-
Congrats Schroedingers! The future is comin for ya!
The Infirmary on
September 29, 2019 10:33 PM
-
Congrats Bats! Who are we all pulling for this playoff season?
-
Congrats Schroedinger's Bats! Really thought I was gonna catch you earlier in the summer but you pulled away and won easily. I enjoyed the season-long points format this year. I'll for sure be back next year. Cheers to another good season and some October baseball!
-
(I may or may not have already known this fact.) Cheers!
-
I went back to look, and Schroedinger’s Bats took the top spot on May 14th and has not relinquished it since. Congrats on a dominant season!
Ben's Banter on
September 29, 2019 9:03 PM
-
Congrats Eric on winning the championship.
-
I will be back for 2020. Thanks. Rick
-
My current plan: Step 1) acquire 60 players on a 40 player roster. Step 2) ? Step 3) Profit!
Ben's Banter on
September 29, 2019 2:51 PM
-
I should mention the most important offseason rules—as some owners have already noted—is that roster and salary caps no longer apply, you can cut anyone but additions are disabled until after the draft. Trades can take place between the end of arbitration and the keeper deadline and then are disabled again until after the draft.
-
If for any reason you think you will be unable to participate next season just let me or Jason know so we can find a replacement owner that can take over all of the offseason duties. If you have any questions about offseason rules and timelines feel free to reach out. There is also this nice graphic which helps explains things: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1I51quGaMdCqjZMWY345SDiepQX9vQCJ4RrhB5Rbvx_I/edit?usp=sharing
-
Happy final day of the season everyone! Apologies for sort of falling of a cliff with regards to the rule change we were discussing weeks ago. Just moved and started a graduate program about a month ago so life has been a bit hectic. In a few days I'm going to make a new poll about our proposed rule change so we can get that squared away.
-
I feel like Those extra couple homers by Kyle Lewis May have upped a few bids : (
-
Update: Red Sox fan... out of hope. Goodbye Dombrowski, Hello rebuild?
-
Neutral fan and I have no strong feelings one way or the other.
Ben's Banter on
September 4, 2019 8:43 AM
-
A’s fan. Hoping for the best!
-
Red Sox fan... still clinging on to hope.
-
As a Mets fan I think I’m just gonna pretend the season ended today. See you all next year.
-
I feel like we had our trade deadline on July 31st, not August 31st. It was pretty clear who was “in it” back then I guess
Ben's Banter on
September 1, 2019 4:33 PM
-
Judge is on the move.
-
Judge is also available. Looking for a cheaper OF option/solid RP. I can eat money if needed.
-
As the trade deadline quickly approaches I am up for selling Trout, Machado, Benintendi, Machado, Stanton, and Diaz
-
Additionally, it looks like we will need to vote on the question Ben's Banter proposed on whether or not an owner can indicate interest in a player in hopes to start an auction for that player. I will make a survey for that once I get ample participation in the current survey.
-
Please complete this survey if you have not already: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HDSD88L
-
Just to avoid a mass of posts re explaining the matter, I reached out to Bellyball via the messaging on the site to clarify.
-
Hi Guys, just for my clarification with what is being discussed (honestly, I’m a bit confused at the moment): are we trying to decide that if an owner were to drop a player, he cannot bid on that player if he is put up for auction within 30 days of being dropped? Even though that is legal right now. Is that the rule change we are discussing? Sorry, I’ve been trying to keep up with the back and forth.
The Infirmary on
August 22, 2019 11:30 PM
-
Good question. I don’t think I lean heavily one way or the other so I’d like to hear what others think.
-
I know in that situation the owner is usually just going to cross their fingers that no one starts an auction for 30 days so they can do it themselves. But if they really want that player sooner, I wasn’t sure if preemptively signaling that interest would be ok with the rule as proposed.
Ben's Banter on
August 22, 2019 11:18 PM
-
One question on the rule proposal: would the former owner only be able to signal interest if someone else starts an auction for the player in question? Or could they say “I am interested in getting [Player X] if someone starts an auction”?
Ben's Banter on
August 22, 2019 11:16 PM
-
Here is the link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HDSD88L
-
Amidst moving and starting a graduate program, I had been checking this less often. Nevertheless things have calmed down a bit so should we hold a vote on which rule we add in the charter regarding owners effectively bidding for owners who are unable to participate in certain auctions? It seems like most people agreed with Burrito's proposal so I can just make a survey to see if we want to add that to the charter and if it fails we can discuss other options.
-
If anyone needs quality RP help, I have it.
-
I'm real upset I didnt start Heaney for that 14 K outing!
-
Any overpriced guys people trying to sell before the trade deadline I am interested.
-
I would say that’s the risk the bidder takes with a deal like this and most deals are unlikely to fall through unless an injury occurs directly after the auction ends
-
I think Burrito’s objections and solution make sense too. Good stuff. One question: is there any concern over an owner expressing interest in a player then, after someone else gets them, saying “I changed my mind” to a trade. Are there consequences for that? Should the bidder just need to be ok with a possible penalty if the trade falls through for whatever reason?
Ben's Banter on
August 14, 2019 6:15 PM
-
I agree with your assessment LBM. I do think having the owner post their interest publicly would stymie owners reaching out to each other in private on these deals and taking on faith that owners will not privately discuss dollar amounts before the auction is completed seems to be the only reasonable way to implement this.
-
I agree with Lindbergh Burrito
-
I would propose that to dampen some of these issues, that the only thing a league member should need to do is post their interest in the player but without the max salary. Any league members would then bid what they think is an acceptable salary to flip and negotiate the deal post-auction. Adds more risk into the equation since the winning bidder may be stuck with the player/cap penalty if this miscalculate interest. Would require the honor system that max salary is not being shared privately
-
2.) Better odds for lower placed teams, if 4 teams want to make the trade and all bid the max League Member A is willing to pay, it will always go to the lower placed team. 3.) Enforcing a cash only deal seems way too restrictive, if the max bid is known then all teams planning to bid the max for the player and then flip should be able to negotiate their preferred deal prior to the auction end
-
A few thoughts to consider: 1.) If we move ahead with what is proposed (post interest and top end salary + cash willing to include) then if you're a team looking to add the player and roster them it gives you more information to win the bid. For example, League Member A posts that they want Player X for $5 max + $3 cash loan, League Member B knows that there will be at least a few teams interested in that deal and will bid the $5 max. League Member B knows that his bid needs to start at $6
-
This could present problems if the auction is started 28 days after the cut, so instead we could instead require the player remain on someone's roster for some fixed amount of time, like a week possibly.
-
So now, you have everyone aware of what someone will almost surely bid. I was thinking about requiring that these trades cannot be processed until the full 30 days after the original owner cut the player. This way the owner who is bidding by proxy has to endure a certain amount of time with the player on the roster, so it is not a risk-free deal for them. They'd have to cut a player and lose a roster spot for days.
-
My one concern with this suggestion is that it seems to over-correct problem. While I do agree that the original problem with this acquisition is one owner having more information than the others prior to bidding, this solution provides excess information. It feels like if someone posted the max salary they'd take for that player, you could reasonably assume that at least one team would bid that high every time, since there is little to no risk in placing such a bid if they can make this trade.
-
I don’t actually want Piscotty btw. And apparently “nn” shows up if you hit “Enter” on the message board.
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:40 PM
-
So for example, I cannot currently bid on Piscotty because I cut him within 30 days. But if I wanted him, I could say:
For Piscotty, I will accept a salary of up to $7 and will pay $5 cap.
So if someone really wants him and doesn’t want to trade him they can pay/overpay above that threshold. But if I’m willing to pay high enough, several people can try.
The one downside is this benefits lower-standing teams because they have no reason to bid below max salary. But it’s the best I got
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:39 PM
-
Well I can reiterate my suggestion. Basically if you want a player you can’t bid on, you have to post publicly how high a salary you would accept and how much cash you *will* send in trade. It would have to be cash-only since player values depend on the team. This takes away the knowledge gap of one team reaching out in secret to another, knowing that a high bid will have immediate results.
Ben's Banter on
August 13, 2019 11:35 PM
-
Of course there is also the option of requiring a buffer period, where a trade of this sort cannot happen immediately after the auction. We could even require that the trade cannot be agreed upon until the date in which the owner would have been capable of bidding on the given player. It is completely up to the league to decide and any suggestions are welcome.
-
Update: After two days, I received 9 survey responses. 7 voted in favor of adding a rule to the charter addressing this issue. 8 voted in favor of allowing the J.D. Davis trade to process as normal. With that in mind, it seems we should now discuss what guidelines we wish to add to the charter. Ben's Banter has offered his suggestion of requiring the interested owner make their interest in the player they cannot bid on known.
-
I have 5 survey responses thus far and would like to have the rest by the end of the day. Thanks everyone!
-
Feel free to continue to use this space to discuss the matter.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages