gwyn, Im having some email problems in the account you sent the email to.  I replied with my new address, if you got it can you just send me a quick email so that I know it got through ok?

thanks!

1. Are there any fees and / or prizes?  I'd prefer the free league that is just for the honor.
2. What has the commitment level throughout the season been like in the past.  I've been in other leagues where only the top 2 or 3 owners stay interested beyond the first half and it gets frustrating.

So your saying you drafted Alex Gordon last year?

I like the idea of 7 keepers, but it would have to be transitioned in at the beginning of next year. At the end of last year people were making roster moves assuming they could only keep 5 guys, so they may have traded their 5th, 6th and 7th best players for a marginal improvement on their 5th keeper. So I second his proposal, it needs a year of transition to come into effect

We use the yahoo premium service, so there are fees to pay for that, bit its only six odd dollars a year per team, there are no prizes.

Actually, there are prizes. As the proud winner of a "League Champ 2007, Yahoo Sports Fantasy Baseball" t-shirt, I can attest to that. My Eastern Shore Birds surprisingly won the Barfield division regular season (I got a shirt even though I finished 3rd in the playoffs).

1) I propose we limit the maximum number of transactions per team per season.

2)  I propose we vote on the following thresholds:

a) 60

b) 80

c) 100

The rationale behind having a transactions cap was discussed here.

Jonny, I agree with the first part of your post, expressing how increasing the number of keepers may tend to stabilize the league in that it will be easier for good teams to stay that way. However, I don't know that adding 1 or 2 keepers to a roster of 25 will cause that to happen to a substantial extent. Managers might be inclined to be gun-shy because in making a mid-season trade they might be forced to trade away next season's keepers for immediate help. I think this only goes to show that increasing the number of keepers will increase the degree of risk in trades, in that as in real life, trying to "win now" might require mortgaging away the future. In this sense, more keepers may actually end up destabilizing the league from season to season and encouraging teams without a great chance of winning in any one season to exact a higher price from trade partners making that final push.

I do not agree that more (6 or 7) keepers necessarily means fewer trades. In the past I have found it difficult to make trades specifically because each team only has 5 keepers. The low number gives each manager a disincentive to trade during the season, because they know that it is silly to trade, off the top of my head, A-Rod for Cano (slow start) and McGowan (no proven track record), two players with substantial value now, but who had a great deal less toward the beginning of last season. If the manager already had 4 keepers, they wouldn't be able to keep both Cano and McGowan. With more keepers, the trade (or one like it) makes more sense. Managers may choose from a wider array of strategies and trades may actually be encouraged because instead of concentrating value in only 5 players, it makes sense to spread it out amongst 7.

I’d like to add my two cents to the transaction cap debate.  I’ll start by admitting that I am an owner who tends to be very active on the waiver wire (I believe my Superstars topped out around 100 transactions last year), so take from that what you will.   I generally agree with most of what HaloBrad said above: that a transaction cap tends to just punish the most dedicated owners.

However, I did dislike all the streaming that went on last year, especially in the playoffs.  A championship should not be decided by an owner getting a lucky start out of the Kip Wells or Robinson Tejadas of this world in the last week of year.  But I think there are ways to avoid streaming without a transaction cap.  For example, the fantasy basketball league I play in each year had a new rule this year where your roster is frozen at the start of each fantasy week.  You can still make as many roster changes as you want throughout the week, but you can’t use the new players until the following week.  This would also force teams to choose at the start of each week which players they want to have active for that week, and which ones they want on the bench, which has additional positive/negative consequences that should be considered.  I’ve cursed the rule the couple of weeks that I’ve forgotten to make roster changes before the freeze takes effect, or had a player go down with an injury on a Tuesday, but overall it’s made things a lot fairer in the league.

I think a change like that prevents streaming more effectively, while not punishing the owners who choose to actively scout player activity throughout the year.

I really don't see how changing to weekly roster freezes is a better way to approach the problem than a transaction cap. As seeyou mentioned, it creates the problem of screwing owners who miss the roster  freeze deadline. In addition, this is Fantasy Baseball, not Fantasy Football, and daily transactions is an aspect of the former that I'd prefer not to forego, especially because injuries happen every day of the week, and a dedicated owner should be allowed to respond accordingly.

The whole point of a transaction cap is not to stifle manager "dedication." The truth is that up to a point, unless your strategy is streaming pitchers, there are only so many transactions worth making. I have been a dedicated owner for the past 3 seasons and I probably end up with (approximately) 60 or so transactions per year. I certainly do not begrudge those owners who make more transactions. It is an owner's prerogative to improve his team at any time if possible. However, it seems the only point to a transaction cap is to prevent one or two owners from monopolizing unowned players or abusing a technicality in the rules to violate the general spirit of the league.

Having a transaction cap would cause the league to come to a general agreement on what degree of streaming is permissible and would force those owners who prefer to stream to conserve their transactions, as least to an extent. Once the rule is in place, there can be no disputes about whether streaming is fair or not. The transaction cap will govern the fairness of a managers transaction making practices.

it absolutely decreases the amount of off-season player movement.  And of course the more keepers you have the more difficult it is for the crummy teams to get better

Ryan C, could you explain why it absolutely decreases the amount of off-season player movement (I'm not being facetious, I'm just not sure I see it)?

I do agree that the best reason against increasing the number of keepers is that it might doom bad teams. I also agree that more keepers decreases the importance of the draft.

However, I think it's possibly that increasing the number of keepers, by increasing flexibility and perhaps the number of trades during season, simply shifts the onus on owners to improve their teams through trade instead of the draft.  In other words, the strategy changes (slightly, as we're only talking about a 1-2 keeper increase) to one that demands improvement via trade, in-season roster pickup, or waiver wire instead of draft. The ability to improve is not necessarily removed. This is especially true, because I think it's possible to underestimate the amount of value that arises during the season, AFTER the draft. A wise manager, whose team may suck, knows that he/she should take greater risks and hold guys on his roster that he ordinarily would not (McGowan is a good example), in the hope that they become a keeper or have trade value by the end of the season.

I think it comes down to a matter of taste. Do you find it more interesting to live or die by trades or  by drafts. I'm not sure that either one is harder than the other, but I think the good owner wins out either way. The degree of permanency of any team's roster (and thus the fate of a bad team to remain bad) is directly linked to that owners ability to find value. I don't see that this fact changes substantially if the number of keepers is increased from 5 to 7.

3RunHomer - thanks for the information.  I tried to create the first of our leagues last night (the process didn't go well yahoo - took my money but didn't create the league), I got as far through the process as selecting a draft date and all dates after the 24th were 'greyed out' in the selection box.

Ha ... I figured Yahoo wouldn't switch to the "take your money, give you nothing" strategy until after being swallowed up by Microsoft.

Maybe they don't open up more dates until the first batch begins to fill. It states right there on the front page that "Live drafts are available until April 11."

Maybe they don't open up more dates until the first batch begins to fill. It states right there on the front page that "Live drafts are available until April 11."

It turns out we have to have the draft complete before we can start to count stats from games.  So if we want the games in Japan to count we have to draft before the 25th.

I'd like to make another rule change proposal: Replace "innings pitched" with "holds".

The holds stat gives value to a new group of pitchers -- middle relief. Holds leaders from 2007 include Brandon Lyon, Heath Bell, Derrick Turnbow, Jon Rauch, Jonathan Broxton, Rafael Betancourt, and Scot Shields. These are talented players who are undervalued in the existing BBFL scoring system.

The innings pitched stat is mostly to blame for the streaming problem. Replacing it takes away half of the incentive for streaming.

I think this change would result in more realistic pitching staffs consisting of starters, middle relief and closers, instead of just starters and closers. What do you think? Would anyone like to second the proposal?

It's possible for a pitcher to get a hold WITHOUT RECORDING A SINGLE OUT.  At least with a save you know the pitcher had to record the last out of the game without giving up the lead.  With a win you know the pitcher had to record the last out of an inning with a lead.

With a hold a pitcher can come in, give up 3 baserunners, an earned run, get no-one out, and as long as another pitcher bails him out before his team gives up the lead, he still gets a hold.  The stat just makes little sense.

I think the value of middle relievers comes from the good ratios and occasional extra wins and saves they can provide.  Saves are already a somewhat random commodity grab.  I don't holds add much.

Incidentally, I don't think it matters if we draft after the season starts, particularly if it's just two days after.  Everyone will be drafting knowing the final rosters and you can either choose for stats to be back-dated to opening day or to count starting from the draft.  I kind of prefer drafting on the 27th myself.

Top of the 7th, Devil Rays Batting, Behind 5-7, Scott Schoeneweis facing 2-3-4
                  Scott Schoeneweis replaces Ty Taubenheim pitching
          ---  2  C Crawford      Single to LF (Line Drive)
   O      1--  4  J Gomes         Groundout: P-1B; Crawford to 2B
          -2-     A Huff          Crawford Steals 3B
          --3  6  " "             Walk
                  Jason Frasor replaces Scott Schoeneweis pitching
   RO     1-3  1  T Wigginton     Flyball: CF/Sacrifice Fly; Crawford Scores; Huff to 2B
   RR     -2-  1  T Hall          Home Run (Fly Ball to LF); Huff Scores
   O      ---  7  D Hollins       Flyball: RF
                  3 runs, 2 hits, 0 errors, 0 LOB. Devil Rays 8, Blue Jays 7.

"Note: The first day of regular season games is Tuesday, Mar 25. Your draft must be completed at least one day prior to the date on which your league wishes to start scoring."

My mistake then.  I suspect that's a change as I do seem to remember at least one league where the draft was done afterwards and stats counted retroactively.