NFBC Message Boards

Fantasy Art Resembles Real Life, by DOUGHBOYS, "I like to think about real baseball teams in fantasy terms".

Deadheadz wrote:.

Help me and those like me understand Duke...

Are there more than 4 rounds for a reason? With a team's 25 man roster, aren't you eventually going to get all those players or are you saying we would be drafting minor leaguers who are signed but not on the 25 man roster.

I didn't catch it but did you have a rule that a GM must have one AL Pitching Staff only not both staves from the same league?

Also the KDS would be a challenge to bid on since the #1 guy would also be choosing #60. Just a guess but would the #60 pick be the Rockies pitchers?

What happens when a player is traded in real life? You lose him but gain the rights to FAAB the player coming back?

Very interesting indeed.

.

KJ Duke wrote:

Fantasy Art Resembles Real Life, by DOUGHBOYS, "I like to think about real baseball teams in fantasy terms".

So Dan kicked off this discussion in the other thread ... which sounded to me like an opening for an interesting fantasy concept. Below is what we came up with ... if there are 15 interested players I'd like to do it once the new draft room is ready to roll (possibly next week).

• Each owner will build his roster from One NL Pitching staff, One AL Pitching Staff, One NL Lineup and One AL Lineup

$250 • TEAM Satellite • Slow-draft (standard NFBC payout)
1. KJ Duke
2. Dan Kenyon (?reserved?)
3. Mike Mager (?reserved?)
4. Russel Wyatt
5. Eric Albright
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

CC's Desperados wrote:This should really be an auction. $100 for each team with a max bid of $97.

Teufel Hunden wrote:Seems like you would be better off allowing each owner to draft any two pitching/hitting rosters.

If you keep it setup as is, not only would the #1 pick be able to select Nats pitching at 1/1, but they would also be excluded from taking Colorado pitching at 4/15.

But, if you switched to two of each pretty good chance #1 pick gets stuck with Colorado pitching at 4/15 unless they draft their second pitching staff at 2/15 or 3/1.

Teufel Hunden wrote:Seems like you would be better off allowing each owner to draft any two pitching/hitting rosters.

If you keep it setup as is, not only would the #1 pick be able to select Nats pitching at 1/1, but they would also be excluded from taking Colorado pitching at 4/15.

But, if you switched to two of each pretty good chance #1 pick gets stuck with Colorado pitching at 4/15 unless they draft their second pitching staff at 2/15 or 3/1.

Deadheadz wrote:

Teufel Hunden wrote:Seems like you would be better off allowing each owner to draft any two pitching/hitting rosters.

If you keep it setup as is, not only would the #1 pick be able to select Nats pitching at 1/1, but they would also be excluded from taking Colorado pitching at 4/15.

But, if you switched to two of each pretty good chance #1 pick gets stuck with Colorado pitching at 4/15 unless they draft their second pitching staff at 2/15 or 3/1.

I thought the same thing until I realized at pick 4.15 the Rockies pitching would be gone because another GM with the NL staff slot to fill would have to have taken him before that. Am I making sense or did I miss something?


.

KJ Duke wrote:Sorry, I have made several edits on the trade rule. It is a little tricky thinking through different scenarios based on the timing of a trade. I think I have it down now. The rule will be as follows ...

• Players that change teams via trade/release/etc, cannot be in their owner's lineup for any new scoring period once they have officially been removed from that MLB team's organization. The owner has the option of keeping them on his bench, but cannot start them. If the player is dropped by the original owner, the new team owner can pick them up via FAAB.

Gekko wrote:I'm waiting for the baseball league where we bid real dollars on first couple rounds, like in football gridiron

Deadheadz wrote: This means the GM loses the use of the player BUT has the option to keep that player off his opponents roster?
Clever.

Could be useful if an elite player moves at the trade deadline. .

Tcohan wrote:Personally I liked the first rule better that if a player is traded the original team owner gets to keep him. That way if any stars such as hamels or others are traded no team takes a huge hit or gets a huge unexpected boost. I realize the original team may a get a small boost if hamels gets a better lineup and more wins potential but the change does not seem as great. I can live with either way but like this one better.