WM 2005 Topics
- Add a GM of the Year post-season award.
- Should divisions set their final intradivisional series in
advance? Say during the first 40 games. Not the home and away part of it but these two teams will play first, then these two teams, then the remaining last games?
Cutting to the chase, Keith and I (not very much so Bob although he was
involved in the discussion) were doing our best in our interdivisional
series to have to play Bob after the other one. There was a lot of
discussion and one verbal scenario we started going down was you play Bob
once, then me, then you again, etc. etc. etc. in an attempt for both of our
teams to have a better possibility of at least tying Graham if not
surpassing him as Bob had some compromising situations on his team in
regards to making a free agent pickup after so many games and after winning
the division, being able to set his rotation and rest regulars. So we both
wanted to play Bob second.
As we started down this scenario of you play Bob a game then I play Bob a
game and so on, we started thinking this to be directly unfair to Graham as
we historically don't play games individually but a group of games in series
and we decided to stay within this precedent and spirit of the league. Then
it was I don't want to play Bob first.
Anyhow, I knew in advance my proposal below would diminish the drama of end
of the season intradivisional series but perhaps it should be a written rule
that we play these contests in a series and not one at a time. I believe we
were pretty close that night in preparing to play our games against Bob in
onesy fashion before we brought Graham into the discussion. At least I don't
think it would be a bad idea or a wrong idea to write a rule that says we
play our games in a series. And that would still allow some end of the
season drama between teams in a division.
editor's note: The idea behind the SL East final 8 of intra-divisional play decision was that we should not break new ground (alternating games may have been new ground) at the end of the season when it so obviously had implications beyond our division. right or wrong, favorable or unfavorable to us. Can we agree that the final 8 can be handled any way that division sees fit?
- (don't have the email in front of me, but it was something about English language, alpha preferred over numeric, definitely over sanscrit, et al.)
1st team to finish their 162 game schedule (or the FFA) gets 1st pick in the following year's draft.
- We should discuss keeping people from playing too many games beyond other teams. Not enforcing this loses "playability" between some teams, "tradability" between some teams, and then the end of the season bogs down.
- games played is as games played does
this is in reference to the email graham sent on 7/20/2004, saying:
"the games played is as games played does rule is definitely back on the
agenda for the winter meetings.
see game 1 injuries b. bonds (14 days)
29 of his 32 sits have now been taken care of"
I have a suggestion that retains some of the
mischevious nature of injuries but allows players to
play the same number of games in apba that they played
in mlb.
It is a rule that states: "If a player's team has
fewer games remaining in their SL regular season
schedule than the player has eligible games remaining,
injuries to the player shall be ignored to the extent
that enforcing the injury would ultimately leave the
player with fewer SL regular season games played than
his actual mlb games played. In all cases, injuries do
count in the in the game in which they happen."
So if Sammy Sosa gets injured for seven games in game
10 with 152 games remaining and 120 games of
eligibility, he will have to serve out his injury.
However, if he gets injured for seven games in game
156 and he has three games left of eligibility, he
will sit out the rest of game 156 and the next three
games, but come back for the final three.
This keeps people from being able to "schedule" missed
games at their convenience (only against out of
division opponents, etc.) but gives you the full value
of the player you drafted.
- Officially allow situations to happen such as that of BY Kim's for Graham in 2004. Kim was a relief pitcher who could start, and was FA "drop-eligible" ... and Graham wanted to drop his "drop-eligible" 6th starter Jason Duscherrer and move Kim to his 6th starter postion. When this went down in 2004, we were not clear about if/how we addressed this subject at our previous WM, but allowed it because it made sense.
or: "if he is otherwise eligible
to be dropped under the rules, a non-rostered 6th
starter may be dropped in the FA draft and replaced with a player on the
active roster. a rostered player may then be
drafted to replace the rostered player moved into the 6th starter spot.
the FA draft is the only time during the season when
this move may be made."
- Allow FAs to be dropped if they exceed a usage by only 1 if a single usage would otherwise disallow that player to be dropped.
An example would SBA. If player A had 0, 1, 2, or 3 attempts, normally in the first 40 had he attempted a SB, he would lose his "drop-eligibility." With the adoption of this rule, if the player had a single SBA in the first 40 games of the SL, he would still be allowed to be dropped. This would apply to all usage restrictions for drop-eligibility (relief games, innings pitched, games played, CF games, plate appearance, and stolen base attempts.
This would be the Knobs Rule of 2002. Knobs (and I think Edwards Guzman) played CF for Dave as replacements for injured CFs. As they exceeded allowable usage because of their emergency use, they were not allowed to be dropped. My thought at the time was that if Jermaine Dye for Chris, and his 2 MLB CF games, could not be dropped because he played 1 game there in the first 40, why should we allow a player to be dropped who was not allowed a single CF game the entire season, but played there anyway. In this rule, the player who played 2 MLB CF games and the player who played 0 MLB CF games are allowed a single CF game in the first 40 and maintain "drop-eligibility." In 2002, I didn't necessarily feel that was fair to Chris and whoever else had usage limitations that they managed, but now I feel we need more flexibility pertaining to "drop-eligibility," especially for emergency situations. I was unclear how to define an emergency back then, but it seems to me that a single usage could be a good indication of emergency usage and of otherwise reasonable use.
or: "a non-CF eligible position
player or pitcher who plays in CF or a non-pitcher rated position
player who pitches as a result of a roster emergency shall still be
eligible to be dropped in the FA draft even though they exceeded
their allowable limit of CF games or relief appearances, innings pitched,
etc. as a result of their emergency appearance."
If you want any other topics to be included in this list, please email [email protected]
|