80’s proggy (VOTE) Topic

wlj3b
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
125
Prospect
1 - a

2 - a
11/18/2009 7:51 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 290 18
Pro
1 - a didn't pick right for this, but I still generally like it since it looks like the keeper max is going to survive; if it changes to unlimited then b

2 - b
11/18/2009 8:04 AM
kneeneighbor
Posts: 3972 (1)
Hall of Famer
105 4 1 22 19 42
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By soxyanks12 on 11/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By kneeneighbor on 11/18/2009
What are the concerns that are being brought up?
the two issues being voted on
Yes but why are they being brought up as a problem. Thats what I am asking. Why do people want them changed? I want to hear what the concern about it is.
11/18/2009 8:23 AM
soxyanks12
Posts: 1306 (0)
Hall of Famer
183 4 1 29 14 129
Prospect
Taint and others hate the future draft order thing and actually i have quite a few ask me about unlimited keepers...So i am putting it to a vote..whatever the majority wants is ok with me.

11/18/2009 8:27 AM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10041 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 290 18
Pro
I think The Taint and I both have the same concern about the salary-determined draft order. We both feel that it makes it difficult to build for the future. I certainly think it reduces the strategy level in the progressive. I voted to keep it, as I think it is the most foolproof anti-tanking rule around. However, while I am opposed to underplaying the players you have, I don't have any problem with a team intentionally building a team to play poorly for a few years and land some early draft picks. Keeper salary-based draft orders reduces the viability of that strategy and essentially force every team to try to win every year. Of course, there is something to be said for that...
11/18/2009 8:27 AM
soxyanks12
Posts: 1306 (0)
Hall of Famer
183 4 1 29 14 129
Prospect
1. The draft order for subsequent seasons
a. Keep the same (future salary) (7)
b. Strictly W-L record (team with worst record picks 1st so on (ties broken by live wins) (1)
c. Randomize bottom 11 and top 11 (all eleven worst records have shot at 1st pick) WS runner up picks 23rd WS winner picks 24th.

2. Amount of keepers
a. keep the same (18) (6)
b. increase to unlimited (2)
c. decrease to 15
11/18/2009 8:30 AM
kneeneighbor
Posts: 3972 (1)
Hall of Famer
105 4 1 22 19 42
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 11/18/2009I think The Taint and I both have the same concern about the salary-determined draft order. We both feel that it makes it difficult to build for the future. I certainly think it reduces the strategy level in the progressive. I voted to keep it, as I think it is the most foolproof anti-tanking rule around. However, while I am opposed to underplaying the players you have, I don't have any problem with a team intentionally building a team to play poorly for a few years and land some early draft picks. Keeper salary-based draft orders reduces the viability of that strategy and essentially force every team to try to win every year. Of course, there is something to be said for that..
I have only played a few progressives but if you are building for the future and are going to have a down year shouldnt you have low salary that season thus resulting in a good pick?

I am not trying to be difficult or an ***, I am just trying to understand before I vote.
11/18/2009 8:39 AM
tycobb32
Posts: 9 (0)
Hall of Famer
53
Prospect
i agree with dimeslot the rules were there when we signed up

1. A
2. A
11/18/2009 8:43 AM
kevo21
Posts: 219 (0)
Hall of Famer
147 5 2 67 6
Prospect
1.A

2.A

11/18/2009 9:30 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13153 (0)
Hall of Famer
1054 3
Hall of Famer
Quote: Originally Posted By kneeneighbor on 11/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 11/18/2009
I think The Taint and I both have the same concern about the salary-determined draft order. We both feel that it makes it difficult to build for the future. I certainly think it reduces the strategy level in the progressive. I voted to keep it, as I think it is the most foolproof anti-tanking rule around. However, while I am opposed to underplaying the players you have, I don't have any problem with a team intentionally building a team to play poorly for a few years and land some early draft picks. Keeper salary-based draft orders reduces the viability of that strategy and essentially force every team to try to win every year. Of course, there is something to be said for that...
I have only played a few progressives but if you are building for the future and are going to have a down year shouldnt you have low salary that season thus resulting in a good pick?

I am not trying to be difficult or an ***, I am just trying to understand before I vote.



Except for its the team with the HIGHEST keeper salaries that get first picks, not the team with the lowest keeper salaries. You can have the worst record in the league and still get the last pick.
11/18/2009 10:19 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13153 (0)
Hall of Famer
1054 3
Hall of Famer
I'd like to see something like Bulantz uses in the 73 Prog. At the end of the season you group, by record, the teams into groups of four...could be six also. ONce you have your 6 groups of four by record you do the draft order based on live games played.
11/18/2009 10:22 AM
kneeneighbor
Posts: 3972 (1)
Hall of Famer
105 4 1 22 19 42
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By The Taint on 11/18/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By kneeneighbor on 11/18/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By dahsdebater on 11/18/2009
I think The Taint and I both have the same concern about the salary-determined draft order. We both feel that it makes it difficult to build for the future. I certainly think it reduces the strategy level in the progressive. I voted to keep it, as I think it is the most foolproof anti-tanking rule around. However, while I am opposed to underplaying the players you have, I don't have any problem with a team intentionally building a team to play poorly for a few years and land some early draft picks. Keeper salary-based draft orders reduces the viability of that strategy and essentially force every team to try to win every year. Of course, there is something to be said for that...
I have only played a few progressives but if you are building for the future and are going to have a down year shouldnt you have low salary that season thus resulting in a good pick?

I am not trying to be difficult or an ***, I am just trying to understand before I vote.




Except for its the team with the HIGHEST keeper salaries that get first picks, not the team with the lowest keeper salaries. You can have the worst record in the league and still get the last pick.
Oh wow, I was reading that wrong then.
11/18/2009 10:27 AM
verynice
Posts: 17059 (0)
Hall of Famer
939 1
Pro
i thought it was the lowest gets the first pick
11/18/2009 10:31 AM
The Taint
Posts: 13153 (0)
Hall of Famer
1054 3
Hall of Famer
Yeah...I'm not a fan of this system....Alot of the fun of a progressive draft is building and rebuilding teams. Trading now for future and so on. This really hurts that factor in my opinion and makes it rough on future new owners who may need to take over teams.
11/18/2009 10:31 AM
verynice
Posts: 17059 (0)
Hall of Famer
939 1
Pro
it is the lowest salary

same as fishnastys regressive
11/18/2009 10:32 AM
◂ Prev 1...10|11|12|13|14...17 Next ▸
80’s proggy (VOTE) 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.