[quote:459d462c16="Madigan33"]I agree with the arguments in favor of the fluke cards, I just think it is too late to decide now to add them.
I think we should have a vote to use the fluke cards going forward with the plan that we will use them every season from now on.
Re-voting every season is a bad idea, once the fluke cards are in, I think they have to stay in.[/quote:459d462c16]
If they were voted in we'd be done, I'd never ask to take them out, you can't unring the bell as far as I'm concerned.
as I said I'd like to hear from those that haven't voted, but even if I don't I'll put it up for a vote for next year, on Monday.
I'm thrilled with the discussion it's provoked though :D
The North American Keeper League Forum
by schnoogens » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:00 pm
I will always vote "no" on this.
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.
- schnoogens
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Ninersphan » Fri Mar 09, 2012 4:12 pm
[quote:d23db9e5e2="Schnoogens"]I will always vote "no" on this.
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.[/quote:d23db9e5e2]
but will you stay if it's voted in...
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.[/quote:d23db9e5e2]
but will you stay if it's voted in...
- Ninersphan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by schnoogens » Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:30 pm
[quote:fe3b7e606d="Ninersphan"][quote:fe3b7e606d="Schnoogens"]I will always vote "no" on this.
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.[/quote:fe3b7e606d]
but will you stay if it's voted in...[/quote:fe3b7e606d]
Let's not get carried away, I'm not threatening to leave, just stating my opinion
The "John Smith" argument doesn't fly. If I only looked at the cards and not the player names then there would be no reason to watch real MLB...I don't want fluky players included. There are still plenty of opportunities to grab guys that are performing well in the current season during the summer FA draft - that's how I landed Reed Johnson and Antonio Bastardo.
I do agree that de Aza and the catcher (name escapes me) should have been included...but we can't start a precedent of exceptions just because we don't agree with some of SOM's decisions for the current season. Where do you draw the line?
BTW, it sure would be helpful to me if Alonso's card was included...but he didn't deliver the value to the Reds in 2011 that he would deliver to me in SOM, so it's appropriate that he's out.[/quote:fe3b7e606d]
but will you stay if it's voted in...[/quote:fe3b7e606d]
Let's not get carried away, I'm not threatening to leave, just stating my opinion
- schnoogens
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Jerlins » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:40 pm
I can live with including all players in future years, I'd adjust my strategy accordingly. But like many have mentioned already, we need to set the rules a year in advance. Either way in the future is fine by me.
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.
- Jerlins
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Ninersphan » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:14 pm
[quote:8fdf8702ec="Jerlins"]I can live with including all players in future years, I'd adjust my strategy accordingly. But like many have mentioned already, we need to set the rules a year in advance. Either way in the future is fine by me.
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.[/quote:8fdf8702ec]
Ah but [b:8fdf8702ec]having the oppurtunity to draft these players[/b:8fdf8702ec], may also help with long term planning... A team in such a positon could try for the quick one year of glory fix, or trade the pick of the "Fluke" to gain more value in future years from a team that may be a little better off and looking for that one last piece. :wink:
As I said these players add value to the draft,. I've been ridden pretty hard in another thread regarding Parmalee, but I'd consider drafting him despite his card this year if I was in need of a 1b because Morneau might not make it back to his former status and Parmalee might be the 1b of the future in Minnesota.
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.[/quote:8fdf8702ec]
Ah but [b:8fdf8702ec]having the oppurtunity to draft these players[/b:8fdf8702ec], may also help with long term planning... A team in such a positon could try for the quick one year of glory fix, or trade the pick of the "Fluke" to gain more value in future years from a team that may be a little better off and looking for that one last piece. :wink:
As I said these players add value to the draft,. I've been ridden pretty hard in another thread regarding Parmalee, but I'd consider drafting him despite his card this year if I was in need of a 1b because Morneau might not make it back to his former status and Parmalee might be the 1b of the future in Minnesota.
- Ninersphan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Jerlins » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:37 pm
[quote:769fe0bb2a="Ninersphan"][quote:769fe0bb2a="Jerlins"]I can live with including all players in future years, I'd adjust my strategy accordingly. But like many have mentioned already, we need to set the rules a year in advance. Either way in the future is fine by me.
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.[/quote:769fe0bb2a]
Ah but [b:769fe0bb2a]having the oppurtunity to draft these players[/b:769fe0bb2a], may also help with long term planning... A team in such a positon could try for the quick one year of glory fix, or trade the pick of the "Fluke" to gain more value in future years from a team that may be a little better off and looking for that one last piece. :wink:
As I said these players add value to the draft,. I've been ridden pretty hard in another thread regarding Parmalee, but I'd consider drafting him despite his card this year if I was in need of a 1b because Morneau might not make it back to his former status and Parmalee might be the 1b of the future in Minnesota.[/quote:769fe0bb2a]
True enough, and like I said, I'm willing to adjust any strategy I have presently to include those fluke cards on a year to year basis. But you can't keep drafting the Giambi's of this year, or the Thome's of last year, keep them, then wonder why you are rarely competitive on a year to year basis. But yes, if you aquire them and things still don't pan out season wise, you best be quick on the draw to trade them.
Last year, I drafted TWO players (Casilla in RD 5) (Moreland too, but for his possible future value), that could actually help my 2010 team. The rest of the guys were all speculative picks, most of the sub $1.00 variety. Some panned out (Gordon, Nova, Hanrahan), some wait and see (Minor, Espinosa, Morel) and a couple of failures (Brantley, LaPorta).
As for evening things out for those without a team to be competitive for the year, that's why we have a 2nd season and redraw the divisions. So those with a crappy team (like my 2011) just has to be less crappy than 3 teams to make the playoffs (like my 2011 team), where anything can happen (like my 2011 team).
I would like to add one thought though. While it does give a helping hand to those unfortunate in the previous year (or years), it might also serve as a hindrance. Drafting these players will only serve to mask what might be the real problem with a team, that is, planning for the long term. If drafting a Parmalee with your first choice, rather than say, a Mike Trout, because Trout has a worthless card and Parmalee can carry you into the playoffs, have you really helped your team long term?
This year, someone will draft Giambi, and most likely in RD 1. Really? And you want to complain how each year your team is non competitive?
And yes, Harden vs Longoria is a perfect example of short term thinking over long term gain (though I did try in vain to get Hawk to let me have Harden).
I joined a keeper league in an attempt to build a team that would be solid for years to come. Some years would be rebuilding, other years competitive. For those who've dealt (or attempted to) with me, know I've always passed on "the quick fix" trade, even in my competitive years.[/quote:769fe0bb2a]
Ah but [b:769fe0bb2a]having the oppurtunity to draft these players[/b:769fe0bb2a], may also help with long term planning... A team in such a positon could try for the quick one year of glory fix, or trade the pick of the "Fluke" to gain more value in future years from a team that may be a little better off and looking for that one last piece. :wink:
As I said these players add value to the draft,. I've been ridden pretty hard in another thread regarding Parmalee, but I'd consider drafting him despite his card this year if I was in need of a 1b because Morneau might not make it back to his former status and Parmalee might be the 1b of the future in Minnesota.[/quote:769fe0bb2a]
True enough, and like I said, I'm willing to adjust any strategy I have presently to include those fluke cards on a year to year basis. But you can't keep drafting the Giambi's of this year, or the Thome's of last year, keep them, then wonder why you are rarely competitive on a year to year basis. But yes, if you aquire them and things still don't pan out season wise, you best be quick on the draw to trade them.
Last year, I drafted TWO players (Casilla in RD 5) (Moreland too, but for his possible future value), that could actually help my 2010 team. The rest of the guys were all speculative picks, most of the sub $1.00 variety. Some panned out (Gordon, Nova, Hanrahan), some wait and see (Minor, Espinosa, Morel) and a couple of failures (Brantley, LaPorta).
As for evening things out for those without a team to be competitive for the year, that's why we have a 2nd season and redraw the divisions. So those with a crappy team (like my 2011) just has to be less crappy than 3 teams to make the playoffs (like my 2011 team), where anything can happen (like my 2011 team).
- Jerlins
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Individual League Chat
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests