|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Jun 7, 2011 16:57:14 GMT -5
I think eventually, for 2012, the change needs to be made from IF to CI/MI.
I would be a huge fan of 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, but I believe that would be more difficult to transition into, so CI, MI would be the most realistic option.
I am also a big fan of keeping OF, instead of changing it to RF, CF, LF...
There would only be 35 or so players capable of playing each position, and accumulating sufficient stats to be considered a solid player, and that would make trading for OF extremely difficult.
Please give your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 17:12:32 GMT -5
Definately keep the OF as is... doing the RF, LF, and CF would make life hell... wouldnt mind going to the MI/CI because it would make teams not load up on power 1B or 3B.... even field a bit.... but all the changes would need to be done next year not now.
|
|
|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Jun 7, 2011 17:24:22 GMT -5
Sorry, forgot to mention in my proposal that the change take place for 2012.
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 17:55:46 GMT -5
I would be fine with this plan.
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 18:41:57 GMT -5
No, you did mention for the changes to be made next year. I was just reinforcing the need for changes to take place next year and not this year. That was all.
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jun 15, 2011 15:56:40 GMT -5
Huge fan of CI/MI I think that change is vital for this league. As it is you can put anybody in the DH spots and I'm sure accidently or otherwise it has been done. I vote 2012 this change be implemented. Actually would vote to change it now but that wouldn't be fair.
|
|
|
Post by Larry (Dodgers) on Jul 31, 2011 9:23:03 GMT -5
Yes, we really need to go to CI/MI
|
|
|
Post by cardinals on Jul 31, 2011 10:08:17 GMT -5
I agree
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jul 31, 2011 14:42:49 GMT -5
I think this is a given (moving to MI and CI designations rather than simple IF spots)
However do we do it for next year or do we have to do it for 2013
I'm not sure if any teams would be put at a disadvantage for next season is why I'm wondering
|
|
|
Post by Larry (Dodgers) on Jul 31, 2011 14:52:17 GMT -5
Start a poll
|
|
|
Post by shully23 on Jul 31, 2011 14:57:41 GMT -5
I'd say next year and send out a leaguewide PM ASAP
|
|
|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Jul 31, 2011 16:27:45 GMT -5
This needs to be done for 2012, not 2013!! With CBS not actually have IF spots, but DH, it just makes no sense... also adds another element, which should have been involved in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jul 31, 2011 16:35:01 GMT -5
The issue would be that it wasn't in the rules and doesn't give owners enough time to play IF they had gathered up 3 CI or 3 MI to start next season.
I doubt that is the case, but wanted to put it to a vote anyways.
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jul 31, 2011 16:35:47 GMT -5
Also not sure about the 1B, 2B, 3B, SS idea since we only have 3 IF spots currently. That'd be a large change from the original rules
|
|
|
Post by shully23 on Jul 31, 2011 18:03:21 GMT -5
What about 1 MI, 1 CI, and then 1 Utility IF slot (any infield position) if this has already been proposed sorry
|
|
|
Post by ccgeno on Jul 31, 2011 18:28:27 GMT -5
i am for CI and MI positions in 2012, but to add to this i would like to see 1b 2b 3b etc..for 2013 This gives e1 a yr to work towards that.If its do able at CbS
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jul 31, 2011 19:14:05 GMT -5
So it will be 2 CI and 2 MI correct, along with C, 2 OF and 1 UTIL?
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jul 31, 2011 19:16:40 GMT -5
doubtful - not sure how we can justify going from 3 IF to 4 IF without at least a year to prepare
it would be 1 MI, 1 CI, 1 CI/MI
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jul 31, 2011 19:26:48 GMT -5
I'm all for the CI, MI, CI/MI combo. Not at all in favor of the 1st/2b/ss/3b setup. Way to many teams unprepared for that and not sure we could get prepared for that even by 2013 as teams have long term contracts to guys and some wouldn't fit that scenario. I'd say the CI, MI CI/MI is fair to go with in 2012 and after looking over alot of the teams most are already in compliance with it. Just my Opinion!
|
|
|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Jul 31, 2011 19:45:17 GMT -5
I'd prefer the 2 CI, 2 MI, to 1 of each and then a combo, since I think the 1 MI spot devalues MI quite a bit. I don't think it is too much to ask for each team to find another infielder, since most guys should have players on their bench, plus we have the draft every year to restock.
Maybe that can be for a later vote once we establish that we are definitely going to go CI, MI in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jul 31, 2011 19:51:21 GMT -5
I have no objections on the 2 MI 2 CI in 2013 but for 2012 I think 1 MI 1 CI and 1 MI/CI is fair and think everybody can get in line with it.
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Aug 18, 2011 20:30:02 GMT -5
Let's get a few more votes in here
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Aug 18, 2011 21:38:43 GMT -5
Are we gonna have another vote later on how many CI and MI? I really dont see it being a problem going with 2 of each
|
|
|
Post by ccgeno on Aug 22, 2011 21:59:04 GMT -5
i would vote 2 CI 2MI and 1 dont think that would be too far a stretch, even for depleted Giants but am building for 2 yrs away anyhow...
|
|
|
Post by Larry (Dodgers) on Aug 23, 2011 3:33:45 GMT -5
My vote would be for 2 CI & 2 MI .. I'd also prefer 3 OF & a DH..
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Sept 30, 2011 18:00:12 GMT -5
Also a final word on this would be good. I think a lot of GMs are in favor of 2 CI, 2 MI, 2OF, and 1 DH. Do we need to put this to a vote also or at least get this confirmed?
|
|
|
Post by darren on Sept 30, 2011 18:43:03 GMT -5
Also a final word on this would be good. I think a lot of GMs are in favor of 2 CI, 2 MI, 2OF, and 1 DH. Do we need to put this to a vote also or at least get this confirmed? I like this setup. Don't like the three OFers as I believe that forces the price on Outfielders up because everybody will be trying to get 3 and we all know all teams in MLB don't have 3 good productive Ofers. Gives the teams with 3 good ones a huge advantage in my opinion.
|
|