beerman wrote:Open items..
1. I'm fine with either 8 or 10, my vote would be for 10 though.
2. There definitely should be some sort of buyout penalty, I'd be fine with whatever the remaining cap hit is for that player being the penalty. In most cases I can't imagine someone retiring so suddenly where someone would get stuck with a 5 year cap penalty. If someone retires I'd be surprised if they were signed for any more than 2 years.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by all qualifying players need to be signed to deals? If you mean the farm guys losing eligibility needing signed prior to the draft because of the rounds issue, I thought that was what we've been doing, that's at least how it was supposed to go last year.. You probably don't have to give them a contract in advance but I think you should have to designate whether they'll be mlb or farm prior to the draft.
4. I like 20, mainly because I'm not sure there are more than 220 worthwhile prospects. I think between prospects losing eligibility, getting injured and sucking as they move up the ranks you can probably turn over enough each year even if you've acquired 4-5 extra through the season.
1. 10, but I believe that there should be no buyouts in the off-season that utilize remaining free buyout years. What we do in my hockey league is -- you buy them out during the year if you want to use FBY and during our offseason you can buy guys out and take the whole hit against your cap the next year or spread it out evenly over x number of years. I think there needs to be a real penalty to signing bad long-term deals.
2. I don't think there should be any penalty.
3. As beerman said, this was already required. If you indicate that you are keeping someone who lost eligibility in the prior season then you must sign that player to at least 1 year deal. You don't have to choose contract length until after the draft when you can see what your roster looks like.
4. I think players should be permitted to carry more than 20 prospects but can never draft in excess of 20.
5. Fantrax is not an option, it was not well received (though they have made many changes). I think the only thing I hate more than Yahoo! is ESPN fantasy. Unless there is another option (CBS?), then I think I would be in favor of keeping Yahoo! (ugh).