Keeper league--with variations (well, MAYBE)

[rutkap]

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX
2. roofinghorse--KY
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK
5 Billings Ballers - ID
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC


I really liked the 1-10 retirement idea, it would have gotten to be very fun once 4 or 5 good SS or CF retired. as a decade league, It still should be a lot of fun since I have never competed in one.

where is Jimmy C? Someone send out an APB....

[honestiago1]

I liked sudden retirement and free agency, as well, b/c, to me, it forces us to deal with more issues. I like having some things out of my control, having it as if these players have a "mind of their own." If not the retirement idea, then the "serious injury" idea might be worthwhile.

I also like a smaller pool of keepers. The way the decade league works now, you can keep a LOT of players (subject to payroll). I'm in favor of sticking with an 80M payroll all the way throughout, though. Or spending a few years with 60M, then rocketing up to 80M (or staying at 60M all the time -- then we really have to make some choices about players).

In fact, the 60M payroll might be the thing that makes the league interesting, and ensures a lot of player movement. With 60M, you have to choose your core carefully. Under this system, you SHOULD be allowed to keep sub-1M players in your corps, since they allow you to carry some of the more expensive players. Since the cheaper players are bigger gambles, anyone keeping a slew of them in order to, say, hang on to Rocket, is gambling on some other folks (though there are some cheapies I'll use every year, no matter what card I get [ALopez comes to mind]).

If an 80M payroll, it'd be interesting to play the FA and retirement. Whether it is "fair" or not is sort of immaterial. FA isn't fair by its nature. But since FA or retirement selection would be random for EVERYONE, you could argue that it IS fair to ALL.

See, my whole idea was to allow drafting of ALL the players, then institute rules that made player retirements random. You'd protect your core players (say 6), then place nine of your keepers up for possible retirement or FA. If you lose them, they go into the draft pile. Each season, we'd hold a two-round draft of eligible players, rebuild our core group (6 plus the nine "semi-keepers"), then autodraft the last 10 slots (or live draft the final ten slots prior to the season starting).

There wouldn't be any tracking of when players "actually" came in the league. Everyone would be eligible. The most covted players would be in the league every year, and some decent, mid-range players would disappear via retirement (even a sub-1M could retire, if we were allowed to designate them as "semi-keepers").

Anyway, we SHOULD debate this openly, and see what everyone else thinks. Maybe we can compromise between those who want the traditional decade league (the control freaks) with those who want some randomness (the anarchists). Personally, I could probably live with a decade league. But I'd like the excitement of having to deal with money-grubbing or broken-down players leaving my team. It would definitely allow us to choose a "GM of the year" award!

[jjd77447]

I think all of it sounds good and not sure which way i like best. I do like having to deal with problems and trying to fix things. I Will go with whatever you more exper online strat players think. I do think we shoudl keep at the least 6 players. On the random retirement, i am i right in thinking they could not come out of retirement once they are gone they are gone? If so how many seasons are we going to ply before it is over or we reset?

[LMBombers]

Personally I think we should go with the original rules that BC used in his league. I am not up to many variations since I haven't even played the original yet. I have heard from several of the vets from that league and they all say it is the best league they have ever been in.

There are some really crazy ideas being talked about which I assume are in jest. It is difficult, if not impossible, for 12 different people to all agree on everything. Since Honestiago started the thread I think he should just post the rules. If anyone doesn't like them they can bow out.

In a decade league you want to have some continuity on your team or else it would seem like having very different teams against the same owners in a bunch of 1 year leagues IMO. I am not much for that. I would rather feel like the GM of my team knowing what vets I have on my team that are coming back and scouting the new rookies that could help me each year! 8)

[honestiago1]

Naturally, I'd rather have the league running than have people bolt because of something I alone want. I'll drop my FA/retirement ideas for now.

Since I haven't played the decade league yet, I'll give it a chance, but I want to propose the following for league vote:

-Pitcher batting

-static payroll: 60M

-keep whomever you want (doesn't matter what their salary is).

Here's why I'd prefer the above options:

*I prefer the pitcher batting because you need a deeper roster. You also have to make some real hard choices on folks like Don Baylor, Hal MaCrae and Greg Luzinski (who's ironically, the gold glove of that bunch).

*60M payroll. Once again, forces you to make choices, especially when 1984-85 rolls around, and there's a couple of really good, albeit expensive pitchers coming online some of you may know about. This satisifies my concern that you need variety outside the mystery card to keep the game interesting year to year.

*Keep anybody. This makes cheaper players more valuable as placeholders. You're also going to need contributions from cheap bench guys. This satisfies LM's reasonable argument that continuity is what makes a decade league.

Of these three, the option that I believe would make it most interesting is the 60M payroll. If we still want to run DH with a 60M, I'd be amenable to that. I've never had the chance to run an online pitcher batting league (do it all the time on computer), so I'd like to see that.

Whatever we decide, the rules should be set for at least two seasons. Then we could vote again on salary cap, and the like (speaking of, I don't think we should EVER go to a 100M payroll).

That said, here's what we should vote on:

DH: Y or N
Salary: 60M or 80M (with an option to vote again after two seasons)
Keep .75'ers?: Y or N

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX DH: N SAL: 60M Keep 75ers: Y
2. roofinghorse--KY
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK
5 Billings Ballers - ID
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC

I leave the issue to the masses.

[roofinghorse1]

DH: Y or N
Salary: 60M or 80M (with an option to vote again after two seasons)
Keep .75'ers?: Y or N

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX DH: N SAL: 60M Keep 75ers: Y
2. roofinghorse--KY DH-N/SALARY-80M/75ERS Y
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK
5 Billings Ballers - ID
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC

I,m pretty flexible on all 3 issues. 80 mil only allows for a deeper pitching staff (with no DH) and the flexibility of moving players up and down. i think the option of moving up the pay scale after 2 years would be ok if we decide to change something(and maybe vote on the DH at that time too).but all in all this seems pretty solid and keeping whomever you want sounds good too especially if it's 60 mil. them little keepers could be very important.....

[Billings Ballers]

DH: Y or N
Salary: 60M or 80M (with an option to vote again after two seasons)
Keep .75'ers?: Y or N

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX DH: N SAL: 60M Keep 75ers: Y
2. roofinghorse--KY DH-N/SALARY-80M/75ERS Y
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK
5 Billings Ballers - ID DH: N SAL:80M 75er: N
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC

[AdamKatz]

DH: Y or N
Salary: 60M or 80M (with an option to vote again after two seasons)
Keep .75'ers?: Y or N

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX DH: N SAL: 60M Keep 75ers: Y
2. roofinghorse--KY DH-N/SALARY-80M/75ERS Y
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK
5 Billings Ballers - ID DH: N SAL:80M 75er: N
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY DH:Y SAL:80M 74ers:Y
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC


I like the standard rules. The thing about leagues like this is that there are less good available players. Even with 2-3 less CFs and SSs available, for example, you start having to play new guys that you wouldn't ordinarily play. Also, guys who are way too expensive to ever see ordinary play (at least prior to the 41 day mark) look attractive. Dusty Baker (and even Ellis Valentine for example) remain overpriced but suddenly they are some of the best options out there.

reducing the salary cap to 60million or eliminating the DH is going to further limit players available. That isnt necessary. I havent been in a lot of specialty leagues but from the few I have, I have realized that the limitations set were alot bigger than I originally thought. Even if we allow an 80M salary and DH, I think you will find yourself hunting for good players and playing players you never thought of playing before. You make to many limitations and this starts to feel like a 200x game because there is no one worth picking up that can possibly be better than the 5 million dollar guy on your team that revealed his worst year.

[LMBombers]

Please explain the 75¢ thing so I better understand what I would be voting on. :? I apologize for being a dummy.

[jjd77447]

DH: Y or N
Salary: 60M or 80M (with an option to vote again after two seasons)
Keep .75'ers?: Y or N

MANAGER--lotto
1. honestiago--TX DH: N SAL: 60M Keep 75ers: Y
2. roofinghorse--KY DH-N/SALARY-80M/75ERS Y
3. sphilipp8 -- CT-
4. jjd77447-OK DH N/Salary-60/75ers Y
5 Billings Ballers - ID DH: N SAL:80M 75er: N
6. MRMS1970 -VA-
7. canauscot - MI
8. Yellow_Dog - NM
9. AdamKatz -NY DH:Y SAL:80M 74ers:Y
10. Rutkap - MO
11.
12. LMBombers - DC

I understand it will limits us to the amount of studs we can have, but to me that is part of the fun finding the hidden gem. Playing a guy that over all stinks but wns a game for you with a 9 th inning hit. It would be more like a real team, you could be stong in some places but very week in others. To me part of the appeal is trying to solve the problems.