|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 19, 2012 14:59:37 GMT -5
So now that we're in the "discussion of potential changes" period, I figured I would address a problem from last year's auction. I already had this discussion with Scott last year, and he told me to bring it up next year (i.e. now..)
Basically, what I'm proposing is to waive the rule that you cannot place bids unless you have a player nominated when it comes to filling your last roster spot (and last spot only). If you are the current high bidder on your last player and the player that you nominated is sold to someone else, you can continue to bid on the other player despite not having a player in the auction that you nominated.
So, if you are the high bidder for a player to fill your last roster spot, you can continue to bid on that player without having to nominate someone else. In other words, if I have the cap space to go up on a player I shouldn't have to stop bidding on him because of our current rule (which would force me to stop bidding since I can't have 2 active bids with only 1 open roster spot).
I understand why the rule is in place and I fully support it 99.9% of the time, but in this instance I don't feel that it applies. It doesn't pass the eyeball test to have a manager not be able to bid on a player despite having the ample cap space due to a technicality.
So, I'm opening it up to debate...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2012 15:23:41 GMT -5
that sounds OK to me---the easier it is to get that last player squared away the better for everyone I would think---I dont see much of a downside in implementing this as long as it's only being used for the final open roster spot..........
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 19, 2012 15:34:29 GMT -5
Right, i totally agree that it would actually simplify things (despite my complicated explanation...)
Basically, what happened last year: I only needed 1 player to complete my roster and I'd been waiting on Fernando Rodney (yes he turned out to be terrible and I was lucky to not get him, but that's besides the point..). I had tons of cap space saved for him, and I logged on the next morning but someone else nominated him before I could. I couldn't place a bid without first nominating another player I didn't want (i can't remember exactly who, so I'll just say player X). When I was outbid on player X i could then bid on Rodney, but I couldn't place any subsequent bids on Rodney once player X's bidding ended, even though I had the cap space and was the top bidder at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 19, 2012 18:55:30 GMT -5
Yes, thank you for reminding me about this. I believe we never had this happen in the past so did not handle it correctly.
But, if you are engaged by bidding on a player and happen to be outbid after your nominated player is SOLD, you may continue to bid on that player until the end; if that is for your last spot.
I will try to clear up the wording and attach it to our auction info.
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 19, 2012 21:52:50 GMT -5
Sounds good, thanks for fixing that.
|
|
|
Post by elrodogg on Jan 21, 2012 9:31:38 GMT -5
First - I like the rule change discussed above.
Potential change - get rid of total bases. Besides my fundamental disagreement with the category and its usefullness, we don't have a stat that rewards walks. Current batting stats are: Runs, Stolen Bases, HR's, BA, and RBI's.
I propose that we replace total bases with OPS. On base percentage plus slugging. Slugging essentially rewards the same type of performance that total bases does, while simultaneously rewarding someone who can walk their way on base.
|
|
|
Post by fresht19 on Jan 21, 2012 9:49:36 GMT -5
to simplify the first proposed rule change, why not just allow everyone to nominate a player with a zero bid at any time during the draft
as far as the second rule change, i do like OPS rather than total bases
|
|
|
Post by oozed on Jan 21, 2012 10:34:06 GMT -5
I HATE the idea of a zero bid. (Also I would only make zero bids). Perhaps as their final bid, if they are bidding on someone else (which seems to be the problem we need to fix) but even then, the person should be stuck with the zero bid player (at $1) if no one else bids on the player (and the team doesn't win the other bid that team was attempting.
|
|
|
Post by elrodogg on Jan 23, 2012 8:34:23 GMT -5
One other idea to kick around ... make the rosters a little smaller. Convert MI and CI into a single infielder position and drop one bench/reserve player. Makes for a 25 man roster like a major league team.
|
|