2013 change - mL roster & keepers

[Hitman23]

Looks like we have a lot of interest in this, so let's get it going.

The idea is to extend our mL roster, but also in turn there is an argument to increase the number of keepers. So your options are (which were neatly listed in the other thread):

5 keepers, 5 mL players (no change)
5 keepers, 6 mL players (add a mL player)
6 keepers, 6 mL players (add a mL player and a keeper)
6 keepers, 6 mL players, at least one keeper a mL draftee

On the last choice, it would be a 6th keeper who is a minor league callup that you drafted/acquired the previous season and was not promoted by you to your main roster. He would have been one of your stashed players that you would be, in the current system, forced to use a major league keep on.

Let's see how it goes.

[miko]

I think there are too many options to get 50% of the league's vote - all part of E's elaborate plan.

Out of those options I choose 6 & 6 - I would also be happy with either of the 6 & 6 options!

[ChrisRo]

Any of the 6 & 6 works for me as well. I chose the last one. I'm okay with the other one too.

[Hitman23]

I think there are too many options to get 50% of the league's vote - all part of E's elaborate plan.

Out of those options I choose 6 & 6 - I would also be happy with either of the 6 & 6 options!

if most of the vote now are for the last two than we can start over because one one detail separates them.

We got all season.

[Stupid Flanders]

Can this be explained better with examples: 1 keeper must be a mL call up from previous season who you did not promote

[Hitman23]

Can this be explained better with examples: 1 keeper must be a mL call up from previous season who you did not promote

Your 6th keeper can only be used if he is a player that you had in your minors and was called up and no longer qualifies as a minor league player. For instance, last year Hosmer could have been stashed all year. However keeping him this year required a major league keep. With this proposed rule you would have the benefit of keeping him and still have 5 other major league picks.

But this pick is limited to only players like that. You can't use the pick as your typical keeper.

[Stupid Flanders]

So only players that your team promoted in the previous calendar year?

What if miko had promoted a player in June, traded him to me in July? Would that qualify?

[Hitman23]

That would have to be a detail we can discuss if we go that route. We would need to set clear rules on how that benefit will work. We're just in the beginning stages of the idea. I think it's a good one. We should explore it more.

[miko]

So only players that your team promoted in the previous calendar year?

What if miko had promoted a player in June, traded him to me in July? Would that qualify?

Thank you for including me in your example! I got a warm, fuzzy feeling!

[ruthianblast]

So does this pass or do we need two more votes?

[ChrisRo]

Well we have 11 (more than 50%) who want 6 mL keepers, isn't it enough? I think we only need to figure out the ML keepers part.

[Hitman23]

VIII. AMENDMENTS: Rules listed here may be amended by a 65% vote of the
league’s owners (not a 65% vote of owners voting). New rules may be decided
unilaterally for the good of the league by the commissioner(s), or by a 55% vote
of the league’s owners (not 55% of the owners voting). No rules that affect
scoring can be implemented until the next season, once the draft has taken
place. No rules that affect the order of the draft can be implemented until
another draft has taken place.

This, imo, is a change, not a new rule. We need 65% of the league to agree.

We have 7 people that still need to vote. I'd like to have them.

Thanks for bumping this! I'll be back next week, sorry to have checked out. Promise to be more active after my vaca.

[Hitman23]

Those 7 votes will mean a lot actually. We have 11 in favor of the extra minor league player and 10 in favor of an extra keeper. Please, whoever hasn't voted please cast it. Your vote matters!

[Stupid Flanders]

I haven't voted because I'm still not clear about the rules...

[gdn]

If we're going to have a rule change, I'd rather it be a simple addition of 1 mL keeper and 1 ML keeper. I have no idea what that last option is.

[Hitman23]

The last option is that you get to have a 6th keeper but only if you use a player you had in your minor league system. He would have to have been stashed in the minors all season but promoted for real. Under the current rules you'd have to use a typical keep (one of your five) but this new option gives you an additional keep only for that purpose.

The rest are pretty self explanatory I think.

[miko]

I think that option is bs. It should be for any minor leaguer in your system. If I promote Mike Trout this year I cannot use that keeper on him. If I don't promote Peacock and he hits his innings limits then I don't get to use that keeper on him.

[Hitman23]

Well then vote for a 6th keeper. If we get enough people who want it we will discuss what the provisions are. Just vote what you think is best. I just threw out there what was suggested so we could move forward.

I don't understand why we can't get all 20 votes. hrmph.

[ChrisRo]

I don't understand why we can't get all 20 votes. hrmph.

I don't understand why 11 out of 14 isn't enough. We're giving too much power to people who don't vote.

[Hitman23]

Because according to the league constitution a change requires 65% of the league to vote for it.

[ChrisRo]

Because according to the league constitution a change requires 65% of the league to vote for it.

I know that's the rule. However, it doesn't make it right. Basically all polls end up needing almost unanimity, because there are always 6-7 who don't vote.
Instead of caring more for the opinion of voters (11 of 14 said they want this change after all), we're giving up on this because 6 people didn't vote, and they end up being the ones who decide this poll, despite not even bothering to express their opinion.

[Clive]

How about we only give the extra keepers to people that voted?

[Hitman23]

I know that's the rule. However, it doesn't make it right. Basically all polls end up needing almost unanimity, because there are always 6-7 who don't vote.
Instead of caring more for the opinion of voters (11 of 14 said they want this change after all), we're giving up on this because 6 people didn't vote, and they end up being the ones who decide this poll, despite not even bothering to express their opinion.

I find it as frustrating as you do but I need to uphold the constitution as it stands right now. In this case overriding the rules by using my judgment I don't believe is the right thing to do since it's not something that is important enough that requires a decision.

Plus, if I were to do that it also negates the value of those who voted no because with the additional votes there could be enough to not allow this change. Bottom line is we need 13 people to vote for a change. There is a clause in the constitution that clearly states "NOT 65% of the voters". There is a reason for that and I need to respect it. As much as it annoys me.

[DontHateOnNumber2]

I voted for no change because I feel like 5 slots are enough to make diverse choices amongst pitching and offense, but it's still small enough that those of us in this league will essentially play year-round as we follow our mL guy's progress, while also learning of new talent coming up through the various farm systems.

We good now? Lol

[Hitman23]

We good now? Lol

Thank you for voting and explaining your reasons.