Thoughts on this trade?

I wondered why you weren't around. Glad to see it was just a name change.

I wondered why you weren't around. Glad to see it was just a name change.

I wish there could be a place to say 216 Stitches (a.k.a. River Field View). The name change
wasn't supposed to be hiding anything. I just wanted a name a little more baseball centric and
a little less like a Kevin Costner film.

If you ever look back at the old leagues, you will see the old names were just expunged. So in
mutual leagues, divisions had Last Druid and 216 Stitches in leagues even though when they
were played, the names were Petrosian and River Field View.

216 Stitches, could you be more specific about what you mean by "picking defensively" with the first pick? Maybe an example?

I think what he is talking about is to not aim as high with your first pick. Don't go after Babe or Bonds every time. Try to go after the type of guys that other managers might have further down their draft list. Getting a less popular stud at number one is better than missing on the Babe and getting Paul Waner instead. It is a guessing game though, every manager tries to mix it up a bit from league to league.

Also right after new cards are introduced, that is a good time to try and get Bonds or Babe, everyone else will be trying to get those new cards.

216 Stitches, could you be more specific about what you mean by "picking defensively" with the first pick? Maybe an example?

Just an example? Not 2 or 3? Okay.

If you think 12 team leagues, you would kind of think you should try to get one of the
top 12 players available. And those can be rated 1-12.

So I could call any of the top 6 players available as "Aggressive" picks. Better players,
but more likely to have a conflict with another manager in the first round. These players
will be Ruth, Josh Gibson, Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, Rogers Hornsby, Arky Vaughn,
Nab Lajoie. Actually thats 7, but its not an exact science.

The more defensive picks would be the next best players. Less likely to run into a conflict
with another manager in the first round, but still a top player. I might include more than
just 6 players here, but the list would include Maddux, Hugh Duffy, Foxx, Speaker, Mays,
Oscar Charleston. And even more defensive if I started to include Teddy Ballgame, George
Brett, Cobb, Pete Alexander.

In a recent league, at least 4 of us used our first picks on Hornsby. Not only did only team
get Hornsby, but compensation was especially crappy in some cases. Knoblauch, Nellie Fox,
Jackie Robinson. A 25% chance for Hornsby or a very nearly 100% to get, say Brett ???

Problem is, you are going to need some elite talent or you will get overwhelmed at the $200
mill cap, so if you are not aggressive in round 1, you will need to be elsewhere.

I have found after doing a few 200 mil teams that whether I had a good or bad draft had little to do with how the team finished. I had teams that had bad drafts and thus high waivers do quite well by selectively using platoons. And I had teams with great drafts and thus low waivers finish both first and last. There is a lot more to winning at 200 mil than just luck in the draft. Like any other cap level you have to do enough of them to have the experience to compete.

Some are not able to recover from a bad draft via platoons because they do not plan ahead. After I select the players I want for the theme of that team I typically fill out my draft card with players who would be good in a platoon. If I get who I want I can trade the backup plan or just drop them. If I miss on my first choice I have half the platoon in hand and usually either get lucky with a consolation suitable for the other half or am able to get something suitable in waivers.

I find where luck plays more of a role than draft is opponents ballparks. Does enough people choose parks my chosen theme will do well on the road and/or minimize competition for the type of players I was after.

Actually, the programming team can fix this quite simply. Instead of going through all 25 rounds of the AD, then assigning the remaining player pool to those who lost out on their picks, they should:

Process everyone's top pick.
Assign players from the pool (according to the current rules, i.e. the highest remaining salaried player at that position)
Process everyone's 2nd round pick.
Assign players.
etc.

After all, why should a manager who has a CF in the 2nd round on his draft card have any chance whatsoever of getting a better CF than a manager who was willing to pony up a 1st round pick for him?

Yes, this would make it more difficult to draft all LH or all RH teams, but my guess is that those preferring that strategy will figure out work-arounds more easily than their work-arounds for getting Billy Hamilton in CF instead of Mantle.

P.S. this should be done for lower cap AD's also, on the same reasoning.

don't like it either