24 TKL chat

[qksilver69]

There's no question that some roster turnover is needed in a league as deep as this. The question is finding the right balance between too much administration/hassle and enabling teams to rebuild quickly. For the newbies, I think you'll find waiting for 23 teams to scrabble over .50 players in the 8-9-10th rounds to be as excruciating as I do.

I'll say it again - free agents are only 1 of 3 ways to acquire players here, and it's the least efficient in terms of rebuilding. If you want to rebuild and compete quickly, the best 2 ways to do that in this format are trades and prospects.

I think the hand-wringing over the FA draft in a league this deep is a lot of time wasted. You're going to get a maximum 2 rounds of impact players. If your team is not competitive pre-draft, you won't be competitive post-draft unless you've stockpiled 4 or 5 FA picks in the 1st 2 rounds. Pretty much everyone else after that is a bench guy who you hope has some upside.

After seeing all the feedback, I'd propose a 7 cut minimum instead of 10.

[fredpaii]

How bout 8 and a half? :lol:

Just kidding.

Here's where I'm coming from.

When you have some bottom-feeder teams that need to have a little help going into the new season free agents can be their only realistic source of improvement. By keeping the cuts at 10 (in addition to cuts for prospects) you make each owner cut more coveted players. I'm thinking that's better for the bottom feeder teams than the less talented pool accrued from only seven cuts.

EDIT: And the other thing that more, especially more coveted, cuts do for bottom-feeder teams is afford them better chances of acquiring prospect and FA draft picks in the future. I.E.- They can acquire a one-season wonder from the expanded Free agent draft and turn him for future picks.

[Sknsfan]

I know I'm new here and I admit i haven't read through the entire 96 page thread. Yet. (I haven't hit send yet and this is getting long. sorry for the verbosity)

However I've been on several sides of the prospect and draft arguments over the years.

Here are my thoughts on it. (Please note this is my first foray into a 24 team keeper so I'm not completely sure how empty the drafts will be)

I like the idea of forcing teams to drop to a certain number (down to 20 for example) before the draft. This helps make sure that the field of draftees is a reasonable one for the first few rounds at least.

I also agree that if you're promoting Prospects, the time to do it is before the draft. This also helps up the number players available for those first few rounds of the draft. You know the value of that players card once the cards come out. You have a good idea if you want to play him this year. His card isn't going to get magically better by playing half a season in the minors and then coming up.

(my one exception to this would be if you are part of a trade that leaves you short on your 30 man roster. While it's not currently ok according to the rules, i do think it would be nice to fill out the tiny 30 man roster with one of my prospects if possible.)
(Just thought of another possible exception that might be nice. If you make a trade for a prospect who is eligible to play now, being able to cut a player to "Bring up" your new accquire.)

Think of it as the unofficial way we have a salary cap in a $200m keeper league. If you want that player on your team, it will cost you a roster spot. now. pre-draft. The draft is thin enough each season in my 12 team keepers, i can only imagine how rough it gets in a 24 team league.

I know people who've built great teams want them to remain intact, but it might be nice to remember, these aren't real MLB teams. We don't share TV revenues between the perennial leaders and the bottom feeders. Keeping some level of competitiveness is the way to keep it fun for everyone.

In this league you already have the advantage of being able to keep a prospect indefinitely. In one of my others - you've got him for two years and then you either promote him or cut him, and hope you can get him back in the prospect draft. Since there is no limit on time you hold a guy, I don't think it's unreasonable to say if you want him on your team it costs you a spot on your roster.

Here's to the coming season.

[Sknsfan]

Also - to everyone who has already sent me trade requests. I've started to look them over and I'll start to get back to people in the next couple of days.

It's a lot to go over.

:D

Also - just out of curiosity - the link I have for the league is the one from the request for new players.

Just want to make sure it's up to date or is there a newer one?

Thanks

[qksilver69]

Let's see if you feel the same after round 10 Derf. The approach you describe works well in a 12-team league, but not here because the extra cuts simply don't add much to the pool. Go online & look at the last 3 rounds of the draft, it's horrible. Same for the supplemental draft, it's almost not worth it.

I'll give you a for instance. On my team, under current rules, my 10 cuts look like this:

D Johnson
Brignac
Rosales
Dyson
Maxwell
L Hernandez
Zumaya
Pettitte
Kuo
C Ross
Buck

Is there really any substantive difference between keeping 7 of the above instead of 10? Half of these guys are uncarded, the others are all pretty much $.50 cent guys.

[fredpaii]

[quote:ccbfaec819="qksilver"]Let's see if you feel the same after round 10 Derf. The approach you describe works well in a 12-team league, but not here because the extra cuts simply don't add much to the pool. Go online & look at the last 3 rounds of the draft, it's horrible. Same for the supplemental draft, it's almost not worth it.

I'll give you a for instance. On my team, under current rules, my 10 cuts look like this:

D Johnson
Brignac
Rosales
Dyson
Maxwell
L Hernandez
Zumaya
Pettitte
Kuo
C Ross
Buck

Is there really any substantive difference between keeping 7 of the above instead of 10? Half of these guys are uncarded, the others are all pretty much $.50 cent guys.[/quote:ccbfaec819]

We're not communicating well. What I'm saying is that as a rule when quaility teams must cut more players it is usually a good thing for the weaker teams to pick through. In fact, were it up to me I would prefer that the top winning teams cut a couple more players than the weaker teams. But overall I would keep it even. In other words, you might have the runner up and Champion cutting 12 players and the bottom two teams cutting 8 each. That seems to make a lot of sense to me.

Of course those amounts would be minimums only.

[qksilver69]

We're communicating just fine Derfs, we just disagree about the way to improve teams in this format. I don't believe in giving bad teams a significant "socialized" advantage via forced cuts. It rewards those owners who make bad choices and penalizes the owners who make good choices.

I believe the best way to improve teams in this format is through making good trades and drafting good prospects. Any time you increase the forced cuts, you decrease the value of making good trades and good prospect picks because you are subsidizing the poor decisions. So I am vehemently opposed to any move in the direction of more forced cuts.

[Spider 67]

Just to register my preferences:

All teams should be allowed to keep no more than 20 roster players
(while some teams may want to keep more, I would equate this to a majors team who can't afford to resign everyone they want.)

Prospects can be promoted at any time - this allows the manager who does homework on prospects to take advantage of their skill. My second choice would be to use the last picks to promote prospects. I would not want to be required to promote prospects as part of the 20 keepers.

[JOSEPHKENDALL]

My 2 cents:

You have to have your roster at 20 before the draft. Prospects have to be promoted before the draft starts. Therefore, prospects are part of the 20 if you want to keep them.

[qksilver69]

[quote:cda41e880d="Spider 67"](while some teams may want to keep more, I would equate this to a majors team who can't afford to resign everyone they want.)[/quote:cda41e880d]

I understand the analogy there Spider, but there is a key difference here - each team in this league is given the same amount of money to spend. So why are we so concerned with rewarding teams who pick/acquire 16 or 17 good players and penalizing teams who pick/acquire 22 or 23 good ones?

What we do in that scenario is encourage managers who are only half paying attention to keep playing because they can still get rewarded. And my observation has been that it kills the league because those are the same owners who don't reply to emails, don't proactively try to improve their teams, etc. It really kills overall league quality IMHO.