2007 ESL Survey

The present entrance fee is $220. $40 of that goes to All-Star Stats and $15 of it goes to me because I need the money for my coke habit. Is there any desire to raise that fee?

1 - No, actually, I�d like it lowered to $175

4 - It=s juuuuuust right at $220

    0 - Raise it to $225
    3 - Raise it to $250
    0 - Raise it to $275
    1 - Raise it to $300

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.

2 - $220 limit

1 - $250
2 - $300

Comments regarding this question:
"I vote for all raises $225-300 is fine by me." -- Marty Slickers

"The more I can get for 2nd the better." -- Jamie Schesinger (who voted to raise it to $300)

"As a first timer I don't want to give it up so easily." -- Mal Maher (who voted for a limit of $220)

It was suggested that we expand the ESL by two teams. I suggest we vote to determine how many are in favor of this, and then afterwards we'll have to see if we can find anyone, and then figure out how we'd do it. Obviously the net result would be that we'd go back to the standard $260, 24-man NL-Rotisserie roster. We would probably have to decide how we're going to do the "expansion draft" but that shouldn't be too difficult.

Personally, I can take or leave this idea. I would be nice to have more teams and a larger prize pool, but at the same time there have been more years when we were worried about who the ten owners were going to be than years where the ten existing owners were returning for the following year.

5 - Why fix it if it isn't broke. Keep the ESL at 10 teams.

4 - Good idea, I would like to try to expand the ESL by 1 or 2 teams.

Comments regarding this question:
"I don't care either way...unless 12 teams would make it easier for me to place in the money which I highly doubt." -- Michael Moyer

"I think that it is something to consider but not for 2007 because I do not believe we have two owners who want to join at this time." -- Drew Gallagher

[It should be pretty clear to everyone now why never gave expansion much of a thought in the past. Drew didn't think we'd find two interested owners. Turns out we did, but we needed them to fill out two openings. -- Chris Mal]

Presently Rounds 1 and 2 are in the following order: Team that finished last, 9th, 8th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st.

And rounds 3 thru 10 are in the following order: Team that finished 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, Last, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st.

I remember changing rounds 3-10, but I don't remember why we left Rounds 1 and 2 as they always were. Should we change round 1 & 2 to match rounds 3 thru 10?

The pros-and-cons...

If we leave it the way it is, the last place team at least gets something for their futility. On the other hand, you could have teams trying to lose so that they get better picks in the reserve draft.

If we change it, the teams that just miss out on the big money get a high draft pick as a consolation prize, and everyone tries to finish as high as possible in the standings. On the other hand, teams that finish at the bottom not only don't get money, but they get a mediocre slot in the first two rounds of the reserve draft.

If this is voted in, it would not be effective until the 2008 draft.

5 - Leave it the way it is, rounds 1 & 2 will be in reverse order of the standings.

4 - Good idea, change the order of rounds 1 & 2 to match rounds 3 thru 10.

Comments regarding this question:
"Does it matter, Chris Mal has all the picks anyway. I am trying though. Who wants Jamey Carrol?" -- Jamie Schesinger [says the man with who had 6 of 20 picks in the first two rounds of the 2006 draft.]

"Whatever...Doesn't really matter." -- Mal Maher

I heard a couple people in the "other league" say finishing 5th is better than finishing 4th because you get the 1st pick in the reserve draft......so maybe the 4th place team should get the 1st pick? You really don't get much money for 4th. Or maybe the 6th place team should get that 1st pick since 1st thru 5th gets money? (But then wouldn't finishing 6th be better than finishing both 4th and 5th?)

If this is voted in, it would not be effective until the 2008 draft.

Which of these should be the order of the reserve draft...

2 - 4th Place-5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-3rd-2nd-1st

3 - 5th Place-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st (this is what it was in 2006)

4 - 6th Place-7th-8th-9th-10th-5th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st

Comments regarding this question:
"Hey great." -- Mal Maher

[Since I'm sure someone will ask, the reason "5th place" is the winner here is because if given the choice of 5th vs. 6th, the people who voted 4th obviously would chose 5th place. That gives 5 votes to 5th place and 4 to 6th place. -- Chris Malinowski]

Today the rule reads: "If a player is traded to the AL between the time rosters are frozen and the draft, that player is removed from that team, and the team gets nothing in return. (The same as if the player was traded to the AL at any other time during the Winter.) The only consolation is that the team may, if it chooses, add another player to their freeze list that wasn't previously protected."

It's not a big deal, obviously, but it seems kind of harsh. At that point - just moments before the draft - I'd prefer if teams could just retain or drop such a player, just like you can during the season. The only difference I think there should be is that if you DO decide to drop such a player, you wouldn't get FAAB money, and instead would be able to replace that player with someone you didn't keep if you chose to do so. (If you kept him and dropped him AFTER the draft, you would get the FAAB $$$...I just don't think this should be a means for people to start with more than $100 FAAB before the season even starts.)

4 - Leave it the way it is. Between the freeze date and the draft, if one of your keepers is traded to the AL, you lose him and get nothing in return.

5 - Let's change it as written above.

Comments regarding this question:
"It doesn't matter to me!" -- Michael Moyer (who voted to leave it the way it is.)

"It's only fair to do that (allow a team to keep a player traded to the AL). Why not get some type of compensation. If that doesn't work, then maybe a free add/drop or a $2 deduction from an existing player."

Someone suggested we use "Quality Starts" instead of Wins as one of the 4 pitching categories. There would be two benefits to that: (1) It would take some of the randomness out of it - wins are somewhat unpredictable and often not a good indicator of a good game. It would eliminate awarding pitchers for "cheap wins". And (2) it would stop people from rotating in middle relievers every day in an effort to get "vulture wins". On the downside, wins are a very accessible stat that you can get just about anywhere at anytime, and is used by just about everyone.

(For those that don't know, a "Quality Start" is when a pitcher goes at least 6 innings and gives up no more than 3 earned runs.)

5 - Leave it the way it is. Using "Wins" as a category is fine.

4 - Good idea, "Wins" is a stupid statistic. We should use "Quality Starts" instead.

Comments regarding this question:
"It is easier to see if a pitcher gets a win instead of a 'quality start', especially if most of my research for baseball is done on a TV at a bar." -- Michael Moyer

"I guess since it was my thought I should vote for it." -- Jamie Schlesinger

"I like this but am kind of torn between the two. Part of drafting is to pick SP's from winning teams...but the middle reliever nightmare is annoying. Up to you guys really but I vote for Quality Starts." -- Mal Maher

[Oh joy! Another season of rotating relievers in and out of my roster. -- Chris Mal]

From Marty Slickers: "In the ESL the rookies increase each year by 5 dollars making many of them worthless. Would there be any consideration of raising them $2 per year maybe. For example I was looking at making Dale an offer for Braun 3B Milwaukee $5 but he is likely headed to AAA this year and will increase to $10. What was the original thought for the $5 a year increase. In the majors rookies are low price options. Why should Braun be a $15 player the first year he arrives in the majors? It's like our league penalizes those who know the minor leagues."

The thought was that a $5 increase would find a happy medium - in other words, teams could still draft minor leaguers (you'd have to do your research on AA and AAA players since as you said, a A-ball player is unlikely to be worth much by the time he reaches the majors), and yet it would keep a steady influx of players into the draft. Our problem with standard Rotisserie style minor league systems is that it essentially takes every single player out of the draft for his first 3, 4, - and for the superstud rookies - FIVE years of his career. The draft is the fun part of Rotisserie, so - in my opinion - taking every player out of the draft until he's 27 years old seems a little silly.

Still, drafting rookies and doing your homework is fun. I can think of many examples where homework has yielded some excellent rookies in the ESL. I had Albert Pujols for 5 years. He went from an unheard of AA player straight to the majors for $5. I had Lance Berkman for 5 years. Ryan Howard looks like he's going to be a good example. The list is rather lengthy if you think about it. The only players it truly eliminates are those that take a long time to reach the majors, and those players are generally unlikely to be as good anyway.

We actually voted on a similar proposal in 2004, but it didn't pass.

I admit this is a personal preference, and so we vote...

6 - Leave it the way it is. Rookies kept from one year to the next on reserve increase in salary by +$5.

3 - Good idea, rookies kept on reserve should increase in salary by only $2 from one year to the next.

Comments regarding this question:
"I like the fact that 'our league penalizes those who know the minor leagues' because I have no clue about the minor leagues, thus giving me a slight edge." -- Michael Moyer

"That was my idea in 2004, so I guess I will vote for it again. Plus it will allow Dale to keep a guy on his reserve roster for even longer (see Stewart)." -- Jamie Schlesinger

"This is a no-brainer. Whoever votes against this (changing it to a $2 increase) is a lazy retard who doesn't want to study up." -- Mal Maher

Someone suggested that we should count rookies against your keeper list. "That way you would see minor leaguers being thrown back. If you wanted to keep your farms system intact you would have less keeepers. It would lower inflation and more players would be in the auction. It would take a lot of thought to keep a $15 minor leaguer."

6 - Leave it the way it is. Rookies should not count against your keeper list.

3 - Good idea, rookies should count against your "keeper list".

Comments regarding this question:
"Another no brainer (to keep it the way it is)." -- Mal Maher

Presently between 6/14 and the Thursday after the All-Star Game, any player involved in a trade automatically goes to the last year of his contract. Someone suggested that we eliminate this entirely.

3 - Leave it the way it is, dump trading sucks, and this has been an effective safe-gaurd against it.

6 - Good idea, get rid of it.

Comments regarding this question:
>> no comments <<