- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FSBDL 2018 - MWG is your Champion
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:18 am to barry
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:18 am to barry
Bc I've used it as part of my strategy since the league began.
Who cares if someone wants to roster RPs in their MiLB spot? Everyone can do it; some DGAF about RP and will instead roster something more valuable.
Why go through the trouble of self policing something that's pretty insignificant
Who cares if someone wants to roster RPs in their MiLB spot? Everyone can do it; some DGAF about RP and will instead roster something more valuable.
Why go through the trouble of self policing something that's pretty insignificant
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:31 am to GynoSandberg
I agree with Gyno on this. Seems like an unnecessary change/hassle to have to keep up with.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:32 am to GynoSandberg
quote:
Why go through the trouble of self policing something that's pretty insignificant
Because it doesn't accurately represent a minor league player. Minor league spots shouldn't be used as additional bench spots.
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:33 am to GynoSandberg
I vote to drop it to 100 for pitchers in general. It'll allow owners to still be able to manipulate their MiLB with relievers and tighten up it's integrity with those spots as well.
The thought of having a ROOGY/LOOGY still eligible, any reliever to be honest, after 4 or 5 seasons in the majors is pretty ridiculous. That said, I mean if it doesn't pass, I'll have no issues, as well as everyone else, to continue to exploit that.
Everyone can stream too gyno.
The thought of having a ROOGY/LOOGY still eligible, any reliever to be honest, after 4 or 5 seasons in the majors is pretty ridiculous. That said, I mean if it doesn't pass, I'll have no issues, as well as everyone else, to continue to exploit that.
quote:
Who cares if someone wants to roster RPs in their MiLB spot? Everyone can do it; some DGAF about RP and will instead roster something more valuable.
Everyone can stream too gyno.
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 10:57 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:41 am to barry
quote:
Because it doesn't accurately represent a minor league player. Minor league spots shouldn't be used as additional bench spots
I do the same for hitters. Is there talk of changing that?
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:46 am to papz
P are you equating this RP thing to streaming? Eek I really don't want to go there, it being the offseason and all
The MiLB spots will never be used in its purest form, as they were intended.
And there are good MiLB RPs just sitting out there available, no one cares enough to even roster em
The MiLB spots will never be used in its purest form, as they were intended.
And there are good MiLB RPs just sitting out there available, no one cares enough to even roster em
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 10:47 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 10:52 am to GynoSandberg
Yes in a sense... I find it to be similar. Not that I have a problem with either. I wouldn't hesitate to do either if it benefits me. That doesn't change my opinion on the matter however.
For a person who likes to question people's integrity when they stream against you... I'm surprised you don't see the angle I presented as well.
I would have thought a drop to 100 would satisfy both parties. Owners who wanted to continue to manipulate their minor league spots to do so. Owners who wanted a tighter restriction on MiLB spots to have that too. What Barry proposed was a bit extreme for me... and self policing doesn't work too well. Cap it down in the middle and that will take it out of the equation and satisfy everyone.
I'm going to use Carter Capps as an example. I know he's been injured a lot, but he'll be entering this 6th MLB season next year and may still have minor league eligibility. Come on... really?
For a person who likes to question people's integrity when they stream against you... I'm surprised you don't see the angle I presented as well.
I would have thought a drop to 100 would satisfy both parties. Owners who wanted to continue to manipulate their minor league spots to do so. Owners who wanted a tighter restriction on MiLB spots to have that too. What Barry proposed was a bit extreme for me... and self policing doesn't work too well. Cap it down in the middle and that will take it out of the equation and satisfy everyone.
I'm going to use Carter Capps as an example. I know he's been injured a lot, but he'll be entering this 6th MLB season next year and may still have minor league eligibility. Come on... really?
This post was edited on 9/22/17 at 11:03 am
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:24 am to papz
I understand the angle you presented. Like I said, Ive been using the RP thing on my team and ive experienced it. You example sounds good in a vacuum but it doesnt really work like that for a few different reasons
You mentioned Carter Capps - he was pitching in the minors in 2015 and he rehabbed there this year. So the guy is being shuffled up and down IRL pretty recent. Another guy I own, Blake Parker, he's 32, made his debut in 2012, but has seen MiLB action as recent as 2016. Another guy i have, Vizacnio, just hit his threshold. But has seen the minors for one reason or another the past 3 seasons
So i guess my rebuttal to you would be - a really good, young RP can burn up his 150 IP in two seasons, basically. Then you have a journeyman guy like Parker, in the league since 2012, 32 y/o, BUT he's still seeing MiLB action. So he has 5 or 6 years in the league and hasnt hit 150 IP - but still going up and down IRL - I can't stash him in MiLB going by your ROOGY/LOOGY scenario.
Ive contended since the beginning no one is breaking rules by streaming, thus i would never question one's integrity. I will question their polish as a manager for having to resort to streaming. In the end, it's not really the person's fault, rather the system in place
i would agree with you that your 100 IP thing would be better than barry's proposal
You mentioned Carter Capps - he was pitching in the minors in 2015 and he rehabbed there this year. So the guy is being shuffled up and down IRL pretty recent. Another guy I own, Blake Parker, he's 32, made his debut in 2012, but has seen MiLB action as recent as 2016. Another guy i have, Vizacnio, just hit his threshold. But has seen the minors for one reason or another the past 3 seasons
So i guess my rebuttal to you would be - a really good, young RP can burn up his 150 IP in two seasons, basically. Then you have a journeyman guy like Parker, in the league since 2012, 32 y/o, BUT he's still seeing MiLB action. So he has 5 or 6 years in the league and hasnt hit 150 IP - but still going up and down IRL - I can't stash him in MiLB going by your ROOGY/LOOGY scenario.
quote:
For a person who likes to question people's integrity when they stream against you
Ive contended since the beginning no one is breaking rules by streaming, thus i would never question one's integrity. I will question their polish as a manager for having to resort to streaming. In the end, it's not really the person's fault, rather the system in place
i would agree with you that your 100 IP thing would be better than barry's proposal
Posted on 9/22/17 at 11:39 am to GynoSandberg
I really don't have anything else to say. Just wanted to put my two cents in. Whichever way this goes would be fine with me.
Firm no for 55 innings though.
Firm no for 55 innings though.
Posted on 9/23/17 at 7:18 am to MrWiseGuy
20 votes in
14-6 in favor of expanding to five DL slots
14-6 in favor of expanding to five DL slots
Posted on 9/23/17 at 9:56 am to MrWiseGuy
Germans.
I announced that it passed yesterday.
I announced that it passed yesterday.
Posted on 9/23/17 at 10:01 am to reddman
Doesn't seem like there is enough traction to put Barry's initial proposal up for a vote. I feel like having to self police that rule is gonna be hard to convince at least 14 people that it should be made.
Any opposition to simply lowering the threshold to 100 instead of 150? Is that something people would like to vote on?
Any opposition to simply lowering the threshold to 100 instead of 150? Is that something people would like to vote on?
Posted on 9/23/17 at 7:35 pm to reddman
I like 100. It's a good compromise between SP and RP when some guys go back and forth.
Posted on 9/23/17 at 7:39 pm to reddman
I'm against
I didn't build or draft my team with that in mind yada yada yada
I didn't build or draft my team with that in mind yada yada yada
Posted on 9/25/17 at 7:48 am to reddman
Dead period sucks. Ready for spring training.
Posted on 9/25/17 at 9:49 am to reddman
We voting on the IP for MiLB status?
This post was edited on 9/25/17 at 9:50 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News