|
 |
|
|
| ALTERED STATES LEAGUE
1. ENTRANCE FEE In 1999 each team paid $45 towards the stat service and $155 towards transactions. If you used less than $155 worth of transactions, you received a refund. (I wasn�t aware that is what we did, but that is what the Constitution says.) It�s probably been a long time since we revisited what we would like to charge as a league. We can keep the $155 as "transaction escrow", but in an effort to "grow" the prize pool a little, we may want to have everyone kick in a little more as a straight entrance fee. 1 - Lower
the cost to $175 I wouldn=t want anyone to quit because we are playing for too much money. If everyone votes for $300 and one person would quit if we play for $275 or more, we=ll only raise it to $274.
0 - $200 limit "Keep it the same." -- Drew Gallagher "Enough already with the dinero problem, everyone in the league is independently wealthy, so money is no object!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn who, oddly, despite this comment voted to LOWER the entrance fee to $175. "Dump all the Jonsaction fees and go to a straight fee with all transactions at no extra charge." -- Mike Drago "I would be in favor of dropping transaction costs for a higher pure entrance fee, i.e. make transactions free, the costs are a bitch to keep track of." -- Gerry Kahle Editor's Note: Tentatively, the results of the voting for this question are to raise the entrance fee to $225: $50 for the Stats, $150 transaction escrow and $25 pure Entrance Fee. There have been a number of you, however, who expressed interest in completing eliminating the "transaction escrow" concept and just having a flat entrance fee with free transactions. I will be addressing this via email prior to the draft. I don�t know how all of you feel about the mid-season trading, but I know that at least a few of you feel like I do. Personally, I just don�t have the time or energy to work the phones (or the Internet) anymore to make sure I make yet another lop-sided late July trade to keep up with the other teams in contention. On top of it, I think Rotisserie is generally more fun if the team that drafts the best team tends to be the team that wins in the end. That hasn�t necessarily been the case every year thanks to some very lop-sided trades � admittedly, I have been on the receiving end of many of those deals. On the other hand, some degree of trading is still fun, of course, so we certainly don�t want to eliminate it completely. Drew suggested the following which is quite simple: If you trade a player who is $21 or over, you must receive a player in return who is within +/-$5 of that player�s salary. So, if you traded a player who has a salary of $22,you would have to receive a player whose salary is between $17 and $27. Additionally, if trade a player who is less than $21 and in the last year of a contract, you must receive a player whose salary is $21 or greater. This, of course, would only apply to in-season trading. If we decide to make this our new Anti-Dumping rule, we will eliminate the salary cap and the "asterisk" player rules, the former of which wound up having very little affect and the latter of which was a pain in the ass to keep track of. "The rule probably needs some modification and clarification so maybe it is a pre-draft issue." -- Drew Gallagher "My previous league followed your present rules only up to July 1st, then permitted trading of NON-asterisk players to August 15th. The earlier the deadline, the greater chance that more teams still have hope and won't do a dump trade." -- Gerry Kahle Editors note: I've gone back-and-forth on where the trading deadlines should be. Yes, if it is early, more teams think they still have a shot to come back and possibly compete. On the other hand, an early deadline forces earlier dump trades which then have a much greater impact on the league because the teams that are fortunate enough to land the dump have that much longer to accrue the stats of their new players. Generally, I've found that most teams don't have a clue when they are really truly out of it. It seems to me, if you are in 8th in June you think you're out of it as much as you think you are out of it in August - even though that might not necessarily be true. Heck, Pete DeCoursey dumped in May once when he was at the bottom! "Dumping is good!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn "I would prefer the asterisk rule, allowing each team just one asterisk trade per season, but wouldn't have a big problem trying out the Drew rule on a one-year trial basis." -- Mike Drago Editor's Note: Tentatively you can expect some version of the rule above to be implemented in 2000. It seems we may need to do some clarifying and tweaking of the rule. We will address it on draft day. The $425 salary cap had little affect in the ASL. Only two teams reached it, and only barely. If we do not adopt the Anti-dumping rule as outlined above, we should really lower the "cap" to make it useful. 6 - The
cap sucks anyway, leave it at $425 where I won�t even notice it. "I like things that suck!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn. "You've taken my team name..." -- Mike Capilo. "Dump this." -- Mike Drago. Editor's Note: Tentatively the "Salary Cap" will go away (not Mike, the actual CAP) with the implementation of the Anti-Dumping rule in Question 2A. One team suggested that we allow teams to retain players at positions in which they played less than 20 games if you know they will be the starting player at that position. The problem with this is, who is to determine exactly which players should get the "extra" position eligibility. Sure, you know some players will definitely be starting at a new position in the up-coming year. Such as Pokey Reese last year who qualified at 3B for the Reds after 1998 but was definitely going to be the starting secondbasemen in 1999. But for every Reese there is another player who is borderline in the eyes of � the league and definitely moving to a new position at least in the eyes of the person who owns that player. If we do this, I suggest that we use Baseball Weekly�s yearly synopsis of each team which they usually run in early March which shows a chart for each team with the starters at each position. If they show a player starting at 2nd-base, he then qualifies at secondbase. 4 - That�s just genius. I was going to quit the league, but not
anymore! "How about the 'crab' position??????" -- Scott Winterburn "Too much gray area" -- Jon Perkins "I personally like the 'butterfly' position!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn 4. MORE ON POSITION QUALIFICATION All-Star stats allows you to designate a number of games that a player has to play before he qualifies at a new position during the season. We had always used ONE game simply because it was easy to track � if you saw a player played catcher one day, you knew he qualified there for the rest of the year. Now, with the information overload thanks to the Internet and Baseball Weekly, it�s simple to find out how many games any player has played at any position at any point in time. And All-Star Stats does the work for us. I say we eliminate the odd one inning stint an outfielder plays at shortstop in April because his manager wanted to be cute or because his team was losing 25-1. In my opinion, a player should have to play more than just 1 game at a new position before you can move him there. 3 - I hate change. Leave it at one. "You must always qualify before being allowed to 'play' a new 'position'!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn Editor's Note: Essentially, voting was 6-5 for increasing the number of games required to qualify at a position during the season to 5 games as opposed to something less than 5. Starting this year, a player must play FIVE games at a position before you can move him there. 5. ROOKIES ON THE D.L. ON DRAFT DAY This is going to come up every year if we keep drafting before the season actually starts, so we need to address this. The problem is, what should teams be allowed to do if a "rookie" player is on the D.L. on Draft Day. Here is the dilemma: Scott has John Curtice � one of the Red Sox top prospects. He�s only 20 years old or so and he obviously won�t be starting in Boston next year no matter how well he does in Spring Training. But if he is on the 40-man roster and is injured in the Spring before getting assigned to minor league camp, the Marlins will have to put him on the D.L. to start the year. Should Scott have to keep him as one of his 16 keepers or drop him? That seems harsh, and your gut reaction is to say, "Well, let all D.L. rookies be kept on the reserve roster." But, what happens if a rookie you KNOW is going to make the majors gets hurt. Say, for example, Carlos Beltran had gotten hurt in the Spring for Scott last year. Should he have been allowed to keep him on his reserve roster and not count him against one of his 16 just because he got hurt? That would be equally absurd. I just can�t think of any way to do this that will make it fair no matter what the circumstance � either way it�s not pretty, it�s just a matter of what your preference is. 4 - Any rookie on the D.L., consider yourself lucky, he can be kept on
your reserve roster. "Rookies are the backbone of teams and their integrity and must be maintained at all costs!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn who voted that a rookie player on the D.L. may be kept on reserve. "I recommend charging an extra $5 onto the player's salary to keep an injured player on the reserve roster. So a $5 rookie who is on the D.L. could remain on the reserve roster, but his salary would be $10. If he is placed on the active roster his salary stays at $5." -- Mike Capilo Editor's Note: Well, this was certainly an even split. Since the present rule is that a rookie player on the D.L. must be kept on the active roster or thrown back into the pool to be drafted, that is how the rule will stay. I�ve always felt that being able to keep only 12 players made trading very difficult in the off-season, especially as Draft Day draws closer. In my opinion, 9 out of 12 teams invariably find 12 players they decide they are going to keep, and then 2-for-1 or 3-for-2 trades become nearly out of the question. If some people STILL want to keep that back-up shortstop for $1 as their last keeper, so be it, but I believe increasing to a maximum of 13 keepers would make a pleasantly surprising difference. 5 - No,
12 is fine.
Comments regarding this question: "I love $1 backups!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn I�m fairly certain that the original Rotisserie book allows "Ultra" leagues to expand more than just two players onto their active roster for September Roster expansion. This is a reward for those teams that have built some sort of noteworthy reserve. It also makes scouring the box-scores in September that much more fun.
Comments regarding this question: 8. SEPT. ROSTER EXPANSION POSITION One thing I never understood about our September Roster expansion rules was that if you called a player up who was an offensive player, you could replace him, but you had to replace him with another offensive player. Likewise, if you had called a pitcher up for September 1st, he can only be replaced by a pitcher. Why? What is the point of that? It just seems to me that it winds up being one more thing that the team and the league have to keep track of. 3 - What did I tell you earlier, I hate
change. Leave it the way it is, even though it�s stupid.
Comments regarding this question: The ASL now allows stats to continue to accrue if a player is traded to the N.L. in mid-season. This is good, however, in the age of Major League "rent-a-player", players are often traded to one league in July, become free agents at the end of the year and then come right back again. The Constitution says you lose a player in the N.L. as soon as the regular season ends. I don�t think it would hurt to allow teams to retain an N.L. player through the winter. In the unlikely event he comes BACK to the A.L. over the Winter, you get your player back, good for you. To make a long story short, you�d lose the player the day rosters are frozen instead of at the end of the season. 2 - Nope,
I hate you and I hate your dumb ideas.
Comments regarding this question: Editor's Note: This will be effective starting this season. Any players lost to the NL over the 1999-2000 off-season will remain lost. 10. CHANGING THE "JONSTITUTION" Jonathan was a big fan of fines and penalties for minor screw-ups. I am not. My opinion is that you are not "babies" and do not need a wrist slap if you forget to do something. This is a game among friends that is meant to be fun. That said, I suggest the following be removed from the constitution. 10A. $20 fine if you don�t put your roster into the All-Star stats system within 72 hours 2 - Actually,
you should be fined $20 for that. 10B. You must pay half of your entrance fee by December 31st or you will be fined $20.
0 - If
you screw up, you should be punished, damn it!
0 - I
am a child and if there is no consequences for my mistakes I will never learn. 10E. $5 charge for each player given a $5 contract 1 - What�s
another $5? Leave it in there.
Comments regarding this question: "Death to Jonathan!!!!! He had way to much time on his hands to come up with these!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn. "Who made these stupid ass rules?" -- Mike Capilo. "I like the prepay idea, but not the $20 fine. I suggest prepaying but without the fine for being late. That said, I guess we could simply pay half the fee before the draft and the rest whenever it is suppose to be paid." -- Scott Winterburn. Initially I liked the idea of a $25 cap on players obtained through FAAB. (If you bid $26 or more you have to retain the player the following season.) What I didn�t stop to consider was what would happen if a team in contention decided that it was going to be his last season. I�m not sure that�s what Jonathan did, but that is what happened. I was told in July he said he probably would retire from the ASL after 1999, and then he bid $26 on Tony Batista and $26 on Brian McRae. Regardless of whether that�s why he bid $26 on those guys, someone could conceivably do just that in the future. I suggest we drop the rule and allow teams to bid as much as they want. We allow teams to spend $1-$100 in another league I�m in and everyone seems to enjoy it.
Comments regarding this question: Jon Perkins noted that although he voted for Option 1, that Option 3 is also valid. The rules were changed a couple years ago so that if you finish with less than 900 innings you automatically get zero points in both ERA and ratio. In my opinion, this is rather silly. It totally throws off the purpose of the 900 innings rule in the first place, AND throws out of whack the natural amount of points available in the standings. The purpose of the 900 innings rule is so that teams are not awarded ERA and ratio points simply because they have so few innings that those two categories are really meaningless. The team under 900 innings is essentially taking points in the standings away from other teams who deserve those points. The team under 900 innings should finish LAST in those two categories � ONE point, not ZERO, and everyone they were ahead up should move up to where they should have rightfully been in the first place. The problem that some people have with this is that they feel the other teams are being "given" points because someone else finished under 900 innings. But, in reality, they aren�t being "given" points, they are getting back the points that they should have had in the first place. If there was a way to do it, the standings would be adjusted weekly or daily � prorated for the amount of innings you should have every day or every week. That isn�t practical, so the adjustment is made at the end of the season.
Comments regarding this question: "You got me on this one." -- Scott Winterburn, who abstained. "If you're ahead of the dufus in ERA or Ratio, this penalizes you. It gives an extra point to those teams who are behind the inning-challenged team. Thus this rule change would hurt the better teams and help the weaker teams - strongly against this rule change." -- Gerry Kahle. Editor's Note: Eventually I will be able to complete my life's quest to get the entire world to understand this. The teams that would be in front of the "dufus" would not be "penalized". Those teams in FRONT of the "dufus" have the points they are SUPPOSED to have. If you don't bump up the teams BEHIND the "dufus", it is THOSE teams that are being penalized, because they should have been IN FRONT of the "dufus" the entire season. If you don't bump up those teams by a point, not only are you penalizing the "dufus" but you are also penalizing a bunch of other teams as well, and I just don't see how that makes sense. Look at it this way, in an ideal world you would pro-rate the required innings pitch every day of the season, and each day the team that doesn't meet that requirement would get one point. That team has an ERA, but it is meaningless because that team has so few innings, so they get ONE point - LAST. Now the remaining positions would be between 1 and 9 because you have NINE meaningful ERA's which you can rank. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense to make that adjustment every day of the season, so you make it at the very end - giving the "illusion" that you are giving some teams "bonus" points, when really they are getting points that they should have had the entire year. Or, look at it another way. The team under the innings requirement has an ERA that is totally meaningless because they don't have enough innings (which is precisely why they are being penalized.) Because it is meaningless, the position that ERA ranked among the other teams is ALSO meaningless. How can you rank a meaningless ERA? If that ERA ranks 3rd by sheer coincidence. Why should all of the other teams except the 1st and 2nd place ERA's get "penalized" just because another team has an ERA which is totally meaningless but ranked 3rd? Additionally, this keeps the total points as it should be 12+11+10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1 = 78 in each category. Today the rules state that if two teams tie for a money position, the tie is broken by who is higher in the most categories, if still tied then total at-bats + 3 times the innings pitched breaks the tie. Just a personal opinion, but if I tie for first, I would be pissed if I had to settle for second place money. I think a tie in the standings should remain a tie in the standings � that is, for example, if you tie for first, both teams get (50% + 25%)/2 = 37.5%.
Comments regarding this question: "How about keeping the first tie breaker, head-to-head in the eight stats?" -- Gerry Kahle One small way to combat dumping AND keep everyone�s interest longer is give some money for 5th place. In a way, it�s the same reason the Majors went to 3 divisions and added a wild card. The more teams that remain in the hunt longer, the most interest there is. I suggest giving 5% of the prize pool to 5th place. It�s kind of like a consolation prize � at least finishing 5th would give you most of your entrance fee back. The prize distribution would then be: 45%, 25%, 15%, 10%, 5%.
Comments regarding this question: "See previous response." -- Mike Capilo 15. ROOKIE PLAYERS ACTIVATED Presently, if you activate a "rookie" player during the season his contract life begins immediately. Unfortunately, most people refrain from doing this because you�ll want to wait to see if that player is actually going to "stick" in the majors before you use up contract life. If you think about it, why should you have to wait? Orber Moreno came up for the Royals this year (he got hurt right away anyway, so this is kind of a bad example.) Rob Webster may not have called him up because if he calls him up, Moreno�s contract starts ticking � and then the Royals could send him right back down. So your player rots, performing in the majors but sitting on your reserve because of a glitch in the rules. I just think it makes it a lot "cleaner" - and easier to track for that matter � if a "rookie" player�s contract only begins when he is no longer a "rookie" according to Major League rules (130 at bats, 50 innings). If you call a "rookie" up and he only gets 20 at bats, you can put him back on your "farm" roster if you want. If a player is still a "rookie" in the majors, he�s still a "rookie" in Rotisserie � simple.
Comments regarding this question: The rule as it�s stated today is that you may "buy out" a player�s long-term contract before it is up by paying in real dollars, the value of the player�s salary or $20 � whichever is higher. Has that always been the rule? That seems harsh to be forced to pay AT LEAST $20. Sometimes players get hurt or whatever. I think just paying the value of the player�s salary or $20 -whichever is LOWER - is much more reasonable.
Comments regarding this question: "I like being reasonable!!!!! Remember, the withdrawal method is only 60% effective!!!!!!" -- Scott Winterburn. "Now I understand why I haven't been sleeping. I wasn't an owner in this league yesterday, but couldn't sleep. Now, I look forward to peaceful rest. Thank you for asking me to be an owner. I'm going to name my first child after you." -- Mike Capilo 17. DROPPING PLAYERS TRADED In the other league I am in, we allow teams the option of keeping a player traded to the N.L. during the season OR dropping the player at any point and receiving FAAB dollar equivalent to the players salary. This adds an interesting twist occasionally when a team has a player now in the N.L., he can use that player as trade bait for a team that is low in FAAB $.
Comments regarding this question: "Don't like it. It's possible a team could gain an advantage by having one of its expensive, BUT REALLY SHITTY players traded to the NL. The fairest thing possible is to allow a team to keep the stats of the player traded away. That's more than enough." -- Mike Drago Number of visitors to this page: |
1 - Raise
the overall cost to $225: $50 stats + $150 transaction escrow + $25 entrance
fee
