-
You do kinda sound like a robot in that last post. Are you able to write contractions?
Plakata on
June 13, 2013 4:24 PM
-
That is correct, Molten. Down to $1 now. If I do this again in a month then there might be something to this robot thing.
-
Haha. He is reducing Montero's cap penalty
-
OK, Brand Ottonubian is some sort of fantasy baseball robot, right? Stuck in a not-that-Jesus-Montero loop?
-
I sent you a message, Pinkerton
-
my bad
-
Im still here.
Bunt Cake on
June 9, 2013 12:04 PM
-
Iorg You Glad I Didn't Say Tanana?'s trade block has been updated!
-
I'm 100% down with making this a $10 league only for owners who want to participate in the money part.
-
And out-for-the-season Joel Hanrahan's been in there for like a month since he last pitched
-
Radio silence from Pinkerton Thugs as well (who's had a DL'd Matt Kemp in his lineup for almost a week). Great crop of owners this year, but I think we should move aggressively to make sure the less-engaged are still interested in playing.
-
Babip Avengers's trade block has been updated!
Plakata on
June 3, 2013 6:54 PM
-
Molten Wang's trade block has been updated!
-
So I'm down to make this a $10 league, with an exception for two current owners that would prefer to abstain. I think we need everyone else to be in, though. The last thing I want to do is drive out good owners.
Plakata on
May 28, 2013 11:24 AM
-
To be clear, I'm not suggesting officially making this an Ottoneu prize league?, just a $10 buy-in that would be mandatory for all but two owners.
-
If the money is *optional*, and I have the right to not participate, then I'm all for you guys playing for money if that's what you want to do.
-
I'm cool with just about whatever we do. But I will say this...I don't think we can make it a money league without a unanimous vote, or at least a supermajority or something like that.
-
I'd be fine with the buy-in being optional. If you guys want to play for money, that's up to you, I just strongly prefer not to.
-
I mean the whole buy-in thing seems a bit counter-productive if it would result in losing two excellent owners
-
I guess I'd consider having an opt-in cash prize? Like the two anti-buy-in owners can continue not to pay but they won't get any money if they win? Would that be workable?
-
Also has anyone heard from Fishcakes in the last month? Might be time to start finding a replacement
-
Yeah actually the other league I play in where there's a cash prize has more deadbeats than this too, haha. I still think it'd help with keeping owners engaged to have a buy-in though
-
I'm all for the buy-in and agree with Molten, but just to play Devil's Advocate I've found that money doesn't always equal active owners. I'm in a few $50 leagues and there are dead guys in each. It's crazy, makes no sense!
-
Anyway, not trying to browbeat the anti-buy-in folks into submission here, just trying to see if any of that provides a fresh perspective on things
-
The best way to do that seems to be to award a cash prize to the top three finishers
-
and probably would not have done that if I saw a significant difference between any two non-first places of finish. It's my opinion that the whole league would be better off if everyone's definition of a winning season were more or less the same, and...
-
I also have been unclear for the past couple years on the meaning of finishing second or third, and I don't think it's a good thing that there is confusion about this. I went into firesale mode last year when I probably could have made a push for second..
-
I don't need money to make me want to have a competitive team either, as the last couple years should have made clear. Still, I do believe that it would help keep owners active and engaged, in general, if we had a cash prize for the winners.
-
My preference would be for a buy-in over some funky arbitration thing too. At the risk of repeating what I and others have said, I am going to make my case for a small buy-in:
-
Like Iorg, I'd be down for giving up my spot if that's what the league votes on though. No worries!
-
I don't mind not playing for money though. That's what the $50 leagues are for, I get it. But the gimmicky proposal about allocation dollars for lower place teams is something I wouldn't be interested in.
-
Does $10 even count as "playing for money," haha
-
I just don't like playing for money, regardless of the amount. I don't need money to make me want to have a competitive team.
-
Just so we're absolutely clear here the amount of money I at least would be proposing would be like $10 a person (and not till next year). Is that still too much?
-
Fair enough. I just think the proposed allocation limits for lower place teams are a little weird. Seems like playing for money would be easier.
-
Yeah, I'd just rather not play for money. But if you'd like to take the league in that direction, I would give up my spot to someone else for next season. There are a lot of Ottoneu leagues out there.
-
Or at least, given that our league wasn't set up as a buy-in league, it seems ok for some owners to not want to do it.
Plakata on
May 24, 2013 1:01 PM
-
A few guys said they'd rather not. And that's fine, of course.
Plakata on
May 24, 2013 12:58 PM
-
What was the pushback against a buy-in again?
-
Doesn't seem major enough to seriously handicap teams at the bottom. Also Ottoneu can totally "allow for" this, just requires compliance from all owners
-
slash Sherm's
-
and some owners aren't willing to do even a small buy-in at the beginning of the year, I don't see much of a lasting solution beyond Joe's suggestion
-
There's a delicate balance between promoting competitive balance and incentivizing winning. Status quo is OK, but if we're going to make a concerted effort to incentivize the top 3 places (or whatever)...
-
All things being equal, I'd prefer to just have a buy-in, but that sounds like a solid compromise.
-
Babip's idea also has a lot of merit...
-
That's just an example of what we might try; doesn't have to work that way exactly.
Plakata on
May 23, 2013 12:15 PM
-
Then second to last can only allocate $5 or $6 to the top three teams, and third to last can only allocate $6 or $7 to the top three.
Plakata on
May 23, 2013 12:14 PM
-
Maybe the last place team can only allocate $3 total to the top 3 teams (as opposed to $9) with no money going to first place.
Plakata on
May 23, 2013 12:13 PM
-
That said, one thought is to limit the amount of money the last place teams can allocate to the top teams. Nothing extreme, but a small reward to the top teams, at a very small expense to the bottom teams
Plakata on
May 23, 2013 12:12 PM
-
That way teams still in the mix have reason to stick around and play, while teams in the tank can focus on next year.
Plakata on
May 23, 2013 12:11 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages