EMoney 0 Posted May 20, 2004 I'd be up for either of these modifications to our rules: One free agent move allowed per month (6 per year) One free agent move allowed per week Free Agents can only be acquired if a player on your team goes on the DL It's just so maddening to go searching for a player(usually pitcher) that you could use and then someone has picked them up for their pitching roulette spin of the day. I have been quiet about this for a while but crap, this has become really crazy this year with so many more doing it. While I have acquired a little knowledge and experience on the way I play this game over the years I can never see myself resorting to playing the game this way. This roto league is a great one in so many ways but this little problem really dumbs it down. I'm looking for some support here. :ph34r: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,486 Posted May 20, 2004 Personally restricting roster moves makes the league less fun for me. I normally don't play roster roulette with pitchers, but since my ERA/WHIP was in the tank from the get go, I figured WTF... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 20, 2004 If I understand the criticism, you're angry because you can't pick up a player that someone has already picked up? Major League Baseball teams can transact at all. Shoot, sometimes they'll send a guy down the SAME DAY they picked him up! If you want a player, move quickly on him in this league. I'm sitting on Dmitri Young for a week while he's on the DL still, because I knew if I didn't somebody else would. And don't worry so much, EMoney--roster roulette is a risky, high-maintenance strategy. To anybody who can get it to work, I say "good show." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tusekan Raiders 0 Posted May 25, 2004 Major League Baseball teams can transact at all. Shoot, sometimes they'll send a guy down the SAME DAY they picked him up! Not really a great analogy since not many teams have quality positional and pitching starters lying around in the minors. The only thing I think needs legislation is adding and dropping a guy the same day for someone else. You just screwed someone else out of that player. If you pick someone up, they need to stay on your roster at least one day. There should also be a DL. You're unfairly penalized for bad luck. I'd prefer a DL-only reserve or none. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
torridjoe 48 Posted May 25, 2004 Major League Baseball teams can transact at all. Shoot, sometimes they'll send a guy down the SAME DAY they picked him up! Not really a great analogy since not many teams have quality positional and pitching starters lying around in the minors. The only thing I think needs legislation is adding and dropping a guy the same day for someone else. You just screwed someone else out of that player. If you pick someone up, they need to stay on your roster at least one day. There should also be a DL. You're unfairly penalized for bad luck. I'd prefer a DL-only reserve or none. Not sure I get the rebuttal to the analogy. What they call prospects, we call the waiver wire. If wire candidates were uniformly great, they wouldn't be there, and if players in the minors were so great, they'd be in the majors. How are you unfairly penalized for bad luck when your player goes on the DL? Unfair suggests that something has happened to make your players more injury-prone. Injuries happen nearly at random, to any player. That's what makes it fair. To the extent that you are able, you can work to minimize your cache of injury prone players (Ken Griffey, Rondell White, et al). Beyond that, you could lose a player at any time, for any reason. That's why they call it luck--it's nothing you did; it just happens. At this point I feel eminently qualified to rule on how unfair losing a player to the DL is or is not; my #1 draft pick is likely gone for the year. If I can adjust and try to fill his slot, so can the rest of you. I don't know of a way to prevent transactions involving dropping a player you just picked up, without manually monitoring everyone's transactions every day. No thank you. I am willing to create a penalty for perceived abuse, however. Something on the order of being banned from all transactions for a week? It would be at the commissioner's discretion (subject to 3/4 veto against--ie, the majority could overrule the penalty, but not instate it over my objection), and could only take place immediately under a 12-0 vote in favor. Informally register your view on this proposal here... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkanate 0 Posted May 26, 2004 I don't know of a way to prevent transactions involving dropping a player you just picked up, without manually monitoring everyone's transactions every day. No thank you. I am willing to create a penalty for perceived abuse, however. Something on the order of being banned from all transactions for a week? It would be at the commissioner's discretion (subject to 3/4 veto against--ie, the majority could overrule the penalty, but not instate it over my objection), and could only take place immediately under a 12-0 vote in favor. Informally register your view on this proposal here... While i don't believe this would ever be a real ongoing problem, i'd be in favor of something like this. I could forsee a scenario wherein the last couple days of the season one team is ahead by a win or two and add/drops every starter every day to keep the other owner from picking them up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
posty 2,486 Posted May 27, 2004 I don't know of a way to prevent transactions involving dropping a player you just picked up, without manually monitoring everyone's transactions every day. No thank you. I am willing to create a penalty for perceived abuse, however. Something on the order of being banned from all transactions for a week? It would be at the commissioner's discretion (subject to 3/4 veto against--ie, the majority could overrule the penalty, but not instate it over my objection), and could only take place immediately under a 12-0 vote in favor. Informally register your view on this proposal here... While i don't believe this would ever be a real ongoing problem, i'd be in favor of something like this. I could forsee a scenario wherein the last couple days of the season one team is ahead by a win or two and add/drops every starter every day to keep the other owner from picking them up. But that is different than what some of us are doing... To stop them, you need to set up something that states you have to keep him on your roster for one complete day... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ditkanate 0 Posted May 28, 2004 But that is different than what some of us are doing... To stop them, you need to set up something that states you have to keep him on your roster for one complete day... Exactly right. I have no problem with the rent-a-pitcher strategy at all. But picking up and immediately dropping someone with the sole inent of tying up that player on waivers is wrong IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blitzen 0 Posted May 31, 2004 I have no problem with rotating pitchers as long as they actually play for you. On the DL, I guess I agree that it is somewhat based on luck (or lack thereof). One DL spot would have done nothing to save my season last year. I would have needed about 10. On a different topic, my pitchers have finally shown up, which is kinda nice. Actually getting close to the second to last place teams in ERA and WHIP. Now if Vidro and Cabrera can remove their heads from their asses, I'll be set. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
