|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 20:33:23 GMT -5
100% against the rule change. The worst record should receive the highest draft pick. Period. There's absolutely no reason to change this now. It's terrible. I've played in dynasty leagues for over a decade and there has never been a serious issue regarding tanking. The League polices itself and if somebody is not starting there full potential MAJOR LEAGUE lineup...a warning and punishment is assessed. BUT THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF A DYNASTY LEAGUE DRAFT MUST REMAIN WORST RECORD FIRST AND BEST RECORD LAST. Parity and the integrity of the League depends on this structure. Potential lineup tinkering can be dealt with thru vigilance and clearly stated sanctions in the rules. Fucking with the structure of the draft is simply terrible. This league doesn't have a requirement to start a full major league roster. While this may be unusual relative to your experience, of the 7 dynasty leagues I'm in, only 2 have mandated minimum major league rosters. Although, personally, I'm fine making that a requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 20:34:33 GMT -5
What if it's like this: random among bottom 5, random among next bottom 5, random among next bottom 5 until we reach the playoff teams? That's what I'd prefer if we do it, this way teams can't fall too far. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 20:38:52 GMT -5
Random lottery is a horrible idea. Every major sport teams are tanking.
Colts-Andrew Luck
Spurs-Tim Duncan
76ers-enough said
Houston Astros/Cubs
I can go on and on and on
Teams like the Phoenix Suns in NBA who barely makes or misses the playoffs has no chance at anything and the future is bleak. Tanking for the future was is and always will a part of sports. Miami Dolphins have been mediocre for a decade finishing 8-8 or 7-9 and where did it get them. When Colts decided to tank after Manning went down it changed they whole franchise . Now they will be Super Bowl contenders with Andrew Luck. Chicago Cubs are about to become a dynasty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 20:40:41 GMT -5
How can a league claim to be against "tanking"...and yet NOT have a minimum roster requirement?
Of the 10 dynasty league that I'm currently in...8 have minimum roster requirements.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 19, 2015 20:41:50 GMT -5
And let's define tanking here: Tanking is only when u choose to not start your optimum Fantrax lineup(MLB roster). IT IS NOT WHEN A GM TRADES AWAY ASSETS DURING THE SEASON OR AT THE TRADE DEADLINE. That's called strategy and it's employed by smart GMs in almost every sport. It's none of our business and not our place to dictate to teams what to do with their major and minor league assets. It IS our duty to the League to ensure they start a reasonably full Fantrax lineup. Just my two cents here. we don't have a rule that teams have start a full fantrax lineup, no obviously if all the teams started full fantrax lineups then having the worst record get the best pick would start to make more sense. but given that teams can (and so will) not field full fantrax lineups, then teams will effectively tank by just trading away their stat producing players and have no one to give them stats. we could have a rule that would require teams to start a (reasonably) full fantrax lineup as you suggest. but that would involve a lot policing of rosters. it is an alternative and in that scenario the only form of tanking is not starting your optimum lineup. however, we don't have such a rule, so teams can also tank in here by just not having a MLB team at all. and by at all, i mean some managers will have zero MLBers at some point. and often times those teams have a hoarde of top prospects so they are actually some of the most talented teams anyway (thus why reward them with a high pick too). i totally get where you're coming from if we forced teams to put out full fantrax rosters then that all works, but that requirement is currently not here. so we're working with rules where teams can game their way to the worst record by selling off MLBers and trying to keep from rewarding that. your idea is more like real life where if every team has field a full roster than record is better proxy for quality, but when teams don't have to field full rosters like in here then record really doesn't have much correlation with team quality. perhaps the answer is to just require full fantrax rosters instead, but i'm not sure rob wants to go down that route and would prefer to leave teams some flexibility there. |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 19, 2015 20:42:11 GMT -5
You are going to perpetuate a system of mediocrity. There are gonna be the usual few elite teams, and the rest of the league will get slapped around like step-sisters. There has to be a clearer path the the top than a system like what you are suggesting.
We saw early on we had no team. How do we position our club to do better down the road? We use the remaining draft to acquire easily traded pieces so we can build or the future, with the key element being early draft picks. Now you invalidate what we were doing after we did it. Doesn't seem right. Bad idea.
Basically calling it "tanking" to have a strategy to improve over the long term slants the discussion. Changing a key element in the league after teams have employed their strategies is somewhat disingenuous.
We know Amy and Scott are going to agree with Tim. We'd like to hear what some other GMs think of this late change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 20:43:48 GMT -5
How can a league claim to be against "tanking"...and yet NOT have a minimum roster requirement? Of the 10 dynasty league that I'm currently in...8 have minimum roster requirements. On the surface, I agree. But, the league isn't against tanking per say, just against rewarding it. But, requiring minimum lineups doesn't keep tanking from occurring. You just sell your best players only and still tank that way and then the rebuilding process is a lot slower. |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 20:48:01 GMT -5
You are going to perpetuate a system of mediocrity. There are gonna be the usual few elite teams, and the rest of the league will get slapped around like step-sisters. There has to be a clearer path the the top than a system like what you are suggesting. We saw early on we had no team. How do we position our club to do better down the road? We use the remaining draft to acquire easily traded pieces so we can build or the future, with the key element being early draft picks. Now you invalidate what we were doing after we did it. Doesn't seem right. Bad idea. Basically calling it "tanking" to have a strategy to improve over the long term slants the discussion. Changing a key element in the league after teams have employed their strategies is somewhat disingenuous. We know Amy and Scott are going to agree with Tim. We'd like to hear what some other GMs think of this late change. What strategies have you employed, in this league, to already be working towards trying to get a high pick. You made the claim, please elaborate. |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 19, 2015 20:52:13 GMT -5
Requiring minimum line ups is a totally different matter. Most everyone knows that requiring all roster slots filled is useless. Teams can slot in their prospects. And injuries can make keeping rosters slots filled almost impossible.
The key to this discussion is the attempt to eliminate GM strategies. We prefer building through drafting well, trading well and the claiming of young talent well. This league already announced pre-draft that the claiming piece is out. Now we've drafted, we are dinged again with the elimination of another keep piece of our approach. That seems punitive to us.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 19, 2015 20:56:15 GMT -5
We drafted players on short or expiring contracts to make them more like trade chips. We took players we know other owners value because of their team affiliations. We selected talented players we wanted ONLY as trade chips.
But the point i not to examine our "moves" and discuss our approach; it's more about making a change after we did what we did to position our club to succeed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 20:58:45 GMT -5
If you guys want to have a rule where same team can't pick in a top 5 in back to back drafts I have no problem with it but random lottery is a bad idea and not fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 21:00:19 GMT -5
We took players on short or expiring contracts to make them more like trade chips. We took players we know other owners value because of their team affiliations. We took talented players we wanted ONLY as trade chips. Ok. So if you have amassed so many trade chips, why is this a problem that drafting later on will somehow interfere with? Have you traded those trade chips yet? You still have the choice of how to use your trade chips. |
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 19, 2015 21:07:11 GMT -5
you can still trade all those guys for specs, i think rob is totally on board with sell-offs. the only strategy we're looking to end is the race to the bottom, by selling off all your mlbers. if teams want to rebuild by acquiring milbers for mlbers, totally cool. but we're not going to reward teams with a higher pick simply because they chose not to field an MLB roster or partial one. if you want a system where there's a way you can game the system to get a high pick, that's what we're trying to avoid. we want the high picks to be there to help teams out that need it. but reverse finish is really more there to help teams out that gamed the system by selling off. that's just not something we want to reward. if you feel it punishes you by not allowing you to game the system, i think the intent is to remove (some of) that system gameability when it comes to draft picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 19, 2015 21:07:57 GMT -5
Mets, it sounds like you just don't like the idea of having one of many possible strategies see its effectiveness curbed.
Nobody should be pot committed to a tanking startegy yet at this point. Again, we havnt allow the sort of trading that comes with this, yet.
There are a multitude of strategies still available. Every rule is gonna have an impact on strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 19, 2015 21:10:03 GMT -5
If you guys want to have a rule where same team can't pick in a top 5 in back to back drafts I have no problem with it but random lottery is a bad idea and not fair. This is another idea that's at least worth thinking on. Like Royals about roster minimums. This idea also probably applies with or without a lottery. I don't know that I'm for it or against it. At first glance, I like it, but I wonder how great it works in practice. |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 19, 2015 21:12:54 GMT -5
Of course we don't like having our strategy curbed. What is your point? Aren't you supposed to do this "curbing" before we start drafting?
We took players we didn't want to keep because we wanted the dual impact of their trade value and the implied value of early draft placement as a consequence of what we get in return. Midstream you are now invalidating our strategy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Brad) on Mar 19, 2015 21:29:35 GMT -5
I'm fine with the randomized draft and I like Amy's suggestion. Keeps the strategy on the table to a lesser degree. Instead of selling off with the intention of finishing last and getting the top pick you are selling off with the intention of finishing last and getting a top five pick. Still a choice that might make sense at some point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 22:08:42 GMT -5
I like the lottery idea.
I also like a minimum MLB limit.
I am in a league that also rewards the winners with more cap and the tankers with less cap, as it would be in real life...
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 19, 2015 22:10:57 GMT -5
Getting into identifying the actual tankers is a slippery, slimy path we would prefer not to travel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 23:18:34 GMT -5
I'm 100 against a lottery for ALL the teams that miss the playoffs.
Not only will this kill my vibe for the following season if my team sucks it also kills my trade value of that potential top pick. A lot of people target a team that is doing bad for their first pick and it allows the teams struggling to make a deal that could help them contend sooner.
I'm all for the bottom 5 being a lottery like Amy suggested but I can tell you if I finish bottom 5 and get a 20+ pick I'll be out.
Not to mention it creates a potential for others to think the lottery is rigged.
I personally think if a team is proven to "tank it" they should be removed. But if your rebuilding and not competing that shouldn't be viewed negatively.
|
|
