-
Bill I actually see it the polar opposite way: The teams that were long-term contender this year are likely to get piled on by the other teams. Personally I will be much more likely to throw $3 at the 1st place team than at the 10th place team,
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:34 PM
-
can we vote on top 3 finishers having only $350 budgets? it's only fair, it applies to everyone
-
Let's say Trout gets $30 of the $33 total added to his salary, making him $50. Strasburg gets $3. Isn't the value of Trout @ $50 better than no change to Strasburg and trying to win Trout again @ $65 at auction?
-
the idea that a player is a no brainer keeper at his current price, but a disastrous cut at x+$5 makes no sense to me, it's not as if value is that granular
-
or put yet another way, of the $275 of inflation dollars this new rule will add to salaries, it seems fair that the last place team will get $33 of them (12%)
-
I totally disagree with that point. My team will be punished much worse than EP. I have at least 6 players over $25 that I'd love to keep. Adding just $5 to each of those would crush me, force me to throw several back.
-
so great, let's retroactively help those teams and punish the careful ones. I fully look foward to next year's September vote where we vote to decrease inflation so I can keep my stars
-
Yes, any one single player on your roster could go up by $33, max
-
so in essence, for those teams that blew it out to win this year, without regard to what might happen, great move because you won't be punished as much as I will be since I was building
-
Yes, an one single player could go up by $33, max
-
since people won't bid their teams up
-
also, we've been focusing on me as the beneficiary, but of course if every team has $25 to allocate and can allocate between $1 and $3 to player, the BIGGEST beneficiary will be teams without much in the way of value players
-
Knights point is clear about Trout: the old rule guarantees EP's remaining salaries stay intact. However, the new rule guarantees he has the option of keeping Trout for likely below market price. Big benefit.
-
Let's be clear, any player can go up by $33
-
I fully understand the hesitancy to enact from a procedural standpoint. That makes sense to me. That's why a vote the only way to settle it. However, being in favor of the rule, I'll do my best to petition for it, as anyone else can
-
Yes, under new rule each could go up by $11
Caimans 🐊 on
September 18, 2012 5:24 PM
-
The procedural argument is a strong one, but I really like this new system and will be sorely tempted to vote for it.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:23 PM
-
The awesome thing about it is that it may cause you to make unforeseen cuts because of more evenly spread per-team inflation. But that's not so awesome if it's happening a month from now.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:23 PM
-
My argument against it though is that the impact is minimal, and may actually help some of the owners against it. I'm never against making a league better, despite the timing. I'm open to making good changes anytime
-
I'd prefer the change immediately because I HATE the old rule, but I agree there should be a process and I'd be on board with implementing this NEXT offseason.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 18, 2012 5:22 PM
-
Actually Tulo Hosmer and Kershaw could all increase by $11 apiece. Right?
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:21 PM
-
..per team allocating the $.
-
Trout being voted off GUARANTEES the rest of his roster will cost a certain amount - this new rule could potentially have players other than Trout cost more than Enrico planned for.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 18, 2012 5:21 PM
-
I don't have the ability to stack the deck. Just arguing for a rule I'm definitely in favor of. However, to me the argument about in-season rule changing is the strongest, not the impact. I can understand that.
-
I have to agree with Enrico. I LOVE the new rule, but implementing this offseason is potentially punishing teams who planned for a certain process - and our last place team has the most to lose here.
Caimans 🐊 on
September 18, 2012 5:20 PM
-
I quite honestly don't know which way I would vote, but the rolling out of new features in late September is beyond dumb to me.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:20 PM
-
I love the change, but agree we need a full season's notice.
-
if people want to switch to this rule, we should vote and if it carries, it should begin as soon as the new season begins (ie, November 1st, the beginning of the 2013 season, not November 1st 2011, the beginning of the 2012 season
-
Re: Tulo, Hosmer, Kershaw - that's not how the rule works. Teams only get $3 to allocate to each team, total. That means at most each of these guys could go up by $1 each
-
the season is progressing. I would expect owners to be up in arms if in September we voted to make saves worth 20 points instead of 7 or whatever, that it would be applied equally to all teams doesn't mean it proportionately affects all
-
For me personally I spent the entire year refusing to trade Doug Fister because I thought he would be my sacrifical lamb. So I would have conducted 2012 trade negotiations different, absolutely.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:19 PM
-
Our debate about this isn't isolated; looks like it's been going on in the comments section of the original post since it was announced this morning. Plenty of arguments for and against.
-
Trey with all due respect, you are obviously in favor of this rule and you are stacking the deck in its favor. I have provided numerous examples of the impact of the rule change but they are irrelevant, the question is changing the rules of a season as
-
How about Tulo gets $5, Hosmer gets $4, and Kershaw gets $10? That means 3 players I can't keep instead of 1.
-
I love the change top to bottom, but the timing of its launch is just baffling to me.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:17 PM
-
I think the predicted impact on one's roster is beside the point. It's more of a procedural issue. Like Bill, I consider the vote-off to be the endpoint of the 2012 season. Not a big fan of in-season rules changes.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:16 PM
-
Once they tell us when the vote off or new arbitration date will be, we can set a deadline for a vote
-
I can't say whether such a change would hurt me or help me, or make my 2012 trades better or worse. But the timing of their rolling out this feature could scarcely be worse.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:14 PM
-
It'd be good to hear from other owners. It's been stated a few times this impacts trades that have occurred during the season. Can anyone give examples of how this change has/would impact them?
-
We're talking about scrapping the vote-off rule one month before the vote-off. It would be hard to think of a dumber time to enact such a change.
Eckfords ⚾ on
September 18, 2012 5:12 PM
-
It shouldn't hurt anyone disproportionately. The rule impact is applied to everyone equally.
-
applying this rule now means we just played the 2012 season without having any idea what the rules were. That is ridiculous
-
implementing it at the end of 2013 means we play the 2012 season as it was intended from day 1, and then we play the 2013 season under full knowledge of ITS rules
-
We're still in the 2012 season, and now we're going to retroactively change a 2012 rule
-
Let's assume that this rule change hurts one team disproportionately. So the answer of the league is tough shit? Sorry team, you're screwed, too bad for you. And that applies to any rule change that can garner 7 votes?
-
The issue isn't whether the rule change helps or hurts me; it is terrible precedent to have no process governing rule changes and then willy nilly implement fundamental shifts at the drop of a hat
-
In other words, at a quick glance it's my opinion the new arbitration rules would impact Enrico the least (actually help) vs. other teams because Trout is such a unique case in point
-
I could also argue that the new rules would actually be worse for a team like mine for 2013, but I thought the original rule was so inherently flawed I'd advocate changing it now and taking our lumps.
-
I agree with Wood though the impact to Enrico is isolated because Trout is such a special case. Whether it's vote off or adding dollars, it won't make much of a difference for that team.
-
My recommendation is we keep debating it here until we know exactly when the arbitration deadline will be (and how long it is). Once known, we set a date to take a vote on whether to enact in 2013 or 2014. Again, wish there was a polling feature here.
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages