I never looked at any other option than what I used. I didn’t really think about it and didn’t really want to. I felt it was the best and easiest decision. A lower cap would’ve made it so much more difficult. 110M league

Can I use any version of 1888 Elton Chamberlain or 1918 Fred Toney?

Posted by footballmm11 on 5/27/2020 1:30:00 PM (view original):
Can I use any version of 1888 Elton Chamberlain or 1918 Fred Toney?

This was answered previously, but not added to the front page. It has to be their "stud" version. So the partial for both.

thanks

Posted by besterateam on 5/24/2020 6:34:00 PM (view original):
I never looked at any other option than what I used. I didn’t really think about it and didn’t really want to. I felt it was the best and easiest decision. A lower cap would’ve made it so much more difficult. 110M league

If he really wanted to make it interesting/difficult/maddening, he'd put in a rule that NONE of the 5 (or better yet, 10) highest paid players from the base year can be in the top 5 (or 10) for salaries in the next iteration.

That way, you couldn't just fill the lineup with guys that had similar consecutive years and flip flop them.

Posted by toddcommish on 5/28/2020 2:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by besterateam on 5/24/2020 6:34:00 PM (view original):
I never looked at any other option than what I used. I didn’t really think about it and didn’t really want to. I felt it was the best and easiest decision. A lower cap would’ve made it so much more difficult. 110M league

If he really wanted to make it interesting/difficult/maddening, he'd put in a rule that NONE of the 5 (or better yet, 10) highest paid players from the base year can be in the top 5 (or 10) for salaries in the next iteration.

That way, you couldn't just fill the lineup with guys that had similar consecutive years and flip flop them.

I mean, idk about you but I found that more challenging than it seems. Partly cause I didn't just do 1 year, but find those back to back seasons will similar salary for full team (including scrubs) was definitely a challenge

Posted by contrarian23 on 4/15/2020 10:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 3/29/2020 2:23:00 PM (view original):
$140M: Think Inside the (Franchise) Box
I have divided up the Original 16 Franchises into three boxes. You must select one franchise from each box to build your roster from. You must spend at least 40M in salary from each franchise that you select.

BOX 1______	BOX 2_______	BOX 3
Yankees	Cubs	Tigers
Cardinals	Phillies	Reds
Giants	Pirates	Orioles
Dodgers	Red Sox	Twins
Indians	White Sox	Braves
	Athletics

Other Specifics
Seasons: 1901 - 2019
DH: No
WW: No
AAA: No
Trades: No
Clones: No
Injuries: Turned On
Multi-team players: No combined seasons
Ballpark: Use a park one of your franchises played in
300K Exception: No
Team Name: Reference your three franchises
Division Alignment: Random

Just a reminder to everyone that this theme (and only this theme) prohibits combined seasons.

I expect many many owners will miss this.

Roughly 75% of the owners in my league have missed the "No Combined Seasons" rule in the 140M. Note to the other commissioners: definitely worth double checking on this one.

Posted by ozomatli on 3/28/2020 3:42:00 PM (view original):
$80M: Top Dollar
You can only draft a player's most expensive season.

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 the park that your most expensive player played in.
300K Exception: Yes
Team Name: No restrictions
Division Alignment: Random

This is the other rule that I have seen people commonly miss: home park in the 80M must be the park the most expensive player played in

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.

Posted by contrarian23 on 5/30/2020 7:45:00 AM (view original):

Posted by ozomatli on 3/28/2020 3:42:00 PM (view original):
$80M: Top Dollar
You can only draft a player's most expensive season.

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 the park that your most expensive player played in.
300K Exception: Yes
Team Name: No restrictions
Division Alignment: Random

This is the other rule that I have seen people commonly miss: home park in the 80M must be the park the most expensive player played in

That rule influenced my entire strategy for this team. It looks good on paper, but isn’t a pitching staff I normally run as a result and it’s probably the team I’m most unsure of.

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.

I picked my park and then went searching for a player who met my X requirements ... and it darn near broke me. Settled for wasting a little money just to avoid starting that process over again.

I just redid my entire variable cap team from a $181 mil team full of platoons I’ve never used to a $171 team with more players I’ve had experience with. We’ll see if that was a dumb move or nah. The lack of range was eating at me. Out is that 439 PA Ted Williams and $12 mil worth of 1B PA, and in are my tried and true Roger Connor and Rogers Hornsby.

Thanks for posting contrarian... I missed the ballpark rule. I need to fix mine.

Looks like my teams are good for the $80M/$140M themes. Since I'm still tinkering with the $110M team, I'll be sure to watch for the ballpark issue. Thanks to the commissioners for bringing this up.

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.