Require a team to always field a complete lineup

[Chicago White Sox (Commish)]

After this weeks Pirates/Brewers trade, the Pirates played without a SS for 1 day. There is a league member who wants this rule to be changed immediately. Currently the rule states if you make a trade that puts you over the cap, player limit or leaves you without a player at a certain position then you have 48 hours to fix it. If it's not fixed in 48 hours then the trade is reversed. The rule change would make it illegal to make a trade that makes your roster illegal unless you post in the trade thread what move your making to fix the problem.

Also the rules state you have to have at least 18 players and you have to have a player at each position but aren't required to play them. With negative points possible, people could exploit this so the new rule would state you have to have a player starting at each active position.

Please vote ASAP.

[Deleted]

I'm in favor of the rule change

Sent from my Nexus 5 using proboards

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

My opinion is obvious but what's even worse than having an illegal lineup is not having to start a player at each position. I shouldn't be allowed to just start Trout, Adams, Heyward and Cruz just because I don't like the rest of my team. 4 players? Makes no sense to me that should be allowed but currently it is, Just like we should always have to have a legal lineup with every position filled. Seems a basic expectation to me.

[Chicago White Sox (Commish)]

The funny thing is on March 10th at 8:00pm you posted that you agreed to all of the rules. So you either didn't read the rules and you didn't notice this rule until it affected your match-up or you had no problem with the rule then. Either way I made everyone post that they agreed to the rules for a reason. Next time you strongly disagree with a rule so much, you might voice your opinion then until waiting until the week it possibly costs you a match-up.

I'll change the rule effective immediately as long as the rest of the league agrees to it but this isn't going to happen all of the time.

[Deleted]

I think it should be on the owner. Maybe they just post please move the SS into my starting lineup when you process the trade?

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

When you read a whole constitution about rules it's almost impossible to know every single major and minor effect of each rule stated.

There also is a basic understanding of how fantasy sports league rules are written and that you surely would have to field a legal roster and start a player at EVERY position every day whenever you can. Never heard of anything different. Why have to have a SS if you don't have to start one?

My fault for assuming that we had to start a complete lineup to the best of our ability every day. Hopefully this rule change will officially require it and the league will have the realism and more fair types of competition that I assumed it already had.

[Seattle Mariners (zach)]

How far are you going to have this rule affect teams? For example, if a team doesnt have any players at a certain position (let's say they have no catcher), whats the difference between them and another team that has a catcher on the active roster and in the lineup spot but the catcher doesnt accumulate any points (doesnt play in real life)? I see no difference here because a team could effectively find someone who gets 0 points and doesnt negatively affect their team.

But this is hard to control in a 30 team league with injuries. For example, I am starting Drew Butera at catcher because AJ Ellis got hurt. He rarely plays but there really is noone else I can play.

Or, I have Hector Noesi who is getting negative points everytime he pitches. Why would I leave him in my RP slot and get negative points when I can leave it blank?

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

Exactly why you shouldn't be allowed to leave a roster spot blank on purpose

[Seattle Mariners (zach)]

 hmm

[Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog)]

Adding a random guy shouldn't be allowed that isn't in the major leagues, but an attempt to add a player who is in the majors at that moment should be required if possible.

[Chicago White Sox (Commish)]

Apr 20, 2014 22:00:48 GMT -6 @jetersneverprosper said:

I think it should be on the owner. Maybe they just post please move the SS into my starting lineup when you process the trade?

That's not the issue Philly. The Team didn't have a SS at all.

[Deleted]

Just an FYI to everyone, in my browsing to try to find a deal where I could move Lawrie for a SS, I found a number of teams with illegal lineups. For example, starting guys who have been on the DL since spring, having to start guys who had been demoted or didn't win jobs but also don't have an active player at that position to start, etc. I also found that about a third just wouldn't be able to trade even to just replace Lawrie as my UTIL due to lack of a bench.

IMO, the true spirit of the rule is to avoid teams that tank their rosters for high draft picks. I know a lot of owners in here don't have experience in 30 team leagues at all, and therefore can't understand how nearly impossible it is for all 30 teams to field a full active roster. When an MLB team loses someone, they can dip into their AAA team for a spot start or injury replacement. We can't do that. If I could have called up Lindor to play after that Cano trade, I would have. If Asdrubal gets hurt, I'm certain the real Indians will do just that.

My least restrictive is 9, but if we were to change anything I'd say to change it to a min of 14 active. At least then it would open these rosters up to make trades.

[Deleted]

That should say most restrictive. They all ease off the restrictions after about 2 years from the league's start.

[Deleted]

For the record, I normally do not chime in on these sorts of things and let the majority rule. However, I have a couple of issues with what some are saying.

1) The 48 hour rule seemed fine to me since 2 days in the grand scheme of things (a DYNASTY league) was nothing. However, if we can only permit trades where everyone has a full team of positions OR notes in the trade thread how they will address it, than I am fine with that.

2) My real issue arises when the rules start to dictate how we manage our teams.

The rule that everyone has to have a minimum of 18 players and one at each position - this is fine. I have a problem with the requirement that we have to start a player every night at each position. By that logic, why don't we have one manager in this entire league set each team's lineup? In a league of this size some of our players are going to be more fringe players than guys you would start every night like you would in a 12 or 14 team league (my team for example, I have Sogard at SS). This means that there will be nights where these fringe players are playing against elite pitchers (i.e. Felix, Kershaw, Darvish, etc.).

When I see someone on my team like Sogard is matched up against Felix for example, I am going to sit him. This is not an attempt to cheat or bend the rules, but rather is a strategic move because I know it is unlikely that he does well against Felix. This is known as playing matchups. They do it in the big leagues and so we should be able to do it here. This is a tactic that I would apply in any league. Be it a 30 team points league or a 12 team roto or 14 team category head-to-head. I will often sit hitters if I think that night they are going to do poorly. This is because I want to not hurt my .avg if it's a cateogy h2h league, or here in this league, to avoid negative points. To declare this a form of cheating is ridiculous.

Stating that with negative points people may try to exploit the rules is just garbage. This is the strategy of fantasy baseball and fantasy sports at large. We each have our own teams and should be given the right to manage them as we wish. If anyone really thinks starting only 4 of their hitters is better than starting all 9 of their hitters, give it a shot. Remember, when you sit a player you are also taking the risk that you miss out on points that they could score. It works both ways.

The commish set up the rules way before the season started and we all agreed to them. We shouldn't be changing them 2-3 weeks into the season. Why did we agree to them to begin with. But technicalities aside, the commish provided us with the opportunity to manage our own teams. We should have the right to start / sit whoever we want so long as we fulfill our obligation to have a minimum of 18 players rostered and one at each position. I am okay with that, but do not tell me I have to start guys on nights when I do not want to. It is my team and I should be allowed to strategically play my guys where I see fit. On most nights when Sogard or Chris Carter are playing against a #2, #3, #4, or #5 starting pitcher, they will be active in my lineup. However, when they play an elite #1 pitcher, I might consider sitting them because I am willing to take the risk of losing points to avoid them stinking it up. This happens in all fantasy leagues and all sports. It is strategy not cheating.

In conclusion, if we have to add that caveat to the requirements for a "legal" trade (that each position has to be filled post-trade or a clear plan has to be stated for how a hole in one's roster will be filled) than that is fine. But by no means should we be told who we should be starting on a nightly basis.

[Oakland A's (Scott)]

agree with brewers