-
3/3 is fine; would love to get to a slow draft one day though. Could easily use this message board. One team nominates one player per day; all bids have to be posted here throughout the day. Highest bid at midnight wins player. Just a thought...
-
Yea I wasn't really serious with that post, the original scheduled 3/3 is preferable to me. 2/1 is fine too, but my focus is really still on football until 2/4
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 7:48 PM
-
I've tentatively reserved March 3rd @ 8 EST for our draft Lucky Strikes on 01-11-2013 08:31 PM
-
3/3 seems very reasonable to me.
-
we do, I believe it is 3/3
-
Don't we already have a draft date?
-
In general I think the more information we can get prior to drafting the better, but my March is also looking very difficult schedule-wise. I'm open to whatever, basically. Just not January.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 6:55 PM
-
I don't care when we draft.
-
Can't do 2/1 and not sure why we'd want to. You guys know that drafting earlier doesn't make the season start earlier, right?
-
I'd be up for the earlier the better, but we'd need to confirm with everyone. 2/1 works for me actually, that night. This is where a poll feature would really come in handy.
-
I vote for 2/1 at midnight
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 5:23 PM
-
+1, while I would reserve judgment until I saw the proposal, I'm a big fan of there being an actual live auction, but happy to have that auction as early or as late after Jan 31 as people want
-
Logistically pretty easy. Not sure I'd vote for that approach (though I'd be fine with an early draft).
-
I suggested looking into this "slow" draft approach last year but there were concerns. I'd love to do it if we can find a way to make it work for everyone. Wonder if there's a way for Nate to create a google doc and each team nominates a player daily
-
plus, definitive difference in live bidding vs blind bidding
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 4:18 PM
-
I'm sure there is, but I do think it would be a mistake not to have an auction every year
-
Is there a way to to 'draft' with no one in it, then just do auctions the rest of the way? Or would people hate that suggestion? I think it would be cool to select a few players each day to draft from now for the next couple weeks.
-
hah, I'm happy to draft now, I think Durham is the one (or one of the ones) that have wanted to draft as late as possible
-
+1 for drafting now....but Enrico would veto.
-
Wish there was a "slow draft" option to get us through till Pitchers/Catchers,,,
-
I agree. Let's roll.
-
+1 for auction now
-
I'd like to see a conclusion to this discussion, so I propose the auction starts in a few hours
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 1:25 PM
-
Year one in our league had made overpays though. $47 youkilis lol
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 1:19 PM
-
Also, did I miss a post about the addition of "SABR Points" as a scoring system?
-
I still think the inflation argue is sound, and I think we'll see it, but maybe it hasn't been as evident because we overcompensated a bit in the 2nd year auction from the 1st year uncertainty of value/prices. Who knows.
-
Year One is a total crapshoot - no one really knows how to value players. I'd suspect that leagues realize in Year Two that they overspent in One, and thus try to restrain in the 2nd year auction. Maybe that's what we did, I don't remember, but could be
-
2012 was that league's first season.
-
Good question, no idea. It's a top 20 league according to nate though.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 12:56 PM
-
Is this year two or three of that league?
-
I'm in LW league 168 and I can tell you that there were way more crazy contracts in that league than this league has ever seen. Like multiple $60 players, although many have since been cut.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 12:47 PM
-
In other words, did we restrain ourselves better in year 2? Less competitive teams should equate to less inflation, but our league was near the top of Nate's analysis
-
My inflation expectations are in the minority in our own league but based on comments coming in on today's Ottoneu post, other leagues are seeing it, expect it. Wonder if we have less than others is a reason our league was top 10 in competitiveness in '12
-
Which is why I'm not even toying with the idea of Profar right now.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 12:35 PM
-
Yeah that's a good point, inflation in this league has always applied way more to rookies and sophomores than it ever has to established stars. Santana, Montero, Lawrie, Hosmer, Moore, that type of "breakout" player has always seen the most overpays.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 12:35 PM
-
Although I can't really say I restrained myself when I paid nearly $80 combined for Hosmer & Harper :)
-
Not implying judgment with that quote, btw - just pointing out that we restrained ourselves last year. I don't expect this year to be significantly different. And I think the new arbitration system mitigates the long-term increase of "value" contracts.
-
From 2/6/2012: "I think several guys, including Pujols, Longoria, maybe Hanley will go $60+." ...just sayin'
-
Two owners making dumb bidding war decisions does not equal inflation
-
= dead horse (thoroughly beaten)
-
One Trout (scarcity) + 2 Willing Owners (demand) = $84 = inflation.
-
Yes, Jed, completely agree on the Trout statement. Both those owners may see themselves as just "a Trout away" from serious contention
-
If I could choose between the Gordon contact and the Darvish contract I would take Gordon in a heartbeat. I'm still highly skeptical that Darvish's looping curveballs aren't going to get hammered in that ballpark now that the AL has had a good look at him
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 11:22 AM
-
Ultimately it only takes two owners to determine a player's value. So if Trout goes for $84, that will strike everybody as overpriced except for the two owners that made him cost $84.
Eckfords ⚾ on
January 22, 2013 11:21 AM
-
I always get really excited when I look at Shoeless Joes' trading block and see a $6 Gordon on there only to be completely disappointed that is is Dee Gordon and NOT the other $6 Alex Gordon
-
I drafted Darvish in year one for $2 I think; then I traded him. Best contract in the league? I expect those types of contracts to anchor teams for years going forward as the league matures. Exceptions yes, but there are few Darvish's at auction.
-
Of course, of everyone I am counting most on there being limited inflation based on the cuts I've made - my arguments may be as biased as I assume yours to be.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:10 AM
-
You hyped the potential for inflation last offseason as well, and then... didn't happen. It's a mindset - the guys in this league seem to have applied values to players and won't go significantly over those applied values.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:09 AM
-
Going forward after this year that is potentially true - this season seems no different than last season to me.
Caimans 🐊 on
January 22, 2013 11:08 AM
-
I've staked my off season on the strategy that the best way to find true "value" significant is via prospects, but that's obviously risky.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages