Weekend Changes

Jeff Erickson · Post by **Jeff Erickson** » Fri May 30, 2008 11:02 am

Forgive me if (a) this has already been brought up and shouted down; and (b) if I'm asking in the wrong place, but:

- would it make sense to include players being demoted to the minors to be eligible for putting on your reserve roster for the Friday changes? They're equally unavailable, no?

Signed,

Self-interested Billy Butler owner.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri May 30, 2008 1:19 pm

I brought it up before and I think all I got was snickers from some players who said that if I was playing guys who were being demoted, I had bigger problems than the Friday DL rule (which is obviously not necessarily true). I'd still argue it makes perfect sense to include them.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Fri May 30, 2008 4:11 pm

I got snickered for having Millwood on my bench...let alone start him...and WIN!!!

~Lance

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Fri May 30, 2008 8:17 pm

Jeff:

Good luck. The problem is that each week a new reason pops up to allow any sort of Friday change outside of the DL rule. While I applaud that we can make a change of a player placed on the DL, I don't think it goes far enough. I hope your Butler example is heard.

In your case, a player was sent to the minors. Personally, why shouldn't you be allowed to park him on the bench for the weekend series IF you have a replacement? It lends to better overall roster management.

Two more examples from my teams from last week: As a self interested owner of both Eric Gagne and Andruw Jones I realized by Tuesday night that I would probably be taking blanks on both all week. ( I know, maybe a good thing in both cases ) However, news is released that Andruw has a leg issue and they will decide ON Friday on what to do with him. Then, GAGNE has shoulder stiffness and a cortisone shot. Why should I be at the mercy of the darn DL designation? Both were placed on the DL after our deadline despite the fact it was pretty clear on Tuesday they wouldn't play the remainder of the week. This bugs me each year.

If we can open changes up for Friday DL players I think examples like Butler ( sent to the minors ) and the two explained above should also be included. These leagues aren't cheap and the more control we hold in setting our lineups makes this a better game. However, we seem to be in the minority.

[ May 31, 2008, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Sack ]

underDOG · Post by **underDOG** » Sat May 31, 2008 1:02 am

great post jeff. How about DM before friday, for next years rule. ALSO ST for a pitcher who allows 9 runs in two innings on monday or tuesday and you dont want to start him on sat or sun, ST meaning he stinks. How about a hitter who goes 0 for 16, mon thru thur, we could call it CO, for cortisone shot in the arm replacement. REALLY the DM, demoted, is a great rule change for next year. Great show on XM

viper · Post by **viper** » Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 am

a lot would depend upon STATS being able to track demotions and mark them like the red DL of DLed players.

The beauty of this system is that you can very quickly check teams on Friday morning for that magic red DL.

I personally like this as an upgrade in 2009. I hate adding or changing rules mid stream in a season unless it is universally agreed that it should be thee. This change doesn't seem to be that type of change. But as I said, I would vote for it in 2009 assuming STATS can handle it.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:13 am

Originally posted by viper:

a lot would depend upon STATS being able to track demotions and mark them like the red DL of DLed players.

The beauty of this system is that you can very quickly check teams on Friday morning for that magic red DL.

I personally like this as an upgrade in 2009. I hate adding or changing rules mid stream in a season unless it is universally agreed that it should be thee. This change doesn't seem to be that type of change. But as I said, I would vote for it in 2009 assuming STATS can handle it. I agree that you couldn't change it for this year. I think guys who were sent to the minors used to be marked with a little N/A. Not sure why that changed but obviously it is easy to track. I think the other examples on this thread are a little too much. Greg would have an argument each week about why he allows this guy to be switched but not that guy. But being sent to the minors is a pretty concrete event.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:22 am

I agree with all of this. DL players are marked "DL". Mark ML players with a "ML" next to their name. The intent of the DL rule is the same for players sent down and should be changed for next year. My guys love it btw

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat May 31, 2008 5:51 am

Originally posted by UFS:

I agree with all of this. DL players are marked "DL". Mark ML players with a "ML" next to their name. The intent of the DL rule is the same for players sent down and should be changed for next year. My guys love it btw

Agree here as well. Would be a very good change for next season.

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:43 am

agree

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:48 am

I'm looking for the depressed Billy Butler owners thread. Am I at the right place?

bosco · Post by **bosco** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:57 am

How about DL players that STATS takes to long to place as being on the DL and missing the deadline to swap in a replacement?

Example, this week with Mark Kotsay.

John

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat May 31, 2008 6:58 am

But isn't there a difference in that some players (Brandon Wood and many others) can be sent down, and then called right back up due to an injury to a starter.

Not sure that matters...but PLEASE don't change it to daily...where whenever STATS puts a player on DL or ML he is eligible to be replaced.

Monday and Friday is enough manipulation.

~Lance

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:05 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

But isn't there a difference in that some players (Brandon Wood and many others) can be sent down, and then called right back up due to an injury to a starter.

Not sure that matters...but PLEASE don't change it to daily...where whenever STATS puts a player on DL or ML he is eligible to be replaced.

Monday and Friday is enough manipulation.

~Lance Manipulation?

crazytown · Post by **crazytown** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:05 am

I don't like the DL rule or any other midweek moves. You don't get do overs.

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:10 am

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

I don't like the DL rule or any other midweek moves. You don't get do overs. I actually agree with Crazy? I don't like that we are allowed only a "do-over" if a player goes on the DL before Friday. If you have a guy sent down, sorry, too bad. If you have a guy like Ankiel last week where he may play or he may go on the DL, you are stuck playing him or not. You are at the mercy of the team's decision. Then you are also at the mercy of good or bad timing. If a player goes on the DL at the right time, you get a do-over, if he misses it by a minute, 3 more days with no stats. Next week I am stuck deciding whether or not to start Posada or not. In the reverse if he was heading to the DL I could replace him Friday. In my situation if I start him and don't keep my backup I get zero stats. If I do get him starting, but keep Bako just in case then I may miss an opportunity for a free agent. If news changes and I don't start him, then miraculously he recovers and they activate him Thursday, I can't make a change. I say no chnges or you have to allow other changes. Just one man's opinion and I know you will never make us all happy, but there other situations that should be addressed as well.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat May 31, 2008 7:39 am

Originally posted by crazytown.gov:

I don't like the DL rule or any other midweek moves. You don't get do overs. I don't disagree but whatever happens it should be consistent. If you can replace DL guys, it makes sense to be able to replace non-actives.

[ May 31, 2008, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

Jeff Erickson · Post by **Jeff Erickson** » Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:16 pm

And to clarify, since I probably was less than clear, I wouldn't want any possible rule change implemented during the season either. More of a "food for thought" post from one of the NFBC fish.