|
|
Post by raiders on Oct 15, 2009 20:12:51 GMT -6
Thought I'd start a thread for rule proposals -- I'll throw out the first one: realignment. THis proposal accomplishes two important goals; (1) it encourages more H2H, and (2) it gives Milwaukee and Canada separate but equal divisions (since Milwaukeeans & Candians mix like beer & ice). We can also keep the Texas Crew together (and whatever swill they drink) and the St. Louis-ans (unfortunately we all have heard of the shit they drink) together as well. I'll throw this out:
Division 1 (IPA):
Jackson Park
Titletown
Manhattan
Chicago
Frisco
Division 2 (Stout):
Texas
San Antonio
Arlington
Clearwater
Inland
Division 3 (Bock):
St Louis
St Pauli
Granite City
Motown
Guadalajara
Division 4 (Pilsener):
Nickel
Sudbury
Toronto
Edmonton
Garson
|
|
|
|
Post by happytimefunboy on Oct 16, 2009 13:45:39 GMT -6
Right now I am in the same division as Nicholas... It's hard for me to watch him cry as he loses series after series to me.
I don't know if I could handle Doug crying as well... and Norm... that's a lot of tissues I'd have to have...
But seriously... I don't mind if we are all in the same League... same division takes some of the thrill out knowing I could play Doug in the World series or for the shot at the WS... and really make him cry... mind you he'd have to get out of round 1 first.
I don't mind random drawing every year or 2 to switch up the leagues. So I could beat on Doug instead of Nick... but both is tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougnsjr on Oct 16, 2009 14:53:53 GMT -6
The only downside to this is enjoy the fact that i get to play online with other people that i don't dislike and Mike can't afford to replace all his furniture when i kick his ass 18 times a season
I'll go with the flow on this one whatever is decided is fine with me
I like the fact that everybody is coming up with ways to make improvements to the league and we vote a season ahead of when the rule change takes place makes everything seemless great job to all those involved in running this league my girlfriend would leave me if i spent the time you all do on all facets of the league
p.s. Brian is doing an excellent he answers all questions in a timely manner and is always reachable except when he loses the draft lottery (too soon for jokes) also like to mention i've been in the bottom four picks for prospects 2 yrs running
|
|
|
|
Post by frisco on Oct 16, 2009 16:34:15 GMT -6
Proposal 2:
I'd like to suggest a second rule proposal. Under the current rule, the player pool is based on players on the 40-man roster as of February. Even though the expansion of the player pool now includes all 30 MLB teams, I don't think that the rule was changed that required players to be on the 40 man roster of the MLB teams as of February. Unfortunately, that means some players, who might be unsigned free agents as of February, or players that retire, are ineligible for the player pool. I'd like to change the "player pool" rule by making all players that get Dynasty League Cards eligible for the player pool. As it stands now, if any player retires before February, we will never be able to use that player's last card in our league. Also, if a guy is trying to get signed, but hasn't signed by February, the card for his prior year is not available. Since we are using the full major leagues anyways, I think this is a rule that makes sense.
If we make this change, we'd have to deal with guys like Troy Percival (who I have) who will not receive a card because of an injury, and we should also deal with guys who had a card one year, and then went to the minors the next year, and didn't get a card because they didn't play enough. I would propose that those players, if they have years remaining on your contract, must remain on the roster if they spent any time on the 40-man roster or on the DL during the prior MLB season. Under this rule, since Percival spent most of the year on the DL, so he would have to remain on my roster.
Another example of how this would work would be Ben Sheets. He had a Dynasty Card based on the 2008 season, but wasn't on any 40-man roster in February, 2009. So, he was not in our player pool for this past season. Then he never signed in 2009 with any team. If this rule was in place, his 2008-based card would have been in this past season's player pool. But if someone had him under contract, he would get cut because he did not spend any time on a major league 40-man roster in 2009 nor was he on any disabled list in 2009.
Proposed rule language: Each year, the player pool shall be made up of all players that received a card based on the prior major league season from Dynasty League baseball and shall also include previously carded players that spent any time on a major league 40 man roster or on a major league disabled list during the prior major league season.
|
|
|
|
Post by frisco on Oct 16, 2009 16:36:03 GMT -6
By the way, I like the division changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by happytimefunboy on Oct 16, 2009 17:42:30 GMT -6
I saw we either go carded or rosters... mixing the 2 makes it more difficult to track your players...
We could just go you signed em... you keep em rule. No matter where they are or on a roster or if they are carded.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Oct 16, 2009 17:45:56 GMT -6
i like the division changes..but i would like to have a random draw to see who is in who s division....
Wolf Pack
|
|
|
|
Post by shootingstars on Oct 16, 2009 21:23:46 GMT -6
I like the carded idea over the rosters. The way things shake out these days a lot of guys get signed later than February, hence making their card obsolete.
This would also facilitate trades in the offseason due to the fact that owners could make trades knowing that they are going to be able to use the player's card for the following season even if he's a free agent and doesn't sign until after the deadline.
I think that is a great idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by shootingstars on Oct 17, 2009 13:48:46 GMT -6
Also, one I've talked about before that didn't get much support, I'd like to play NL rules with the pitcher hitting instead of a DH. I know it would be a little more cumbersome with the instructions but probably not as bad as people might think. I just prefer the NL version of baseball over the AL with the additional strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by raiders on Oct 19, 2009 20:40:48 GMT -6
i like the division changes..but i would like to have a random draw to see who is in who s division.... Wolf Pack Just want to make sure I understand your suggestion...do you mean we draw to see which group (Milwaukeeans or Canadians) gets the IPA and which gets the Pils? |
|
|
|
Post by nfeuerer on Oct 21, 2009 5:50:52 GMT -6
This would just be about retirees, kind of piggybacking off Dan's idea- tried to send this a week ago but didn't post
I'd like to see us make players who have announced their retirement from MLB still available for use in the BLB provided:
a) they are currently under contract to a BLB squad --- not under contract, then still unavailable in the auction
b) The team with the player's contract has the option to keep him at his designated salary for the next season OR allow him to "retire" in BLB, and thus gain the salary relief for that upcoming season OR trade him to another team (other team has the same options to keep or retire)
c) If the team opts for the player to "retire", that player is not eligible for the auction
|
|
|
|
Post by shootingstars on Oct 21, 2009 19:11:43 GMT -6
Nate,
I like the idea regarding the retiring players who are still under contract and carded. It somewhat goes along with the players who are carded but are free agents who sign after our deadline. I think if they are under contract, to a BLB team, we should get to use them. It would make things a lot smoother in planning for the following season and facilitate more offseason trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by blbtrappers on Oct 27, 2009 12:00:54 GMT -6
My 2 cents:
1) I like Nate's idea as written, and extended to include free agents. Makes it easier for planning purposes
2) I don't want to get rid of the DH
3) I support the re-alignment
4) A new rule proposal: I think we should formalize the penalties for overages, instead of leaving it up to the Commish. Here's a starting spot (it's meant to be punitive to heavily penalize guys for going over):
Hitters: $5 per 10 PA over the 10% allowance (for the entire team, rounded up) to a maximum penalty of $50
Pitchers: $5 penalty per START (for the team) (No maximum since planning starts is the easiest overage of the 3 to control)
$1 penalty per inning over the 10% allowance (or the exact number if using a player as a starter and reliever; rounded up) to a maximum of $20.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Oct 27, 2009 13:24:01 GMT -6
When I spoke of random draw for divisions... I want the whole league being randomized. Not just the Canadians and Milwalkians.
|
|
|
|
Post by shootingstars on Oct 30, 2009 3:11:44 GMT -6
I think this is a pretty cool idea. I used to play in a league where you could use any stadium, past or present, as you home field provided it was within a season the Dynasty has created or part of the Greatest Teams sets.
It was pretty cool playing in stadiums like Forbes Field or the Polo Grounds.
Just an idea. Thought I'd throw it out there.
|
|
