|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 19:00:38 GMT -5
I tap out on this subject. I am a very strong supporter of leaving things the way they are. I don't think anything is broken or needs to be fixed. If our league, at some point gets serious about looking into this and voting on it, I will be a strong outspoken opponent of changing it, but at that time. Ryan did make a good point on next year's draft of Rodon. I guess it would be kinda nice to see Rodon go out for bid rather than $100 and wait for Thain watching the clock for 9am. But, then I think, is Thain really going to hold onto Bryant for the next 4 years? Bryce Harper was traded away, Montero flopped, Buxton was traded away. Why do we project that Rodon or Bryant will remain with that owner for the next 5 years. I am bound to pry some of these players away. I see your points Michael, I just don't see the need to change and start adding years and dollars to minor leaguers who are moved up the MLB roster.
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 19:18:10 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? Orioles, I'm not saying you've implemented Thain's strategy to date, but you obviously think there is some large advantage with it and hence you think we ought to change the rules to prevent this. I disagree. I don't think there is a huge advantage to it. But if YOU think there is some big advantage there, then why wouldn't you adopt that strategy? And again, I never said it was a stupid strategy. I just think its A strategy. It certainly can work. It's just not my preferred strategy. I happen to think there is a lot of uncertainty with prospects, even with the top highest rated prospects (just take a look at the top 5 lists I posted). So I'd prefer to spread out my risk. I recognize that using Thain's strategy and you get the next Trout, then you're in really good shape. Or you can get the next Delmon Young and then you're screwed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:21:02 GMT -5
Just to throw my opinion out there, I think what thain is doing is incredibly smart. Taking only the best player available every year is a great strategy based on our rules. While I believe he is taking advantage of a "loophole", it is a very minor one.
I don't think any major change to the system is necessary but I would like another vote at the end of the season on the number of bench spots.
Also, as I stated earlier we should re-introduce the "$100 bidders club draft lottery" to allow a fair chance at blowing your wad on one guy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:25:11 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? Now you are just arguing for argument's sake. I never said that minor league players were untradeable. Your examples are nonsense and have nothing to do with my post. The distinction between the present system and the alternative is crystal clear and irrefutable. Your examples are just a smoke screen. The only question is which system is BETTER. Our current system is sustainable, but in my opinion its also sub-optimal. I think if you stopped arguing for a moment and really looked at this objectively, you would see the distinction I am urging. We may disagree about whether a rule change is necessary in light of the distinction, but at this point you won't even acknowledge that this is an alternative way to do this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:31:19 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? Orioles, I'm not saying you've implemented Thain's strategy to date, but you obviously think there is some large advantage with it and hence you think we ought to change the rules to prevent this. I disagree. I don't think there is a huge advantage to it. But if YOU think there is some big advantage there, then why wouldn't you adopt that strategy? And again, I never said it was a stupid strategy. I just think its A strategy. It certainly can work. It's just not my preferred strategy. I happen to think there is a lot of uncertainty with prospects, even with the top highest rated prospects (just take a look at the top 5 lists I posted). So I'd prefer to spread out my risk. I recognize that using Thain's strategy and you get the next Trout, then you're in really good shape. Or you can get the next Delmon Young and then you're screwed. I don't think there is a huge advantage to it, but I would like for the league to be structured such that, if you spend $100 on a player, you are stuck with the cap money you pledged to that player, barring (i) a trade (in which case the team acquiring the player is stuck with that salary), (ii) that player becoming MLB eligible or (iii) that player being dropped back to the MiLB player pool. If our league was set up that way, I would not have 14 (soon to be 16) minor league players on my team and we wouldn't have the massive salary inflation. There are a pile of problems associated with the way we currently do things, Thain's strategy just highlights a few of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:39:05 GMT -5
Can you guys pause your arguments to throw some feedback on my bench spot reduction initiative? Does anyone else feel that reducing to only 5 or 6 would positively effect this situation. I feel like I'm talking to myself in this thread with a simple and logical solution.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 19:41:24 GMT -5
. [/quote] There are a pile of problems associated with the way we currently do things, Thain's strategy just highlights a few of them.[/quote] OMG, I have piles of problems associated with the way I conduct myself in my real life, I don't need to repeat that in Fantasy Baseball
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 19:45:43 GMT -5
I don't agree with reducing the bench spots. I like having 9 even if they have to be mlb eligible. We have a deep league and use middle relievers for holds. It makes sense to have a lot of reserves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:46:34 GMT -5
A reduction in bench slots would help a lot because it would increase the cost of rostering a player who is not able to contribute to your active roster. That said, I like the number of bench slots we have. I think allowing a team to have a deep bench makes it easier to stream pitchers and it allows owners to add injury insurance or take more risks with cheap talent in the draft.
So, while I agree that it is one potential solution (and one I would vote for if it was my ONLY choice), it is not my preferred solution. I would rather just make people live with the salary commitments they make to MiLB players until those players attain MLB eligibility. That would allow us to have deep benches without turning bench slots 7 through 9 into MiLB-cap-exemption roster slots.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 19:49:00 GMT -5
Can you guys pause your arguments to throw some feedback on my bench spot reduction initiative? Does anyone else feel that reducing to only 5 or 6 would positively effect this situation. I feel like I'm talking to myself in this thread with a simple and logical solution. I absolutely do not want to reduce the bench spots. In a perfect world where we are moving up our farmhands in harmony and no one is spending lavishily but legally on Kris Bryant, there are a number of rookies that become MLB eligible, but are not ready to contribute in a positive, significant way to your fantasy team, I would envision having at least three of those types on my bench. Reducing to 5 or 6 bench spots, means I carry 2 or 3 rookies, 1 pitcher and 2 veteran hitters. Not enough. Just my first thought and argument against. There are more
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 19:51:03 GMT -5
Can you guys pause your arguments to throw some feedback on my bench spot reduction initiative? Does anyone else feel that reducing to only 5 or 6 would positively effect this situation. I feel like I'm talking to myself in this thread with a simple and logical solution. I absolutely do not want to reduce the bench spots. In a perfect world where we are moving up our farmhands in harmony and no one is spending lavishily but legally on Kris Bryant, there are a number of rookies that become MLB eligible, but are not ready to contribute in a positive, significant way to your fantasy team, I would envision having at least three of those types on my bench. Reducing to 5 or 6 bench spots, means I carry 2 or 3 rookies, 1 pitcher and 2 veteran hitters. Not enough. Just my first thought and argument against. There are more This is precisely why I am in FAVOR of reducing bench slots.
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 19:55:43 GMT -5
Ryan, I'll respond to your suggestions in a sec. But first, if you think Thain's strategy is so incredibly smart per our rules, then how come haven't you done the same?
Second, I totally agree with bringing back the lottery for the those that want to want to bid $100 on a single player.
Third, I don't agree in reducing roster spots unless we were to make the changes that Orioles suggests. And if that were the case, I'm not sure it matters as much to reduce roster spots. The reason being, with the same rules for the minors, reducing roster spots would limit the strategy of spreading risk for multiple minors.
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 19:57:58 GMT -5
Orioles, why would that help a lot? Wouldn't it just force people to take the same Bryant strategy?
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:01:02 GMT -5
Matheson, this is for your comment as to my reason not to reduce bench spots is exactly why you are in favor of it
No, you misunderstand. I am talking about rookies or 2nd year players that reached their major league minimums and are bench players only because they aren't hitting .300 or aren't named Mike Trout. The rookies that come along slowly. Someone like say Mike Zunino for lack of a better example. Zunino had to be up on my major league roster last year as he was brought up to the M's in June. This year, if I am Mike Zunino's owner and I have Salty and Lucroy as my catchers, I sure as heck am not starting Zunino but rather using him as a backup. I am talking about farmhands that come up through the system, but once they hit the Show, don't light the world on fire. Based on all your writings today, I don't think I am talking about your argument for reducing bench spots or setting hard caps on minor leaguers, rather just young ballplayers that do not perform until 3rd year in the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 20:01:45 GMT -5
Why would decreasing roster slots help a lot? For precisely the reason articulated by Eric: if there are only 6 bench slots, you can't afford to have three roster slots filled with dead weight MiLB players who are unable to contribute to your active roster. That's the only reason it would help. Would it encourage the Bryant draft strategy? Yes, absolutely. That's why I would prefer to keep 9 bench slots and change the MiLB cap rules so that you can't obtain a cap exemption by shifting a non-MLB player to your MLB roster.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:02:57 GMT -5
Why would decreasing roster slots help a lot? For precisely the reason articulated by Eric: if there are only 6 bench slots, you can't afford to have three roster slots filled with dead weight MiLB players who are unable to contribute to your active roster. That's the only reason it would help. Would it encourage the Bryant draft strategy? Yes, absolutely. That's why I would prefer to keep 9 bench slots and change the MiLB cap rules so that you can't obtain a cap exemption by shifting a non-MLB player to your MLB roster. NO, NO, NO, you misunderstood my reason against reduction of bench spots. READ my comments above. Not everyone can be Mike Trout
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 20:04:15 GMT -5
Matheson, this is for your comment as to my reason not to reduce bench spots is exactly why you are in favor of it No, you misunderstand. I am talking about rookies or 2nd year players that reached their major league minimums and are bench players only because they aren't hitting .300 or aren't named Mike Trout. The rookies that come along slowly. Someone like say Mike Zunino for lack of a better example. Zunino had to be up on my major league roster last year as he was brought up to the M's in June. This year, if I am Mike Zunino's owner and I have Salty and Lucroy as my catchers, I sure as heck am not starting Zunino but rather using him as a backup. I am talking about farmhands that come up through the system, but once they hit the Show, don't light the world on fire. Based on all your writings today, I don't think I am talking about your argument for reducing bench spots or setting hard caps on minor leaguers, rather just young ballplayers that do not perform until 3rd year in the league. If this is true, then you are in big trouble this season, considering the Buxton, Syndergaard, Lee, Baez, and Alfaro (at least) have no chance at beginning 2014 on an MLB roster (and none of the above are likely to see MLB before September).
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:05:49 GMT -5
Matheson, this is for your comment as to my reason not to reduce bench spots is exactly why you are in favor of it No, you misunderstand. I am talking about rookies or 2nd year players that reached their major league minimums and are bench players only because they aren't hitting .300 or aren't named Mike Trout. The rookies that come along slowly. Someone like say Mike Zunino for lack of a better example. Zunino had to be up on my major league roster last year as he was brought up to the M's in June. This year, if I am Mike Zunino's owner and I have Salty and Lucroy as my catchers, I sure as heck am not starting Zunino but rather using him as a backup. I am talking about farmhands that come up through the system, but once they hit the Show, don't light the world on fire. Based on all your writings today, I don't think I am talking about your argument for reducing bench spots or setting hard caps on minor leaguers, rather just young ballplayers that do not perform until 3rd year in the league. If this is true, then you are in big trouble this season, considering the Buxton, Syndergaard, Lee, Baez, and Alfaro (at least) have no chance at beginning 2014 on an MLB roster (and none of the above are likely to see MLB before September). No, I am good Michael. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 20:07:10 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. Ok you got it. It will be like a very long game of craps. It should be fun to watch. Are you going to focus on 22 year old college players just to win the 50?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 20:09:17 GMT -5
If this is true, then you are in big trouble this season, considering the Buxton, Syndergaard, Lee, Baez, and Alfaro (at least) have no chance at beginning 2014 on an MLB roster (and none of the above are likely to see MLB before September). No, I am good Michael. Thanks Okay, good. I was worried
|
|
|
Post by Pancake Titans on Feb 23, 2014 20:12:00 GMT -5
Different strokes (values) for different folks
Its what makes it interesting
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 20:12:24 GMT -5
Or you can get the next Delmon Young and then you're screwed. How would I be screwed? I would either have a $1 Delmon Young (as Churcher does right now), or I can drop him. Really no big deal. And I would have the same risk if I took a handful of younger, less talented prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:12:38 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. Ok you got it. It will be like a very long game of craps. It should be fun to watch. Are you going to focus on 22 year old college players just to win the 50? I got South Paws and the over. Guy knows his Minor Leagues...anyone can wait anxiously by the clock til 9am hits and bid $100 on a Kris Bryant.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:15:12 GMT -5
How would I be screwed? I would either have a $1 Delmon Young (as Churcher does right now), or I can drop him. Really no big deal. And I would have the same risk if I took a handful of younger, less talented prospects. Uhhhh...how do you not understand if Kris Bryant becomes the next Delmon Young you are screwed? By giving away an entire year or opportunity of minor league talent (assuming you make no trades, which you don't like to do) this year, you have done harm to your keeper team. C'mon Man!
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 20:20:15 GMT -5
By the way, I'm not sure why everyone assumes I will now be spending 100 on the top prospect every year. I did it only 33% of the time so far. Every draft will be different. Different players available, and different situations with my existing players. This year I expect Flores, Bundy, Arcia and Sano to make their minimums, and so it would have been idiotic to leave them clogging up the minors roster by our rules. And having 100 to spend and not enough to spend it on (by my calculations) I made the most valuable move I could with the least amount of risk.
|
|
|
Post by sadindians on Feb 23, 2014 20:23:17 GMT -5
Uhhhh...how do you not understand if Kris Bryant becomes the next Delmon Young you are screwed? By giving away an entire year or opportunity of minor league talent (assuming you make no trades, which you don't like to do) this year, you have done harm to your keeper team. C'mon Man! I make plenty of trades - that's how I got Fernandez, Rizzo, Alonso, Bundy, Arcia, etc. I'm not giving away a year of minor league talent, I'm just putting my money in the lowest risk/biggest reward I can. I could also get 3 Courtney Hawkins instead and have as much or more risk, despite having more bodies. Why don't you spend more time worrying about how you value minor leaguers and less on how I do, since my valuations have no effect on the remainder of the auction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 20:24:57 GMT -5
Ryan, I'll respond to your suggestions in a sec. But first, if you think Thain's strategy is so incredibly smart per our rules, then how come haven't you done the same? I can't admire the strategy without implementing it?
|
|
|
Post by South Paws on Feb 23, 2014 20:28:20 GMT -5
Totally agree here. But I don't think the Bryant strategy is any better than other strategies, unless you undercut other strategies to spread out risk and allow people to roster a lot of MiLB players hoping to hit big on a few rather than just one.
And sorry, Thain, I didn't seem to suggest it's your strategy overall. Let's call it the Kris Bryant strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Steelheads on Feb 23, 2014 20:29:59 GMT -5
By the way, I'm not sure why everyone assumes I will now be spending 100 on the top prospect every year. I did it only 33% of the time so far. Every draft will be different. Different players available, and different situations with my existing players. This year I expect Flores, Bundy, Arcia and Sano to make their minimums, and so it would have been idiotic to leave them clogging up the minors roster by our rules. And having 100 to spend and not enough to spend it on (by my calculations) I made the most valuable move I could with the least amount of risk. It will be an interesting exercise to put 4 or 5 or 6 players that equal $100 against your Kris Bryant and see 2 or 3 years from now, what the delta in value is. I will take the field.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2014 20:32:05 GMT -5
I love you guys and this league btw. If anyone ever wins the lottery you have to buy everyone game and plane tickets to a game of your choosing.
|
|