|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 16:09:22 GMT -5
No, he is right, you have 1 minor leaguer classified as such. His point is and the one I made last night, you have no collateral to make trades with someone who is out of playoff race and wants minor leaguers. |
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 16:11:05 GMT -5
Well, let's see how the draft pans out. But so long as I have two or more minors for $3 or less, I'm in. Let's say $25? Or do you want to do $50? Or a non-cash bet?
The only reason I caveat the bet is because I don't want to necessarily limit my bids just for this bet if there is a player I really want but will have to pay more than $3. Particularly since I don't have a lot of minor league bidding cash left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 16:14:15 GMT -5
I want things to stay the same regarding minor leaguers and bench spots. This MIL draft is going according to the past now that the two big guns went away. I would like things to remain the same and see how these different strategies/theories play out. Any time you move a minor leaguer up to your major league roster before he is in the show as part of your roster trimming/keeper calendar, you take a huge gamble. YOu are taking one of your own bench spots as a hindrance and you also are risking the player doesn't come up to the show and your $5 tag comes one year sooner. The risk bears the rewards, why do things have to change because more bench spots are being taken by minor leaguers. Let's see how it plays out? Minor leaguers are a crap shoot right? So let the owner take the risk and find out if his major league bench is a crap shoot. If you are contending for the title this year, don't you want someone's bench to be full of non-performers? And why can all owners do the same to certain degrees? What is stopping you. There is no unfair advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 16:15:03 GMT -5
Eric, I believe his point is that even though there are plenty of minor league players out there than could be got for $3 or less, none of them will be regular MLB contributors in 2014 or 2015. I think I will be able to find one or more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 16:17:53 GMT -5
No, I get it. I think you can find one, I think I can find one (if I so choose) and I think there will be MANY minor leaguers at $3 or less that will be MLB starters in 2014-2015. Across 14 owners, easy....
|
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 16:18:01 GMT -5
I agree with your last comment Eric. We've been playing under these rules for a few years now and we're starting to see the full affects of the rules. A lot of people have different strategies and its interesting to see what works and what doesn't. I have to say, I have a number of minor league players that I placed on my MLB roster and some of them I think are fantastic values and some I regret having to move them up just to free up minor league salary. It makes this league that much more fun and interesting because this is a little different than other salary cap leagues out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 16:41:29 GMT -5
No, he is right, you have 1 minor leaguer classified as such. His point is and the one I made last night, you have no collateral to make trades with someone who is out of playoff race and wants minor leaguers. Right because nobody would ever want to trade for a player that has lost their minor league eligibility. I was stupid to trade for Jose Fernandez last year since he was no longer classified as a minor leaguer. Now that I started the clock on Sano, Arcia, and Bundy they are untradeable. |
|
|
|
Post by Napolean on Feb 23, 2014 16:42:02 GMT -5
I'm content with the current rules as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 16:43:15 GMT -5
Well, let's see how the draft pans out. But so long as I have two or more minors for $3 or less, I'm in. Let's say $25? Or do you want to do $50? Or a non-cash bet? The only reason I caveat the bet is because I don't want to necessarily limit my bids just for this bet if there is a player I really want but will have to pay more than $3. Particularly since I don't have a lot of minor league bidding cash left. Well you are making my point for me. I calculated that I would not have the option of getting any useful players for cheap. You seem to think you can. So I would like to make the bet before you have the chance to find out one way or the other. I'm pretty confident you won't find any but I'm also confident when you get to that point you will no longer want to make the bet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 16:50:45 GMT -5
I just think that if we have 160 roster slots and $1600 allocated to MiLB players, then that should be a hard cap. I don't agree with practice of taking a guy you paid $96 for last year, moving him up to your MLB roster, and thereby purging your whole MiLB cap so that you are now have a cap advantage against most other teams. It makes the $1600 cap a soft cap, and it turns 160 MiLB roster slots into limitless roster slots (currently, 194). The current rules create a lot of interesting strategies, I agree. But I don't think the sheer fact that we have done things one way in the past is a justification for continuing to do them that way in the future. I think a hard minor league cap wherein we are all forced to live with the money we spent on any given MiLB player (until they are MLB eligible) will foster greater competition and overall make for a more enjoyable league. The hording/purging strategies that our current system have given rise to really trivialize the whole minor league component of this league and make it less competitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 16:57:09 GMT -5
No, he is right, you have 1 minor leaguer classified as such. His point is and the one I made last night, you have no collateral to make trades with someone who is out of playoff race and wants minor leaguers. Right because nobody would ever want to trade for a player that has lost their minor league eligibility. I was stupid to trade for Jose Fernandez last year since he was no longer classified as a minor leaguer. Now that I started the clock on Sano, Arcia, and Bundy they are untradeable. Do not patronize me Thain, you will never trade Jose Fernandez to enhance your playoff race. He would be the biggest reason why you are in any race this year or next. And if you want to trade Sano, Arcia or Bundy, I am your man! I will take a wager that you won't trade me those players this year! 25!  |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 17:04:14 GMT -5
I just think that if we have 160 roster slots and $1600 allocated to MiLB players, then that should be a hard cap. I don't agree with practice of taking a guy you paid $96 for last year, moving him up to your MLB roster, and thereby purging your whole MiLB cap so that you are now have a cap advantage against most other teams. It makes the $1600 cap a soft cap, and it turns 160 MiLB roster slots into limitless roster slots (currently, 194). The current rules create a lot of interesting strategies, I agree. But I don't think the sheer fact that we have done things one way in the past is a justification for continuing to do them that way in the future. I think a hard minor league cap wherein we are all forced to live with the money we spent on any given MiLB player (until they are MLB eligible) will foster greater competition and overall make for a more enjoyable league. The hording/purging strategies that our current system have given rise to really trivialize the whole minor league component of this league and make it less competitive. I respectfully disagree. Minor leaguers and this MIL draft are far more interesting and exciting to me (I guess that is why I love Dynasty) than anything else we do in preparation. How have we trivialized anything? How is our league suffering? How is our minor league draft any less competitive than it was in the past? How is having some bench spots taken up by Minor leaguers negatively impacting the integrity and competitiveness of our league? It's a keeper league, all of us choose to place various degrees of importance on minor leaguers. Thain likes one guy in his system, I prefer 6-10. I only started this up because I disagreed with your comment about Thain being the smartest guy in the room (cause he's not) and I only supported my argument against his strategy. But its his strategy, I don't have to like it or agree with it. Let it go, let it play out. He can have Sano, Bundy and Kris Bryant and stresss quality over quality. But we don't have to make huge changes to our bench spots and minor league salary structure just because Thain spent $100 on Bryant! |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 17:07:27 GMT -5
How is anything broken when we have Ducati and Big Tuna duking it out for Josie Pinto!!! This is awesome!!
|
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 17:11:59 GMT -5
Right because nobody would ever want to trade for a player that has lost their minor league eligibility. I was stupid to trade for Jose Fernandez last year since he was no longer classified as a minor leaguer. Now that I started the clock on Sano, Arcia, and Bundy they are untradeable. Do not patronize me Thain, you will never trade Jose Fernandez to enhance your playoff race. He would be the biggest reason why you are in any race this year or next. And if you want to trade Sano, Arcia or Bundy, I am your man! I will take a wager that you won't trade me those players this year! 25! Maybe not to you since you want me to give them to you for basically free with a huge lopsided offer. But If they are not helping me win I will surely trade them for help as needed. |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 17:16:55 GMT -5
Is Jose Reyes lopsided?  |
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 17:20:51 GMT -5
I just think that if we have 160 roster slots and $1600 allocated to MiLB players, then that should be a hard cap. I don't agree with practice of taking a guy you paid $96 for last year, moving him up to your MLB roster, and thereby purging your whole MiLB cap so that you are now have a cap advantage against most other teams. It makes the $1600 cap a soft cap, and it turns 160 MiLB roster slots into limitless roster slots (currently, 194). The current rules create a lot of interesting strategies, I agree. But I don't think the sheer fact that we have done things one way in the past is a justification for continuing to do them that way in the future. I think a hard minor league cap wherein we are all forced to live with the money we spent on any given MiLB player (until they are MLB eligible) will foster greater competition and overall make for a more enjoyable league. The hording/purging strategies that our current system have given rise to really trivialize the whole minor league component of this league and make it less competitive. I respectfully disagree. Minor leaguers and this MIL draft are far more interesting and exciting to me (I guess that is why I love Dynasty) than anything else we do in preparation. How have we trivialized anything? How is our league suffering? How is our minor league draft any less competitive than it was in the past? How is having some bench spots taken up by Minor leaguers negatively impacting the integrity and competitiveness of our league? It's a keeper league, all of us choose to place various degrees of importance on minor leaguers. Thain likes one guy in his system, I prefer 6-10. I only started this up because I disagreed with your comment about Thain being the smartest guy in the room (cause he's not) and I only supported my argument against his strategy. But its his strategy, I don't have to like it or agree with it. Let it go, let it play out. He can have Sano, Bundy and Kris Bryant and stresss quality over quality. But we don't have to make huge changes to our bench spots and minor league salary structure just because Thain spent $100 on Bryant! It goes against the spirit of an auction when one person can nab the top player at the beginning as easily as I did. We might as well have a snake draft in that case. In an auction, anyone can have any player if they are willing to be the top bidder. That assumes that bidding your whole budget on one player would somehow have negative impacts. For me this year it didn't. If I was forced to keep Sano and Bundy as minor leaguers, that would have given me around 40 total to spend on the new crop of players and I would have to figure a way to get some value out the the 40 I have left to spend. As it is now, there is almost 1100 total salary and definitely not enough players to spend it on. If we had been using Matheson's model, we would have maybe a few hundred total to spend on this draft, and the prices would be more like in 2012, where Sano, Bundy, Machado etc went for around 30, Trout for like 60-70, Harper for around 80 I think. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 17:21:09 GMT -5
One reason, Eric: Dude X spends $50 on Player Y whose nominal value, in a $1600 MiLB cap league is $10. Let's see how this plays out:
Current League: Roster Player Y on your MLB roster. For the cost of ONE roster slot, you now have an extra $50 to spend and Player Y only costs $1! Want to trade Player Y? No problem! He has no minor league cap penalty associated with him and he only costs $1. Where's the skill in that???
Alternative League setting: You have two options before the roster trimming deadline. (1) Cut Player Y to free up MiLB cap room OR (2) Keep Player Y on either your MiLB roster or MLB roster and lose $50 in MiLB cap and 1 MiLB roster slot. Want to trade Player Y?? Good luck! Who wants your $10 player at $50!
As with our MLB format, my alternative is MUCH more competitive because it penalizes players for making bad decisions and rewards them for making good decisions (in the form of competitive MiLB cap dollars and tradeable assets).
|
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 17:22:21 GMT -5
Is Jose Reyes lopsided? About $11 overpriced but in any case I don't have salary cap room for him, if you're thinking of making an offer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 17:27:58 GMT -5
And however naive my comment about Kris Bryant was in my drunken stupor last night, one thing is for sure: Even assuming for argument's sake that Thain has made a terrible decision to spend $100 on Kris Bryant, the only true cost to his team is the opportunity cost of drafting other players in this year's draft and the roster slot he will have to commit to Bryant next year. Even though he blew $100 on Kris Bryant, and even though you all are bemoaning his *terrible* decision, you will all be willing to trade for Bryant under the right circumstances because you know that his $100 cap figure is a mirage (just like with Kevin Gausman last year). Thain will have an absolute advantage against everybody in terms of both MiLB salary cap and MiLB roster slots next season. And that was really the point I was trying to make last night, that I see very little downside to Thain's strategy. If the $100 he spent was truly as maddening a decision as you all make it out to be, then Kris Bryant is the poster child for what is broken about the current system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 17:47:36 GMT -5
Our first year we did have a randomized draft order in case anyone wanted to bid 100 on a player. I assume we're going to have to implement this again next year with Rodon coming into play or it'll be a race to nominate him first
|
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 18:00:06 GMT -5
Thain, I feel confident that I could get a $3 or less player that will be a regular mlb player this year or next, but I only have 10 left and if I see a potentially better player available for 9 or 10, I don't want to pass it up simply for our bet. That could hurt my team overall. But so long as that doesn't happen and I have 2 or more milb players at 3 or less, then the bet is on. That doesn't at all support your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 18:06:51 GMT -5
Orioles, you clearly support Thain's strategy and again while I'm suggesting its a bad strategy, I definitely don't think it's better than others. It simply leaves no margin of error. And I think you'll see why more and more each year. Unless of course you hit correctly every year. But since history is on my side, I'd bet against it.
So then do what Thain does each year. For me, except for maybe the odd year, I won't be doing the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 18:11:25 GMT -5
South Paws, I think if you look at my current roster I clearly do not support Thain's strategy. I just think his strategy is exemplary of everything that is wrong with the current format.
If Thain's strategy is really as stupid as you would argue, how does that not lead you to the conclusion that we need to change the system? Don't you think someone should be penalized for making a stupid decision?
|
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 18:35:08 GMT -5
Thain, I feel confident that I could get a $3 or less player that will be a regular mlb player this year or next, but I only have 10 left and if I see a potentially better player available for 9 or 10, I don't want to pass it up simply for our bet. That could hurt my team overall. But so long as that doesn't happen and I have 2 or more milb players at 3 or less, then the bet is on. That doesn't at all support your argument. Well the bet is that the player will be a regular starter within the next 2 years, not just see a roster. So for batters that would mean a regular spot in the starting batting order, and for pitchers, a spot in a major league 5 man rotation. As long as those are the parameters, then let's bet 50, but you can back out if you end up with less than 2 players 3 or under. Ok? |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 18:38:45 GMT -5
South Paws, I think if you look at my current roster I clearly do not support Thain's strategy. I just think his strategy is exemplary of everything that is wrong with the current format. If Thain's strategy is really as stupid as you would argue, how does that not lead you to the conclusion that we need to change the system? Don't you think someone should be penalized for making a stupid decision? Why is Thain's stupid choice of spending $100 on Bryant being argued for a penalty or change? Why do you think he has found some incredible loophole he is exploiting? I love the fact that Thain only buys one player a year. If he gets one player at a $100 and comes back next year with $100 and buys only one player again, I am ok with it, I LOVE IT. Why do you have a problem with it? I would much rather have 5 guys come up every year and be MBL starters at $1 or $2 as original minor leaguers. I will wallop Thain with developing a robust farm system strategy over his $100 for Bryant stategy, all things being equal. His $100 for Bryant can be compared to $82 for Bryce Harper in 2012. I spent $66 on Jesus Montero that year (like a dumbass), but I also supplemented that Montero bid with a $7 Leonys Martin pick, $3 for Luis Heredia, $11 for Matt Harvey, $4 for Wiley Peralta, $6 for Rymer Liriano, $3 for Aaron Hicks. So Thain is giving up the opportunity to spend some money on the other guys and miss out on the Matt Harveys and Leonys Martins of the world. But that is his choice to see the minor league draft today as he sees it. There are plenty of us that don't share in his view on the minor league talent and what we can mine for $1-$4 Now my strategy or my obsession to trade in years past can be critiqued and I probably should have saved some of the guys I have had in my minor league system, but that is why I am in therapy. So why do we have to fix and change things because supposedly Thain has taken the competitive spirit out of our auction draft? Here's to Thain doing it next year and the year after. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 18:39:53 GMT -5
Yep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 18:41:25 GMT -5
One reason, Eric: Dude X spends $50 on Player Y whose nominal value, in a $1600 MiLB cap league is $10. Let's see how this plays out: Current League: Roster Player Y on your MLB roster. For the cost of ONE roster slot, you now have an extra $50 to spend and Player Y only costs $1! Want to trade Player Y? No problem! He has no minor league cap penalty associated with him and he only costs $1. Where's the skill in that??? Alternative League setting: You have two options before the roster trimming deadline. (1) Cut Player Y to free up MiLB cap room OR (2) Keep Player Y on either your MiLB roster or MLB roster and lose $50 in MiLB cap and 1 MiLB roster slot. Want to trade Player Y?? Good luck! Who wants your $10 player at $50! As with our MLB format, my alternative is MUCH more competitive because it penalizes players for making bad decisions and rewards them for making good decisions (in the form of competitive MiLB cap dollars and tradeable assets). Read this one, Eric for my answer to your questions. |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 18:43:09 GMT -5
And however naive my comment about Kris Bryant was in my drunken stupor last night, one thing is for sure: Even assuming for argument's sake that Thain has made a terrible decision to spend $100 on Kris Bryant, the only true cost to his team is the opportunity cost of drafting other players in this year's draft and the roster slot he will have to commit to Bryant next year. Even though he blew $100 on Kris Bryant, and even though you all are bemoaning his *terrible* decision, you will all be willing to trade for Bryant under the right circumstances because you know that his $100 cap figure is a mirage (just like with Kevin Gausman last year). Thain will have an absolute advantage against everybody in terms of both MiLB salary cap and MiLB roster slots next season. And that was really the point I was trying to make last night, that I see very little downside to Thain's strategy. If the $100 he spent was truly as maddening a decision as you all make it out to be, then Kris Bryant is the poster child for what is broken about the current system. Disagree with this to the nth degree. Kris Bryant is the poster child of how Thain will not be competing for a title in 2015, 2016, 2017 if he continues on that road. Let's let things lie and see? I think there are enough owners here that are completely comfortable with Thain going this route and allowing us to pick up the scraps |
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 18:53:42 GMT -5
One reason, Eric: Dude X spends $50 on Player Y whose nominal value, in a $1600 MiLB cap league is $10. Let's see how this plays out: Current League: Roster Player Y on your MLB roster. For the cost of ONE roster slot, you now have an extra $50 to spend and Player Y only costs $1! Want to trade Player Y? No problem! He has no minor league cap penalty associated with him and he only costs $1. Where's the skill in that??? Alternative League setting: You have two options before the roster trimming deadline. (1) Cut Player Y to free up MiLB cap room OR (2) Keep Player Y on either your MiLB roster or MLB roster and lose $50 in MiLB cap and 1 MiLB roster slot. Want to trade Player Y?? Good luck! Who wants your $10 player at $50! As with our MLB format, my alternative is MUCH more competitive because it penalizes players for making bad decisions and rewards them for making good decisions (in the form of competitive MiLB cap dollars and tradeable assets). Sorry Michael, not sure I entirely get your alternate. I already do your alternate League setting and I do the Current Roster Player Approach. Example: I traded some schlep 2 months ago for Kaleb Cowart who had a salary of say $6, I also traded for Carolos Correa (that owner will remain nameless for his own face) and his salary was $41. I also traded for Byron Buxton last year and his salary was $40. So, I did all of your examples of execution with these three players. I moved up Buxton because of his $40 minor league salary and also I have a very good feeling about him playing in Minnesota in 2014. I cut Kaleb Cowart at $7 minor league salary because I wanted more money in the auction and I left Carlos Correa on my Minor league roster because I think he won't debut until 2015 and didn't want to waste one of his year's on my major league roster. So I took risk on Buxton, went safe on Correa and cut ties with Cowart. So in the current league settings, how am I exploiting something that needs to be fixed? Are you not ok with how I treated these 3 respective players? |
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 18:59:41 GMT -5
Thain - agreed, not just on a MLB roster, but a starting spot, whether that be as a hitter, SP, or closer. And I accept your bet. And for the record, unless the unexpected happens, I expect to have a few players for $3 or less.
|
|
