As this league gets older player salaries are leveling out to their value and I think forcing cuts via a custom rule removes trade pieces from the trade market. I wanted to trade more lol
-
The current rule can force teams to cut keepable or tradeable contracts without the ability to gain any value back. This also removes players from the trade market and because teams are over the cap, those players can sometimes be had for pennies on the dollar. If I'm in the lower half of the standings, I want more players available, especially stars that I can target. If I'm in the top half then I want the ability to gain any value back that I can after "buying".
-
I agree with keeping the rule as is. Without it, I feel like the rich get richer. I side with Weather Report that it helps keep a competitive and active league, especially in the offseason.
-
Revisit the rule which way? I would be in favor of returning to the older $400/40 rule. I thought the offseasons played under that rule had livelier trade activity, and this cap also encourages year-to-year turnover among contenders, because it hurts the "buyers" the most.
-
2 - I have received a request to revisit our offseason $450 / 40 player cut-deadline as a potential rule change prior to next offseason (after 2023 season, before 2024 season). Standard ottoneu leagues don't have this restriction that you must cut salaries down to $450 prior to trading in the offseason. This has been previously voted on, but i'm open to sending another poll before our auction, but please share thoughts here if anyone feels strongly on it. Otherwise poll to come tomorrow, thanks!
-
Two Notes: 1 - Keepers have been imported to the Couchmanagers draft room, we begin in less than a week! One small call-out i'll make here otherwise i'll forget - $2 Gabriel Rodriguez (Cle) on SpinningSeams doesn't exist in Couchmanagers, I have added $2 Albert Pujols to their roster as a placeholder for this draft. Otherwise all rosters and salaries should look accurate, and you can modify your 'roster' on CM & set watchlist guys now! please let me know if any questions/issues
-
E-mail sent! Draft room link is here and password to join is included in the e-mail, or I can chat it to you if needed. https://www.couchmanagers.com/auctions/index.php?auction_id=451
-
E-mail sent, 3/6 it is 👍
-
In for 3/6.
-
3/6 works for me
-
3/6 works for me too!!
-
3/6 works for me!
-
Works for me. I also prefer live but I think this is probably the best solution.
rotoball10 on
February 6, 2023 1:27 PM
-
Unless I hear any compelling case for a live draft this week, i'm on board to get us setup for a slow draft for this year. There are elements to the live draft I do still enjoy, but the convenience of the slow draft is tough to beat. I feel the 2nd week of March (3/6) is a good day for us to target, so thoughts on starting our slow draft on that Monday? Think we need like 2 weeks to knock this out. Management & fees ($5) are nbd too so i'm happy to take that. I'll e-mail later in week to
-
Thanks for honoring the cuts; apologies for failing to get them in on-time.
I'm also in for the slow draft and am game to start whenever everybody is ready. Seems like it's just a good fit for the league vs a live draft
-
Not sure if there's a cost for a slow draft but I'm willing to chip in if we go that route.
-
I'm all in for a slow draft. Easy on my schedule and was a really fun experience.
-
I loved the slow draft and never want to go back. It's so much easier for my life, and I like how it seemed to cut down on players inexplicably going $10 higher or lower than they should have.
-
Good for a slow draft to start any time.
-
Cuts have been made for MW. Additionally, 'Team of My Own' reached out on 2/1 that they missed a few final cuts due to a timing mishap. Based on their good standing in the league, and the nature of the cuts, I have honored this request and made cuts for Irvin, Keller, and Civale. Im considering rosters final for the offseason. Next up is the draft. I can send a poll formally, but thoughts on another slow draft? We usually don't have many good times for all us to do live, but i can try if we want
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages