|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Feb 27, 2024 0:42:22 GMT -8
Well nothing seems to be changing. So how about this, GMs have 24 hours to use their two nominations in a round. After that other GMs can make as many nominations as they like on a first come first served basis up until the total of 38 players (equal to x2 nominations per team). That way we don't decimate the FA pool as you say Curtis but we're not restricting GMs from acquiring players. Please can we implement it for round 2 and beyond? We're only at 25 nominations of a possible 38 for round 2 and just 28 for round one. This has to change. Bro, there will be in season FA. Chill on the rule change suggestions lol. It's worked fine for years. If there would be any change I could see being allowed 1 more nomination but it's this way for a reason. There's more FA bid on now than you usually see. Plus there's still a round 3. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 0:50:02 GMT -8
It wasn’t fine last year either. I flagged it as I couldn’t acquire hardly any players. It’s not a rule change, the rules state we can have up to 48 nominations per round. We aren’t even getting over 30 right now, that’s an issue.
Round 3 will be the same, if you can't get close to 48 in round one then not enough players nominated.
I’ve seen it in other leagues, for the most part GMs just like bidding and don’t bother nominating. For some yes it’s strategy but for most that’s not the reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 27, 2024 4:36:35 GMT -8
Well nothing seems to be changing. So how about this, GMs have 24 hours to use their two nominations in a round. After that other GMs can make as many nominations as they like on a first come first served basis up until the total of 48 players (equal to x2 nominations per team). That way we don't decimate the FA pool as you say Curtis but we're not restricting GMs from acquiring players. Please can we implement it for round 2 and beyond? We're only at 25 nominations of a possible 48 for round 2 and just 28 for round one. This has to change So 53 players have been nominated. How many have you signed? If you’re so interested in filling your team, then fill it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 4:44:29 GMT -8
Yes, only 53 out of a possible 96. We're 43 players short of where we should be.
The plan is to fill my team but the lack of nominations is also boosting the prices of the players on the board because it's too concentrated.
It was the same issue I had last year when I joined part way through free agency and my hands were tied because nominations were just not being made. I'm not wanting the change the rules here, the league allows for up to 48 players to be nominated each round, I'd just like each round to be close to that number.
I don't think that's an unfair request?
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 27, 2024 6:00:51 GMT -8
Yes, only 53 out of a possible 96. We're 43 players short of where we should be. The plan is to fill my team but the lack of nominations is also boosting the prices of the players on the board because it's too concentrated. It was the same issue I had last year when I joined part way through free agency and my hands were tied because nominations were just not being made. I'm not wanting the change the rules here, the league allows for up to 48 players to be nominated each round, I'd just like each round to be close to that number. I don't think that's an unfair request? It just depends, based on the team. Personally, my team would like as few players to get posted as possible and we want them all to go for prices of about twice what they are worth. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 6:13:26 GMT -8
Well that's great for you mate but as a commissioner that's not really the best for the league is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Feb 27, 2024 9:07:04 GMT -8
Yes, only 53 out of a possible 96. We're 43 players short of where we should be. The plan is to fill my team but the lack of nominations is also boosting the prices of the players on the board because it's too concentrated. It was the same issue I had last year when I joined part way through free agency and my hands were tied because nominations were just not being made. I'm not wanting the change the rules here, the league allows for up to 48 players to be nominated each round, I'd just like each round to be close to that number. I don't think that's an unfair request? It just depends, based on the team. Personally, my team would like as few players to get posted as possible and we want them all to go for prices of about twice what they are worth. So I actually try to nominate guys I need or am trying to get each round. But I also 100 percent agree with Jon here. No one should be forced to make nominations and there is strategy involved for sure. I know a few guys I could sign right now instead of draft just because they are on a 40 man MLB roster right now. I am not going to though because I'm watching their progression and waiting for the perfect time to maybe slide them in on the cheap. I'll say it again the easiest way to solve this is to at least up the nominations to 3 per round. I read in the original rules it used to be 5 I believe. I'm sure as a group as usual we will all come up with a happy medium. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 11:19:43 GMT -8
Every league I play in, each GM gets 24 or 48 hours to use their nominations and then after that it's a free for all up to the maximum number of nominations allowed on the board, which for JBL would be 48.
That works very well as a system and I think what should be employed here as it certainly limits what GMs can do.
It's not changing the rules;
- the number of nominations permitted stays the same
- the number of nominations allowed per round stays the same
- the number of nominations each GM gets stays the same
The only difference is there's a time limit to use those nominations and then a period where GMs are allowed to nominate players up to the existing limit of 48.
For more established teams I can understand why they would want as few players to get posted as possible to help drive up prices but that is not good for the league, especially for owners that took over orphan teams and are trying to turn them around.
I don't see this as a big deal of a change, it doesn't change the number of players that should be available in each round of FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Feb 27, 2024 11:31:08 GMT -8
Well this isn't your other leagues bro. Curtis will figure it out hopefully fairly and that's it really. We have a couple great commissioners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 27, 2024 12:20:14 GMT -8
Can I ask why it is so important to get these fringe free agents right now? They will all be available on opening day as in season free agents. If there is someone that won’t be nominated that is going to make that big of a difference in week 1, it would certainly be a shock to all of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 13:04:48 GMT -8
Of course, as a team that's going through a rebuild the key thing for me is to acquire players that I can then flip during the season. This is the best time to acquire those players as they will be at their cheapest, which in turn makes them easier to trade as well. By teams putting a stranglehold on the number of players allowed on the board this in turn limits the flexibility of teams that are trying to rebuild and acquire a number of players. i do find it odd why you're asking why do i want to use off season free agency to acquire players, surely that's the point of free agency, to acquire players  |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 27, 2024 14:36:16 GMT -8
So if I’m understanding, you want me (and others) to nominate players, that you can get at their cheapest, then trade them to me (or others) for much more later in the year. Oh, and, I’m supposed to agree that this is good. Let me think about that…………no.
Again, there are too distinct sides to this. We each have our own reasons, good reasons. We are both right from our own viewpoint. This is how a league should be, where each team can manage his team like he wishes. That is what is “best for the league”.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 27, 2024 15:07:36 GMT -8
Of course, as a team that's going through a rebuild the key thing for me is to acquire players that I can then flip during the season. This is the best time to acquire those players as they will be at their cheapest, which in turn makes them easier to trade as well. By teams putting a stranglehold on the number of players allowed on the board this in turn limits the flexibility of teams that are trying to rebuild and acquire a number of players. i do find it odd why you're asking why do i want to use off season free agency to acquire players, surely that's the point of free agency, to acquire players I'm with you on the general idea of increased nomination flexibility. In season free agency is for small additions to fill out rosters, and we should make sure the bulk of valuable players are acquired in the offseason. However, you've lost me with this argument. I've had to nearly completely rebuild my MLB roster over the last 2 years and while trades were a big part of it, offseason free agency has been a big part of it too. And I was never limited by a lack of players being nominated, salary cap was my bigger limitation. If you're looking for a strategic assets to flip, there's plenty of that to be found via prospects. I'm afraid playing that game with free agency is always going to be difficult in this league, regardless of nomination rules. Winning any auction below fair value is hard to do when 24 gm's have 225+ mil to spend |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 22:26:55 GMT -8
This is crazy.
I want to use free agency to acquire players, that's all.
The rules state we can have up to 48 players per round, we are at just over half that number per round.
How I choose to use free agency is up to me yes but what I gave was just an example earlier.
They're two different things Jon around what I'm trying to do and what I mean by what's best for the league.
What's best for the league is supporting teams so they have the best possible chance to turn their teams around. It's clear from your statement above you dont want that, you'd prefer as few players to get posted as possible and for the prices to be twice what they are worth.
Curtis understood and was trying to help with the matter with a solid rule change but people kicked off about have 1.6m of possible salary. However, it's clear here that some GMs profit from there not be many players on the board and they'd prefer to keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 27, 2024 22:28:37 GMT -8
So if I’m understanding, you want me (and others) to nominate players, that you can get at their cheapest, then trade them to me (or others) for much more later in the year. Oh, and, I’m supposed to agree that this is good. Let me think about that…………no. Again, there are too distinct sides to this. We each have our own reasons, good reasons. We are both right from our own viewpoint. This is how a league should be, where each team can manage his team like he wishes. That is what is “best for the league”. Jon, that's a standard tactic in any dynasty league to help turn a roster around, I literally did it last season. How else to you expect orphan teams to get better if you're not expecting them to flip players for picks. I truly find it incredible that you have an issue with me wanting to use free agency to acquire players. |
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 27, 2024 23:27:14 GMT -8
" How else to you expect orphan teams to get better if you're not expecting them to flip players for picks."
You have 73 million in available cap space, mate. Are you waiting on one of us to nominate Matthew Batten to make a move??
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 5:00:02 GMT -8
I don’t get this negativity towards me from you and the Dodgers GM.
I’m only asking for more nominations which is closer to the allowed amount.
Yet you’re seeing this as an opportunity to criticise me. Curtis got it and understood the issue hence why rather than critiquing a GM he tried to improve the system.
I don’t understand this wave of negativity when all I want is to make full use of off season FA.
With regards to my bids, I got outbid on them all overnight. I’d like other targets to go after but that’s not possible as we’re 20 nominations short this round.
|
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 28, 2024 5:12:09 GMT -8
I have ZERO negativity toward you. That couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I just don’t understand why you can’t see both sides of the argument. I FULLY understand what you are trying to do. I took over a team that finished dead last in this league and built them into a champion in three years. I’ve been there. I would have loved 200 nominations every year, but that wasn’t within the rules, so I found creative ways within the rules to build. Now I’m on the other side. I’m not nominating players that I don’t want to help the other 23 teams. Seems self explanatory. It would hurt my competitive advantage to do so.
Just because I can see both sides of the rule doesn’t mean I’m being negative about you. I happen to think you’ve done a good job with what you inherited. However, I have no plans to help you do it without a benefit to my team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Indians (Cody) on Feb 28, 2024 5:25:02 GMT -8
Regardless of strategy (which everyone is entitled to deploy their own obviously), I don't think the amount of nominations is as big of a problem as it's being made out to be. This is about on par with most off-season free agencies we've had and it has never been an issue. Also, just looking at the remaining free agents it seems that most players with any value will probably be posted by the 3rd round. Any remaining guys will quickly be bid on during the regular season as they usually are. There won't be valuable players just sitting out there if that is the concern. Everyone will get thier chance to bid on every player like always.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 8:00:32 GMT -8
I have ZERO negativity toward you. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. I just don’t understand why you can’t see both sides of the argument. I FULLY understand what you are trying to do. I took over a team that finished dead last in this league and built them into a champion in three years. I’ve been there. I would have loved 200 nominations every year, but that wasn’t within the rules, so I found creative ways within the rules to build. Now I’m on the other side. I’m not nominating players that I don’t want to help the other 23 teams. Seems self explanatory. It would hurt my competitive advantage to do so. Just because I can see both sides of the rule doesn’t mean I’m being negative about you. I happen to think you’ve done a good job with what you inherited. However, I have no plans to help you do it without a benefit to my team. Well that's good to know, I appreciate that. I am seeing it from both sides. You're very clear on what you want as a GM. However, what is the issue for the league, not for you as a GM, of having up to 48 players be nominated per round? The current rules allow for up to 48 players to be nominated per round. |
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Feb 28, 2024 8:53:58 GMT -8
There is no issue. If next years rules make it mandatory to nominate, I’ll certainly follow that. Right now it’s just not in the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Feb 28, 2024 11:10:04 GMT -8
I started this off season with 26 million. I've improved my roster 3 fold. Use your trades, get creative. We've never had someone complain this much about something that really isn't that relative. I just turned 26 million in to a top ten team. I've signed 3 FA that's it. C'mon man!! Enough is enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 11:29:37 GMT -8
you know i use my trades mate, one of the example players was JP France, picked up and flipped for picks. i just don't understand the issue folks have because a GM wants to use off season free agency  |
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 28, 2024 11:50:54 GMT -8
Implying corruption is the reason for the push back against your demands for an immediate change to longstanding rules is what I have a problem with
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 12:10:28 GMT -8
What corruption did I imply? I said Curtis tried to help improve the situation as he knows I had similar issues with FA when I joined the league last season.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 28, 2024 12:13:02 GMT -8
"you'd prefer as few players to get posted as possible and for the prices to be twice what they are worth.
Curtis understood and was trying to help with the matter with a solid rule change but people kicked off about have 1.6m of possible salary. However, it's clear here that some GMs profit from there not be many players on the board and they'd prefer to keep it that way."
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 12:19:59 GMT -8
I don't see how that's corruption?
The first line is verbatim of what the Dodgers said.
Then from reading the responses to Curtis' proposal, GMs kicked off at the idea of having to make x2 nominations.
Then with regards to the third point, someone literally said I'd prefer as few players to get posted as possible.
That's not implying corruption, that's just saying what's happened in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 28, 2024 12:28:41 GMT -8
Commissioners not wanting to change rules *because they profit* from those rules, would be corruption
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Mark) on Feb 28, 2024 12:31:37 GMT -8
I said Curtis tried to help me?
|
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Feb 28, 2024 12:46:33 GMT -8
You were talking about Jon, a co-commissioner, correct?
In any case, I'm out on this conversation. It's gotten so far away from the point and it seems like all you want to do is argue until you get your way
|
|
