|
Post by sj on Feb 10, 2010 14:18:46 GMT -5
Scott, as much as I'm in favor of getting rid of buy downs and points, you can't just pull the plug without more notice. Teams need the chance to make changes within the system they always used, and thought was still available to them.
You said you'd probably hold off on points until the end of the season, You should do the same thing with buy downs. Some owners already made their decisions about signing some players knowing that they could reduce their payroll, and it's a bit late to take that option away. After the April 15 or 30 file is posted, get rid of them. But not before.
That applies to every rule that makes a significant change to the way owners can do things, whether you believe it's important or not.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 10, 2010 18:43:03 GMT -5
I can see the point on "points", not on buydowns.
Buydowns have no effect as I have pointed out over and over. And even if the argument is made that they do have an effect on the profit that can be made based on a team's cash level, then getting rid of them would only help the balance of the league as it is team's like my own with ton's and ton's of cash that are hurt by getting rid of them. Those are gone without question.
I am still not sure I am going to get around to reviewing the points issue, so it is likely going to wait until next season just due to not having enough time to deal with it right now.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 11, 2010 12:51:18 GMT -5
I still think it's a mistake to come up with and implement a change to normal team operations without giving people time to prepare, but it's your league.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Feb 11, 2010 14:45:15 GMT -5
i think theres no point to buydowns, but why not give teams that believe it does another year or at least one more sim as its only important to buy down before as if you do it during the season its really dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 11, 2010 18:40:39 GMT -5
Because I do not have the time to deal with something that doesn't have any impact on the league.
Points are a much different story as noted above, and I will wait until next season to do that.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 12, 2010 14:51:25 GMT -5
Because I do not have the time to deal with something that doesn't have any impact on the league. You're repealing a rule, without sufficient notice, that was voted in by a 2/3rds majority years ago because you don't have time to deal with it? One that was part of the job when you accepted it? You don't think it's important, a lot of others disagree with you. Those people deserve their last season using the rule we've had since early 2006. Push opening day back a few days and have time to deal with it. Or maybe get an assistant.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 12, 2010 16:15:48 GMT -5
Although I am willing to do without the buydowns as a team owner, there's one thing I learned after receiving several comments over the years:
People need time.
They not only need time to get used to new rules, or to changes to existing rules, etc., but they also need time for the info to sink in.
They needed time to prepare for expansion drafts. They needed time to adapt to the game after a switch. They needed time to a lot of issues. But more importantly, they needed time to adapt to whatever decision the league took that had an impact on how they were running their teams or not.
Sure, not every owner used buydowns. But several of those that did so thought - doesn't matter if it was right or wrong to think that way - that it had an impact on their teams. For many owners who made buydowns, there was a whole strategy about it, buydowns mattered in a special way.
Removing them is one thing, I'm not contesting that. But removing them with little if any notice at all doesn't do good to anyone but one person.
The league doesn't have to be built in the best way possible around one person's schedule and desires, but as a huge ensemble made up of several people who work differently and at a different pace. Going to the extremes (extremely fast, extremely slow) to accomodate whoever is accomodated best by it isn't good.
Even if real life, we get notices. The landlord taking the appartment back or raising it, bank stuff, etc., even all that stuff needs time. At least for the common people.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 12, 2010 19:42:20 GMT -5
Because I do not have the time to deal with something that doesn't have any impact on the league. You don't think it's important, a lot of others disagree with you. I don't think it's not important. I know it's not important. I'm not sure what else to tell you besides the math problem I posted for you. Some ideas of yours I will take up. This isn't one of them. 2/3rds of owners did vote for it, including myself I believe. That is because 2/3rds didn't understand that with or without buydowns they were in the same situation. I don't care how long we have had a rule. If the rule doesn't do anything, it is not going to exist anymore. I have removed these types of rules one by one by one. Many of them were put into place because of one crazy type of situation, so in order to prevent it, we penalized everyone else. Soon there aren't going to be any left, and we are going to have a set of rules that actually have a purpose. This is my last post on the topic. I have better things to do than repeat myself over and over.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 13, 2010 15:17:15 GMT -5
2/3rds of owners did vote for it, including myself I believe. That is because 2/3rds didn't understand that with or without buydowns they were in the same situation.
I don't care how long we have had a rule. If the rule doesn't do anything, it is not going to exist anymore. I have removed these types of rules one by one by one. Many of them were put into place because of one crazy type of situation, so in order to prevent it, we penalized everyone else. Soon there aren't going to be any left, and we are going to have a set of rules that actually have a purpose. With you as sole arbiter, of course, and all decisions made based on your time, your play style, and your team. I don't care what rationalizations you use to try fooling yourself and the people in this league, but you're not as omniscient as you seem to think you are, based on what you posted above. You don't take away owner play options without first giving them a chance to adapt to the new play style, just because it saves you time. That's no way to run a league, even if it serves you best. You need to rethink that part about summarily removing rules that you personally don't like, or adding different ones that you do personally like, with a continued lack of requests for input from the owners that you're expecting to have live with those changes. Despite what you posted, I don't care if you take my advice about rules changes or not. What I do care about is that you're making decisions based on your time, and dismissing suggestions from anybody who brings up something that you don't want to take the time to do. I strongly suggest that you get an assistant, or let Mosko do more than just run sims. Then maybe you'll have some time.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Feb 13, 2010 16:34:30 GMT -5
Perhaps I should just keep it to myself, but it seems the overall argument here comes down to the following point:
The majority of owners understand buydowns do not really do anything except for perhaps aesthetically pleasing their respective owners budget line. Now the people pushing for change would like to slow it down...
I appreciate the stance of the Cardinals and Expos in that they are taking the side of the minority owners that perhaps do not post in such a well spoken verse. Notice is always good for change if possible. Its good that there are owners who speak up. In my opinion, everyone seems to be posting something to the effect of "I know they don't matter, but I/we need more time". Also, its important for there to be set ways Commissioners go about changing rules and such. In this case though, if the majority knows the rule in place is not really doing anything, why not just do it now. In fantasy baseball, mogul or politics, if someone is willing to actually make a change that will set the whole in the right direction, do not get in their way... Just my opinion. I think Teams will adapt fine.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Feb 13, 2010 17:07:34 GMT -5
The majority of owners understand buydowns do not really do anything except for perhaps aesthetically pleasing their respective owners budget line. Now the people pushing for change would like to slow it down... (...) I think Teams will adapt fine. People needing time isn't something we imagine, it's something we experienced. Back when I was a commissioner, I repeated stuff a lot, over and over, and I did so a lot more than Scott is doing. That's his choice, and part of me understands it: you get tired of always repeating stuff. Some owners - a minority - were annoyed by all the stuff I kept repeating. I liked that: it proved they were paying attention. Yet, despite repeating things a lot, I could see that many, and I do mean many, weren't quite paying attention as I wish they had. Looking at all the changes we went through over the years, minor or major, stuff comes back to my mind. We raised league minimum salary to 400k? We still have 1 or 2 teams making 300k bids - and it's been YEARS since we raised the minimum salary. We adopted the DH rule in 1973? I had to deal with AL teams submitting lineups without DH as well as NL teams making lineups with DH. And that was at a time when it was not even an option do your lineup directly from the game and post the file. We set up a whole method of re-negotiating with walk-year players? Many seasons after, I still had owners post instructions which made it obvious that they didn't understand the system. Let alone know that we had the system. Back in the 60s, with BBM 2k4, we had a 20% discount when re-signing our players. We dropped that discount when we switched over to the 2k8 in 1970. Would you believe an owner asked for the discount in recent seasons? And I could go on with many more examples like these. Several seasons after some rules were implemented, I had owners come and ask me stuff you wouldn't believe. "Since when have we worked this way?", they would ask. "More than 5 seasons now", sometimes more. I'm not talking about owners who only passed in TMBL. I'm talking about some that are still with us. That have been with us for a while, a long while in some cases. I'm not criticizing them. They're part of the league - and they're less a minority than you could think. They're part of the league as much as the owners that pay attention the most. As much as the one that pays attention the most, and as much as the one that makes decisions by his own according to how he feels about it. Sure, let's get rid of the buydowns. Let's even get rid of points. I have no opposition to that. But the people need time. Notice is the keyword here. Right now, it's about the buydowns, but later, it'll be about something else. Will everyone agree if the contest is (eventually) removed without any notice? It's not only about why things happen. It's also about how they happen.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Feb 14, 2010 16:40:52 GMT -5
Perhaps I should just keep it to myself Never think that way. We need more owner input in this league, not less (a few more polls and league email about ongoing debates would be nice too, but that's another subject). Sometimes we'll debate (argue) points made by other owners, but that's just how it works. With enough people participating, when the dust settles, we hopefully arrive at a consensus. Sometimes that even effects something. Not in this case, you understand. Or in the case of the Rule V suggestion. Or in the case of only spending one day on March file last season. But once in a while it does - um - something. I think. Or maybe not. Still, always speak up.
|
|