Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2013 15:42:44 GMT -5
I agree with Jeff here. I'm fine with anything as long as the rules are made clear. I also agree that we shouldn't do blind bidding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jays GM (Sanders) on Jun 22, 2013 12:51:46 GMT -5
Agree with everything except the 40 mil minimum on mlb roster
It is a little ridiculous that im only paying my players about 5 mil total next year but the 35 mil extra would be what i plan to use on free agents
And adding unnecessary salaries to my team would only put me in a worse situation than i already am
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Marty) on Jun 22, 2013 15:08:17 GMT -5
It's a pretty easy solution...buy the guys you want, then fill out the remainder of whatever it takes to get to the minimum salary on a 1 year deal on someone you don't want.
Honestly, I think that the biggest problem going on is all of the salary trading and purchasing of players and picks. How many teams in a league that in the rules say should have a 100M cap on salaries are running a roster with a true payroll of 200-250M? I haven't looked, so that may be an exaggeration, but Bryan buying Hamilton at 35M/year or so then whittling the salary down to nothing by selling prospects/picks circumvents the salary cap rule.
As far as tanking goes my view reflects Royals view. If you're not starting or using the personnel you own the best or most productive way you can, that's tanking. If you're selling off assets to work for the future, then I don't consider that to be tanking. One is anti-competitive, the other is competitive, just in a different way. I don't even think you can say it's not realistic either. The Astros and Marlins are two teams that are completely tanking this season and probably the next few. I'd think that the Brewers and a couple others will do the same this summer and suck next year. The nice thing is we don't have a fan base to answer to.
I personally would prefer no lottery for the FYPD, mostly because the other draft is a random order already and it's the draft where you can really accumulate a lot of talent with actual pro experience. It's easier to figure out what you're getting when you draft those guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 22, 2013 15:32:01 GMT -5
If we do a cap on trading away obligations, we can certainly install a cap on receiving obligations as well. Or (since the master roster keeps track of this) have a range in which you must be on obligations. For example, you can't have total obligations outside +/- $40M in a given season. Something to consider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 15:43:02 GMT -5
Putting a cap on obligation money hurts financially wise teams though because they may have a team that is only say 30M total and that prevents them from the advantage of having extra money to trade for either players/prospects/picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 22, 2013 15:51:25 GMT -5
Putting a cap on obligation money hurts financially wise teams though because they may have a team that is only say 30M total and that prevents them from the advantage of having extra money to trade for either players/prospects/picks. It balances out on the other end when a team can't spend $150M or more on his MLB roster |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 17:28:12 GMT -5
i dont like the idea of putting a cap on obligations or w.e i feel that we should either fully allow it without a cap, or not allow it at all. we dont needa make things more complex
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 18:19:02 GMT -5
i dont like the idea of putting a cap on obligations or w.e i feel that we should either fully allow it without a cap, or not allow it at all. we dont needa make things more complex agreed |
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 22, 2013 18:19:33 GMT -5
I'm pretty adamant about keeping obligations. If it's a concern to owners, I'm definitely open to capping them or otherwise modifying them.
If trading money straight up for players and what-not is a concern, another option is banning trades where one side gives only money and nothing tangible. It may become where players going with the money would be minor, but it would limit pick-selling, I'd think. We could waive the rule for money swaps (for example, $1M in 2013 for $2M in 2014). Again, not a perfect rule, but it would help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 18:36:21 GMT -5
Why does it help. Whats wrong that we are trying to fix about the trading. I mean we can only do so much about teams that make bad moves. Instead of protecting the bad owner, get a better owner...Idk I'm just confused on what point this obligation thing is for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Diamondbacks GM (Jason) on Jun 22, 2013 18:59:43 GMT -5
Why does it help. Whats wrong that we are trying to fix about the trading. I mean we can only do so much about teams that make bad moves. Instead of protecting the bad owner, get a better owner...Idk I'm just confused on what point this obligation thing is for. I agree with this. All these rules are just nonsense when you think about it. If we really wanna get better we should replace bad owners. Again this doesn't mean one bad move and someone is gone, but I think it would have been pretty unanimous that braves Alex should have been gone a long time before he left. He obliterated that team over and over. Then putting these stipulations in only hurts the owners that are now trying to rebuild these teams. |
|
|
|
Post by Rays GM (forbz) on Jun 26, 2013 17:32:04 GMT -5
so where are we at with most of these rules? i think opening polls to vote on each option would be best way to get a clear view on each topic, maybe something like 2/3rds need to pass it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 10:28:16 GMT -5
so where are we at with most of these rules? i think opening polls to vote on each option would be best way to get a clear view on each topic, maybe something like 2/3rds need to pass it Great idea! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 12:18:01 GMT -5
I don't like voting on rules at all.
More importantly,
I think it'd be in our best interest too, for the most part, just forget Mike and Alex even made this post lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Michael) on Jun 27, 2013 16:14:20 GMT -5
So here's where we stand:
Salary Cap Increase: It's happening exactly as stated in the first post.
Franchise Tags: I favor Option A (one tag) but nothing will be definite until both Alex and I are back home.
Sign and Trade: I think this is happening. Again, nothing definite.
Tanking: Obviously too much dissent here, not sure what can be done here really. Up for further discussion down the road.
So, I'm pleased to say that we should be going through with the first three options. I need to discuss this again with Alex but those are three ideas that I wanted to carry on with. There is still more to talk about I bet, so let me know if there are any other issues to discuss. One is probably waivers, but I am already looking into options to adjusting that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2013 11:10:01 GMT -5
So here's where we stand: Salary Cap Increase: It's happening exactly as stated in the first post. Franchise Tags: I favor Option A (one tag) but nothing will be definite until both Alex and I are back home. Sign and Trade: I think this is happening. Again, nothing definite. Tanking: Obviously too much dissent here, not sure what can be done here really. Up for further discussion down the road. So, I'm pleased to say that we should be going through with the first three options. I need to discuss this again with Alex but those are three ideas that I wanted to carry on with. There is still more to talk about I bet, so let me know if there are any other issues to discuss. One is probably waivers, but I am already looking into options to adjusting that. fair enough i guess |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Max) on Jun 30, 2013 6:57:57 GMT -5
Doesn't matter to me really since ill be the one getting to pick early if I don't make playoffs.BUT if there really is a concern about the "tanking" teams this doesn't really help them IMPROVE. So ill ask jordan how does a bad team getting a worse pick help them? Alright, you do have a point there, teams like Braves and/or Astros are essentially fucked because they dont have many trade pieces nor good players nor cap. Honestly there's no GREAT way to stop tanking, its gonna happen, people were talking about in chat about a board of 11 people that would vote out bad/tanking owners, i like that, have a team of people who evaluated a way someone is running the team and vote them out if we have a prospective owner and they are really doing that bad, dont we want good owners in this league? even if they may be active or chat alot, it doesnt make them a great owner. Hold the phone here, bud. I have a very good farm, an abundance of 2014 picks, and $80M in 2014 cap. Don't you dare put me on the same plane as the BRAVES... Max |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Max) on Jun 30, 2013 7:06:49 GMT -5
I know I haven't exactly contributed much to this thread, but let me just say how encouraging it is to the future of the league to have had so much feedback (good and bad). It shows that we all care about the league here, and hopefully it will be staying around for a very long time
Max
|
|
