Revised Financial Payout Discussion

I don't think we should add fees for moves. Aside from the fact that I don't think that was an original intended consequence, there are too many negatives that would outweigh any possible punishment. The best way to get anyone to do anything is a carrot not a stick. Especially in a situation where someone can simply just leave.

Punishing someone for too many moves in a league where we're concerned about people's activity makes little sense. As one wise coach once said - "You play to win the game."

And punishing someone for too few moves is wrought with way too many issues. I owe $20 for making 0 moves? I'm pretty sure I'll just leave the league. If I don't make 3 moves, I owe $20? Well, before I leave, I'll make some "quality" trades. This idea should be given a whirl in ML baseball, as the Royals of the world are an embarassment. But, I don't think it works here. (If our intended consequence is for low volume folks to leave, we can just do that. I'm pretty sure that's what's occuring by self-selection anyway. I'm pretty sure if we asked these folks for $20 on their way out the door, the sound of the slam will just be that much louder).

I am on the side that we need to stop streamers, but I haven't really seen a great solution to that, so I'd just as soon strategize against it and hope for the best. I mean I guess we could limit adds/drops in a given week (I'm not against people rostering 15 pitchers and using them all. I'm against people rostering 5 bad pitchers and rotating in 10 waiver guys just to win K's and have a shot at W's knowing ERA and Whip are losses).

I am not suggesting we discuss this for this year. I agree with the sentiment that these proposals need to be made before we start voting on new rules. Perhaps, someone can catalog the in-season rule proposals (the most likely time for them to happen, as something happens to cause the thought), and then the commishes can weed through them at the end of the season to create a "voting slate" for late January.

Why should we be making any fee or penalizing any team for not making moves, trades, or using waivers? Just because you don't do these things does not mean your not participating in the league. You are penalizing good teams that don't need to do these things, and you penalizing teams that have a solid young team by making them move players or pay a fine??/ Get real with this proposal......

First, anything that comes out of this is not something we could implement this year, I believe we learned that with my proposal for a few stat changes.

Second, while I do not like streamers, there are trades offs as Jonathan said in doing so and another manager can hedge against it, plus our league stats do not play into a streamers ability to win above someone that does not.

Third, what is the real problem we are trying to resolve...too many trades...too many add/drops...not enough add/drops...not enough trades?

If a team decides to make 100 trades, there is no guarantee they are getting better...most trades will not necessarily lead to a better team, just a team that can effectively cover more stats, be geared to win a few stats out right, or fill in a hole by getting rid of a hill. Someone that makes no trades could just have a little patience and want to see how their team develops, if they are bottom of the the barrel and haven't made any moves in 3 years, then yes, they are not participating, but they probably would be reprimanded before then for lack of trying.

As for the add/drops, managers should want to add someone when someone else goes on the DL, but outside of that, why should teams turnover players just for the sake of changing their team unless they really want to. Currently there is no barrier to that and knowing what is available in the free agent pool, outside of low end pitchers to stream, there is not much to be gained on a daily basis.

ok i dont have much support, maybe just LWB. but this IS an issue. maybe i should've posted it alot sooner. its been on my mind awhile..

think long-term.. if you pro-rate this to 10 years your getting 3 teams with 300 trades, 5 teams with about 120-180 trades (thats HALF the pace), and 12 teams with 0-60 trades .. maybe these #'s wont work out exactly this way, but its a general idea... i think the teams in the middle are fine.. its those extreme bookends that could lop-side the league, to the point we might not have a competitive league come the 10th year

Knuckleball wrote:

If a team decides to make 100 trades, there is no guarantee they are getting better...

it matters. if you get an above-average trader improving his team overall, it might not matter in the short term, but if he keeps pounding away can pull too far away ..... below-average trader can put his team too far back if he keeps trading at a fast pace ... some teams might pull even in the long run, but not all .. we're all different

Again, I don't understand what the "problem" is? and why we would ever charge a min. or max transaction fee or penalize any team for either.

All owners participate in:
The draft: and if they don't have draft picks then they traded them away
Trades: If you want to trade you can, if you want to build other ways, so be it..
Waivers: Every owner is on the waivers list. Some want to use a waiver on a guy, others want to save their "top of the waiver" privaledge for a blockbuster pick-up. That's their privaledge to use it when they want. If they don't use, oh well. Thats why we have a waiver order.
Minor league cash: use it or lose it. everyone gets equal dollars and this is equitable.
Maximum rosters: add and drops naturally happen through these, we don't need to force MORE.

The only problem I would ever have is that a owner is not setting his line up. I could give a rip if they never make a transaction the entire season. I could give a rip who trades with who, and who picks up who.

Now if this is about some owners not willing to trade with others, or asking too much for a player, and this is a way to force them to make transactions by hovering a "you have to trade because you haven't made your minumum transactions" I say get a life!

aaronfoster13 wrote:

All owners participate in:
The draft: and if they don't have draft picks then they traded them away
Trades: If you want to trade you can, if you want to build other ways, so be it..
Waivers: Every owner is on the waivers list. Some want to use a waiver on a guy, others want to save their "top of the waiver" privaledge for a blockbuster pick-up. That's their privaledge to use it when they want. If they don't use, oh well. Thats why we have a waiver order.
Minor league cash: use it or lose it. everyone gets equal dollars and this is equitable.
Maximum rosters: add and drops naturally happen through these, we don't need to force MORE.

NOT TRUE. all 20 participate in the draft.. and thats it!.. Trades, Waivers, Pickups, Bidding - activity for those 4 vary wildly... i'm not talking about a strict set of rules here, either.. i just think we need a little something for the few teams going way outside the norm.. and if you think in-activity isn't a problem, im at a loss

I really think that only in-activity anyone should be worried about is whether they are setting their lineups or not. And that is covered in our rules already.

Owners pay to play, and can make any transaction they feel like.

BTW Jake,
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it has some merrit. I just think that we cover in-activity in our rules already.

well, maybe we can at least mull it over for a year? i know its late in the game to make a major rule change like this .. the disparity is brutal, don't know why i'm alone here

jake wrote:

and if you think in-activity isn't a problem, im at a loss

We all seem to be at a lost as to why you think punishing someone for trying to make their team better (Trading, Pickups, Etc.) is a problem.... I've never in my life been apart of a league that limits the number of trades you can make.

bryanmurphy9 wrote:

jake wrote:

and if you think in-activity isn't a problem, im at a loss

We all seem to be at a lost as to why you think punishing someone for trying to make their team better (Trading, Pickups, Etc.) is a problem.... I've never in my life been apart of a league that limits the number of trades you can make.

i have and its always an improvement. don't knock it till you've tried it

jake wrote:

i have and its always an improvement. don't knock it till you've tried it

So I should try arsenic before I think it's a bad after work beverage?

jamcam13 wrote:

jake wrote:

i have and its always an improvement. don't knock it till you've tried it

So I should try arsenic before I think it's a bad after work beverage?

lol.. you know, now that i think about it .. neither league penalizes for going over the max.. you just hit the max and thats it your done (most don't reach it anyway) .. well one league does, you can buy additional moves like $10 for 10 moves at a time.. but nobody does it except 1 guy -whos really nice and i think just likes to donate $ to the league.. he always loses bad so the commish sometimes gives it back at the end of the year from his tip money, and then the guy winds up buying a shitload more the next year anyway haha.... the funny thing is its a 50 move max ( would never suggest that low for this league by the way).. you guys probly all think 50 is insane, and so did i at first, but once i tried it i really like it. it adds a different strategy instead of just glomming it up.. and its competitive as hell.. but i think these guys are totally different types of players then here... that leagues been around since the 80's, alot of old timers