-
Wow, big change on the RP/SP point rules today. Have to say I'm disappointed. A big reason I pulled away this season was because of guys like Wilhelmsen, etc. that could be plugged into SP slots...
-
Ha, very true. Next year will be an all new discussion under the new system
-
anyone else excited that this is the last time we'll have this discussion?
Caimans 🐊 on
October 10, 2012 5:32 PM
-
Kicking a $48 Fielder off Jed's team does more damage to him for 2013 (in my opinion) than booting a $5 Medlen, who, if he really does score 1,000 points, can be booted next year. I'd keep a $48 Fielder, who could go for much more
-
Maybe it's a poor example, but kicking a $5 A. Hill off the Chiefs roster instead of a $49 Miggy does nothing for me and really doesn't impact Chiefs either since he's closer a 600 point player
-
I think it's just a matter of strategy and I see it a little differently. I want the very best players available in the draft to a) try to get them, and b) try not to let other teams get them.
-
I was making assumptions based on his roster. He's at $400 with 39 roster spots used. He's got a great team already assembled. You think he's going to cut Miggy, Votto or Verlander? Doubtful
-
Yes, I definitely said that. But Bats is a $30 player, not a $50 player.
-
That rationale only works if you assume Chiefs wouldn't spend $55 on Miggy. How could you know that? And to spend $55, he could bid to $60, which nobody else should be willing to do.
-
I vaguely remember Durham saying he was thrilled when a $5 Matt Moore was voted off last year, thinking he had dodged a bullet. I think you were really hoping Bautista didn't get booted, right Greg?
-
...but what if Miggy goes for $55? That's entirely possible and he's now priced out of range for Chiefs (assuming no other changes here), and it's tough to spend $50 to replace Miggy points when M. Reynolds may be the next best available 3B
-
Right. So why would you vote for Miggy?
-
I guess I just don't agree that there's much room for their salaries to escalalte beyond what they already are.
-
I think that's exactly my point about Chief's team - if you vote off a $49 Miggy, he potentially could get him back at the same price with a $5 discount....
-
Absolutely true, but I'm working off the assumption that in the off season everyone thinks they can win (optimism) and that even great but expensive players can see their salaries escalate so quickly that there's more risk not getting them back.
-
To use your example, voting one of those three guys off Chiefs doesn't mean he gets no value. He could either repurchase the same guy or have $50 more than planned on with which to buy other talent at the auction.
-
Voting someone off of a team isn't the equivalent of preventing an owner from having that person. They can still win them at auction and have $5 of salary cushion to help them do it.
-
Sounds like I'm in the minority on this so I could be very surprised after the arbitration voting
-
I really want Jurickson Profar, but I want to try to prevent Durham (just an example) from winning again even more, so I'm still inclined to vote for Bautista, who could be a 1,200 pt player again in 2013
-
In other words, this season I see the vote off more about how to derail another owner's chances of winning now than I do about trying to prevent him from building a dynasty.
-
Again, I could be very wrong, but unless there's a glaring, highly underpriced player that is an absolute steal that a team may win with if he isn't voted off, I think I'll be targeting "no brainer studs"
-
It's not so much "can I get Braun again at $50" as much is it's "I have Braun to build around and he comes with very little risk, and is worth the price"
-
The point is that you don't waste a vote on a guy who may get cut...you use the vote on a guy who absolutely won't get cut. I don't expect any of the Verlander, Miggy, or Votto to get cut, which makes Chiefs an early contender easily
-
Not really going out on a limb there...I have to cut a minimum of $60 just to get under the cap. But I"ve already stated Braun isn't getting cut. No chance. He's easily worth $50
-
exactly right, Durham. And I will bet anyone $20 that at least one if not both of Braun and CarGO get cut in January (or traded)
-
There are several months until the cut deadline. Who the best free agent hitter is in October is irrelevant. Why would you use an arb vote on a player that may get tossed back anyhow?
-
Have you guys checked out the Free Agent list recently? Beltran & Konerko the best hitters available. Doesn't inspire a lot of excitement. If I'm planning to compete (most teams will), I'd much rather see Votto or Miggy available than Aaron Hill.
-
And I'm with Enrico. I don't see how voting off expensive players in arbitration is a good strategy.
-
I can't understand why anyone would pay $60 for Trout. Or anyone.
-
your assumption seems to be that there will be more "competitive" teams next season than this year - I don't see why that would be true
-
Agree in principle that you can acquire expensive players in-season, but it will be harder next year as more teams compete deeper into the year. Players, in general, will be more expensive in 2013. Trout will be $60+ probably...
-
and, per my earlier point, it is very easy to acquire expensive players post draft
-
there's never been a player that went for $60 in two years
-
Kind of glad I snagged CarGo at season's end because if I do lose a big bopper I may just hold tight and ride CarGo and let Braun, etc. go. Can't keep 'em all.
-
Also, VERY interesting: "In the event of an arbitration vote tie, the player who was chosen by the team with the worst record (among those voting for the players involved in the tie) is selected."
-
It's sort of splitting hairs because there's no doubt Headley is also a bargain at $5, but it will be interesting to see how other owners view the arbitration. I think there could be more surprises this year than last, too
-
Like I said, last year I absolutely though voting off the guys who were the "best bargains" was the right strategy, but this year I'm not so sure. Again, I'd much rather have Votto, Miggy, or Verlander over Aaron Hill, which is the best example I can see
-
The main reason though is that I'm not guaranteed to win Braun at auction, and by losing him it means someone else gains those points, so it's a double effect in a sense.
-
Another reason is because the risk of Headley not producing value at $20+ may be higher than Braun producing at $52. In the draft, you want certainty, especially if you expect to contend.
-
Disagree, for a few reasons. One, as more teams compete, escalation increases as well. Very possible Braun would go for $60+ because multiple teams may think they are just a "Braun" away from a title shot.
-
if you were to somehow lose Ryan Braun at $52, you buy him back near the same price and the arbitration vote meant nothing. On the other hand, I would expect everyone to focus on voting off Chase Headley from your team, which you can't reacquire for $5
-
i think it's been proven hugely untrue that the only way to acquire "difference makers" is to pay in the draft for them.
-
It's entirely possible I had the opposite opinion last year going into the draft, but now, one year later, I see the "difference makers" as truly what they are, and price being less important than what I thought last year
-
...but you can be assured I'd much rather have a shot at one of Verlander, Miggy, or Votto, regardless of the draft price. I'd rather pay $50 for Votto than $10 for Aaron Hill.
-
Not to disparage another team (by all means feel free to lobby for or against any of my own players), but the Chiefs might be the best example. Aaron Hill had a great year, and might be the best deal around at 2B....
-
I could be wrong, but subtracting a stud from another team, regardless of price, is pretty effective both in helping to land him for yourself and stripping him from a would-be contending team.
-
That's what we thought last year, but then you get to the pool of available talent in the draft and you think, "I'm just one big hitter or ace away" and wish they were there.
-
geez are people thinking about the vote off wildly differently than me? I cannot believe we'd do anyone the favor of voting off a $48 player
-
I think we may all agree that the "Vote Trout" might be the easiest arbitration decision, but for which team will it be the hardest? Haven't done much analysis but WAR's team looks interesting. Fielder or Medlen?
-
I hate waiting a month long for an arbitration vote that will take me about 3 seconds per team...
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages