1969 AUCTION LEAGUE - CHAT ONLY

[The Jerk Store]

I don't think the bidding on any player has really been out of control. To me, auctions are about (a) being able to get the players you want, even if you have to pay Wynn money and (b) finding bargains to round out your roster once you get the players you want.

I probably got bid up some because a couple of people knew I was a Killebrew fan, but that's part of the fun. I'll gladly take him though ... he's one of my favorites, he's always performed well for me (and I like his '69 card in ATG V for 6.66), he has the 3rd highest OPS in the '69 set, and he's bulletproof.

[GFDWARF07]

Check the post, franky - I said to your opponent "hope you make it [b:c1e82d3196]a[/b:c1e82d3196] series" - meaning hope it is fun and competetive. Just hoping for the best spirit of competition for you both, even though Risden has at least known my name a lot longer! :lol:

And I agree on keeping chat here - easy to get lazy on that and it does make it harder to research current bids with the crap that gorshar and getowtamypolt write all the time. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: (obvious case of pot calling kettle black) :lol: :lol: :lol:

The whole discussion of who is going for what, who is a bargain, who is out of control, is all part of the gamesmanship. And should only be taken as such (at least for my part). All in fun - so far we have had a very lively exchange - let's keep dishing!

And it's a good think KBrew is bulletproof, as he doesn't have a lot of quickness and is a fairly easy target! And for the record, I did not bid him up artificially Derek, I wanted him too.

[ggrover15]

Frank I agree with you. I was hoping to only get one of them I figured Risden would make another bid on Held. I figure at worst I will play held in left and maybe jones in CF. Hate to play a 3 in CF but It maybe the no def team. Guess I will have to get more power. But people who play with me know that I never go for def. My pitchers hate me... I can not remember the last time i had a 1 at SS or CF. maybe just play held in RF. looking at what is left in RF some others maybe playing 4 in RF also. I just need held to hit 50 dingers and it is all worth it.

This has been really fun. I will be on the side lines for awhile saving my money for a few players...

[Sneezedoc]

This draft is truly intriguing....I went into it with a game plan and then after seeing the bids people made for hitters, went another direction.
Not sure whether I am smart or not but for the life of me, I just can't see spending 15-20% of my salary on only one player....but that is what makes horseraces!!!

[gorshar]

1:05 pm and only 83 degrees. Umm, how's the weather where you are?

[GFDWARF07]

We are forecast to get +/- 20" of snow the 24-25th.

I wish a Wonderful Holiday to all of you!

gorshar - thanks for posting the link - the hotel looks very cool - would LOVE to visit. That would freak my brother out - we are going on vaca to Cambodia..... He spent some time over there in '67-68.

[gorshar]

Things have changed a bit since then....

Southeast Asia is a great travel destination. Once you get past the airfare to get here, it's incredibly cheap compared to the US or Europe, or even Northeast Asia.

[franky35]

since Yaz has gotten too pricely, I've moved over to chat.

ugrant wrote:

[quote:dd53a2a6b6]Franky - running up huge deficits on top of an already huge debt just transfers more debt to our kids and grandkids. In my book, it doesn't matter what it's for, it's not right.[/quote:dd53a2a6b6]

I assume you're not being literal and that should WW3 occur you'd want deficit spending. But, I guess you're saying that it doesn't matter how high unemployment goes, the government should not deficit spend in periods of high unemployment. Is that right? If that is what you're saying, it is a position that is contrary to the view of virtually all economists. It is a weird way to run an economy since during periods of very high unemployment, the federal government would need to greatly reduce spending which would exacerbate the recession/depression.

Isn't the better opinion that we balance the budget over a business cycle? So, in periods of high employment (like the late 90s) when private businesses are hiring, we run a federal surplus (thus putting brakes on an overheated economy). And in periods of high unemployment (like now), we run a federal deficit, thus heating up an economy in which private businesses aren't hiring. Isn't that more logical?

[gorshar]

Sorry to interrupt...

I’m posting this first to all the existing auctions.

A new auction idea….

Set: ATG5
Guidelines: The usual, $80 mil to bid, $200 mil salary ceiling. DH. No players drops, trades, etc. Unique stadiums must be bid for. 10% or 500K minimum.

But here’s the twist…

Closed bidding.

Players are nominated through the usual procedure, but this is the twist - you nominate a player you don’t want. Than all other owners have 24 hours to e-mail you (or PM, we can decide which to use later) a single bid. The highest bid gets the player which is announced by the nominating owner. The winner than makes the next nomination, again nominating somebody they don’t want and will receive the bids. In the event of a tie, the two (or three or whatever) owners have to resubmit a bid higher than their previous bid.

So what happens if you nominate a player (or stadium) that nobody wants? You have to take the player (or stadium) for yourself at the minimum 10%/500K bid. This point is subject to discussion if anyone has a better idea, but I think it would help move things along and also, one, discourage garbage nominations and two, create opportunities later for great deals… coupled with a bit of the unknown…. Hmm, will somebody bid on xxxx or do I get him for nothing…?

I guess the only problem might be if there is a player everybody wants, but I think even in the case of Babe Ruth there would be at least one owner not that interested.

This would of course be a faster auction, about two months instead of six.

What do you think?

This has been posted to Winter ATG4, 2008, 1999, and 1969 auction threads.

[ugrant]

Franky - the two times I can think of where the government used Keynesian deficit spending to "stimulate" the economy were in the 1930s under Roosevelt and the 1980s under Reagan.

In both those cases the government actually spent money directly to create jobs. In Roosevelt's case the money went to the WPA and CCC to hire thousands of unemployed workers to build public works projects like roads, bridges, public pools, new ships for the Navy <started around 1938 when war was evident> and so on. Anyone travelling around the country can see those projects today. Whether or not that money actually "stimulated" the economy can be argued either way. the country was still in depression when we entered WWII, thus ending any chance of evaluating the deficit spending effects.

In Reagan's case the money went to rebuilding the military by investing in new ships, aircraft, satellites and such. An adjunct to that spending was the collapse of the USSR, which tried, but couldn't, match that expenditure. Did that "stimulus" lead to the boom of the 90s? It would seem you are arguing it did, but most Keynesians I know are reluctant to say that.

the current Administration has not used the 789 billion "stimulus" money passed at the start of Obama's term in a manner to create jobs. Most of it still hasn't been spent and it seems to be a slush fund for pay offs to recalcitrant <or smart> Congressmen and Senators. that sort of deficit spending is a waste of our tax dollars and the debt is being passed on to future generations for no good ends.

As for deficit spending during wartime, sure, I'd support war bonds. But we're not doing that, are we?