So if I have the following 5 players/seasons...

1945, 1947
1916, 1918
2000, 2002
1999, 1997
1945, 1943

Why couldn't I use either team in round 1? X = 2 regardless.

Ya, I don’t get what red is saying. There is no “base team”.

I also don't follow redcped's point

I see my misunderstanding, probably because I've been too busy to actually build this yet. I was thinking of the Round 1 team as determining all the years and that you wouldn't be able to just flip-flop them, but now I am seeing what you're saying that it doesn't matter.

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 stadium, what is the ruling on stadiums that are the same stadium, but changed names?

Ex. In 95 the giants used “Candlestick”, in 96 the giants used “3 Com”. The park is the same, however the name just changed.

For purposes of the rules, would they be considered different stadiums, thus not legal for this theme?

I would assume that counts. It's the same ballpark, even though the name is changed.

Posted by Jtpsops on 4/26/2020 12:59:00 PM (view original):
I would assume that counts. It's the same ballpark, even though the name is changed.

My assumption was the same, just didn’t wanna get screwed if my team makes it to round 2 and my assumption is wrong ha

I'd allow that as long as it is the same physical park with the same park ratings (i.e. +2 for doubles, etc.)

This is my biggest problem with the 110mil. It is the salary cap situation. So your basically looking for players with really similar salaries in 2 different seaons, but those small differences can make your 2nd team over the salary cap.

Anybody have any advice how they handled this?

I would suggest starting with a baseline of players you definitely want for both teams, and then plugging the gaps after that.

and if you can identify players you want who have four or five consecutive usable years, then you have a bit more flexibility to meet the salary cap.

Posted by skinndogg on 4/27/2020 2:12:00 PM (view original):
This is my biggest problem with the 110mil. It is the salary cap situation. So your basically looking for players with really similar salaries in 2 different seaons, but those small differences can make your 2nd team over the salary cap.

Anybody have any advice how they handled this?

Don’t be afraid to get a little...creative. This person has a really good SP year followed by a ridiculous RP year, this pitcher has a really good RP year followed by a ridiculous SP year etc.

I think the challenge of it is part of the point, and I spent more time on this league than any other (except fo maybe the 140m), remaking it a number of times, and changing the number of years a couple times as well.

Reminder that the first roster deadline is next Sunday (May 10th). You must have at least 2 teams entered by then

The first deadline still ain’t here!?!

I can’t stop tinkering with my teams.

June hurry up!

Speaking of tinkering.... that 180M "variable cap" theme is madding. Really having a hard-time getting that 25th player in. I need some more plate appearances. I have enough for a $3.9 million player (assuming I draft < 200 PA's). But there aren't really any sub-200-PA guys that expensive and I hate leaving money on the table. So if I draft a player with over 200 PA, I only get $1.9 million to spend and the player quality drops significantly.

After tweaking players here and there to try get a roster I liked, I finally gave up and added a $4 million relief pitcher... so I probably have too many IPs and not enough PAs.

This was a brilliantly designed theme, ozomatli.

Posted by schwarze on 5/6/2020 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Speaking of tinkering.... that 180M "variable cap" theme is madding. Really having a hard-time getting that 25th player in. I need some more plate appearances. I have enough for a $3.9 million player (assuming I draft < 200 PA's). But there aren't really any sub-200-PA guys that expensive and I hate leaving money on the table. So if I draft a player with over 200 PA, I only get $1.9 million to spend and the player quality drops significantly.

After tweaking players here and there to try get a roster I liked, I finally gave up and added a $4 million relief pitcher... so I probably have too many IPs and not enough PAs.

This was a brilliantly designed theme, ozomatli.

Not to give my writeup away too much, but it starts out looking like one kind of math problem and evolves into a number of different math problems all at once. Remember to show your work for partial credit!