Fluctuating Cap Keeper League

[motherscratcher]

Fluctuating Cap Keeper League

I’m not sure if this has been tried before. I have an idea for a keeper league where you would have more control over your roster from season to season and be able to vary your cap to make a serious run at a title when the opportunity arises. As an Indians fan I’m well aware of the narrow “windows of opportunity” that most franchises outside of NY and Boston have to deal with.

Here is what I propose:

1. $100m cap DH league. BUT, the league setting would be at $140m. Each teams cap is actually $300m over 3 season. For example, I can play season 1 and 2 at $80m (saving $20m each season) to spend on my team in season 3 where my cap would all of a sudden be $140m ($100m + $20m + $20m).

2. I could come out of the gate swinging with $140m in the first season, but then my next 2 seasons combined can only add up to $160m.

3. The max cap for any 1 season is $140m and the min cap is $60m. So you can’t play one season at $20m and then the next 2 at $140.

4. You can go over the $100m average cap in the first 2 season if you choose, as long as season 3 brings you back in line with the #300m 3 year cap total. After that, each seasons cap is $300m minus the total spent in the previous 2 years.

5. Only the current and previous 2 season matter. So, if you went $60m, $60m, $140m...your next season cap would be $100m (not $140m).

Rosters:

1. Each player can protect 8 players from season to season. 2 SPs and 6 RP/Position players (you must protect at least 1 reliever). You can have players for no more than 4 consecutive seasons. So, if you draft a few players as a nucleus you have 4 seasons to build a winner around them before you have to give them up.

2. You can protect 1 extra player for every season (in any consecutive 3 seasons) that you play at or below $80m. For example, if I play season 1 at $80m, I get to protect 9 players for season 2. If I then play season 2 at $80m, I get to protect 10 players for season 3 (I also get to spend $140m in season 3 in this scenario).

3. You can protect 1 LESS player for every season played over $120m.

4. You can protect no less than 6 players and no more than 10 players.

5. You are protecting players, not cards. It is perfectly legal to draft and play cheap player cards and then upgrade to more expensive cards when you choose to make a run at it.

You can change ballparks every 3 years if you choose, but you must play at least 3 seasons in your chosen park.

Your cap for a season is the highest amount of money that you spent during that season. For example, you can start a season at $80m but find yourself in a race in august and decide to bring your cap up to $100m (as long as this doesn’t violate the $300m/3season rule). Because of this, I’d like to be able to play without any cap hit for changing players during a season (I’m not sure if this is possible).

I’m sure there would be a lot of kinks to work out and I’m hoping that some of you can help get this idea rolling, because I think it would be a really fun league.

Any thoughts on something like this?

[motherscratcher]

[quote:8f1c00b0af="sweetdreamchaser"]Are you an astronaut?[/quote:8f1c00b0af]

Not any more. Not since "the incident".

C'mon. this idea kicks ***. There is going to be a stampede of people signing up for this any second now. A deluge I say. It's going to be the next big thing I tell ya.

[motherscratcher]

In fact, I'll make a sign up sheet.

1. Motherscratcher
2. Sweetdreamchaser
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[LJs]

In fact, I'll make a sign up sheet.

1. Motherscratcher
2. Sweetdreamchaser
3. LJs
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

[LJs]

Will division alignments stay the same for the three year cycle too?

[motherscratcher]

I thought about that and thought it would probably be better to use a randomizer for division assignments before each new season just to shake it up a little bit.

Because, let's face it, if we kept the division assignments from season to season, the 3 teams in my division would have an unfair advantage. :(

But, I'm definitely willing to change anything that needs changing.

I'm sure there are a bunch of things I haven't thought of that would need worked out prior to the draft.

[Valen]

[quote:f9fa63fd0a]Because of this, I’d like to be able to play without any cap hit for changing players during a season (I’m not sure if this is possible).
[/quote:f9fa63fd0a]
I am pretty sure this is impossible. So you probably have to rule around it.

Some other things you might want to consider. Your rules say if you are running an 80 mil cap team and decide to go for it you can increase your spending. What if you are running a 100 mil and realize you have no chance. Can you salary dump and save some money for the next team?

[motherscratcher]

Hmmm...good point.

I guess I'd have to say that you should be able to salary dump because it kind of goes along with the point of the league.

Off the top of my head I would say that you can only add/dump a certain amount in a season. Maybe $10-$20m.

And there would have to be a deadline of around 100 games in. Your cap that season is whatever your cap is after 100 games unless it goes higher after that. That way people could improve their team after 100 games, but they couldn't just dump $20m with 9 games left.

I'd also say that during the season you can't change player cards. You have to drop a player. I wouldn't want someone who isn't doing that well to be able to drop from $11m Larry Walker to $6m Larry Walker but still keep his rights.

[Valen]

Then again it might make sense to take the college redshirt approach. Once you spend something it is spent. If you get down to the end and think that you have to have that redshirt then you play him and lose the eligibility. But if you been playing him all year you can't switch and decide to redshirt him at the end.

I would think the fairest way to handle it would be to say whatever you max out at for a given season is what you get charged toward your 300 mil cap. I know that maybe conradicts what I wrote earlier but I was thinking out loud for sake of discussion. With further consideration was probable wrong. Allowing dumping at all probably opens up more cans of worms than reasonable to deal with.