Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic

rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
7/27/2010 11:37 AM
jwelsh1023
Posts: 2831 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 10 121 7 73
Prospect
I, amazingly, agree with Bobbi.
7/27/2010 11:39 AM
dherz_263
Posts: 1179 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 3 2 64 5 145
Prospect

Maybe, an owner needs at least 200 wins over the course of three seasons to be able to put more than 10M into prospect budget

7/27/2010 11:39 AM
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
Yeah, there's really no excuse for going under 60, other than wanting to go under 60.
7/27/2010 11:41 AM
tylermathias
Posts: 3885 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 6 17 307 10 125
Prospect
Dammit, 11 day injury to Robin Kirby in HR.  Not too bad, but I've got a San Antonio and Durham series in there. 
7/27/2010 11:41 AM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 489 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:25:00 AM (view original):
To his credit, he didn't tank in $. He's been ridiculously good at mining the international market.
Nah.  I was talking about HR.  He never won a WS in $.
7/27/2010 11:42 AM
tylermathias
Posts: 3885 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 6 17 307 10 125
Prospect
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
But you'd still be better down the line if you use that money elsewhere and don't sweat the terrifying possibility of a 59 win season.

I agree a 2 or 3 season rolling total is more reasonable.
7/27/2010 11:42 AM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 489 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 11:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dherz_263 on 7/27/2010 11:21:00 AM (view original):
Posted by robusk on 7/27/2010 11:19:00 AM (view original):
The fact that it directly led to someone as incompetent as moy winning a WS should be the strongest argument on the side of the anti-tanking mob.
Id be all for an "anti tank" rule in $
Now that your tank job is almost complete?
Heh, my situation was weird, I dont feel I "tanked",but I'm not about to sit here and say I put forth a massive effort to keep my ML team competitive.  I wasnt about to overpay for a Victor Pascual carcas on my staff, and my major league players were all advancing in age, with contracts that didnt allow me to aquire my own new talent.  So I made several moves to pick up new talent, at a huge discount.  In doing that, I overhauled how I wanted my team constructed and run.  I stuck to my promotional plans, and didnt rush guys, and didnt overpay for marginal talent.   I dont think I'll return to the high major league player payroll budgets in $ for quite some time, instead I imagine Ill have a team that is consistently bringing in new players, developing them, and then letting them go to FA.  At least that way players dont get destroyed by being developed by people who dont know what they're doing.
I've always wanted to do this, but it never feels like enough talent to get over the hump.
7/27/2010 11:44 AM
robusk
Posts: 15375 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 489 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
Yep.  I almost made the playoffs in DM my first year with all FA scraps.
7/27/2010 11:44 AM
tylermathias
Posts: 3885 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 6 17 307 10 125
Prospect
Posted by AlCheez on 7/27/2010 11:41:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
Yeah, there's really no excuse for going under 60, other than wanting to go under 60.
But "wanting to go under 60" can be a complex thing and not necessarily something that should be an absolute taboo.
7/27/2010 11:45 AM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:42:00 AM (view original):
Posted by rlahann on 7/27/2010 11:37:00 AM (view original):
That's true for 70 wins...one year contracts with the dregs of FA will get you 60.
But you'd still be better down the line if you use that money elsewhere and don't sweat the terrifying possibility of a 59 win season.

I agree a 2 or 3 season rolling total is more reasonable.
I mean, of course that's true.  But that's kind of the point, you know?  We're talking about drawing a line in the sand where individual gain/league health start working agaisnt one another.  I'm saying 60 is a reasonable line.
7/27/2010 11:46 AM
tylermathias
Posts: 3885 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 6 17 307 10 125
Prospect
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

7/27/2010 11:49 AM
tylermathias
Posts: 3885 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 6 17 307 10 125
Prospect
Honestly, I think it would be more fair not to have a necessarily arbitrary line in the sand.  Let's just write up our subjective consensus of what we don't want people doing and appoint a 3 or 5 man committee to review questionable organizations each season. 

I know nobody will want to go with that, but my point is that when 70% of this argument revolves around tanking being a subjective, nebulous issue, assigning a hard win floor seems incongruous and maybe even counterproductive.
7/27/2010 11:52 AM
rlahann
Posts: 1071 (0)
Hall of Famer
66 3 24 169 155
Prospect
I'm just saying that we should use expertise when it's sitting here in front of us.  If I had a question about ****** prime-time TV, I'd ask Welsh.  If I had a question about how to get the best productivity to salary ratio out of a JD, you'd be my boy.  But if the question is about tanking and win totals?  You really should just shut up and listen to me.
7/27/2010 11:55 AM (edited)
AlCheez
Posts: 3375 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 59 54
Pro
Posted by tylermathias on 7/27/2010 11:49:00 AM (view original):
I think that's harsh enough that it will discourage passable owners from joining the league in the future, and make it more difficult to retain new owners we do bring in.

Okay, if we make bret exempt so we don't have to kick him out in a few seasons, will that get you on board?
7/27/2010 11:53 AM
â—‚ Prev 1...533|534|535|536|537...1824 Next â–¸
Shtickless - Unless Being Dead Is A Shtick Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.