MLB Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
And my understanding is you can keep a player by sacrificing how much you paid for him in last season's draft from your budget this year? That would mean undrafted players you picked up throughout the season would count as $1 players.
 

Imanalt

I'm the coolest girl you'll ever meet
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Y'all ready for dat fourpeat?
there is absolutely no way you pull another bullshit 8th inning hr in the fucking last game possible to win this year, i am going to fucking hold on this time.

Also keepers should probably be something like price last year but no less than 5 or 10 or something, because there are clealry guys who went for stupid low money last year who will go for a lot more on an open draft
 

biggie

champ
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
Okay I just sent renewal e-mails. Everyone who is interested but not a returning manager state your interest here so I can keep track of it. Also I will probably weed out 1 or 2 of the inactive managers from last season to open up more spots.
 
Okay I just sent renewal e-mails. Everyone who is interested but not a returning manager state your interest here so I can keep track of it. Also I will probably weed out 1 or 2 of the inactive managers from last season to open up more spots.
I would like a spot
 

Imanalt

I'm the coolest girl you'll ever meet
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
yo are we gonna be able to trade retention rights to players for draft money? i feel like i have more ppl worthy of a retain than im going to have retain slots...
 
I mean, we haven't even gotten confirmation of max possible keepers or how the whole process works, but I feel the same way.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Norm was for keepers to be at projected value this season I thought, otherwise some teams can't compete year to year. Also I support 6 keepers and trading retention rights if possible
 

Stallion

Tree Young
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
Norm was for keepers to be at projected value this season I thought, otherwise some teams can't compete year to year. Also I support 6 keepers and trading retention rights if possible
Projected value is bullshit. Taking a flier on someone like Tanaka last year was with the assumption I'd be keeping him for the $19 I paid this year, not having to fork out $40 for him because it happened to be a good pick. Similarly, I overpaid out of the ass for Trout, so me getting him at projected value would piss a lot of people off I reckon. We agreed to do what we paid for I'm pretty sure.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Honestly we had agreed prior to the draft to do four keepers and I drafted with that in mind, but I didn't really put in enough effort to particularly care anyway.

Someone else can have my spot I think if we're going to do what we paid for year after year, takes away a ton of emphasis from this season and makes poor teams in previous years stand little chance. Also I think most of the league takes it way more seriously than I do anyway, so it might be better to have more serious managers.
 
Sign me up for renewal. I was ThisIsOurFuckingCity last year and was jipped in the playoffs for 3rd place. Definitely ready to go again.

In addition to the keeper league comment, it's kind of a shit mess. My suggestion is scrap it. We all drafted for specific ways for specific rules we thought were in place, and it's going to end up not being fair to someone. We are all on different pages with different strategies based on different rules we thought were clear but ended up not being specifically decided on. And all we're going to do is to make someone grumpy. Plus, we have to deal with what to do with the people coming back, and the new people getting stuck with teams that were not even touched since last March.

Just don't think that keeper leagues are valid outside groups of close friends or groups playing extremely seriously. And if we're going to take the time to argue about keeper rules we should have done last year, we're never going to really get this going. Or have it going but people are even more half assed with it because they feel they were screwed.

But... saying that I'll do whatever. I'm in it for the fantasy baseball and for fun of it amplifying the fun of the baseball season. Just trying to have as good of a time that we had at the end of the year last year. :)
 
J/s imanalt and I made a trade late in the season last year specifically because we had keepers and I was falling out of the playoff race and wanted to improve my odds for next (this) year. Just do whatever the default is for this year and then come to a consensus decision moving forward to future years.
 

Imanalt

I'm the coolest girl you'll ever meet
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
we all thought there would be some amount of keepers, so clearly the "most" fair is to keep that. We all thought there were some different rules for keepers, and we just need to actually make a decision and know there isnt a perfect solution. My memory is a little ways into last season biggie made a thread suggesting 6 keepers that got little opposition, so lets go with that. In terms of auction money spent on each keeper, the sane thing to do seems something like what spl does, which is last year's draft price + some. That some could either be a constant (maybe +3 or 4?) or we could make it something like an average of last year's price and the value they set or something. I think i prefer the constant added, but both definitely work, and i think this is what we need to be discussing
 
I really don't mind if it's keeper from price paid last year, price paid + some constant, or this year's projected value (actually yes I do, because fuck Stallion). But what I don't agree to is scrapping keepers altogether for this season. As stated previously, while a firm number was never agreed upon, keepers were expected based on drafting and trades made last season, so it'd be entirely unfair and unreasonable not to have them. The ultimate thing is coming to an agreement well in advance of the start of the season, and if that includes trading retention rights, so I have time to weigh all my options and make offers.
 
Keepers were expected, but we were all expecting different things. And we all want different things. What should have happened is we should have had a better plan last year, and we never got around to agreeing to it. I still don't think it's going to work out but I'm willing to try it. If we can get a group together and decide on some unified rule, then I'm all for that. But I don't see that happening. And I don't want to have it be where we don't get along and don't have baseball.

First problem I see is the inactive teams and seeing who wants to play. It's hard to make a group decision when you don't know the group. While they weren't around, they're still going to be stuck with some shit teams and should have some say in how we're doing things. Alienating new owners makes it higher that they will not stick through the season. So far this is what we have from just looking at the forum, but biggie is in charge.

Returning Players:
-Me
-Biggie
-Stall
-Imanalt
-Del Rio
-Texas Cloverleaf

UncleSam is leaning toward no. Pook doesn't deserve to be back IMHO. He has barely touched his team the last 2 years. CBT and Greenlean are the only two who want to replace them. Though giving a keeper spot to someone only on the forums for about 6 months with 7 posts worries me a bit. But that's not my call. If Sam decides what he wants to do, then we need to divide up the teams and then move on.

Second Problem is what the hell we're doing with keepers. We all had different things in our head when it came to last season, and all I really am hearing is that people trying to recall what was the default. Whatever that was or wherever that was promised, god only knows. I just know if we are trying to argue what was promised, we are going to argue forever. We need to pick what we want to do for this year. What is fair and what keeps some competitive balance.

With the number of keepers, I think everyone of us said 6 would be a fair number. I know Sam and maybe one other person said that they drafted for 4 keepers, but like was said before, we had a discussion middle of last season and 6 seemed a universally appropriate number.

For how to handicap the keepers, I think we first need to see what we can actually do. BiGGiE : Do you know if there is a way to change everyone's values of their auction bids? I can't mess with the settings, so I don't know how possible it is for you to change things like that. And if we can't do that easily, then that's not even an argument.

Subpoint of this, is if we should have the keepers should handicap the team based on projected value, have them reflect past value, or have no handicap. If we go based on what we drafted them for, this kind of poses some problems. On my team, I would have Kyle Seager for $1 and Altuve for $7, Johnney Cueto for $3, Greg Holland for $9. A lot of your teams are the same way. We paid out the ass for superstars last year to have them as keepers, that the guys who developed into stars during the year are so undervalued. You think it's fair that because I traded for Cueto halfway through the season, I should keep him for $3 while the guy who has Kershaw has to take a $47 hit? Is the guy who picked up Harvey on waivers because he went under TJ and didn't get drafted should get him for nothing? Is that competitive balance?

And if we go the other way, is it fair to the guy who took a risk on a guy like Tanaka or Jose Abreu on being total busts and has to take a 200% increase because they proved out to be good? Is it fair to the guys who drafted prospects and young guys who turned out, like mine did with Altuve, and dont get rewarded for this?

And if we just let the people keep their keepers with no draft hit, then why don't give Stall and his front ended team 1st again this year?

I dont see any of these options making a fair and balanced league IMHO. Like Sam said, I dont see teams that aren't drafted to the opposite side have any shot. If we are doing what we paid for, then all my keepers combined will cost less just Trout. If we do projected, Stall gets a discount on overpaying for the best players last year, and can use that to overpay on more top tier guys and fill in with $1 guys like he does every year. While I have to take my cheap talent I got last year and pay out my ass to have prospects and guys who developed stay with me.

Whatever we pick, one or more of us is getting screwed and one of our teams are becoming so powerful for years and years to come that it's not even gonna be worth playing. Not to mention guys who dont have a shot because they have to replace the teams.

If someone comes up with a plan with this to have my team or Stall NOT be a super team, please speak up. Cause I don't see it. While I dont mind being given the underdog task of beating the Yankee-esque Stall Squad with my rag tag bunch of 2004 Red Sox looking idiots, I know a lot of you guys might feel not up to having your ass kicked every week and not having a real chance to win.

Third is we need to decide on a draft date. And based on all the other years I've done it, this takes forever to decide with all the timezones and the work schedules and everything involved. We need to hammer out the details and then find a time and place.

MY VOTES FOR WHAT WE DO
First, we DEFINITELY need to get the new owners teams and up to speed. They're affected by the rules and should have a say in what we do.

I dont see how the keeper system works out. Consensus is we have keepers, so I'll try it. Keep me in for 6 keepers. And I think because giving us the keepers at the rate we paid for them last year gives me a totally broken team, I also vote for projected salary or no salary hit. I don't care what, they're equal to me.

I also vote for having a second league with our non-keeper rules, because I really see this as totally flopping down the road. Maybe I'm wrong, but having a second league that can be balanced and a second option doesn't sound like a bad idea. But of course you guys seem to have a ton of optimism and maybe I just need to roll with it.
 
What if we do it by how much you paid last year for a player or half of a player's projected value, whichever is higher. That way, it doesn't give people incentive to load up on elite players in the draft (e.g. Stall keeping Trout for a steal of $52 projected value versus the $69 he paid in the draft), yet people like me who invested in Jose Abreu can still reap the benefits (I would pay $19 versus the projected $37) while it not being too much of an advantage over other teams. And in future seasons, we can consider adding $5 to the price to keep a player for multiple years each year thereafter.

As I said, I'm open to hearing others' viewpoints and am willing to work with whatever decision we go with. I'm confident in the options I have to carry over into this season and will contend regardless.
 

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I'll stay if you need me to make ten active managers. I'll leave it up to the commish or w.e.

For the sake of simplicity I'd vote for del rios system if I'm coming back, but with a max of three years keeping a player please. I also agree that a secondary league and seeing what is even possible settings wise are priorities.
 

biggie

champ
is a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
I'm going to fool around with the settings today, but my understanding was that the price you'd keep players at would be what you paid for last season + a percentage increase. It seems like the best scenario in my opinion. Say a 25% increase over last year's draft price?

UncleSam if you want to be in then cool. If not then just say so and we'll fit more people in.
 
Last edited:

Imanalt

I'm the coolest girl you'll ever meet
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'm going to fool around with the settings today, but my understanding was that the price you'd keep players at would be what you paid for last season + a percentage increase. It seems like the best scenario in my opinion. Say a 25% increase over last year's draft price?

UncleSam if you want to be in then cool. If not then just say so and we'll fit more people in.
I would much rather a constant increase than a percentage increase. if its 25% anyone expensive is dumb to keep, every keeper will end up being a random $1 pickup who worked well last year.
 
I really like Del Rio's idea if that can be agreed with our league and won't take biggie an ungodly amount of work-a-rounds. Pretty optimistic about that working actually. I would be sold on it working if Stall thought it was fair.

Also agree that the % increase doesn't work. If I keep someone I spent $0 for, like Matt Harvey, he is going to be free to keep forever. And Kyle Seager will be retired before my $1 bid catches up to something reasonable. A $5 keeper increase seams reasonable. Even though guys like Trout would get expensive, it doesn't stop Stall from not keeping him and winning him back in auction for a reasonable price, restarting the cycle. Also keeps lucky teams from becoming "dynasties" because they can't rely on their expensive core every year and will have to draft new talent to keep costs down.
 

Stallion

Tree Young
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
What if we do it by how much you paid last year for a player or half of a player's projected value, whichever is higher. That way, it doesn't give people incentive to load up on elite players in the draft (e.g. Stall keeping Trout for a steal of $52 projected value versus the $69 he paid in the draft), yet people like me who invested in Jose Abreu can still reap the benefits (I would pay $19 versus the projected $37) while it not being too much of an advantage over other teams. And in future seasons, we can consider adding $5 to the price to keep a player for multiple years each year thereafter.

As I said, I'm open to hearing others' viewpoints and am willing to work with whatever decision we go with. I'm confident in the options I have to carry over into this season and will contend regardless.
I think this is fair. It's a good compromise to prevent stuff like me getting Trout for a steal but stops me from getting fucked over for taking a chance on Tanaka.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 1)

Top