Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:15:00 PM (view original):
Who said it was a epidemic? That was 1 trade in 3 seasons, I did not go through the whole history of your 2 worlds, but I would have no problem doing that and post it tomorrow so you can have another excuse.  One post ago Moneyball was one of the top 5 worlds, now you know jackdoodie about that world.

You do realize that the minimum win rules have only been in place for 2-3 seasons, right?    If you went thru three seasons, you've done all you need to do.

We've lost 3-4 owners in both worlds to the minimum win rules.   We didn't lose any last season in Coop and will only lose one in MG this season.   Yet only one trade has been made as you describe as a "negative" effect.   Just accept that your theory doesn't work in either world I commish and we can move on. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/13/2010 7:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:15:00 PM (view original):
Who said it was a epidemic? That was 1 trade in 3 seasons, I did not go through the whole history of your 2 worlds, but I would have no problem doing that and post it tomorrow so you can have another excuse.  One post ago Moneyball was one of the top 5 worlds, now you know jackdoodie about that world.

You do realize that the minimum win rules have only been in place for 2-3 seasons, right?    If you went thru three seasons, you've done all you need to do.

We've lost 3-4 owners in both worlds to the minimum win rules.   We didn't lose any last season in Coop and will only lose one in MG this season.   Yet only one trade has been made as you describe as a "negative" effect.   Just accept that your theory doesn't work in either world I commish and we can move on. 

I did not know about the minimum win rules in your world. I made a assumption because of your earlier post.

What is the minimum win world in coop and how long has that rule been in effect?

The rule in both worlds is 55/125/195/280.   2 or 3 seasons.   But it was retroactive.

I will check later maybe even this weekend, I have 15-30 minutes before I leave for work and 2 GD teams to setup depth charts.. It would be a interesting study to do with more worlds than just your world. I just did the last 2 seasons for cooperstown. 3 teams applied and only 1 trade of veterans for prospects and 0 trades of prospects for veterans..

I would be willing to bet money  that you will see more trades of prospects for veterans than veterans for prospects

Well, you just looked at Coop and found the opposite was true, so...

Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I would be willing to bet money  that you will see more trades of prospects for veterans than veterans for prospects

My question would be what level of quality are we talking about.

Minor leaguers for vets does not bother me (nor should it anyone) when you're talking about roster depth guys.

You may see guys moving fringe ML prospects (def. SS/C-types) for decent MLers... but we're not talking about turning around and trading a Top 5 pick for a #4 SP.

I haven't looked myself, but I don't think you'll see a huge amount of star power changing hands in terms of prospects.

Posted by tropicana on 10/13/2010 10:08:00 PM (view original):
Well, you just looked at Coop and found the opposite was true, so...

Opposite? Maybe you misread. Cooperstown was 1 trade of prospects for veterans and 0 trades of veterans for prospects. You could say the sample size was too small to make a true reading, but opposite it is not.

Posted by iain on 10/13/2010 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I would be willing to bet money  that you will see more trades of prospects for veterans than veterans for prospects

My question would be what level of quality are we talking about.

Minor leaguers for vets does not bother me (nor should it anyone) when you're talking about roster depth guys.

You may see guys moving fringe ML prospects (def. SS/C-types) for decent MLers... but we're not talking about turning around and trading a Top 5 pick for a #4 SP.

I haven't looked myself, but I don't think you'll see a huge amount of star power changing hands in terms of prospects.

Yeah, Quality would be a factor. I did it quickly and I did not separate studs from stars, I basically lumped them all into major league quality players. In the long run it really does not matter. If you like the rule you like the rule whether there truly is negatives or not. In my eyes I see the positives and the negatives of the minimum win rule,  and in playing in a minimum win rule league I expect player payroll on average to be higher as teams will find wins now to be more valuable than future wins, and for coaches in jeopardy to be looking for a prospect for veteran trade as the prospects won't do them any good if they are fired, and that will be a consideration in how I play my team.... That does not mean it's a 100% proposition slash black.white situation as there is always coaches who would rather be fired than give up a 1st round prospect, but the percentage is in my opinion going to be higher than the same coaches in a non minimum win rule league.

A related issue is that marginal teams, the ones that should probably focus on rebuilding, are the teams under the most pressure to sign free agents. This drives the market up, sticking these teams with large contracts for old players who, instead of putting them over the hump into the playoffs, just raise them up to mediocrity.

There are almost always decent affordable free agents at the end of the signing period, no matter how "elite" the world is.

Posted by plague on 10/14/2010 6:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by iain on 10/13/2010 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I would be willing to bet money  that you will see more trades of prospects for veterans than veterans for prospects

My question would be what level of quality are we talking about.

Minor leaguers for vets does not bother me (nor should it anyone) when you're talking about roster depth guys.

You may see guys moving fringe ML prospects (def. SS/C-types) for decent MLers... but we're not talking about turning around and trading a Top 5 pick for a #4 SP.

I haven't looked myself, but I don't think you'll see a huge amount of star power changing hands in terms of prospects.

Yeah, Quality would be a factor. I did it quickly and I did not separate studs from stars, I basically lumped them all into major league quality players. In the long run it really does not matter. If you like the rule you like the rule whether there truly is negatives or not. In my eyes I see the positives and the negatives of the minimum win rule,  and in playing in a minimum win rule league I expect player payroll on average to be higher as teams will find wins now to be more valuable than future wins, and for coaches in jeopardy to be looking for a prospect for veteran trade as the prospects won't do them any good if they are fired, and that will be a consideration in how I play my team.... That does not mean it's a 100% proposition slash black.white situation as there is always coaches who would rather be fired than give up a 1st round prospect, but the percentage is in my opinion going to be higher than the same coaches in a non minimum win rule league.

I think you're right, as the payrolls do tend to be higher, which shouldn't really surprise anyone.

Nobody hits Rule 5 to fill out their bench.  There needs to be organizational depth, or you're in trouble, as the boom/bust cycle has to minimize the bust as much as possible, which also tends to minimize the boom.  Does that mean you see fewer 100+ wins teams?  Yes.  Does it mean that 100+ losses makes GMs scramble?  Absolutely.

I like that there are rules in place that force owners to compete from Day 1.

I think the problem with your theory, plague, is that you're assuming "prospects for vets" is a bad thing.     And you're acting as if one deal in 2-3 seasons actually proves something.

As a team that struggled in MG this season(65 wins with 5 left), I traded a vet(who wanted a 4 year deal at 36 y/o) for a prospect.   That, in itself, refutes your theory as the count is now 1-1 in the prospect/vet or vet/prospect debate.   And, for the record, you chose an arbitrary win number to determine who was on the "hot seat".  Why 63 and not 70?   280/4=70.    Those guys are in just as much trouble as the guy trying to avoid 125/2.

Posted by plague on 10/14/2010 6:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by iain on 10/13/2010 10:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by plague on 10/13/2010 7:50:00 PM (view original):
I would be willing to bet money  that you will see more trades of prospects for veterans than veterans for prospects

My question would be what level of quality are we talking about.

Minor leaguers for vets does not bother me (nor should it anyone) when you're talking about roster depth guys.

You may see guys moving fringe ML prospects (def. SS/C-types) for decent MLers... but we're not talking about turning around and trading a Top 5 pick for a #4 SP.

I haven't looked myself, but I don't think you'll see a huge amount of star power changing hands in terms of prospects.

Yeah, Quality would be a factor. I did it quickly and I did not separate studs from stars, I basically lumped them all into major league quality players. In the long run it really does not matter. If you like the rule you like the rule whether there truly is negatives or not. In my eyes I see the positives and the negatives of the minimum win rule,  and in playing in a minimum win rule league I expect player payroll on average to be higher as teams will find wins now to be more valuable than future wins, and for coaches in jeopardy to be looking for a prospect for veteran trade as the prospects won't do them any good if they are fired, and that will be a consideration in how I play my team.... That does not mean it's a 100% proposition slash black.white situation as there is always coaches who would rather be fired than give up a 1st round prospect, but the percentage is in my opinion going to be higher than the same coaches in a non minimum win rule league.

I think payrolls tend to be higher in the first few seasons while the bottom teams scramble. 

However, several seasons in I think the payrolls normalize. 

For example, Moneyball (win rule since the beginning, I believe) has a much lower average payroll than MG.  In fact, MB's payroll is in line with most other worlds.

Posted by genghisxcon on 10/14/2010 6:24:00 AM (view original):
A related issue is that marginal teams, the ones that should probably focus on rebuilding, are the teams under the most pressure to sign free agents. This drives the market up, sticking these teams with large contracts for old players who, instead of putting them over the hump into the playoffs, just raise them up to mediocrity.

Marginal teams are not the ones suffering under minimum win rules.   A marginal team, in my mind, is the team winning 70-75 games every year.    They're in no danger of failing to make the minimum wins.    The teams that struggle with MWR are the teams winning 60-65 games every year.   If you're doing that year in/year out, you're not rebuilding.   You're stinking up the place.    You either need to step up your game, in whatever manner works, or move on to a world that doesn't have MWR.