Is it just me or are the majority of the proposals making this league easier? It feel a lot like that to me, proposals 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, & 14 come to mind.
I think the way we do nukes is fine. Unless you want to make nukes that would allow us to activate our own farm players(not sure though). I don’t think we should just have unlimited nukes weekly.
As of now I’m fine with the nuke rule the way it is. The only time I think we should have multiple nukes is when trades or players from the NL are involved
If we could do multiple nukes we could move the league to a free yahoo site and just call it fantasy baseball. I like the aspect of one move a week, makes the in season strategy that much better.
Will Yahoo handle 20 farm guys, a league with a salary cap that mimics MLB, and a constitution that goes 30 pages deep? I just don’t see how the strategy of only one nuke per week is a positive impact on league structure. But the commish and I are in the minority, so go sit on Gavin Floyd’s middle finger.
Here’s why I like having multiple nukes. There has been mention of certain closers in our league who have gone unowned during the year. It’s true that money may be the main factor for this. It’s also true teams aren’t able to pick up “high priced” players because we are currently only allowed to nuke 1 player each week.
Therefore, the ability to use multiple nukes in a given week will allow teams more flexibility. Example,
I want to nuke Burrell and C. Pavano to make room for J. Nathan. Currently, I have to do this over a two week period. Why not allow for the use of multiple nukes, so i may add J. Nathan for a month to try and pick up some points in the Saves department? At the end of the day, it will certainly spice up the waiver wire, so we don’t go another year watching JM feast off the leftovers. This way, there may certainly be some good players available to other teams than just the team(JM) currently in last place.
I’ve read the silly remarks above. Can someone provide me with an example as to why this is a bad thing?
I wouldn’t call it a “bad” thing. Personally like the set up of one nuke per week.
“I want to nuke Burrell and C. Pavano to make room for J. Nathan. Currently, I have to do this over a two week period. Why not allow for the use of multiple nukes, so i may add J. Nathan for a month to try and pick up some points in the Saves department?”
I agree it would make things easier. I agree closers are probably being priced out of SOT. But the introduction of holds to SOT played a huge role as well providing a deeper pool of pitchers and cheaper options. If the problem is the waiver wire or expensive closers then let’s make closers more valuable and let’s change the waiver wire rules.
Maybe the most beneficial aspect of multiple nukes is the ability to complete more complex trades. During the season, we all know how difficult it is to trade players due to cap restraints or roster restraints. The use of multiple nukes would eliminate these barriers currently in place. For example, M. Taylor/W.Davis for D. Navarro/J. Lopez has no change of getting done under our current guidelines. This is just one of many trade examples to illustrate my point.
I keep hearing the “strategy” word being tossed around. Is there no “strategy” involved when mult nukes are involved? Of course there is. There may even be more when you factor in the new types of trades that would be allowed to occur.
I originally posted this proposal because it has come up in the past. But now i’ve talked this over with multiple owners, the more i’m beginning to love the idea.
Want to hear more from the rest of you who think it’s a bad idea. But please be specific.
As said before and by others, I like the strategy involved with the one nuke per week better then the possibility of multi nukes.
How can you categorize any remark as “silly” when you’re against expansion because you say “I’m a traditionalist”. What is traditional about this league?
I never said that it eliminates the strategy. I just prefer the strategy of one nuke over the strategy of multi nukes. Different strategys and I prefer one over the other. Some leagues I have played in allow daily transactions and I like the way we do things better then that too.
“M. Taylor/W.Davis for D. Navarro/J. Lopez has no change of getting done under our current guidelines.”
Owners find ways to get deals done we always do. Is it difficult sometimes yes, but it seems most owners prefer that. In the trade Scenario above what’s the strategy involved if you can nuke as many players as you want? It makes it easy yes, but we lose something unique to SOT if we go with multiple nukes.
It’s merely an example. Change the players names if you wish. The important thing being this trades aren’t allowed to happen in SOT.
Rich,
More deals don’t get done in SOT for salary or roster restraints. I guess I don’t understand the “easy” part. This this is difficult because it’s AL only with use of actually MLB salaries. That’s what makes our league different. The original Constitution has zero nukes. As this league evolves, so shouldn’t the rules.
I’m in favor of multi-nukes, but it looks like there’s only two of us. I know people have thrown around the idea that mulit-nukes will make the league easier, but I think Mike makes a good point here. The reason this league is difficult is because we’re AL only, full keeper, with real world salary cap, and 20 farm spots, making us a 365 day per year league. So we’ve made it difficult to acquire players on the cheap, choosing instead to require teams to perform well on draft day, via trades, and effectively using the free agent system during the year. That’s what makes our league special (AND difficult) in my mind.
Hypothetical question…
101 decides to hang up his spikes after his awful showing over the past couple years, awful drafts, awful managing, and awful – but improving – eating habits (he’s not reading this). If faced with finding a new owner, would anyone “sell” SOT to a perspective owner with the statement, “and you’re only allowed to remove one player off your roster each week”?
I know I wouldn’t. I’d focus on the four items listing above instead, those are the selling points.
I’m actually not totally against multi nukes. I would think it would be good for when we have multi player trades to allow teams to trade a little easier instead of trading 14th round draft picks. Also would be good for players coming over from the NL via trade. Aside from that, I’m not sure we need to have the ability to make multiple nukes when ever a team feels like it. Just my thought.
Could be a good idea to give multi nukes to a team receiving player(s) in a trade from the NL. It would help fit the player or players on the roster and still allow the one nuke to be used in the normal weekly move.
I’m against multiple nukes for the following reasons.
1. A fundamental strategy of SOT would be lost. For example, a team wants to pick up free agent X, but cannot afford the player under the cap with a single roster move. With our current system this team has two options, (1) maneuver his team to be able to pick up the player the following week, or if the team really values the free agent and doubts his availability in two weeks, (2) facilitate a trade that clears the appropriate cap and roster space. In this instance, the current rule of one nuke, instigated the trade scenario. I think if multi-nukes are allowed, teams will become more self-reliant for roster maneuvers, and actually diminish the need for trades. Also, I for one like the idea of having to think more than a week ahead for roster moves. Planning out the acquisition of a free agent is a crafted strategy, and part of that skill set would be diminished with multiple nukes.
2. Players with multi-position eligibility have their value diminished. Currently in our league, certain players (Figgins, Derosa, etc) with multi-position eligibility have additional value because of the flexibility they provide. If teams can make wholesale changes with their roster on a weekly basis, then position eligibility becomes less important and value is diminished.
3. The free agent priority list becomes more important (uggh). Already, teams in top priority positions refrain from free agent transactions for weeks, holding out hope that a coveted player becomes available. If multiple nukes are allowed, then holding the top position would become more valuable, as you could make more moves with a trump priority position.
Multi Nukes for AL/NL trades seems like a good idea.
SOT went from 0 nukes to 1 nuke, now we are talking 1 nuke to unlimited nukes? Huge Leap!I’m not implying that the league is easy it never will be. Unlimited Nukes doesn’t make it more difficult. If we’re looking to make trades a little more owner friendly then why not propose 2 nukes one for a pitcher on for a hitter.
“”The reason this league is difficult is because we’re AL only, full keeper, with real world salary cap, and 20 farm spots, making us a 365 day per year league. So we’ve made it difficult to acquire players on the cheap, choosing instead to require teams to perform well on draft day, via trades, and effectively using the free agent system during the year. That’s what makes our league special (AND difficult) in my mind
Yes those first four are the good selling points. Yup single nuke might look unattractive to a prospective owner. Is it a breaking point? He or she(equally opportunity SOT)
might be more concerned that we are in an AL only league and Arod and Rivera are not owned. Or that we have Net SB’s ect……
I’d be in favor of this.
Is it just me or are the majority of the proposals making this league easier? It feel a lot like that to me, proposals 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, & 14 come to mind.
I honestly have no idea what that statement means. Can someone please explain this to me? With some examples.
By someone to you mean me? If you are addressing me feel free to use my name (Andy) or you can call me (Peaches).
Also, I’ll get back to you on this.
I think the way we do nukes is fine. Unless you want to make nukes that would allow us to activate our own farm players(not sure though). I don’t think we should just have unlimited nukes weekly.
Unlimited nukes seems to make weekly transactions too easy. I like the strategy involved with having one nuke.
I second this emotion. Also, by responding to this I don’t have to respond to Mike’s need for clarification on WMP #14.
One down, six to go. I won’t forget about you Mikey.
I agree with EE.
As of now I’m fine with the nuke rule the way it is. The only time I think we should have multiple nukes is when trades or players from the NL are involved
Looks like this one goes down in flames…
If we could do multiple nukes we could move the league to a free yahoo site and just call it fantasy baseball. I like the aspect of one move a week, makes the in season strategy that much better.
Will Yahoo handle 20 farm guys, a league with a salary cap that mimics MLB, and a constitution that goes 30 pages deep? I just don’t see how the strategy of only one nuke per week is a positive impact on league structure. But the commish and I are in the minority, so go sit on Gavin Floyd’s middle finger.
Here’s why I like having multiple nukes. There has been mention of certain closers in our league who have gone unowned during the year. It’s true that money may be the main factor for this. It’s also true teams aren’t able to pick up “high priced” players because we are currently only allowed to nuke 1 player each week.
Therefore, the ability to use multiple nukes in a given week will allow teams more flexibility. Example,
I want to nuke Burrell and C. Pavano to make room for J. Nathan. Currently, I have to do this over a two week period. Why not allow for the use of multiple nukes, so i may add J. Nathan for a month to try and pick up some points in the Saves department? At the end of the day, it will certainly spice up the waiver wire, so we don’t go another year watching JM feast off the leftovers. This way, there may certainly be some good players available to other teams than just the team(JM) currently in last place.
I’ve read the silly remarks above. Can someone provide me with an example as to why this is a bad thing?
I wouldn’t call it a “bad” thing. Personally like the set up of one nuke per week.
“I want to nuke Burrell and C. Pavano to make room for J. Nathan. Currently, I have to do this over a two week period. Why not allow for the use of multiple nukes, so i may add J. Nathan for a month to try and pick up some points in the Saves department?”
I agree it would make things easier. I agree closers are probably being priced out of SOT. But the introduction of holds to SOT played a huge role as well providing a deeper pool of pitchers and cheaper options. If the problem is the waiver wire or expensive closers then let’s make closers more valuable and let’s change the waiver wire rules.
Oh and Mike you HATE saves…….
Maybe the most beneficial aspect of multiple nukes is the ability to complete more complex trades. During the season, we all know how difficult it is to trade players due to cap restraints or roster restraints. The use of multiple nukes would eliminate these barriers currently in place. For example, M. Taylor/W.Davis for D. Navarro/J. Lopez has no change of getting done under our current guidelines. This is just one of many trade examples to illustrate my point.
I keep hearing the “strategy” word being tossed around. Is there no “strategy” involved when mult nukes are involved? Of course there is. There may even be more when you factor in the new types of trades that would be allowed to occur.
I originally posted this proposal because it has come up in the past. But now i’ve talked this over with multiple owners, the more i’m beginning to love the idea.
Want to hear more from the rest of you who think it’s a bad idea. But please be specific.
As said before and by others, I like the strategy involved with the one nuke per week better then the possibility of multi nukes.
How can you categorize any remark as “silly” when you’re against expansion because you say “I’m a traditionalist”. What is traditional about this league?
My remarks about being a “traditionalist” were silly. I agree with you.
Can you now provide an example of how Mult nukes eliminates the “strategy” of one nuke?
I never said that it eliminates the strategy. I just prefer the strategy of one nuke over the strategy of multi nukes. Different strategys and I prefer one over the other. Some leagues I have played in allow daily transactions and I like the way we do things better then that too.
“M. Taylor/W.Davis for D. Navarro/J. Lopez has no change of getting done under our current guidelines.”
Owners find ways to get deals done we always do. Is it difficult sometimes yes, but it seems most owners prefer that. In the trade Scenario above what’s the strategy involved if you can nuke as many players as you want? It makes it easy yes, but we lose something unique to SOT if we go with multiple nukes.
That trade would have no chance under the single or multi nuke platform.
It’s merely an example. Change the players names if you wish. The important thing being this trades aren’t allowed to happen in SOT.
Rich,
More deals don’t get done in SOT for salary or roster restraints. I guess I don’t understand the “easy” part. This this is difficult because it’s AL only with use of actually MLB salaries. That’s what makes our league different. The original Constitution has zero nukes. As this league evolves, so shouldn’t the rules.
I’m in favor of multi-nukes, but it looks like there’s only two of us. I know people have thrown around the idea that mulit-nukes will make the league easier, but I think Mike makes a good point here. The reason this league is difficult is because we’re AL only, full keeper, with real world salary cap, and 20 farm spots, making us a 365 day per year league. So we’ve made it difficult to acquire players on the cheap, choosing instead to require teams to perform well on draft day, via trades, and effectively using the free agent system during the year. That’s what makes our league special (AND difficult) in my mind.
Hypothetical question…
101 decides to hang up his spikes after his awful showing over the past couple years, awful drafts, awful managing, and awful – but improving – eating habits (he’s not reading this). If faced with finding a new owner, would anyone “sell” SOT to a perspective owner with the statement, “and you’re only allowed to remove one player off your roster each week”?
I know I wouldn’t. I’d focus on the four items listing above instead, those are the selling points.
I’m actually not totally against multi nukes. I would think it would be good for when we have multi player trades to allow teams to trade a little easier instead of trading 14th round draft picks. Also would be good for players coming over from the NL via trade. Aside from that, I’m not sure we need to have the ability to make multiple nukes when ever a team feels like it. Just my thought.
Could be a good idea to give multi nukes to a team receiving player(s) in a trade from the NL. It would help fit the player or players on the roster and still allow the one nuke to be used in the normal weekly move.
I’m against multiple nukes for the following reasons.
1. A fundamental strategy of SOT would be lost. For example, a team wants to pick up free agent X, but cannot afford the player under the cap with a single roster move. With our current system this team has two options, (1) maneuver his team to be able to pick up the player the following week, or if the team really values the free agent and doubts his availability in two weeks, (2) facilitate a trade that clears the appropriate cap and roster space. In this instance, the current rule of one nuke, instigated the trade scenario. I think if multi-nukes are allowed, teams will become more self-reliant for roster maneuvers, and actually diminish the need for trades. Also, I for one like the idea of having to think more than a week ahead for roster moves. Planning out the acquisition of a free agent is a crafted strategy, and part of that skill set would be diminished with multiple nukes.
2. Players with multi-position eligibility have their value diminished. Currently in our league, certain players (Figgins, Derosa, etc) with multi-position eligibility have additional value because of the flexibility they provide. If teams can make wholesale changes with their roster on a weekly basis, then position eligibility becomes less important and value is diminished.
3. The free agent priority list becomes more important (uggh). Already, teams in top priority positions refrain from free agent transactions for weeks, holding out hope that a coveted player becomes available. If multiple nukes are allowed, then holding the top position would become more valuable, as you could make more moves with a trump priority position.
Multi Nukes for AL/NL trades seems like a good idea.
SOT went from 0 nukes to 1 nuke, now we are talking 1 nuke to unlimited nukes? Huge Leap!I’m not implying that the league is easy it never will be. Unlimited Nukes doesn’t make it more difficult. If we’re looking to make trades a little more owner friendly then why not propose 2 nukes one for a pitcher on for a hitter.
“”The reason this league is difficult is because we’re AL only, full keeper, with real world salary cap, and 20 farm spots, making us a 365 day per year league. So we’ve made it difficult to acquire players on the cheap, choosing instead to require teams to perform well on draft day, via trades, and effectively using the free agent system during the year. That’s what makes our league special (AND difficult) in my mind
Yes those first four are the good selling points. Yup single nuke might look unattractive to a prospective owner. Is it a breaking point? He or she(equally opportunity SOT)
might be more concerned that we are in an AL only league and Arod and Rivera are not owned. Or that we have Net SB’s ect……
Nice work Derek
That just happened.
Well said Derek. I did not even think of the multi position aspect.