Another Summer League - chat thread

[Palanion]

[quote:3595e797e1]
Any thought to a slight change.........while still requiring the minimum bid for players with multiple cards to be 0% of the highest card, allowing someone to use the lower priced card and if they use the cheaper card, counting that against the 200 mill salary cap rather than always the more expensive card. [/quote:3595e797e1]
I think this would be very difficult to keep track of and police during the auction or during the season.

[kimkrichbaum2]

Was the fact that you have to count a player at their highest salary level towards your 200 mil cap clearly stated this time, or was this one of the rules that was stated back in our first sealed bid auction? If it was clearly stated, then I believe that hackra would have to remake his last draft choice, because I believe Forsch only kept him under the cap, because he said he was counting him (and using) one of his cheaper cards.

Either way, I'd like to put the question of Mr BBW's suggestions for our next league, out to the group to see what they think

1. Should owners always have to count a player's most expensive card towards their 200 mil limit or can they state they will be using a cheaper card, and count that card towards the 200 mil limit?
2. Do we want to have an unlimited salary cap? (this would involve changing the supplemental draft)
3. Do we want to let owners draft between 25 and 28 players as they choose during the draft period? (this also would effect the supplemental draft)

My answers:
1. OK either way
2. prefer 200 mil cap
3. I like the idea of letting folks draft up to 28 players as long as they can pay for them, and keep themselves in the 200 mil cap.

[Palanion]

[quote:c3d0c9e9e8] If it was clearly stated, then I believe that hackra would have to remake his last draft choice, because I believe Forsch only kept him under the cap, because he said he was counting him (and using) one of his cheaper cards. [/quote:c3d0c9e9e8]
If my math is right, hackra had plenty of room for the more expensive Forsch. But the issue for him was not the price, it was that he needed a pure RP for his roster and the cheaper Forsch is a pure RP, the higher-priced Forsch is SP/RP.

As for the three questions:
1. I think the higher priced card MUST be counted toward the cap
2. 200M not unlimited
3. Keep to 25; I like the 3-round midseason draft idea

[Mr Baseball World]

I think that if what counts against the cap is the same as what counts against the cap on TSN, it would be impossible to go over the cap since both would operate the same way.

As we do it now, TSN will let you go over our cap and we do need to monitor. If I am at exactly 200 mill, I would be unable to drop the expensive Eddie Collins to get the cheaper one since I don't have the money to take the 5% cap hit. TSN will let me do it though.

Going as is is fine but it is actually the situation where problems can arise.

[hackra]

[quote:3ff9caa178="Palanion"][quote:3ff9caa178] If it was clearly stated, then I believe that hackra would have to remake his last draft choice, because I believe Forsch only kept him under the cap, because he said he was counting him (and using) one of his cheaper cards. [/quote:3ff9caa178]
If my math is right, hackra had plenty of room for the more expensive Forsch. But the issue for him was not the price, it was that he needed a pure RP for his roster and the cheaper Forsch is a pure RP, the higher-priced Forsch is SP/RP.

As for the three questions:
1. I think the higher priced card MUST be counted toward the cap
2. 200M not unlimited
3. Keep to 25; I like the 3-round midseason draft idea[/quote:3ff9caa178]

I had $1.58 million left and used the highest price on Forsch (and everyone else) to calculate that.

As for the three questions:
1. I think the higher priced card SHOULD be counted toward the cap
2. 200M not unlimited
3. Keep to 25; I'm fine with the 3-round midseason draft idea, but would also be fine with a 1 round waiver draft, a 1 round draft after 42 games, and 1 round after game 81 to keep interest up.

I also think an interesting twist might be to abolish the .50 minimum bid and allow the 10% rule to apply to cheaper players (allowing someone to bid .05 on someone like Randy Lerch for example) although I do not feel strongly about this one.

[MIKEARCHAMBAULT]

I like the 200M limit, and the highest value card should apply towards it. I also think we should keep the .50 minimum bid; that is a crucial part of the bidding process on the more expensive players as well as the 500K players.

[DHowser]

I have an idea for the next auction that I just wanted to throw out there. People have been mentioning that they don't like the idea that you pretty much have no chance of getting whatever players you put on the block. So I was thinking what if we did it like the NHL and I believe the NBA might as well. When you put a player up for bids then at that time the player is yours for whatever contract you offer. All other teams then have a chance to put in an offer for the player. After all offers are in then the team with the highest bid now has the player. BUT the original owner can then match the top offer to keep the player. Or we could make it so the original owner has to go over the highest bid by a set amount.
I think this may add some new twists and would encourage owners to actually put up players they want. Any thoughts?

[kimkrichbaum2]

First of all, the answers to the 3 proposals that I got from Mr BBW's post, all seem to be no, or keep it as it is
[quote:1161387418]1. Should owners always have to count a player's most expensive card towards their 200 mil limit or can they state they will be using a cheaper card, and count that card towards the 200 mil limit?
2. Do we want to have an unlimited salary cap? (this would involve changing the supplemental draft)
3. Do we want to let owners draft between 25 and 28 players as they choose during the draft period? (this also would effect the supplemental draft) [/quote:1161387418]

Next, I [b:1161387418]really[/b:1161387418] like DHowser's idea! How about the owner who puts a player out for auction has the ability to overbid the high bid made, [b:1161387418]if[/b:1161387418] he beats it by at least 15%? I think that would lead to some fascinating bidding dynamics!

[gorshar]

Re: DHowser's idea.

My initial response was that this has potential and would introduce some very interesting bidding dynamics. Then I went to brush my teeth and fix my morning coffee....

I see a real problem with this, in that it really stacks the bidding to favor the nominating manager, almost to the point of making this resemble a live draft but with no drafting order. For example - let's say I'm lucky enough to get one of the first nominations. So I put up Ruth. High bid is 18 mil. Let's use a 10% premium because it's easy, so I claim him for 19.8 and I get to nominate again. I put up Gehrig. High bid is 13 mil. So I snag him for 14.3 mil. I get to nominate again. Hornsby!!! High bid is 14 mil. So I snag him for 15.4. And I get to nominate again. Kiner!!!!! High bid is 11 mil. Mine for 12.1!!!

Okay I just spent 61.6 but stacked my line-up with Ruth, Gehrig, Hornsby, and Kiner and there wasn't a thing any of the other 11 managers could do about it. This is not acceptable.

Yes, we could arrange it so that if you take a player in this manner, the nomination passes to another manager, but given that in the beginning many nominations will result in the nominator taking the player themselves, than we should just do a standard live draft because that's what this will sort of look like.

Or.... we put a massive premium like 50% or more.

Or.... we keep the present system because I don't think it's broken at all. I find it very easy to work around to get (or at least have a chance to get) the players I want.

[DHowser]

gorshar, I would have no problem at all with someone getting only 4 players and having to spend 62 mill for them. I guarantee you that this team wouldn't win a championship. The rest of the team wouldn't be good enough. And if someone really wanted one of those players then they would have to bid high enough that the original owner couldn't go over. If you bid 16 mill on Hornsby then the original owner would have to pay 17.6 for him.

Also, if you look at it that way, the original owner would be paying 4.5 mill over the card value for Ruth. That's a lot and again probably isn't going to help you win a championship. I personally would rather have 15 solid players than 4 studs and the rest duds. Not that they would be duds but they wouldn't be good enough to win a championship with in my opinion anyway.