2015 Winter Meetings: Topic 1 - Increasing buy-in

Folks -

We only have one (1) topic to discuss this offseason. Upon voting and decision-making, we will move on to the keeper declaration stage of the offseason.


2015 WINTER MEETINGS TOPIC 1: INCREASING BUY-IN

This potential change was brought up by two different managers. Here is what one person's sales pitch for the change was:

Can we increase the league entry fee? I feel like we devote so much time and effort to fantasy baseball in particular that it is necessary.

A few years ago, we switched form $50 to $75, and last year, we increased the buy-in from $75 to $100. An exact increase in price was not requested in the topic proposal, so I'll just go with $125 to be in line with what we've done in the past. Here's what the prize breakdown would be with $125 per person (AKA an extra $300 in the pot):

Total pot is $1,525 (125 buy-in per team, plus 25 last-place fee)

Champion = $520
Runner-up = $300
3rd place = $125
Division winners = $125 each
Weekly skin winners = $15 (22 weeks)

Change needed: 75% of votes (9 people to say yes).

Please reply to me and only me with your vote.
Read more!

4th keeper updated dicsussion with official proposal

OK, we need to get the ball rolling here and just iron something out so we can move on to voting, keepers and draft lottery. Spring training is quickly approaching.

I've rounded up everyone's opinions and after the jump, here's where we stand.



NOTE: Click here to view original discussion

NO SLIDING SCALE:
• Hal
• Joe
• Chris
• Andy

SMALL/MEDIUM SLIDING SCALE:
• Ken
• Bob

BIG SLIDING SCALE:
• Shea

UNDECIDED
• Mike
• Dave
• Jack
• Rick
• Adam

I've spoken on and offline to a bunch of people over this and heard various opinions, and good arguments for both sides. The most common thing that has come up has been the "Trout problem" in which one person gets a diamond in the rough via free agency and gets him for 4 years in exchange for a measly 23rd round pick. Some would say it's a minimum-to-no-risk move, but the counterargument to that is if he is a bust or gets hurt, you're stuck with him and can't use the wildcard keeper spot on anyone else for those next 3 years.

So, with that said, and because I simply don't think anything is going to be really agreed upon, here's my official proposal after hearing all arguments and opinions:

There WILL NOT be a sliding scale for drafted players. This is the reason for the wildcard keeper in the first place - to put more emphasis on the draft and add the extra strategical element. If you find that diamond in the rough via a shrewd draft, good for you. Besides, is it really going to matter if you drafted Mike Trout in Rd. 23 and have to give up your, say, 15th round pick 4 years later? No, it's not. And anything stricter, it seems as if the 4th keeper wouldn't pass the voting stage anyway.

However, there WILL be a sliding scale for undrafted free-agent pickups. This would alleviate the fears that some have expressed of some unfairness, while also not crippling anyone who wants to keep a FA. In Year 1, you lose your 23rd pick. In Year 2, you lose your 16th pick. In Year 3, you lose your 9th pick. (For comparison's sake, if you kept an undrafted FA for 3 years, you could keep him that 3rd year for a 9th round draft pick loss or you could cut him for a 6th round draft pick loss, per our standard keeper rules.)

Under this proposal, a player who gets drafted, cut and picked up would fall under the category of a drafted player.

Note: All "rounds" are per Yahoo's draft designation in this case (i.e. Round 4 would be the first player you manually pick)

Another thing to remember, of course, is that this wrinkle is not taking the place of our normal 3 keeper spots. You'll still have those without any initial draft pick loss, of course.

What does everyone think?
Read more!

2014 Winter Meetings: Topic 7 - Addition of 4th "wildcard" keeper

UPDATE: Here is the official proposal.

Topic 7 revisits the implementation of a 4th "wildcard" keeper.


Last year, we briefly discussed adding a 4th "wildcard" keeper, and when we informally voted, it had 10 out of 12 votes for yes. So I think it will go through this year, and I think this space should be used to try and come to some kind of agreement on how it will work, unless there's been a big change of heart. While I have the general shell built out, there are still some questions.

PROPOSAL: Adding a 4th optional keeper called a "wildcard"
• It could be a pitcher or hitter
• If you choose to add a wildcard keeper, you lose the draft pick in the round you drafted that keeper. So if you drafted Cole Hamels in the 4th round, and you designate him as your wildcard keeper, you lose your 4th round pick for as many years as you keep him (max 3, like usual).
• If you keep an undrafted player who you picked up off the waiver wire, you lose your 23rd-round draft pick.
• Can be a pitcher or hitter.
• It would go into effect starting next offseason when you declare keepers (so this draft would matter in regards to this)
• Once you designate someone as your wildcard keeper, that's it. It can not be swapped with a different keeper on your team the following offseason.

REASON:
Adds a fourth keeper and some more juice into the pool; very much rewards strong drafters and/or shrewd free-agent pickups; lets you perhaps take a chance on a keeper that you otherwise might not have; creates more strategy as to whether to hold onto a prospect early in the season.

DISCUSSION POINTS:
So the No. 1 piece of feedback in regards to this was how we would "regulate" potential top-tier players taken late and/or off the wires being kept for 3 years (i.e. guys like Trout, Puig, Wacha, etc.). If it starts out as a 23rd round pick, does it stay the same round each year? Does the round move up X amount of picks per year kept?

Other valid and important questions:

• Should it be optional?
• Is it too unfair for someone to have a top-tier player who they got on the waiver wire only to lose a 23rd round pick for 3 straight years, or is that part of the strategic aspect to it?
• Does the wildcard keeper follow the same rules as normal keepers when it comes to cutting or re-signing them for less or more years?

What other questions would we need to have addressed if this passes?

If you want to be heard on this issue, now is your time to speak up. I'm interested to hearing any ideas you may have in regards to this, as it's not something I have any experience with.

CHANGE NEEDED:
75 percent

Read more!

2014 Winter Meetings: Topics 5 and 6 - Non-playoff teams and draft lottery

Topics 5 and 6 both involve proposals regarding non-playoff teams.


TOPIC 5
Penalty payments for 10th, 11th, and 12th place finishers

PROPOSAL: 10th, 11th, and 12th place finishers all pay an equal penalty fee. We currently only have the last-place team paying that $25 fee.

REASON: The giving up at the end of the season hurts competition and makes it the luck of the draw as to schedule and getting a dead man’s team late in the season. A match at the end of the season is as important as a match at the start of the season.

Change needed: 75% of votes

---

TOPIC 6
Inverse ping pong ball percentages for the draft lottery (beginning 2015 draft)

PROPOSAL: 7th gets highest percentage, 8th gets second-highest, and so on; 12th gets worst percentage

REASON: It truly keeps everyone involved until the final week, whereas in the past, anyone in like 8th or especially 9th or 10th place had nothing to play for with 2 or 3 weeks left to go, because they couldn't make playoffs and couldn't get last place. This would make a final-week match between the 3rd place team fighting for a division title vs. the 9th place team equally as important as a matchup between the 6th and 7th place teams. Like noted above, a match at the end of the season is as important as a match at the start of the season, and this really makes things interesting and fun.

Potential added wrinkle: Last place fee gets eliminated in part to cancel out with increased buy in and also because you're already getting punished if you finish in 12th place.

Change needed: 66% of votes

---

Please feel free to discuss below if you'd like.
Read more!

2014 Winter Meetings: Topic 4 - Weekly skin system

Topic 4 regards a new proposed weekly skin system


TOPIC 4
Should we institute a new weekly "skin" system, and subsequently increase buy-in to $100?

REASON:
It adds more money to the total pot and more ways to win money; it gives a bit more value to the points aspect of a match; it adds possible strategic value of "go for the skin and risk a win" versus "sit back and take the likely win"; it gives non-playoff teams a chance to win money and gives every matchup an added reason to pay attention.

PROPOSED SYSTEM:
We'll break this down in two parts.

Part 1: Each week, the manager who scores the biggest margin of victory wins a weekly side pool, otherwise known as a "skin". I was unsure whether to go with biggest margin or most categories won. If you feel strongly about either one, please make your case. Would love to hear thoughts on that. This leads to...

Part 2: The weekly skin can only be done if we all put in an extra $25 per person. Proposed payouts with this would be: 440/240/100 for top 3, 100 each for division winners, 10 for weekly skin.

Change needed: 75% of votes

---

Please feel free to discuss below if you'd like.
Read more!

2014 Winter Meetings: Topic 3 - FAAB budget decrease

Topic 3 regards the FAAB budget system and how much (fake) money should be allocated to start the season.


TOPIC 3
Should the FAAB seasonal budget decrease from $100 to $75 (or even less?)
REASON: Having that big of a budget allowed teams to overbid excessively because they knew they’d never use the entire allotment.

We switched from waivers to FAAB bidding last season. Was $100 too much of a starting budget given that the only players who go on waivers are those who get cut? This proposed change offers up $75 as a new starting budget but gives leeway to even less money.

If there seems to be a big agreement on a number other than $75, that's fine as well.

Change needed: 66% of votes

---

Please feel free to discuss below if you'd like. We'll vote on this, along with Topics 1 and 2, on Thursday.
Read more!

2014 winter meetings: Topics 1 and 2 - Max moves and Keeper trades

Topics 1 and 2 are repeat topics from the past.


TOPIC 1
Increase max moves per season by five, going from 50 to 55
REASON: More flexibility in-season, but not enough to overdo it. (If everyone used three moves per week in regular season, it’d be 66 moves).

This is an exact proposal from last year's meetings that was shot down. If it doesn't pass this year, it's off the table next year. Here is the link to last year's discussion and comments on the same topic.

Change needed: 66% of votes

---

TOPIC 2
Remove any loss of draft pick for keeper trades
REASON: Keepers are the best players in the league and the league is more exciting when it encourages teams to involve their best players without penalty.

The current rule is if you trade a keeper in-season, you: lose an 8th-round (11th overall) draft pick. If you trade a keeper off-season, you lose an 18th round (21st overall) draft pick.

This is an exact proposal from the 2012 meetings that was shot down. If it doesn't pass this year, it's off the table next year. Here is the link to the 2012 discussion and comments on the same topic.

Change needed: 51% of votes

---

Please feel free to discuss either of these two if you'd like. Again, since they've both been discussed before, your opinion may not have changed and may already be in one of the prior posts. We'll vote in a couple days.
Read more!

2013 winter meetings: Topic 1 - increasing total moves in season

Happy Winter Meetings, everyone!

Good news for those of you who don't care: We only have 1 topic on the agenda, and then we get to move onto the fun stuff, such as realignment and keeper declaration. So let's get onto it.


2013 Winter Meetings Topic 1: Increase max moves per season.
We raised this from 45 to 50 last offseason, and there is an agenda item to have this raised from 50 to 55 this offseason. Here is the person's pitch: "A lot of us went to the limit or close again. With 3 moves per week, it's hard to abuse the max moves still."

Here is the link to last year's discussion

Note that this is NOT about weekly moves per week, which is 3. This is about total moves per season. Email me back your YES or NO, please.

Change needed: Eight votes.
Read more!

Winter meetings topic 5: Keeper trade punishments

This is the final discussion point of the winter meetings before we vote at the beginning of next week (followed by everyone's favorite - keeper declaration).

This topic is keeper trade punishments. Last year was the first in effect for our new keeper trade rules. As a reminder:

If you trade a keeper in-season, you: lose an 8th-round (11th overall) draft pick. If you trade a keeper off-season, you lose an 18th round (21st overall) draft pick. Draft picks are allowed in off-season keeper trades.

I thought this was a pretty good rule, as we actually saw more keeper trades last year than ever before (since the first year when draft picks were allowed). But, it was e-mailed by someone who isn't happy with it and wants to discuss possible changes.

So, in the case that others feel the same way, I'm opening this up to discussion. Have at it.


Read more!

Winter meetings topic 4: Adding a 4th keeper

Like the previous topic I'll let the person who proposed this chime in and make his arguments. However, I feel it's necessary to say this was a topic last year as well that was shot down (link below) so if it again is shot down we will wait at least a year to revisit, if at all.

http://mtlkeeperleague.blogspot.com/2011/01/winter-meetings-issue-1-adding-keeper.html


Read more!

Winter meetings topic 3: Who pays last place fee?

Right now the regular-season last place guy pays the loser's fee. We have this in place so everyone remains competitive and no one intentionally tanks toward the end for higher  draft lottery odds. 

A request has been made as to whether we should make the last-place fee go to the consolation loser in the loser bracket playoffs.

It would be nice for the person who requested this change to pop into the comments section and voice his reasons for wanting the change and make the argument.

I will refrain from listing pros and cons so he can give his full argument.


Read more!

Winter meetings topic 2: Adding a move per week AND/OR increasing total moves

Right now we have 3 moves per week with 50 45 total moves per year.

I don't think I really need to say too much about this one. Everyone knows by now the argument for and against it.

Opening it up for ongoing discussion below. If you were one of the ones who advocated for this change, have at it and make your points.


Read more!

Winter meetings topic 1: league fees and payouts

Welcome to the 2012 Winter Meetings. Unlike past years we are going to have to do the voting a little differently because we have people who find this blog somehow through google and can screw up voting if it's public.

We will discuss ALL topics first and at end of week, I will probably send out an email link with a poll for each one so we can vote. Unlike past years, I honestly don't see an epic long discussion in the future for any of these. List of topics:

•Cost of league and league payouts
•Adding one more move per week OR increasing total moves per year
•Who pays last place fee?
•Adding a 4th keeper for 2013
•Keeper trade punishments

Topic 1 after the jump.


Topic 1: Cost of league & league payouts 

Some have advocated we raise the stakes of the league. To quote one manager who proposed the change: 

"Everyone seems to be big baseball fans and for the most part everyone seems active. However I am to believe we are all atleast 25 years old, so why is the payment into this league so small? What is it 50 bucks? I believe everyone should be able to shell out atleast $100 for a league like the one we do."

PROS: Higher payouts, more competitiveness, add a 3rd place prize (and possibly others). 

CONS: Higher buy-in, possibly higher last place fee (?)

NOTE: 100 was just the proposed change, that can be debated in discussion if people like this idea. Please discuss this idea in the comments section and give your thoughts if you so choose.
Read more!

Results of poll

OK, so I only got four responses to my e-mail/blog post, and I'm not chasing people down, so here's what we're going to do.

I'm making the executive decision that if you make an offseason trade, you will lose an 18th overall round draft pick. That seems like a fair compromise to the tie.

A full recap of our new rules after the jump

• If you trade a keeper in-season, you lose an 11th overall round pick but are not charged money.
• Draft picks are allowed in off-season keeper trades.
• If you trade a keeper off-season, you lose an 18th round overall draft pick.
• A DL spot will be added to rosters this year, meaning there will be two.
• Weekly moves will increase from 2 to 3.

Read more!

Hmmm...

Well, this isn't good...

13 voters? Either we have a fraud or someone has found a way to vote twice.

I'm open to suggestions. I think I'll just have each league member tell me individually their vote.

In other news, despite the 13 voters, it seems as the other poll is final...



Read more!

Offseason keeper trades

OK, this is our final offseason winter meetings issue. Please vote in both polls. To read the discussion and arguments made for both sides here, please go here.



Issue 1: Should there be a penalty for offseason keeper trades? (majority)
Because there are two Yes options and one No, here is how the voting will work. If both yes votes combine to equal the majority, the one with the most will be the winner. (I.E.: OPTION 3 NO gets 5 votes, OPTION 1 YES gets 4 and OPTION 2 YES gets 3. In that case, OPTION 1 YES will be the winner.)




Issue 2: Draft picks in offseason keeper trades (8 votes needed to change)
Draft picks can never be traded in-season, but should they be allowed to be included in offseason keeper trades?




Read more!

Voting results

I'll post the results to the polls after the jump. The one thing I'll say is that the results in some cases are quite interesting given the discussions. Silent majority, I suppose...

The other thing I'll say is that it's clear based on the results that each issue was pretty overwhelming in favor of one way or the other. Also, two polls got 12 votes and two got 11. How does that happen?


Poll 1:
How should we treat in-season keeper trades (majority):

Get rid of the $20 fee but keep the 11th rounder - 6 votes
No restrictions - 5 votes
Keep what we have now - 1 vote
Get rid of the 11th rounder but keep the $20 fee - 0 votes



I was stunned at how close this was, especially since five of the first six votes were for the eventual winner. And then I was thinking that since this was so close maybe we needed to rediscuss, but then I realized that it was actually 11 of 12 voters wanting some sort of change from what we had last year. So we'll have the 11th round draft pick as a penalty for trading a keeper in-season.

Poll 2:
Should we "register" keepers in order to trade them? (majority)

No - 8 votes
Yes - 3 votes



Another one I was surprised by, simply because based on the discussion it seemed many were in favor of this. Guess not, though.

Poll 3:
Should we add a DL spot? (8 votes needed to change)

Yes - 8 votes
No - 3 votes



Not much to say here, pretty self-explanatory.

Poll 4:
Should offseason trades be allowed? (8 votes needed to change)

Yes - 9 votes
No - 3 votes



OK, so as I said in the poll thread, we'll have to re-vote on this issue now to determine what kind of restrictions and penalties, if any, we want to put on offseason trading. I know what's been tossed around is whether the draft picks should be allowed to be included in trades, and whether a loss of draft pick penalty should be assessed, and if so, which round.

Right now, those are the two issues we'll be voting for. You can post any further discussion on this particular issue in the comments, and I'll create the polls on Sunday so we can finish up our winter meetings and move onto keeper declaration.
Read more!

Keeper voting

OK, it's time to vote. There are four different polls. If you need to refer to the discussion and arguments, please go here. Polls after the jump.


DL spot (8 votes needed):




Offseason keeper trades (8 votes needed, if passes we will revote for rules)




"Registering" keepers (majority)




Keeper trading rules (majority)
Note: I am making this majority because there are four different options.



Read more!

Winter meetings issue 3: Keeper trading

This will be the biggest issue to iron out. I am not going to put up a poll until we get some discussion and figure out what exactly we want to vote on.

I know several people expressed disappointment at how hard it was to make a trade last year because of the restrictions. Others like it and think it places a value on keepers.

Also, some have expressed interest in making offseason keeper trades.

The current rules we have in place after the jump.


If you trade a keeper in-season, you: lose an 8th-round (11th overall) draft pick; must pay a $20 fee to go into the next year's pot.

Time's yours, fellas. Discuss, please.
Read more!

Weekly moves will increase from 2 to 3

Vote was in favor of yes, 9 to 2. One non-voter. Getting better. Most important issue to come soon.

More later. Proof to the right.



Read more!