Rules problem, what would you do

[Ken]

I joined a new dynasty startup this year and I was excited. The first year is especially fun, a full draft of mlb + minors, several different strategies in play, win now vs build for later, etc.

I tried to toe the line and ended up with some exciting youth but ultimately my team sucks for 2022. Such is dynasty, if you want to play the exciting long game there's short term pain. In the draft I got Kyle Tucker rd 1, Bobby Witt rd 2, Brandon Lowe in the 3rd (oops), Freddy Peralta (ugh), Joey Gallo (oops - it's OBP but... oops). Anyway, not the best draft but fun young players.

Oh well, I'm still active every week and picking up players to try to move up in the standings (14th of 16), and at the same time regularly evaluating my minors to catch risers. I put in a huge bid for Morel a few weeks back and couldn't be happier.

This week one team really started rebuilding. In fact he just traded a large number of his active players. He's missing a catcher. He has only 6 pitchers on his MLB roster. I shot the commish a note saying is this right? Every league I've ever been in requires you to field a team even when rebuilding.

Then I started looking around and noticed another team, lets call him Aaron, who was fielding minor league players in his active roster. Lewin Diaz at 1B, Oneil Cruz at SS. Huoscar Ynoa and Matt Brash have been in the active pitching lineup for months.

That's strange -- I didn't think you could do that.. or my strategy would have been different. So I checked the rules - brand new league, constitution written this year.

Lineups must contain 23 active players (14 hitters, 9 pitchers), and each position must be filled by an active major league player. However, no penalty when a player(s) is benched based on matchups.
Stated another way, players on 25-man MLB rosters need to be in 14/9 spots. Prospects can take up bench spots.

OK clearly not allowed. So I brought it up in the group chat with the league.

I posted:

The constitution states that each active roster spot must be filled by an active major league player. There are a couple teams that are definitely not doing that. I’m curious if there is something I’m missing. As a team not in contention I have still tried to follow the rules and field a real team but it seems like other teams are breaking them in order to get advantages with basically more than 25 minor leaguers. Am I missing something?

First thing that happened, "Aaron" said that I was wrong and as long as the player had a mlb ab or IP ever they could be on your roster.

I showed him the rule and he said no, the commish had told him different.

OK... I couldn't believe that to be the case, I scrolled up in the league chat and he himself had already talked about this.

Aaron in a previous message on this topic had said "Not sure why it would matter how people want to use their benches as long as they're fielding a 23 person lineup of active MLBers."

So Aaron clearly knew he couldnt use minor leaguers in active spots. Ugh one of those guys. Says whatever it is that helps his team at the moment but intellectual consistency be damned. Oh well just another guy in the league. I can just ignore him.

I pushed back but ultimately I waited for the commish to respond.

It did not go how I expected.

Commish:

To me, the definition of active MLBers was and is loosely defined and that's what I thought we ironed out before we started. I never wanted players to have to dump a guy from minors just because some other players keep getting shuttled back and forth from parent team to minors (in real life). So it was guys who have at least one AB and IP. I do feel badly because I didn't properly clarify / update the Charter from our discussions.

Part of my problem has to do with playing in other dynasties that operate this way and assuming it was standard. Maybe it's not.

I'm going to let league precedent stand. We can discuss this soon regarding future seasons and how to handle it. I'll put a notation soon in the Charter that this may or may not be updated for Year Two and beyond.

Ken: I know this won't make you happy. You have a valid argument given the Charter not getting the final update.

OK. I've never known the term "active MLBers" to be an unclear term... This seems ridiculous.

I've put a ton of time in this league and enjoyed it and I don't want to lose this fun team. But ... this is terrible. Or am I the ass??

The commish offered to cash me out. But it's not about cash I love the team I spent many hours on. What would you do in my shoes?


** Note, this is a league full of experience players with many years playing and some fantasy writers. It has a minimal entry fee, but enough to be exciting to win. Not at all a free yahoo league.

[The Feral Slasher]

I joined a new dynasty startup this year and I was excited. The first year is especially fun, a full draft of mlb + minors, several different strategies in play, win now vs build for later, etc.

I tried to toe the line and ended up with some exciting youth but ultimately my team sucks for 2022. Such is dynasty, if you want to play the exciting long game there's short term pain. In the draft I got Kyle Tucker rd 1, Bobby Witt rd 2, Brandon Lowe in the 3rd (oops), Freddy Peralta (ugh), Joey Gallo (oops - it's OBP but... oops). Anyway, not the best draft but fun young players.

Oh well, I'm still active every week and picking up players to try to move up in the standings (14th of 16), and at the same time regularly evaluating my minors to catch risers. I put in a huge bid for Morel a few weeks back and couldn't be happier.

This week one team really started rebuilding. In fact he just traded a large number of his active players. He's missing a catcher. He has only 6 pitchers on his MLB roster. I shot the commish a note saying is this right? Every league I've ever been in requires you to field a team even when rebuilding.

Then I started looking around and noticed another team, lets call him Aaron, who was fielding minor league players in his active roster. Lewin Diaz at 1B, Oneil Cruz at SS. Huoscar Ynoa and Matt Brash have been in the active pitching lineup for months.

That's strange -- I didn't think you could do that.. or my strategy would have been different. So I checked the rules - brand new league, constitution written this year.



OK clearly not allowed. So I brought it up in the group chat with the league.

I posted:



First thing that happened, "Aaron" said that I was wrong and as long as the player had a mlb ab or IP ever they could be on your roster.

I showed him the rule and he said no, the commish had told him different.

OK... I couldn't believe that to be the case, I scrolled up in the league chat and he himself had already talked about this.

Aaron in a previous message on this topic had said "Not sure why it would matter how people want to use their benches as long as they're fielding a 23 person lineup of active MLBers."

So Aaron clearly knew he couldnt use minor leaguers in active spots. Ugh one of those guys. Says whatever it is that helps his team at the moment but intellectual consistency be damned. Oh well just another guy in the league. I can just ignore him.

I pushed back but ultimately I waited for the commish to respond.

It did not go how I expected.

Commish:



OK. I've never known the term "active MLBers" to be an unclear term... This seems ridiculous.

I've put a ton of time in this league and enjoyed it and I don't want to lose this fun team. But ... this is terrible. Or am I the ass??

The commish offered to cash me out. But it's not about cash I love the team I spent many hours on. What would you do in my shoes?


** Note, this is a league full of experience players with many years playing and some fantasy writers. It has a minimal entry fee, but enough to be exciting to win. Not at all a free yahoo league.

"Stated another way, players on 25-man MLB rosters need to be in 14/9 spots. Prospects can take up bench spots." That is the rule and if they don't want to play by the rules then either quit or stay in a league that doesn't play by the rules. It sucks but you knew that.

[Pauly]

Preface... I dont play dynasty leagues for two reasons: Reason 1 is I dont really have the bandwidth or the will to care about players in A ball; Reason 2 is exacty this problem, dynasty leagues encourage tanking and when you know you've got no chance, many managers just decide to pack it in and revisit at the AS break or post-season (thus starting guys like Matt Brash who were good for a second but now in the minors).

I cant imagine a dynasty league where this is not the case. I would think there are always teams that decide to tank DURING and even BEFORE the draft, so there are going to be absentee managers.

So this just seems like S.O.P. to me in these leagues, and therefore, like other leagues with abstenee managers, you can take big advantage of it....or it can ruin the experience. I think you take advantage and have fun with it knowing that some people arent going to play.

[Ken]

The Brash guy isn’t inactive. There are no inactive owners that’s not the issue.

They are stashing minors players like Brash on their active roster so they effectively have 40+ minors spots instead of the 25 im using

[Teenwolf]

The Brash guy isn’t inactive. There are no inactive owners that’s not the issue.

They are stashing minors players like Brash on their active roster so they effectively have 40+ minors spots instead of the 25 im using

I understand the complaint, but this could also be addressed via additional rules. Maybe set very achievable AB and IP limits, and if they fall under minimums they lose their 1st rd pick they tanked so hard to get?

I do this to a certain extent in my own dynasty team. Any farm guy that gets 1 AB or IP immediately gets promoted to my bench, even if they're sent back down. So I have Josh Smith 2B TEX, Ethan Small SP MIL, and T. Davidson SP ATL all on my bench, but we have 10 bench spots so it's not a major clog of unusable players yet. I'm in 1st of 20 teams right now, so it isn't a rebuild strategy.

From my view, the only advantage these guys get from tanking in that messy fashion is the 1st rd pick. I don't see hoarding marginal prospects (guys promoted then sent back down usually have warts) as being hugely beneficial in the long run.

My advice: ignore for rest of season as best you can, knowing the consequences are fairly marginal. Attempt to address the rules loophole in the offseason, if not with my suggestion, I'm sure there's a reasonable solution.

Also, attend to your other dynasty league please (lockdown). I asked in on a player weeks ago with no response (sent email, offer, and PM). No worries, just remembered now and thought I'd remind you.

[rhd]

I've never been in league that was designated as being "Dynasty" but I was in one league for a couple years that in effect operated similar to dynasty. We had a rule where the bottom 6 teams (or was it 5?) had to pay a graduated penalty for finishing low in the standings. Like 7th place had to pay in an extra $20, 8th place $40, etc on up to 12th place $120. And this extra money got distributed to the top 5 finishers, again in graduated fashion. That would tend to discourage tanking and so discourage loading the roster w minor leaguers. So that's an option for a new rule proposal if there is significant resistance to restricting the active roster to current MLBers.

In one roto league of mine, we have a rule where you can include minor leaguers, which dont necessarily have to have any MLB experience, as active keepers but they lose their rookie status and count as 1st-year contract players. You could propose a new rule like this and extend it to any minor leaguer who is ever activated on your roto roster.

Personally, I dont think I like the dynasty format because it takes way too long to build a competitive team if you dont already have one. And because many other owners could end up feeling the same way, it could lead to heavy turnover.

[Ken]

I understand the complaint, but this could also be addressed via additional rules. Maybe set very achievable AB and IP limits, and if they fall under minimums they lose their 1st rd pick they tanked so hard to get?

I agree with these ideas. There are similar rules in place already, the problem is the league not following its own rules in my opinion.

I do this to a certain extent in my own dynasty team. Any farm guy that gets 1 AB or IP immediately gets promoted to my bench, even if they're sent back down. So I have Josh Smith 2B TEX, Ethan Small SP MIL, and T. Davidson SP ATL all on my bench, but we have 10 bench spots so it's not a major clog of unusable players yet. I'm in 1st of 20 teams right now, so it isn't a rebuild strategy.

I agree and don’t have an issue with that on the bench

From my view, the only advantage these guys get from tanking in that messy fashion is the 1st rd pick. I don't see hoarding marginal prospects (guys promoted then sent back down usually have warts) as being hugely beneficial in the long run.

I disagree. One guy being hordes for free is Oneil Cruz for example.

My advice: ignore for rest of season as best you can, knowing the consequences are fairly marginal. Attempt to address the rules loophole in the offseason, if not with my suggestion, I'm sure there's a reasonable solution.

Good advice

Also, attend to your other dynasty league please (lockdown). I asked in on a player weeks ago with no response (sent email, offer, and PM). No worries, just remembered now and thought I'd remind you.

I’m very active in all my leagues. You may have me mixed up with someone else. I change lineups twice a week and make faab moves and respond to trades regularly. If you ever have trouble reaching me definitely PM there are several people here who can attest I corresponded on here for trades regularly on here.

[Teenwolf]

The thing I will say about dynasty leagues is that everybody has wildly different concepts of how to build a team. In Lockdown, some teams make huge deals to acquire superstars, but then they're stuck with a top heavy team without depth to compete or prospects to build from. Complete teardowns seem overly... destructive. I haven't seen the appeal, from the dynasty teardowns I've witnessed. We have another owner who dumped his entire team of useful guys for prospects from his favorite team! That's it, he just wanted to limit himself to 3% of the available players and prospects and make sure he doesn't let any escape. Obviously, this is an extremely difficult route to contention. We don't play in 30 team leagues, so his talent pool is going to lag behind. But as our brilliant commissioner (Frae) told me at the time when I complained "everybody gets something different. Some guys want to win, others just want to own their guys."

I have an approach that emphasizes either track record or observable breakout paired with opportunity, and de-emphasizes prospects. By that I mean that I trade away prospects and 1st rd picks for known assets, then rebuild my farm with FAAB, wait for my prospects to break out, then rinse and repeat. This year I traded a projected end of 1st rd pick for a high 2nd rd pick maybe 8 spots lower overall, plus Blackmon, as one example.

Brash and Ynoa aren't going to be hugely valuable long-term, in all likelihood. So I don't think the strategy is very helpful, overall. If they were good prospects, they'd break their rookie status quicker. O'Neil Cruz is a blue chipper, but I think he's the exception not the rule. Most up and down prospects hold less long-term value than an average producing regular, since the bust rate is over 50%. But i couldnt fully evaluate unless you named all the up and down guys. So what I'm trying to say is, this strategy is probably more of a 'lifestyle choice' issue than a competitive advantage. Some will run their teams in ways you disagree with, but if they paid, it's their right to mess it up the way they like, for better or worse.

Lastly, yeah I'm probably confused on which owner hasn't responded. I thought it was a team you co-owned with Byron, but maybe that's a different Ken.

[Ken]

Some will run their teams in ways you disagree with, but if they paid, it's their right to mess it up the way they like, for better or worse.

I agree with this point, but I fear my question in the thread has nothing to do with it.

The issue is that the league is being run in a way that says the written rules for a brand new league are irrelevant, it's just whatever the commish decides was his previous intent. That's a terrible, terrible way to run a league in my opinion. I'm asking for opinions as to what you would do.

Above, Feral answers the question at hand:

"That is the rule and if they don't want to play by the rules then either quit or stay in a league that doesn't play by the rules. It sucks but you knew that."

[Teenwolf]

I agree with this point, but I fear my question in the thread has nothing to do with it.

The issue is that the league is being run in a way that says the written rules for a brand new league are irrelevant, it's just whatever the commish decides was his previous intent. That's a terrible, terrible way to run a league in my opinion. I'm asking for opinions as to what you would do.

Above, Feral answers the question at hand:

"That is the rule and if they don't want to play by the rules then either quit or stay in a league that doesn't play by the rules. It sucks but you knew that."

You could also see it another way.

Commish intended more roster flexibility than the written rules. This makes sense because policing rosters is one of the biggest jobs a commish will undertake. Writing it so there's no policing makes sense to me, as you dont want your commish taking on extra work needlessly. The commish is looking for a solution to appease you, as he mentions changing the constitution in the offseason as a sign of good faith.

I don't think anything has been mishandled intentionally, and I see a willingness to address the issue after the season. Remember that the first year of any league is going to involve feeling out the rules, and just appreciate that everyone is trying different strategies to see what works. In 16 team mixed, it's shallow enough that you shouldn't be terribly worried about guys getting a few extra prospects. Your league goes 400 prospects deep, my dynasty goes 500. Nearly every player I've highlighted in the dynasty breakout thread is someone I've acquired for a few FAAB bucks or a very late pick (i dropped 14 prospects to be able to use draft picks, nobody else dropped more than 6, iirc), many of which are likely available for you. Unless this owner is an extreme talent shark for prospects, you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Fun discussion though. Good luck.

[Gregg]

You could also see it another way.

Commish intended more roster flexibility than the written rules. This makes sense because policing rosters is one of the biggest jobs a commish will undertake. Writing it so there's no policing makes sense to me, as you dont want your commish taking on extra work needlessly. The commish is looking for a solution to appease you, as he mentions changing the constitution in the offseason as a sign of good faith.

I don't think anything has been mishandled intentionally, and I see a willingness to address the issue after the season. Remember that the first year of any league is going to involve feeling out the rules, and just appreciate that everyone is trying different strategies to see what works. In 16 team mixed, it's shallow enough that you shouldn't be terribly worried about guys getting a few extra prospects. Your league goes 400 prospects deep, my dynasty goes 500. Nearly every player I've highlighted in the dynasty breakout thread is someone I've acquired for a few FAAB bucks or a very late pick (i dropped 14 prospects to be able to use draft picks, nobody else dropped more than 6, iirc), many of which are likely available for you. Unless this owner is an extreme talent shark for prospects, you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Fun discussion though. Good luck.

I pretty much agree with this.

I would add that it seems you are having fun...ish.

I am in a couple of new only leagues that I am struggling with. They make trading and FAABing very hard. This leads to making a rebuild a long process. In addition the cost is not cheap.

The auction was fun very fun. I have decided to play out my first year and most likely will stay for a second. I will then decide if it is enough fun to stay long term (they have been around a long time).

I think if I am in your shoes I would see what the Commish has in mind for rule changes in the off season. I would also encourage you to have a cup of coffee and conversation in the off season to talk about your concerns (which in my eyes are very valid).

[The Feral Slasher]

You could also see it another way.

Commish intended more roster flexibility than the written rules. This makes sense because policing rosters is one of the biggest jobs a commish will undertake. Writing it so there's no policing makes sense to me, as you dont want your commish taking on extra work needlessly. The commish is looking for a solution to appease you, as he mentions changing the constitution in the offseason as a sign of good faith.

I don't think anything has been mishandled intentionally, and I see a willingness to address the issue after the season. Remember that the first year of any league is going to involve feeling out the rules, and just appreciate that everyone is trying different strategies to see what works. In 16 team mixed, it's shallow enough that you shouldn't be terribly worried about guys getting a few extra prospects. Your league goes 400 prospects deep, my dynasty goes 500. Nearly every player I've highlighted in the dynasty breakout thread is someone I've acquired for a few FAAB bucks or a very late pick (i dropped 14 prospects to be able to use draft picks, nobody else dropped more than 6, iirc), many of which are likely available for you. Unless this owner is an extreme talent shark for prospects, you shouldn't have much to worry about.

Fun discussion though. Good luck.

I tend to be hard core about following rules. Perhaps some slack could be given since it is a new league and is getting its footing. But I would not wait untilnthe off-season to have a discussion. I would talk to the commish right away and express concerns and get assurances that from here on out rules are rules. That might satisfy me...i just hate not following laid out rules and once is too much, but if I was comfident it was a one time thing and I liked the league I would probably stick aroumd

[Gregg]

I tend to be hard core about following rules. Perhaps some slack could be given since it is a new league and is getting its footing. But I would not wait untilnthe off-season to have a discussion. I would talk to the commish right away and express concerns and get assurances that from here on out rules are rules. That might satisfy me...i just hate not following laid out rules and once is too much, but if I was comfident it was a one time thing and I liked the league I would probably stick aroumd

He has talked to the commish. Commish stated will address in the off season.

[The Feral Slasher]

He has talked to the commish. Commish stated will address in the off season.

Well fine...if Ken is ok with that. I wouldn't be

[Gregg]

Well fine...if Ken is ok with that. I wouldn't be

Over the many years I have played in several different leagues Rules changes are done in the off season. I know this is more of an interpretation of the rules but it will involve solidifying the intent of the rule. Sometimes (especially if the league is fun) we might want to show some grace and patience for the betterment and growth of the league. So I understand waiting to the off season.