would be a pleasure to have you, ratedpg! And the NO DH is running away with it so far...

in, NO DH

great to have you, lawman ! I should give you part-credit for this idea for the League you ran that was somewhat similar. That and a league that sheller runs in season 17 that has Progressive -> <- Regressive 1 season at a time that we started back in 1901/2005.

I really do not like the 3 keeper cap. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to draft for the upcoming season. With so many years worth of players in each draft there should be plenty of talent for every team to be solid every year regardless of the number of keepers. If you're worried about replacing owners you could set up a system where replacement owners received a supplemental pick or 3 between the first and second rounds based on the number of keepers on their team...

First of all- I do respect everyone's opinion.
It takes 24 to make a League, and we all have a stake and a voice in how the League is played.
I see where you're coming from & I have thought a lot about the Keeper Cap. My main reason for a 3 Keeper Cap is still for parity & viability of keeping the League going. In a perfect world if we had 24 owners committed to playing all 5 seasons, unlimited Keepers would work, but that's just not realistic. Even with 20 owners staying on and 4 new owners coming on board every season, hypothetically if everyone Keeps 3 fliers from the current era going into the next era, the top 60 eligible players will already taken before those 4 new owners have a crack at anyone. Some teams will only keep 1 or 2 guys, or none at all if they're gunning for a particular new draftee, so probalby more like 40-50 players will be off the boards come each new Season's draft. I just don't want to get in a situation where we can't get any new owners because too many guys are already off the boards and the League is less attractive to them than if they had some really good high talent options to draft from.

Also, at a $140 Mil Cap, how many fliers that won't produce much at all in the current season do you really want potentially hurting/limiting your current roster to hold over to the next season? Sure some players will have peak seasons in both eras, but you have to think about the net negative of drafting too many players for the future if it'll hinder your chances to be competitive in the current season. Ultimately, the overriding factor I think to limit Keepers to 3 is the overall parity of the League and viability of still attracting new owners from season to season. Still plenty of strategy on which 3 players you target to draft as Keepers for the next era, who pulls the trigger on them first and when you draft them. If you draft more than 3 studs for the next season, heck- make a trade with someone for a current player, or for a future Draft pick. I'll leave it open for discussion, but I've really given it a lot of thought and think 3 Keepers is the best way to ensure some parity and draw for new owners, yet still make the Draft & Keep factor a fun and competitive aspect.

I don't see any problem with having "the top 60 eligible players" already taken. Probably half of the actual top 60 won't have even been around to draft in the previous season. I'm not going to leave over this rule, but 3 is so low that it really removes any significant progressive element from this league and makes it just another draft league with a couple of keepers thrown in.

Jump on in ! Play Season 1 or play all 5...

Season 1: 1885-1899 and 2000-2009

Then Keep up to 3 players going into...

Season 2: 1900-1909 and 1990-1999

Count me in man. No dh.

I am in. No DH.

Oh man... the party has arrived! Welcome Tainter & jbar ! Help yourself to whatever's in the fridge... I'd better send the wife out for more beer :-))

count me in

cool man, welcome to the League & glad to have you, Smoothling

Yo todd, I was on here to propose a set up a bit different to even out the years and then I noticed that josh had made pretty much exactly the suggestion I had in mind...so if its still up for a debate/vote id be in support of josh's suggestion... just my opinion...

appreciate the feedback, but I kind of like the set up the way it is with the Progressive / Regressive & year ranges...