Franchise Player

[Spencer]

I like relatively in depth new features. I think the same ole same ole is boring. Fixing flaws and including new features is what keeps things fresh.

[Spencer]

With a cap on WAR? IDK. I can see not wanting me to be gifted Bonds. Ill take Will Clark instead! YEE!

[CSCommish]

Oct 7, 2013 16:45:07 GMT -5 Spencer said:

Oct 7, 2013 16:37:31 GMT -5 CSCommish said:

I think K was pretty clear he opposed all of the top talent in the 60 years of drafting being taken, therefore making the drafts be stripped of its depth---which I don't disagree with. The list I posted was just for half of the teams now. I am nervous to see the whole list once we expand in the 1960's.

I think I am preferring a one/generation or forever idea. It would cut down on nearly 2/3 of the players or better, which is probably good.

In the end, I still intend to make sure there is a replacement draft player good enough in the top 5 for each player that is removed. Perfect opportunity to see how good Brien Taylor would become =)

What about a tiered type suggestion. Each team gets a type A B C D E. Could be based on WAR. So we still get a handful of nice HOMETOWN players. Type A costs your first, Type B your 2nd. ETC. So its still a fun unique process but it allows for tankers to also get top talent.

I think we can do all that...but I think going one per decade is not getting quite enough support. I can support and am leaning on a one per generation...with all of that stuff you are suggesting included in it. It wouldn't be fair to you to give up your entire draft to draft Barry Bonds if you had the first overall pick anyway. Therefore, a tiered system is a must.

[Spencer]

Do it.

[CSCommish]

Well is Matt OK with not having Gibson? lol

[Spencer]

BTW, I think its completely fair for you to have one account and compile post points from that one account. You do a large amount of work and should be compensated for it somehow.

[Spencer]

Oct 7, 2013 16:52:10 GMT -5 CSCommish said:

Well is Matt OK with not having Gibson? lol

Who gives a shit what he wants! AMIRITE!

[CSCommish]

Oct 7, 2013 16:52:45 GMT -5 Spencer said:

BTW, I think its completely fair for you to have one account and compile post points from that one account. You do a large amount of work and should be compensated for it somehow.

meh...

ok

[CSCommish]

I'll make mine 1 per 100 posts though.

[Spencer]

Sure. Just pointless for you to sign in and out. Waste of time IMO. 75 for 1?

[steve]

I'm all for fixing inherent flaws in the game but this goes way beyond that into partially forcing our teams to follow real life, which just seems like a weird thing to do in a sim league. In addition to dramatically thinning out the top talent for teams who actually suck. Doing one per generation makes things a bit more fair I suppose.

[Spencer]

Oct 7, 2013 17:22:47 GMT -5 steve said:

I'm all for fixing inherent flaws in the game but this goes way beyond that into partially forcing our teams to follow real life, which just seems like a weird thing to do in a sim league. In addition to dramatically thinning out the top talent for teams who actually suck. Doing one per generation makes things a bit more fair I suppose.

Most of us are in sim leagues because we are RL fans. And most of us are in baseball sims because RL baeball has impacted us. It does not seem strange to me at all that a GM would want a RL player that played on their RL favorite team. If this wasnt the case wed all join fictional league with fictional players and teams. I have no interest n that because of the small connection sim leagus have to RL.

[CSCommish]

Oct 7, 2013 16:59:57 GMT -5 Spencer said:

Sure. Just pointless for you to sign in and out. Waste of time IMO. 75 for 1?

75 points for each post? Agreed.

[soonerfantu]

Oct 7, 2013 16:50:06 GMT -5 Spencer said:

With a cap on WAR? IDK. I can see not wanting me to be gifted Bonds. Ill take Will Clark instead! YEE!

Will Clark should be a Cardinal. lol

[oreng]

Oct 5, 2013 9:56:37 GMT -5 K. said:

I can't but admit that's true, I so do wish he would take an example from you.

I like K's attitude in this league. it's like the fact that he is now commish in GABL has diminished his ability to speak his mind there, which results in him speaking his mind and then some here. Kudos

[oreng]

hey, albeit joining this discussion well into it, perhaps there is a way to make it so that each team can only have 1 franchise player at a time? That is kind of like somewhere in between the 10 and 15 year option. But this would help with some of the issues that may arise (i.e., franchise player taking a bad PD). I am not sure exactly how this would work, but just a thought. So if I want to get a franchise player the real life team took in a particular year, and I already have a franchise player, that other franchise player must become a FA in the same offseason I plan to add a new franchise guy via the draft. Also, are teams able to trade franchise players? more complicated?

[steve]

Oct 7, 2013 17:28:16 GMT -5 Spencer said:

Oct 7, 2013 17:22:47 GMT -5 steve said:

I'm all for fixing inherent flaws in the game but this goes way beyond that into partially forcing our teams to follow real life, which just seems like a weird thing to do in a sim league. In addition to dramatically thinning out the top talent for teams who actually suck. Doing one per generation makes things a bit more fair I suppose.

Most of us are in sim leagues because we are RL fans. And most of us are in baseball sims because RL baeball has impacted us. It does not seem strange to me at all that a GM would want a RL player that played on their RL favorite team. If this wasnt the case wed all join fictional league with fictional players and teams. I have no interest n that because of the small connection sim leagus have to RL.

True, but if you want a RL player then you should have to pay to get him. Shouldn't just be gifted to you. JMO IMO

[Matt]

Oct 7, 2013 16:52:10 GMT -5 CSCommish said:

Well is Matt OK with not having Gibson? lol

NO!  Ha.

What is a generation?  How many years? 

[CSCommish]

I'm gonna go with 20.

1954-1970, 1971-1990, 1991-2010, 2011-

[steve]

oh balls

let's bump it to 1971-1989

[Spencer]

Lets implement something and go with it.

[Boston Red Sox]

Oct 7, 2013 16:37:31 GMT -5 CSCommish said:

Oct 7, 2013 16:23:28 GMT -5 Spencer said:

What is the outcome looking like here? seems to have lost some steam. I guess I just dont understand what the major argument is. Hard to come to an agreement when one part of the discussion isnt clearly stated.

I think K was pretty clear he opposed all of the top talent in the 60 years of drafting being taken, therefore making the drafts be stripped of its depth---which I don't disagree with. The list I posted was just for half of the teams now. I am nervous to see the whole list once we expand in the 1960's.

I think I am preferring a one/generation or forever idea. It would cut down on nearly 2/3 of the players or better, which is probably good.

In the end, I still intend to make sure there is a replacement draft player good enough in the top 5 for each player that is removed. Perfect opportunity to see how good Brien Taylor would become =)

TBH K just made the weakest draft I've ever seen for GABL in 30+ seasons combined of OOTP I've been in. Not much room for him to talk about talent.

[Spencer]

GABL needs some talent decreases tho.

[Spencer]

Oct 7, 2013 19:35:34 GMT -5 soonerfantu said:

Oct 7, 2013 16:50:06 GMT -5 Spencer said:

With a cap on WAR? IDK. I can see not wanting me to be gifted Bonds. Ill take Will Clark instead! YEE!

Will Clark should be a Cardinal. lol

No.

[Boston Red Sox]

GABL needs a lot of fixing. Ratings are off compared to every other league.