(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.
1 comment:
1. Well if simplicity is not the aim, then what's the worry about complex rules? We're smart people. I think people didn't trade (and don't tend to do so) because they simply don't want to give anyone an advantage. Our league is very competitive and people fear the power of marginal returns. Or they were obviously just gone from contention and stopped caring.
2. No, the points are not contradictory. We should reward owners for good management. I think the reward should be small, ie, a few keepers, which recognizes draft/free agent prowess/luck and injects a small measure of predictability for the following season. Three keepers would cull, in theory, the best 30 players, keeping plenty of talent in the pool. Reward+fluidity in the FA market. If you think the reward should be more, that's worth discussing. The argument is over magnitude, not principle.
3. No, of course you could retain a player. At the end of the season, your roster is set until the next draft. At the start of the next draft/auction you keep x players. They are removed from the pool. A draft or auction is held as normal. No picks or cash to "pay" to keep someone. If that means Mike gets to keep Ortiz, Crawford, and Reyes while I perversely hold onto to Willits, Taveras, and Joe Nathan, oh well. I should have acquired better talent or not fetishize certain players. Why are we intent on assigning values to players for keeping them? Most of our problems are coming from this principle.
4. I'm folding keepers into this discussion because I feel it is intrinsic to the draft/auction. A lot of the auction folks are dreaming of a system of contracts etc which will perpetuate the valuation of keepers principle. I don't want that.
Post a Comment