- PROPOSED: Add the offense scoring category of Hit-By-Pitch.
A. No, keep the same as last year. No points are awarded a batter that is hit by a pitch.
B. Yes, a batter who is hit by a pitch will score 1 point.
- PROPOSED: Increase the point value of Stolen Bases.
A. No, keep the same value as last year in which a Stolen Base = 1 point
B. Yes, increase the value of a Stolen Base to 1.25 points
C. Yes, increase the value of a Stolen Base to 1.5 points but also deduct -0.5 for each Caught Stealing.
- PROPOSED: Instead of requiring a starting line-up to include 5 Starting Pitchers and 2 Relief Pitchers, an owner may use any combination of seven pitchers he deems appropriate: 6 SP, 1 RP or 2 SP, 5 RP or 4 SP, 3 RP, or any combination equaling 7.
A. No, keep the same as last year in which each owner starts 5 SP and 2 RP on a weekly basis.
B. Yes, allow owners to decide each week which combinations to start.
- PROPOSED: Change the method of Free Agent Acquisition.
A. No, keep the same system -- Waiver Wire – as last year.
B. Yes, use blind bidding for Free Agents on a weekly basis using CBS’s automated Free Agent Acquisition Budget (“FAAB”) which is essentially a return to Fantasy Dollars from past seasons, though now it may be automated via CBS Sportsline.
- PROPOSED: Allow an owner to pick up any player at anytime, including minor league players who have yet to play in the major leagues. As long as CBS Sportsline has a player available, they may be picked up.
A. No, keep the same system as last year in which a minor-leaguer must play in a MLB game before being eligible to be picked up.
B. Yes, allow an owner to pick up any player at any time, including minor league players.
- PROPOSED: Allow any player drafted in any round to be eligible for future Keeper Status.
A. No, like last year, restrict any players drafted in the first three rounds of the current year’s draft to be eligible for Keeper the following year.
B. Yes, remove all restrictions. Any player drafted in any round may be kept.
- PROPOSED: After the Transaction Deadline when rosters are frozen, allow on a case-by-case basis for teams that are either in the playoffs or within reach of a playoff spot (which is at the sole determination of the commissioners) the opportunity to replace a significantly injured player who, due to MLB custom, typically is NOT placed on the Disabled List after September 1. The term ‘significantly inured’ is at the sole determination of the commissioners. Cases will be bolstered by evidence provided by the petitioner. For example, an article stating that Player X has broken his arm and won’t play again until the Spring would probably be considered replaceable. However, a player who tweaks his hamstring and is projected to sit out 3 games would probably not be considered replaceable.
A. No, keep the same system as last year. Careful roster construction should prepare you for all eventualities.
B. Yes, allow teams in contention to petition to replace a significantly injured player.
- PROPOSED: The rules and constitution of the DCBA League as they exist subsequent to the vote on amendments (whether all, any, some or none), that occur as of Thursday, February 15, 2007 shall not be changed for a period of two years. All matters decided on for the 2007 season shall be the effective rules for the 2008 season, as well, with no possibility of amendment.
A. No, keep the same as last year and allow season-end revision of rules and procedures.
B. Yes, once approved, keep the same procedures and rules for two years: 2007 and 2008.
12 comments:
1.B, Yes. Leaning in is good.
2.C, Yes. But getting caught stealing is dumb and must be penalized.
3.C, Yes. Liberalism. Who're you to say I can't start all seven set-up men?
4.A, No. If I understand this, it's just free agents/and waivers. I like the free market.
5. Push. I'll go No just to level the playing field.
6.B, Yes. If shit turns to watermelons, you should be allowed to keep your watermelons.
7.B, Yes. This seems very fair. There's no sense in dropping Manny Ramirez who'd be a keeper in September.
8.A, No. Season-end revisions.
Just sayin',
Jonathan
1. B -- there should be SOME compensation for a wasted plate appearance.
2. A -- I'm hesitant to give too much weight to SBs and if we penalize for CS then that would be the one and only negative scoring category.
3. A -- I like everyone to start the week on an even playing field in terms of pitchers. Also I fear that with more SP options, the two-start hording will become overwhelming.
4. B -- Bidding would bring some consequences back to free agent acquisition.
5. B -- As we saw last year, there's no good way to deal with this issue via sportsline. We should allow people to burn a roster spot if they want to pick up a Triple A player.
6. B – An owner should be able to keep whomever.
7. B – To my mind, this is one of the top issues that needs mending.
8. A – I think year-end reflection and revision is important for the health of the league.
1. (B)Yes. A long overdue correction of an oversight.
2. (C)Yes. This will render Juan Pierre completely useless.
3. (A)No. All teams should be on the same level playing field. For the same reason we have 1 LF, 1 CF and 1 RF instead of 3 general OF spots that could be occupied by all right fielders.
4. (A)No. Having used both systems, I believe the waiver system is superior. # of transactions in 2006 (with waiver): 560. # of transactions in 2005 (with bid): 219. By the by, it would be in the interest of anyone in favor of changing pitching to keep the waiver system.
5. (B)Yes. Bench points don’t count anyhow. Have a soccer player on your bench for all I care.
6. (B)Yes. No restrictions = nobody hounding me for my first round draft pick last year, Ryan Howard, 2006 NL MVP.
7. (A)No. If this same event were to occur during a matchup in May, and the injured player’s lack of contribution led to a loss which eventually leads to his team finishing 1 game out of the playoffs, nobody would care. These. Are. The. Breaks.
8. (B)Yes. Good, careful consideration of the rules should allow them to remain relevant for more than 1 year.
1. HBP = +1 point.
2. Option C. I didn't do the math, but I appreciate its spirit. I guess we'll have one negative category then, until we change the rules next year.
3. Not every pitcher is a 2-start pitcher every week, so I do not understand how one can hoard them. Comparing the 7 pitcher slots to the 3 outfield slots is not only a false analogy but obscures the issue at hand. The playing field will be level with 7 total slots for everyone; how one chooses to deploy those slots is up to them. I believe we should give this a shot and give owners something to think about at the draft and from week-to-week. Maybe it's a disaster, maybe it's an unqualified success, but either way it's better than weekly clockpunching. Again: no math done.
4. FAAB all the way, with a $50 balance, and the ability to sell players. Maybe there were 500+ moves because they were free and without any consequence?
5. If you want the Next Big Thing right now while I hoard 2-start pitchers, then that's fine with me.
6. Drafter's keepers. Maybe this will serve some as reparations for perceived past victimization by the "man/system".
7. There are 7 bench slots and only 2 rounds of playoffs. I think you can make it if you want to win this year and not collect on your bench either potential keepers or hoard 2-start pitchers in anticipation of advancing to the next round. Official DL only merits a replacement.
8. Abstain.
-Authorized Representative of The Consummate Bastards
1. A: Death to Don Baylor!
2. A: Let's try to minimize negative categories.
3. A: If we make pitchers a generic category, why not make infield or outfield generic categories?
4. B: Bidding will separate the intelligent from the lucky.
5. B: If you want to fill your roster with players you can't use, so be it.
6. A: I would like to use this answer to advocate the trading of draft picks.
7. A: Bad luck is a big part of the game.
8. A: This league is far from perfect, and these proposed changes will not change that fact significantly.
Dear Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous:
Thank you very much for your vote.
However, in order to ensure your vote counts please make sure to indentify yourself. We must make sure there is no double-voting, etc.
Thanks Mr. (or Ms.) Anonymous.
I would trade anything, including draft picks. I'll punch "Yes" for trading draft picks, even though your vote on my pet rule proposal regarding pitchers didn't address the actual content of that proposal. Water under the bygones, &c.
Would you still want to trade draft picks even if players can be kept from any round?
-Authorized Representative of The Consummate Bastards
1. A. It's one thing to penalize the pitcher, but reward a guy for getting hit?
2. C. I think it should be rewarded, but a .25? The penalizing works well too since a guy like Podsednick is losing value quickly because he gets caught so often.
3. A. Keep the same as last year. If we're supposed to be acting like managers, we should be required to have a minimum number of starters and closers.
4. B. I hate to go with it, but after sitting on the number one slot for the last few months and getting nothing for it, I'm willing to go back to bidding.
5. B. If you want somebody who may never play on your bench for a few weeks, I don't see why not.
6. B. It would be one thing if we expanded the league, but since the league seems pretty established I don't think we need to put out the first rounders. However I like that if a new person(s) joins up that we have to make certain players eligible for the expansion draft (maybe that's when we'd put up our 1-3 rounders).
7. B. The managers in the majors have to think differently down the stretch when it comes to their stars. If they're going to rest someone because he's got a minor injury when in July the guy would be playing every day I think there's a good reason to ask for a replacement.
8. A. I like that we can have these open discussions about the rules every year.
1 B - 1pt for HBP
2 A - no change
3 A - no change
4 B - fantasy dollars
5 B - last year was a cluster****
6 A - no change
7 A - no change
8 A - no change
The anonymous vote from 5:09 PM is registered to the Festivus Miracles.
1. B/Yes: 1 point for hit by pitch.
2. A/No: Keep stolen base points the same.
3. A/No: Keep pitcher allocation the same-5 SP/2RP.
4. B/Yes: Use blind bidding system.
5. B/Yes: Allow an owner to pick up any player at any time.
6. A/No: Keep restrictions on keepers.
7. A/No: Keep injured player system the same.
8. A/No: Allow for season end review and revisions of rules and procedures.
All the Wrong Cubs:
1 B
2 A
3 A
4 B
5 A
6 A
7 A
8 A
Post a Comment