What happened to Nelson Cruz?

[Jerlins]

And Wes Helms card was realistic 2 years ago? No, but he was priced accordingly. Personally, I don't care if the card has the name Pujols or Cruz on it, it's just a name for heaven's sake. I build teams based on cards and not on player's names. I joined three pre-card leagues this year, and did not draft certain players (Furcal etc) based on the assumption they would not get cards, because last year D. Murphy and J. Elsbury did not and finishing 1st in one and 2nd by 3 games in another, where those two could have been the difference, well it cost me $40. And why did I waste high picks on those two last year? Wes friggin Helms!!!!

Consistancy would be nice. Furcal getting a card and others not makes little to no sense. If Cruz is a $14 player, so be it, put him in! Those who would be first to complain about Cruz and his ungodly numbers, will be the first to have Riviera and Devine toss 200 innings on their teams.

[Ninersphan]

[quote:5d05f63673="Jerlins"]And Wes Helms card was realistic 2 years ago? No, but he was priced accordingly. Personally, I don't care if the card has the name Pujols or Cruz on it, it's just a name for heaven's sake. I build teams based on cards and not on player's names. I joined three pre-card leagues this year, and did not draft certain players (Furcal etc) based on the assumption they would not get cards, because last year D. Murphy and J. Elsbury did not and finishing 1st in one and 2nd by 3 games in another, where those two could have been the difference, well it cost me $40. And why did I waste high picks on those two last year? Wes friggin Helms!!!!

Consistancy would be nice. Furcal getting a card and others not makes little to no sense. If Cruz is a $14 player, so be it, put him in! Those who would be first to complain about Cruz and his ungodly numbers, will be the first to have Riviera and Devine toss 200 innings on their teams.[/quote:5d05f63673]

I'm [b:5d05f63673]NOT [/b:5d05f63673]alone. :D

[LMBombers]

[quote:369a7b1a28="Ninersphan"]This will be my last post.[/quote:369a7b1a28] :lol: Caught ya looking. :P

Basically it is a no-win situation for TSN. If they put everyone in then some people will be outraged. If they try to limit the crazy years in limited playing time others will be outraged. I don't think they could do anything that pleases everyone. Its done. We have a new game. Lets get on with it. :roll:

[kaviksdad]

[quote:6effcacbab="Ninersphan"][quote:6effcacbab="Jerlins"]And Wes Helms card was realistic 2 years ago? No, but he was priced accordingly. Personally, I don't care if the card has the name Pujols or Cruz on it, it's just a name for heaven's sake. I build teams based on cards and not on player's names. I joined three pre-card leagues this year, and did not draft certain players (Furcal etc) based on the assumption they would not get cards, because last year D. Murphy and J. Elsbury did not and finishing 1st in one and 2nd by 3 games in another, where those two could have been the difference, well it cost me $40. And why did I waste high picks on those two last year? Wes friggin Helms!!!!

Consistancy would be nice. Furcal getting a card and others not makes little to no sense. If Cruz is a $14 player, so be it, put him in! Those who would be first to complain about Cruz and his ungodly numbers, will be the first to have Riviera and Devine toss 200 innings on their teams.[/quote:6effcacbab]

I'm [b:6effcacbab]NOT [/b:6effcacbab]alone. :D[/quote:6effcacbab]

No you're not - there are a bunch of us "silent steamers" right now fuming about Cruz's exclusion this year.

JUST GIMME ALL THE DAMN CARDS!!!!!

:wink: :lol:

[Mean Dean]

I never stated, or even thought, that few people felt that these cards should be included. Nor would I think that, if that were true, it would mean that the people who do feel that way shouldn't express their opinions. You took that martyrdom upon yourself (and of course it worked, as martyrdom usually seems to around here.) I really don't care about a show of hands; I'm talking about what makes sense in terms of having a baseball game.

Your arguments basically amount to saying that, since we're talking about drawing a line that is bound to be arbitrary, that means we should just throw up our hands and not do it at all. I don't agree with that logic. You see this type of thinking a lot... one example is with steroids: amphetamines and other substances are performance-enhancing too, and we'll never catch everybody who is using, so why even try? I just don't feel one thing follows from the other. The inability to do something perfectly, to me, has nothing to do with whether or not it should be done. If it's a worthwhile goal, then that means that doing it well but not perfectly is still better than not even trying.

I don't think relievers [i:ba2f5deb18]should[/i:ba2f5deb18] be able to pitch 150 innings (unless they want to pitch at least 50 of those innings "tired"), and I don't think that Wes Helms card should have been included. Those aren't arguments against the logic of the "include cards if they represent the player's true talent level" policy; they're arguments that that policy should be executed better.

One thing I think we can virtually all agree on is that TSN has not "cost you money" when you conduct a non-TSN-run draft, draft players whom you know full well might not be included in the game, and then it turns out that they are in fact not included.

[qksilver69]

Dean, let me put in an argument here. You yourself characterized the the decisions as subjective. At least we agree there.

But what bugs me about that is that most people I know who play SOM *love* the beauty in the pure objectivity of it. Yes, luck is involved, but truly 95% of the people like the analysis, the data, and the skill in choosing players to form a winning team, right?

So how does using subjective criteria make this environment better? When TSN is arbitrary & subjective in excluding a Santiago, who has no real ability to skew the game (he has a high OBP & nice D, and would get a $5M card or so, that's it) and includes a Furcal, who absolutely can skew the game by posting a .360 BA over 450+ PAs, and they both played for similar amounts of time in real life, I think we all lose.

I understand the argument you pose but I think the subjectivity diminishes the original nature of SOM's attraction for most people, which is controlling your own team, 100%. It takes the power away from us, the players, and puts it with TSN management.

Maybe one solution is that advanced leagues could have a complete player set with exclusions based on objective standards -OR- could go with TSN's exclusion package, and public leagues would have the TSN exclusion package.

[coyote303]

[quote:2402310e21="LMBombers"][quote:2402310e21="Ninersphan"]This will be my last post.[/quote:2402310e21] :lol: Caught ya looking. :P

Basically it is a no-win situation for TSN. If they put everyone in then some people will be outraged. If they try to limit the crazy years in limited playing time others will be outraged. I don't think they could do anything that pleases everyone. Its done. We have a new game. Lets get on with it. :roll:[/quote:2402310e21]

I agree that no matter which way TSN does it, some people will be unhappy. Fortunately, I like the way they do it, so me--I'm happy! :)

Coyote

[joethejet]

In the end, the pool is the pool and you build teams accordingly. To me it matters not very much.

If all the players were included it would change the salaries of others.

Personally, there should be Objective rules that include/exclude players (and these should be published) or they should include everyone.

Jet
www.angelfire.com/games5/joethejet

[TomSiebert]

I love this place. Good to be back. So much interesting stuff to read, even though it makes me a total geek... :D

tws

[joethejet]

[quote:e500a9bc63="TomSiebert"]even though it makes me a total geek... :D

tws[/quote:e500a9bc63]

Join the group! ;) :P