69' franchise theme league...60 mil and more...

[G_MONEY]

??

[franky35]

There look to be several good teams still available. In the AL, Sea, KC, Cal, or ChW all look possible, especially since they will play in the division with 3 other low salary teams. In the NL, LA looks decent. Even without Stargell and Clemente, Pitt fields a decent team with both pitching and hitting.

Atl is out unless there is a rules change (they list only 24 players and are way over the cap). StL has only one pure reliever - if they drop a couple S/R they could easily get under the cap and keep all their hitters, the issue would be what pure relievers could StL pick up to replace their S/R. Is it correct that StL can pick up any free agent pure relievers with salaries below 1 mil to meet the minimum requirements?

[buster j ratt]

You don't have to have pure relievers in 69 I have had all starters on my roster more than once Just have to have certain amount that can relieve I believe 5

[franky35]

You don't have to have pure relievers in 69 I have had all starters on my roster more than once Just have to have certain amount that can relieve I believe 5

Thanks Buster for that rules clarification.

Since I think the minimum number of pitchers is 9 and minimum players is 24, StL cannot have a legal roster since cutting Torre leaves them at 60.1 mil. So, realistically in the NL, that leaves LA, Pitt (minus Stargell and Clemente) and Cincy (minus 2 players that add to 6.14 mil or more). Who is up to the challenge?

[toshiro]

I don't think Pitt would have to lose both Stargell and Clemente necessarily. they can cut 3 players, I believe. Could be like Stargell, Taylor, Oliver etc. You'd definetely have to make cuts, though. I think StL has enough extra players to make it a legal roster. Torre would have to go though. It is a 60 mil league, so hardship is spread around.

[toshiro]

I think I'll go ahead and post my change -- from [b:646a86fd63]Det [/b:646a86fd63]to [b:646a86fd63]ChW[/b:646a86fd63]

AL Franchises:
1. Pelzer---Washington Senators--DH
2. LMBombers - NY Yankees - No DH
3. franky35 - Oakland - no DH
4. J Law - Boston - no DH
5 toshiro - Chicago White Sox - DH
6.

NL Franchises:
1. hfsmart NY Mets--No DH
2. buster j ratt- Houston Astros--No DH
3. RiojaDave - SF Giants -- No DH
4. jettblack - Chicago Cubs - No DH
5.
6.

[LMBombers]

There is already 7 votes for no DH so I would think there will be no DH.

Hopefully we can get 3 more owners.

[toshiro]

LM -- I did some advertising. Maybe some others can send out some requests for invite to try to fill out the league.

Can we get some input on the two questions I had?

1) For teams over $60, do they get to add any players under $1mil or just .5 guys? I'm concerned about tom Egan being added and used as a regular, which is frequently seen in 69 leagues. My vote is for strictly using .5 guys as filler for $60mil+ teams, otherwise it might put teams under $60mil at a disadvantage.

2) For any teams under $60 mil, are they allowed to add players to get up to the minimum or are they limited to the franchise players only? If it is the former, disregard what I said in 1).

[pacoboy]

I think I'll go ahead and post my change -- from Det to ChW

AL Franchises:
1. Pelzer---Washington Senators--DH
2. LMBombers - NY Yankees - No DH
3. franky35 - Oakland - no DH
4. J Law - Boston - no DH
5 toshiro - Chicago White Sox - DH
6.

NL Franchises:
1. hfsmart NY Mets--No DH
2. buster j ratt- Houston Astros--No DH
3. RiojaDave - SF Giants -- No DH
4. jettblack - Chicago Cubs - No DH
5.
6.

Took Back Baltimore, just realized this is 60 Mil. I'm in but I'll have to re-pick

[pacoboy]

AL Franchises:
1. Pelzer---Washington Senators--DH
2. LMBombers - NY Yankees - No DH
3. franky35 - Oakland - no DH
4. J Law - Boston - no DH
5 toshiro - Chicago White Sox - DH
6. pacoboy - Detroit - no DH

NL Franchises:
1. hfsmart NY Mets--No DH
2. buster j ratt- Houston Astros--No DH
3. RiojaDave - SF Giants -- No DH
4. jettblack - Chicago Cubs - No DH
5.
6.