2007 ASL Survey

If this is voted in, it would not be effective until the 2008 draft.

Which of these should be the order of the reserve draft...

2 - 4th Place-5th-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-3rd-2nd-1st

4 - 5th Place-6th-7th-8th-9th-10th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st (this is what it was in 2006)

5 - 6th Place-7th-8th-9th-10th-5th-4th-3rd-2nd-1st

Comments regarding this question:
"I agree that 5th (as current defined) is better than 4th." -- Matt Dodge who voted to give the 4th place team the 1st reserve pick

[Since I'm sure someone will ask, the reason "5th place" is the winner here is because if given the choice of 5th vs. 6th, the people who voted 4th obviously would chose 5th place. That gives 6 votes to 5th place and 5 to 6th place. -- Chris Malinowski]

Deja vu all over again...and again...and again...and again...

I’m certain that the original Rotisserie book allows "Ultra" leagues to expand more than just two players onto their active roster for September Roster expansion. This is a reward for those teams that have built some sort of noteworthy reserve. It also makes scouring the box-scores in September that much more fun.

(Yes, I know what you're thinking, but it's almost like a tradition to vote on this every year.)

9 - Leave it at two, that is as high as I can count.

    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 3 players.
    1 - Allow teams to expand by up to 4 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 5 players.
    0 - Allow teams to expand by up to 10 players.
    1 - Allow teams to call up as many players from reserve as they want in September.

Comments regarding this question:
"By September I usually don't have more than 2 healthy, breathing, reserve players in the majors anyway." -- Matt Dodge

8 - Leave it the way it is. Between the freeze date and the draft, if one of your keepers is traded to the AL, you lose him and get nothing in return.

3 - Let's change it as written above.

Comments regarding this question:
"I for one am opposed to changes in the rosters after the freeze date, for any reason. (If you are allowed to make changes, then it is not really a freeze, just sort of a slushie.) Therefore, anything that reduces the number of changes to a roster after freeze day is OK by me, so allowing the owner to keep the traded-to-the-NL player is a step in the right direction." -- Matt Dodge

I still think dumping is somewhat out of hand in this league, and the most outrageous trades always seem to be teams packaging an "asterisk" player with one or two excellent players who are in the $20-$24 price range. I think a lot of those overly lopsided trades could be eliminated if we lower the "asterisk" value from >=$25 to >=$20.

5 - Keep it the way it is. Asterisk players are players with a salary of $25 or greater.

6 - Good idea, lower the salary of asterisk players from $25 to $20.

Comments regarding this question:
"I grudgingly agree, now that YPCM has exposed the 'target-the-dumpers' strategy by focusing on those $20-24 players. I also think that with this change, we should also increase the number of received asterisks that a team would be allowed." -- Matt Dodge

Last year we added a rule that required you to post players you were discussing in trades a week in advance of the trade becoming official.

Should it stay or should it go now?

1 - It could still work. Let's keep it.

10 - I've seen enough already - good riddence.

Comments regarding this question:
"What I had hoped for with this rule just plain did not work. I still think that there are owners that seem to trade with each other much more frequently than others (which may be just based on proximity, access and friendliness), and the original hope was that exposing the trade process to some open scrutiny would improve the overall quality of trades. Anyway, time to put this choice behind us." -- Matt Dodge

As best that I can tell, the service is just $99 total regardless of the # of teams. All-Star Stats is $40/team + $50 for the evaluator service = $530 total.

I am in 2 leagues using TQStats, and both use the $99 “Platinum” service.

This includes automated FAB processing and can include (although we do not have these in the ASL rules) contingent FAB bidding and waivers. It also requires the decision on cutting a player at the same time as the FAB bid, so there would be no waiting until Tuesday to designate the player to be replaced with a successful FAB bid.

It does offer a chat area, owner messaging on the website (which works much better than allstarstats and both of my leagues use extensively), and player news updates via RotoTimes (which I will admit, is not quite as good as RotoWorld, but seems to be complete enough – my biggest gripe there is it does not automatically launch a second window when you click on a player link).

In my leagues, the Commissioner has always entered the draft day rosters, so I honestly do not remember whether it will allow each owner to enter his own roster following the draft. I suspect it can though, because I do remember that it allows the commissioner to select which transactions the owners are allowed to complete – for example, some leagues I am in allow owners to enter trades themselves, while others require the Commissioner to enter them. Either is possible in TQStats. It can also do position eligibility checking, and will not allow you to activate a player that is on the DL.

They also have a “toys” section, that features Final Standings projections (based on today’s rosters and/or based on draft day rosters) and a Trade Evaluator (impacts on the standings when I trade Scott Kazmir for Ichiro). It will also show you the last time each owner logged in (so you can see who is active and who is REALLY ignoring your trade offers!).

I have had at least one league on TQStats since about 1998, and was a commissioner using their service for several years. Their product works very well and for my money, is the best value out there.

The downside is, of course, the unknown...at least, unknown to all of us except Matt. (Also, all of the rosters are already in All-Star Stats. Entering keepers is easy as pie since the players are already on each team, so it only takes a couple minutes per team to delete the players you didn't keep. All keepers would have to be re-entered. Not a big deal, of course.)

6 - No, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Keep All-Star Stats.

5 - Yes, this would add $431 to the prize pool, and it has Matt's endorsement. Let's try TQ-Stats. If we don't like it we can always go back to All-Star Stats in 2008.

Comments regarding this question:
"My vote can be swayed on this matter if we want to discuss it further. I abhor change but if Matt says it's okay then I am willing to consider it." -- Drew Gallagher

"It would be pretty bad if I didn't vote for my own suggestion." -- Matt Dodge

"I actually voted to change to TQ Stats and then changed my vote to All-Star Stats when I realized that my access to TQ Stats is blocked at work. Not having access to the stat service from my work computer would really be a drag. Also, I wonder if Drew, Stu and Perk would not have access either because their company (Cincinnati Insurance) uses the same internet content filter ("Smart Filter") than my company (First Energy) does." -- Chris Malinowski

This suggestion is to utilize a salary cap. The cap would be set at $325, which is a common cap for a $260 roster. The cap would be in addition to the "asterisk" rules already in place.

The idea is that this forces the active roster to include enough cheap players that you can’t trade them all away, and you have to be judicious about how many of those high dollar players you acquire.

(That $325 would be solely for your active roster, of course.)

8 - No, I don't like this idea. Keep the present trade restrictions (asterisk rules, etc.)

3 - Yes, I like this idea, add a "salary cap" of $325.