All P no D theme league anyone?

Here is my suggestion (easy for commissioner to enforce)

1- NO players with a 1 or 2 at ANY position on card allowed starting opening day and beyond.
2- ALL players that qualify at catcher or outfield with a ZERO or MINUS arms are NOT allowed starting opening day and beyond. (Musial and King Kelly NOT allowed).
3- Each owner allowed to have up to 2 cards that VIOLATE this rule regardless how extreme.
4 - Each owner MUST have 3 SPs at $8.0M on the roster starting opening day and beyond.


SIMPLE rules and easy to enforce. If one owner wants ONES at 2b and SS so be it..... Another wants a ONE -4 at catcher and TWO -3 at cf..... Cool...... Etc....this allows for the theme at 6 of 8 positions and allows for TREMENDOUS flexibility in WAIVERS...... Also think this would create TONS of trade chatter and activity..... Easily enforced and yes really fun...... No hassle of counting and averaging ranges and no complaints that owners got so hosed in the draft that they can't compete since they have wiggle room in waivers to regroup and reconfigure strategy with HOPE that with TWO exceptions they can find a way out.

If adopted count me back in....... If not I understand and best of luck to all in staying true to the THEME.

Nomads suggestions okay with me

Here is my suggestion (easy for commissioner to enforce)

1- NO players with a 1 or 2 at ANY position on card allowed starting opening day and beyond.
2- ALL players that qualify at catcher or outfield with a ZERO or MINUS arms are NOT allowed starting opening day and beyond. (Musial and King Kelly NOT allowed).
3- Each owner allowed to have up to 2 cards that VIOLATE this rule regardless how extreme.
4 - Each owner MUST have 3 SPs at $8.0M on the roster starting opening day and beyond.


SIMPLE rules and easy to enforce. If one owner wants ONES at 2b and SS so be it..... Another wants a ONE -4 at catcher and TWO -3 at cf..... Cool...... Etc....this allows for the theme at 6 of 8 positions and allows for TREMENDOUS flexibility in WAIVERS...... Also think this would create TONS of trade chatter and activity..... Easily enforced and yes really fun...... No hassle of counting and averaging ranges and no complaints that owners got so hosed in the draft that they can't compete since they have wiggle room in waivers to regroup and reconfigure strategy with HOPE that with TWO exceptions they can find a way out.

If adopted count me back in....... If not I understand and best of luck to all in staying true to the THEME.

That sounds similar to my last post and it would indeed make it far less frustrating to fill a CAP. But allowing premiere defenders like a Mays and Pudge on the same team completely violates the theme the commish desires. Allowing a few cheats would solve the challenges but golden glovers and elite cards like Bonds seem too extreme a violation for the theme.

I think these suggested rules are moving away from the initial idea, I believe the only adjustment that needs to be made was for allowing 0 arms for catchers and outfielders . The theme of having 3 rated starting fielder and bench players should stand.

I will respectfully SLINK away into the tall grass.

WHY ? Open debate and exchange of ideas will lead to a better league. I would like the commish to join in.

I think these suggested rules are moving away from the initial idea, I believe the only adjustment that needs to be made was for allowing 0 arms for catchers and outfielders . The theme of having 3 rated starting fielder and bench players should stand.

I agree that the intended theme is bad defense with really good pitching. If the fear is that a few elite players will unbalance rosters dramatically, than perhaps lowering the cap or setting a max salary for all hitters ($8M??).

By the way, I am enjoying all of the back and forth. It is just as interesting as drafting a team. I hope others do not drop out because of frustration and can stick around to see this thru.

I think lowering the CAP will make it more favorable for the luckier drafters. I do agree that 0 rated arms does really open it up a bit.

I would suggest that a team with:

C - 3 +1
1b - 4e10
2b - 3e18
ss - 1e28
3b - 3e18
lf - 4 +1 e10
cf - 3 +1 e8
rf - 1 -4 e7

is a VERY bad defensive team that we RARELY see at caps above $100M......I think it stays within the theme......like I said before, I think there are 3 options

1 - Keep a cap at $120 with ALL 3's and 4's (even with ZERO arms) - you will KNOW the 3 divisional winners IMMEDIATELY after the draft, season over for 8 or 9 of the teams with BAD drafts and NO CHANCE of recovery.

2 - Drop cap to $100M and put in ZERO arms for catchers and outfielders (I still don't think it will work, but would be a small improvement over Option 1 above.....maybe SIX teams would have a shot at the playoffs after the draft.)

3 - Keep cap at $120 with the infusion of TWO ELITE defensive players which will totally keep the theme alive and make it possible for ALL 12 teams of surviving a BAD draft.

..... If the fear is that a few elite players will unbalance rosters dramatically, than perhaps lowering the cap or setting a max salary for all hitters ($8M??).

A salary limit at individual positions may be the only way you will solve extreme draft inequalities and keep the theme. $8M would be too high though as there are only a few elite hitters around there. At CF you have to go sub $4M before players that fit the criteria are fairly plentiful. (The whole point Nomad is making) Maybe $5M is a good answer in OF? Perhaps a little lower at other positions. Then determine CAP after you have a good idea what position limits/pitching requirement should be.