2012 Amendment Proposal

This isn't really a proposal, but more in the way of a guideline. I propose that when someone proposes an amendment, it must be seconded by another league member. A league I was in used this method and it worked really well in terms of weeding out outlandish proposals, if no one seconds your proposal then it's dead from the start. This saves time and keeps us from having to vote when the end result would be 19-1 against a possible proposal.

First Amendment proposal for 2012, possibly 2011 if people are on board for a quick vote.

Remove the minimum requirement for starting position players. Therefore, no one would be required to start a 3B if they did not want to or did not have one active at the time. An attachment to that would be changing the allowable reserve players. The requirement to not have 25 active players would still be in place but no longer would a person have an illegal lineup if they had 16 active and 9 reserves.

I also do not know if that was Luis's intention to have every positioned filled each day of the week?

We need to fill a full team every day. This proposal would really bastardize the intent here. Now, I know someone can find a C that gets no stats to avoid hurting themselves with a filler. But, so be it. At least they are taking a roster spot.

We need every position filled in our active lineup every day of the week.

All right, I was just throwing out the idea. Not as if I would want to see a team not have all positions filled. Though in most cases, I could rarely see a reason where a position going unfilled would help a manager.

Just trying to do due diligence in evaluating everything as a commissioner now.

i think when the league started you had to fill every position or else your roster was illegal based on the settings CBS offered


i dont know if its changed

I agree with Jammy, no reason for not having every active position filled everyday of the week. If someone doesn't have every position filled then their lineup should be illegal.

Proposal for 2012:

For one week every year, we open a window were we can each send 1 player back to our minors. We can also put nobody down, but no more then 1.

We'd have to put restrictions on what kind of players can be demoted .. i'm thinking this is for rookies, and players early in their careers who don't have fantasy value yet, that were called up too soon. thinking it would be best done in March or April, or around the cut-dates

This is most needed for new managers taking over teams where these mistakes we're made. Its unfair if they walk into a situation like that. Its also good for anyone trying to win now

jake wrote:

Proposal for 2012:

For one week every year, we open a window were we can each send 1 player back to our minors. We can also put nobody down, but no more then 1.

We'd have to put restrictions on what kind of players can be demoted .. i'm thinking this is for rookies, and players early in their careers who don't have fantasy value yet, that were called up too soon. thinking it would be best done in March or April, or around the cut-dates

This is most needed for new managers taking over teams where these mistakes we're made. Its unfair if they walk into a situation like that. Its also good for anyone trying to win now

I like the sentiment, especially for those taking over a team, but I think this is a bad idea. Kind of reminds me of the Ben Sheets proposal a couple of years ago. To make a rule for 1 oddity that can be used for other purposes seems short sighted. If we think someone has really f'd up their team and left it in shambles, why not just vote on the 1 exception for the new owner rather than creating "loophole" rules (though even that creates it's own slippery slope).

I will give a personal example - I waited to promote Walker last year knowing once I did, I wouldn't be able to reverse it. This rule would basically give me carte blanche on making such a mistake (which in fact turned out not to be). I don't like that. I'd rather have to think. 2nd example - I'd love to put Kyle Blanks back in my Minors. I f'd up and brought him up too soon. Why should I be able to put him back down?

I like the fact that our Minor Leagues are just that (with the 1 extension being that WE can decide when to bring someone up and not have to rely on bad real life GM's). I see other leagues that basically use the Minors as extensions of their benches and I cringe. Especially in a league the size of ours.

Even your own caveats show the difficulty in making this rule - we'd only be able to use it on players with less than 1.653 years of service who also have 1 shaved eye brow.

Like I said, I do feel bad for the new owners in really bad situations. And if there is something so egregious, I'd be willing to consider as a league an especially bad exception. But, that's unfortunately part of taking over a team. It's going to be rare that a team ready to win today will be left by someone. And I don't want to create a rule that allows others to use it as a means of managing their day to day teams.

Agreed...NO DO-OVERS!

I second Jammy, I don't like to take the thinking out of things. Little decisions like those are what slowly builds teams. I don't want to help out someone by giving them a do-over. When you take over a team, you see the roster prior to taking it over and get to read over the rules. They do have the right to decline taking over the team.

jamcam13 wrote:

If we think someone has really f'd up their team and left it in shambles, why not just vote on the 1 exception for the new owner .....

someone was recently complaining about their inherited team and players being promoted to soon. i cant remember who, but maybe we can start with them

jamcam13 wrote:

I f'd up and brought Blanks up too soon. Why should I be able to put him back down?

to keep your team as competitive as possible.. to give Summer Glau a run for her money.. to bring more excitement to the league

jake wrote:

to give Summer Glau more excitement

Now that, I'd like to do....