|
|
Post by jjbanks on May 25, 2008 13:32:23 GMT -5
ok last thing ill say about this. I think everyone assumes that 1. we will be trading half our payrolls away 2. people are going to not keep up thier records/payroll. Cash or no cash payroll could be wrong adding cash doesnt change this. Again cash is tracked the same as trades of players or Fa signings, whats the difff?
I do however think that any major change in this league should first come by adding GM's who give a shit!! Im tired of answering trade blocks only to have no response and if you do get one it usually ends there with out any further discussion. I see gm's logging on but dont really add any input ,look at this thread for example. The Mets even said I dont usually respond to these threads. Why not? This league is doomed if it consists of 10 -12 active owners a few who might take the time to chime in occasionally and/or dont have the decency to respond to pm's. My opinion again, and I know life gets in the way but it takes littl etime to jot down 3 words and hit send!! theres my rant take as you wish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2008 15:26:58 GMT -5
My opinion without evidence or supportive reasoning/logic. Cash/tags = no Draft picks =only for the subsequent draft (so May 2010 one can only trade for picks in June 2010, in July 2010 only can trade for picks in June 2011). i pretty much agree w/ that. the "logic" behind that, in my opinion, would be that to trade tags, you would also need to be able to trade money. they are both what separate the tiers in here, and to be able to trade one and not the other would just not make any sense. in my opinion. but, i think trading cash is a crazy idea that will not go well. money will get lost, and it'll be damn near impossible for the league office to keep track of. hell, right now how many team's pages are missing say, full contract terms, or have stopped updating their transactions? and i mean, we're talking about active guys in here that are just missing that sort of info. and i'm not here to harp on "the rules." or anything like that, but that sort of stuff is in the rules. like making full postings of player/position/team for free agents. which in turn often ends up being just the player's name. people can't keep up w/ their shit now, what in the world would have anyone believe they'll be able to handle even more info? just from a purely clerical standpoint, this is a disaster waiting to happen. overall though, i just think that the tags are what allow low level payroll teams to be able to compete by keeping more of their own talent. letting those tags go (w/ or w/o trading cash as well) just seems like a mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on May 25, 2008 15:40:38 GMT -5
ok last thing ill say about this. I think everyone assumes that 1. we will be trading half our payrolls away 2. people are going to not keep up thier records/payroll. Cash or no cash payroll could be wrong adding cash doesnt change this. Again cash is tracked the same as trades of players or Fa signings, whats the difff? I do however think that any major change in this league should first come by adding GM's who give a shit!! Im tired of answering trade blocks only to have no response and if you do get one it usually ends there with out any further discussion. I see gm's logging on but dont really add any input ,look at this thread for example. The Mets even said I dont usually respond to these threads. Why not? This league is doomed if it consists of 10 -12 active owners a few who might take the time to chime in occasionally and/or dont have the decency to respond to pm's. My opinion again, and I know life gets in the way but it takes littl etime to jot down 3 words and hit send!! theres my rant take as you wish. I'm going to just flat out respectfully disagree with your position on Cash all together. In reference to what the Mets chimed in with, I believe that tags and picks are basically trading a player or a club option for a player. However I have no issue if we cannot trade either cash or tags. I am completely against seeing any sort of cash compensation being trade what so ever and will have a big issue with it because i have seen first hand what it can do to a league. Basically im saying if cash is allowed then i might as well not even waste my time here because the league will be dead in 2 years anyway. Seen it happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on May 25, 2008 16:36:11 GMT -5
First off, I'm glad we found a topic that created a little chatter. Thanks to those who have shared their opinions. The LO appreciates and takes into account all the feedback that we get. Swo and I haven't talked about this subject yet and probably won't make a ruling on it for a while. I've seen quite a few good suggestions, and I just wanted to take the time to comment on a few of them.
I think the Cubs GM's suggestion about mandating that transaction logs be updated before a trade is approved on CBS is a fantastic idea that will go into effect immediately.
Also, the Marlins had a great idea about the LO taking time every day to check a team. I've been dreading going through and checking everybody's rosters, salaries, transaction logs, cap penalties and all that. I think breaking it down is the best way to handle it. I'm going to start checking rosters (slowly but surely) starting as early as tonight, so if you get a PM from me, just take care of what needs to be taken care of if you would. It would be great if everybody just went through and checked their own team to make my life a bit easier, but either way I'll be checking.
|
|
|
|
Post by tylernorton on May 25, 2008 23:06:19 GMT -5
I still think you and "swo" should sit have 2-3 people under you to help with the checking. Long time owners who are respected. Have the checking split up between you....
I am not totally opposed to trading tags and cash.. but I am totally opposed to doing it NOW without a comprehensive checking and regulating policy in place (and proven to work). Maybe have this new checking order take effect by the all star break and see how it works and maybe (maybe) next year revisit the idea of trading tags and cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on May 25, 2008 23:27:21 GMT -5
I still think you and "swo" should sit have 2-3 people under you to help with the checking. Long time owners who are respected. Have the checking split up between you.... I am not totally opposed to trading tags and cash.. but I am totally opposed to doing it NOW without a comprehensive checking and regulating policy in place (and proven to work). Maybe have this new checking order take effect by the all star break and see how it works and maybe (maybe) next year revisit the idea of trading tags and cash. Rest assured that IF we allow the trading of cash and tags there will be a comprehensive system in place well in advance. I can see how things could easily get out of hand. We're learning from our mistakes and I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew again. For the most part, I'm happy with how things are running and we'll be very sure that any changes we make will be realistic and sustainable assets to the league. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on May 26, 2008 11:40:26 GMT -5
to add to that, unless i am mistaken, there will be no trading of tags or cahs, regardless of our decision this season, it may, and i stress may, be instituted this coming offseason, unless of course Ty and I are on different wavelengths here, which usually isnt the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on May 26, 2008 11:46:04 GMT -5
to add to that, unless i am mistaken, there will be no trading of tags or cahs, regardless of our decision this season, it may, and i stress may, be instituted this coming offseason, unless of course Ty and I are on different wavelengths here, which usually isnt the case. Same wavelength- as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on May 28, 2008 1:08:18 GMT -5
While there may be more than one, the ONLY reason we should not allow the trading of tags is because it promotes even less turnover than we already have. And the turnover rate is already very, very thin.
Look at what we had to pick from this past off-season when we were only allowed to keep 8 players and 15 minors. Think about how much thinner that player pool will be in future years when teams keep more than 8 and still 15 minors. And I guarantee, everyone will keep more than 8 keepers this coming off-season.
Again, due to the turnover rate already being very, very thin, I think it would be a major blow to the league overall if teams are allowed to trade tags and I encourage the league office to not allow it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjbanks on May 28, 2008 6:10:42 GMT -5
we have keepers? Isnt this a dynasty?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on May 28, 2008 10:40:37 GMT -5
ya this is a dynasty, not a keeper league, there will be no more picking of 8 majors and 15 minors anymore, Ty feel free to correct me if im wrong, but in 100% positive im not wrong (mostly cause ive never really been wrong before)
|
|
|
|
Post by tylernorton on May 28, 2008 10:42:25 GMT -5
except when you typed your avatar's url apparently
|
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on May 28, 2008 10:59:28 GMT -5
we have keepers? Isnt this a dynasty? Maybe they're not called keepers......... but we'll be [glow=red,2,300]protecting/keeping/retaining[/glow] more than 8 Majors from here on out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2008 11:01:00 GMT -5
except when you typed your avatar's url apparently zing! |
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on May 28, 2008 11:02:55 GMT -5
We're not cutting everyone of our players after this season, so therefore, we are KEEPING players. It's all just a play on words, and everyone should have easily understood what I was saying.
My point is 100 percent valid and correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by jjbanks on May 28, 2008 11:05:25 GMT -5
You are corerct and with the protection being an insane 5 years we will be lucky to have players moving at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by diehl034 on May 28, 2008 12:01:12 GMT -5
A. I think that trading cash and tags will be just too much to keep up with (say you trade 10,000 is that for this year? Is it recurring? Can it be used toward next year instead?)
B. I think something that we might want to discuss is "restricted" tags.
Now my understanding of this is that the team has the opportunity to designate any player on their roster and has the opportunity to match the highest FA bid to retain the player. Big problems I see with this:
1. Take for example Takashi Saito this year. The O's paid 10's of millions above what he is actually worth on a 1 year deal because they had a ton of cap room (presumably with the intention of also retaining them with a franchise tag going forward).
I think that this is going to happen in free agency a lot with talented young players which kind of renders the "restricted" tag useless.
2. If restricted FA are designated before the FA period it would obviously affect how people bid on the players a great deal (some would not bid at all, some would bid way higher). If they are designated after the bidding period then technically everyone is a restricted FA which would make things immeasurably complicated
|
|
|
|
Post by diehl034 on May 29, 2008 11:27:34 GMT -5
So does anyone have an answer for what we are going to do with the restricted tags?
|
|
|
|
Post by tylernorton on May 29, 2008 11:39:04 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the question is, but if you think... "it would obviously affect how people bid on the players a great deal (some would not bid at all, some would bid way higher)." is the problem, then I disagree. That is the point. If you offer insane contracts then get stuck with the player thats a risk you have to take.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on May 29, 2008 11:57:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure what the question is, but if you think... "it would obviously affect how people bid on the players a great deal (some would not bid at all, some would bid way higher)." is the problem, then I disagree. That is the point. If you offer insane contracts then get stuck with the player thats a risk you have to take. Right, I agree. I don't quite see what the problem is. If you offer a ridiculous contract, you're stuck with it and it may cost you down the line. I'm open to hearing a debate about it, but right now I don't see anything wrong with it. |
|
|
|
Post by tylernorton on May 29, 2008 12:29:34 GMT -5
I sort of thought that was the whole point... That and the sense of "No matter what he is mine cuz I can match an offer"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2008 13:00:51 GMT -5
i was actually wondering how restricted free agents would work too. for instance, team a owns a player and team b makes a bid on them. what is team forced to match to keep them? the exact terms that team b offered (i would hope/assume not) or the aas of team b's offer?
being forced to match a contract year for year could quickly eliminate the ability of most teams to keep their rfa's. but, if a player gets his money, he gets his money. as long as the deal ends up following the free agent guidelines i think it seems to make more sense to match the aas (which is the standard for regular free agents) than the year to year numbers and overall length.
ah shit, this is covered in the rules. nice work league office. well stated. nice work me and my reading... after the post. the post remains! in case others were wondering the same thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on May 29, 2008 14:05:22 GMT -5
ok lets get back to the important stuff, why the hell does my avatar not work, if u try to view it in another window its fine, but it keeps messing up on the board... this is quite discouraging seeing as its an awesome depiction of the native american culture and a complete slap in the face of the people who complain about using native americans, or other questionable objects, as mascots
|
|
