Posted by magicdreamer on 5/30/2020 5:33:00 PM (view original):
The $80M was the most frustrating for me to build. Twice I thought I had a good team with my position players by searching in the set positions for a player. When I was done, I checked each position under the Util positions only to find out the player had a higher salary at a different position I wasn't using him at and would not have shown up in either the search results or the player's profile under the individual position search. That was frustrating. I think I am good now but I am still tinkering with the team trying to improve my pitching staff.

I drafted my all of starting 8 from the UTIL spot for that reason. It was frustrating, but I feel pretty good with my team right now.

Posted by ozomatli on 3/30/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):
$110M: Progressive / Regressive
No restrictions but, in Round 2, you will be required to draft a 110M team that is entirely made up of the same 25 players + or - X years. X must be the same for all players on your roster. There is no requirement that all of your Round 2 players go in the same direction (i.e. +X years or -X years) — you can have both.

Other Specifics
Seasons: All
DH: No
WW: No
AAA: No
Trades: No
Clones: No
Injuries: Turned On
Multi-team players: No restrictions (i.e., you can use partial or combined)
Ballpark: Use a park one of your players played in for BOTH seasons you plan to use them. You must use the same park in Round 2.
300K Exception: No
Team Name: Reference your number for X
Division Alignment: Random

For the Team Name in Round 1 it says to reference X. Not sure how X is pertinent it is to use X in the team name for Round 1 since for some players X may be unknown and for others they may have an option of using 2 different numbers for X and put together a valid team for round 2.

Although it would be prudent to do so, theoretically you don't have to make two teams side by side to have one ready for the second round. Some players who don't think they will make the second round may choose this option and make the best team they can for Round 1 without worrying a combination for the next round. If they make the second round, they could play with years until they find a combination that fits and/or take penalty points to make a team. I could imagine taking 0-30 penalty points and putting together a team that fits under the salary cap using X=1 or 2 as long as I make sure all the players I use in Round 1 has at least 2 or 3 usable seasons. Therefore, they would not have a number for X to use in their name.

Or, somebody may be planning on using a number for X, and then find multiple years that work with the team they had put together and decide on using a different value for X before the second round they they are planning now. For example, they were planning on using 1 but tinkered between now and then and found out they can make a stronger team using 3 or 2 instead of 1. Probably not likely but possible. Therefore their X can change.

Posted by chargingryno on 5/30/2020 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by magicdreamer on 5/30/2020 5:33:00 PM (view original):
The $80M was the most frustrating for me to build. Twice I thought I had a good team with my position players by searching in the set positions for a player. When I was done, I checked each position under the Util positions only to find out the player had a higher salary at a different position I wasn't using him at and would not have shown up in either the search results or the player's profile under the individual position search. That was frustrating. I think I am good now but I am still tinkering with the team trying to improve my pitching staff.

I drafted my all of starting 8 from the UTIL spot for that reason. It was frustrating, but I feel pretty good with my team right now.

This is something I really wish WIS would fix. I hate clicking on a player in my draftcenter and not being able to see all their seasons because of the slot they’re in.

Posted by Jtpsops on 5/31/2020 1:02:00 AM (view original):

Posted by chargingryno on 5/30/2020 9:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by magicdreamer on 5/30/2020 5:33:00 PM (view original):
The $80M was the most frustrating for me to build. Twice I thought I had a good team with my position players by searching in the set positions for a player. When I was done, I checked each position under the Util positions only to find out the player had a higher salary at a different position I wasn't using him at and would not have shown up in either the search results or the player's profile under the individual position search. That was frustrating. I think I am good now but I am still tinkering with the team trying to improve my pitching staff.

I drafted my all of starting 8 from the UTIL spot for that reason. It was frustrating, but I feel pretty good with my team right now.

This is something I really wish WIS would fix. I hate clicking on a player in my draftcenter and not being able to see all their seasons because of the slot they’re in.

Agreed. I also wish they would let you drag & drop players from one slot to another while roster building.

Posted by magicdreamer on 5/31/2020 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 3/30/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):
$110M: Progressive / Regressive
No restrictions but, in Round 2, you will be required to draft a 110M team that is entirely made up of the same 25 players + or - X years. X must be the same for all players on your roster. There is no requirement that all of your Round 2 players go in the same direction (i.e. +X years or -X years) — you can have both.

Other Specifics
Seasons: All
DH: No
WW: No
AAA: No
Trades: No
Clones: No
Injuries: Turned On
Multi-team players: No restrictions (i.e., you can use partial or combined)
Ballpark: Use a park one of your players played in for BOTH seasons you plan to use them. You must use the same park in Round 2.
300K Exception: No
Team Name: Reference your number for X
Division Alignment: Random

For the Team Name in Round 1 it says to reference X. Not sure how X is pertinent it is to use X in the team name for Round 1 since for some players X may be unknown and for others they may have an option of using 2 different numbers for X and put together a valid team for round 2.

Although it would be prudent to do so, theoretically you don't have to make two teams side by side to have one ready for the second round. Some players who don't think they will make the second round may choose this option and make the best team they can for Round 1 without worrying a combination for the next round. If they make the second round, they could play with years until they find a combination that fits and/or take penalty points to make a team. I could imagine taking 0-30 penalty points and putting together a team that fits under the salary cap using X=1 or 2 as long as I make sure all the players I use in Round 1 has at least 2 or 3 usable seasons. Therefore, they would not have a number for X to use in their name.

Or, somebody may be planning on using a number for X, and then find multiple years that work with the team they had put together and decide on using a different value for X before the second round they they are planning now. For example, they were planning on using 1 but tinkered between now and then and found out they can make a stronger team using 3 or 2 instead of 1. Probably not likely but possible. Therefore their X can change.

That never occurred to me. But what you are suggesting is that X is a variable.

I came in a little under $182M in the variable cap league. I rolled the dice a bit with pitching and went with strong defense and weak offense at one position, but I'm happy with the team. Famous last words.

Posted by magicdreamer on 5/31/2020 12:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 3/30/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):
$110M: Progressive / Regressive
No restrictions but, in Round 2, you will be required to draft a 110M team that is entirely made up of the same 25 players + or - X years. X must be the same for all players on your roster. There is no requirement that all of your Round 2 players go in the same direction (i.e. +X years or -X years) — you can have both.

Other Specifics
Seasons: All
DH: No
WW: No
AAA: No
Trades: No
Clones: No
Injuries: Turned On
Multi-team players: No restrictions (i.e., you can use partial or combined)
Ballpark: Use a park one of your players played in for BOTH seasons you plan to use them. You must use the same park in Round 2.
300K Exception: No
Team Name: Reference your number for X
Division Alignment: Random

For the Team Name in Round 1 it says to reference X. Not sure how X is pertinent it is to use X in the team name for Round 1 since for some players X may be unknown and for others they may have an option of using 2 different numbers for X and put together a valid team for round 2.

Although it would be prudent to do so, theoretically you don't have to make two teams side by side to have one ready for the second round. Some players who don't think they will make the second round may choose this option and make the best team they can for Round 1 without worrying a combination for the next round. If they make the second round, they could play with years until they find a combination that fits and/or take penalty points to make a team. I could imagine taking 0-30 penalty points and putting together a team that fits under the salary cap using X=1 or 2 as long as I make sure all the players I use in Round 1 has at least 2 or 3 usable seasons. Therefore, they would not have a number for X to use in their name.

Or, somebody may be planning on using a number for X, and then find multiple years that work with the team they had put together and decide on using a different value for X before the second round they they are planning now. For example, they were planning on using 1 but tinkered between now and then and found out they can make a stronger team using 3 or 2 instead of 1. Probably not likely but possible. Therefore their X can change.

I can’t see any circumstance where there could be multiple numbers available. The entire team has to abide by the same numbers, so to change would mean the entire team changes, and the odds of that happening and being able to field a team even remotely competitive is about as likely as me winning this whole thing lol

Since you can move each individual player up or down, it is possible. For example, if I am planning using 1 and change to 2, I have two season to choose from, + or -, for each player. It is possible, playing with every combination with each player, to come up with a useful team under the cap. And, what about the players that don't think they have any chance of making the second round so they didn't build 2 teams side by side? One of them could make it to the second round and then have to build a team later. They have no clue right now which X would give them the strongest team in the second round.

In my case, right now my X is greater than 1 but if I change it to 1, I can still field a competitive team in Round 2. However, I am still tinkering with the team so that could change. I am not saying it is likely but it is a possibility that X could be fluid.

magicdreamer makes a valid point. Including X in your team name is intentional and meant to discourage the strategy of drafting a team without considering your Round 2 roster.

Saved the hardest for the final weekend. Time consuming to draft 2 teams simultaneously at $110m. Normally I make lots of adjustments when drafting a team. Here each change causes too many ripple effects.

Posted by ozomatli on 5/31/2020 5:47:00 PM (view original):
magicdreamer makes a valid point. Including X in your team name is intentional and meant to discourage the strategy of drafting a team without considering your Round 2 roster.

Indeed. I think the whole point of the theme was to prevent exactly the things he describes. Commit to an X now, and make sure you have two teams that work.

Posted by contrarian23 on 5/31/2020 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 5/31/2020 5:47:00 PM (view original):
magicdreamer makes a valid point. Including X in your team name is intentional and meant to discourage the strategy of drafting a team without considering your Round 2 roster.

Indeed. I think the whole point of the theme was to prevent exactly the things he describes. Commit to an X now, and make sure you have two teams that work.

Exactly. It protects the integrity of the tournament. If an owner unexpectedly makes Round 2 and has no plan in place and has to put in an awful team to get under the cap, it skews the Round 2 results.

We're in good shape. Only 19 teams left to be entered (including some from the couple owners who joined the tournament late and have an extension).

Posted by contrarian23 on 5/30/2020 7:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 3/30/2020 4:55:00 PM (view original):
$110M: Progressive / Regressive
No restrictions but, in Round 2, you will be required to draft a 110M team that is entirely made up of the same 25 players + or - X years. X must be the same for all players on your roster. There is no requirement that all of your Round 2 players go in the same direction (i.e. +X years or -X years) — you can have both.

Other Specifics
Seasons: All
DH: No
WW: No
AAA: No
Trades: No
Clones: No
Injuries: Turned On
Multi-team players: No restrictions (i.e., you can use partial or combined)
Ballpark: Use a park one of your players played in for BOTH seasons you plan to use them. You must use the same park in Round 2.
300K Exception: No
Team Name: Reference your number for X
Division Alignment: Random

The ballpark restriction here is another one that I hope all owners are paying attention to - it definitely puts a restriction on your team for round 2 and I hope everyone designed their rosters accordingly. It's not reasonably possible for me to verify that every owner has chosen a valid park - unless you have chosen one that NONE of your current players played in. I've had at least one example of that in my league.

The Giants played in the same physical building in 2019. It is my intention to use that park in 2019. Right now AT&T is listed as 2016-2018 and nothing is listed for 2019. I hope that's OK.

For some reason no parks show up to 2019. So I think that should be fine.