Player cards after dropped

I like the idea of reducing the cost of the player to his cut value. I like this because it would serve to increase the player pool late in the season. Maybe that 5M pitcher that got cut is worth a 4M gamble. It is harder to gamble the more money a player costs. I don't see many 10M players dropped early and if they are it's still 9.5M for a guy who looks to be having an off season. That's not an easy move to make. I know I give my big dollar guy more time than the lower cost guys. I believe this would mostly impact the middle or lower end guys.
One of the reasons stated against this was a manager might not cut someone for fear someone else will pick him up. Well I think adding another factor to the decision is a plus. I honestly don't see NOT cutting someone for fear of another picking him up. I'm not wasting 5/10/20% if the guy is doing anything, I'm cutting him because I need a better season to improve my team.

One of the reasons stated against this was a manager might not cut someone for fear someone else will pick him up. Well I think adding another factor to the decision is a plus..

Why is this a plus? You really need to explain that. There is no inherent reason why the Mystery Games should make decision-making more difficult for managers releasing players and easier for opposing managers considering picking up those players. Both your and Paul's proposals suffer significantly from this imbalance.

And yes, managers do fear other managers picking their castoff players up, even managers (like you and I) who "do their research," and your (and even moreso Paul's) proposal would enhance that fear. Many managers come to that point where they intimate their player is on a bad year, but they don't have the injury to prove it. In the current game, fear that an opposing manager might pick up that player on a good year already hampers their decision to release their player. In your proposed system, that hampering would escalate since the manager would now fear opposing managers picking up that player up on the cheap as well, which would create an imbalance (see paragraph one above) favoring managers picking up players over managers releasing players.

One of the reasons stated against this was a manager might not cut someone for fear someone else will pick him up. Well I think adding another factor to the decision is a plus..

Why is this a plus? You really need to explain that. There is no inherent reason why the Mystery Games should make decision-making more difficult for managers releasing players and easier for opposing managers considering picking up those players. Both your and Paul's proposals suffer significantly from this imbalance

And yes, managers do fear other managers picking their castoff players up, even managers (like you and I) who "do they research," and your (and even moreso Paul's) proposal would enhance that fear. Many managers come to that point where they intimate their player is on a bad year, but they don't have the injury to prove it. In the current game, fear that an opposing player might pick up that player on a good year already hampers their decision to release their player. In your proposed system, that hampering would escalate since the manager would now fear opposing managers could pick that player up on the cheap, which would create an imbalance (see paragraph one above) favoring managers picking up players over managers releasing players.

I don't want to create an imbalance that makes decision making harder for one manager and easier for another. Under the current system, I have no incentive to acquire a .214 hitting Yastrzemski from waivers when my research tells me that his mystery version is the worst of the five. To use a finance analogy, if I am a junk bond investor I expect to be compensated for above average risk in the form of higher interest payments. If I am thinking of acquiring a .214 hitting Yastrzemski off the waiver wire I would like the potential of his mystery card being re-randomized and/or his asking price to be less than $10 million. Ok, maybe a 20% probability of his card being re-randomized is too high, so, how about 10%? If you are the manager who waives a subpar Yastrzemski, you will enjoy the experience of the probable fool who pays $9m, instead of $10m for him off the waiver wire and finds out he only found fools gold in the form of a mystery card that didn't get re-randomized. Or, conversely, you may be out-managed by the genius who pays $9m, instead of $10m and benefits as Yastrzemski gets re-randomized (10% probability), and goes on to beat your team by hitting .320 the rest of the season and gets a grand slam homer on the last game of the season to knock you out of the playoffs.

Just a little bit of added fun, supported by an element of realism, that's all.

One of the reasons stated against this was a manager might not cut someone for fear someone else will pick him up. Well I think adding another factor to the decision is a plus..

Why is this a plus? You really need to explain that. There is no inherent reason why the Mystery Games should make decision-making more difficult for managers releasing players and easier for opposing managers considering picking up those players. Both your and Paul's proposals suffer significantly from this imbalance

And yes, managers do fear other managers picking their castoff players up, even managers (like you and I) who "do they research," and your (and even moreso Paul's) proposal would enhance that fear. Many managers come to that point where they intimate their player is on a bad year, but they don't have the injury to prove it. In the current game, fear that an opposing player might pick up that player on a good year already hampers their decision to release their player. In your proposed system, that hampering would escalate since the manager would now fear opposing managers could pick that player up on the cheap, which would create an imbalance (see paragraph one above) favoring managers picking up players over managers releasing players.

I don't want to create an imbalance that makes decision making harder for one manager and easier for another. Under the current system, I have no incentive to acquire a .214 hitting Yastrzemski from waivers when my research tells me that his mystery version is the worst of the five. To use a finance analogy, if I am a junk bond investor I expect to be compensated for above average risk in the form of higher interest payments. If I am thinking of acquiring a .214 hitting Yastrzemski off the waiver wire I would like the potential of his mystery card being re-randomized and/or his asking price to be less than $10 million. Ok, maybe a 20% probability of his card being re-randomized is too high, so, how about 10%? If you are the manager who waives a subpar Yastrzemski, you will enjoy the experience of the probable fool who pays $9m, instead of $10m for him off the waiver wire and finds out he only found fools gold in the form of a mystery card that didn't get re-randomized. Or, conversely, you may be out-managed by the genius who pays $9m, instead of $10m and benefits as Yastrzemski gets re-randomized (10% probability), and goes on to beat your team by hitting .320 the rest of the season and gets a grand slam homer on the last game of the season to knock you out of the playoffs.

Just a little bit of added fun, supported by an element of realism, that's all.

I understand that you don't want to create that imbalance--I've never questioned the good will of your intentions--but, as I've explained in detail in my previous posts, your proposal (and joe/jmb's proposal) would do just that. And the added fun and realism you're trying to add--while commendable--just would not offset the damage of that imbalance.

Since I don't want any of this added imbalance, I obviously don't want any randomization. However, if the rest of the league were to love your idea, and Strat were to implement it, I do agree that a 5-10% randomization would be less damaging than a near-disastrous 20% randomization.

All that being said, if you truly believe in the merits of your proposal, you should create a forum announcing your new proposal, present it to the league in its entirety, set up a voting option, and ask the rest of the league to vote their approval and disapproval while also expressing their views in the forum. I would be curious to see the results and opinions.

[/b]..

Why is this a plus? You really need to explain that. There is no inherent reason why the Mystery Games should make decision-making more difficult for managers releasing players and easier for opposing managers considering picking up those players. Both your and Paul's proposals suffer significantly from this imbalance.

And yes, managers do fear other managers picking their castoff players up, even managers (like you and I) who "do their research," and your (and even moreso Paul's) proposal would enhance that fear. Many managers come to that point where they intimate their player is on a bad year, but they don't have the injury to prove it. In the current game, fear that an opposing manager might pick up that player on a good year already hampers their decision to release their player. In your proposed system, that hampering would escalate since the manager would now fear opposing managers picking up that player up on the cheap as well, which would create an imbalance (see paragraph one above) favoring managers picking up players over managers releasing players.

There a couple things here. First we are trying for as much reality as possible right? I pretty sure the RedSox think about what the Yankees do.
If your afraid another manager might pick up you cut, maybe you should not be cutting the guy. On my list of reason to cut or not someone else picking him up is pretty low on the list, very minor factor.
I have been on both ends of the stuck. I picked up a guy who went 6-1 and shut out the guy who cut him in the finals. It's hard to say that guy made a mistake as he did win 106 regular season games. I have also cut guys who went on to have good seasons. That's baseball.
More factors in the decision, realistic, factors can't be a bad thing. I like it.

Re-randoization? Maybe for lower value guys...

Haven't played much mystery ball so I am trying all the decades. What I see is managers dropping players way too soon. This should not be rewarded. Unless your "lucky" enough to get players injured early, it's risky to make a snap judgment on which year it is. I had Maris go 1 for 13 in the first series. I checked the free agent list fearing it was 1967, but then he hit like 10 hrs in the next 50 abs or something ridiculous. Looking like 1961.

I agree. I see starters dropped after 1 and 2 starts. I don't know what you can tell after a single start. Short of an injury tip making moves with such little info is hardly realistic.

[/b]..

Why is this a plus? You really need to explain that. There is no inherent reason why the Mystery Games should make decision-making more difficult for managers releasing players and easier for opposing managers considering picking up those players. Both your and Paul's proposals suffer significantly from this imbalance.

And yes, managers do fear other managers picking their castoff players up, even managers (like you and I) who "do their research," and your (and even moreso Paul's) proposal would enhance that fear. Many managers come to that point where they intimate their player is on a bad year, but they don't have the injury to prove it. In the current game, fear that an opposing manager might pick up that player on a good year already hampers their decision to release their player. In your proposed system, that hampering would escalate since the manager would now fear opposing managers picking up that player up on the cheap as well, which would create an imbalance (see paragraph one above) favoring managers picking up players over managers releasing players.

There a couple things here. First we are trying for as much reality as possible right? I pretty sure the RedSox think about what the Yankees do.
If your afraid another manager might pick up you cut, maybe you should not be cutting the guy. On my list of reason to cut or not someone else picking him up is pretty low on the list, very minor factor.
I have been on both ends of the stuck. I picked up a guy who went 6-1 and shut out the guy who cut him in the finals. It's hard to say that guy made a mistake as he did win 106 regular season games. I have also cut guys who went on to have good seasons. That's baseball.
More factors in the decision, realistic, factors can't be a bad thing. I like it.

Re-randoization? Maybe for lower value guys...

First of all, managers considering releasing players already do fear opposing managers picking up players they cut, even if you (as you claim) don't. So, that reality you want to instill with your "reduction" proposal already exists; Mystery games doesn't need your proposal to instill it. All your proposal would accomplish would be adding more unnecessary fear in those managers' heads, making them stick with crappy cards they might otherwise have cut. This is not a good thing. As I mentioned earlier, it would give a considerable advantage to managers picking up released players over managers releasing them....and that is a bad thing. This shows that "More factors in the decision" are bad things if those factors just damage the competitive balance of the Mystery Game.

So, no, the factors your proposal would bring to the decision would not include added realism--it would just warp an already existing level of realism-- but it would damage the balance in the Mystery Games game play...which would be a bad thing.

Also, I take it you're not warming up to a full "randomization" proposal anymore. However, why would it be any less detrimental to the game if Strat did it with lower value guys? I'd be curious to read your explanation.

First of all, managers considering releasing players already do fear opposing managers picking up players they cut, even if you (as you claim) don't.

I can HONESTLY say I have never given someone picking up my cut a second thought. I can HONESTLY say I don't remember even giving it a first thought for that matter. Like in this league I just beat you in, when I cut Figueroa I cut him because he was having a terrible year. I would have paid you to pick him up, if I could have. It would have made winning the division easier. But, I HONESTLY did not think for 1 second about someone picking him up.

I believe this would be a small change with little impact on the game. It would be realistic. If Josh Hamilton were cut, due to poor performance, he would not get the same contract (cba aside) he has now.
The most impact would come with the quick cut managers making cuts with few innings or at bats, little information. These managers should "fear" their low info releases coming back to bite them. They are guessing/hoping the move works.
Most of the impact would come in the 95% phase where most of the releases seem to occur. Once it gets into the 80% level and there is more info on the player it would become less likely that they get picked up even with the 20% discount.

How realistic is it to cut 25 guys in a season? If there is "fear" when cutting a guy it's because the manager doesn't have enough info to make the move without that "fear" that it will come back to bite him. Would you really cut Bill Madlock because he was having an off year but, you thought he had his best card?

I think the revalue idea is pretty good and would only have a very minor impact on most managers. I'm still not sure about re-randomization of the season but, I'm glad it was suggested.

First of all, managers considering releasing players already do fear opposing managers picking up players they cut, even if you (as you claim) don't.

I can HONESTLY say I have never given someone picking up my cut a second thought. I can HONESTLY say I don't remember even giving it a first thought for that matter. Like in this league I just beat you in, when I cut Figueroa I cut him because he was having a terrible year. I would have paid you to pick him up, if I could have. It would have made winning the division easier. But, I HONESTLY did not think for 1 second about someone picking him up.

I believe this would be a small change with little impact on the game. It would be realistic. If Josh Hamilton were cut, due to poor performance, he would not get the same contract (cba aside) he has now.
The most impact would come with the quick cut managers making cuts with few innings or at bats, little information. These managers should "fear" their low info releases coming back to bite them. They are guessing/hoping the move works.
Most of the impact would come in the 95% phase where most of the releases seem to occur. Once it gets into the 80% level and there is more info on the player it would become less likely that they get picked up even with the 20% discount.

How realistic is it to cut 25 guys in a season? If there is "fear" when cutting a guy it's because the manager doesn't have enough info to make the move without that "fear" that it will come back to bite him. Would you really cut Bill Madlock because he was having an off year but, you thought he had his best card?

I think the revalue idea is pretty good and would only have a very minor impact on most managers. I'm still not sure about re-randomization of the season but, I'm glad it was suggested.

Dude, what you just don't seem to get is it doesn't matter what YOU think, or whether or not YOU don't worry about other managers picking up your players. You, as an anomaly, may not worry about it...but MOST MANAGERS DO. And while the 95% rate might not give them much concern, the 10% and 20% discounts would give them concern and--as I have well explained many times--this would give them extra paralysis from releasing their possibly crappy players, which would give an unnecessary and detrimental advantage to players picking up released players over players considering releasing them.

And of course I wouldn't consider cutting Bill Madlock--or anyone else--If I thought he had his best card. However, that has nothing to do with what you and I are discussing--managers considering releasing players who might or probably are crappy--so it's an irrelevant point.

And congratulations if you did better than me in a league; I hope you went on to win a championship. But I think it's odd (and a bit quaint) that you consider it "beating me" as if you and I were the only two teams in the league, and I was your sole rival. In other words...it wasn't a tennis match, dude... . The only reason I could think you would say this is that you recognize your argument is quite flawed, and you hope this extraneous stab at superiority might help overcome those flaws.

Anyway, as my argument above, and my many arguments before, shows is that your revaluization proposal would be detrimental to the competitive balance and game play of the Mystery games. Maybe not quite as detrimental as the randomization proposal, but detrimental nonetheless.