69' franchise theme league...60 mil and more...

[G_MONEY]

Any player from .50 to .99:
1. jettblack
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

.50 players ONLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Nobody from any team but yours, too bad if you can't make it under 60M
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

[LMBombers]

I think it is penalty enough to have to cut expensive players and only use sub-1M players instead.

Any player from .50 to .99:
1. jettblack
2. LMBombers
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

.50 players ONLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

[toshiro]

Pelzer seemed to emphasize making tough cuts was going to be a major part of this league. He didn't indicate any kind of compensation for making those tough cuts.

I don't agree with you about the lack of production, btw. The 69 player set is as shallow as a kiddie pool. I see a lot of .50 guys already on the roster we would have to use. I could see picking up a .90 as a "fill in" and then having him take PT from the franchise guy. This doesn't seem like what Pelzer had in mind.

But I'm all about the vote, Jett. Point of clarification: you did say this rule applies to teams that are only over $60 to begin with? That means that Was, Hou, ChC and ChW would not be able to use this rule? (except for ChC for C and SP). Is that correct?

[G_MONEY]

[quote:b1eaf407a9="toshiro"]Pelzer seemed to emphasize making tough cuts was going to be a major part of this league. He didn't indicate any kind of compensation for making those tough cuts.

I don't agree with you about the lack of production, btw. The 69 player set is as shallow as a kiddie pool. I see a lot of .50 guys already on the roster we would use. I could see picking up a .90 as a "fill in" and then having him take PT from the franchise guy. This doesn't seem like what Pelzer had in mind.

But I'm all about the vote, Jett. Point of clarification: you did say this rule applies to teams that are only over $60 to begin with? That means that Was, Hou, ChC and ChW would not be able to use this rule? (except for ChC for C and SP). Is that correct?[/quote:b1eaf407a9]

As far as I can see, only teams who need to do this should be doing it.

As for Pelzer, where is he when we need him?

[toshiro]

'Need' is kind of a subjective term, Jett. Can you frame the language to be something more concrete and specific regarding the rule?

I think maybe we should wait for Pelzer before we put this to a vote. This is his league and he seemed to have a specific vision in mind for the league. I'd like to hear his input. We'll need him to start the league anyways (unless he's gone on a 6 month hiatus).

[LMBombers]

I have PM'd and emailed Pelzer. I'm sure he will check in soon.

[franky35]

I looked at StL and concluded that it was impossible for them to meet the rules. On the other hand, I am wrong as often as I'm right.

Can someone explain how the Cards can get under the 60 mil cap?

[toshiro]

I don't want to be a major thorn. I do feel that this puts sub 60mil teams at a small/slight disadvantage and that it's not what Pelzer was thinking, per se (I might be wrong). I think the subjectivity and interpretation we're leaving open to the rule may have unexpected/undesired results.

Tell you what, can we delay the vote just one more day to see if Pelzer shows up? After that, we can have a league vote and I'll cease to beleaguer the point.

[franky35]

I think it was the old general manager, Karl Marx, who once said, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need:

Any player from .50 to .99:
1. jettblack
2. LMBombers
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

.50 players ONLY:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

I thought this rule only applied to the Cubs. Until other rules are decided, I'm holding my vote.

[franky35]

Toshiro, I don't even know what you're talkin about. The only issue is whether the Cubs get replacements up to .99 mil or only 0.50 mil. Is that the issue?

And what about the Cards? Can they even field a team?

And what about the Angels? How many of them can fit on the head of a pin?