| 0 |
Subject: WPFB League discussion V3.0
Posted by: rockafellerskank
- Donor [359283123] Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 12:59
Thanks to blockaa for the cool charts
I think CP got a steal w/ Cameron @ the end of RD 11. CCR with Edmonds late was good too.
Anyone want to give their $0.2 on the best "bang for the buck" pick so far?
I was pretty happy w/ Alou in RD 9, personally. That was the biggest surprise on my team.
rfs ®
|
| 1 | CCRider
ID: 47662912
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 13:14
|
rfs & others,
I will be around for the next 3-4 hours. So, if you need to leave a queue, you can e-mail it to jbarnett_13@yahoo.com.
|
| 2 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 550321519
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 13:51
|
Woohoo! Discussion thread 3 . . . I'll say that, so far, I think beastiemiked has had several nice 'bang for the buck' picks. Pudge, Sheff, and Sasaki all went slightly lower than I expected . . . might could include Abreu and Zito in there too. Looking at my own team, I didn't think Maddux would fall to me . . . and I'm not a big Bret Boone fan, but I just couldn't pass in the 6th round.
Sounds like most of us are, or will be, around for most of the afternoon. I'll try to check in frequently . . . and I think dgausbun is ready with his pick when his turn rolls around.
|
| 3 | Code Cracker
Leader
ID: 21752128
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 15:35
|
I'll make my pick in a few mins...
|
| 4 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 17:21
|
I'm headed out for a good portion of the night....can I send you a queue wiggs?
|
| 5 | beastiemiked
ID: 1227917
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 17:33
|
I need to send someone a 2 person queue.
|
| 6 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 17:35
|
bmd, either give it to me over AIM or email it to dpaxton@comcast.net
|
| 7 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 18:10
|
Hey! It's Ok if wiggs & Code Cracker share Smoltz! I wanted Escobar!
rfs ®
|
| 8 | Code Cracker
Leader
ID: 21752128
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 18:29
|
You got him!! Enjoy!
|
| 9 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 18:32
|
Geez- frickin' tough pick. I didn't really want to get a closer this round, but, there aren't many left to choose from IMO.
rfs ®
|
| 10 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 622822
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 20:44
|
I've got some friends over, so I wont be online all the time. I'll try and sneak away every now and then to check.
|
| 11 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 20:56
|
I've got CP's queue. If it's his turn, IM me. I'm marked away, but I'll hear the sound.
rfs ®
|
| 12 | Unemployed
Donor
ID: 172302820
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 21:53
|
Guys, I'm heading out for the night. I'll try to leave a queue with someone.
|
| 13 | CCRider
ID: 47662912
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 22:08
|
Sorry to hold things up...I didn't anticipate being gone so long.
|
| 14 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sat, Mar 09, 2002, 22:17
|
I have picks for unemployed & CP. If you see it gets to them, IM me, I'm away but will hear the "chime"
wazaaap_guy is up.
rfs ®
|
| 15 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 01:33
|
Both the chart and the CBS teams have been updated through 13.09.
|
| 16 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 10:40
|
I'm off to work, not sure if I'll have access there today. If not, I'll be home about 9:45 EST.
|
| 17 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 29226102
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 11:57
|
We got a pretty bad storm here last night, and its still very windy out. I've lost my power twice already, so if I'm up but I'm not picking its probably because I'm sitting in darkness...
|
| 18 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 13:21
|
LOL. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate if Unemployed had drafted Jeff Shaw instead of CP?
rfs ®
|
| 19 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 13:27
|
It'll be appropriate if I slap both the Cubs and Eh silly if they sign Shaw.
|
| 20 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 13:29
|
ksoze, Worried about that Farnsworth draft pick?
rfs ®
|
| 21 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 13:45
|
Yes, dumbass Cubs. I didn't see anything about Shaw before I sent you my queue yesterday and left for the game, and I searched a couple of sites for info on Farnsworth then too and nothing.
|
| 22 | wiggs
ID: 191127230
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:05
|
how many people are around now? I am going out to eat with my fiances' parents then i will be driving back to school. I should be there by 8. I guess i am asking if everyone is around i will wait a little bit, if people arent i will pick when i get back.
|
| 23 | rfs 4 CCRider
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:07
|
Rogue, CP, ksoze, rfs on AIM
I have CCR's next pick
wiggs, maybe you could send CP or ksoze a queue since they are on the other end of the draft if you have to leave?
rfs ®
|
| 24 | wiggs
ID: 191127230
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:09
|
i dont have a queue set up that deep.
|
| 25 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:20
|
Wiggs, you could always send a small queue with instructions not to pick anyone if at least two aren't available.
|
| 26 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:22
|
blockaa's up in this muth.....just need Code Cracker and bmd and we're laughing.
|
| 27 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:36
|
In about 1 hour, The Ohio State University Buckeyes are playing beating up some team from iowa for the Big Ten Championship. I'll be 'out' during that time period. Although the game is only a formality, I'm going to watch anyway.
rfs ®
|
| 28 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 14:53
|
ROTOWIRE RESERVED: March 10th 3:00 -4:00 EST
|
| 29 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 15:14
|
ROTOWIRE FREE: Signed out 3:13 EST
|
| 30 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 15:32
|
I've got Daniel's pick after Code Cracker goes . . I should be off and on most of the day.
|
| 31 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 15:55
|
I have a short list for RFS.
|
| 32 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 17:00
|
bad move on my part . . Jim had e-mailed me a queue earlier this morning - I just hadn't checked. Give me a second and I will post picks for Code Cracker and dgausbun.
|
| 33 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 19:50
|
I'll be back in 60 mins. I have bmd's pick if it gets that far.
rfs ®
|
| 34 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 20:27
|
Alright . . . I don't really know what I was thinking when I put together the salary cap/contract limitations. rockafellerskank asked me a question today about salaries and I realized that I wasn't thrilled with the way things are set up. Let me explain . . .
Problem:
As it stands now, the salary cap of $55 is almost useless. Even if you sign all your players to the maximum years allowed under the contract limitations, your team will still fall $2 short of the salary cap. The only time, then, that the salary cap might come into play is if you have a player on the DL.- 1 franchise player @ $10
- 2 4-year guys @ $4/ea.
- 3 3-year guys @ $3/ea.
- 12 1-year guys @ $1 each
- leaves you with $16 under the cap to sign the remaining 7 players . . . you could sign these guys to either 1 or 2-year contracts, but either way you will fall below the $55 cap
Things to consider:
We're past halfway in the draft. I don't want to make a rule change that destroys someone's strategy. I want the salary cap to enter into the dynamics of the game, but I don't want it to be so constrictive as to limit people's strategy/plans. I think that a big key in the success of a keeper league is finding a good turnover ratio between the players you keep and the players that go into the pot for next year's draft. This is an important thing to keep in mind when deciding on issues involving player contracts.
So what should we do:
I've thought of four ways to handle this. I'm sure there are other ideas that haven't occured to me . . . so I want everyone to weigh-in with their opinion on these ideas or any others that you have . . . - we do nothing . . . at least for this first season . . we can re-evaluate during the offseason and decide whether a change is needed
- we raise the limit on 3 and 4-year contracts . . . nothing ridiculous . . maybe have three 4-yr and four 3-yr
- we lower the minimum number (12) of players you must sign to 1-year contracts . . . basically, this would mean that you could sign more players to 2-year contracts
- we could lower the salary cap . . . this may be the simplest solution and the one with the fewest repercussions . . . I was thinking around $50, maybe slightly lower . .
So tell me what you think? Which solution sounds the best? Any other ideas? We could also use a combination of these solutions . . . whatever . .
|
| 35 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 21:14
|
To All:
I gave the salary cap more thought after talking to blockaa earlier today. Obviously, as it stands today, the salary cap will not come into play unless you place 2 guys (maximum) on the DL and have to sign them to 1 year deals, then you are @ $55 if all your other contracts are maximum.
My feeling is that managers that utilize the cap efficiently should gain an advantage and those that max it out should run the risk of unmaneuverability (spelling?).
Thus, I would propose the following:
Lower the cap this year to $48 - forcing you to spend wisely. Some owners may only spend $46 so they can keep $2 available in the event of DL's.
Each subsequent year (2,3,4....), the cap will increase by $3.50 and you will be allowed to put one (1) extra 3-year and/or one (1) extra 4-year contract on the books. Thus it's possible to spend $7, but the cap only goes up half of that, so you must choose wisely this year to have room next year to take advanrage of the cap space! If you want to book all 7 contrcat years next year, you'll have to leave space this year!
After 3-4 years of playing some of your original 3-4 year deals will mature and you will have to renew or release those players. This also gives you the chance of upgrading some of your young talent drafted to 3-4 year deals. Yoy may not have this option under our current structure.
In otherwords, just like in the real world, owners will be foreced to spend more to keep their players and total salaries will go up and up and up....
If this is too complicated, I'd vote for lowering the cap to $48 straight out.
$0.02 (as usual)
rfs ®
|
| 36 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 21:15
|
I have another amendment to the rules that I'd like to put to a discussion/vote.
Reading through the rules (and verifying with the commish) I realized that there is NO PENALTY for not honoring a contract for its entire duration.
For instance, if I sign Jeff "Franchise" Shaw to a 5 year contract and then decide he is ineffective this year a waive him at the end of year and extend Manny's contract to 5 years I have in effect not really been penalized for the poor decision of signing Shaw to a long term deal.
My proposal is that any manager who releases a player before the duration of his contract has been completed must "buy out" the rest of the contract in bones. This will cause more thinking and strategizing when signing contracts.
|
| 37 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 21:25
|
CP, Under the current rules, you would have to pay "bones" to upgrade Manny to Franchise Status. So, there is some cost.
IE if he has a 2-year deal, it would cost you 3 bones to upgrade him. Thus, that is somewhat of a penalty.
The problem I have w/ penalty for not honoring contracts is in case of career or season ending injuries.... could cost bones as penalties and bones to replace under your scenario. Perhaps, a "released" player's (for any reason) contract should count against the cap for te rest of the year or for the life of the contract?
Off hand, I'd vote to keep the way it is. Frankly, my vote is selfish as I have one of the oldest teams drafted to date and a change here (now) affects my strategy. In other words, I drafted old guys knowing that I could cut them if I had to in case of arthitis.
rfs ®
|
| 38 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 21:47
|
i am here, give me a sec to update my queue.
|
| 39 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:11
|
Hmmm... interesting point Eh brings up. I have to agree that there should be some penalty for breaking a contract. In fact, I think charging bones for breaking a contract is more important then charging bones for upgrading one. After all, we're breaking a commitment to a player when we cancel his contract... the player doesn't have that option here, aside from retiring.
In real life it costs a club whatever the buyout in a player's contract is to break the deal. There is, however, no penalty for resigning a player in real life, other then paying him more.
Again, this may not be a rule change to implement now for obvious reasons, but maybe should be taken into consideration before season 2 begins.
|
| 40 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:16
|
RFS makes a great point. I think keeping a longterm contract "on the books" for the entire duration of the deal is a better idea. This would penalize you for the length of the contract because you'd be paying someone who isn't on your active roster.
This might squeeze a managers budget if they give out contracts without considering the longterm effects.
**I actually think this is what I had in mind but I'm getting tripped up by the two different "currencies" (bones and dollars)**
|
| 41 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:20
|
Hey at least we're not using that funny money you guys have with all the different colors.
|
| 42 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:20
|
CP" What's the exchange rate for "bones" in Canada?
|
| 43 | beastiemiked
ID: 14821921
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:29
|
I like a penalty but not to the extent that has been discussed. I would prefer if the contract would be kept in the books but for half the cost and if you release a franchise player you are only charged 3 dollars a year.
|
| 44 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 292231014
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:45
|
I think a mix of both might be a good idea. I like the contract staying in the books idea, but I also wouldn't mind being able to pay a fee in bones to clear some of those contracts up. So you have the option of being stuck with a contract of a player you don't have, or you can lose some bones to open up your cap.
This is kind of realistic, as MLB clubs often will 'buy out' the contract of a player no longer on the team. So we'd buy them out with bones.
Oh yeah, I sure hope we Canadian players don't have to convert all our contracts into US dollars. Otherwise we'll go bankrupt, and you'll be left with a messy contraction issue to resolve. ;)
|
| 45 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 22:55
|
Don't worry Rogue, we can just contract your team and move it to Florida.
rfs ®
|
| 46 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:08
|
Another issue I'd like to address that could potentially cause a problem later in the year is:
With pick 8.12 rfs selected "Any Pettite" from wiggs queue. I'd like to assure that in the case that Andy has a brother or cousin that might come up during the year that wiggs cannot claim him as his own.
|
| 47 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:25
|
Hey! At least I didn't select "Any Rodriguez" That could have been a windfall.
;)
rfs ®
|
| 48 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:25
|
Oh man... I hope Wiggs meant "Alex" rather then "Any" in ARod.
|
| 49 | wazaaap_guy
ID: 5178246
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:35
|
hey any of you guys wanna be in a sandbox keeper league? so far me, eh, ksoze, and blockaa are in among some others.
|
| 50 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:53
|
I'm done for Sunday night. If by some odd chance it gets to me in the morning I'll pick, but this week may be tough for me.
CCRider and I have meetings 830-5P (MST) M-F, we might get to look at the draft at lunch, but not 100% sure. I can pick early AM or in evenings.
On a side note, I know CCR is out of town next week Sun-Fri(?) so if we can finish by this saturday would be best.
I'll do my best to keep it moving by leaving queues. We've done well with that. I'll bet 20+ picks have been done that way so far.
rfs ®
|
| 51 | beastiemiked
ID: 14821921
Sun, Mar 10, 2002, 23:58
|
I might be going out of town next Saturday as well so it would be best if we could get done by then.
|
| 52 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 00:01
|
i am moving next week so i will be packing all saturday. I will be able to check in, but i wont be sitting on the computer like i am during the week
|
| 53 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 292231014
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 00:18
|
If we can keep up a good pace during the week, after 5 PM, we should be finished by Thursday-Friday.
Anyway, I'm heading to bed too, cya guys tomorrow.
|
| 54 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 00:56
|
Sounds like it would be good for us to finish up by the end of the week. I think that is definitely possible with the progress we made this weekend. Everyone keep this in mind . . . we need to get in about two rounds each day.
It sounds like most of you are more interested in implementing penalties for dropping players than about altering the salary cap. It's really tough to decide what to do here, because I think there are alot of things that could work . . . just difficult to know how it will affect things.
I hope that it won't become difficult to keep contracts of waived players 'on the books' . . . it is going to really limit the number of free agent pickups. If we did go with this idea, we would definitely have to have a 'buy out' option. I think that 1 bone per remaining contract year makes the most sense. I've got a question about keeping contracts 'on the books' . . . would you be charged for the player's full contract? or only the remaining years?Example: I sign Bobby Bonilla to a 4-year contract. After the first year is up, I realize that Bobby isn't pulling his weight and I decide to drop him. Will I be charged $4 against the cap for the next three seasons? OR Will I be charged $3 against the cap in 2003, $2 against the cap in 2004, . . . . ? I actually really do like the idea. It opens up a HUGE new door as far as strategy is concerned. Tim . . . although I like your idea in post 35 about creating new 3 and 4-year slots each season, I'm afraid this will alter the league turnover too greatly. I don't think it's good for the league if managers can tie up 10 or 12 players for 3+ seasons. Anyways . . . if we keep contracts 'on the book', the salary cap would not have to be decreased at all . . . $55 would probably be about perfect . . .
Let's go . . . tell me what you think
|
| 55 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 01:00
|
blockaa, i totally agree. i think we are good where we stand, but i will go with what ever the league decides.
|
| 60 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 10:07
|
Just wondering if Unemployed, Code Cracker and CCRider have AOL Instant Messager names? I think I've got everyone else on my buddy list.
If you want to download it you can get it at : AIM Download
It is especially beneficial when trying to strike up deals with fellow managers. I remember one instance when Keyzer and I put a proposal, counter-proposal, count-counter proposal and finally a trade through in about 10 minutes using AIM. Works alot more efficiently then a "trade desk".
|
| 61 | Unemployed
Donor
ID: 53428912
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 10:51
|
Thanks a bunch RFS. I gave RFS a 2 man queue and they both were available through 9 other picks! Makes me wonder about my choices.
It was a tough weekend to get online. The draft's been hustling along and I should be around this week so we can end before next weekend.
When we drop guys from long term contracts I'm not as thrilled with the sliding scale as the contract runs its course. A $4/4yr contract should be valued at $4 each year. To remedy this situation I'd vote for a buyout worth half the remaining contract in bones. So in blockaa's scenario, getting rid of bonilla's contract after the 1st of 4 years would cost one and a half. I really don't have a strong sense of how quickly I will burn through bones at this point so it's hard to say if 1 and a half bones is a lot to pay or not for a buyout.
|
| 62 | Unemployed
Donor
ID: 53428912
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 13:09
|
CP,
AIM name is sleetandsnow
|
| 63 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 13:55
|
unemployed, who is prior, what team and pos?
|
| 64 | wazaaap_guy
ID: 5178246
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 14:00
|
cubs sp
|
| 65 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 14:14
|
should i assume CC is busy in his meeting and wont be picking any time soon? If so I am going out, it is to nice to be sitting at the computer all after noon.
|
| 66 | Unemployed
Donor
ID: 53428912
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 14:55
|
Wiggs,
He's considered one of the best pitching prospects, better than Juan Cruz in my opinion. The idea was to bring him up later this season and I wasn't going to draft him until a later round, but he's been getting a ton of attention since he fanned 7 in his 3 inning stint.
Here's some discussion on him...
Prior on Baseball forum
|
| 67 | wiggs
ID: 1911252811
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 16:48
|
well i guess we are stopped for a while. I am going out to shoot some hoops and then i will check back later tonight. I dont know when i will be back, probably not til like 9 or 10. peace
|
| 68 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 19:40
|
To All: We just got out of meetings. I believe CCR will be picking soon. Sorry for the delays, but our boss would not understand us excusing ourselves to pick basball players.
I'll continue to be available each night from 5-10P MST and 6-730A (MST) to take queues and I'll leave picks too when I can.
blockaa: Regarding that e-mail I sent, I'll pick my own now, but thanks for holding them!
rfs ®
|
| 69 | CCRider
ID: 9802113
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 19:40
|
OK...you can roll now. I'll create a short queue for tomorrow in case it stops on me again, as I'm in meetings all week with rfs 8am - 5pm.
|
| 70 | wiggs
ID: 1911252811
Mon, Mar 11, 2002, 20:08
|
i will check back in later. Probably around 10 or 11. peace.
|
| 71 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 00:01
|
CCRider, If you see this before yuo post, My ISP has been restored (obviously) and I'll make my own pick. It's 10P and I didn't want to call you this late.
rfs ®
|
| 72 | beastiemiked
ID: 14821921
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 01:28
|
Eh's got my pick if it ever gets back around to me.
|
| 73 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 09:03
|
wiggs, RE: post #67 & #70
I agree it's no fun to sit by the PC waiting for someone to pick. Why don't you leave a queue when you have to be away? Last night since you said you would be back, the guys that pick after you were online waiting to pick at the time you said you would be here. :(
I'm just trying to offer a sugesstion to help things move....
I'll be offline again today. I'll leave at least my next pick with someone to keep things moving along.
rfs ®
|
| 74 | wiggs
ID: 1911252811
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 11:10
|
RFS, See the thing is, I did check back, at 8 at 9 at 10 and it still wasnt my pick. I decided that i wasnt going to sit here and wait all night for picks. I leave a queue all the time. I believe I waited for others a hell of a lot more then people wait for me. My case in point yesterday, I sat all day and the draft didnt move. Did CC leave a queue when he knew he wouldnt pick for the entire day? NO. Did I leave posts about it? No.
|
| 75 | wiggs
ID: 1911252811
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 11:15
|
Oh yeah, and i fell asleep around 1115 or 1130 because i had an appointment at 7 AM this morning.
|
| 76 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 11:22
|
wiggs,
I think what rfs means is that you said you'd be back around a certain time last night and then you didn't show. The 5 picks preceeding you were all taken over an hour and a half time period (from 9:50 - 11:11) around the time you said you'd be back. All those people sat around waiting for you to show up like you said you would so that they could turn the draft around and keep it moving. The point is, if you post saying you're going to be around and then decide later to leave before that time, update everyone so we don't wait on you and take you on your word.
|
| 77 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 13:16
|
ksoze, i posted i would check between 8-11 i did check between those times and it wasnt my pick. I refuse to sit at the computer all night and all day to maybe get a pick. No one complained about the fact that it took a full day to get to to my pick in the first place. I am not going to defend myself anymore, but i think we have waited for me the least of anyone and the hard part of leaving a long queue is people steal your picks.
|
| 78 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 13:26
|
looks like we are waiting for CCR AGAIN. Why arent people complaining about him not leaving a queue?
|
| 79 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 13:31
|
Chill out dude, no one said you had to sit on the computer all day and night. Nowhere in the rules does it say you must leave a queue with anyone. The only problem anyone seems to have with last night was that in post 70 you said you'd be back around 10 or 11 and picks were made within that time frame to get to you. People waited for you because you said you'd be there. You decided to leave earlier then that... it's your right to do so, but you did not repost your intention to leave and therefore kept everyone around waiting for you. No harm done, just trying to make you aware of why others were miffed. End of story.
|
| 80 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 13:41
|
wiggs . . . calm down man. No one is bashing you or anything. I, too, was under the impression that you'd be back on last night . . . but it's really no big deal. I agree that you are usually very prompt with your picks. In fact, for the most part everyone has been good with their picks . . . either checking in or leaving a queue if they're away. So let's drop it.
Changing the subject . . . I haven't really gotten too much feedback on the contract/salary cap issue. I'm assuming that means that most of you don't feel very strong one way or the other. I'm going to put together a proposal and submit it to everyone for a vote . . . probably sometime this afternoon.
|
| 81 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 14:31
|
I'm off to work... should have laptop access there by 6pm.
|
| 82 | CCRider
ID: 9802113
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 14:59
|
My $.02: I was under the impression that I had up to 24 hours to make my pick. Of course, I'm online throughout the day and make my pick as I notice it's my turn. This week, as rfs posted, we are both in meetings from 8am - 5pm. I'm at lunch right now, so I made my pick. I certainly don't want to hold things up either, wiggs, but can't break away from these meetings to draft. I think, overall, this draft is moving along pretty well. This shouldn't be an issue...this is fun.
|
| 83 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 15:25
|
to all concerned. I did say i would be back between 10 and 11. In fact i was back between 10 and 11. I didnt say i would be back at 11 and wait to pick. I didnt realize that 5 picks were going to fly by in about 2 hours when we had been waiting as long as we had.
|
| 84 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 15:29
|
CCR, I am not bashing you either. I understand that you were busy and that fantasy baseball is not as important as real life. Which is why i wasnt able to pick last night. I have a midterm paper to write and i needed to meet with some people early this morning so i could get everything figured out. I made my pick as soon as i was able. I also remember there being a 24 hour limit and you are right, you made it before 24 hours. I have no problem with you and i apologize if i came across as if i did.
|
| 85 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 442211212
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 15:54
|
wiggs, My post #73 was only meant as a friendly suggestion. Nothing more. Nothing less.
rfs ®
|
| 86 | wiggs
ID: 560202915
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 16:08
|
RFS
ok, i apologize if i looked to far into it, but it seemed like i was catching hell for nothing. sorry
|
| 88 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 17:22
|
Based on what some of you have suggested, here is a proposal that must either be approved by the league or shot down . . . .
If you drop a player before his contract runs out . . . well, I'll draw from my example above . . Example:
Let's say I draft Bobby Bonilla and sign him to a 4-year contract. Halfway through the 2003 season, I decide to drop him and sign a free agent. I will be charged $3 against the cap for the remainder of 2003. In 2004, I will be charged $2 against the cap and in 2005 the number will drop to $1. If at any time I wish to 'buy out' Bobby's contract, I will be charged the same number of bones that he is costing me against the cap. So . . . to 'buy out' the contract anytime in 2003 would cost me 3 bones, 2 bones in 2004, and 1 bone in 2005.
Of course, in addition to this, I would have to pick up a free agent to replace Bonilla and sign him to a contract at the expense of 1 bone per contract year. I think this solution will kill two birds with one stone. It will bring the $55 cap into play and will also assess a greater penalty for breaking contracts.
Things change when you're talking about a franchise player. Because a franchise player's contract is valued at $10 and lasts for 5 years, we'd be talking about a $2 per year adjustment. Make any sense? If Bobby Bo is my franchise player and I drop him in 2003, it would cost me $8 against the cap or an 8 bone 'buy out'. Got it?
Chung . . . I considered what you said in post 61, but I still have to feel that a sliding scale would work better. If you were to charge $4 against the cap each season, then your decision in the final contract year would be a $4 cap penalty vs. a 0.5 bone 'buy out'. These numbers don't really matchup and I'd be willing to guess that everyone would choose the 'buy out'. I'd rather it be a tough decision, than an obvious one. If we need to make an adjustment in the allotment of bones after this first season, we can do so.
Alright . . . let's take a vote. If you're voting against the proposal, please tell me why you're against it and bring up alternative ideas
|
| 89 | beastiemiked
ID: 27241218
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 18:08
|
I'm going to go work out for awhile. Should be back in 2 hours to make my pick.
|
| 90 | wazaaap_guy
ID: 5178246
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 18:15
|
no one around to give my queue to except rogue who picks before me, so ill be back at 10 est. sorry.
|
| 91 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 212351213
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 18:34
|
Blockaa, I'm for the proposition, but I do see a possible dilemma. It would now cost 2 bones to drop a 1-year contract player and pick up an FA in his place. Since many of our 1-year deal guys are longshots/backups, and there will very likely be better players that come along, that could be a bit pricey. Perhaps, if you drop a 1-year player, pick up a replacement and sign him to a one-year deal as well, it should only cost 1 bone?
Another thing I noticed is that 3 bones to replace an IR player seems pricey. Perhaps 2 would be better?
|
| 92 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 21:16
|
blockaa, your idea works for me. Go for it.
|
| 93 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 21:50
|
blockaa I noticed Edgar Martinez no longer appears on my roster. Is this because he only qualifies @ DH and not a fieled position? I assumed I could just play him at "DH" or "Utility" as the rules say any hitter
rfs ®
|
| 94 | beastiemiked
ID: 14821921
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 23:42
|
I'm in favor of the proposition.
|
| 95 | wiggs
ID: 131122820
Tue, Mar 12, 2002, 23:45
|
i am here tonight, so all your guys be ready to pick again
|
| 96 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 00:32
|
I'm out for the night, BB 6-730A tomorrow.
rfs ®
|
| 97 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 00:51
|
I vote in favor.
|
| 98 | ksoze
Sustainer
ID: 50643419
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 03:34
|
Hey Eh, I'm up 1 - 0 whether or not Farnsworth does a damn this year.
|
| 99 | Code Cracker
Leader
ID: 21752128
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 07:35
|
blockaa, I like your proposal and vote for it. BTW, thanks for picking for me the past 3 days.
EH, I do have an AIM name but I haven't used it for awhile and don't even have AIM loaded on this machine though I may put it on soon if it looks like it might be beneficial.
|
| 100 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 359283123
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 08:36
|
I e-mailed blockaa some picks for myself. As usual, I will look in when I can ....
rfs ®
|
| 101 | Unemployed
Donor
ID: 53428912
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 10:16
|
blockaa,
Your proposal is fine. i vote for it.
|
| 102 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 13:36
|
Rogue . . . in response to your concerns in post 91 . . .
It would now cost 2 bones to drop a 1-year contract player and pick up an FA in his place.
Well, not necessarily. This would only be the case if you chose to exercise the 'buy out' option.
Another thing I noticed is that 3 bones to replace an IR player seems pricey. Perhaps 2 would be better?
I think I agree with you here . . 2 bones : 1 bone for placing the player on the DL and another 1 bone to sign a replacement to a 1-year contract.
In order to prevent the DL as a way to get around the 'on the books' rule, the following rule will go in effect. After a player comes off the DL, you have to make a choice. Do I keep my injured player? or the guy I sign as a replacement? If you keep the replacement, you will be subject to the same 'on the books' rule on the player you dropped. I know that isn't clear . . . so . . .
Example:
Player A goes on the DL. I place him on IR (at the cost of 1 bone) and sign a replacement (Player B) to a 1-year contract (at the cost of 1 bone). When Player A comes off the DL I have to decide whether to keep Player A or Player B. If I drop Player B, there is no penalty. If I drop Player A, it would be treated the same as a free agent drop and the 'on the books' rule would be in effect on this player.
I hope this makes more sense. We've got eight votes for the rule change- beastie
- blockaa
- Code Cracker
- dgausbun
- ksoze
- Rogue
- Unemployed
- wiggs
Everything cool?
|
| 103 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 22201113
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 14:49
|
Hmm, I have another question about the dropping players with contracts. It actually has to do with retiring players. How do they work into all this? If you drop a retired player, do you have to buy out his contract anyway?
|
| 104 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 22201113
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 14:53
|
One more question. (Last one I promise! ;)
In your example of signing contracts, you said that you could sign Juan Gonzalez to a 4-year deal after the draft, at a cost of 0 bones. If you signed him to a 1-year deal and later on decided to upgrade it to a 4-year deal, it would cost your 3 bones. Here's my question: If you do the 1 year/spend 3 bones to upgrade to 4 deal, is Juan Gonzalez now taking up one of your two 4-year contract slots? Or is he still one of your 12 1-year players, only he's signed for 4 years? You can see how important the difference is...
|
| 105 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 15:30
|
As far as retiring players and physically unable to perform (due to career ending injury) I think that you shouldn't have to buy out the entire duration of their contract since they in essence aren't "honoring" their end of the contract. Though you should not get a complete pardon because these are small things that should be considered when signing contracts. Thus I think upon a retirement or career ending injury you should have to buy out 1 year of the contract and the rest are written off due to the player not honoring the duration of the deal.
|
| 106 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 15:35
|
Already in the rules guys. Check them again.
League website
|
| 108 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 16:51
|
Yeah . . . beastiemiked had already asked the question about retiring players. You can read the rules to see what was decided . . . but in addition to what is already there, I will also say that if you drop a player from your team who is retiring . . his contract will never stay 'on the books'. If there's any part of the whole retirement process thing that you don't understand . . . ask and I'll do my best to clear it up.
Another situation that has arisen . . . there are no provisions made for someone who drafts a retired player in the initial draft (free agent/rookie draft yes, but not initial). My question to the rest of the league is : what should we do about Jeff Shaw? Does EH have to sign him to a contract? or should we let him get an extra pick at the very end of the draft to replace Shaw? I really don't care one way or the other, but I thought others may have an opinion.
If he does have to sign him . . . . he would sign him to a contract and then either- drop him . . . and sign a free agent at 1 bone per contract year - - - which, in essence, starts him off at 29 bones as opposed to 30
OR - hang onto him until the end of the season and acquire a replacement in the bidding period or free agent/rookie draft - - - which, in essence, forces him to play this season with a 7-man bench as apposed to 8
|
| 109 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 17:57
|
I thought about the Shaw question when Eh drafted him, mainly since I'd been thinking about taking him to back up my Farnsworth pick. I do not think he should have to sign him to a contract but I also don't think Eh should be given another free pick at the end of the draft. Eh took a chance by picking Shaw before it was known whether he would play or not so Eh should have to pay some way. In this case (I don't have time to re-read the rules so I'm going off the top of my head here...) I think it's going to cost him some bones to drop Shaw or to add a free agent or something.
|
| 110 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 18:41
|
agreed...no contract should HAVE to be signed but I have claimed the "rights" to him so I have to drop those which will come at the expense of a bone and the new contract will be charged against the cap.
That's the way I think it should be.
|
| 111 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 426351415
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 18:50
|
just to explain why I think my proposal differs from number 1 is that if I in effect sign Shaw to a one year contract, under the new terms that are being put into place I would have to carry that extra dollar on my budget or cut Shaw loose and buy out the year that I just signed him too. Since I do not want to spend any money on him I will release his rights without ever signing a contract.
Does this make sense? Then again if I think he will catch on with a team at some point I'd have to sign him before the year started and deal with the contract later if I wish to cut him.
|
| 112 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 19:14
|
Very correct, Phil . . .
from post 108 . . .
" . . . if you drop a player from your team who is retiring . . his contract will never stay 'on the books'."
So technically, I think you would be signing him to a contract, but this wouldn't be your typical free agent pick-up. Who knows . . . . maybe Shaw will come to his senses and sign with someone.
|
| 113 | ksoze @ work
ID: 1528518
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 19:15
|
That's exactly what I was thinking Eh, makes perfect sense.
|
| 114 | blockaa
Donor
ID: 13251917
Wed, Mar 13, 2002, 19:24
|
Link
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|