23 November 2009

Some Thoughts

from jketchum:

I’ve been asked my opinion on this topic in private so I’ve decided to post it to have my “vote counted” if you will.

I’m in 8 leagues, some of which are half assed public leagues where I have to struggle to get a simple response on a trade veto all the way to this league, which I consider to be an “advanced owner’s league”. What I mean by advanced owners is you don’t see a lot of stupid trades (except for getting trade raped for Brett Tracy in my first season by jacksonville) or moves that are overly questionable. We are all very thoughtful in how we run our franchises. We for the most part are all vets and understand budgets, ratings, and how to generally field a decent team.

Froidl, teams can be rebuilt without clearly throwing games or keeping 26 year old studs at AA forever. Are your teams going to dominant the next 10 seasons, which was clearly what you were trying to do? Probably not, but I’ve rebuilt teams, and it doesn’t take 5 awful seasons and hoarding talent to win a division or rebuild. Clearly you are abusing the system. Calling out Dcbove on Enrique Astacio was almost comical; he’s 21 and never repeated a level. Would I bring him up? You bet, but he isn’t my player and he isn’t clearly trying to cheat the system. For those that will say they develop better in the minors I’d argue that with playing time and the better coaching at the big league level they develop just as quickly, but again Astacio has never repeated a level and next season, if kept at AA, yeah, I would scratch my head a little and since the precedent has been set with froidl we would need to call out Dcbove.

As for Froidl, do I want to see him gone? No, not really. The guy is a great owner, he’s proven that, and we should all welcome the challenge to compete against him. That’s what this is all about but he does need to adhere to whatever the league sees fit. As to what plan I would endorse, I feel that a win % of .340 is easily attained and keeps things competitive. After a season under that bench mark, the team in question goes on probation. If it happens two seasons in a row, they're gone. That’s 55 wins a year no limitations on what you do with your money or your payroll.

Three Questions

from canadadry:

1) Let's assume the following definition of the word Tanking: to intentionally field a team that is weaker than possible in order to draft higher in the draft or spend more payroll on IFA's. Let's also assume that Tanking has impacts on our game (eg. team parity)

My question is this: While there may be impacts to tanking, are any of these impacts negative? If so, which one's and why?

2) The draft and IFA's are the best ways to secure long term player talent. This talent is necessary to sustain long term success in HBD. So why is Capra seeking to curb and restrict the actions of owners who are seeking to maximize their draft potential and increase their activity in the IFA market?

3) If restrictions are implemented to keep a team from drafting better or using all their resources to sign IFAs, are we not simply restricting their ability to improve the future of their team? And is this behaviour, therefore, entirely counterproductive to a league that is seeking to have all their teams be as competitive as possible?

For the record, I see absolutely no negative implications of a team tanking. On the contrary, I would argue that an owner who is willing to spend their money to lose for two or three seasons, while building a long term strategy for success is the best owner any World can hope to attract. Tanking does not ruin a franchise. It rebuilds it. What ruins a franchise is the strategy of cleaning out the cupboard in trades for aging vets, in the hopes of winning NOW and then leaving the world when half the ML roster is up for FA and there isn't one worthwhile prospect in the whole organization. That is what is wrong with HBD. Thank goodness for Tankers. Bring on the Tankers. We need more people willing to spend money and lose big in an attempt to become the world's next great dynasty. We need more Tankers!

The Get a Cup of Coffee Before Reading Rule

from crickett13;

In order to maintain competitive balance and give each owner flexibility on how to run his team I propose the following.

Minimum wins over 2 seasons 110
If this is not reached the increase in wins between season 1 and 2 must have been 15 games or the team is put on 1 year probation.

Once a team is put on probation they must show a 15 win improvement to stay in the league.

Example 1
Scranton Breakers season 15 40 wins
Scranton Breakers season 16 48 wins
The Breakers must win 63 games in season 17 to stay in the league.
Scranton Breakers season 17 70 wins
Scranton stays in the league.

Example 2
Scranton Breakers season 15 43 wins
Scranton Breakers season 16 60 wins
Even though Scranton did not win 110 games they did show a 17 game improvement so they are not placed on probation.
Scranton Breakers season 17 45 wins
Because the 2 season win total for seasons 16 and 17 is only 105 games Scranton is placed on probation and must win 60 games in season 18 to stay in the league.

No team may be placed on probation 2 seasons in a row unless the Commissioners discretion rule is used

Commissioners discretion rule

If a team can show a reason why they just missed the win improvement the commissioner may waive the expulsion and place the team on probation for a second consecutive season. An example of this would be a team that wins 108 games in 2 seasons and then does not show a 15 game improvement the next season because their #1 starter and their closer both had season ending injuries early in the season.

Player Payroll: Each team must have 35 mil budgeted for payroll. No transfer may take place that would lower the Player payroll below 35 mil. If they choose to only spend 25 mil that is fine as long as the budgeted payroll does not drop below 35 mil.

Budget transfers: You may not transfer more than 20 million dollars in a season.

The .340 rule over 2 Seasons

from chazzzzzz:

Every team must win 110 games over 2 seasons.

The .400 then Transfer Rule

from steelerstime:

If a team fails to finish above .400 for a season, then they are limited to 20M transfer from payroll(only 10M of which is spendable) and 2M transfer from coaches(1M). In short, if you finish below .400, then you can only use up to 31M in Prospect signings.

The Competitive Balance Discussion

In light of recent events, we will vote upon and implement some kind of baseline for performance at the major league level. This will take effect with the onset of S15.

That said, I think we would all like to make this new standard be as non-intrusive as possible so that each owner can continue to build their team as he/she see fit. It is, of course, difficult to meet both of these seemingly opposed ideals, but we're going to do our level best.

We will accept proposals over the next 72 hours. For those of you who have voiced concern or complaints, this is your chance to help fix the problem. We will then move forward with the most viable options in a vote to be held via sitemail. We can't really hold it here since voting/posting anonymously here could lead to a Florida-style count.

You are free to post your solutions here in the comments section, either logged in or anonymously, send them to me and I'll post for you, or post them here yourselves if you are a registered user. If you are not but would like to post your own ideas, shoot me your email address and I'll send you an invite to become a registered author on the blog.

I will proceed now with the first couple of ideas.