-
My concern is with league integrity - just because you can't see for sure whether some teams may have been constructed differently this season, doesn't mean it's not possible. Teams were still build over the course of this season using one set of rules.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 2:05 PM
-
we all have to make payroll decisions. in MLB salaries can increase from year to year and teams have to compensate for it. just because one team's strategy is to pick up a bunch of cheap young guys doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. salaries go up.
-
The debate rages on but what's important is that we have a poll in place to help decide this and we're just waiting on a handful of teams to place their vote. The debate is good but the poll is the only way we'll settle this.
-
But being penalized less should be a reason not to implement at all, not a reason to wait a year. That will help parity
-
What hasn't been said (maybe Jed alluded to it) is that this rule should help push even more players into the draft pool, which really helps rebuilding teams
-
Right, I don't think those specific examples are valid reasons as to why we should wait a year
-
my rebuttle continues to be that a) I'm still not entirely convinced there are specific examples of who this would have altered trades this year, and b) it is the off season, the very best time to make a rule change
-
I dont think that Votto will see many dollars thrown at him...Miggy, probably. But even then, those guys probably wont go for much more than they cost this year and you can still win them back
-
I do see EP's point about not making a rule change in 2013 because it feels retroactive to how you've been building your team in 2012, but
-
WGW, you asked me for specific examples. I gave them to you. Now you're saying "yeah, but you're still better off". So I guess the examples didn't matter after all?
-
Lucky, that's the exact point I made -- everyone CAN receive $33, but only me and a couple other teams actually will; a number of other less well constructed teams will be penalized less
-
The new rule would seem to penalize those teams with several high salary studs grouped together wihtout an obvious vote off. Makes sense why Chiefs (and myself) may see the biggest negative. But on principle the rule makes more sense long term
-
You have built an incredible team of cheap talents and people realize that, so you will get some extra cash thrown at you, but even then, you will still be way below market value on 90% of your team
-
Yes, I agree with Wood - this is a winning rule change for EP. While it's true Strasburg and Sale could go up a bit, the big benefit is that Trout won't be getting voted off, and EP will have a say in whether to keep him or not. Seems a worthy offset
-
on the open market.
-
It is not true that each team can receive $33 in total inflation. That is definitely the max, but there's not enough money to go round so that everyone gets the $33
-
EP, this rule appears to help you more than anyone...sure you will get some extra salary increase to Sale, Strasburg, etc and big time to Trout. But this salary increase will NOT be bigger than you just losing Trout to voteoff and having to rebid on him
-
Also, I hope Niv improves the message board this offseason. It's nearly impossible to navigate through this POS the way it is.
-
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.
-
WGW, do with that info what you will, but those are two very specific tangible examples
-
so, let's please not claim there aren't specific examples, there are plenty. And they shouldn't matter b/c the CS example demonstrates the danger of in season rule changes
-
Third, it is also likely that unlike I had planned for (losing one player), multiple of my players (Chris Sale, Yu Darvish, Strasburg) may see unexpected price increases which were impossible in the old system
-
Second, each team can spend $25, but each team can RECEIVE $33 of increases. As the owner of Mike Trout, I am going to receive more salary increases than other teams
-
Trout is the extreme "no-brainer" case. Otherwise, are you really going to build your team based on what 11 other owners might or might not do to it in October? Sounds like a losing strategy.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:42 PM
-
First, we've been over it before, but for the last time I will repeat that this is a change to rules previous agreed to for the 2012 teams
-
It's also highly questionable that arbitration is as predictable as people are making it out to be. Moore over Bautista, Alex freaking Avila over Jacoby Ellsbury.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:41 PM
-
Why would we delay it? How is this going to negatively affect yours or anyones team for NEXT year alone. Someone needs to give a specific example, otherwise we delaying the inevitable to a system that more people prefer
-
It is not comparable to a retroactive points change because I don't think anyone did or did not make deals that would have changed the championship outcome of this year.
-
yes, and now we're talking about when to make it
-
Anytime change happens, it will affect the way things have been done in the past and the way things are done in the future...that is the point of change. A super majority has decided to make this change because the other system was widely hated
-
in the business of deciding which retroactive changes are ok and which aren't
-
operate under the construct their teams; that some other owners don't feel the same way is fine, but the other owners I would expect at least do admit that this is a change. The purposes of the CS example is illustrative that we shouldn't necessarily be
-
The point is that they're each rules that affect the composition and construction of your team; that you see the injustice of changing one but not the other is the problem; we need to be respectful of teams that want certainty in terms of the rules they
-
Now who wants to override the trade deadline and talk deal? ROFL
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:16 PM
-
With a single-player vote off who then gets a $5 discount, the impact of vote-off on a really well stocked team is minimal. IMO.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:12 PM
-
To me it's pretty clear that the rule change would work toward parity, making life easier on rebuilders and harder on projected contenders. I don't see how it could be otherwise.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:11 PM
-
Bad analogies as this has zero bearing on point production. With EITHER system you will be rewarded for stockpiling bitchin values.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 21, 2012 1:10 PM
-
or maybe let's add an extra -30 for CS, that affects everyone equally, it just happens that Lucky has 15 extra CS against his closest competitor so the lead would now be gone
-
Yes, EP, I was going to say something similar - like, if the salary cap were reduced by $50. Just because a change is *applied* evenly doesn't make its *effects* even.
-
If we change the points associated with HRs by tripling them and applying the additional points to the 2012 season, that "affects everyone the same", that doesn't mean its a good idea
-
The second part of that is incontrovertable, of course, but I don't think we can be confident in the first.
-
And it impacts everyone the same, so no one has had any more time to plan for it than another owner
-
It essentially changes the way a successful roster can be structured, albeit in ways we probably don't fully realize yet.
-
+1 to that, Knights. But I also disagree with the premise - I feel like very little analysis is going in to the statement that everyone will be impacted pretty much equally. Is that likely? Perhaps. Certain? Definitely not.
-
I don't buy the argument that because no one team will be impacted more that we should change the rule we've been operating under since league inception before owners have a chance to plan for it.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 11:59 AM
-
I get that...but I don't think any one team/owner will be helped or hurt more than anyone else and to me, the sooner we change the vote-off, the better
-
Bidding $401
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 11:25 AM
-
Plus, I want a shot at Trout.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 11:25 AM
-
I hate the current system and the new one will benefit me immediately with EE, but waiting is the right thing to do.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 11:25 AM
-
To change those rules this off-season basically applies them retroactively - it should be implemented next offseason, so next year teams can build with that process in mind.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 21, 2012 11:25 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages