|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 22, 2010 11:36:26 GMT -5
With a full league, maybe we can solve some problems by eliminating a team or owner or two who are not active, and perpetually have horrible teams. I know this might not be popular, but it could make the league deeper and more competitive.
also the first two choices in the poll is in favor of keeping teams out for sucking for a long time...the third would be not keeping a team out
|
|
|
Post by bsager on Feb 22, 2010 11:37:41 GMT -5
I wish we could enact this in real baseball so that my Orioles could get rid of Peter Angelos.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 22, 2010 13:48:52 GMT -5
I didn't vote yet. Not because I don't like the idea, but because we allow long term rebuilding/hibernation projects.
I think a league has to ban the hibernation strategy before they can implement a rule to kick out the losers.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 22, 2010 19:40:02 GMT -5
Are you sure you phrased your question properly?
Poll Question: Should we keep an owner out if they have lost for a long time yes, if they are not .500 for ten seasons yes, if 2/3 of the league vote for them to leave no, your an idiot
Should we keep owners that lose? Yes if they don't play for .500 for 10 years? Either your question isn't phrased right, or your answers don't "answer" that specific question.
Because as it stands right now, reading the question and option 1) means that if they don't play for .500 for ten seasons, we should keep them.
Other than that, it's an interesting subject. I do agree that before implementing a rule to kick out losers, we should solidify or create a rule against hibernation or tanking. There would be an obvious need for something like that.
But are there enough good owners around on the Internet to replace losers by better owners? Or would we be cursed in the sense that we'd kick out losers and replace them with potential would-be losers over and over again?
It's been the case with some of our teams who went through a series of bad owners. Think of the Detroit Tigers between Johnnyboy's first and second ownership: they had a string of awful losers that hurt the team a whole lot. Same for the Chicago White Sox between the time Mosko left for Seattle and Joe got a hold of them: ouch!
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 22, 2010 19:45:29 GMT -5
First i know i worded the question wrong, but the edit screen will not let you edit the title, or poll options....
Anyways, I mean right now were full and we have teams that are bad for the last ten years so there is nothing to lose if they get a bad owner again....
The main point I have is I just hate seeing teams like oakland who have no shortstop...3 starters that should not be in the league when there are 3 decent FA starters that could be signed for 400k...but yet hes gong get great picks for the next couple of years and build his team that way. I could make that team a .500 club within one day of real life....they have talent right now.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 22, 2010 21:39:26 GMT -5
The main point I have is I just hate seeing teams like oakland who have no shortstop...3 starters that should not be in the league when there are 3 decent FA starters that could be signed for 400k...but yet hes gong get great picks for the next couple of years and build his team that way. I could make that team a .500 club within one day of real life....they have talent right now. Oh definitely. Some owners hide behind crappy excuses for displaying the worst possible teams: lack of time, lack of interest due to having a bad team, etc. The problem is the league lacks a proper set of rules to clearly counter this type of behavior. It should have been put up years ago. Losing a lot of games because you have a bad team is one thing. Losing A LOT of games because you're not even trying is something else.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 23, 2010 12:56:47 GMT -5
The main point I have is I just hate seeing teams like oakland who have no shortstop...3 starters that should not be in the league when there are 3 decent FA starters that could be signed for 400k...but yet hes gong get great picks for the next couple of years and build his team that way. I could make that team a .500 club within one day of real life....they have talent right now. Thing is, that's not only a legal strategy, it's expected. Without a rule against it, if an owner can't win, and doesn't hibernate, people think he's a fool. I don't like it, but that's how owners in most leagues operate, largely because it's the most effective way to build a winning team in an old or established league. Some owners hide behind crappy excuses for displaying the worst possible teams: lack of time, lack of interest due to having a bad team, etc. The problem is the league lacks a proper set of rules to clearly counter this type of behavior. It should have been put up years ago. There are no rules against it because it's always been considered the best strategy by most people. Hell, some people think it's the only strategy for a below average team. Implementing a rule to combat hibernation would be tricky because it's very subjective and you can't tell an owner what left over trash FAs he should be blowing his team's money on. And let's be realistic - When the real competing teams finish spending multi millions on mediocre FAs, the ones left are trash. It can be done, but if you don't start out that way when the league is created, when you allow a handful of teams to become extremely powerful, and when you don't have a mechanism for redistributing talent other than expansion drafts for new teams, it's going to be very hard for people to accept. In this particular league, which boasts the worst FA market I've ever seen, and has no Rule V draft or any other way to move real talent from the powerful teams to the weaker ones, hibernation is what's left. So, let's get the rules in the order needed to get it working in an old league. 1 - Implement a Rule V draft 2a - Put a limit on how many FAs any team can sign in any season, preferably by class (A, B, C) OR 2b - Institute a need before greed rule for signing FAs, where the weaker teams have first choice over the stronger ones. 3 - Implement a luxury tax on payroll spending 4a - After a few seasons of the above, ban hibernation 4b - Ban intentional dismantling of teams (trading all or most good players for prospects and draft picks) 4c - Set up a trade review committee to stop any dismantling attempt before it goes too far 5 - After several seasons of the above, then start suggesting the removal of owners who just can't seem to win Once again, the point here is that you first have to level the playing field before vilifying owners for hibernating or not being able to win.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Feb 23, 2010 16:51:57 GMT -5
changes do need to be made. I've been all for a 40 man roster/Rule V draft type system. It has really worked well in Outahare. But there are other issues that also need to be addressed to make the hoarding of talent more difficult. The first thing should be limits to a player's 1st contract. In Outahere, you are limited to a 4 year deal for any player's 1st contract (regardless of whether or not a player has been sent to Arbitration). This is a real difference maker as it makes that player's 2nd contract come at a much more expensive point in their career, forcing teams to make decisions about players much sooner (and when the player has greater value, thereby creating a much better trade market!).
I agree with many of the ideas presented above, the hibernation issue is one that needs to be combated with positive rule changes that make holding on to talent more difficult, but does not impede the acquisition of talent in the first place!
|
|
|
Post by bsager on Feb 23, 2010 18:00:10 GMT -5
We can't completely stop rebuilding. I think the original point of this is that some teams aren't really even trying to rebuild. Rebuilding does not take 10 years. The amount of new rule possibilites listed above has my head spinning and I'm not even the commish.
Good teams are good for a reason; they made good moves. This even more true with expenses being zero and cities being equalized. If you are a good owner, you will be competitive in a couple of seasons. Before I get called out for taking a over a powerhouse, I just took over one of the most pathetic teams I have seen in another league. Am I complaining constantly in that league? No! I am rebuilding and doing all I can to be competitve as quickly as possible.
I don't think anything needs to be changed in this league. There seems to be one of two people who think we need to implement a million new rules. If you think this league is broken or don't like it, then why are you in it?
Also, I am doing no grammer or spelling check on this post, so I apologize if some parts make no sense.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Feb 23, 2010 22:12:17 GMT -5
It has taken me more than 10 years!!!!
Took over a great franchise, kept it running for quite awhile but kept on thinking I could keep it running with a few tweaks. Lost some good talent in expansion drafts and then started to get in financial troubles. Next thing you know it has been awhile since we had a winning season.
Don't make it tougher for teams to rebuild, once you hit rock bottom it is not easy to rebuild, well at least for me it has not but have enjoyed the challenge.
If it wasn't for last season, breaking .500 by 1 win, I could be one of the owners you are talking about kicking out!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 23, 2010 23:04:22 GMT -5
this is what makes a rule regarding this so tough, i think. Your a great owner and have built a great team in the hardest division. Even when you had some rough seasons you tried to put a competitive club out there...
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Feb 23, 2010 23:46:48 GMT -5
the lenght of time it takes to build a team capable of reaching the playoffs depends entirely on the "head start" that teams in your division have. In a weak division it can be done in a year or two, but in a division where there is a clearly dominant team (both at the major league and minor league levels) will absolutely take longer.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 24, 2010 15:20:38 GMT -5
We can't completely stop rebuilding. I think the original point of this is that some teams aren't really even trying to rebuild. Rebuilding does not take 10 years. Yeah, it can. Especially if your goal is to beat solidly entrenched teams that have been winning for 20 years. But that aside, we then would have to create and enforce a set of criteria to determine if the team is progressing at rebuilding or not. That should make your head spin even more The amount of new rule possibilites listed above has my head spinning and I'm not even the commish. Don't worry, that was a set of purely hypothetical pseudo-rules used to make my overall point. Good teams are good for a reason; they made good moves. This even more true with expenses being zero and cities being equalized. . Many top teams took advantage of fly by night owners who came, traded, then left. There were owners of the Cardinals and a couple of other teams that did essentially nothing but trade away the future of their teams to try for one win, then vanished. In the case of one long ago Giants owner, he traded then current talent for around 6 or 8 DPs, then never even made a single draft pick. That was when we still had a losers list for teams missing their pick. Other owners came in, started long term rebuilding projects, and then they too vanished. That's a lot of current and future talent that was traded away by people with no plan and no willingness to stick to a goal. There's as much luck as skill involved in building a winner, and I'm not talking about how prospects develop. I'm talking about being around, and being willing to take advantage, when the functionally retarded, or purposely destructive, owners come in and trade their best for little return. I'm also talking about making so many unbalanced trade offers to so many owners that eventually some of them do get accepted. Some people would argue that this is skill. I think of it as being more like working a pyramid scheme. It has taken me more than 10 years!!!! Not surprising at all. Amateurs enter the draft at age 17 or 18. They usually peak at age 25 - 28. That's around ten years right there. For the first draft. If they peak too much younger, they'll never hit their projections. 23 is 50/50. 22 is 30/70. 21 and lower is a long shot. That part is a bug, supposed to be fixed in 2k11 according to a reply Clay made to a bug report I posted on the SM boards. the lenght of time it takes to build a team capable of reaching the playoffs depends entirely on the "head start" that teams in your division have. In a weak division it can be done in a year or two, but in a division where there is a clearly dominant team (both at the major league and minor league levels) will absolutely take longer. Exactly. Add to that being in a league where both the division winner and wildcard winners are essentially predetermined. There's more movement in the AL, but it's still around 7 of 14 teams perpetually in control. In the NL, it's more like 5 of 12. So the question becomes do we expect owners to accept a lifetime of 81 win 2nd or 3rd place finishes, or do we expect them to try getting into the playoffs?
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Feb 24, 2010 23:47:10 GMT -5
There are good and bad owners in every league. The idea of kicking some out because you disagree with their strategy is absolutely absurd. It takes time to rebuild, especially for teams like mine that have to compete with powerhouses like Cinci and Atlanta within the division.
I am just sick and tired of people trying to decide what is best for other teams. As Tyler said, it takes time to rebuild and he as well as I would have been kicked out of the league if this ridiculous rule had been implemented. I can't even begin to explain the crap I had to put up with when I was trying to build the BEST team I possibly could for the FUTURE, even though I knew I would likely have to sacrifice a few seasons beforehand to get to that point. The owners that likely would have wanted me gone at that point tried to tell me how to run my team and they were almost exclusively wrong, so I don't want to hear about this kind of BS. "Losing for a long time" DOES NOT necessarily determine the effectiveness of an owner. It takes time and patience to catch up, especially if you are placed in a bad situation when you start off in TMBL as many new owners are.
If we want to look into some sort of specific rules to avoid this kind of thing (rule v draft, prohibiting excessive trading to gut a roster, not bothering to fill out lineups etc.), that's fine. But the idea of banning an owner altogether because you don't deem them to be doing a good job is a complete joke.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 25, 2010 4:03:26 GMT -5
Iwill switch with any team in the league an I betimes could get them into playoffs in 3 years... this is including royals, Mets... teams with no talent in stacked divisions. Of u think u will lose, u will
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Feb 25, 2010 11:00:19 GMT -5
^^^ First of all, there is no way that is true considering you have not even gotten your team into the playoffs at that rate. Do you really think you could do that teams that are still far away from their peaks like the Royals, A's or Mets? Secondly, if you were to do that, you would surely be gutting the minor league system to trade for proven talent, going out in the first round of the playoffs, and then guaranteeing that team will suck for a LOONG time as the proven veterans go on the decline after a couple of seasons and there is nothing left in the minors to replace them. For instance, if you were to try and do this with my team five years ago, you would have been forced to deal a plethora of top prospects, thus squashing any hope of being consistently competitive down the line. Sometimes losing is a necessary evil if you really want to have the best team possible.
When I started in this league I was a terrible owner as I didn't really understand the nuances of the game whatsoever. I made some dumb trades, pointless FA signings and roster moves that really screwed my team. About five years ago I felt I had finally gotten the hang of the game, and decided to make sure to build a team up where I would have a multitude of core players coming into peak around the same time, giving me the best chance to be competitive for an extended period of time rather than finishing third place every season behind the Reds and Braves.
I did that by trading players like Wayne Garrett for John Castino/Larry Christenson, and Joe Decker for Nino Espinosa. It is true that my team became pretty bad because of this, and I had to respond to some BS tanking claims from owners who didn't seem to grasp the pointlessness of winning 85-games a year in the NL Central.
My team was losing, but I felt that the patience that owners such as myself, the Cubs, Phils, and others showed by staying the course as our prospects developed is actually a very difficult job that requires a TON of time. Sometimes the owners that are losing are actually putting in the most work behind the scenes. I just don't think it's fair to use wins and losses as the sole determinant regarding an owners effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 25, 2010 12:24:06 GMT -5
my team usually is in the race...and its not that hard to get a team competitive.... The cubs and phils usually put a decent team together when they were rebuilding. Its hilarious to look at the a's roster, i mean i have starters in my AA affiliate that could start for his team.
But whatever i guess ill live with teams sucking for a long time and drafting guys w/ peaks ten years from now and since the draft spot is constant top 5 you can get a stud at every position...Sounds really fun
Maybe we should do a draft lottery like the nba?
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Feb 25, 2010 12:38:45 GMT -5
Can't disagree with the A's sucking; that is a disaster over there, but that is just one owner. If you think the Cubs and Phils had a good record while rebuilding you need to double-check the facts. Chicago finished behind my team consistently, and the Phils' record improved drastically when the Mets and Cards fell to pieces in that division.
I get what your saying, and I agree it is frustrating to watch certain teams' actions regarding this subject. But there is just no way to stop that kind of thing without hurting the overall quality of the league in my opinion. The reality is that the league today is as competitive as it has ever been (at least since I've been here), yet we keep seeing these bizarre threads about the lack of balance in TMBL.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 25, 2010 12:39:19 GMT -5
Maybe we should do a draft lottery like the nba? Now you're talking!
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 25, 2010 14:39:57 GMT -5
Iwill switch with any team in the league an I betimes could get them into playoffs in 3 years... this is including royals, Mets... teams with no talent in stacked divisions. Of u think u will lose, u will No, you really won't. You're mistaking the ability to work a team that was already solidly built at both pro and minor league levels with the ability to succeed playing a stripped down team. Not the same thing. They had 6 consecutive seasons of top 3 overall draft pick amateurs from version 2k4, made by an expert owner, and was then taken over and worked for a couple/few seasons by another above average owner. They'd been to the WS two years in a row, 1970 and 1971, and won 87 games in 1972, around the time you got them. By 1975, three seasons after you got them, they lost 85 games, their worst record since 1967. The next season they lost 100 games. That's kind of going in the exact opposite direction of what you're boasting you can do, isn't it? After that it was 84, 87, 89, and 90 wins, but no playoff appearances until last year. Even in 1974 when your prebuilt team took your division with 94 wins, the 96 win wildcard Indians punched you ticket in round 1. I mean, sorry to come off so nasty and all, but since you singled out other teams' failures, let's look at all the facts. What you can do playing a team offline solo isn't the same as what happens in a real league situation. Owners always seem to forget that. We even had one, no names here, who really believed he was a few seasons away from winning over 150 regular season games, based on his own run ahead solo play. Hell, according to my offline tests from the opening day file, my team should be a little over .500 and in 2nd place right now, not in last place with the absolute worst record in the entire league - 8 - 29 for a near record .216 Wpct. That's partly because in my offline solo tests, Santana, Tabler, and Hurst rocked. The last posted sim, however, begs to differ. Big time. There's a nasty little dose of reality, right? ;D Maybe we should do a draft lottery like the nba? Now you're talking! You mean you want the playoff teams to be locked out of the first round while the non playoff teams make the first 16 picks before going to a second round where they again get the first 16 picks before the playoff teams start drafting at number 33 overall instead of number 17 overall? Okay. But I have a feeling you don't mean that. I'm betting you think it should be either a league wide lottery for all 26 teams, or that the playoff teams should still be able to start drafting at number 17 overall, right? But please, set me straight about this, okay?
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Feb 25, 2010 22:42:42 GMT -5
If we went NBA style, the lottery would apply to all non-playoff teams. After that, the playoff teams would be slotted in reverse order based on record.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 25, 2010 23:15:36 GMT -5
Well, I only flashed on "lottery" and not on "NBA". I know there are fans of that sport, but I've never been one of them. So I know absolutely nothing of the NBA lottery style, if that is what you were describing.
But a lottery draft in TMBL, why not? Non-playoffs team, or bottom 8, or every team, there are multiple options that could be done and discussed.
As for NBA stuff, I'm clueless. Is Michael Jordan still dominating?
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Feb 26, 2010 9:10:12 GMT -5
The CML had a lottery system and I'm some in here could remember the details better than me but I believe it was the bottom 8 teams.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 26, 2010 12:56:43 GMT -5
Rand...you might be right about taking over teams...i still think i can make a team competitive in little time...but on the nba draft lottery your really wrong. What happens is the 14 worse teams get a percentage number on their record. THe worst team has a 25% chance of getting the first pick, the 2nd worst team has a 21.55%, etc. After the "lottery" teams pick then its the playoff teams that picked in worst record goes first, then the next etc.
and Terry, Michael Jordan is not dominating, its a guy named Lebron James...
PS. GO US HOCKEY! (boo Canadians lol)
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 26, 2010 13:57:30 GMT -5
but on the nba draft lottery your really wrong. Yeah, I was. Like Terry, I'm not a basketball fan, and I misread the rules on the sites I looked at. I finally found one that explained it properly, after reading your post. It's still not a good idea though. In order to stop one or two owners getting a top 4 overall pick by trying to not win anything, we take the chance that a .550 or .575 team gets it. Good for the .575 team, not so good for the .400 one. But a lottery draft in TMBL, why not? Non-playoffs team, or bottom 8, or every team, there are multiple options that could be done and discussed. Why not is because you included all teams participating as even being something to discuss. Why not is because teams can win 94 games and miss the playoffs. Why not is because it messes up the one thing in this league that can help balance teams and create new winners. If we had a talent redistribution system it would be as important, but we don't. It's not a coincidence that every expansion team from 1962 and 1969 has seen playoff action - they all had a chance to get real talent in the expansion drafts (Talent Redistribution), and almost all of them built up more by getting top 4 picks - at least in those seasons where a couple of very sad AL teams didn't manage to out lose the new teams. It won't be coincidence when the 1976 expansion teams pass a bunch of near eternal also-rans and get their playoffs shot either. Talent Redistribution plus pretty good draft pick placement. The only way I'd support even a bottom 8 or bottom 10 draft lottery is if we started doing a talent redistribution draft once every 5 seasons.
|
|