-
who is ian?
MakeitRayn on
December 14, 2016 10:56 PM
-
Ian is taking over the team for this season. We'll promote a permanent replacement next year.
Sveet on
December 13, 2016 11:57 AM
-
Don't worry, I already told the commissioner.
-
Benjamin (Jepsen's Malort) said he's abandoning his team. So whoever's in charge should probably find someone to fill that team before we get to keeper selection end of January.
Jhost/ynxon on
December 12, 2016 4:42 PM
-
Late To The Party's trade block has been updated!
-
This team needs some serious work's trade block has been updated!
Jhost/ynxon on
November 22, 2016 6:10 PM
-
Montréal Rays's trade block has been updated!
-
oh wow
-
Take that shit to Breitbart, Sandrew
Sveet on
November 16, 2016 5:00 PM
-
I don't know what's going on in your life to say that to someone, but frankly I'm disappointed. I'll pray for you.
Jhost/ynxon on
November 16, 2016 2:13 PM
-
I hope you both kill yourselves in some sort of GAY suicide pact
-
I doubt I will.
-
After sayin that, you better not finish behind me.
Jhost/ynxon on
November 16, 2016 12:15 PM
-
I see my team was stuck with the most $ added to the salaries. As your pick for the best team in the league, I will not let you down. 2017 will be the year of the Sandals.
-
MakeitRayn's trade block has been updated!
MakeitRayn on
November 15, 2016 12:14 PM
-
Late To The Party's trade block has been updated!
-
This team needs some serious work's trade block has been updated!
Jhost/ynxon on
November 15, 2016 11:25 AM
-
fuck I'm stupid. different teams contributed to the same players. Got it.
-
then how does $tu only have like 4 teams upping his salaries when more teams than that submitted their allocations?
-
Yup.
Sveet on
November 14, 2016 12:54 PM
-
For the allocations, do you not have to give at least $1 to each team?
-
Nomo! get these slackers moving
MakeitRayn on
November 12, 2016 4:57 PM
-
2 days left and two of you haven't even touched your allocations. Get it done, loosers
Jhost/ynxon on
November 12, 2016 3:38 PM
-
Arbitration ends on Monday. Get in your raises.
-
Arbitration ends on Monday. Get in your raises.
-
Just over 2 weeks until arbitration is done, and 6 of you haven't even started your allocations yet. Don't forget (I forgot last year).
Jhost/ynxon on
October 30, 2016 5:03 PM
-
Yes, mostly that's the case. It's mostly players who suffer major injuries or under performed so much they lost their job. I'm fine if people want to get rid of it and not completely against it. I do think there should be a little more sting to the penalty if somebody is constantly cycling through players since we are working with rosters that are pretty deep.
-
sitting in FA. It's not like most cases of this are in which good players are being dropped because if that was the case, the original owner wouldn't be getting them back to lower their penalty.
-
Yeah, that would be nice if the bidding would start over, but I don't see the problem of a guy being too expensive still after he was released. He's already half price, and there was probably a reason that he went for such a high price in the first place, and what we saw this past season is that some of the guys being added and dropped were pretty undesirable in the first place, so most of the rest of the league aren't going to be upset that he's still so expensive and unaffordable while
-
I don't like the idea of letting the original owner off the hook. Bad contracts and injuries are part of baseball. As far as high priced players remaining in the FA pool bc they are too expensive, I haven't really seen that as an issue in practice.
That said, I hate in-house rules. I'm really inclined to leave things as they are unless there is a pretty universal sentiment (2/3 at least?) for changing.
Sveet on
October 28, 2016 9:57 AM
-
As they can just put him up for auction at any time and use the expensive player where nobody else can since they get hit for free since they already are paying the price of the cap penalty. In an ideal world I'd prefer a better system where releasing a player is a harsher penalty to the owner who released them. I would prefer if a player that's released didn't have a minimum bid to make the player freely available to everybody, but the team who released them.
-
They can only do it once every 30 days and the downside for lowering their penalty is they can't bid on player if somebody puts them up for auction in that 30 day window. In an ideal world I'd rather there be more burden on somebody who dropped a player, but I'd rather there be more options available to everybody. If somebody has a guy that nobody would buy in the FA, because they are too expensive they are holding a higher percentage of the player pool.
-
Dude, I'm having the worst time deciphering what you're trying to say.
-
I agree to a point, but if he still is too expensive he's a player that's removed from the pool. If he's cheap somebody will pick him up and the person will have their whole penalty taken away. I do think it's not a good thing in theory as there should be a penalty for paying too much for a player, but I think the con of removing a player without somebody taking the roster spot on another's roster isn't really good either. I'm not completely sold one way or the other, but I'd lean this way.
-
Dropping an expensive because he's too expensive or whatever is fine. Dropping him so that you can add and drop him again immediately to lower your penalty is the issue.
-
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make a Jose joke. Meant dead as in completely useless to our player pool. After pressing send I realized it might sound really bad because of what just happened.
-
The Jose Fernandez joke is in pretty poor taste, bro. Let's put him in the ground before making light of the situation.
Jhost/ynxon on
October 27, 2016 5:21 PM
-
I do think the waiver penalties overall aren't severe, but I'd rather there be a path to a player being usable than being a dead player who is just stuck there being overpaid by somebody who released them.
-
That if a player is too expensive and is stuck in limbo in the FA pool after being released then it isn't good for anybody. If at half price he becomes cheap enough for somebody to pick up the person who released him will have their whole cap penalty wiped. So if a player had the penalty for 30 days and auctions him and instantly released him which will cut his price again might make him a more reasonably priced player later in the season. At some price a player becomes usable.
-
What do you mean by that last part?
-
I think anything that removes players from the pool isn't good. If a guy suffers a serious injury his price lowers until somebody is willing to hold on to him at that price. I don't love the practice from a philosophical side where you can just keep lowering your cap hit, but I don't want to limit others from being able to use players that are overpriced that can be usable at some price point.
-
If people want to vote for it I'm down to listen to both sides. I'm pretty sure the only time I lowered a guy was when Richards was expected to go down with TJS, but then I got him back at a lower price once he was put on the 60 day DL.
-
I think it encourages irresponsible spending, not competition.
-
I'm totally fine with this "loophole." It really only affects high-cost players that get hurt so I don't see why a team should be burdened with that player. You have to wait 30 days every time you add-drop so that once the player gets to a more reasonable cost going forward there should be competition. I hope this makes for more competition in the auction where someone might be more conservative about spending money if they got stuck with a big contract on a hurt player.
-
Thanks. To me, it seems that this strategy is anti-competitive and not in the spirit of a baseball simulation game (real teams can't do this). If Papal Boner thinks it would be possible to enforce a league-wide rule against this, I would certainly vote for such a rule. We already have our own non-ottoneu rules in our league anyway, including the promotion/demotion system, so why not allow us to vote on it? If you want to keep the rules consistent for all leagues/tiers, everyone could vote.
-
Congrats on finishing grad school, I'm hoping to do that in 2017. I think the root of the issue is if you're doing it with players that no one wants anyways, you continuously cut the cap penalty each is assessed at against your budget. Which is BS since it's a noncompetitive way to add extra $ to your budget.
Jhost/ynxon on
October 17, 2016 12:01 PM
-
Sorry to say I wasn't very active in the league this summer. I had a lot of stuff going on including finishing grad school and moving across the country, so I kind of ignored the issue and discussion around it over the season. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I understand the loophole as being: It's possible to drop a player, wait for his waiver claim period to end, and then start an auction for him, potentially getting him back for a lower price than he was originally signed?
-
Cool. Appreciate it. I don't have a problem with the league voting on this, btw. I try to put in as few house rules as possible, but this one is pretty easy to enforce.
Sveet on
October 17, 2016 10:43 AM
-
If it was just Pitching to the Score, I wouldn't care so much, but it looked like a few others joined in when they figured out what he was doing. Sorry to put you in this position, Ian, but I asked a while ago about voting on this thing. I guess I'll stick out one more season, and depending on how it goes, I'll let you know when the next season ends.
-
FYI, I think the cap manipulation thing is bullshit and refused to do it on principle last year. Seems like most of you in this tier feel the same. So if it's just Pitching to the Score doing it then whatever.
Jhost/ynxon on
October 17, 2016 10:19 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages