Jump to content
NBC Sports EDGE Forums

2017 Commissioner / League Rules / League Drama


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fiveohnine said:

So what? The guy still has to be able to improve his keepers. Why should only playoff teams be able to pick up potential keepers?

Even if he's just trying to win the consolation bracket, again so what? It's not up to you to make him stop caring so that you can have first dibs on the waiver wire. Anyone he picks up is still unavailable to everyone. not just you.

 

And if you read my subsequent posts, I actually agree with you.  If he wants to keep managing his team, fine.  I was just curious if others somehow lock eliminated rosters.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 300
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, Fiveohnine said:

So what? The guy still has to be able to improve his keepers. Why should only playoff teams be able to pick up potential keepers?

Even if he's just trying to win the consolation bracket, again so what? It's not up to you to make him stop caring so that you can have first dibs on the waiver wire. Anyone he picks up is still unavailable to everyone. not just you.

 

In what league are potential keepers available on the waiver wire at this point in the season? Usually guys are just streaming. I guess Buxton is an exception due to his talent but he won't be kept in my 6 keeper league. I guess it depends on your definition of keeper..

Edited by Mickey Donovan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Mickey Donovan said:

 

In what league are potential keepers available on the waiver wire at this point in the season? Usually guys are just streaming. I guess Buxton is an exception due to his talent but he won't be kept in my 6 keeper league. I guess it depends on your definition of keeper..

As usual, the answer to this question is "leagues different than yours." I'm in a deep dynasty league where a bunch of guys are kept but I'm not giving up on finding value. There are always guys who come from nowhere and they don't always have the good manners to start their ascension in April.

Edited by Hanghow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Mickey Donovan said:

 

In what league are potential keepers available on the waiver wire at this point in the season? Usually guys are just streaming. I guess Buxton is an exception due to his talent but he won't be kept in my 6 keeper league. I guess it depends on your definition of keeper..

 

There aren't really keepers on the wire.  Buxton would be the closest thing, but even he would be a longshot.  It's a 14 team league, but you can keep UP TO 3, meaning you can keep fewer.  So, this year, 28 players were kept.  I'd venture to guess that's about average.  I have a hard time seeing Buxton doing enough to warrant essentially a top 30 pick next year.  But, he's certainly worth the pick up at the cost of basically nothing.

 

So really, the guy is still making moves either for the fun of it (which is fine), or to F with the rest of the league (which is kind of chump, but nothing I can really do about it).  

Edited by 89Topps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2017 at 10:00 AM, shakestreet said:

I agree wholeheartly ....

I know ESPN has a consolation bracket but yahoo locks non-playoff teams. Is this true or is there a setting on yahoo that allows for a consolation bracket for the losers?

Yahoo doesn't lock playoff teams unless some commish in a private league does that.  The default doesn't lock up anything. 

And their default does indeed have a consolation bracket. 

I've never played in a Yahoo league -- public when I was first starting and private in the years since -- that either locks up teams from picking up free agents or doesn't have a LARGE consolation bracket meaning almost any team can move up a few positions in H2H via the consolation bracket playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts on an owner in a keeper dropping studs to the ww at this time of year? It's a salary limited keeper and they couldn't trade away some of their studs. There's no way the studs are being kept. The pieces they're picking up probably won't be kept due to keeper limitations (they can only keep so many), but the pickups would at least be options depending how hot they get to close out the year. 

There's nothing against the rules on doing this and I suppose it's kind of the entire point of a keeper, but it just feels wrong to unload a few studs into the wire at this point. 

ETA roto league FWIW. 

Edited by AnonymousRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

Thoughts on an owner in a keeper dropping studs to the ww at this time of year? It's a salary limited keeper and they couldn't trade away some of their studs. There's no way the studs are being kept. The pieces they're picking up probably won't be kept due to keeper limitations (they can only keep so many), but the pickups would at least be options depending how hot they get to close out the year. 

There's nothing against the rules on doing this and I suppose it's kind of the entire point of a keeper, but it just feels wrong to unload a few studs into the wire at this point. 

ETA roto league FWIW. 

this is my opinion--- That owner has no morals or ethics. He is ruining the league.

 

the LM didn't think things through

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2017 at 0:44 PM, AnonymousRob said:

Thoughts on an owner in a keeper dropping studs to the ww at this time of year? It's a salary limited keeper and they couldn't trade away some of their studs. There's no way the studs are being kept. The pieces they're picking up probably won't be kept due to keeper limitations (they can only keep so many), but the pickups would at least be options depending how hot they get to close out the year. 

There's nothing against the rules on doing this and I suppose it's kind of the entire point of a keeper, but it just feels wrong to unload a few studs into the wire at this point. 

ETA roto league FWIW. 

 

#1. That's not a good owner for any league. Each owner has to have a high level of ethic to his gamemanship.

#2. This should be a highly talked about topic in the league during the off season. The league owners as a whole entity should come up some form of rule pertaining to this issue.

 

Why does this owner have to drop these players during the season? Is the keeper deadline right at seasons end? Maybe have the off season salary cap a little larger than in-season salary cap?? This would allow teams to hold players into the off season and then teams can re-engage in trade talks, thus allowing teams that would be over the cap to trade their way back under the cap. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dugout Legend said:

 

Why does this owner have to drop these players during the season? Is the keeper deadline right at seasons end? Maybe have the off season salary cap a little larger than in-season salary cap?? This would allow teams to hold players into the off season and then teams can re-engage in trade talks, thus allowing teams that would be over the cap to trade their way back under the cap. Just a thought.

If they're dropped after the season, they have to fight all the teams to get players. If they're dropped during the season the teams still in the running are removed as competition. The way things are setup probably need to be tweaked, but within the current structure it makes sense to grab keepers as soon as you're out of it so you can beat others to the punch. 

Let's say someone dropped some unkeepable stud for a Rhys a month ago (just giving a theoretical scenario but the name could be anyone. It's the concept). They had tried trading the stud but couldn't get it done. They're supposed to actively make their team worse in the future? Rhys was a promising minor leaguer but hardly a surefire keeper. He's blown up and what was an unlikely keeper is now a lock. It's wrong to grab more lottery tickets on the unlikely chance another player blows up the last month? 

Edited by AnonymousRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at it another way: Would anyone bat an eye if a cellar dwelling rotor team traded Kershaw, Altuve, or even a lower quality but still valuable player like a McCutchen or Beltre type player for a keepable Rhys? If you can't pull off that trade but would be dropping aforementioned stud to get Rhys, what's the effective difference?

 

*again, the specific players are just examples. Swap names as you see fit to go with the idea*

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2017 at 0:44 PM, AnonymousRob said:

Thoughts on an owner in a keeper dropping studs to the ww at this time of year? It's a salary limited keeper and they couldn't trade away some of their studs. There's no way the studs are being kept. The pieces they're picking up probably won't be kept due to keeper limitations (they can only keep so many), but the pickups would at least be options depending how hot they get to close out the year. 

There's nothing against the rules on doing this and I suppose it's kind of the entire point of a keeper, but it just feels wrong to unload a few studs into the wire at this point. 

ETA roto league FWIW. 

Maybe your pricing of waiver wire pickups should be increased. We have it set up that anyone picked up off the wire has a $10 price tag unless he was bought at auction for a higher price. It makes the decision to keep a waiver wire pickup that much more difficult. You could also have a keeper deadline date of the trade deadline. Anyone that is picked up off of waivers after the trade deadline date cannot be kept next year. Another deterrent for tanking/inactivity is we instituted where the standings reflect the the order of declaration of keepers the next year. Guy in 12th has to declare his keepers first and so on. And another is to have a monetary penalty for finishing in last/2nd to last. No ones gonna be dropping studs if there is a penalty for finishing at the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Are any commissioners bucking the Anthony Rizzo position eligibility going into next year? In Yahoo leagues, he's eligible at 2B because of the shifts that the Cubs do, but he's not really a 2B. He's "been at 2B" in 10 games for a total of 13 outs this year. To me, that is not a legitimate 2B eligibility, but I don't know if I want to go down the slippery slope of declaring him only 1B eligible. Me and our co-commish and 2-3 others from the league are going to communicate over the winter about potential rule changes and tweaks to the league to try to make it better. This is one thing I've briefly thought about bringing up, but I don't know that I really have a leg to stand on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flyman75 said:

Are any commissioners bucking the Anthony Rizzo position eligibility going into next year? In Yahoo leagues, he's eligible at 2B because of the shifts that the Cubs do, but he's not really a 2B. He's "been at 2B" in 10 games for a total of 13 outs this year. To me, that is not a legitimate 2B eligibility, but I don't know if I want to go down the slippery slope of declaring him only 1B eligible. Me and our co-commish and 2-3 others from the league are going to communicate over the winter about potential rule changes and tweaks to the league to try to make it better. This is one thing I've briefly thought about bringing up, but I don't know that I really have a leg to stand on. 

 

I wouldn't do it unless you're prepared to do it for every possible time this scenario will play out in the future. Like you said, it's a slippery slope. I commish one Yahoo league (three keepers, and I'm a non-Rizzo owner) and I'm just letting it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Flyman75 said:

Are any commissioners bucking the Anthony Rizzo position eligibility going into next year? In Yahoo leagues, he's eligible at 2B because of the shifts that the Cubs do, but he's not really a 2B. He's "been at 2B" in 10 games for a total of 13 outs this year. To me, that is not a legitimate 2B eligibility, but I don't know if I want to go down the slippery slope of declaring him only 1B eligible. Me and our co-commish and 2-3 others from the league are going to communicate over the winter about potential rule changes and tweaks to the league to try to make it better. This is one thing I've briefly thought about bringing up, but I don't know that I really have a leg to stand on. 

It is a slippery slope to start tweaking.  Micro-managing a league is very VERY dangerous.  Live with the platform's rules.  No worries.

There have been other weird eligibilities over the years.  Don't sweat it.  Maybe Maddon won't do this next year and Rizzo will lose his eligibility for 2019 too.  Or maybe smarter owners will go out and get more Cub players and hope for Maddon Magic to bless them in the future,  hah.

Really it isn't much different than Manny Machado being eligible for SS this season because of an injury on their team last year to use an example of the endless injury loopholes where a star shifts position enough to gain another position.  He hasn't played a single game at SS all this season but so what.  He is my current SS on one team and I could care less if he is a for real SS or the everyday 3B in 2017.  He is my SS this season and that is what the rules say and so it should stay. 

This stuff happens all the time in baseball via injuries and so why not because of a manager?  Same thing in the end for the following season.  This stuff all evens out in the end among the owners. 

Let it be.  Don' punish the Rizzo owners for their good fortune next year.  I could see the Rizzo owner getting really upset because the Machado owner enjoyed a full year of their guy at SS this season and now he doesn't get some good luck finally with Rizzo next season?  That's not fair.

Edited by The Big Bat Theory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2017 at 6:37 AM, 89Topps said:

 

In our league, the non playoff teams go into a lottery for next year's draft.  So the consolation bracket means nothing.

 

I guess you're right though; if he wants to keep managing his team, I shouldn't stop him.  Better than a guy checking out a month ago cause his team was out of it.

Because its a keeper, you kind of have to keep it open, although in our league we make pickups non-keeper eligible after a certain point of the year.  Our fear is that teams would drop non-keeper high priced stars for "something" that might be a keeper, so after the trade deadline, add/drops are expriring contracts.  

 

Looking at it with my commissioner glasses on its great and understandable from a keeper acq standpoint that this occurs, but because its an option, it also opens the door for shananigans.  Like a buddy of your playoff opponent picking up people you want to pick up, not because he wants them to better his team, but because his buddy asked him to. 

 

So a couple of suggestions:

* Change the lottery draft order to what we are doing in football where the Consolation tourney will determine the draft order the next year, so the team that wins is gets the No.1 pick, 2nd picks 2nd and so on and so forth.   This would keep teams active during that window and at least somewhat give owners idea that teams do have a reason to improve, not just to muddle the waters. 

 

* If you dont want to do that and keep that meaningless, then perhaps as someone else mentioned, block non playoff teams from doing pickups during playoffs, but then assuming your playoffs end before the MLB season ends, perhaps have one last pick up week at the end for keeper purposes, although as you mention with only 3 keepers, usually tough to imagine too many guys on the waiver wire at the end of the year who would be projected a 1st 2nd or 3rd round pick the next year that would make them keeper worthy.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flyman75 said:

Are any commissioners bucking the Anthony Rizzo position eligibility going into next year? In Yahoo leagues, he's eligible at 2B because of the shifts that the Cubs do, but he's not really a 2B. He's "been at 2B" in 10 games for a total of 13 outs this year. To me, that is not a legitimate 2B eligibility, but I don't know if I want to go down the slippery slope of declaring him only 1B eligible. Me and our co-commish and 2-3 others from the league are going to communicate over the winter about potential rule changes and tweaks to the league to try to make it better. This is one thing I've briefly thought about bringing up, but I don't know that I really have a leg to stand on. 

This is a discussion I think will become more of an issue.   But what is strange is that he seems to be the only one that is being given games played at shift position.  There are teams out there who keep their SS and 2B in somewhat traditional spots and shift the 3B to play between them or between the first and secondbaseman. 

 

So when that happens, why are those 3B not being given SS or 2B games played?  Because of the whole Rizzo has to change gloves so that makes it official?  

 

Our league is 20 games for the next season, but it is 10 games during the year and he is a non keeper because he is a high priced guy.  The way I view it is that you know going into the year, this guy might gain 2B eligibility, so its worth perhaps drafting him for more knowing he might become 2B eligible.  

 

MLB needs to have some consistency on games played.   If it starts to get too crazy and impact the fantasy game, you will start to see more leagues go to Games Started vs simply games played. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, parrothead said:

This is a discussion I think will become more of an issue.   But what is strange is that he seems to be the only one that is being given games played at shift position.  There are teams out there who keep their SS and 2B in somewhat traditional spots and shift the 3B to play between them or between the first and secondbaseman. 

 

So when that happens, why are those 3B not being given SS or 2B games played?  Because of the whole Rizzo has to change gloves so that makes it official? 

 

No. This is complete screw up.

By rule Rizzo does not have to change gloves.

" 3.05 (1.13) First Baseman’s Glove
The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt"

Now, if the 2nd baseman who moves over, would change to a mit, than Rizzo would be forced to use a glove. This was not the case. He was forced to change to a mit, by a stupid umpire on a request.

And there is no such rule that Im aware of, that the 1st baseman must be the closest player to 1st base all the times.

"5.02 (4.03) Fielding Positions
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all
fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory."

(c) Except the pitcher and the catcher, any fielder may station him-
self anywhere in fair territory.

Pretty clear.

Nothing about closest to anything.

"As a courtesy, each lineup card presented to the umpire-in-
chief should list the fielding positions to be played..."

And there is that, it's not even mandatory to list positions.

 

Sure it is better if there are listed positions. Still if there are listed positions, must be able to determine players positions in all situations.

So set the defense the same way as Rizzo gets 2b given now, but place an OF at 2nd, who would become 2nd baseman, since he is closest to second base, by this new interpretation. What is Rizzo's position then?

NOTHING!

 

And what about this D?

Who plays what?

 

 

It should be the lineup card that determines who plays what position. Simple. No screw ups.

Edited by JCD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JCD said:

 

No. This is complete screw up.

By rule Rizzo does not have to change gloves.

" 3.05 (1.13) First Baseman’s Glove
The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt"

Now, if the 2nd baseman who moves over, would change to a mit, than Rizzo would be forced to use a glove. This was not the case. He was forced to change to a mit, by a stupid umpire on a request.

And there is no such rule that Im aware of, that the 1st baseman must be the closest player to 1st base all the times.

"5.02 (4.03) Fielding Positions
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all
fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory."

(c) Except the pitcher and the catcher, any fielder may station him-
self anywhere in fair territory.

Pretty clear.

Nothing about closest to anything.

"As a courtesy, each lineup card presented to the umpire-in-
chief should list the fielding positions to be played..."

And there is that, it's not even mandatory to list positions.

 

Sure it is better if there are listed positions. Still if there are listed positions, must be able to determine players positions in all situations.

So set the defense the same way as Rizzo gets 2b given now, but place an OF at 2nd, who would become 2nd baseman, since he is closest to second base, by this new interpretation. What is Rizzo's position then?

NOTHING!

 

And what about this D?

Who plays what?

 

 

It should be the lineup card that determines who plays what position. Simple. No screw ups.

 

How do people still not understand Rizzo's eligibility at 2B? 

 

Rizzo's 2B designation is the result of the regular second baseman moving to first base, not the other way around.

 

The second baseman (Baez or Zobrist) is not doing a normal defensive shift; they are taking over first base duties. They are awarded the 1B eligibility when first base is occupied by a runner as it is their responsibility to hold the runner, field the 1B position when the ball is put in play, and record the out at the first base bag.

 

Rizzo gets slotted in as a 2B in those instances because he can no longer be considered a 1B since that post has been definitively occupied by someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, disasterisk said:

 

How do people still not understand Rizzo's eligibility at 2B? 

 

Rizzo's 2B designation is the result of the regular second baseman moving to first base, not the other way around.

 

That is exactly what I said.

" if the 2nd baseman who moves over, would change to a mit, than Rizzo would be forced to use a glove."

And in any case, the player with the mit is the 1b man, and Rizzo would be the 2nd baseman. No problem.

But the Cubs 2nd baseman was forced to wear a mit by the Umpire. It wasn't his choice, despite that the rules allow to wear a glove at 1b.

 

Seemingly it is you who doesn't understand.

Edited by JCD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JCD said:

 

That is exactly what I said.

" if the 2nd baseman who moves over, would change to a mit, than Rizzo would be forced to use a glove."

And in any case, the player with the mit is the 1b man.

The Cubs 2nd baseman was forced to wear a mit by the Umpire. It wasn't his choice, despite that the rules allow to wear a glove at 1b.

 

Seemingly it is you who doesn't understand.

 

The glove has nothing to do with it. My explanation above is why it is different from a traditional shift. Being a Cubs fan I'm aware of the intricacies of the Rizzo situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, disasterisk said:

 

The glove has nothing to do with it. My explanation above is why it is different from a traditional shift. Being a Cubs fan I'm aware of the intricacies of the Rizzo situation.

 

Than answer this question.

What position Rizzo playes on the same shift, if an outfielder moved to the infield to and takes over and fields second base?

 

And what rule you refer to when you differentiate traditional and non traditional shifts, that can determine positions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JCD said:

 

Than answer this question.

What position Rizzo playes on the same shift, if an outfielder moved to the infield to and takes over and fields second base?

 

And what rule you refer to when you differentiate traditional and non traditional shifts, that can determine positions?

 

If the OF is holding a runner at 2B he would be the second baseman. 

 

I am not a rule book. I am giving you the explanation that Ken, JD, Hughes, and Coomer (the guys who call Cubs games) have discussed over the past year and how it is handled by the actual official scorer of the games.

 

You do know that there are instances this year where Rizzo has played on the infield between the pitcher and catcher to crash home for a bunt and not been given 2B eligibility, right? Because Baez/Zobrist isn't always playing first holding the runner. Has happened before when there was a runner on first and second. No reason for Baez to hold the runner at first, since the runner has nowhere to go as second base is occupied. Thus Rizzo did not get an appearance at 2B in that instance, as it was just a shift. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, disasterisk said:

 

If the OF is holding a runner at 2B he would be the second baseman.

 

Clearly.

But I asked what Rizzo would be in this situation, positioning himself to field a bunt attempt, and not what the OF would be.

 

 

33 minutes ago, disasterisk said:

I am not a rule book. I am giving you the explanation that Ken, JD, Hughes, and Coomer (the guys who call Cubs games) have discussed over the past year and how it is handled by the actual official scorer of the games.

 

Nobody is a rulebook.

If you don't know the rules, you don't know what you talkin about.

We all know that official scorers '"aren't that smart". Discussing how they do things, won't make bad decisions acceptable.

 

33 minutes ago, disasterisk said:

You do know that there are instances this year where Rizzo has played on the infield between the pitcher and catcher to crash home for a bunt and not been given 2B eligibility, right? Because Baez/Zobrist isn't always playing first holding the runner. Has happened before when there was a runner on first and second. No reason for Baez to hold the runner at first, since the runner has nowhere to go as second base is occupied. Thus Rizzo did not get an appearance at 2B in that instance, as it was just a shift. 

 

 

Irrelevant.

As far as I know, no rule states that an official position change must be made if another fielder moves over to hold a runner.

Or moves wherever and does whatever.

Within baseball rules of course.

The only relevant rule is that they must be in fair territory, except the cacher, and not allowed to wear a mit, except the catcher and the firstbaseman.

Edited by JCD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JCD said:

 

Clearly.

But I asked what Rizzo would be in this situation, positioning himself to field a bunt attempt, and not what the OF would be.

 

 

 

Nobody is a rulebook.

If you don't know the rules, you don't know what you talkin about.

We all know that official scorers '"aren't that smart". Discussing how they do things, won't make bad decisions acceptable.

 

 

Irrelevant.

As far as I know, no rule states that an official position change must be made if another fielder moves over to hold a runner.

Or moves wherever and does whatever.

Within baseball rules of course.

The only relevant rule is that they must be in fair territory, except the cacher, and not allowed to wear a mit, except the catcher and the firstbaseman.

 

Fascinating. Have a nice life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...