Draft Everyone 80s Keeper League -- Rules discussion/P3s

[the icemen]

[quote:63d55ce665="YountFan"]1. Seanreflex - NH


Divisions based on the final standings as in playoff teams in the east. Next 4 by winning pct in central and the rest in the west.

Two ballparks that can be changed season to season, or traded.[/quote:63d55ce665]

i like both of these ideas...

question...you start with 56 players in your pool...if you drop someone or lose them how can you get someone new?

[the icemen]

[quote:d14426334c="Sykes25"]
Drops- Very hard to track. I'd like to see no drop restrictions for "your" players. The idea of having all of those players is so that you can use them season to season to make up for bad cards. Might I suggest that after season 1, you are only granted to protect 40 players. Should you add a non-roster player during the year NOT on your 40 man roster during season 2 and beyond, the player you drop becomes available to all. In addition, players over 4m must make it on your team at least every other season or they may "demand to be traded" and must be dropped or traded. Should they go unclaimed prior to the start of the next year, you may sign them after the first night's games.

.[/quote:d14426334c]

I second this also.

[CHADGUMM]

1. Seanreflex - NH
2. YountFan - WI
3. Sykes - NJ
4. Mav - CA

Just to play devil's advocate, doesn't the 40 man roster thing defeat the purpose of drafting every player? What would be the point? Why not just draft 40 players each? Or are you suggesting drafting the remaining players each year? Because I would be against that.

You could propose a required trade/drop of players after a certain number of years. For example, players >$7M can only be used for 3 years. After that you must trade them or drop them. Players between $5M - $7M can only be used for 4 years, etc. That would encourage more trading and allows people to have a shot at each player (i.e., depending on what kind of a trade package someone is willing to offer up for the best players like Yount, Brett, etc.).

[Sykes25]

Well by drafting all the players, you have no available players season 1. After the first season is complete, there is no more drafting. All teams need to cut down to 40 man rosters. This will advocate some mild player movement without forcing anybody's hand.

To ensure that all players are used, the "demand to be traded" clause ensures that people are using the high priced folks and not just hiding them on their rosters. The ammendment to that rule would be that they have to be on the end of year roster at least every other year. Should they fail to make it two consecutive years, they become FA.

[bjs73]

Problem is that I'm at work right now! :lol: The only thing I'd like to iron out is that we finalize a rule set before we do the pick 3 thing and organize the draft.

All of my ideas try to tie in to the other one in some way.

[b:caee46f7de]Idea #1[/b:caee46f7de]

I like the idea of creating a player flow from season to season. Instead of making it difficult by tracking players over several seasons to determine if they are dropped. Why not try to emulate the MLB style waivers?

If a manager drops a player in season to the waiver wire, that player must pass through unconditional waivers in a week's time. Starting with the team with the worst record in the season, that manager can claim the waived player or state that he passes on his option. The process will continue until the player is either claimed [b:caee46f7de]immediately[/b:caee46f7de] by a manager (going from worst season record to best season record0 or until all managers have [b:caee46f7de]passed[/b:caee46f7de] on their option to pick the player up.

If the player isn't picked up immediately using that pecking order of managers (within one week's time) then the player clears waivers and is retained by the original owner for next season.

[b:caee46f7de]And now the kicker...[/b:caee46f7de]

If a manager makes an immediate claim on say George Brett (costing him money and possibly other drops), the manager that dropped Brett originally gets to take compensation from the other manager in the form of players from the claiming manager's [b:caee46f7de]inactive[/b:caee46f7de] roster. The dropping manager can claim no more than 2 players from his inactive roster and it [b:caee46f7de]cannot[/b:caee46f7de] exceed 10% of the dropped player's salary either. Those compensated players will be made available immediately to that manager and will be retained on his roster through the next season.

This puts a [b:caee46f7de]major[/b:caee46f7de] twist on things as you can well imagine. It offers a little bit of protection for the dropping manager so that the dropped player could technically clear waivers. However, it also puts a twist on the claiming manager assuming he's got some key players that he's got on his inactive list that he'd like to retain. (Including the high dollar player he probably dropped to obtain George Brett.) It keeps a neat little check and balance here.

There would be no need to look at the scope of drops year after year. Everything would be governed during the season. There would be risk and reward.

I also believe that there should be some flexibility to allow a manager to carry more than 54 players and less than 54 players. But not without provisions. No manager can carry less than 48 players on their roster and no manager can carry more than 60 players. So 2 for 1 deals on waiver claims don't get things totally out of balance. A provision could be made by the commish to allow a temporary in-season drop of less than 48 players on the stipulation that he get his roster back up to 48 or more via trades in the off-season. Just an idea.

Off season trading with managers need not be tied to TSN salary requirements also. Therefore, a manager could literally trade Trammel for Ricky Henderson straight up.

[b:caee46f7de]Idea #2[/b:caee46f7de]

Stadiums. 2 per manager. Drafted or selected outright?

Anyhow, here is the idea with changing stadiums. Most managers draft players that fit in their primary stadium. However, if you cannot make the playoffs in your current stadium, the attendance will eventually go down and it may become time to demolish and move on.

So, here's an idea.

1. Any team with a combined record of less than a .500 winning percentage for 2 consecutive seasons will be forced to use their alternate stadium in season 3.

2. Any team that fails to make the playoffs one time in three consecutive seasons will be forced into their alternate stadium.

3. Any team that wins a championship gets a 2 year exemption on their current stadium.

These are my initial ideas for stadium rules but others may have better ones. Just food for thought.

[b:caee46f7de]Idea #3[/b:caee46f7de]

I say that we constantly seed the divisions based on previous season's final records. Make it simple. Top 4 teams go to the East. Middle 4 teams go to the Central. And the last 4 teams got to the West. Keeps the league constantly competitive.

All 3 rules would involve a lot of strategy and keep a steady flow of transactions and stadium changes. It would help keep checks and balances in place and keep the leagues totally competitive.

For instance, if I'm on the verge of losing my stadium due to poor record, do I make moves to help my team get over the .500 mark to avoid stadium change? Do I retool by trading currently valuable players to a contender for players who are on bad cards? The thoughts are limitless here. It'd really just about mimick the real thing in a way.

And it wouldn't totally violate the original goal of having a keeper league. There will be tough decisions along the road to make but that's what it takes to run a franchise.

What does everyone think?

[BC Manager]

I'm inclined to agree with Mav. Having 40-man protected rosters would go against the basic concept of all the players belonging to a team. I also wanted a keeper league where there was minimal or no activity that needed to occur between seasons -- no naming keepers or conducting drafts. The idea with players becoming FAs was that claiming them would be as simple as putting them on your team during the season or putting them on your AD list at the start of the season.

The drop restrictions are also moreso to do with high-end players. I doubt anyone really cares if someone has Ray Burris every year, but Yount, Brett, Trammell, Winfield, Clemens, etc. -- it would be good if there was some possibility of losing them at some point. I'm not sure about making them FAs automatically after a number of years, but I guess that would be like having contracts.

Other thoughts?

[BC Manager]

I have to say I'm intrigued by BJS's waiver idea. I also like the suggestion made a couple of times that divisions be aligned according to previous years finish (playoff teams in East, etc.), that way ensuring that the same teams aren't making it to the post-season each year, or more importantly, that a team isn't having it's success by feasting off the same weak teams each season. I imagine an additional challenge for teams of trying to keep your team in the East each season.

I'm not sure I like the idea of forcing losing teams to change ballparks, although there's some aspects of it I like.

I'm interested in hearing from owners who haven't made their suggestions yet.

[BC Manager]

[quote:4735ac7748="Jablowmi"][quote:4735ac7748="BC Manager"]You're more than welcome, icemen, as is everyone who signed up. I expect there will be some who are sorry they missed out on this.[/quote:4735ac7748]

I'm sorry! Let me know if someone drops![/quote:4735ac7748]

1. BC
2. Sykes
3. albert2b
4. seanreflex
5. IMB
6. BigAlric
7. YountFan
8. T.Richardson
9. Mav
10. Uglyjerry
11. bjs73
12. Iceman

Alternate - Jablowmi

[BC Manager]

1. Seanreflex - NH
2. YountFan - WI
3. Sykes - NJ
4. Mav - CA
5. BC - Ontario

We won't do Pick 3's until the rules are settled but we might as well get everyone's states.

[bjs73]

1. Seanreflex - NH
2. YountFan - WI
3. Sykes - NJ
4. Mav - CA
5. BC - Ontario
6. bjs73 - IN