Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Projections
Through advanced statistical straw polling at Pub Trivia, I have determined none of my platforms will go very far in the auction-contract primary election. My advisors have decided to withdraw to the battleground state of stat categories. So talk amongst yourselves about contracts and cost-of-living adjustments to value until we move to stats. I reserve the right to run 527-style ads on behalf of particular policy issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Nice to hear some pragmatism from the Czaplicki-American Kleptocracy camp. CZAP-- i didn't mean to crap on your dream of unstructured contracts so hard, i just had my fur up from a frustrating pub trivia 2nd place finish. at any rate, i thought about it last night and am willing to consider non-escalating contracts or even just basic "keepers," i.e., ok, i have three slots, i can keep three guys. i just like the strategy and reward implied in getting to keep a guy at the auction price you (or someone else) paid for them.
also, are we in agreement that we should *not* be able to contract free agent pick ups, i.e., only auctioned players can be contracted? I like that approach but respect what the democratic process tells us.
i'm already formulating a LIMA auction strategy using Ron Shandler's Baseball Forecaster as my sendero luminoso maoist chapbook. LOOK THE FUCK OUT.
also, another poll might be needed, and i'm not sure how it will go over. peep the blog in a minute.
Our team clearly has the heart of a champion. I love that we get so enraged at anything less than first, as if we still haven't taken home something like $500+ more than just about every other team. First place changes hands a lot, and yet, we're always there. It was like we didn't secure $10 to offset our bar tab/entry fee. Larry Bird would love to play for Clay Davis. If I ever get to run Pub Trivia, I'm instituting a money winner trophy. The regular season ought to count.
If people are committed to a contract system, I don't think we should have COLA. It's fairly arbitrary, will give us one more thing to fight about (which system to use), and is a nice reward for getting someone "cheaper" than they ought to be. What happens if you decide you don't want to be stuck with a player? Do you still have the eat the money if he has a year left on the contract?
I would like FA to be eligible for keeping. It's the diamond in the rough. Every year, people seem to find one sleeper. I don't think there are so many that they would skew things. If a FA pickup pans out, you ought to be able to keep him for taking the risk. It would probably help the bottom feeders more, since they are in a better position to take a risk than someone locked in a pennant race.
A lot of this depends on how many keepers we allow. If we are going to do contracts, I am sort of intrigued by Carter's idea of requiring contracts for all one's players. Also, how much money do we allocate? Or does this not actually matter, since we won't be working from a price list but will be making our own market. By what season will a movement for free silver begin?
And I'm always pragmatic in the end. I don't have enough time to worry about this too much, although I spend enough time on baseball each season that I want to be able to enjoy it. I figure most changes we decide on will not make the league horrible. If, somehow, they did and no one wanted to fix it, I'd just stop playing or become fairly uncompetitive.
My position on some issues:
FA Picksups: We should be allowed to keep them. See Czap, Diamond in the Rough Argument.
COLAs: Bad idea. Too complicated. Fail to reward good ownership.
Basic keepers: I'm fine with this as a second best option--I would hate to see the number of keepers decrease though.
Post a Comment