I am bringing this up again because it is something that has arisen again as I try to trade away older assets for younger ones.
Genuinely what purpose do the limits serve. There is no bonus to tanking now that the draft settings have been changed and all these limits do is make it harder to rebuild. How does handicapping teams actually promote any level of competitiveness?
What is the point in teams who are 10th - 15th trying to reach an arbitrary number?
There is seriously no good reason other than "to prevent people from not partaking". Unfortunately the roto format leads to that because once you reach a certain depth you cannot catch up and peoples interest flags. For the record I am not saying that is why I want the limits removed but really is it serving a purpose other than to hamstring teams in bidding for free agents who might help them? It is just making it harder for teams at the bottom to rebuild.
So far no one has actually presented a good reason and no the answer of there is plenty of AB's and IP's available in free agency is not a good reason.
Lets be honest and just admit we over-reacted to one guy tanking/not taking part and we brought in multiple rules to prevent it when one would have been more than enough.
Last Edit: Dec 12, 2015 12:56:46 GMT -5 by Deleted
I'm not sure what the requirement is for something to be put to a vote, but I agree with this as well. The idea was good in concept, but it has shown to be unnecessary in practice as it inhibits teams from fully committing to a rebuild. I think all the members understand the commitment this league requires and should be allowed to manage their teams without this added constraint. The 50 point total minimum and admin review should suffice as requirements for each team.
Last Edit: Dec 12, 2015 15:48:09 GMT -5 by Deleted: grammar
I think fully committing to a rebuild shouldn't equate to not fielding a minimum complete team. Managing a team any way you want shouldn't equate to selling all of your big league assets and create a disparity in the league for a few years because a few lucky teams were a recipient of those assets. I can respect what San Diego is doing. He is rebuilding but has a competitive team this year and will have almost his entire budget available for next off season.
I still think the minimums we have are quite small and easy to hit with the smallest bit of planning.
I think there are seriously a lot of good reasons to having minimums.
Perhaps it's less the limits and more the punishment that should be changed. How does docking people there salary cap help the competitiveness of the league?
I still don't see the need for the limits because a dynasty league isnt about all 15 teams being competitive in one season. If this was a shallow league it would be different but this league is quite deep.
It's fine to say that some teams have rebuilt that way but the team I inherited was a shit storm and had no easy way of turning it around with a lot of below average major league talent weighing it down.
A few lucky teams don't benefit from a rebuild. Everyone had the chance to see the trade block and bid for players plus they had to give up assets to get them.
This league is very close to real life style with salary caps and free agency and big farm systems. Do Major league teams have minimum standards they have to meet to prevent themselves getting fined?
I think you made an excellent point. This league is very close to "real life style".
Also I think you made an excellent question: "Do Major league teams have minimum standards they have to meet to prevent themselves getting fined?"
The answer here is yes.
MLB teams play 162 games, 9 innings per game. If a team decided that they would only field a team for 7 innings for 158 games not only would MLB fine the team, that team would sell a heck of a lot less tickets, since what fan wants to see the team which is not even playing full games. Thus giving the team less money to spend on free agency and talent acquisitions.
In essence that is what you are doing when you do not meet minimums. You are fielding an incomplete team for just some of your team's schedule. In real life that would NEVER happen without some major repercussions financially and probably MLB taking over your franchise.
In 'the other league' that a few of us are in, there are no minimums placed on teams. If you don't score the minimum, you simply don't place in the standings for either pitching or hitting. I don't think it detracts from the enjoyment I get from going for it every year. What the minimums do, ostensibly, is help keep talent spread out. In that league (a 30-team league), there are four or five top teams and everybody else. I don't know if this is too big a deal, but minimums force the league as a whole to not create 'super teams'. Why does this matter? Well, the barrier to entry into the 'next level' is pretty high.
Granted, the super teams aren't the same every year, but it generally goes--"super team" to 'Complete rebuild' to 'Super team' by trading all the assets acquired during the rebuild--creating a select few teams who either compete or rebuild, and the rest of league that hovers around the middle of the pack. Having minimums might lessen this disparity? I feel like the team who finished last in this league one year has a reasonable shot at competing the next, whereas there are teams that would take YEARS to get to relevance in the other league.
Baseball may be a religion full of magic, cosmic truth, and the fundamental ontological riddles of our time, but it's also a job.
That's similar to the way iv seen pitching minimums in most leagues. If you don't make the minimum you cannot compete for era and whip is my experience. However you can still get recognition for counting stats
Basically what phronesis said is why we have the minimums. They are honestly quite achievable even for a rebuilding team to hit, the idea being that in a 15 team league we don't need anybody getting frustrated and "tanking" by which I mean selling off to become more of a AAA team than a major league team. The only time the minimums may become an issue from my standpoint is if a rebuilding team also happens to hit a ton of injuries in a season and now is stuck with deciding to hit the minimums by trading potential future assets. I don't see that as being a common occurrence. Even in that case in our league teams should be able to add guys relatively cheap to hit minimums without much hit to the team's talent. We are discussing a rule that will be a tiered salary hit taking into account how much the minimums were missed by.