• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

2019 Offseason Thread

I'd be fine with 18 and 22. Have the players just unprotected and left on their teams and the draft is done offline. Would we leave it at 3 max that you can lose?
 
Deckie007 said:
Part of me says doing a 3 team draft sounds great and would be good for the league. The other part that just spent considerable assets to upgrade my team isn't happy to lose maybe guys I just traded for. I think we should do it, but we need to think it out and not screw over anyone who didn't have expansion in their plans.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I’m not gonna lie, I’m not too excited about having to give up more guys. I’ve been working hard for 2 years to try to build up a roster to 20 guys I want to keep.
That being said, I’m a team player and I’ll go along with whatever everyone decides. I’ll just be a little disappointed since dynatsy usually means you keep your whole team. 🤷‍♂️
 
Kellen2000 said:
Yeah...I’m not gonna lie, I’m not too excited about having to give up more guys. I’ve been working hard for 2 years to try to build up a roster to 20 guys I want to keep.
That being said, I’m a team player and I’ll go along with whatever everyone decides. I’ll just be a little disappointed since dynatsy usually means you keep your whole team. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
 
I think the numbers should be a little higher (19 & 25, 18 & 28, etc.)

Basically was just starting to type what Kellen just said.

We're still in phase 1 of discussing the best way to go about this, so anyone reading feel free to voice your opinion. It'll take some discussing to get things to the fairest and best possible setup for everyone.
 
Deckie007 said:
Part of me says doing a 3 team draft sounds great and would be good for the league. The other part that just spent considerable assets to upgrade my team isn't happy to lose maybe guys I just traded for. I think we should do it, but we need to think it out and not screw over anyone who didn't have expansion in their plans.
Click to expand...

I'm on Deckie's side here...though I worry more about the minors than the majors. I like the idea of bringing in all 3 guys if we can. But on the selfish side, my team is built entirely around prospects...I've traded away a lot of major league talent to accumulate as many as I can, without expecting to have to expose any. I'd be happy with a rule of keeping 40 overall, but the 18 & 22 split is a tough one for me to stomach.

Just my two cents if we're spitballing ideas!
 
I kinda like the keep x-amount total, then we're not discriminating against the way different managers have decided to build their rosters.

If someone decides they want to protect 20 mlb players then they protect less prospects or vice versa.
 
I am ok with anything. But I do feel bad for the guys who accumulated prospects sacrificing major league talent. They probably thought of a longer rebuild. So let’s not screw them over.
 
Iceman said:
I'm on Deckie's side here...though I worry more about the minors than the majors. I like the idea of bringing in all 3 guys if we can. But on the selfish side, my team is built entirely around prospects...I've traded away a lot of major league talent to accumulate as many as I can, without expecting to have to expose any. I'd be happy with a rule of keeping 40 overall, but the 18 & 22 split is a tough one for me to stomach.

Just my two cents if we're spitballing ideas!
Click to expand...
Well either way, you'd be able to keep minor eligible players as "keepers."
 
hairnova said:
I kinda like the keep x-amount total, then we're not discriminating against the way different managers have decided to build their rosters.
Click to expand...

I kinda like this idea too. It puts some players back in the pool for the new guys but allows everyone to keep with their plans, whether that’s a rebuild or a title run.
 
hairnova said:
I kinda like the keep x-amount total, then we're not discriminating against the way different managers have decided to build their rosters.

If someone decides they want to protect 20 mlb players then they protect less prospects or vice versa.
Click to expand...
Problem with that a lot of people, myself included have a pretty weak prospect pool. I'd be able to protect all my MLBers and expose a bunch of shitty prospects.
 
I'd prefer 40 players kept with the split decided by the manager. Like you can keep a maximum of 20 major leaguers but you sacrifice minor leaguers to do it.
 
We have 2 rosters that aren't great but are good enough to split up with new active managers, especially if we let them boost their options by selecting from unprotected players and Fantrax FA's.

We don't want to add a 3rd team with an overall weaker group of players that ends up diluting all 3 rosters. But it's also not fair to existing managers who have built up a lot of depth to suddenly lose good prospects. It's a tough call. I'm not sure we need to add a 3rd team, but if we do just have to figure out the best way to handle it.
 
Yeah, I think the original intent here was to make sure some quality major leaguers were exposed for the new guys to select?

It's a tricky needle to thread.
 
I don't think we need to rush into a decision here. In some ways, 18 protected is actually quite a lot, so I would guess that these 3 new teams will be fairly bad, even if they some decent players with the 19th best player from a few of our teams. But I do think if we have 3 new owners who want to come in, I'd welcome them in, so figuring out some way to handle that would be nice.
 
While we're figuring this out...out of curiosity, was anyone else thinking seriously about tossing their whole team back in and joining a dispersal draft?

I saw that option thrown around and nobody commented, so maybe we all like what we've built. I know I'm happy building with my last place team as it is. LOL

But when I joined last time, that definitely improved the pool of talent available, even though it was spread thinner. There were really big, exciting names available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top