-
go strikes go!!!
-
Yes I am changing my vote to against, i.e. October 2013 implementation.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 26, 2012 7:43 PM
-
Wainwright, Beltran, Konerko, Latos, Swisher, among others, all will be available early this off season. Feel free to send me some prelim offers now that we can work around in October if any interest
-
Agree with WGW. Looking like the vote isn't strong enough in favor for 2013 implementation and we will wait for 2014. Seems nearly everyone agrees the rule is a good thing long term for the league. Looking forward to the change whenever it takes place.
-
I still disagree with some of the wording of the arguments, but I'm done arguing about it and really excited about the new system in 2013
-
What Knights said.
-
and its not 6-5 in favor, it's 6-5 in favor of immediate/retroactive implementation, versus 2013 implementation
-
unless Jed is switching his vote . . .
-
So the vote now is 6 to 5 in favor?
-
and WGW, a vote where the options are between changing something and not changing something, not changing is always the default choice in a tie or even close vote.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 26, 2012 3:16 PM
-
I'm on record as saying I love the new rule, but I (and apparently many others) just think you can't implement a rule that will have a retroactive effect. The only fair way to ensure this is implemented appropriately and every team can prepare is to wait.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 26, 2012 3:15 PM
-
Initially I thought maybe 2 or 3 guys wanted the status quo, but now it's looking like 5 or 6 guys. Big difference.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 26, 2012 2:49 PM
-
The against vote is the more rational, procedurally defensible vote. I'm just eager to see the new system in play.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 26, 2012 2:48 PM
-
Well there is no voting system/threshold in place, and that's a problem. Personally I don't want to play in a league where 5 owners are gonna be all salty about the sudden shift in rules.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 26, 2012 2:47 PM
-
still don't see how a 6-6 vote or potential 7-5 vote in favor of switching this offseason automatically means it doesnt pass
-
So if Chiefs votes for next year, that just about kills the initiative for next month regardless of Durham's vote. Oh well.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 26, 2012 1:38 PM
-
Yea, Trey sent me the survey link last night. I voted for 2013. Sorry guys, I must have missed this.
-
so I assume that counts as a vote against
-
Chicago's comment from 9/21 was: Someone else hit on my reasoning, but it's simple: If I had known about this new rule, I definitely would have entertained offers for Miggy and Votto in July. And now I could lose them for nothing. Doesn't seem fair.
-
I check the board many times every day. I don't always read every post, but obviously not everyone else does either. If they they did, they would have seen my thoughts on the rule change last week.
-
Ruf bomb.
-
Did anyone send an email? http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KMKHTHZ
-
I'm really not lobbying, honestly I don't think that Chicago or Durham have viewed this board in two weeks at least.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 5:26 PM
-
I'm not *at all* ignoring the fact that some teams will be disproportionately harmed -- that's exactly my point. The teams with the capacity to do the most damage the following season will be penalized the most. As it should be.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 5:25 PM
-
I don't have "two reasons for not switching", I'm not terribly against the switch, the timing is merely abhorrent
-
to keep some still-excellent values instead of the vote-off which in almost every case would cost most teams more than the $25-$33
-
It's about the parity and if teams were smart, they should put most of their dollars towards the teams that are supposed to be the best next year which you spent this year building for, as did I. I would gladly take $8 more in salary knowing that I get
-
You still have more value on your team than almost any other team even if you happen to get $8 more than a few other teams
-
we have to wait much longer than 5 weeks...we have to live with the ramifications of the vote-off for another 12 months instead of going through some growing pains with a new system immediately
-
two separate votes help narrow that down.
-
Also, why would you want a three way vote knowing that a majority couldn't be reached...the whole point of this is to get a majority on something and not continually split the leage
-
EP, your 2 reasons for not switching literally have nothing to do with timing, but rather keeping the vote-off over the new proposed system. Your argument for timing has to be the "integrity of the league" which is fine
-
ie, we'd have to wait 5 weeks for it to preserve the integrity of the system that we all agreed to in advance and paid money to compete within
-
finally, we don't have to wait 13 months for the new rule, it would take place immediately after the vote off
-
and now unlike the rest of us, two owners know they can be the difference in moving the league
-
into voting for an immediate switch. We already cooked the books by not having a 3 way vote (which Trey know wouldn't have resulted in a majority so was nixed)
-
no reason to re-debate the rules etc but the stuff you're posting now isn't true and over and above all the unseemly crap associated with changing rules that we agreed to play under this year, it seems like an effort to badger one of the last 2 voters
-
in other words, some teams salaries will go up by more than others -- and there is little doubt that I will be receiving the max $33 uplift while many teams wont
-
2nd, you keep ignoring the fact that some teams will be disproportionately harmed by the new system -- ie, each team can receive $33 in uplifts, but can only spend $25
-
in fact, the lower place teams ought to have far more value players
-
Jed, while I respect your opinions on all things, your last two points are flat wrong. There is no possible support to the statement that "the 12th place team is hurt worse than the 1st place team by current arbitration"
-
I know Enrico hates the timing of this change, but there is no good reason why he should lose Trout in the midst of a rebuilding effort. Makes zero sense.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 4:30 PM
-
It's not fair to have the 1st-place team and the 12th-place team get equally boned by arbitration. In fact, the current system inordinately penalizes the 12th-place team, which is likely to have fewer insulators/values.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 4:29 PM
-
b) we had this option dropped into our laps at a very odd time. To me it's just such a clearly superior system that I'm not content to wait 13 months for it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 4:26 PM
-
a) the current system is so unjust and stupid that it has already caused a good guy to quit the league, and
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 4:25 PM
-
It would be a very sudden shift in league protocol, but to me the extenuating factors in this case are:
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 4:25 PM
-
I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that we may implement this change so fast.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 25, 2012 2:54 PM
-
I mean if there is no way possible to close it up today, I would say at least tomorrow since that is one week out from the end of the season
-
So when are we closing the voting on this?
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 25, 2012 11:54 AM
-
I am painfully hurting myself for dropping Minor...yeah I had him at $16, but his turnaround from his dumpster-fire-esque first half has been nothing short of incredible
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages