|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 23, 2010 23:26:18 GMT -5
wow - talk about being civil. I'll just keep my ideas to myself from now on. I thought this was a discussion forum, a place where ideas could be kicked around and debated, not dismissed outright.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 23, 2010 23:55:52 GMT -5
I am not sure how many times you have to be told "no" to a rule V draft or a 40 man roster, but here it goes again: No. Scott, I know you have your ways, but we already lost two owners over your occasional outburst of authority - if I may say so. This really is only a discussion, and Paul had really only been submitting ideas. Losing patience over it isn't helping. We're lucky Paul didn't do like former O's manager and left over that. Paul's questions are as legitimate as any other. He brings ideas and suggestions, a welcome attitude. Not one that needed to be "dismissed" like that - and "dismissed" really was a polite word for it.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 24, 2010 10:51:37 GMT -5
There has been a lot of discussion on this topic among a minority of the owners (I could be wrong, but 11 of 26 owners have chimed in). Does anyone else feel it's time to have a poll to see what the rest of silent owners think? This is a very hot topic with good arguments for and against the idea of not allowing the trading of draft picks and it's ugly cousin of restricting the amount you can have.
I think we have done enough simply by making a level field with the farm system, medical and scouting. Why should we take this even further in an attempt to protect people from themselves?
In fact, if you want different winners each year, regardless of how good an owner really is, why dont we just realign the divisions each year so that all the worst teams are in their own division and all the playoff teams from the previous year are in their own. That way only one or two teams from the previous years playoffs can make it the next year. I am only kidding. But if thats what you want then just do that and the undeserving teams will finally get their chance.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 24, 2010 11:43:06 GMT -5
Also...maybe if your team has a losing record ten years in a row or something like that, they should be removed from the league...
I mean were full right now....and i know most new owners dont stick around, but we could get lucky and get another good owner
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Jan 24, 2010 14:10:16 GMT -5
I don't see why we need to restrict draft pick trading. Owners just need to be smarter and more judicious when trading away picks. Draft picks are your future, and the well-being of your franchise depends on them. Several years back, I had a string of drafts where I traded my second and third rounds picks to plug holes on my division-leading team. It eventually caught up to me and caused one of my rebuilds (not the current one). I've learned my lesson and usually keep most of my picks nowadays unless I'm acquiring a real difference maker. First (and maybe second) round picks are not worth a couple years of a player. As Scott mentioned earlier, you have to be patient to see results. Sure, an aging star is nice for right now, but if you want to to build a lasting dynasty from a cellar-dweller you have to be patient. Oh, and don't trade with the Braves.
Scott - all kidding aside - I'm curious why you are so quickly dismissing the 40 man roster, rule V draft? I'm not sure if I'm for or against it yet, but it is a decent idea. I don't recall seeing why you are so opposed to it. I'm guessing because it is a lot of extra work?
One idea for draft pick trading we could take from the NBA is not allowing teams to trade first round picks in consecutive drafts. This would keep at least a decent amount of good young prospects on each team and prevent an owner from wrecking a team's future. It also doesn't stop teams from acquiring picks in the event of a rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 24, 2010 14:40:02 GMT -5
As Scott mentioned earlier, you have to be patient to see results. Sure, an aging star is nice for right now, but if you want to to build a lasting dynasty from a cellar-dweller you have to be patient. Exactly. But to be fair, being patient really didn't mean anything in the past because our farm systems were jacked up. Teams like the Pirates never had a prayer because the farm system ratings were stacked against them. This is not the case anymore, and patience will now work. Almost every team in the league is going to have a chance over the next few seasons to win their division. Just look at the minor league systems around the league and you will see what I mean. Oh, and don't trade with the Braves. HAHA. Nice. Most people don't even have the opportunity anymore as I barely participate in trading. Like most teams in TMBL now, my roster is pretty big. I still think this is the main reason that trades don't happen anymore, although we try to blame it on a million different things. Teams just flat out don't need anything anymore. Scott - all kidding aside - I'm curious why you are so quickly dismissing the 40 man roster, rule V draft? I'm not sure if I'm for or against it yet, but it is a decent idea. I don't recall seeing why you are so opposed to it. I'm guessing because it is a lot of extra work? It would be a ton of work. It would be more of a tracking nightmare than anything we have ever done in this league. It would take a lot of work just get all 26 owners to understand what a Rule V draft is. Then, you throw in the fact that owners already complain they don't have enough time. This would add more time consumption to the league if an owner was serious about the draft. I have shot this idea down a million times over the years both as an owner and as commish (most of which were likely via PM). There are 2 or 3 owners in this league that would like to see it happen and keep bringing it back up. Under no circumstances while I am commish will we have a Rule V draft. One idea for draft pick trading we could take from the NBA is not allowing teams to trade first round picks in consecutive drafts. This would keep at least a decent amount of good young prospects on each team and prevent an owner from wrecking a team's future. It also doesn't stop teams from acquiring picks in the event of a rebuild. If we are to do something, I agree that it should probably revolve around 1st round picks. These are incredibly valuable, and I am not sure many owners realize how valuable they are. Whether you are the 1st overall pick or the 26th overall pick, you are going to have a chance at a future superstar if you pick the right player. Some may disagree, but I almost feel like the players that go from #10 to #26 are often turning out to be better than the players going #1 to #9 as the very first picks are almost "forced" picks because the players are often ready to go to the majors from Day 1 rather than developing in to even better players down the road.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Jan 24, 2010 15:27:25 GMT -5
Taking away the right to trade draft picks or even limiting them is a huge rule change IMO.
I'd also like to see a poll on this if we could before setting a rule in place.
Most of the bad teams stand a chance at getting better with the rules we have in place now. But bad owners will always be just that bad owners. What makes anyone think that they would now take the time to study for their draft picks - Oh wait we now give them list picks with good players - again bad owners being bad owners.
|
|
|
Post by drew on Jan 24, 2010 18:53:52 GMT -5
The Dodgers are against restrictions on trading DPs. I am ok with banning selling them though.
I am ok with any decision regarding rule V, waivers or 40 man rosters.
|
|
|
Post by boffer on Jan 25, 2010 0:53:27 GMT -5
I agree on stopping DP trades for cash.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Jan 25, 2010 12:37:29 GMT -5
Pirates would like to weigh in...
DP trades for cash should be outlawed. I also agree with Halos that a team should not be allowed to trade #1 DP's in consecutive seasons. However, I don't think it's fair to limit how many picks an owner should have per round, this is a major strategy in the rebuilding process, especially if you have your eyes on multiple players after running sims. Last draft I wanted to acquire a multitude of SP through the draft last year, so I made a few deals to get multiple second round picks and now I have several guys that I think can help me down the line. I wouldn't have a problem with perhaps limiting teams to three picks per round, but I vehemently disagree with requiring everyone to have one first rounder.
I'd also like to touch on why everyone is once again so up in arms about the competition in this league. It's always the same owners who talk about the rich getting richer, but I look across the league and see a plethora of new teams on the block that are ready to compete. . A ton of teams like the Phillies, Twins, Pirates, and others have had to listen to this crap the entire time about how their teams were just going to get worse while the big boys would continue to beat them like a drum. Now I look around the league and see a lot of these teams are ready to provide some stout opposition in the coming seasons.
Daniel Gibson brought up a great point on the first page when he outlined the league. A lot of the teams that were criticized during their rebuilding process are now reaping the rewards! Sure, some owners are better than others, but if you survey league at present I think it is as competitive as it has been in quite a while.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Jan 25, 2010 12:46:50 GMT -5
As Scott mentioned earlier, you have to be patient to see results. Sure, an aging star is nice for right now, but if you want to to build a lasting dynasty from a cellar-dweller you have to be patient. Exactly. But to be fair, being patient really didn't mean anything in the past because our farm systems were jacked up. Teams like the Pirates never had a prayer because the farm system ratings were stacked against them.This is not the case anymore, and patience will now work. Almost every team in the league is going to have a chance over the next few seasons to win their division. Just look at the minor league systems around the league and you will see what I mean. HAHA. Nice. Most people don't even have the opportunity anymore as I barely participate in trading. Like most teams in TMBL now, my roster is pretty big. I still think this is the main reason that trades don't happen anymore, although we try to blame it on a million different things. Teams just flat out don't need anything anymore. It would be a ton of work. It would be more of a tracking nightmare than anything we have ever done in this league. It would take a lot of work just get all 26 owners to understand what a Rule V draft is. Then, you throw in the fact that owners already complain they don't have enough time. This would add more time consumption to the league if an owner was serious about the draft. I have shot this idea down a million times over the years both as an owner and as commish (most of which were likely via PM). There are 2 or 3 owners in this league that would like to see it happen and keep bringing it back up. Under no circumstances while I am commish will we have a Rule V draft. One idea for draft pick trading we could take from the NBA is not allowing teams to trade first round picks in consecutive drafts. This would keep at least a decent amount of good young prospects on each team and prevent an owner from wrecking a team's future. It also doesn't stop teams from acquiring picks in the event of a rebuild. If we are to do something, I agree that it should probably revolve around 1st round picks. These are incredibly valuable, and I am not sure many owners realize how valuable they are. Whether you are the 1st overall pick or the 26th overall pick, you are going to have a chance at a future superstar if you pick the right player. Some may disagree, but I almost feel like the players that go from #10 to #26 are often turning out to be better than the players going #1 to #9 as the very first picks are almost "forced" picks because the players are often ready to go to the majors from Day 1 rather than developing in to even better players down the road. To be fair, I did all of that assuming that the farm system that I had been spending top $$$ on for years would improve as it should hve. I also thought about the possibility of the farm never making it back, and assumed there would be some sort of rule change if the system was working illogically (turns out it was, and now we have the balanced farm systems).
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 25, 2010 15:11:07 GMT -5
Any team can have a Cinderella season and any team can have a season where everything goes wrong. That's not healthy competition, that's the BBM random number generator.
But the next season, things get back to normal for the teams that were blessed or cursed the previous year.
Having some teams need to go into hibernation for rebuilding, trading away most or all their decent players for prospects and draft picks, is proof that the balance problem exists, not proof that it doesn't.
And is that the kind of play you want? Teams purposely setting themselves up for 100 loss seasons? Didn't you kick a long time owner out of the league for that a few seasons ago?
It's not as simple as bad owners hurting their own teams. It's owners, bad or good, hurting all the other teams.
Every first or second round DP traded from a bottom 6 team to a consistently dominant team hurts every other team in the same league as that dominant team.
Every top 6 or 8 team that's allowed to stack DPs in any round is trying to set themselves up for godhood. That's why we used to have roster size limits before 2k8.
Paul Santolin (Jays) tried to tell you all that the way to regain balance is a choice of perceived evils, and he got his head stepped on. That still doesn't make him wrong.
If you won't stop DP trading, then you need to go to a Rule V system.
If you're too lazy to go with Rule V, then you need to stop DP trading.
At the very least, without a Rule V draft system, you need to limit picks per round by team rank as averaged over 5 consecutive seasons. No top 6 team should ever have more than their own 1st and 2nd round picks. And sorry, but I'm not including Western division winning teams in the top 6.
I picked stopping draft pick trading because, as overwhelmingly unpopular as I knew the idea would be, it'll still be more popular than telling owners in this league they have to create and maintain 40 man rosters, because it's easier and doesn't demand more time from anyone.
Mogul leagues have the only persistent world multi-player gamers who can get away with using the argument "I don't have enough time" to block rules or limit play options, and actually have other people support them.
Try that in any other persistent world multi-player game, and the other players would invite you to leave.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 25, 2010 16:42:06 GMT -5
I know teams trading picks could and can occur almost anytime. But the logic should be that the contenders should be the one sacrificing picks in order to keep contending or remain on top, and the "rebuilding" teams or bottom teams should be acquiring picks to give themselves a better shot at eventually contending. But it's not exactly what's been happening in TMBL.
The historical record on picks traded since the 6 round draft (1970) speaks for itself. Looking only at first and second round picks, those Traded (T) and Acquired (A), as well as what teams were involved, here is exactly what can be found.
25 of the 26 teams traded or acquired a first or second round pick since 1970. Some were extremely active at it, while others barely ever traded or acquired such picks.
Some teams, no matter if they did it a lot or not, managed to trade and acquire relatively the same amount of first and second round picks, whether it was +2 (acquired 2 more than they traded) or -2 (traded 2 more than they acquired). These don't have the same type of impact than some of the other teams we are going to look at now.
Five teams show a positive differential of at least +4, meaning that they acquired that many more 1st and 2nd round DP than they got rid of. They are:
Red Sox and Braves: +4.
Look at that: Our top two teams in the entire league. And yet, we're only looking at first and second round picks, because they have a stronger impact on the teams, but acquire a ton of 3rd and 4th round picks, and among the lot, you're certain to find a few players that will have a very positive impact on your teams. The Braves did trade a lot of 1-2 round picks, a total of 10 since 1970, but were the most active team in acquiring 14 first and second round picks, the only team in double digits there. And guess what? The Braves were a powerhouse all along the 70s, and will keep being so for a long while. Acquiring so many picks is part of the reason for it. As for Boston, they acquired half of Atlanta's 1-2 round picks, 7, but managed to keep their own picks, trading 1-2 round picks only three times. That team is also a powerhouse, and don't have any problems for the future.
Don't get me wrong: both are great owners and do the smartest job with their teams. Let's continue.
Reds and Cubs: +5.
The Reds have also been a powerhouse all along the 70s and there's no end of that sucess in sight. That team acquired 8 first and second round picks, and kept most of theirs, trading only 3. 5 players coming directly from rounds 1 and 2, as well as your own picks from those rounds, you can't say it doesn't make a difference. When the team acquiring those picks is an expert at drafting (and the ones in the high pluses all are), it means trouble for the rest of the league. As for the Cubs, they have yet to start dominating, but everyone agrees that they are stacked and look to be the team of the future. And why wouldn't they be? The Cubs acquired 6 first and second round picks, while only trading away one of their own. That's a helluva smart +5.
Phillies: +7.
Come again? The Phillies were very active in acquiring several picks, like many many teams, but unlike those teams, they hung on to their own picks. 9 acquired against 2 traded, a stunning +7. Oh, and what's the word out on them Phillies? Another team of the future, stacked, and ready to take over the league.
Can these teams say thank you to some other teams that were negligent with their own picks? Sure, they can. Let's look at the other end of the specter.
Athletics: -7.
Sure, the A's were one of the better teams of the mid 70s, even managing a World title. The cost of it was sacrificing a lot of picks and prospects. And now that team is close to being in total disarray. That's what acquiring only one 1-2 round pick and trading away 8 of your own will do to you. But that's the thing, see? It's not only the team that it hurts: it's the entire league.
Dodgers: -9.
Woah! 11 of the Dodgers picks from rounds 1 and 2 since 1970 have gone to other teams (very often top teams, too). The team acquired in that same span only 2 picks from the first two rounds. -9, think about it. And yes, they just won their division, but with an awful record of 80-82. Think of it this way: the least worst team won that division. And it's been like that for years in that lowly NL West.
So trading away picks does have an impact, and a major one.
It's obvious everyone loves trading picks. None of you admitted that you prefer to acquire the picks than to trade them. But the numbers speak for themselves. Top teams (and I do mean the one with great records, even if they missed the playoffs) are all in the positive here, except Montreal who's at -3. And Montreal is the only top team not to be stacked in the minors.
I'd be sad too, if I wasn't allowed anymore to trade or acquire draft picks. Part of me would think that I am being limited in what I can do with my team. But another part of me, a more important one, would be thrilled about the good it would do to the league. Can't trade your picks, or not as much as before? So what? That's when people start being more creative.
If we don't do anything about this, it will only get worst. The proof is there. Our very best teams have taken great advantage at this. There's no reason for them to stop doing so. They may stand at +4, +5 or +7 now, but another decade of this, and we'll be looking at perennial winners. Aren't we already close to that?
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 25, 2010 18:11:15 GMT -5
were not close to perennial winners.......The angels have taken the west from the a's and should contend w/ another new team, the mariners for a while....White sox, and my twins should be able to be in thick of things with the usual indians and brew crew. Yankees, i think, will be able to be as good as the tigers, maybe even beat the sox.
nl....phillies are going be better than the expos, maybe even next year....the cubs are my favorite for next year, and if BBM is not too kind, the pirates will be in the thick of things. In the west the astros are fading, and IMHO the giants are going be the team for a year or two, then the padres.
So theres a chance, a good chance, next season we have all new team division winners.
Im in big NO for banning draft picks....i could go with the nba rule of not trading consecutive 1st rounders. i could go for a 40 man roster even tho i doubt that would happen, but im in favor of it.
Also, How about lowering the cap next year....instead of 150 million, lets all take ten million and donate it to a "charity"....it might force some of the unlimited cash it seems we have.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 25, 2010 18:58:54 GMT -5
were not close to perennial winners.......The angels have taken the west from the a's and should contend w/ another new team, the mariners for a while....White sox, and my twins should be able to be in thick of things with the usual indians and brew crew. Yankees, i think, will be able to be as good as the tigers, maybe even beat the sox. nl....phillies are going be better than the expos, maybe even next year....the cubs are my favorite for next year, and if BBM is not too kind, the pirates will be in the thick of things. In the west the astros are fading, and IMHO the giants are going be the team for a year or two, then the padres. So theres a chance, a good chance, next season we have all new team division winners. Your tour reviews are always entertaining, but always overwhelmingly optimistic. You can't use both West divisions as an exemple of the league being healthy. Those two divisions have been awful at times. Sure, the Angels won this year, and will do much better in the future, but they still won their division with a mere .500 record. In the NL, any team from the west division can win in any season. Sign of good health? Come on. Even you know better than that. Sure, the Phillies and Cubs are going to be dominant soon. One could only hope they finally would! The Cubs haven't posted a winning record since 1964!!! The Phillies last winning season was 1969. And you spoke of the Yankees? 1966 is the last season where they finished higher than fourth. Take the top teams, I mean, those that have been the top for a while. Boston: made the playoffs 6 of the last 7 seasons. Cleveland: 10 of the last 12 seasons. Atlanta missed the postseason only once since 1967. And Cincinnati has not missed it once since 1970. And yet, you claim we're not even close to perennial winners? Do any of these four teams look about to fade? Im in big NO for banning draft picks....i could go with the nba rule of not trading consecutive 1st rounders. That happened quite a few times since 1970, and it still happens to the day. One of the last teams to have done this is an old team, one that isn't contending, and that sacrificed two first rounders for veterans that won't take them anywhere. Let's not even talk about those who acquired first rounders in consecutive years... Also, How about lowering the cap next year....instead of 150 million, lets all take ten million and donate it to a "charity"....it might force some of the unlimited cash it seems we have. It wouldn't change a thing for these top teams. The only ones you'd hurt are those that stand in the middle of the pack, trying to get on top. Do you find it normal that a team like the Braves have a lower payroll than 13 of the teams that didn't qualify for the postseason?
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 25, 2010 19:09:42 GMT -5
Yes, the phillies, yanks, cubs have sucked for a while....I agree with that, and probably agree that the league has been dominated by the same clubs for a while. But i think the league is going see a lot of new teams next year, and especially the year after that. I think the reason for this is b/c the talent level is so high, its hard not to have a stacked team.
Maybe draft day trades should be vetoed more if there so bad of deals?
The braves have a low payroll b/c they always buy their guys down or they lose money to the cap...lowering the cap would directly affect how many guys they could buy down.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 25, 2010 20:13:01 GMT -5
I would just like to point out that 50% of the playoff teams this year did not make the playoffs last year. That is some pretty good turnover there.
You can continue to have this discussion all you want. I do think it has brought a few good things that will be implemented to the league, but I am just flat out not going to consider the banning of draft pick trades or a Rule V draft for at LEAST 3 to 5 more seasons. As I have stated 5 or 6 times now in this thread, the playing field was equalized in 1978 with the farm system grades. We are going to wait it out and watch things get better like they arleady are.
You spit out all these stats about how teams have not won anything since the 1960s. Well, that is because they didn't have a chance. How can you win when the draft picks you do make rot away in a rigged farm system? Why wouldn't you trade those picks away for something of value that doesn't have to develop when you know if you make a pick, it will rot away? When I was an owner only, that was precisely the argument I made when acquiring all those picks in the 1970s, as I was absolutely 100% right. There is not a chance in hell that the prospects / draft picks I acquired would have developed into anything on a team with a C- farm rating every year no matter how much they spent on the farm.
Look around the league now, and almost everyone is stacked. I am not going to insert a rule into the league banning one the areas of the game that people most enjoy. There is no reason to do it, and I hate rules that have no point to them.
We can continue to discuss little things that might help improve the league and help close a few loop holes, but a drastic change like this just isn't going to happen on my watch until it is 100% clear that it will actually have a result in the end that is needed.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 25, 2010 20:51:08 GMT -5
I would just like to point out that 50% of the playoff teams this year did not make the playoffs last year. That is some pretty good turnover there. One of the teams missing it was the Braves, talk more about a surprise than a turnover. How likely is that to happen on a regular basis? The Twins had missed it by only 3 games, the Angels by 4. The only real "turnover" has to be the Dodgers, who went from being 37 games back to being above the rest of the division. When I was an owner only, that was precisely the argument I made when acquiring all those picks in the 1970s, as I was absolutely 100% right. There is not a chance in hell that the prospects / draft picks I acquired would have developed into anything on a team with a C- farm rating every year no matter how much they spent on the farm. Sure. But then again, acquiring picks or other prospects for, well, other prospects, how did that do well for those teams? There was no picks involved in the Bucky Dent trade; however, your argument suddenly sounds strange, knowing that the other team "had not a chance in hell that the prospects they acquired would develop into anything". Chavez and McCall could have been picks instead of prospects, it would have worked out the same way. But it's true that having Farm equalized does change the data a bit. If anything, it makes picks worth that much more. Do all teams realize that? Obviously not. And we're still stuck with the problem that those who don't value picks well enough keep trading them to the teams that know how much gold a pick can be worth. Look around the league now, and almost everyone is stacked. I am not going to insert a rule into the league banning one the areas of the game that people most enjoy. There is no reason to do it, and I hate rules that have no point to them. Maybe not flat out ban it, but how about some sort of limitations? We've already had ideas submitted, whether it is forbidding the trade of 1st round picks in consecutive seasons, or limitations on the number of picks a team may acquire in each round. There is certainly something we can do that works perfectly for our needs and that satisfies most people. This isn't as drastic, and leaves room for owners to work with. But most importantly, it can make sure that things don't keep happening the way they have been for a number of years. The stats I pointed out about teams trading and acquiring picks date from 1970. But the tendancies of some teams that trade their picks a lot hasn't changed even after going to equalized farm. If that rule has or will have an eventual impact on the teams, it hasn't had much impact on how some teams hand out their picks to others, even though they'd now have as good a chance as anybody else to develop prospects through their minors.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 25, 2010 23:51:44 GMT -5
Scott makes a good point about the equalized grades, and yes it is going to take some time - but one thing that needs to be remembered is that the next time we expand, the grades will change and take 2 full seasons to get back to equal (experience from Outahere's two expansions after we equalized farm and medical grades).
That being said, it is still important for us to add positive rule changes to eliminate undesireable aspects of league activity. Banning the sale of a draft pick sounds like something that most guys are not completely against.
Having some limit to the number of picks you can acquire (which is a bit more restrictive than our rather loose anti-tanking policy) is another idea but what is a good number? Perhaps we could look at something like 5 first and second round picks. If a team is able to get add 3 firsts through trades and hold on to their 1st and 2nd, that would be a great draft.
As for the 40 man roster/rule V idea, I get that Scott is against the idea, but it does work in other leagues and is not a huge hassle. That being said, if anyone wants to see how it works in Outahere, PM me and I'll send you the link.
I agree that change has to be gradual and that it needs to be change for the betterment of the league. This is the longest running Mogul League and should only get healthier as we get closer to the present time. Considering different alternatives is the best way of deciding what changes we are ready to both implement and support as a group of owners and league officials.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Jan 26, 2010 0:04:51 GMT -5
I would just like to point out that 50% of the playoff teams this year did not make the playoffs last year. That is some pretty good turnover there. You can continue to have this discussion all you want. I do think it has brought a few good things that will be implemented to the league, but I am just flat out not going to consider the banning of draft pick trades or a Rule V draft for at LEAST 3 to 5 more seasons. As I have stated 5 or 6 times now in this thread, the playing field was equalized in 1978 with the farm system grades. We are going to wait it out and watch things get better like they arleady are. You spit out all these stats about how teams have not won anything since the 1960s. Well, that is because they didn't have a chance. How can you win when the draft picks you do make rot away in a rigged farm system? Why wouldn't you trade those picks away for something of value that doesn't have to develop when you know if you make a pick, it will rot away? When I was an owner only, that was precisely the argument I made when acquiring all those picks in the 1970s, as I was absolutely 100% right. There is not a chance in hell that the prospects / draft picks I acquired would have developed into anything on a team with a C- farm rating every year no matter how much they spent on the farm.Look around the league now, and almost everyone is stacked. I am not going to insert a rule into the league banning one the areas of the game that people most enjoy. There is no reason to do it, and I hate rules that have no point to them. We can continue to discuss little things that might help improve the league and help close a few loop holes, but a drastic change like this just isn't going to happen on my watch until it is 100% clear that it will actually have a result in the end that is needed. Thank you. Terry you keep giving out these stats from the past, but the league is starting to become more competitive than ever because of exactly what Scott said: the farm systems made it impossible for a multitude of teams to even want to bother drafting. Now that this has changed, the league is becoming as competitive as ever.
|
|
|
Post by bsager on Jan 26, 2010 14:04:35 GMT -5
I'm against any sort of DP trading restriction. The cash for DP thing doesn't seem to be a problem to me. It may happen once or twice per year, but it is usually 4th round picks going for like $10M-$15M, which I think is more than they are worth as it is. That being said, the banning of trading of cash straight up for draft picks is so rare, that I wouldn't care if it was banned either. It seems like a non-issue to me.
Banning the trading of DPs would hurt trading overall. Trading away crapping vets for DPs is a great way for teams that are out of it to reload for the following year.
Also, I like what the Padres did this year; they went into full-scale rebuilding mode and acquired a ton of picks. I don't want to see any restriction against this.
|
|
|
Post by zekeb311 on Jan 26, 2010 15:06:38 GMT -5
Terry said,
Athletics: -7.
...Sure, the A's were one of the better teams of the mid 70s, even managing a World title. The cost of it was sacrificing a lot of picks and prospects. And now that team is close to being in total disarray. That's what acquiring only one 1-2 round pick and trading away 8 of your own will do to you. But that's the thing, see? It's not only the team that it hurts: it's the entire league...
I think this was the debate the entire time guys. It was quite obvious i was going to be in dissaray eventualy, but i wanted a world series title before that happened. It worked too, Its a strategy, and in my opinion taking out picks will kill what little strategy there is left. Also, if teams like the braves become "Perenial winners" so what? thats the point isnt it? The leagues not about everyone getting their shot at the title its about managing a team. If you suck you need to improve your strategy. Yes thats right im working on improving my strategy as well, but just because theres a way someone can go that may not turn out for them in the long run doesnt mean we should take that strategy out of the book. I hope what i said made some sense to yall. Now off to the doctor and my re signings.
EDIT: Im not making this about me, im just using my team as an exmple.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 26, 2010 15:09:11 GMT -5
How does equalized farm spending and (mostly) equalized farm rank help future balance when the top teams are the ones adding the draft pick talent to their rosters, and have been consistently doing it for around a dozen seasons? but a drastic change like this just isn't going to happen on my watch until it is 100% clear that it will actually have a result in the end that is needed. So, if you won't do it under any other circumstances, how could it become " 100% clear" to you that it will " actually have a result in the end that is needed"? Did you mean to say something else? And drastic? Please. That makes it sound like not trading draft picks is unnatural, even though the sport we're supposed to be simulating doesn't allow it and never has. Banning all trading would be drastic. Having a balance draft would be drastic. Having the added penalty of forcing 3rd and 4th round list picks for the next season's draft onto an owner who, perhaps for the first time, times out in the current draft is drastic. As rules go, you can't get much more passive than this. It effects less than 1% of the league's total tradable assets. It's one of the least intrusive changes I can think of. Less intrusive than having an anti-tanking rule, and accomplishes the same thing: preventing top teams from doing something that gets them draft picks which they aren't supposed to have. Hell, at least when a top team tanks, someone else gets a win and a loyalty boost. When a top team trades for more multiple picks in the next draft, nobody but that team benefits. But since your mind's made up, you might as well just lock the thread and let us all move on. Seriously. Some of these replies are painful. Thank you. Terry you keep giving out these stats from the past, but the league is starting to become more competitive than ever because of exactly what Scott said: the farm systems made it impossible for a multitude of teams to even want to bother drafting. Now that this has changed, the league is becoming as competitive as ever. If everyone has an improved farm system, then the teams that had the most picks every year before this still have the advantage. Where was your improved farm system when the Braves and Reds smacked your team back down to 3rd this year, as they resumed their perpetual control of the #1 and #2 spots in the NL Central? Paraphrasing Orwell's Animal Farm: All farm systems are equal, but some farm systems are more equal than others.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 26, 2010 15:22:58 GMT -5
Also, if teams like the braves become "Perenial winners" so what? It limits perspective future owners, while giving current owners more reason to quit. The only people who want to join a league like this are people who get to take over one of those top teams, and people who want to go into deep hibernation mode for a decade because it fits their limited play time. Good, active, owners look at leagues like this, then go back to the Sports Mogul forums to see what other leagues have an opening. It's not only losing team owners who leave leagues, the winning owners leave too. It's boring to lose all the time, but many people also get bored from winning all the time. As a league, you have to hope it's the top team owners who leave first, and the new owner blows the team apart. But even then, you're still left with getting amateur owners who really shouldn't be playing at league level.
|
|
|
Post by zekeb311 on Jan 26, 2010 15:32:37 GMT -5
personaly i think simming to 1994 with your prospects from the '81 draft should be outlawed. But thats just me
|
|