Perhaps a proposal of the new BBFL? For all those peeps wanting to get in on the action, and form a new league? It might be interesting if the new league(with new peeps) was randomly given the exact same rosters of people from the old league, and see which managers do a better job.

Proposition 205. Shouldn't the winner of the 1st division be able to pick which of the available teams he wants ? The best finishing of the relegated teams isn't necessarily the team with the best five keepers.

I second Propositions 201, 202, and 203 (which I assume means Proposition 204 moves forward (which I assume means Proposition 205 moves forward)). Yeah, that's not confusing at all.

I propose to decrease the waiver period on trades from 2 days to 1 day.

I propose a Keeper selection can be changed any time after March 4 up to draft day with approval from the Rules Committee, who will rule in favour of allowing a change in such cases as severe injury or imprisonment.

I propose the draft be held the evening of Thursday April 1st.

Has the 20th spot in the BBFL been assigned? Last I heard dp hadn't confirmed.

I propose the draft be held the evening of Thursday April 1st.

Second that. There's no fool like an April Fool.

I propose to decrease the waiver period on trades from 2 days to 1 day

That doesn't leave much time for the committee to make a ruling if there's an objection. I presume you mean 24 hours, but a Yahoo "day" starts at midnight PST, and we don't want an 11:59 pm trade to be approved automatically. I'd support an amendment that lets the Commish approve a trade manually if there's no objection in the first 24 hours. That would put the players in their new team's lineup the following day.

Another proposition: Changing to Yahoo premium service. For less than $7 (US) we get a dandy prize and some worthwhile features.

http://economics.about.com
Has the 20th spot in the BBFL been assigned? Last I heard dp hadn't confirmed.

I still have to do this. I wonder what ever happened to that guy.

I second Coach's and Gwyn's proposals. Consider them added.

Cheers,

Mike

I'd like to add another option for Proposition 205.

I believe that after relegation, a mini-keeper draft should be held. Here, the best Div1 team picks a keeper from any of the relegated teams. The 2nd best Div1 team then picks his first keeper (who can be from the same team as the first player chosen), and so on until each promoted team has his/her keepers.

The process could be similar for the relegated Premier teams. They just use the promoted Div1 teams as their pool from which to draw their new keepers.

Once each Premier and Div1 team have their keepers, the process is repeated with strikers, sweepers, defenders and midfielders.

Sorry, scratch the last part.

I'm in. Sorry about the confusion- I was getting Mike's e-mails but couldn't send from my NYU account. Bounced him an e-mail saying the same.

My #1 pick will be Felipe Lopez, provided Coach doesn't beat me to him.

201: (a) Yes

202: (b) Discuss at Beginning of Next Off-Season

203: (a) Yes

204: (b) 3, (c) 4, (d) 5, (a) 0

205: (d) Winner of 2nd Division chooses 1st Division Team. (I'm assuming this means he chooses from the 1st Division Teams being relegated.)

We haven't even discussed what the BBFL Lite rules will be so I think that choosing from the rest of the 205 options is premature. Whether or not it is a keeper league and how many keepers are involved will have a lot to do with how I vote.

206: (a) Yes

I believe that after relegation, a mini-keeper draft should be held. Here, the best Div1 team picks a keeper from any of the relegated teams.

Isn't this like MLB giving the 2004 Yankees a free good player from the Devil Rays, thereby making them even more unbeatable? Not good. Or am I misunderstanding your proposal?

Happy to see the initiative Mike. I am only sad to see that I have to wait another six weeks before trading begins, since I already have my three and four team trade proposals ready to go....I like the fact that trading will be concentrated within two weeks, though.

I have one additional suggestion for a rule change:

Strengthen position requirements for outfielders. Specifically, I think we should have a designated position for CF. I know I suggested this during the previous rule changes, but let me propose it once again (and hope for somebody to second it) and tell you why.

The arguments for the proposition are basically:

1. It would increase the 'manager role' of BBFL Managers.
2. Increase the 'reality' of assembling a team.
3. Make defensively skilled (outfield) players more attractive, bringing them closer to a real-world evaluation of their overall value to a team.

1) Since we have dedicated SS and 2B positions it seems peculiar that we do not have a dedicated CF position. And yes there is a significant difference in the defensive skills of a CF and corner outfielder, think Matt Stairs/Jeremy Giambi vs. Chris Singleton/Vernon Wells.

2) Having to assemble an outfield where one player is a centerfielder is obviously more challenging than just finding outfielders. But this only adds to the 'reality' of the GM decisions. An example is Mark Kotsay. He is at best an average outfielder in our current league, but with a specific CF position his value increases to closer what it is in the real MLB.

3) This last point is related to the fact we don't have any defense metrics (and I can't think of any good ones), but by requiring specific position players (like SS and CF) we control for that to a small extent. Although there still would be no difference reflected in our point system in the defense provided by say Terrence Long and Mike Cameron even with a CF designation, there would be a difference between Long and Jeremy Giambi.

Finally, I can think of only one reason to oppose this. The rule change would enhance the value of some BBFL GM's keepers (i.e. Wells, Cameron, AGF's Griffey, Hunter etc.). I don't think it is that signinficant, though, especially since we have only 5 keepers.

With this in mind (and the fact that I think that some of the previous opposition was because it would have been an in-season rule change) I propose that we designate one CF position for every game in the next season.

Now who will second this?

http://economics.about.com
We haven't even discussed what the BBFL Lite rules will be so I think that choosing from the rest of the 205 options is premature. Whether or not it is a keeper league and how many keepers are involved will have a lot to do with how I vote.

Sorry for the confusion. I always assumed that the rules would be for the entire league and not a set of rules for each division. As commish I don't really want the headache of dealing with two entirely seperate set of rules.

Mike

Questions? How does one get involved in the BBFL? I hate to admit it, but I have never played in a roto league (if that is what this is). Is it open to everyone? and where would I get the rules? Any help is appreciated. If it's too late to get into this league, any suggestions where I can get started as a newbie roto leaguer? Thanks in advance.

Blue in SK,

The BBFL is definitely not the place to initiate yourself into the wonderful world of fantasy baseball, with it's difficulty level being far higher than the average roto league. The reason it is more difficult is largely because the total number of players being drafted in the league is so high (20 managers and 25 players drafted each, vs 12 managers and 21 players in a yahoo public league). The way I began was in a private league on yahoo (with friends), but if you don't know enough people to get one of those started, I'd suggest signing up for a few public leagues. The reason yahoo is the most popular site for fantasy sports leagues is that it is free. Putting your name on the waiting list with Mike couldn't hurt I guess, but I'd suggest holding off at least one year before joining the BBFL.

-Dave

I always assumed that the rules would be for the entire league and not a set of rules for each division.

Ahhh...I see. I'm not so sure that the same set of rules would work, however. In a universal rules scenario, teams shooting for the top of the BBFL Lite might ditch keepers near the deadline in favour of strengthening their position in the current year. If you know you don't have to play with that team the next season, what's the incentive to keep a strong roster? Inheriting a husk of a team, relative to the rest of the league, might make it very tough for those who are newly relegated.

I propose that the BBFL Lite NOT be a keeper league. This would create a nice volatility to the league, where someone who finished 20th in 2004 has just a good a chance to win in 2005 as the guy who finished 4th or the guys who were relegated. It's also something different than the BBFL, which makes a promotion more of a challenge.

I don't think you should have to be the Commissioner of both leagues though, Mike. Rounding up 20 knuckleheads is tough enough. I nominate Craig, with a new Commissioner elected every year.

http://economics.about.com
Inheriting a husk of a team, relative to the rest of the league, might make it very tough for those who are newly relegated.

That's why AGF is arguing that the keepers for the newly relegated teams be drafted, so this doesn't happen. I didn't include this as one of the options, because I hadn't thought about it, but the idea makes a lot of sense. I'll not only second it, I'll probably vote for it.

I propose that the BBFL Lite NOT be a keeper league. This would create a nice volatility to the league, where someone who finished 20th in 2004 has just a good a chance to win in 2005 as the guy who finished 4th or the guys who were relegated. It's also something different than the BBFL, which makes a promotion more of a challenge.

I'm sure this will be seconded. Personally I like the idea of having the leagues completely symmetric, but it's something we should vote on.

As far as "being different than the BBFL". If we expand, the twenty new teams *will* be part of the BBFL. We're just adding a second division.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Err.. that should read having the two *divisions* completely symmetric. Even the Commish is getting confused about the terminology. :)

Can we name the two divisions please? This is getting confusing. Mike...don't ask...just make the decision.

http://economics.about.com
Sure. From now on we'll call them the "Alomar" and the "Barfield" divisions. Division Alomar (A) is the existing group, and division "Barfield" is the incoming guys.

Can we all live with that? :)

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
I've added the new proposals. See the writeup for details.

Blue: If you're interested in joining the league, send me an e-mail at economics.guide@about.com and I'll add you to the waiting list. It's probably not the best league for a beginner, but you'll learn a lot. :)

Cheers,

Mike

I believe I'm a Barfield-er right now. If not add me to the waiting list.

201 - A
202 - A
203 - A
204 - D (5), C, B, A
205 - A, B, C, D, E
206 - B (although I don't feel strongly about this - I just get hooked into watching the stats accumulate throughout the night)
207 - A
208 - A

I am high in the queue for the Barfield division. As far as I am aware, I am not an enfranchised citizen at this time. However, I strongly feel that Proposal 207 is poorly thought-out. I strongly favour a keeper league, but I can see that there are some potential difficulties that need to be addressed with respect to relegation. Mike, perhaps you'd care to give this point a little more thought and post your findings?

http://economics.about.com
I am high in the queue for the Barfield division. As far as I am aware, I am not an enfranchised citizen at this time.

Right. Only existing owners get to vote.

However, I strongly feel that Proposal 207 is poorly thought-out. I strongly favour a keeper league, but I can see that there are some potential difficulties that need to be addressed with respect to relegation. Mike, perhaps you'd care to give this point a little more thought and post your findings?

Sure. The reason the voting period is a month long is so we can discuss the various proposals.

What do you see as being the difficulties with having the Barfield Division a keeper league? Spicol mentioned a few, but I think AGF's suggestion of having a player draft solves those problems quite nicely.

Cheers,

Mike

I think it was Cristian's suggestion, which at first I didn't understand since he was using Div1 to describe the Barfield Division but I now see what he means. It doesn't solve anything for the teams relegated to the Barfield Division though. If there aren't 15 keeper quality players on those 3 rosters (or 20 on 4, or 25 on 5, whatever number we decide on) then those guys who are relegated have a poor starting position. They were once part of the Premier division and it isn't fair that they would now be shuttled so low.

I see the attraction of a keeper league to the participants of the Barfield division. Keeper leagues are always more fun. But frankly, if it screws over the original owners in the Alomar division, I'm not in favour of expansion.

http://economics.about.com
I think it was Cristian's suggestion, which at first I didn't understand since he was using Div1 to describe the Barfield Division but I now see what he means. It doesn't solve anything for the teams relegated to the Barfield Division though. If there aren't 15 keeper quality players on those 3 rosters (or 20 on 4, or 25 on 5, whatever number we decide on) then those guys who are relegated have a poor starting position. They were once part of the Premier division and it isn't fair that they would now be shuttled so low.

That would be unfair, but I don't think these teams will be weaker. Remeber that these will be the best five teams in the league, so likely they'll have some pretty good players. We can do a couple things to help ensure this doesn't happen.

1. Have the trade committee veto any trades that have Barfield division teams dump superstars for depth.

2. Let the newly relegated teams have the first picks in the draft.

That should eliminate any problems. I don't see it being much of one, though, as only one or two teams will know for sure that they're being promoted, and the rest might not want to dump their keepers in case they don't get promoted.

Cheers,

Mike

Another Barfielder checking in (I'm fifth on the list, I think. My team name will be Schroedinger's Bat if this thing gets going). I know Barfield votes doesn't count yet, but I think it's fair to let others know where we stand on these things.

201 - A

202 - A

203 - A (Of course!)

204 - In order of preference: (c) 4, (b) 3, (a) 0, (d) 5

205 - E (I think a draft for the promoted teams is the best way to go. I like the idea of the B division not having keepers)

206 - A

207 - B

208 - A

2. Let the newly relegated teams have the first picks in the draft.

In the overall player draft, not the mini-draft...right?

http://economics.about.com
In the overall player draft, not the mini-draft...right?

Right.

Another one of Barfield's Boys checking in even though the votes dont count, being American I have experience in voting when no one seems to care if you did or not, its already decided :)

201 - A
202 - A
203 - A
204 - B, then A, C and D
205 - E
206 - A
207 - A
208 - A

I think the three switched teams should get the first three picks of the draft in reverese order of how they finish allowing them to get some keepers.

Oops already posting ideas that are up yet again, sorry guys

Sorry for the confusion Spicol. I was using English Football's "premiership" and "1st Division" terms since this is how I remember the two leagues being discussed in earlier threads.

Mike, later posts have adequately outlined potential dissatisfaction by owners facing relegation to Barfield, and appropriate safegaurds to assuage them. I'm staunchly in favour of having both divisions as keeper leagues, even though I recognize I'm an outsider at the present time. For the sake of full disclosure I'll have to admit that I'll seriously take a second look at participating if Barfield is not a keeper div. I want a chance to build a squad for promotion--clearly the ultimate goal for Barfield owners--even if it takes two seasons to do so. I think you'd see a lot of waning morale amongst Barfield owners if the season was effectively over for them by the All-Star break with nothing at stake for the balance of the year. I mean, there would be literally no incentive to participate in any meaningful way! Keepers are an essential feature to a robust second division in my view.

I'm not sure if my e-mail got through, Commish.
Could you add me to the waiting list? Thanks.

Lots to think about, and thanks to Mike for his time and efforts on our behalf!

Mike's timeline works for me for the most part, though I am not sure I understand the logic behind a long time period between announcing keepers and draft day. Most of us have a good idea who is a keeper and who is not, so what is the down-side of announcing keepers 48 hours before the draft? As I am not experienced in keeper leagues, I'd love to hear some discussion on the issue.

April Fool's Day works for me for the draft, keeping in mind those of us in the Pacific time zone. Any earlier than 5:30pm Pacific would be difficult.

I tend to agree with Shrike about the incentive of Barfield owners to strive for promotion to Alomar (that's for Sandy Alomar, Sr., who led the ANGELS in SB's virtually every year he played for them in the early 70's, right?) and the need for Barfield to be a keeper league. Thinking out loud, perhaps fewer keepers than Alomar (maybe 3) and giving first draft positions to relegated Alomar owners to mirror the number of Barfield keepers (first 3 rounds to relegated teams if there are 3 keepers in Barfield)?

I am not in favor of designating a specific CF position; with 20 owners drafting 25 players, it ain't easy as it is.

Looking forward to reading more discussions before casting my official votes on the propositions.

I think you'd see a lot of waning morale amongst Barfield owners if the season was effectively over for them by the All-Star break with nothing at stake for the balance of the year.

Good point...and it's why I wasn't in favour of a 20 team expansion. I originally wanted to cap it at 12 to give everyone a shot for the entire year but I think we're past the number question now.

I'm sure that we can find a solution in the middle...something that allows the top Barfield teams to be free to manage their roster how they want but won't leave open the possibility that the relegated Alomar owners inherit teams with no long term potential.

How's this: the 16 Barfield teams that don't get promoted name their 5 keepers after the Offseason Trade Window as usual. The 4 relegated former-Alomar owners then draft their keepers from a pool of the players who were not kept by the other 16 teams. We'd have to conduct such a draft manually but it wouldn't be too difficult. That's it. We don't mess with draft order and we don't restrict trades. It allows the relegated Alomar owners to have the most control possible over building their teams but doesn't give them an advantage over the incumbent Barfield owners. If it's decided that 3 or 5 teams get relegated, change my proposal accordingly.

This is an expansion on Cristian's idea, opening up the pool of players in case of excessive roster stripping. One problem: if a relegated, former-Alomar owner drafts a player from the pool who ends up getting injured between the mini-draft and the April 1st full draft, he doesn't have any players to fill in for the injured keeper. We'd have to deal with that somehow. Thoughts?

Has anyone ever heard of a similar relegation set-up in another league so that we have a point of comparison?

I'd like to second Spicol's centrefielder proposal. I'm still thinking about everything else.

You guys are making a lot of sense. Hmmm ... I've been looking at the BBFL constitution. Any chance I could make a copy to adapt for a league in my hometown? (We sure could've used it last year -- what a mess!)

Good ideas, Spicol (and Cristian). I'll have to give it some more thought, but I approve of a solution that doesn't leave competitive Barfield owners waiting for a Damoclean veto, while giving relegated Alomar owners a full shot at building a competitive foundation for their team going into the draft.

I dont know if this has been suggested or is in effect already but how bout splitting the 20 team league into 2 10 team divisions and then the top 4 go to the playoffs just like MLB? The two divison champions then meet. I realize this make the playoffs horrifically long just like in life but it would keep most people interested in their team into the final part of the season.

On the subject of making a CF position I actually support that totally. Anything to make it seem more real life I'm all for (anything to make me pretend I'm an actual GM and not some roto-geek college kid).

On the subject of making a CF position I actually support that totally. Anything to make it seem more real life I'm all for

The problem is that I'd be able to play Lance Berkman as a CF, which is ridiculous.

Here's another proposal: if the top 4 (or 5) Barfield owners get promoted to the Alomar league and the bottom 4 (or 5) Alomar owners going down to the Barfield league, how about the bottom 4 (or 5) Barfield owners get kicked out entirely, with the next 4 (or 5) people on the BBFL waiting list promoted? With another 5 newbies playing in the Barfield League every year, that would definitely keep the Alomar League the Premiere League. (I think Spicol's relegation draft proposal makes it a viable option.)

Kicking out hapless participants from the Barfield league is just a bit too Darwinian for my tastes. Surely those queued up on the waiting list after we expand to 40 owners should enter when any current owners decide to step aside for various reasons that aren't performance-based?

I like Jurgen's continuous relegation idea. I doubt there will be much turnover in the Barfield league, just as there was zero turnover in the Alomar league this past season, and there's already a waiting list for the Barfield league. I think it's likely that by next offseason we'll be talking about a Carter league.

I second Jurgen's proposal. I also propose that a new division be added to the BBFL whenever there are 16 or more new people interested in joining. Each new division is considered one tier lower than the last, and teams are relegated/promoted between every adjacent tier. All tiers play by the same constitution.

I think we're going to have to give Moffatt some sort of supreme dictator rights to cut through all the suggestions.

For what it's worth, I feel that no owner should be punted from Barfield unless and until a Carter division becomes a reality--and only on a delayed basis. In other words, relagation between Barfield and Carter occurs only after Carter has operated for one year, just like what will happen between the A&B divisions after next season.

I see no reason to have a mechanism that punishes a bottom-feeder in Barfield disproportionately from a similarly situated owner in Alomar. External pressure on pre-existing owners to perform because there is a waiting list of interested parties in joining is more than I'm willing to countenance (if I were a voter, and I'm not).

Shrike makes a good point about 'disproportionate punishment', and I don't disagree with that part. I do disagree with the one year delay. The only reason for it in the original Alomar division is that it wouldn't be fair to add a relegation rule in-season. Barfield owners know up front that they're entering a league that will have relegation if possible.

Amend / clarify my proposal, nobody gets booted out of the BBFL for deficient performance alone.

In-season, the Barfield owners will not know for sure whether relegation to a Carter division is a possibility, but the threat of it should be enough to make them manage their keepers in the same way as the Alomar division.

Question: Suppose we settle on 4 teams to be relegated / promoted between Alomar and Barfield. Further suppose that after the 2004 season two Alomar owners decide to leave voluntarily. Do 6 teams get promoted from Barfield, or do the 17th and 18th place teams from Alomar get a reprieve?

I would have to argue for the proposition that the Barfield owners have earned their promotion regardless of team abandonment in Alomar. Whether the ownerless teams or the lowest-tier Alomar teams gets relegated is the appropriate question to ask.

201 A
202 A
203 A
204 B
205 E, two seperate 5 round drafts
206 A, election of treasurer or something similar must be had
207 A
208 A

Just a note to say I'm paying attention. Alot of good ideas, hard to keep up with them all!! Excellent league, thank you guys again for including me.

My apologizes Gwen(your not a guy)! Then again I do know one guy named Gwen, inwhich case I apologize again!! Geez, you just can't win these days can you:)

Hijack, Hijack!

For those of you who are unable to get into the BBFL this year, the two Toronto area leagues that I play in are looking for new owners for the 2004 season. The auctions are normally held on the first Saturday and Sunday after the start of the MLB season.

The details:

Netron Rotisserie Baseball League (NRBL)

- I am the commish of this league
- looking for 3 new owners
- standard 4x4 roto, AL only, salaries are 1/10 scale (i.e. $26.00 salary cap, $0.10 increments in salaries)
- cost is between $60 and $80, depending on transaction volume
- vacant teams are Abnormals, Sodium Benzoate, and Solar Bears 2, but there will probably be an expansion draft to pick over their remains
- league site can be found here

Pafko's Ultimate Rotisserie League (PURL)

- looking for 2 new owners
- standard 4x4 roto, AL only, salaries are 1/10 scale (i.e. $26.00 salary cap, $0.10 increments in salaries)
- cost is between $80 and $100, depending on transaction volume
- not sure which teams are up for grabs, but I can put you in touch with the commish
- league site can be found here

Please contact me directly if you're interested in a spot in either league.

I can be reached via email at:

jack AT egate DOT net

Thanks for your time! I now return you to your regularily scheduled BBFL thread.

Cheers,

jc

If I was looking to join new leagues, I would contact Jack, but I'm actually cutting back. If you want a free trial in an Internet league with similar stakes but no salary cap (a draft not an auction) I'm looking for a 2004 partner interested in taking over my Roto Junkies AL team.

We don't officially have to announce our keepers until early March but in order to lubricate trade offer related thinking, could owners at least post their tentative keepers? There are 11 teams who haven't done so yet.

http://bbfl.scottlucas.com
Owners can post tentative keepers on this thread or send to me care of : bb (at) scottlucas.com.

To slightly modify the current proposed process, I would propose that keepers must be named tentatively by March 1-4, but keepers don't become permanent until a week or two before the draft.

To take a hypothetical example: Matt Morris is a keeper, but what if he's traded to Colorado in mid-March? Or what if Albert Pujols blows out his knee in a spring game? Whoever owns them should be able to adjust his keeper list to account for such disasters.

http://bbfl.scottlucas.com
Owners can post tentative keepers on this thread or send to me care of : bb (at) scottlucas.com.

To slightly modify the current proposed process, I would propose that keepers must be named tentatively by March 1-4, but keepers don't become permanent until a week or two before the draft.

To take a hypothetical example: Matt Morris is a keeper, but what if he's traded to Colorado in mid-March? Or what if Albert Pujols blows out his knee in a spring game? Whoever owns them should be able to adjust his keeper list to account for such disasters.

I'll go ahead and list five keepers, though it is very tenative.

Edgar Renteria
Roy Oswalt
Alfonso Soriano
Brandon Webb
Miguel Cabrera

I could easily include:

John Smoltz
Javy Lopez
Mark Teixeira
Cliff Floyd

So if you have a couple of big studs and nothing else, I'd gladly trade some depth for one. No one is untouchable.

So, is that it for rule proposals?

Only 10 days left...