Rules Changes For 2007?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 4:07 am

I'm looking for input on potential rules changes for 2007 as we'll unveil the 2007 Rules and Registration pages immediately after the 2006 MLB season. I think there are a couple of hot spots, so I'm looking for your feedback on these and any other suggestions you may have. Here are my thoughts:

1) Minimum innings pitched. We currently have all main event and auction leagues with 400 innings pitched. I am going to look at data this week of the number of innings pitched per team and see if it makes sense to raise that or leave it alone. I've already said I may move it to 600 innings pitched. Thoughts?

2) The Friday DL Rule. I feel like once we finalized the cutoff for players who are officially on MLB's DL list (Friday at 12:01 a.m.) the system ran pretty smooth. We averaged about 150 moves per Friday through the 33 leagues, so obviously it allowed owners to move players out of their starting lineups who got hurt after Monday's games or in some cases it allowed owners who forgot to take out DL'ed players to take them out for the weekend games. I am in favor of keeping this rule intact for 2007 unless there is strong support against it. Thoughts?

Any others? I'm looking for feedback and have three weeks to make final decisions. Any and all input is welcome.

Don Mathis · Post by **Don Mathis** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:21 am

I don't think there should be any minimuns

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:31 am

600 ip, sounds good. I think you are doing guys who like to use the hair-brained all reliever strategy a favor by making them take some starters. I've seen a guy like Hank Cantrell up in the weekly standings a number of times this year, so I think he likes the fact that he has a handful of starters. These weren't your older brother's hankerchiefs this year. But I think an innings pitch requirement makes sense on alot of levels.

As for the Frday DL rule. I like it, and thought that once the kinks were worked out it was a positive.

As far as any others, I would ask about the 40-man roster rule at draft time and wonder if that will hold true again. I don't know how the legal ruling early this summmer affects that. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but I can see the point if someone wants to draft a deep sleeper.

Other than that there is still business to take care of in '06, but we are already looking forward to the Flamingo in '07!!!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:26 am

SUGGESTION: Only players on the 25-man MLB roster should be available for FAAB each week. This can extend to players on the MLB DL, but NOT in the minors.

REASONING: The draft-eligible pool is the 40-man plus logical exceptions, so many of us will draft farm players in hopes of their making a contribution down the line. This is fine. Often, these players are dropped before they get called up as injuries, etc. set in. Presently, these players remain eligible for FAAB in the league they were dropped, but not in any other league.

I see this as an imbalance. If I am in a league where one of these guys is dropped, I can pick him up and bury him until he gets called up, chances are for less than the FAAB he goes for in the other leagues.

I realize everyone in my league could bid and FAAB amounts are relative to each league, but the larger point is player availability should be the same for all participants across the board.

DRAFT -- eligibility defined by 40-man and noted exceptions

FAAB -- only players on the MLB 25-man (and DL)

Just one man's not so humble opinion

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:52 am

Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

As far as any others, I would ask about the 40-man roster rule at draft time and wonder if that will hold true again. I don't know how the legal ruling early this summmer affects that. I do not see the need for a draftable list or to keep draftable players only on MLB 40-man rosters. I do not intend to do that in 2007. Thanks for bringing this up as it is definitely a point that we want to address this year.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:50 pm

1) Raise the minimum innings. I agree with Spyhunter's frequent comments about playing the game the way it should be. It's one thing to take advantage of another owner because he planned poorly, but quite another to take advantage of other owners because of a loophole in the rules. This year seemed to work out better and raising the minimum would only continue to help.

2) Could care less about the Friday DL. Had one chance to use it effectively and one other when I didn't have a chance to sub with anyone who'd get pt. That stat seems fantastic. It seems that nearly a third of owners had a chance to change their rosters each Friday.

If we're going to have the Friday DL's I'd be supportive of including the ability to switch out non-actives as well. This would affect players on the short bus to the minors, guys serving suspension, and anyone-who-beats-his-wife-and-then-takes-an-indefinite-leave-of-absence-from-his-team-before-returning-as-a-sometimes-sub-par-pitcher.

[ September 13, 2006, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

bustouts · Post by **bustouts** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:32 am

How about the ability to activate a player who is activated from the DL during the week? I think this is probably more common than those placed on the DL midweek. If you play the guessing game as to when they will be activated, you invariably lose.

BEF · Post by **BEF** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:01 am

Originally posted by bustouts:

How about the ability to activate a player who is activated from the DL during the week? I think this is probably more common than those placed on the DL midweek. If you play the guessing game as to when they will be activated, you invariably lose. THAT's the one I'd like to see. You change your roster and then 10 minutes after the deadline a guy gets activated. Drives me nuts. But I'm not sure if STATS would have that ability, to flag someone who came off the DL between Monday and Friday; it needs to be limited only to that type of player.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 1:55 pm

Greg,

Please keep the Friday DL rule, and I agree with the last 2 posts about also being able to activate a DL'd player whenever he is activated if possible.

I'd also like to see players who are promoted/demoted from the minors get the same rights as DL'd players.

I also like raising the IP. I think 800 IP is an ideal number, but 600 is better than 400.

[ September 15, 2006, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:48 pm

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

Greg,

Please keep the Friday DL rule, and I agree with the last 2 posts about also being able to activate a DL'd player whenever he is activated if possible.

I'd also like to see players who are promoted/demoted from the minors get the same rights as DL'd players.

I also like raising the IP. I think 800 IP is an ideal number, but 600 is better than 400. I agree with the 800 innings. If you don't move it the auction leagues, I'd like you to offer an 800 inning league and another at your choice. Then you would let auction players decide which they prefer.

JEagle · Post by **JEagle** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:33 am

I like 800 innings also...and would like to activate DLd players anytime too and if a guy gets sent to the minors to maybe be able to replace him..