RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Radical rule change suggestion.

Posted by: Ejector
- [19336170] Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 00:03

I just recalled a thought that occured to me a couple of years ago regarding a radical suggestion for the TSN game. Maybe it has been suggested before, maybe it is used in other games, but if so I am unaware of it.

Essentially, people would be able to "buy" trades. Not with real money, but with money from your roster value. For example, you could "buy" a pitcher trade for, say $250,000 of your roster value. Maybe hitter trades would not be worth quite as much, say $150,000. These figures are just speculative numbers, I've done no research to try to quantify what would be a fair price for a trade, but I'm sure you get the general idea. Of course the reverse would apply - you could sell trades for roster value if you wished.

Mad idea? Bad idea? I haven't thought through all the implications, and I'm sure there are many. But just an idea I had.
1cancermoon
      ID: 4085090
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 00:35
I don't agree, if people can't handle their limited trades , then they should be punished for the rest of the week with no chances to escape. It is simple to make money, just go to the price movers list and buy the biggest movers, my dog could do that, i don't think it is a good idea to then allow those that can make money to save their a$$es when they can't strategise their trades well enough.
2Dan
      Sustainer
      ID: 54747823
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 00:47
There is no question that making money is already a very important factor in playing these games. I've thought this to be a good idea in the past and don't see why it's not still a good idea. It would just reward managers who are able to make money in another way, and perhaps bring another element of strategy to the game. As there may be a time when you really have to think about whether to spend the money on a trade or getting the stud player. The cost of a trade will definitely have to be a fairly hefty figure that you'll have to try to earn extra money just to buy the extra trade. I have liked the idea in the past and still like the idea...It's not punishing anyone just making the money making aspect that more important to this game as I feel it already is an integral part of sw.
3blue hen
      Leader
      ID: 298101320
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 01:33
We used to talk about the equivalent monetary value of a trade. In actuality, I think that is a GREAT idea, but the practicality of it is hard. The SW formula works so well as it is, that it's hard to mess with that. Mess up the formula too badly, and the game is a lot worse.
4Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 12:12
It's an interesting idea, but might put too much emphasis on roster value. As it is, high value already brings a lot of advantages. If extra pitching trades was one of those advantages, it would be virtually impossible for those with inferior values to compete. This would put even greater emphasis on generating gains early in the season, creating an even bigger lemming effect.

This year, I ended up with an RV above $90m, but for the last few weeks, some of my teams had more than $10m in idle cash, and more than $20m on some days. It would have really demoralized those with less value if I could have simply matched up against their rosters and then bought extra trades.
5Mattinglyinthehall
      Sustainer
      ID: 1629107
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 12:42
The biggest obstacle to work around - and whatthe majority of our srategic planning is based upon - is the limited number of trades we have to work with. That everyone starts with the same number of roster spots, the same amount of money and receives the same number of trades over the season are the constants of the game. I see no reason to mess with a good thing.
6Chuck
      Donor
      ID: 148192919
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 14:22
You could alter it a bit by allowing people to sell trades, but not buy them back. In a way, this would help to keep those w/ lower roster value a chance to increase it by being wise w/ trades. Although, if this would done, it should be a very minimal value for trades. I would think $100K at most. B/c part of the game is choosing whether a price gainer is worth 1 or 2 trades to get and out of.

I agree that this is great in theory, but not in practicallity (is that a word?).

I don't think this idea would ever work, but it's great to see that other people are thinking of possible ways to improve things, Ejector. Complacency is what sets many things to their downfall.

If I made a change, I think player prices were way too low, especially OFers this year. I did have a high roster value, but I, too had close to $20 mill leftover some days. Part of it was the production of lesser players, but I remember being quite surprised on the low price of many players when I went to buy them.
7biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 49132614
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 15:26
I think, just as roster value is more important earlier rather than later, that the cost of a trade would have to change as the season progressed - 200K the first month, 400K the next and so on to where buying a trade in the final week would cost over a million. Being able to sell your trades as well would be a great idea!
8R9
      ID: 218302715
      Tue, Sep 30, 2003, 21:14
#6, Chuck: I agree, prices were very low. Helton, Pujols and a few others should be closer to 8 mil, not 6. The difference between a Helton-like stud at 1B and an decent 2nd-tier option like Thomas should be more then 1-1.5 million. With higher stud prices would come more differentiation. (Same deal with pitchers.)

I'd like to see it get back to the days when a top roster would cost over $110 million. I realize that in Ultimate its almost impossible to make that much, but so what? That just means that cheaper guys and efficient spending are still important come September. Not a problem with me. Also, if a higher roster value was needed the 'money making' time of year would probably last longer. Hell, by the AS break I didn't care if my pitcher was going to lose 500K... if he had a good 2-3 starts coming up, he was a definitely hold. That shouldn't be such a simple decision to make in July...
9Zio
      ID: 13255303
      Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 08:02
Though I agree with MITH that there's no point in tweaking if it already works, I think ideas like this are at least interesting, even if they never get implemented.

As for buying trades, I think a flat price wouldn't work because I believe a disincentive (other than losing money) needs to be built in. For example, it could be set up so that the first trade you buy costs 250,000 but the next 500,000 and the next 750,000 and so on. This way a manager not only loses 250,000 when buying a trade, but they also lose the opportunity to buy a trade at such a low price. A manager may think twice about buying an extra trade in May knowing that it may be much more valuable in September.

As for the low priced studs (Podsednik comes to mind) and consequent low roster values, TSN could change the pricing algorithm to make prices for surprises like him to adjust more quickly. Of course faster price changes would result in bigger roster values. If TSN implemented a capital gains tax they might be able to merge the best of both sides, but I think that would be a little too complex for what they want the game to be.
10Guru
      ID: 330592710
      Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 09:35
Two years ago, TSN got a lot of feedback that prices were too high, and it was too difficult to field a roster of recognizable names - particularly in April. Their response was to reduce prices across the board, which is why most of the top hitters were priced around $6m instead of $8.

So, this is an area where there is no pleasing everyone.
11Seward Norse
      ID: 1942059
      Fri, Oct 03, 2003, 09:37
Yeah, I can remember a couple years ago just looking for a SS and 2B that were just going to actually start.
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days44
Last 30 days76
Since Mar 1, 2007902448