Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 0:40:13 GMT -5
I propose that if a manager does not meet the minimum score threshold, and that manager is allowed to continue playing by the admins, that manager's team should be docked $5 million from their overall salary cap.
If you don't meet your minimums in IP or AB you are docked salary cap. However, if you miss the minimum score there is no salary cap penalty? That doesn't make any sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 5:31:53 GMT -5
This goes against the philosphy of you can get crappy major league stars to fill spots and give you AB's and IP's though. If you sacrifice WHIP ERA and OBP for AB's and IP's and you fall below 50 points and get docked salary anyway then what was the point of trying to make the minimums?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 13:11:05 GMT -5
50 is such a ridiculously low threshold that you almost have to try NOT to reach it.
I think it is unfair to those who tried to meet minimum the holds and didn't reach them, who are getting fined.
Ben, I get it, you are against all fines on this minimum performance issue. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise on this issue.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 18:19:26 GMT -5
I don't think 50 is ridiculously easy. This year one person didn't make it, and 2 nearly didn't. And last year 3 didn't make it. If anything, I'd say it's too high, Averaging over 4 points is not easy for a rebuilding team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 19:04:10 GMT -5
2 years ago 2 of those teams barely had 75% of a complete line up. So that maybbe is not the best example.
I didn't have any players in my lineup for almost a month and still cleared the 50 pt threshold.
With just a little planning the limit can be met.
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Dec 15, 2015 17:57:13 GMT -5
Yup sorry totally forgot the planning part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 5:35:43 GMT -5
50 is such a ridiculously low threshold that you almost have to try NOT to reach it. I think it is unfair to those who tried to meet minimum the holds and didn't reach them, who are getting fined. Ben, I get it, you are against all fines on this minimum performance issue. I don't think I will be able to convince you otherwise on this issue. Not against the fines. I am against the minimums in principle in this style league. Im gathering some of you think I have been tanking the last two years from the comments I am seeing when all I have been doing is trying to fix this team. 50 is not ridiculously low for a rebuilding team. It may seem ridiculous to you because you have a good team. Just remember dynasty has swings in it and this might be you in 5-10 years time. It seems clear we are wasting our time with the minimums discussion as there will be no vote "I didn't have any players in my lineup for almost a month and still cleared the 50 pt threshold." That in itself is more egregious and deserves punishment as opposed to someone missing limits because of injury and bad luck. Its also insulting to us who busted our assess just to make the limits. "With just a little planning the limit can be met." If I make the comment I want in reply to that I fear proboards will ban me frankly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 9:31:52 GMT -5
When we introduced the idea of a 50 point minimum I thought it was a great idea. In hindsight I now think a hard penalty on a point total is counterproductive to the league.
Firstly, there is no minimum point score in real life. You don't get docked draft picks or fined for sucking it up, and you don't get relegated to AAA if you only manage 40 wins. There is something about spending enough money compared to revenue, but everyone spends most of their cap here anyway so it doesn't seem to make sense to consider anything there.
Requiring teams to score 50 points could lead to scenarios where non-competitive teams are forced to make a long-term sacrifice in order to meet an arbitrary limit. This is something I do not believe is right. Whilst I originally thought a 50 point score should be easily achieved by all, I have since changed my mind. This league is full of clever owners making smart moves, and if you start slow, have some bad luck or whatever I think it could be a real difficulty. With PA and IP minimums in place, I have no issue with a team fielding a full lineup on a daily basis and scoring poorly - it's not the winning it's the taking part that counts!
I believe the 50 point minimum ruling as it stands is right. It gives the admins the opportunity to review anyone failing to achieve the tally, putting the spotlight somewhere that it might not otherwise be shone. I find it hard to foresee a time when all three admins would agree that an owner should be asked to leave, but I think it is right that we have something in the constitution that allows us to assess an owner and say "upon review, this owner has shown that he does not have the ability/application to improve his team (either in the standings or in overall talent levels) and the league would be better off by replacing him".
|
|