|
Post by Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog) on Apr 21, 2014 10:09:36 GMT -6
You would be required to play players who can play and qualify at positions just like every other fantasy league I have been in real life. Shouldn't be allowed to bench a player just because you don't like the matchup and leave a starting spot open. It's life, real teams play all kinds of players all the time they would not have to play. Basically you shouldn't be allowed to field a team of 3 players or 4 players just because you don't like the rest of your team.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland A's (Scott) on Apr 21, 2014 10:36:44 GMT -6
The real life argument is dumb in my opinion. if we want to mirror real life, we should only have 1 SP max per day and up to 1 save per day... I'd be fine w/ an AB min&max but that's not what we are voting on here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 10:38:11 GMT -6
I understand both sides of the argument on this one. I think this rule should be a 2 part rule.
My opinion in normal leagues where trades are processed much faster that all offensive position players should be actively rostered each day for 9 active offensive players. I think that if someone can not field fully the 9 players on offense, whether by trade or by negligence the team should not accumulate points for those days they are in default. I, however, think that it takes too long to get through the trade process in this league to use this method though.
The pitchers IMO would have to be considered differently since we are only allowed 7 starts, and there is that ever so small chance that you had multiple 2 start pitchers that week and have to sit a pitcher on a Sunday. By the rule that is being proposed I would not even be allowed to pull a SP and leave the slot open.
My conclussion would be that I have to treat pitchers and hitters separately in any rule that is being proposed, and since the trade review takes so long that an owner would have to be given a set amount of time to fill any hole left open because of a trade. 48 hours from the conclussion of the trade that made the team illegal is too long as it will be a total of 4 days without a position being filled because of the review period. I also would not want to limit a team to make transactions because I know that I have made trades to short myself on a position and then turn around and made a separate trade to a different owner to fill it.
I am voting to review this in the offseason, as I believe there are more moving parts to this than meets the eye and should get it right. I would be in favor of having to have all of the positional players filled at all times unless a trade makes you short on a player. In an instance where you are short on a positional player due to trade you have 24 hours to have a new trade accepted and up for review to fill it or you are manually set to illegal roster by the commish retroactively to the trade that made you illegal and remain illegal until the position is filled and will not accumulate points during that time period.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Apr 21, 2014 11:43:08 GMT -6
I didn't realize processing trades the very next day was an extremely long process lol. Pirates illegal roster was illegal for 1 game, so not sure where your getting the 4 days thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 12:07:56 GMT -6
Oh my, of course....3 days of potentially having negative points without a position filled. 48 hours to find someone and 24 hours to review it, and really I could care less anymore what you do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (zach) on Apr 23, 2014 23:58:13 GMT -6
So what's actually going on with this???
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Apr 24, 2014 11:33:23 GMT -6
Looks like we'll look at it in the off-season. 9 people still haven't voted though.
|
|