Dual Franchise League Season 30

Moderator: Palmtana

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

BDWard

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 9:44 am

As I said when queried last league, this is the only non-keeper theme that I've ever been in that penalizes managers for success from one season to the next. My suggestion to group managers in divisions by finish was based on random team selections and NOT on our current selection process of placing the managers with the best record at the bottom of the team draft list.

To place successful managers at the bottom of the draft list AND put them in the same division would be a DOUBLE PENALTY for success.

It's hard enough to make the playoffs from season to season in ANY ongoing league. To give the playoff managers bottom picks and to place them in the same division would be the double whammy, starting them off with 2 strikes.

Placing playoff managers in the same division only works for me if team pick order is randomized each season.
Offline

piloneus382

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:20 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 9:47 am

DEDball wrote:My Post didn't register

Attempt #2

Are we rating players?
I thought not because there's no waivers.
But how do I find out if someone else is planning on using a
player of mine that's no longer with the Cubs and Sox?
They're all difference makers and budget breakers!.....Doug



The site makes you rate players but it doesn't mean anything since all of your players are excusive to you through the draft process anyway.

You can only use a player who has a card for your 2 franchises, and the players highest salaried card determines which team gets first dibs on him. (ex. Andre Dawson is an Expo and not a Cub because a Montreal card has the highest salary).

If you don't have first rights to a player you could reach out to the owner to ask. If that owner hasn't rostered that player after the first nights games you may pick them up as a Free Agent (standard FA fees apply)
Offline

Denorien

  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:08 pm

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 9:56 am

pacoboy wrote:2 exceptions where you can break this rule: 1) you trade for a player ( 1 trade only ) and 2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.


2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.

If this is true, can I use it to construct 'extra' trades and other 'off-the-record' agreements with other teams? Of course, since I will never admit to it, you'll never be able to prove it.

I don't think 2) should be allowed. Teams own their players based on highest salary, etc. There shouldn't be a wiggle.
Offline

DEDball

  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:26 pm

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 9:59 am

Believe it or not, I think I've got it! Thanks
Offline

FALCON29

  • Posts: 2299
  • Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2013 12:59 am
  • Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 10:02 am

BDWard wrote:As I said when queried last league, this is the only non-keeper theme that I've ever been in that penalizes managers for success from one season to the next. My suggestion to group managers in divisions by finish was based on random team selections and NOT on our current selection process of placing the managers with the best record at the bottom of the team draft list.

To place successful managers at the bottom of the draft list AND put them in the same division would be a DOUBLE PENALTY for success.

It's hard enough to make the playoffs from season to season in ANY ongoing league. To give the playoff managers bottom picks and to place them in the same division would be the double whammy, starting them off with 2 strikes.

Placing playoff managers in the same division only works for me if team pick order is randomized each season.

I'm okay with leaving the draft sequence and the random division alignments the way they are now.

As Bernie suggested, maybe it's time to do away with the POST/EXP designations and just let everyone try it' perhaps for season 31 and see how it goes.

Another thing I'd like to try is forcing you to pick a stadium where one of your two teams played. Again, a suggestion for another season...
Offline

pacoboy

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:45 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 10:33 am

Absolutely love the STADIUM idea.

Now, where’s MEAT to finish this ?
Offline

BDWard

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 11:03 am

Denorien wrote:
pacoboy wrote:2 exceptions where you can break this rule: 1) you trade for a player ( 1 trade only ) and 2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.


2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.

If this is true, can I use it to construct 'extra' trades and other 'off-the-record' agreements with other teams? Of course, since I will never admit to it, you'll never be able to prove it.

I don't think 2) should be allowed. Teams own their players based on highest salary, etc. There shouldn't be a wiggle.


I must respectfully disagree with Steve. The DFL rule has always been that if the highest priced card owner doesn't want a player who played for more than one franchise, that the other franchises with rights to the player could use the player if the highest priced card owner gives permission prior to the start of the season, or if permission isn't granted, after completion of the first series of the season. Of course, merely because a rule is long standing doesn't necessarily make it good, but in this case the purpose of the rule is to give other managers with rights to a player the opportunity to use the player in the event the player is not being used by the owner of the highest priced card. It's a good rule.

Let's give a potential example involving Steve's Tigers team. Detroit owns the highest rights to Colavito. Cleveland also has a card for Colavito, but it is lower priced than the Detroit card. Cleveland can claim him after the first series if Detroit doesn't use him if Steve gives no permission to use him prior to the start of the season. Cleveland owns the highest rights to Mossi. Detroit also has a card for Mossi, but it is lower priced than the Cleveland card. Detroit can claim Mossi after the first series if Cleveland doesn't use him if Cleveland gives no permission to use him prior to the start of the season.

Now let's take it a step farther. Under the rules, Detroit and Cleveland make an agreement where Detroit gives Cleveland permission to use Colavito and Cleveland gives Detroit permission to use Mossi. Under the rules, this is perfectly legal and it is NOT a trade, since both teams own secondary rights to the players involved. It is merely picking up a player to which the manager has a right to claim. Note that this type of transaction would be perfectly legal even if no trades were allowed, as again, it is not a trade.

For players carded to more than one franchise, the rule has always been "use them or risk losing them." I think we should leave the rules the way they are regarding rights to players.
Offline

Denorien

  • Posts: 575
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:08 pm

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 11:14 am

BDWard wrote:I must respectfully disagree with Steve. The DFL rule has always been that if the highest priced card owner doesn't want a player who played for more than one franchise, that the other franchises with rights to the player could use the player if the highest priced card owner gives permission prior to the start of the season, or if permission isn't granted, after completion of the first series of the season.

For players carded to more than one franchise, the rule has always been "use them or risk losing them." I think we should leave the rules the way they are regarding rights to players.


If this is the commonly understood rule and applies to all, then it works for me.
Offline

pacoboy

  • Posts: 1182
  • Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:45 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 11:16 am

Where's MEAT ? :)

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30
Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:52 pm
1) Meat - Cardinals
2) HarmonK - Yankees
3) Piloneus382 - Giants
4) Toine------Dodgers
5) pacoboy - Reds
6) Falcon - Braves
7) PDixon -Indians
8) DEDball - Cubs
9) Mike282 - Expos
10) BDWard - Red Sox
11) Treyomo - Phillies
12) Denorian - Detroit

12) Denorien - Seattle
11) Treyomo - Mets
10) BDWard - Athletics
9) Mike282 - Brewers
8) DEDball - White Sox
7) PDixon - Blue Jays
6) Falcon - Marlins/D-Rays (1st time choosing them)
5) Pacoboy - Angels
4) Toine--Orioles
3) Piloneus - Rockies
2) HARMONK - Padres/Dbacks
1) Meat

--------------------------
-----------------------Royals
-----------------------
Astros----------------
----------------Rangers/Senators (1962 and after)
----------------Twins/Senators (1961 and before)
Pirates----------------
Offline

piloneus382

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:20 am

Re: Dual Franchise League Season 30

PostThu Jun 04, 2020 11:18 am

BDWard wrote:
Denorien wrote:
pacoboy wrote:2 exceptions where you can break this rule: 1) you trade for a player ( 1 trade only ) and 2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.


2) the guy who owns the highest card doesn’t want him.

If this is true, can I use it to construct 'extra' trades and other 'off-the-record' agreements with other teams? Of course, since I will never admit to it, you'll never be able to prove it.

I don't think 2) should be allowed. Teams own their players based on highest salary, etc. There shouldn't be a wiggle.


I must respectfully disagree with Steve. The DFL rule has always been that if the highest priced card owner doesn't want a player who played for more than one franchise, that the other franchises with rights to the player could use the player if the highest priced card owner gives permission prior to the start of the season, or if permission isn't granted, after completion of the first series of the season. Of course, merely because a rule is long standing doesn't necessarily make it good, but in this case the purpose of the rule is to give other managers with rights to a player the opportunity to use the player in the event the player is not being used by the owner of the highest priced card. It's a good rule.

Let's give a potential example involving Steve's Tigers team. Detroit owns the highest rights to Colavito. Cleveland also has a card for Colavito, but it is lower priced than the Detroit card. Cleveland can claim him after the first series if Detroit doesn't use him if Steve gives no permission to use him prior to the start of the season. Cleveland owns the highest rights to Mossi. Detroit also has a card for Mossi, but it is lower priced than the Cleveland card. Detroit can claim Mossi after the first series if Cleveland doesn't use him if Cleveland gives no permission to use him prior to the start of the season.

Now let's take it a step farther. Under the rules, Detroit and Cleveland make an agreement where Detroit gives Cleveland permission to use Colavito and Cleveland gives Detroit permission to use Mossi. Under the rules, this is perfectly legal and it is NOT a trade, since both teams own secondary rights to the players involved. It is merely picking up a player to which the manager has a right to claim. Note that this type of transaction would be perfectly legal even if no trades were allowed, as again, it is not a trade.

For players carded to more than one franchise, the rule has always been "use them or risk losing them." I think we should leave the rules the way they are regarding rights to players.


As long as neither player involved in this type of transaction has a 3rd team of eligibility.
PreviousNext

Return to Individual League Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests