Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

I have no idea on this topic. I'm just overwhelmed with the shiny rosters of teams and players that I knew growing up.

Trying to ignore that, and make an actual competitive Strat team is going to be pretty difficult.

I do think, and I'm probably in the minority on this, that players who have cards with multiple teams, and are not claimed by their assigned franchises, should be available to other teams that have cards for them.

In that vision, folks would pick their teams , make their 21 claims, and then teams would be allowed to adjust and pick up players that had a card for that team.

If that's an unfair advantage, assign a draft pick penalty based on income.

My general idea being, I'd like to see as many players for season 1, be on teams they played for

I’d like that too, Todd. I like the teams to have a real semblance of the real franchise. I just feel that that would really really hamstring Expansion 8 teams, cause it would really dilute the Dispersal Draft for them.

And if, for instance, the Indians aren’t picked and my Red Sox could land Tiant, there’s no adequate way to compensate what the Exp8 teams lose with him not being there.

Also, we will play more than one season of this theme. I love the idea. So, we are the guinea pig league. If changes need to be made before EXP ALT2.0, we will of course make them.

I mean, I hate the idea of the Red Sox being a juggxrnaught, but if no one picks the Tribe, El Tiante is a Red Sock.

If that means they have to give up a player of similar value or get knocked for a pick, or both, that seems fair.

In fact, you could have the managers who have the first four picks set the price of compensation and then Andy could make his choice. "You want el Tiante, say goodbye to Rico and your first draft pick; What say you?"

If there was a clear, fair, objective way to do it, I’d consider it. But a subjective, case by case ruling would get messy.

At this point, I'm just throwing ideas out,

but you might also have something, where some guys are just too good to get reasonable compensation for. So guys like Tinat, who are pretty close to being compensated for, are off the table, but other guys, like Bailre, maybe they should be fair game?

IDK. I just like the idea of getting guys on their regular team if it doesn't skew the league.

Another idea, have a GA option, (which I don't like normally because I think it advantages teams that are already good), but only if your team has finished in the bottom 4 for the previous year.

The Astros get reamed by having Cruz, Cedeno and JR come out on the same year. (not to mention not having a shot a Joe Morgan, who although he doesn't have an Astro card, seems pretty Astro to me; ohhh to have a team with Wynn, JR, Dierker, and Wilson, Cedeno, Mayberry and Morgan, Watson etc.... I digress).

Anyhow, If the team is good, this is no big deal, but if they suck, why not give them the chance for getting better with guys from their own franchise.

So here's my crack at objective.

You can pick that guy, but only if it means leaving another player of similar value/time for the draft.


Still crappy?

For example, within .75 above or below value and 3 years...something like that.

Spitballing:

After Rosters determined, Expansion 8 teams can select up to FOUR players carded to them that were not selected/protected.
Top 16 can select ONE player carded to them not selected as a Franchise/protected by a manager.

That’d give Expansion8 some more options instead of losing those players to the Dispersal


As for Golden Age, I WILL say there are seasons when Franchise Pick choices are slim to none for franchises. If we went with ONE Golden Age Option for the Theme, with player giving up #1 & #3 pick when used, I could live with that. You’d in essence be giving up half your draft to use that Golden Age. That way, one time a franchise could take advantage of multiple Franchise players coming out the same season, like the Astros mention. They’d be hamstrung not to be able to get Cedeno & Richard, but it’s a hefty price.

Also, as usual, Franchises with no Franchise Pick choice in a particular season would receive a Supplemental Pick after Round 1.

andycummings65 wrote:Spitballing:

After Rosters determined, Expansion 8 teams can select up to FOUR players carded to them that were not selected/protected.
Top 16 can select ONE player carded to them not selected as a Franchise/protected by a manager.

That’d give Expansion8 some more options instead of losing those players to the Dispersal


As for Golden Age, I WILL say there are seasons when Franchise Pick choices are slim to none for franchises. If we went with ONE Golden Age Option for the Theme, with player giving up #1 & #3 pick when used, I could live with that. That way, one time a franchise could take advantage of multiple Franchise players coming out the same season, like the Astros mention. They’d be hamstrung not to be able to get Cedeno & Richard, but it’s a hefty price.

Also, as usual, Franchises with no Franchise Pick choice in a particular season would receive a Supplemental Pick after Round 1.

Can you give an example of what you are thinking? Like if Cubs don't pick Jose Cardenal, and no one drafts him in dispersal draft, Cubs could reclaim him or Phillies could claim him because he played for them?

I have a simple question regarding league set-up, something that I believe went out in the initial invite, but isn't posted in the rules at the top of this thread: Regarding draft/waivers, are we restricted to players who've worn the uniform of our teams some time in their careers, or are players available universally?

The former is going to require homework or knowledge, the latter isn't.