-
Absolutely. I agree it's best for the league when owners do their homework to receive the best possible return they can in a deal, but it's the evaluation of that return that is completely subjective (and the key to conflict).
-
I'm sure this will get lost, but let's not change this league. Let's just try to do a better job at offering trades, explaining needs, and being slow to decline trades. Can't we just do that?
-
All we can hope is that the availability of superstars is announced publicly & that sellers take their time to field the best offers. But that time is also subjective; a team could receive tons of offers in a short window and make a decision quickly
-
You're suggesting that those teams shopping superstar players should announce each offer they receive publicly? How else would you know they did their homework? You can't know, so the process is blind (as it should be).
-
the "work" is not blind or subjective, it may be unenforceable. If every owner gets a chance to participate its all good.
-
Nearly one year later: WGW essentially traded Trout, A. Russell, and Giolito in early 2014 for McCutchen, Seager, Cole, and Pollock. Not bad at all...
-
Agree. Just keep in mind the "best" deal can still come in April, and the "work" we hope each team does is blind, subjective and unenforceable.
-
the problem is when those guys are moved without doing the hard work of checking in with everyone re: what you can get. No rule edits are going to address that, just owners doing the work of shopping
-
But will that end the outcry when the Trout's, Kershaw's, etc. are traded in April by those rebuilders who are doing the right thing? I think that may be the key issue Jed's proposal was trying to address
-
If the message to those requesting more parity is simple "get better", I'm perfectly fine with that. Current rules are equally accessible to all teams, and that includes salary, loans, superstars, prospects, etc
-
+1 on Durhams comment. The "tankers" we're exactly right and optimizing their strategy. Penalizing them makes no sense. As I said yesterday, bigger long term problem are the teams that perpetually get caught in between
-
If that's the case no team would be complaining about parity or current rules. I agree with it for the most part, which is why I'm fine with no rule changes. However, if something minimal can be done to increase engagement, I'm very open.
-
No, the reason is that most of the teams in the league are mediocre and never had a chance to win in the first place. The two teams that "tanked" are the ones that did the right thing.
-
All the impact MLB talents floats to the top while all the rebuild assets sink to the bottom. I think setting a very attainable (12,000) point minimum would slow that process some, without dictating hoe owners run their teams. You can still easily rebuild
-
One of the reasons 2014 was a two team race by July 1 was because several other teams were in full tank mode all season. All the impact MLB talent got shifted quickly to just a couple of teams.
-
In four seasons our league has scored an average of 187,360 points per season (all teams). There are only so many points that can/will be scored in a single season.
-
The benefit of setting a minimum score is not to narrow the gap between 1st place and 12th. The benefit is that more team in the entire league will be closer to first (thus, "parity"). Here's why:
-
I don't see any value in making sure the last place team finishes closer to the first place team. Is there really a difference in losing by 8,000 instead of 10,000? How does that make the league better?
-
The average points scored in 2014 by all 12th place teams was 12,400.
-
Setting a league minimum score of 12,000 points would enhance the "parity" of the league without restricting rebuilding efforts. But I'm also fine with doing nothing. It's hard to appease all concerns.
-
With the possible exception of the early sell-offs, I have no problem at all with what Knights and PPI did, despite their low point totals. Both were active and did their best to set themselves up for future seasons.
-
I'm against any rule change that restricts a team's ability to rebuild. Attempting to quantify whether a team is trying hard enough to meet a fabricated, subjective standard is appropriate, IMO.
-
We can certainly debate the 13,500 threshold, but I think the concept is sound, and easy to implement. Should simultaneously reduce full-scale tanking while also slowing the rate of early season mega-deals, without micromanaging how teams play the game.
-
2015 Rule Proposal: Any team that fails to score 13,500 points in a given season (< 4.0 P/IP x 1,500 IP + 4.0 P/G x 1944 G) will receive $5 extra arbitration dollars placed on one player on their team, as voted on by the league. Thnk about it...
-
I want all teams, including those who just have bad seasons (poor player performance, injuries, etc.) to compete as aggressively as possible at all times. I think I have a very simple idea that addresses both this idea of "tanking" and "superstar loans".
-
Let's be honest - the only reason I scored 20,000+ points this season is because Knights scored < 9,500. I'm not blaming him for tanking (perfectly in the rules to do so), but that imbalance from #1 to #12 is what leads to that lack of seasonal parity
-
I should restate my objective: It is not to penalize the last place team, it is to penalize "inactivity", with activity defined as: aggressively improving your team by all means during the entire year (trades, waivers, lineup management, etc.)
-
There's a difference between completely tanking and fielding a competitive team during a rebuild.
-
I don't see what penalties for full tanking accomplishes except incent more teams to wind up in the middle ground finishing 7-10th year after year, which isn't good for the league
-
I wish we could trade right now!
-
I already have next year's pre-season power ranking blurb written for Chiefs: "Will finish 2nd place."
-
Also, can anyone else say they increased their point total by 1,100+ in each of the last two seasons? I had 1,709 in '12, 18,273 in '13 & 19,373 in '14.
-
Observation from the all-time standings: Second and third place this year scored more points than first and second last year, respectively. Trey kinda dominated all of us this season.
-
If any new rules are imposed for 2015, I'm much more interested in some sort of penalty for ending the season at the bottom of the standings. Winning should be enough incentive, but I'm starting to think there should be penalties for full tanking.
-
The two reasons to flip superstars as early as possible are 1) "early pickings", and 2) reduced injury risk. If you take away #2 it's going to make it that much harder for rebuilders to acquire key assets via trade, and that won't help the parity.
-
A possible unintended consequence of putting a rule in place that prevents the trading of superstars (or $400+ salaries) in April is that early season-ending injuries to players that rebuilders hold specifically to flip could have severe consequences.
-
I do understand the desire to slow down the rate of trading superstar players in April, but I agree with EP that that can be addressed with more due diligence when shopping players.
-
Chiefs makes a good point that those teams that have been rebuilding in 2014 are going to be the same teams that want/need big $ in 2015. Because everyone has equal access/opportunity to $, I don't see a need to change anything.
-
Updated All-Time standings. Durham still in the lead...http://bit.ly/1nwvPde
-
Congrats to Lucky, Chiefs, and Durham for their top 3 finish in this year's table...I mean, standings! Regardless of salary cap, you guys crushed the rest of us. Kudos!
-
So, the teams who traded $200 in salary before June want to implement a rule that restricts other teams from acquiring too much salary? Am I missing something, or is the fix here extremely simple?
-
this league has some issues, but ultimately it's not the rule changes that will address them. My opinion only of course.
-
Finally, as we've discussed ad nasaeum, if owners aggressively shop their assets we don't wind up in a situation where a bunch of studs get given away at the start of the season
-
And it seems in many seasons we have teams who don't understand whether they need to rebuild or not, false hope in my mind leads to the issue you're talking about
-
It seems as though the competition issue goes away as owners understand how to build their teams a bit better; this offseason will be a good test, whether the rebuildiers overpay for players who are going to be cut or not
-
Simple difference of opinions. Obviously it worked for you, and I understand why you would be in favor of it. I just dont think it's best for the league's competition or enjoyment. My opinion.
The Syndicate 💣 on
September 28, 2014 11:44 PM
-
In MLB, the markets aren't equal (NY vs. KC, example), so because the Yankees have greater access to "extra" capital, a luxury tax might make sense. But that isn't the case in Ottoneu. Everyone has equal access at all times, and equal opportunity.
-
"The discrepancy in salary caps make it extremely difficult to compete for the title." - If only some teams had access to that extra salary, I'd agree. But all teams have equal access to $500, right?
-
The trick is, what type of penalty. Extra arbitration dollars assigned? A player voted off after arbitration? A reduction in salary cap to start the next season? Not sure...
The Syndicate 💣 on
September 28, 2014 11:04 PM
-
We try to be realistic as possible, if so, there should be penalties just like the mlb luxury tax. If you cross the $500 threshold, a penalty...$550 another...$600 another, etc...
The Syndicate 💣 on
September 28, 2014 11:01 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages