|
Post by geoflin on Feb 4, 2024 15:32:21 GMT
Please vote for 1 of the options
|
|
|
Post by popeye46 on Feb 13, 2024 23:04:34 GMT
i would have voted no keep it same with the ability to replenishment of rosters during season.
|
|
|
Post by geoflin on Feb 13, 2024 23:09:21 GMT
Ed - you can vote that way, that's what option 2 is. You can change your vote.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Feb 27, 2024 20:19:04 GMT
If I'm understanding this right, only 4 votes count (so far) for expanding the minor league rosters to 10? And 16 against?
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by geoflin on Feb 27, 2024 20:46:04 GMT
I see it as 11 against changing the rules and 9 for changing. If changing the rules gets more votes we should have another poll with only the first 3 options. Then those who voted against changing the rules would get to vote again for how they will change. Maybe others disagree with my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by waters96 on Feb 27, 2024 20:59:37 GMT
I think you should accept the results as final, whichever of the four choices has the most votes.
|
|
|
Post by jumpngeorge on Feb 28, 2024 1:40:51 GMT
I voted to keep the same rules, but in part because I believe it will change other parts of the game in unexpected ways. If we expand minor league rosters, we should cut Faab for example. With another 50 minor leaguers tied up we’re probably only using Faab for inter league trades. As to roster replenishment… you not have to make Neely drafted players unavailable, but you might also want to take minor leaguers traded to the other league out of the pool.
|
|
|
Post by geoflin on Feb 28, 2024 13:44:26 GMT
If we get to that point I agree re minor leaguers. It's easy to write the rule - only those players eligible for the minor league draft in March/April are eligible to be claimed as roster replenishment players.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Feb 28, 2024 14:32:47 GMT
So if I would like to expand the rosters but not replenish, how should I vote?
|
|
|
Post by geoflin on Feb 28, 2024 14:34:42 GMT
Option 1
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Feb 28, 2024 14:38:10 GMT
If I vote option 1 , then I'm taking a chance that the replenishment thing might get enacted. I would then be voting against my own interests. So Im leaning towards no change then.
Chuck
|
|
|
Post by geoflin on Feb 28, 2024 14:46:36 GMT
Depends on what happens to my thought above regarding how to handle the possibility that votes for change outnumber votes for no change but no single option for change gets the highest total votes. If my proposal is adopted and the total votes for change are the majority we would vote again for what type of change. If no change gets more votes than the combined total votes for change then there will be no change. So if you vote for no change that would also be a vote against roster expansion, if you vote for roster expansion there's a chance that roster replenishment could happen.
|
|
|
Post by chuck on Feb 28, 2024 18:37:37 GMT
OK, I'll vote for expanding our minor league rosters only.
|
|
|
Post by shoelessjoe on Mar 2, 2024 16:20:55 GMT
I voted to keep the same rules, but in part because I believe it will change other parts of the game in unexpected ways. If we expand minor league rosters, we should cut Faab for example. With another 50 minor leaguers tied up we’re probably only using Faab for inter league trades. As to roster replenishment… you not have to make Neely drafted players unavailable, but you might also want to take minor leaguers traded to the other league out of the pool. Apparently, my friend, you're under the impression that either there aren't 100 prospects to prop up our 10-man minor-league rosters, or there isn't sufficient quality beyond 100. From experience, I can unequivocally report there is plenty of talent. And, if you select intelligently, attrition form minors to majors is gradual and not as if you're replacing 1 though 10 in any single season
|
|
|
Post by shoelessjoe on Mar 2, 2024 16:22:46 GMT
Geoff, I suggest that if minor-league rosters are expanded that the A5 through E1 be dumped so that the value of all minors are similar ... I suggest $1. Has seemed odd that just because a player is selected first, he is the most expensive.
|
|