Firstly, I apologize if this has been covered before…
So yesterday I was thinking of how awesome my fantasy baseball keepers were and a horrible scenario crossed my mind:
Let’s say I keep Weaver for a 2 year contract and he gets his arm chopped off by a helicopter in a horrible accident in May 2011. He’s done (or, in a more probable scenario he starts to really suck and gets benched). Because I have him for a two year contract, do I need to keep him on my roaster/dl list or can I drop him, but just lose one of my keepers for 2012?
The same question goes for a player that gets traded to the NL mid or off season. If that happens, do we lose a roaster spot and have the player ghost sit on our bench or just lose a keeper but have the same roaster spots?
I know this is early to be thinking about this but champions never stop planning for their future championship.
22 comments:
The way I understand it is this - you can cut Jered Weaver whenever you want to. If cut, he would not count against your future number of keepers, however, you would lose whatever salary you paid him for the 2012 draft.
In the case of injury or demotion to the minors, I would second what Bill said. However, if a player is traded to the NL, I am of the opinion that the contract and salary should be wiped off the books... It's bad enough to have a keeper get traded to the NL mid-season, never mind still having to pay for him after that.
Huh, my assumption was that you could cut the player but he *would* count against your future number of keepers, in addition to costing you money. But I don't have a strong opinion about how it should be. I do agree with Mark that a trade to the NL should wipe him off the books.
Getting yourself traded to the NL is totally a breach of fantasy contract.
Agreed. Trades are something that have enough damage as it is without having to be a burden for future seasons.
I think the only thing up for debate is whether or not we want a player to continue to count as a keeper or not. I think it depends on how aggressive we want owners to be with keepers.
I vote no.
If we vote no then it would most certainly increase the chances of someone keeping a low priced keeper for the max amount of time because it would be such a low risk/high reward. It’s not necessarily a bad thing, but if this were Andrew 2 years ago, Longoria and Ellsbury would still be on his bench for pennies.
I don't think that's the case, given our new contract situation we're planning for next year. It may be pennies, relatively, to have to pay 10 dollars more to keep them for 3 years, but I don't think that's harmful, given the level of risk associated with it.
I vote no as well for having them take up a keeper spot if they are traded (in real life) or dropped (in fake life). Their salary stays on the books, though.
I'm glad we're starting to talk about this stuff. It gets me excited for the season.
I think we need a league Bookkeeper to keep track of contracts and keeper values, and what money is on the books and what isn't. I think it's important that someone stay on top of that, because we won't all be able to regulate ourselves. I nominate anyone but me.
Finger on nose, 'not it', etc.
So if Kate cuts Jered Weaver with another year left on his contract, she'd lose his salary the next season but not the keeper spot?
yes. otherwise it would really wouldn't make any sense to cut a keeper for any reason.
I can be league bookkeeper, I suppose. I'll probably do it with a Google doc that everyone can access but only I can change. How does that sound?
WANWAM
Alternatively, we could just add a protected page to the salary spreadsheet. It wouldn't be too much extra work for me, and it would keep all the information in one place.
I also vote no for losing a keeper spot for cutting a player (but losing his salary for the remainder of the contract length), and getting all money and keeper spots back in the event of a trade or a free agency move to the NL.
No content here! Just forgot to check "email follow up comments", so I can keep track of this and not forget about it for a couple weeks at a time.
Ooh, for a free agent move too? I'm not sure about that. I agree about the unpredictability of a trade, but there may be a little extra strategy involved in incorporating a player's real life contract status into what contract you sign them too. It should be somewhat predictable whether a player will be going to free agency or not in the next 3 years, and whether you're comfortable taking a chance on them staying in the AL.
I don't really care though. No big deal either way.
Also, what is a WANWAM?
We Are Nothing Without A McDowell (if I remember right).
I guess Free Agency is up for debate. It sounds like there is consensus about trades though.
I think it was "We Are Nowhere Without A McDowell"
WANWAM = what Bill said. Taylor's incorrect comment just proved the principle.
Hilarious. For a second there I thought I was wrong.
I'll probably put a post up about this in the next couple weeks, but I'm looking to trade for star level players, even if they're expensive ($25+ or even $30+ for the right guy). I'm loaded with cheap contributors, but don't have any real elite players.
Ahem. http://durhamplaysforkeeps.blogspot.com/2010/08/keeper-question.html?showComment=1281721443596#c3867680049935851697
Post a Comment