Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 11:15:07 GMT -5
I totally understand the concerns with dropping all players into FA, but I think the draft would be incredibly unfair (at least the FA lets the market decide what the players are worth).
"For a snake draft, I don't think the advantage is as huge as people are making it out to be. Just comparing the Rockies team to one lower in the standings, one of those guys will probably make the team able to compete with him, but even then he would still have the advantage."
The problem with this line of thinking is that it's very unfair to just allow a team who was worse last season to suddenly be able to compete with the top teams because they got a top pick in this draft... I'm all for helping out the teams who were worse in the prior year with things like the annual rookie draft and higher waiver priority, but I do not think we should just hand them star players because they happened to finish towards the bottom of the standings in the previous year. In a dynasty league, teams should have to work to improve their team and set it up to compete in subsequent years... they shouldn't be handed star players to boost their teams to a competitive level. If people are against FA (totally fine - I get it), then I definitely prefer we try to fill the league and keep it at 20 teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Oct 13, 2016 11:34:21 GMT -5
I agree its not fair, but that's just the position that were in. Nothing we decide with these players will be "Fair for everyone". This is the second year of this league, we are put in a tough position. We have the chance to level the playing field or just have already huge teams become better. If we were 10 years deep in this league I would agree with you. But since this league is still mostly new I'm taking this position unless I'm swayed by someone.
Obviously I would prefer 20 teams as well I think we all do. But quite honestly, I doubt that will happen with those two teams. We should discuss and plan in the meantime just in case, so were prepared.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhilliesGM (Jacob) on Oct 13, 2016 11:44:02 GMT -5
Guys I voted against the contraction. I feel that it causes more problems than it solves. First and foremost a massive free agency with 20 good / great / premium players creates a cosmic shift in team quality which many of us have worked hard for this year through trades, signings, etc. Other GMs, myself included, has utilized strategies to make my team the way it is and the instant influx of talent renders a lot of the moves made to be moot in the grand scale. I am not the only GM who has done this.
Another issue is that it causes a ton of work on the backend to accommodate these players within our current system such as cutting players, to make room, shifting people from bench to reserve to waivers and then the financials. The entire league structure was based on 20 teams and contracting to 16 would really throw it out of whack and cause a lot of work from most owners. We lost owners because of the amount of maintenance required this first year and if we contract then I fear we may lose more because of the amount of work needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 12:08:30 GMT -5
Guys I voted against the contraction. I feel that it causes more problems than it solves. First and foremost a massive free agency with 20 good / great / premium players creates a cosmic shift in team quality which many of us have worked hard for this year through trades, signings, etc. Other GMs, myself included, has utilized strategies to make my team the way it is and the instant influx of talent renders a lot of the moves made to be moot in the grand scale. I am not the only GM who has done this. Another issue is that it causes a ton of work on the backend to accommodate these players within our current system such as cutting players, to make room, shifting people from bench to reserve to waivers and then the financials. The entire league structure was based on 20 teams and contracting to 16 would really throw it out of whack and cause a lot of work from most owners. We lost owners because of the amount of maintenance required this first year and if we contract then I fear we may lose more because of the amount of work needed. Great points made Jacob! The more I've though about it, the more I'm opposed to contraction (and have since changed my vote). While I like the idea of a smaller league, I don't think it's something that we can feasibly switch to without hurting the league as a whole. While I think our main goal right now should be filling the teams in the league (and getting back to 20 teams), here is an idea that I just came up with: I don't think we'll have trouble getting back to at least 18 teams - several of the available teams are solid (Pirates just made it to the semi finals) and we should be able to find owners for them. However, there are likely 2 teams who are going to prove difficult to find owners for (for sure 1 team - the Nationals team is a disaster). If we can get to 18 teams, but not 20, one alternative is to just freeze those 2 teams and keep their players under contract. In other words, we would change to 18 teams in the league instead of 20. Then, we would release the players on those teams as their original contracts expire. So for example, Maikel Franco (on the Nationals' current roster) is currently on a $3m/year contract for 5 years. At the end of that contract, Franco would be released as a FA (just as he would have if Nationals was still in the league). By doing this, we avoid the issue of having a ton of FA hitting FA at the same exact time and things will remain largely the same (even with dropping to 18 teams). I may be missing some issues with this idea, but I think it's by far the best option at this point. What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
Post by TwinsGM (Kaj) on Oct 13, 2016 14:06:35 GMT -5
I am on board for what is best for the league. Technically, I don't like the idea of contraction but will go along with the idea if it is best for the league. I am also will to wait until the January time frame to give us time to get the owners on board. I start in December of last year when football was winding down and I believe we will get more people as week 13 hits and they are eliminated from football playoffs. Plus I believe someone will take the National team because they are a challenge (somewhat the reason I took the Indians). We have plenty of time in January and February to get all off-season stuff done. For now, I have changed my vote to be against because I was never for it just what to do what is best for the league. I enjoy this league and the format and I want it to thrive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 14:39:24 GMT -5
I am on board for what is best for the league. Technically, I don't like the idea of contraction but will go along with the idea if it is best for the league. I am also will to wait until the January time frame to give us time to get the owners on board. I start in December of last year when football was winding down and I believe we will get more people as week 13 hits and they are eliminated from football playoffs. Plus I believe someone will take the National team because they are a challenge (somewhat the reason I took the Indians). We have plenty of time in January and February to get all off-season stuff done. For now, I have changed my vote to be against because I was never for it just what to do what is best for the league. I enjoy this league and the format and I want it to thrive. I agree Kaj - I think we should be able to find owners if we give it until December/January. If we're not planning to reduce the number of teams to 16 or 18 and release players into FA or hold a draft, the off-season activities won't take that long to handle. In other words, we should have no issues signing FAs (there aren't going to be a ton available) and finalizing teams between January and the season starting in April. |
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Oct 13, 2016 20:42:55 GMT -5
After reading all the posts lately, I have changed my vote to no. Let's see if we can get new owners first before doing any contraction. This was set up as a 20-team league and we should give it every opportunity to stay that way. Also, if finding an owner for the Nats team proves to be too difficult, I would be willing to take it over and let another owner take the Rays team (though I HATE to not be the Rays). I have thoroughly enjoyed the league and have tried to improve the Rays as the year went on (and I think I did a good job of it). If it takes me to be the Nats and someone else be the Rays in order for the league to stay at 20 teams, I'll do it. (If the team names could be changed, that would make my choice easier  |
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Oct 14, 2016 2:24:28 GMT -5
The concern I have with changing the contract status of any players- should contraction occur- is that these players are now at unfair price points to their peers. Look, Chris Sale is excellent. But isn't it kinda bullshit that Sale could at $25 million a season, while Kershaw is at $6 million a season. If your trying to move one of these players, those kinda numbers matter. If the idea here is to make the smallest disruption as possible to the fabric of the league- the more changes you make to these players, the more disruption your gonna cause. There is no great way to resolve this issue. There is just the least invasive way to resolve the issue. Rockies, it took some stones to write what you did about Goldie. Respect at your bring honest about it. We hate you, because your beautiful.  The Nats third base coach and sending Werth. Not gonna be a real good few days for him. |
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Oct 14, 2016 11:00:05 GMT -5
Guys, I really appreciate all of the opinions here.. this has been a great discussion and shows me what a great group of owners we have here.
Paul- That's a great offer and greatly appreciate, however, I'd hate it if we had to go that route..
Stephen - LOL, I figured I'd be honest about it as others had expressed concerns about one team spending all of their cap on one player.. and that's what I'd do if it came down to free agency..
Seems like the majority is on board to try and find owners.. Ryan, Mat and myself will do our best to find replacements for the league.. I'm confident that if we wait until the beginning of the year we will be able to fill those slots..
Thanks everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM (Scott) on Oct 15, 2016 10:27:23 GMT -5
It looks like whatever way we go (draft or FA) someone is going to get an unfair advantage, that is, they'll get the top players. And if the real problem is determining where the top tier guys, why not run a randomly generated draft for 1 round and release the rest with FA pool?
The point seems to be that there is no way around someone coming out of a contraction with someone getting some teams really top end players and some not. A randomly selected draft would set us all on an even chance (and take away any previous performance as the determining factor) to get those top end guys. Opening the rest after the first round to FA would still allow the market to play a role in determining where the rest of the guys go. Just some thoughts.
So i voted yes for contraction, but that was before i read all this discussion. i like the 20 team format, but i thought about the work that is required to ensure there are four new owners and considering i am not the one doing this work, i didn't want to impose any more work on those of you who put in the kick ass work to keep this league operating at the level it does. Short way of saying i am fine either way
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Oct 15, 2016 10:43:53 GMT -5
It looks like whatever way we go (draft or FA) someone is going to get an unfair advantage, that is, they'll get the top players. And if the real problem is determining where the top tier guys, why not run a randomly generated draft for 1 round and release the rest with FA pool? The point seems to be that there is no way around someone coming out of a contraction with someone getting some teams really top end players and some not. A randomly selected draft would set us all on an even chance (and take away any previous performance as the determining factor) to get those top end guys. Opening the rest after the first round to FA would still allow the market to play a role in determining where the rest of the guys go. Just some thoughts. So i voted yes for contraction, but that was before i read all this discussion. i like the 20 team format, but i thought about the work that is required to ensure there are four new owners and considering i am not the one doing this work, i didn't want to impose any more work on those of you who put in the kick ass work to keep this league operating at the level it does. Short way of saying i am fine either way I'm really happy with how we came around full circle, so for now the contraction option is off the table and if need be, we'll push FA back to make sure we lock up 20 solid owners for the 2017 season and beyond. Thanks in advance for your patience and by all means, if you're able to get your team ready for verification go ahead and do so as anything we can get done ahead of time will benefit a smooth transition to 2017. |
|
