never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
There are a few things we need to get settled as soon as possible:
Date of Draft - some people have to fly in and others have to ... make plans and stuff
Auction or Draft - it seems as if we have a majority of people who either support an auction or atleast are ambivalent so it looks like we'll go with an auction. By auction are people fine with the basic $260 budget?
Blow it up?? - I have a feeling this is going to be a breaking point issue. While I could go either way it seems from the 6/10 person poll that some people don't agree.
# of Keepers from last year - hasn't been discussed much
There are obviously things that we need to work out after this but we really need to get the initial stuff worked out - if only the first two before February.
Any who is or isn't reading this blog? There haven't been more than 8 votes on any of the polls so atleast 2 people are not reading or don't care. Please comment so I/we know you are reading this atleast once a week.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Pretty interesting stuff
Is anyone else reading this? We still have 2 people left to vote on auction/draft. It seems as if most people are atleast not against an auction. Following MCart's idea to move one step at a time to avoid bickering and a clusterfuck of ideas, we should probably talk about how to deal with keepers/contracts etc.
I assume everyone knows how an auction works and if they dont its easy enough to look up ($260 at the start of the season blah blah).
My proposal is that we dont weight the keepers from this year and you get to keep 4, 3 1-year contracts and 1 2-year contract. These holdover keepers have no value whatsoever in the first year and your single 2 year keeper is priced (in the 2nd year) at the average of the 20 highest priced players. You keep Arod for 2 years, year 1 is free, year 2 is say $30.
Contracts are all dealt with at the end of the season so they dont effect intraseason trading and at the end of the year you keep 6 guys, 2 4-year contracts and 4 1-year contracts. (These #s could be changed, they just seemed fairly easy to start).
Thats my modest proposal. Please beat me up as you see fit.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Also, with Swisher likely to play LF and Dye at RF and nobody to play center (CQ probably) that means theres a log jam at 3B. There needs to be a Crede trade ASAP. Ideally a trade that gets rid of Crede and Uribe.
God, the I hate Kenny Williams.
http://tinyurl.com/25fx43 - Fan Graphs of Swisher
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
(1) "Like Carter, I would like to keep the season simple."
- That was not my point. I am not worried about how much time I spend on the league. What I want is a set of rules that does not lock in rosters in March because the in-season transaction rules are too complex.
(2) "The point is to reward good management/drafting. The key, I think, to keeping things fluid, both in terms of dealing and in terms of the standings from year to year, is to seriously restrict the number of keepers."
- That these two sentences are diametrically opposed to one another seems so obvious as to not require extended comment.
(3) "I would expect free agency to work as it usually does. No contracts. No cap. No money moving around. Just an auction to build our teams instead of a draft."
- This would seem to prevent a team from retaining a player signed as a free agent for the next season (no contract to resign?). Czap, I take it that such an outcome would not bother you, but it bothers me greatly. As you put it, the point is to reward good management: It is equally important to recognize value during the season as during the draft/auction.
(4) "I think people should throw whatever they want on the agenda."
- Whatever. This will degenerate into nothingness, at which point a decision will be railroaded through by the plurality that shouts the loudest. Can we at least try to frame the debate? It seems to me that we should table any discussion of keepers (or analogously, long term contracts) and focus first on the decision whether to have a draft or auction. Once we make that choice, we can structure the system to reflect the subsidiary decision on keepers.
Like Carter, I would like to keep the season simple. I devote too much time to our league as it is, so I'm not all that geeked out about replicating the real world of baseball with salary caps, trading of money, contracts, etc. Well, a secret part of me does kind of like such a notion but practicality steers me away. We could always create a second league along the lines of Mo's "Three True Outcomes" for those who want to go that route.
I want to do an auction simply because I think it would be more fun, less random, and reward preparation. I'm fairly convinced doing an auction will ensure that I finish last in the league, but it's worth the risk. I like the element of competition it injects to the drafting process and the additional strategizing (for one day) it enables. Can I get someone to overpay for Weeks (no)? Will I overpay for Willy Taveras (yes)? Once the teams are put together, I would expect free agency to work as it usually does. No contracts. No cap. No money moving around. Just an auction to build our teams instead of a draft.
I'll throw it out there again. I don't understand why people want to key keepers to draft position, value, etc. I think we should let everyone keep a small amount of players. Say 3. If you keep someone, they are no longer in the talent pool and it doesn't cost anything. If we do a draft, you don't need to save any slots to keep them. if we do an auction, no deduction of whatever the "value" of the player is from your auction cash (and no need to perform COLA adjustments each season). If people don't like the idea that whoever gets ARod gets to keep him forever, then we could set a time limit. The point is to reward good management/drafting. The key, I think, to keeping things fluid, both in terms of dealing and in terms of the standings from year to year, is to seriously restrict the number of keepers.
Blowing things up.
Why blow up ownership this year? Because changing the draft, keeper, or stat system (and I want changes in all three) is serious business which ought to be bargained over in good faith. I think people are less likely to do that if they already have strategies in mind based on last season or who they currently own and might like to keep. If people are really up in arms over this, perhaps we could give everyone one legacy keeper. If we change to auction, I think we really do need to have every player available for the sake of a perfect market.
Call me a flat taxer. I want a simple league. I don't want to simulate MLB in all dimensions (although I lean this way when it comes to stats).
FIRST, I worry that it will stulify the league, especially during the season. Last year, we basically had several teams go through the motions for several months. If in-season transactions become even more complex, won't the ACTUAL SEASON become even more boring. An auction may be more fun than a draft in March, but at what cost? Moacir's post from March 23, 2007 states: "Hopefully with a 40-man roster, there won't be tons of mid-season acquisition..." Why is that something for which we should express hope? I think it would be a travesty if we turned this league into the NFL of fantasy baseball. In order to win me over to an auction system, someone needs to develop a workable plan for in-season transactions.
SECOND, I am rather satisfied with the current system. The draft is fun. The pre-draft Winter Meeting, at which a number of trades were made last year, was even better. Trades are relatively easy to complete during the season. Rookies and suprise performers are equally available to all. The only real outstanding issue would seem to be the mechanics of the keeper system--How many and at what cost? Those are relatively minor questions that could be easily dealt with after we decide whether to retain the current system or not. Unless others find the current system problematic for reasons not apparent to me, a transition to an auction system simply to make the initial distribution of players "more enjoyable" does not seem worth it.
THIRD, as I noted at the outset, I am strongly opposed to an auction. I am going to need to see a complete, well-reasoned plan before I support one. I hope that those who favor an auction will work together to create a single auction plan that the league as a whole can discuss, rather than several proposals that will simply lead to confusion. Finally, I hope that, unlike last season, whatever the league decides can be made relatively permanent. Player decisions often hinge on future rules; continuing uncertainty will only worsen the league.