-
For whatever it's worth, while I was team-building in this league I never received less than $32 of arb allocations (I took it as validation that I was successfully building my team), so I'm not so sure that anything we decide for Capped FC is really going to shift much $$ to building teams that wasn't going there anyway. Arb allocations on my team in this league were totally irrelevant anyway, I never made a single decision because I was attracting so much arb $$...
-
That would deincentivize tanking
-
How about 12th place has a player voted off his team ? 11th sends beer to 9th.
-
I agree that it would be a real incentive, if it were more than one player. Rebuilding teams tend to have a bunch of players in the range that would benefit. Being able to protect a “core” would be a true incentive. Otherwise I think beer becomes the “sweet spot.”
-
Unrelated: if you are interested in trying head to head otto, there are openings in 845. Which is a low drama, but quietish $20 league.
-
Opinions, I got em....
-
Finally, gradual salary increases, ~50% of which come from allocations, it what prevents otto from being straight dynasty. And what leads to quicker turnover between top and middling teams. Ultimately, reducing allocations by $60 is anti-competitive.
-
And it provides these incentives without reducing arbitration to identifying which players probably wont be cut and putting a dollar or two on each. And without protecting teams from $15+ in allocations, would would be a completely disproportionate response to the accomplishment of a middling finish.
-
Further, like Henry said, with a teams number one arb target off the board, that team will likely get less overall allocations, as a number of owners base their allocations off individual surplus and not overall team quality. These allocations necessarily go to better finishing or rebuilding team, furthering the competitive advantage one gets for finishing 8th.
-
OK, first off being able to protect a high surplus player from arbitration should be a HUGE incentive. Keeping your rookie, or in season find a a dollar or two vs ten or twenty leaves you with a massive trade chip. The sort of massive trade chip that usually does not exist going in to the season, because of arbitration. Any team looking to leap from 4-8 to the top three should find such an asset to be extremely valuable. Any team looking to rebuild will be targeting these players from day 1.
-
I've heard great things about TRVE in Denver , great brews
-
Or downwards to the 9 to 12.
Hold the Mayo on
October 3, 2019 12:32 PM
-
Just checking the written league constitution and we never did qualify what "protect 1 player from arbitration" meant. I personally support the "pick a player to protect before arbitration". This isn't a zero-sum incentive. First, it means a team gets to lock in keeper they really like (a soft incentive). Second, with 4 obvious arbitration targets removed from play, this should push arbitration dollars upwards to the top 4 teams.
Hold the Mayo on
October 3, 2019 12:31 PM
-
John gets it though
-
I'd like some Colorado beer myself
-
I so want to see the Dodgers fail
-
(Also, I’m with Mikey—I feel like a chump for trying for what I thought was an incentive, rather than some tasty suds from Colorado (I think we all knew who would be last). That should be a consolation prize, not something to work down for.)
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 11:45 AM
-
I’m off to the dentist myself, so I’ll only say I disagree on the strategy. The decision people will have to make is whether to put anything above the minimum on the “protected” teams, or if they should focus elsewhere. That elsewhere will be the teams that finished 9 to 12, that we’re building for the future, with the result there future will be more expensive. This seems consistent with what we’re trying to do.
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 11:43 AM
-
I will go into detail in a few hours, but quickly we discussed player protection, not coupons. And allocation is fun now, and has an element of strategy. In the proposed alternative it would be reduced to putting $2-3 on every player that's not an obvious cut.
-
Serious question John, why is the existing allocation strategy such a critically important part of the game that it can’t be changed? I’m usually sticking up for “the game is the game,” but that’s in this league; the point of Capped is to experiment, I think.
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 10:56 AM
-
I support the alternative suggestion as protecting a player before arbitration isn’t really much of an incentive (I would have preferred the beer slot, but managed to move too high to get it without being obvious about tanking). But I can live with either approach. That being said, knowing this group, I can’t imagine there won’t be additional suggestions.
-
Okay, I take that back, you’re right, I’d take the $8 off Alonso. But I still think that’s the way to go.
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 10:40 AM
-
Disagree with your first post. To pick an example from my team, I might find it easier to live with an $8 arb increase to Alonso than a $3 increase to Yuli. I think your second post is more right, in that $$ to these teams will be more evenly spread out. More important as an incentive, these teams will see lower overall allocations, as we’ll spend our arb $$ in places where they’ll stick. Anything that doesn’t reduce arb allocation to the 4 to 8 teams isn’t really an incentive, it just m
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 10:40 AM
-
I don't mean to blast this suggestion so hard, but I feel like it would completely undermine arbitration in a way which would make the game significantly less enjoyable for me. I wouldn't drop capped if that's the way we went, but only because my squad will be a monster next year.
-
The allocation strategy would end up just trying to spread allocations evenly among as many players possible as to minimize allocations avoided.
-
cant we all just say a player and then be on gentlemans honor?
-
I am categorically opposed to the alternative suggestion or anything that alters the overall amount of dollars allocated, and thus the economics of the game. It wouldn't even be that much more interesting as the owners would just protect whichever player received the most allocations.
-
Alternative suggestion: after the arbitration period ends, affected teams inform the commissioner which player should be readjusted to their pre-arb salary (plus inflation). This suggestion assumes we meant the incentive to be a real incentive. It would also make for more interesting arb decisions.
BatGPT on
October 3, 2019 10:24 AM
-
Suggestion: Everyone entitled to protect a player, names that player before arbitration starts, the list is kept in the league constitution and linked to on the League Description box on the settings page. Any allocations placed on those players will be removed by the commish after the arbitration period. It would be up to the other owners to check the list and make sure they do not allocate to a protected player.
-
Mikey must be feeling better
-
This message is about the Capped league, but i’m Hoping we’re just posting in this league so we don’t have to go back and forth. It seems like we might want to start figuring out how we’re going to handle the whole one player arbitration protection thing before arbitration starts.
-
Man, you guys have way too much time on your hands...
-
A real belly warmer
-
Bat. I should warn you the Old Bruin is 9.4 %
-
Looking to see if anyone from Hawaii ever made the HoF, I learned Kirby Yates is from Lihue—almost certainly the best player ever from Kauai.
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 9:02 PM
-
Mechanics beat me to it...though my cover would probably have Sid Fernandez (he always wore #50!) or Charlie Hough instead of Darling, who was born in Hawaii but I don’t think he lived there very long. (Darling would make the cover of the Ivy League book.) No Acuñas for a modern day rep—Kolten Wong, Yamamoto, Kurt Suzuki, and Isiah Kiner-Falefa are pretty much it. Maybe Kolten’s brother had a cup of coffee this year.
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 8:58 PM
-
Actually a book about Shane Victorino, Ron Darling, Mike Lum, and their cohorts would be pretty interesting.
Hold the Mayo on
October 2, 2019 7:35 PM
-
America's team?
-
If I were going to buy the book, wouldn't make a bit of difference to me which players were put on the cover. Could even be three Hawaiians (if only). Do you have any idea why the Braves?
-
“We go deep into the BA archive and pull out our scouting reports”—they’re just reprinting their own old stuff, they didn’t need a team’s cooperation (or internal scouting reports).
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 5:57 PM
-
While I wouldn’t be at all surprised if many of the BA editors are part of the Make Baseball Great Again crowd, I think their main goal here is to make a few bucks. So they’re giving their potential audience what they want. Who’s going to buy a book with Justice, Andruw, and Acuña on the cover? They call the, “stars”, not “hall-of-farmers” on the cover itself. Wouldn’t putting Acuña on there tell the story of the book better?
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 5:56 PM
-
Have no idea why BA chose to focus on the Braves for this concept book, other than that the Braves farm system has been consistently productive for 30 years... but must be other systems comparably productive over that time window. Maybe the Braves were the only team willing to share 30 years of scouting reports with BA?
-
Perhaps an even better link: https://baseballamerica.myshopify.com/products/before-they-were-braves
I doubt BA Writers are racist. The cover boys are all HoF members, can't think of any non-white Braves from 1990's onward who are HoF members and were left out. Apparently 20 players are profiled, they're not all white since David Justice and Javy Lopez are among the 7 named at this link. Another advert I received listed Acuna as one of the profiled players... so that's at least 3.
-
(Chipper can hang around, preferably drunk, because occasionally Freeman needs a lift, and Chipper never tells us how much better baseball was when he was playing.)
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 5:19 PM
-
Ugh. I know this only looks like fan fiction, but it seems one thing all these guys were before they were Braves is white. I hope Andruw at least gets mentioned inside. The Braves need to accept they’re good again, with plenty of interesting personalities, and move on from the past. Maddux is the model, the less we see of Glavine and Smoltz the better. Also, doesn’t Theo have more WS wins than these guys already?
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 5:16 PM
-
Try this link? https://www.amazon.com/Baseball-Americas-Atlanta-Braves-Before/dp/1932391908
-
Perhaps an especially enlightening read for Theo... https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/#inbox/FMfcgxwDrbsZwjVpLrCcVntmRLMRTNnJ
-
Like June Cleaver, right? So close. His mom is Jan Scherzer.
Hold the Mayo on
October 2, 2019 4:41 PM
-
“June” would be his mom, right? Is there anyone under 60 named June? Max’s wife is Erica May, who along with Max and the Tigers in general did some fundraising for tiger conservation associated with the Save Vanishing Species stamp (this was in 2012 or 2013). Somewhere there’s a picture of Max and Dombrowski giving Bryan Arroyo (damnit, that should have been me) and Krishna Roy a check in front of the home dugout at Comerica Park.
BatGPT on
October 2, 2019 4:25 PM
-
LOL. I so misread that June Scherzer reference. Is that his wife? Why do the Nationals want his wife?
Hold the Mayo on
October 2, 2019 3:59 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages