CT Fantasy Baseball - Interested?

[Quincy Varnish]

I’m giving thought to a potential roster expansion, possibly in mid-August. We would be adding two additional bench spots + maybe an NA spot, which could be used to stash potential September call ups. The NA spot is also useable for suspended players, or those on emergency leave.

Pros -
- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace
- reduced need for daily roster fidgeting
- more cowbell

Cons -
- not sure

AOF does not like this idea, because something. Curious what the rest of you think…

I would vote against. Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you make that change, 2/3 of the teams won't be paying immediate attention anyway, so the top 1/3 of the teams in the league will likely snap up the top 15-20 available players and just get marginally stronger.

We do have one manager who took over a team that was previously ignored.

If you’re claiming that 2/3 of the managers have lost interest (not accurate) or wouldn’t pay attention, couldn’t this be a way to regain their interest? It was a hope that the entire league would stay engaged (to some extent) throughout the entire season.

[mattmitchl44]

I’m giving thought to a potential roster expansion, possibly in mid-August. We would be adding two additional bench spots + maybe an NA spot, which could be used to stash potential September call ups. The NA spot is also useable for suspended players, or those on emergency leave.

Pros -
- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace
- reduced need for daily roster fidgeting
- more cowbell

Cons -
- not sure

AOF does not like this idea, because something. Curious what the rest of you think…

I would vote against. Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you make that change, 2/3 of the teams won't be paying immediate attention anyway, so the top 1/3 of the teams in the league will likely snap up the top 15-20 available players and just get marginally stronger.

We do have one manager who took over a team that was previously ignored.

If you’re claiming that 2/3 of the managers have lost interest (not accurate) or wouldn’t pay attention, couldn’t this be a way to regain their interest? It was a hope that the entire league would stay engaged (to some extent) throughout the entire season.

The key word in there was "immediate" attention. As soon as you make this available, the top teams will take immediate action to snap up the best available players. If any of the lesser engaged teams are a day late, they won't be getting in on the best opportunities.

And that still doesn't answer my first point - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

[Quincy Varnish]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

[mattmitchl44]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

Then I would hold this idea of an expanded roster until next year.

And, again - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you have been actively managing your roster all season with an eye toward the position slots and the number of starts you can get, you've probably had to drop players you would otherwise not have wanted to drop to keep guys who helped you fill particular positions, and the guys you had to drop are not available because other teams have already picked them up. So how is it appropriate to change the rules at this point when that wasn't decided up when the season started?

[Dazepster]

With Matt on this one.

Changing and or adjusting the rules this late in the season is a No Go for me.

Add to the list of suggestions for next season.

And I could really use the extra spots!!!

[Quincy Varnish]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

Then I would hold this idea of an expanded roster until next year.

And, again - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you have been actively managing your roster all season with an eye toward the position slots and the number of starts you can get, you've probably had to drop players you would otherwise not have wanted to drop to keep guys who helped you fill particular positions, and the guys you had to drop are not available because other teams have already picked them up. So how is it appropriate to change the rules at this point when that wasn't decided up when the season started?

It’s not changing the rules. It would be a roster extension - 2 bench spots.

The intention is not to “benefit” managers that didn’t manage their rosters. It benefits all of us, because it effectively makes our rosters lower maintenance and possibly more interesting.

It seems like you’re complaining about everything you can possibly dream up, without envisioning the potential benefits.

[mattmitchl44]

With Matt on this one.

Changing and or adjusting the rules this late in the season is a No Go for me.

Add to the list of suggestions for next season.

And I could really use the extra spots!!!

I'd be fine with the idea of starting the year with 27/28 "major league roster" spots (up from 26), our four IL spots, and 3/2 "minor league roster" spots (effectively spots for players designated as "NA"). So you'd have a maximum of 34 spots (if you filled all of your IL spots as well).

So do a 30+ round draft from the beginning.

[Quincy Varnish]

With Matt on this one.

Changing and or adjusting the rules this late in the season is a No Go for me.

Add to the list of suggestions for next season.

And I could really use the extra spots!!!

It does not change the rules, and we would not be adding an active roster position. It’s two bench spots… adding them before the season only makes the draft longer.

[Quincy Varnish]

With Matt on this one.

Changing and or adjusting the rules this late in the season is a No Go for me.

Add to the list of suggestions for next season.

And I could really use the extra spots!!!

I'd be fine with the idea of starting the year with 27/28 "major league roster" spots (up from 26), our four IL spots, and 3/2 "minor league roster" spots (effectively spots for players designated as "NA"). So you'd have a maximum of 34 spots (if you filled all of your IL spots as well).

So do a 30+ round draft from the beginning.

We’ll talk about that next year.

Try to recognize the opportunities… you seem to enjoy the strategy of platooning players, and you have more than twice the FAB muscle of two teams ahead of you. You’re the last person I thought would be opposed to this. /sigh

[mattmitchl44]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

Then I would hold this idea of an expanded roster until next year.

And, again - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you have been actively managing your roster all season with an eye toward the position slots and the number of starts you can get, you've probably had to drop players you would otherwise not have wanted to drop to keep guys who helped you fill particular positions, and the guys you had to drop are not available because other teams have already picked them up. So how is it appropriate to change the rules at this point when that wasn't decided up when the season started?

It’s not changing the rules. It would be a roster extension - 2 bench spots.

The intention is not to “benefit” managers that didn’t manage their rosters. It benefits all of us, because it effectively makes our rosters lower maintenance and possibly more interesting.

It seems like you’re complaining about everything you can possibly dream up, without envisioning the potential benefits.

Your "pros" were:

- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace

both of which are to the benefit of managers who haven't kept and played a backup catcher or sufficient pitching to date.

I'm fine with your potential benefits, but it should be implemented at the beginning of a season.

[Cool Papa Con]

I’m giving thought to a potential roster expansion, possibly in mid-August. We would be adding two additional bench spots + maybe an NA spot, which could be used to stash potential September call ups. The NA spot is also useable for suspended players, or those on emergency leave.

Pros -
- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace
- reduced need for daily roster fidgeting
- more cowbell

Cons -
- not sure

AOF does not like this idea, because something. Curious what the rest of you think…

I’m against it.

I’ve been actively divesting my Pitching Staff of Starting Pitchers to mitigate the Innings limit since the start of July and have kept lesser players to be the back up Catcher, simply because they offered role flexibility.

I do think 5 Bench Spots and 4 IL is the sweet spot. Same with the positions, with one difference maybe converting two ‘P’ to designated ‘RP’

For next year…

Maybe up the IP number to 1600. I kind of enjoyed the aspect of having more SP going during the week, but got so far ahead w/Innings that I dedicated 5 Roles to Relief Pitching before the Start of August.

Finally, I would suggest dropping the $300 budget to $200. 10 members of the league haven’t spent 1/2 their allotment, and the two that would have surpassed the amount were the two who likely understood the system the best early on.

I’ll admit to losing out on a lot of guys early on because I didn’t understand the long game for the dollar amount and have been slow to react to the FA cost. That said, I’ve made the 5th most moves and (obviously some from trades) and have only spent $60. That’s a whole lot of others who either had a similar experience experience as to me, where they didn’t understand the system or were slow to adapt.

Reducing the Budget will likely make for a more fair system across the board because the Waiver will play a larger role with bids being tighter, and not so spread out where you see bids of $15 beating out other competitive bids if $10, $6, $5, $4, $2, $1

[Quincy Varnish]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

Then I would hold this idea of an expanded roster until next year.

And, again - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you have been actively managing your roster all season with an eye toward the position slots and the number of starts you can get, you've probably had to drop players you would otherwise not have wanted to drop to keep guys who helped you fill particular positions, and the guys you had to drop are not available because other teams have already picked them up. So how is it appropriate to change the rules at this point when that wasn't decided up when the season started?

It’s not changing the rules. It would be a roster extension - 2 bench spots.

The intention is not to “benefit” managers that didn’t manage their rosters. It benefits all of us, because it effectively makes our rosters lower maintenance and possibly more interesting.

It seems like you’re complaining about everything you can possibly dream up, without envisioning the potential benefits.

Your "pros" were:

- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace

both of which are to the benefit of managers who haven't kept and played a backup catcher or sufficient pitching to date.

I'm fine with your potential benefits, but it should be implemented at the beginning of a season.

I meant it was not the sole intention, and I did not name them all.

Fogot about your outcry toward MLB every September… “OMG! They’re changing the rules!!”

[Dazepster]

Rather than a bigger bench I would like to see additional IL spots.

No idea why limited Post Draft. Never had that before.

Note. DL or IL spots were restricted to 2 spots during the Draft. Could then pick up replacement players at conclusion of draft in the order that the DL players were picked.

Restricted to 2 as some would simply aquire a ton of DL players in later rounds and would then pick replacement players.

Once the Season started you could not add or claim a free agent that was on the DL/IL player till they cane off the DL/IL. And would need to make a cut if necessary to add.

Can't grasp only having 4 IL/DL spots and having to burn a bench spot provided a team has more than 4 DL/IL players at one time.

[Quincy Varnish]

I’m against it.

I’ve been actively divesting my Pitching Staff of Starting Pitchers to mitigate the Innings limit since the start of July and have kept lesser players to be the back up Catcher, simply because they offered role flexibility.

I do think 5 Bench Spots and 4 IL is the sweet spot. Same with the positions, with one difference maybe converting two ‘P’ to designated ‘RP’

Agree about the RP slots, but maybe we’d do 2 RP & 4 P… would bump total pitching spots to 11, same as current offense.

For next year…

Maybe up the IP number to 1600. I kind of enjoyed the aspect of having more SP going during the week, but got so far ahead w/Innings that I dedicated 5 Roles to Relief Pitching before the Start of August.

The innings limit is already 150 IP higher than the default, and probably too high when we have quite a few well below it. The average ML team comes in a tick below 1450 every year.

You were rostering too many SPs.

Finally, I would suggest dropping the $300 budget to $200. 10 members of the league haven’t spent 1/2 their allotment, and the two that would have surpassed the amount were the two who likely understood the system the best early on.

I think we had a few people that didn’t quite have a handle on how the FAB system worked from the beginning. Next time around… I suppose it could be lowered, but I don’t see the point.

I’ll admit to losing out on a lot of guys early on because I didn’t understand the long game for the dollar amount and have been slow to react to the FA cost. That said, I’ve made the 5th most moves and (obviously some from trades) and have only spent $60. That’s a whole lot of others who either had a similar experience as to me, where they didn’t understand the system or were slow to adapt.

Yep… we didn’t have much runway heading into the season, and I could have done a better job getting everyone up to speed.

Reducing the Budget will likely make for a more fair system across the board because the Waiver will play a larger role with bids being tighter, and not so spread out where you see bids of $15 beating out other competitive bids if $10, $6, $5, $4, $2, $1

Not sure it would make it more “fair” so much as it would make it more of a challenge. The default is $100, and that often gets blown through too early on. Anyway… this is a debate to be had in January, when there’s nothing else to discuss

[mattmitchl44]

IF you were going to do this at this point in the season, IMO, you should do it as a "2nd draft" where you give everybody one more roster spot and then have the teams in the league add a player in the reverse order of the standings. Then add another roster spot and go through the process again in reverse order of the standings.

That way you'd at least be giving the bottom teams priority in trying to play catch up.

I don’t see how the mechanics of this idea could possibly work. If rosters are expanded, we’d all be extra spots at the same time. There would have to be an ‘honor system’ with coordinated days for each team to “draft” their additional player. It would also muck up stacked waiver claims for every other team. There isn’t an option to “redraft” for a single roster spot.

Then I would hold this idea of an expanded roster until next year.

And, again - Managers should have been managing their rosters all season with an eye toward maximizing their use of position player starts (162) and innings pitched (1550). If they have not, why should they be rewarded now by an opportunity to play catch up with an expanded roster?

If you have been actively managing your roster all season with an eye toward the position slots and the number of starts you can get, you've probably had to drop players you would otherwise not have wanted to drop to keep guys who helped you fill particular positions, and the guys you had to drop are not available because other teams have already picked them up. So how is it appropriate to change the rules at this point when that wasn't decided up when the season started?

It’s not changing the rules. It would be a roster extension - 2 bench spots.

The intention is not to “benefit” managers that didn’t manage their rosters. It benefits all of us, because it effectively makes our rosters lower maintenance and possibly more interesting.

It seems like you’re complaining about everything you can possibly dream up, without envisioning the potential benefits.

Your "pros" were:

- more space to roster a backup catcher
- opportunity to add additional SP, for those who have fallen behind the IP pace

both of which are to the benefit of managers who haven't kept and played a backup catcher or sufficient pitching to date.

I'm fine with your potential benefits, but it should be implemented at the beginning of a season.

I meant it was not the sole intention, and I did not name them all.

Fogot about your outcry toward MLB every September… “OMG! They’re changing the rules!!”

Teams know how their roster limits are going to change in September before the season starts.

I think you've heard at least four mangers - from different parts of the current standings - already say they are not in favor. That should probably indicate something.

[Quincy Varnish]

Rather than a bigger bench I would like to see additional IL spots.

No idea why limited Post Draft. Never had that before.

Prior to 2020, default public Yahoo leagues had a limit of 2 IL spots. I don’t believe there is an option for “unlimited” IL spots. It was expanded to 4 b/c of COVID.

Note. DL or IL spots were restricted to 2 spots during the Draft. Could then pick up replacement players at conclusion of draft in the order that the DL players were picked.

Restricted to 2 as some would simply aquire a ton of DL players in later rounds and would then pick replacement players.

Once the Season started you could not add or claim a free agent that was on the DL/IL player till they cane off the DL/IL. And would need to make a cut if necessary to add.

Can't grasp only having 4 IL/DL spots and having to burn a bench spot provided a team has more than 4 DL/IL players at one time.

What format league are you talking about? I’ve commissioned several different Yahoo leagues, and I don’t recall there ever being an option to roster unlimited IL/DL players, dating back 25+ years. Also can’t recall ever being unable to add an injured player.