|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 28, 2012 14:14:31 GMT -5
Looks like everyone is gearing up for the BotB 2012 edition, which is nice to see. Unfortunately, it's not looking like I'm going to have a ton of time or energy to devote to running this league, which, given the demands on the commish last year could be problematic, especially over the next couple of months.
As I mentioned last year, this league would likely benefit from a new commissioner. If no one wants to take over, then we can either fold the league or I can run it the best I can under the constraints I have. At this point, I simply can't guarantee that I can run this league smoothly or efficiently. I'll do my best, but that's about the best I can say. The rest depends on workload and other external factors.
Anyway, that's how we stand. At the very least, people should be aware of this going into the season and adjust their expectations accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by starpower25 on Jan 28, 2012 21:16:49 GMT -5
I can't run league as I am returning to school to get my masters degree .......otherwise I would
|
|
|
Post by sabo3b17 on Jan 30, 2012 18:41:34 GMT -5
LOL hey Lark check your PM's your bad at that
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Jan 31, 2012 22:19:11 GMT -5
Sabo3b17 and RedSnapper have graciously agreed to be co-commissioners this year. So, the three of us will be handling the duties. Thanks to both.
|
|
|
Post by starpower25 on Jan 31, 2012 23:11:20 GMT -5
Yep thanks
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on Feb 1, 2012 14:11:00 GMT -5
Just wanted to throw out there that I'm very pleased with this decision, and would like to thank Sabo and Snappers as well. I think having 3 co-commissioners is a great idea, considering the nature of this league.
To the three of you: I have some questions/issues about the league that were debated on at different points last season. Where is the best place for me to raise these issues? In a thread on this board or privately? I've enjoyed the league and am glad to see it's going to continue, but I do have some concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Feb 1, 2012 14:37:48 GMT -5
Just wanted to throw out there that I'm very pleased with this decision, and would like to thank Sabo and Snappers as well. I think having 3 co-commissioners is a great idea, considering the nature of this league. To the three of you: I have some questions/issues about the league that were debated on at different points last season. Where is the best place for me to raise these issues? In a thread on this board or privately? I've enjoyed the league and am glad to see it's going to continue, but I do have some concerns. If they are general rules issues, then you can raise them here. If they are personal or related to specific owners, then shoot me or us a PM.
|
|
|
Post by sabo3b17 on Feb 1, 2012 18:22:29 GMT -5
Just wanted to throw out there that I'm very pleased with this decision, and would like to thank Sabo and Snappers as well. I think having 3 co-commissioners is a great idea, considering the nature of this league. To the three of you: I have some questions/issues about the league that were debated on at different points last season. Where is the best place for me to raise these issues? In a thread on this board or privately? I've enjoyed the league and am glad to see it's going to continue, but I do have some concerns. If they are general rules issues, then you can raise them here. If they are personal or related to specific owners, then shoot me or us a PM. Thx VT and yes I agree with Lark, personal ones just shoot us a pm and general league ones leave here. We are looking right now into getting the draft lottery going in the next week or less so we can get things moving and set up a draft I will also be posting a Poll on here to get an idea of when we should do the live draft. there will be plenty of options.
|
|
|
Post by vtreds22 on Feb 2, 2012 15:54:10 GMT -5
No, nothing personal at all with anyone. I have two main concerns:
1. Streaming. I know we have rules in place to try to prevent streaming, but as you all well know, we had issues with it last season. Not just from one member either. I think we need either a much more definitive rule on what constitutes streaming, or there needs to be some sort of transaction limit in place to combat it. I would have no problem with a weekly transaction limit, but I know some are against it. Either way, I just hope it's not a problem again this season.
2. Trades. I don't know how others feel about this, and I could be in the extreme minority (hell, I could be the only one)... but I thought there were WAY too many lopsided trades in this league last season. I know it's a keeper league so it's not always a black and white issue, but some of the trades that were allowed to take place last season should not have been allowed (nothing personal, Lark). I'm all for one team trying to improve itself in the short term, while another does in the long term, or a mixture of both, or whatever... but some of the trades were so bad last year that some even mentioned the dreaded C word (collusion). I sincerely hope there is a better system (or process) this season dealing with trades.
If any of you guys would like for me to give examples of specific deals that I'm referring to from last season, I will if necessary (and if I have access to them). Again, nothing personal with anyone, but I thought there were too many trades where one party was committing highway robbery.
Thanks for taking these thoughts into consideration!
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Feb 2, 2012 16:18:15 GMT -5
No, nothing personal at all with anyone. I have two main concerns: 1. Streaming. I know we have rules in place to try to prevent streaming, but as you all well know, we had issues with it last season. Not just from one member either. I think we need either a much more definitive rule on what constitutes streaming, or there needs to be some sort of transaction limit in place to combat it. I would have no problem with a weekly transaction limit, but I know some are against it. Either way, I just hope it's not a problem again this season. 2. Trades. I don't know how others feel about this, and I could be in the extreme minority (hell, I could be the only one)... but I thought there were WAY too many lopsided trades in this league last season. I know it's a keeper league so it's not always a black and white issue, but some of the trades that were allowed to take place last season should not have been allowed (nothing personal, Lark). I'm all for one team trying to improve itself in the short term, while another does in the long term, or a mixture of both, or whatever... but some of the trades were so bad last year that some even mentioned the dreaded C word (collusion). I sincerely hope there is a better system (or process) this season dealing with trades. If any of you guys would like for me to give examples of specific deals that I'm referring to from last season, I will if necessary (and if I have access to them). Again, nothing personal with anyone, but I thought there were too many trades where one party was committing highway robbery. Thanks for taking these thoughts into consideration! Not a problem. I will gladly let Sabo or Snap handle the trade veto issues this year. I like to let teams have the freedom to run their teams as they see fit. My criteria last year was that for the veto to be used, the trade had to be either (1) collusive or (2) so massively unbalanced that it unfairly threatens the competitive balance of the league. In my opinion, that standard was rarely, if ever, met. To me, people were adjusting to playing in a keeper league and figuring out how to properly balance present vs. future value. I suspect we'll see fewer of those trades this year as people have a greater understanding of how the league works. But, Sabo and Snap can handle that issue how they see fit and I'll update the rules accordingly. As for streaming, I think the rule we put in place last year was a good one. As I recall, it was that a player picked up off the waiver wire or from free agency had to be on your roster for a full week. So, if you pick up a player for Monday, you cannot replace him until the following Monday. By using the full week holding period (which is also the length of the competition between two teams in BotB), it limits the streaming possibilities against any one opponent. Frankly, I'm surprised we had so many problems with streaming. I don't view it as being all that difficult to identify, but we had some teams testing the boundaries of acceptability.
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Feb 2, 2012 19:12:02 GMT -5
I usually try to have a hands off approach to the trade veto. if it can be helped the veto should never be used because it just opens up a massive can of worms that could kill the league.
You vetoed my deal, why did you allow this deal to happen.
Teams also start to feel like they aren't allowed to trade unless its a dollar for a dollar deal that helps both teams right now.
There have been plenty of deals that I felt should be vetoed immediately that turned out to be wins for the team that I thought was getting robbed as well.
As for streaming a once a week rule is fine, but I think there needs to be something that allows a team to drop a pitcher that has a horrible start that cost the team points.
|
|
|
Post by sabo3b17 on Feb 2, 2012 20:23:04 GMT -5
Ya that is something Lark, Snapper and I will definitly discuss. VT i really liked the rule we implemented at the end of last season. I do think it worked pretty well. But on the flip side Schillis does have a point it would stink to have to keep that player if he preformed bad.
That is also why the Innings pitched limit that some people were proposing last year is a good idea. It will place total control of what you do to your team. You can pick up who you want np, but alas if they pitch 7-8 innings and you do it multiple times a week it will be adding up to your limit. so if you stream all through out the season, you probably wont be able to accumulate any points for pitchers at the end of the year because you surpassed the limit. But in doing so the people who constantly pushed the limits of the rule can still do so at their own possible demise.
You know it also makes you think about who you want to play and it would for sure also put more power to your relievers and they would become even more viable since you can play them at a clip of what 3-5 innings a week.
|
|
|
Post by starpower25 on Feb 2, 2012 20:53:42 GMT -5
I dislike inning pitch limit...look at my keepers I have 7 stud arms I would pass limit most weeks
|
|
|
Post by sabo3b17 on Feb 2, 2012 21:09:05 GMT -5
no it would be a season innings pitched limit like 1700 innings pitched or something like that. and i am not to positive but i think you were somewhere like 1800 innings pitched last year or something like that with those stud pitchers But again that was just a idea that was thrown around last year. weekly innings pitched would not work, but a season could. we played what 21 games? thats like 80 innings pitched per week you could use for your team and thats still below 1700 innings pitched. so what if all your studs pitched 6 innings each start, and they had two starts every single week thats only 84 innings. and that scenario will never happen
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Feb 2, 2012 21:30:57 GMT -5
A season inning limit is completely pointless. All that does is makes sure that you save the innings for use against the teams when you'll need them the most.
You want to limit innings, add a extra RP slot without adding a extra roster slot and make it a rule that every active slot must be filled by a active player, and monitor the steaming.
|
|