|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 9:02:03 GMT -5
We are nearing a resolution. Please identify your preferred alternative of the concept of a franchise player and any associated rules.
After this poll, I will determine which one we will do, and go from there. (I swear!)
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 9:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 9:04:18 GMT -5
BTW, one definite rule that is not negotiable is that the player, if played for more than one team, must have played the most games with your team to be eligible to be your Franchise Player.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 9:20:16 GMT -5
I think we need to have some kind of rule about not trading the player for a set number of years. Maybe the guy has to be on your team for 5 seasons, or maybe he has to play three complete seasons at the major league level before being moved. I'd be in favor of even longer limits, given that the major point of this rule is to give guys a chance to grab players they may have liked growing up. If they are just going to get them, and then flip them, well, that really wasn't the point.
|
|
Padres
General Manager 
San Diego Padres
Posts: 387
|
Post by Padres on Oct 8, 2013 9:25:33 GMT -5
I have changed my mind on this. I support just letting it play out. You draft who you draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 9:39:40 GMT -5
This is how I voted above, but here is a summary of kind of what I'd like to see at this point.
Rather than break the league down into "generations", I'd rather it be a running 20 year period. If I draft my guy next season, 20 years from then I'll be eligible to draft somebody else. Or I can wait as long as it takes until the next player I want is in the draft. But I'd also be okay with the defined "generations" I guess.
I wasn't originally on board with this, but the 100 WAR cap seems okay, I guess. Only takes a handful of players off the table. And I'm guessing that it would be what the player's WAR is at the time of the draft. Because Pujols isn't there now, but will be by the time he is draftable in this league.
I think we need a rule about not trading this player. I'm thinking the rule should be that they have to become a FA, or resigned, before they can be traded. In other words, they have to play 6 seasons on the drafting team's team. The 3 seasons at $300k, and the 3 additional seasons as an arbitration guy. That way nobody can claim the league is making them keep a player they cannot afford. After six seasons, they can either let the player walk, or resign him, at which point he can be traded.
I still like my rule about the comp, if we are going to make this "cost". If you are already drafting in the first 1/3 of the draft, you give up nothing other than your 1st to draft your player. If you are drafting in the middle 1/3, maybe you give up your first and second. Last 1/3, you give up your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Oh, and teams have to have their original picks, in all rounds that they'll be losing a pick, to franchise a guy in that year.
I don't think owners should have to say they are drafting a guy until the completed draft class has been posted. Give everybody 24 hours to look it over, if anybody is going to franchise a guy they do it in those 24 hours.
|
|
Matt
Other 
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Oct 8, 2013 9:52:35 GMT -5
I hate the app not showing poll choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 9:56:59 GMT -5
I still like my rule about the comp, if we are going to make this "cost". If you are already drafting in the first 1/3 of the draft, you give up nothing other than your 1st to draft your player. If you are drafting in the middle 1/3, maybe you give up your first and second. Last 1/3, you give up your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Oh, and teams have to have their original picks, in all rounds that they'll be losing a pick, to franchise a guy in that year. I don't think owners should have to say they are drafting a guy until the completed draft class has been posted. Give everybody 24 hours to look it over, if anybody is going to franchise a guy they do it in those 24 hours. I will come up with a system for your first quoted point, the second point I'm iffy about because I think it should be pre-determined well in advance, but I'm OK with either method. I'm OK with anything really lol |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 10:03:46 GMT -5
I hate the app not showing poll choices. I didn't purchase the app, but I use some sort of other app for it. I just use "Desktop View" via Chrome or basic explorer. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 8, 2013 10:30:23 GMT -5
I think we need to have some kind of rule about not trading the player for a set number of years. Maybe the guy has to be on your team for 5 seasons, or maybe he has to play three complete seasons at the major league level before being moved. I'd be in favor of even longer limits, given that the major point of this rule is to give guys a chance to grab players they may have liked growing up. If they are just going to get them, and then flip them, well, that really wasn't the point. i like something like this. don't say you can NEVER trade him, but there has to be a major restriction on it. either has to be after a certain time period, or you get a major penalty for trading him is..<input maxlength="8" size="8"> |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 10:44:05 GMT -5
hey look: steve's maxlength is 8"
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 8, 2013 10:58:00 GMT -5
yeah dog
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 11:06:50 GMT -5
I still like my rule about the comp, if we are going to make this "cost". If you are already drafting in the first 1/3 of the draft, you give up nothing other than your 1st to draft your player. If you are drafting in the middle 1/3, maybe you give up your first and second. Last 1/3, you give up your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Oh, and teams have to have their original picks, in all rounds that they'll be losing a pick, to franchise a guy in that year. I don't think owners should have to say they are drafting a guy until the completed draft class has been posted. Give everybody 24 hours to look it over, if anybody is going to franchise a guy they do it in those 24 hours. I will come up with a system for your first quoted point, the second point I'm iffy about because I think it should be pre-determined well in advance, but I'm OK with either method. I'm OK with anything really lol The problem with that is a) we don't know for sure what each player will look like, or what the class will look like, and b) we don't know what our rosters will look like. Maybe I'm flush with pitching, so instead of Hershiser or Welch (or whomever), I take a slightly lesser player that is still a good bat. I just like having that option, and I don't really see the downside of doing it that way, but I might be missing it. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 11:19:53 GMT -5
I think that's fine then.
|
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 8, 2013 11:59:32 GMT -5
Voted for one per lifetime....as well as one franchise at a time and no trade clause,
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 8, 2013 13:58:53 GMT -5
100 WAR cap is a bit pointless because it makes extremely talented guys available who didn't get to 100 WAR in real life for extra sportive reasons (aka injury, gambling addiction or whatever). However these extra sportive reasons will not occur in the game. Koufax will be as good as the guys excluded without injury tying him down for example.
Not that I like the cap anyway, what's the point in having a franchise hometown hero if you can't select the biggest star in your team's history?
Obviously such a player should not be open for trade, if you want him as your special pick and make him unavailable to the rest, then at least you have to stick by him. It would have to be pretty extreme circumstances if he were to be traded. Also seems pointless to allow players being picked who only passed through shortly in a franchise's history.
I also still don't see why having a player reserved should not cost anything. If you want to make a player unavailable to me, it definitely should not be free.
I also would want to hear about the earlier alluded to system of making certain similarly talented players are available to teh bad teams at the times of exclusion of certain players from the draft.
Some other remaning issues then. There's still no solution for the discrepancy between big teams with a long, rich history and teams that historcially sucked quite a bit. Not everyone will get the same quality of player. This problem can get worse the more players are given this status.
Also not mentioned yet are the sort of teams who historically have tended to suck, but had one glory era. Those teams will only be able to pick one from their top players of history (the others being off limits as they are of the same generation) and will have slim pickings the other periods, while teams who have a good track record will have more good choices in several periods. Again, the more players being made available for reservation, the bigger this problem can become.
Btw it seems that mostly the GMs from the league's flagship franchises are in favour of a lot of players being reserved for teams. It obviously would be the most fun for them too. I am managing a team I have no affinity for really. But then I didn't think that'd matter in a sim league. I expected to make my own history and be lucky enough at some point to draft Seaver, Jeter, RJ, whichever big name.
I didn't apply for certain teams that I like (as a late coming european I am not a real fan of any team) because there were real fans who wanted them but I didn't think I'd also be saying goodbye to a load of players associated with those teams in the process. I tend to follow certain players over teams. I'd probably like the idea a lot more too if I played a team I have been a fan off since I was 3, or even if I was GMing a team I liked somewhat irl, though I'd still be against it as IMO it has no place in a sim league.
To sum up, IMO as proposed it's not a fair system. And I still don't see what place such determinism has in a sim league where you're supposed to create your own history. I'll probably vote for 1 player in history again as a way of compromise, like some others have been doing, though I have a lot of questions still regarding issues to be worked out, but I think it should be clear by now I really dislike the idea. However I am glad to hear it'll be decided soon.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 8, 2013 14:01:36 GMT -5
Btw I guess my stick-in-the-mudness prevents me from cutting up this post in the odd 10 posts even though I like points too.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 14:05:19 GMT -5
You lost out on some points man, silly coherent poster.
In all seriousness, I'll take all of those points into consideration.
Thanks, K.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 14:24:09 GMT -5
If I may offer, because of the nature of a historical resim, we happen to know which players became the generational studs, so to speak. By forcing the game to recognize certain talents and giving it a certain name (see, Piazza), we are already off the tracks.
I think the only "unfairness" there exists is that a team will have the opportunity to grab a top 5 talent with a late first round pick. And that will happen. The only way to fairly control that is to force the forfeiture of picks AND for me to ensure that someone nearly equivalent of value is replaced in the draft. While that may slightly benefit the first teams in the draft order, it barely benefits the late picking teams who picked just before the franchise player selecting team.
In the end, I am expecting that it will all even out and everyone will enjoy that benefit. Once every 20 seasons or one forever means only 4 or 1 players reserved in about 10 real sim years. I think it will work out.
|
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 8, 2013 16:01:08 GMT -5
I did 20 years, 1 Franchise Player at a time and no trading of said player.
|
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 8, 2013 16:05:17 GMT -5
I still dont really get the negativity towards this idea. If its because you dont want a plyer gifted, then make it cost something. If its because you think youll lose out on good players, then listen when Chris sayd hell replace that player in the draft. I just dont understand when people complain, get a resolution and then ccomplain more.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 16:09:13 GMT -5
I also think it's silly to suggest their are franchises out there that will benefit significantly less than others. ALL teams have had good players pass through their city, I'd just about bet on that.
|
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 8, 2013 16:15:16 GMT -5
I also think it's silly to suggest their are franchises out there that will benefit significantly less than others. ALL teams have had good players pass through their city, I'd just about bet on that. Ya. Its weird. I guess its different people complaining about different things but Im hearing that its unfair that certain franchises have better Franchise players but then K just said the 100 WAR rule is pointless. IDK. Head is spinning. Like I said its frustrating when people just complain without a solution. If you dont have input and ideas to make it work and you just want to complain then you can STFU IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 16:20:50 GMT -5
For what it is worth, I understand K's concerns completely. What I am aiming to do is balance those valid concerns with a "fun" idea. In the end, I think I can make it work. This weekend, I will draft the actual set of rules, which will, more or less, not negotiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 16:24:49 GMT -5
which will, more or less, not negotiable. Dictatorship. |
|
