|
Post by joshb914 on Jan 26, 2010 23:02:26 GMT -5
Nothing has changed in the Braves/Reds/Red Sox farm systems. They were A or A+ before and they are still at the same level, the equalized spending change didn't benefit them at all. What the change did do is allow other teams to catch up. To be honest I'm a little skeptical as to why the more knowledgeable and active owners never suggested that the system was actually bugged (maybe because it helped them stay so far ahead...)
The Braves and Reds have always had great owners that drafted well, and their prospects typically developed as they hoped because of a strong farm. Now that my farm grade is what it should be I have a chance to do that as well. And I see a lot of other owners doing that, too.
And I don't think me being in third place this season has anything to do with it. The NL Central is as competitive as ever and will become even more so in the coming seasons. My team is not quite the finished product yet, take a look at my minors, I still have a few positions to fill over the next couple of seasons. Last year was a nice run for me but I just got lucky to have a few veterans play over their heads while the Braves were in a transition year.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 26, 2010 23:47:45 GMT -5
That's a fine analysis of the situation, Josh, as well as for your team too. And it's true that whenever some top teams have an edge somewhere, they'll often try to keep that edge as long as possible, even if it means voting against good ideas or even not submitting those ideas in the first place.
The thing is, even if all four teams in the NL Central are very good, even if they all win 95 games or more in any given season, only two of them will make the playoffs. This may be preferable to having only one team winning a bit, and 3 others losing 95. But for you as well as for the Cubs, don't you hate seeing how easily sometimes some teams hand over their picks to the Reds and Braves that you're trying to catch up? And it's not as if they've never done this: their own trade records show that. No team acquired more picks than the Braves since 1970. Who's second (still a bunch back)? The Pirates. Good for you, although some of those picks were acquired back when your farm was so awful and there's nothing you could do about it. Things aren't gonna change. Top teams that have always traded for picks will keep trading for picks.
If it turns out that, by 1990, you realize you spent a decade trying to catch up to these guys and have finished 3rd and 4th all along despite winning records all the time, will you still feel it was fun?
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Jan 27, 2010 2:15:34 GMT -5
^^^ We are on an even playing field now because of the equalized spending, are selecting from the same draft pool, and both have ample opportunities to add additional picks if we think we have the assets. If I don't make the playoffs before 1990 it's just because those guys are better owners and drafted/acquired better players than me. Now that my farm system is much better, I have tried to become a major player in trying to acquire draft picks as well so I can try and keep up with them. That being said, I highly doubt my team suffers to that extent when guys like Bream/Henderson/Bailey/Coles get into the mix but that is still a few seasons away, and another issue altogether.
I don't get frustrated about teams dealing their picks because I know that I actively pursue them as well. Sometimes owners don't see anyone they like in the draft (or even just didn't have enough time to run sims) and will deal picks in the later rounds to help fill holes.
I do highly agree that teams should not be allowed to trade first rounders in back-to-back season and I think that is something we should seriously consider.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 27, 2010 6:28:07 GMT -5
If nothing else, to those that have been paying attention, this thread should make people realize the value of a first round pick. But, I don't want anyone else deciding for me how to run my team. I have made a lot of mistakes along the way and surely have learned from them.
I appreciate what Terry, Rand and Paul are saying, I really do. But.....I am completely not interested (aka against) in any restriction on draft pick trading at all. I do not care if it works in outahere, in fact, last I looked, this was Mogul, and we have been very successful in our own right. I do not see a mogul death spiral. I saw a league that was full, which until recently never happened, at least since I've been around in 1966. There are many teams that are preparing to make a run for their division, many more than ever under Rands or Terrys watch, so let equalized farm system play out for a while and see if it works. The most important thing we can do is make this fun for everyone and eliminating or restricting the trading of draft picks takes away both fun and strategy. Two elements vital to a healthy league.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 27, 2010 15:03:18 GMT -5
Going off topic here for a moment. To be honest I'm a little skeptical as to why the more knowledgeable and active owners never suggested that the system was actually bugged (maybe because it helped them stay so far ahead...) This is something you need to be looking for in order to notice it, and you need to have a reason to look for it. The owners who should have noticed it were the ones with low ranks who increased spending, because they're the ones that had a reason to keep an eye on it. This wasn't a conspiracy, it was simply an unnoticed bug. Or feature. Do you want full disclosure? Fasten your seat belt. I recently researched this bug, and found that, according to the gurus on the SM forums, it's been proven that it's impossible for all teams to tie at A+. By design. Going from memory, this is what they say: 2 can make A+ 2 or 3 can make A 3 or 4 can make B+ etc. That's why the ranks change every time we scroll through the league editor. Which is the right rank, the A+ or the D-? Probably neither, since scrolling in the league editor changes them over and over, as though you'd selected Reset Team Grades from the advanced tools menu. I never brought this up before because I'm not certain they're right, Clay has never bothered to either confirm or deny it, and even if it's true there's nothing we can do about it.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 27, 2010 16:37:04 GMT -5
And I don't think me being in third place this season has anything to do with it. The NL Central is as competitive as ever and will become even more so in the coming seasons. Except for the part where you went from 100 wins back down to 82 wins playing a balanced schedule. Fact is, you and I both had better seasons in 1980 than either of us had a right to expect. My team only made .500, but they shouldn't have done that either, they should have lost 92+, and they sure didn't repeat their, um, success in 1981, even though it was a slightly better team than the .500 team. What happened to both our teams this season is a lot closer to what should have happened last season and, if everything else is roughly equal, what'll happen again next season. Same for the Braves, but in reverse. Not that any of this matters. The only thing that trumps "I don't wanna", is "because I said so", and our mommy and daddy aren't saying so. I knew there was a reason I hate free market conservative republicans ;D
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Jan 27, 2010 18:10:43 GMT -5
Can we all agree that the Yankees have been bad for a long time? I went to the transaction section and looked through all 23 pages and they only traded their 3rd and 4th round picks once. They barely even make trades, So has not trading picks helped them at all. What did help them was the equalized farm and they finally have something to build on (but then again we had to make a rule so they would bring the players up).
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Mar 28, 2010 13:06:39 GMT -5
For the record, 3 teams from last postseason made it again.
5 teams are new.... and we were pretty close to having 6 new, but Phillies fell just short...
Oh, and the Braves and Red Sox are not taking part in this postseason. Maybe that will finally stop this ridcoulous argument about the league not being competitive. I am not sure there has ever been a more competitive period since this league began...
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Mar 28, 2010 13:19:08 GMT -5
^^^ Thank you, sir. Going through the comments in this thread just makes me laugh. This league is as competitive as ever, methinks that some teams brought up the bogus argument regarding the competitiveness of the league because they are just upset their team is not enjoying the success that they once were!
|
|
|
Post by sj on Mar 28, 2010 15:18:17 GMT -5
For the record, 3 teams from last postseason made it again. 5 teams are new.... and we were pretty close to having 6 new, but Phillies fell just short... Oh, and the Braves and Red Sox are not taking part in this postseason. Maybe that will finally stop this ridiculous argument about the league not being competitive. I am not sure there has ever been a more competitive period since this league began... Wow. Do you cook the books like that at work too? ;D Expos - 7th season in a row Pirates - Hibernated from 1971 through 1978, losing 90+ games per season for 8 seasons of early DPs managed to win the division for the second time in three years, beating out the Reds and a sub-par Braves team. Reds - 13th season in row Astros - 7th time since 1972, or 7 out of the last 11 years, and they did it with 83 wins, and only lost 13.5M this time around. Not seen in the playoff since.... 1980. Shocker! Tigers - First time since 1977. Great work Johnnyboy, especially since you've been running a winning team since you took it over. Few owners manage that. Boston - Dismal performance. Only won 93 games. Cleveland - 11th time since 1970, or 11 out of 13 seasons. Brewers - 4th time in 5 seasons, also not seen in the playoffs since 1980. Another startling upset! Seattle - Brand new to the winners circle, and with a solid 100 wins after only 6 seasons in existence. Good job, Rich! So I count 2 teams new to the playoffs, and one repeating a 1980 division win which took 8 seasons of hibernation to create. Yes, we're very competitive, and I take back everything I said about everything. The bottom tier teams must be allowed to continue trading their draft picks away!
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Mar 28, 2010 16:13:30 GMT -5
It's amazing how some people can round out their argumentation by totally overlooking at simple facts, only so everyone else can believe that what they say must be true. Ignoring some facts because it suits your view better isn't honest. Heck, it's not even subtle.
Rand's layout of the playoff picture says it all. I add my personal congratulations to Johnnyboy and Rich, as well as Tom B. who certainly inherited a team with a good basis, but who made a great, great job at keeping and even improving the pace!
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Mar 29, 2010 11:01:42 GMT -5
Thank's guys!! I expected to battle for the wildcard not my division but I'll take it ;D
In basaball analogy I'm like a single batter, I'm always looking to improve my team bit by bit. Some others are looking and wait only for the centerplate fastball to hit the homerun (top picks). What is the best? I don't know but personnally, be passive would be very boring and bring me to lose all interest in that game.
But, TMBL is the only league that I'm involve in... if I would be involved in several ones, my attitude probably would be different.
|
|