-
I just assumed that in capped league, everyone would be going for it every year , maybe mid/late season fire sales for sure , but not early season capitulation . Im using that league as my throw caution to the wind and go for broke . Without the loan shennanigans , its an even playing field, or so I thought. Ive played in other baseball leagues before and now, as well as football for 20 years, and combined they have not had as much controversy and consternation as this one.
-
From my point of view, any proposed changes to Full Circuit would have to be vetted by a couple years of successful implementation in Capped.
-
Right. I figured this original league was the control for the experiment.
Hold the Mayo on
October 7, 2019 7:54 AM
-
Right, I missed where we were talking about that league only. I thought there was debate on this one too. I agree the cap helped with the super team issue in the other league.
-
The hard cap prevents that pretty effectively. We did not have any super teams in capped this year.
-
Once the big loans happen and folks start building the dream team, that seems to be the point when others kind of lose interest. If folks knew they wouldn't recoup their losses at the end of the season, maybe super teams wouldn't be so easy to come by
-
I still say the problem lies with those of us willing to hand out the large loans to make super teams. What if any loan over a certain dollar amount reflects a reduction in salary in next year's budget for the lending team?
-
Looks like about 73.4.
BatGPT on
October 6, 2019 9:30 PM
-
Has anyone calculate how many points Cole’s start would have generated?
-
While I’m ok punishing bad teams if that’s what folks want, that doesn’t really address the issue of maintaining interest for the majority of teams throughout the season. All teams in this league hit 1500 points, yet most lost interest by June.
-
Whew. Anibal escapes
-
I am pleased Atlanta came back to beat St Louis. Hopefully the Nationals defeat Dodgers
-
I know I'm on record as being for no changes, but still spitballing.
Hold the Mayo on
October 6, 2019 12:58 PM
-
Here's another idea. For every 1000 pts a team is below 15000, every player gets an extra $1 inflation.
Hold the Mayo on
October 6, 2019 12:56 PM
-
That's a lot of protection for the 5th place team.
Hold the Mayo on
October 6, 2019 12:55 PM
-
...but this could be a start.
-
Here’s the start of a compromise proposal for Capped that might work. The last place team owes some other team (to be determined) beer. 11th place gets to protect 1 player from arbitration, 10th protects 2 players, 9th protects 3 players, etc. through the 5th place team. This would provide a meaningful incentive to compete until the last day, but still allow complete tanking. I could see the potential to help the lower teams by limiting the arbitration $$ that can be assigned or something,...
-
* The end of that first message should have been: ”I hate that.”
-
...But I’ll probably stay in the league long enough to see if you can win using other approaches. I was intrigued by NGB’s initial prospects approach, but then he just turned it into another version of the king-maker. I like these leagues, but if there isn’t another winning strategy or something other than 3 or 4 meaningful finishing positions that people care about competing for, I’ll probably drop out after a few more years.
-
Am I happy with the rules as is? No. I joined this league because I was interested in the prospect of being able to build and manage a franchise over years like a real club where you’re constrained by salaries as opposed to my dynasty football league I’ve been in for 20 some-odd years where if you’re lucky enough to get the #1 pick in the right year you’ll contend for years. The whole “king-maker” phenomenon appears to change this into a Marlins style rent a championship league. I ha
-
Agreed
-
Seems to me like everyone with a player protection should just name their guy on the other message board between now and the start of arbitration.
-
Didnt any of you math science whizzes get to go to the movies as kids ? Or was it all homework and cello lessons ?
-
Mikey , this is the movie clip I was quoting: https://youtu.be/HAnE4cYGpm8
-
I like the idea of a lower cap on minor league guys per team, but can live with rules as is.
-
And to be even more difficult, I'd love to try a league where the games and innings maximum were also the minimum,
-
Though, just to be difficult, my preferred approach to solving 2a and "legal team" would be a points floor in the 1400-1500 range.
-
I too am happy with the rules as is, with the exception of clarifying when the protected player is named.
-
My answers: 1. I'm happy with the rules as is. 2. The arbitration protection rule should be clarified.
Hold the Mayo on
October 5, 2019 8:56 AM
-
Despite saying "no changes" I'll add that I do think the definition of "legal roster" should include getting over a certain threshold of innings pitched and games played. That said, attempting to coerce managerial outcomes with incentives and penalties just seems to generate a lot of weird rules. So my questions are: 1. Are we happy with the FC Capped rules at a league level (not a manager level)? & 2. Are any of the rules unclear?
Hold the Mayo on
October 5, 2019 8:55 AM
-
Parliamentary rules.
Hold the Mayo on
October 5, 2019 8:47 AM
-
There needs to be floor discussion
-
If a no change proposal is on the table, I join Mechanics in voting YES.
-
In the immortal words of my cousin Vinny, “everything that guy just said is bullshit.”
-
I vote for no changes.
Hold the Mayo on
October 4, 2019 10:35 PM
-
... cap if we once again re-set the league with a total re-draft. Again, the idea is to address the actual perceived problem, not just willy nilly coming up with punitive crap just because it would make you feel good to punish someone, really, anyone.
-
... allowed on a roster. So if the league is unhappy with the depth of my tanking, cap the number of zero mlb experience prospects allowed on a roster at something like 10 instead of the current 18. Of course I would be upset about a change like that unless my current team were grandfathered in by, for example, saying I'd couldn't add any more zero-mlb prospects until my total had come down under 10 via graduations, trades, and/or cuts. Alternatively, I'd be okay with changing the prospect...
-
... prospects trades. Solution: Dump the dynasty format. As Patrick posted many posts ago, address the actual perceived problem... I doubt that the fact that someone has to finish 11th and someone has to finish 12th each season is actually the problem. Next perceived problem... some folks (not all) are upset at how hard I tanked in Capped FC, even though my team was not illegal for even one day of the season. How hard a team can tank, is a pretty direct function of how many prospects are...
-
... remember the 2017 king-making Verlander trade in real baseball as being for 3 prospects, none of whom were top prospects or had any mlb time. The key is that all teams in mlb had the opportunity to make a similar deal and, likewise, the key to my deals is that everyone has equal opportunity to entice me (even Kloobs); everyone has equal opportunity to find their own potential king-maker partner if it's not me. Bottom-line is that you just can't have a dynasty league w/o stars for...
-
OK a lot to unpack, might take 5 or 6 posts, but then I'll have it out of my system and won't take the floor on these topics again except to vote when votes are called for. If folks view stars for prospects (yes, even prospects with no mlb time) trades as a "problem", then what they're really saying is that they don't want to play in a dynasty league. And of course I make those deals in April and May... a full season rental brings a better return than a partial season rental. I seem
-
That's a line from Weird Science
-
Sorry, don’t eat red meat or pork.... of all the things I’ve said today, that’s the one that’ll probably cause the most uproar.
-
Heh Mikey, how about a greasy pork sandwhich served in a dirty ash tray ?
-
I agree that kicking players off rosters is hash which is why I think you should be able to protect players. You don’t want to cripple teams (that was what my previous death spiral comment was about). Maybe some combination of losing players and dead spots. Or maybe we could just increase the payouts; though the value of money clearly varies widely among this group.
-
...I’ll go with it if that’s all we can agree with. While I don’t particularly like the idea of voting players off teams, but it’s better than kicking people out of the league. But I don’t agree that it’s paying the rich; we’re not giving them the players. They’re being dumped back into the auction pool (which addresses another common complaint). And it does seem like a significant motivator for keeping people competing the longest....
-
Joe’s 5:49 comment sums up the problem perfectly: “When rings start getting handed out for not finishing last, then I'll care.” Regarding Joe’s 10:28 post, I agree with a lot of your sentiment; particularly the part about punishing teams for having down years. But there seems to be a high tolerance for that in this group. I originally proposed that we up the ante and have graduated pay outs to all but last, but that was quickly turned to punishing poor performers. Not my cup of tea, but.
-
Sorry for being so far behind, but this flu thing has really been kicking me and I’ve been sleeping a lot. Regarding Hook’s 10:16 AM post, I don’t quite agree. With 1), I think the issue is that the season quickly gets to the point where only the top 4 or 5 teams feel motivated to compete. Regarding 2), I don’t really care about how far rebuilding teams are bottoming out, I (and I know some others) are annoyed by the “king maker” aspect. I’d like to eliminate that aspect....
-
No I'm cleaning skins off my last pickings of new mexico green chilis
-
Maybe you’re not watching the Braves game.
BatGPT on
October 4, 2019 7:23 PM
-
I'm drinking Ten Fiddy by Oskar Blues
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages