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……

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.

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.

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.