-
I see your point Dave. Third should pay more than 6th. No qualms with cutting out payouts to 6th 5th or even 4th I am suggesting that we take a percentage from 1st and 2nd and give some of that to a second half pot for best second half team in the bottom six of the standings. taking a little cash from the top and giving it to the bottom should not stifle the top while giving the bottom something to do in the 2nd half.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 29, 2016 2:25 PM
-
I'm with the Ivory Tower on the payouts and arb coupons. I don't know if we should pay top 3 or top 4 though.
-
That didn't work out well....
18,374
18,004
17,958
17,890
17,779
17,578
-
And to me upping the money we pay into the league isn't as big of a deal as making 3rd place mean something more and 4th-6th meaning nothing. Here are our projected standing point totals currently:
19,324
18,782
18,374
18,004
17,958
17,890
17,779
17,578
17,344
17,107
11,484
10,465
There are 6 teams that could've made a run at 3rd but there is little incentive to do so.
-
And as Roberts' snarky hashtag points out that might've come off not as I intended. Basically, we need to look at why we're even discussing making changes to the format. Trying to force competitiveness is almost impossible but I think upping the money and using the arbitration coupon system would help dramatically.
-
#professorspracaleivorytower
SKnack Pack on
July 29, 2016 12:35 PM
-
And honestly I am 100% in the bag for implementing all 3 things they use in Brinkmanship
-
I would suggest everyone read the article I just posted before we make some rash changes to the economic landscape of a game that is basically an economics lesson.
-
http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/can-you-force-your-league-to-compete/
-
It's still not addressing the problem because you're paying our half the league
-
Great idea Chad. Would you want to reward the team that has the most points for a hitter and most points for a pitcher?
Hotel Larry on
July 29, 2016 11:38 AM
-
I think most of us in this league don't play for the money so I would like to propose a change in the pay out structure that reduces some of the money up top but frees up 15% of the pot to pay out as some form of incentive to keep teams interested in the second half. 1-30%, 2-18%, 3rd-15%, 4th-12%, 5th-10%. The other 15% could be paid out in some way to promote competition even at a 10% payout the fifth place team would still pay $60 if we keep the current $50 buy in. What do you guys think?
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 29, 2016 11:19 AM
-
http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20160805T1905&p0=263&msg=Matt+Duffy+Returns&font=slab
-
...Something else Harambe and Donald Trump have in common besides gold plated testicles.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 28, 2016 5:25 PM
-
I just watched that whole video and laughed the entire time. #FuckHarambe he never paid no taxes.
-
Brought me to tears. 2016 sucks. #sorryforharambe
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 28, 2016 4:58 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pJvWgeijb0
-
I'll write it up but that's one option. I don't think we're really understanding what this will do to the ability to rebuild though and are being coreactionary. Trey Baughn is coming out with an article on the Brinkmanship league on Friday and their 3 alterations to the rules that league that actually help speed up rebuilds that I think we should all read.
-
It would be our regular $400 cap w/ $500 hard cap on top of it, right? And no going over $500 or a penalty for going over?
-
It just makes the cap space a more valuable commodity. Penalizing teams for going over the cap the next year doesn't work because there is probably going to be turnover and nobody would want to take over a team at a competitive disadvantage. If anyone has any other ideas we can put them all in a google form and vote at some point. I'm working with some of the OttoGraphs guys on possible ways to make it work but I like the idea of only being allowed to move $50 in cap space.
-
Yeah I like that idea, interesting.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 27, 2016 9:23 PM
-
Salary cap floor* meaning teams can only trade away $50 in cap space so that becomes much more valuable commodity. It would also mean that a contender wouldn't be able to just go to one owner for all of his trade needs unless salaries were being matched.
-
The problem we run into at a $500 cap is we're still putting a control on something that I don't think should be controlled because in essence it restricts a person on how to spend whatever money they've invested in playing in this league. I actually think the answer is having a salary floor.
-
Actually we should have a discussion for and against the different proposals. For example, I am actually not a fan of multi year penalties because money is paid on a single year basis. I would much rather vote yes on a hard cap of $500 than try to carry over penalties to the following year
-
So we I think we should have a vote on the salary cap stuff for next season. I can type up a proposal tonight in a Google Doc.
-
Dave is an unforgivable sell out's trade block has been updated!
-
For a utility player or worker.
Hotel Larry on
July 26, 2016 5:44 PM
-
Is Daniel Murphy elite?
-
Happy Alex Bregman day. Dave's spreadsheets confirm that he'll hit for the cycle tonight.
-
Standings should be updated now
-
The stats counted in the live stats but not in the standings yet. An email has been sent to get it fixed.
-
It doesn't appear to me that they counted yesterday's stats. Do you guys think something is off there?
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 23, 2016 10:24 AM
-
Oh no penalties would take effect this season. Any rule change would begin in the 2017 season and would not affect anything that has already gone down.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 5:57 PM
-
When you start at $390 in 2017 you can only add up to $100 in salary before being hit with the 10% penalty again. But to institute that this season would not be fair at all. We can't begin a season under one set of rules and then get penalized going into next season or I would have had a completely different approach to roster building as I am sure Justin would have as well.
-
Ok. I was in favor of it when it was first introduced and I still am in favor of it.
Hotel Larry on
July 22, 2016 4:36 PM
-
Changing the loan system in terms of a hard cap would hurt teams rebuilding more than the top teams. A penalty system is interesting but you have to allow for some overlap. I would be in favor of something like a cap of $500. For every dollar over that $500 cap you take your salaries you get hit with a 10% penalty. So if you go to $600 that will be $100 more than the cap of $500 meaning you will only have $390 to spend on your roster the next year.
-
The Arbitration Coupon system works this way:
Based where you fall in the standings you get either $0, $1, $2 or $3 off of whatever arbitration is allocated to your team. After the arbitration period ends you have 24 hours to send the Commish the arbitration dollars you'd like removed. You can only have arbitration dollars removed and you can't lower the salary of a player not hit in arb. It's pretty simple and shouldn't add much work at all
-
Hence Dave's fear that he may have unleashed a curse on Arrieta.
-
The overarching theory is that i have the touch of death (SEE: Bird, Capps, Pollock, Bassit, Altherr, Pence, Martinez, Peralta, Tropeano, Ross, Kershaw, Lewis, Davis, etc.).
More specific to Dave and I, within a week of our first trade, Wade Davis and Matt Carpenter both went down, and then Kyle Lewis tore his ACL this week. So there's speculation that there might be some sort of correlation between injuries and trades between Cubs and Cardinals fans involving players from their favorite teams.
-
I'm fine doing the extra work on that if it would help balance competition. I just want there to be many teams out there that have a shot at being #sorryforwinning2017
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 4:17 PM
-
Is that like the coupon system? I think the coupon system is interesting, but it seems like a lot of extra work for the commissioner.
Hotel Larry on
July 22, 2016 4:10 PM
-
Also, I have really liked most of the ideas so far presented. I think we have to blend monetizing final standings, setting some limits or penalties on loan amounts and some form of arbitration offset system.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 3:29 PM
-
I've spoken with a few of the league members about ways to prevent the two mega team situation in the future. I really want to fix this before the season ends so lets try to come up with solutions and schedule votes and make this league great again.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 3:23 PM
-
When I meant someone would get a good deal I meant to say if you're interested in Gray, Wainwright, Upton, or Abreu let me know because I'm going to cut them and start the full on rebuild now. After they pass waivers they will obviously be a lot cheaper than I would have to pay to keep them so maybe it would interest some of you guys more at lower prices. If anyone is a potential buyer of them and has not let me know, let me know. They can be had cheaply.
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 3:22 PM
-
Interesting article on Kershaw.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/dodgers-acknowledge-clayton-kershaws-season-could-be-over-011202371.html
Hotel Larry on
July 22, 2016 3:09 PM
-
I am curious about this theory Pace and Dave...
Hoo Lee Puk on
July 22, 2016 2:05 PM
-
I think I might trade him for Wainwright just to test our theory, Pace. Also as Arrieta insurance.
-
Chad's team will soon be re-named Beaucoup Cap Dollars.
-
I was waiting to see if this would start happening in our league. I am about to cut a $42 Greinke in 52 because I can't trade him and will start stocking up on lotto tickets.
-
Maybe we should prioritize payouts among 1-3 or 1-4 finishers instead of 1-6 to incentivize finishing well even if it's clear you can't win. That's also what I meant about playing the game better. I think Dave and Fowles outplayed and out lucked us to run away this year and we have to draft and trade better to keep that from happening too.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages