Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 23:56:22 GMT -5
They seem ridiculously high. I can get behind the idea of people not tanking, but I've been tripping on this for like 2 months. You can't rebuild with this league. It's just way too hard to rebuild and hit the minimums. I feel like this is a deterrent to existing teams trying to build a team to compete. Not trying to complain, but they just seem incredibly high. I had to purge my farm to TRY and hit the minimums. How is that fun?
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Jul 23, 2015 0:00:10 GMT -5
I think we will revisit the minimum numbers this offseason and see if they warrant being lowered. They are what they are for now however.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 0:06:48 GMT -5
How would they not be? How many people here are making trades solely to hit the incredibly high minimums? OR how many people signed shit pitchers to screw up their rate stats so the could hit the minimums and trade their good pitchers away at the deadlines. I think that the minimums that were set in the beginning were high enough to discourage tanking. You should be able to rebuild a little without a HUGE cap penalty enforced.
|
|
Turbanator
High A
Posts: 641
Favorite Baseball Team: San Diego Padres
|
Post by Turbanator on Jul 23, 2015 0:56:38 GMT -5
What original minimums are you talking about? I don't think we had any prior to this season?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 7:05:00 GMT -5
How would they not be? How many people here are making trades solely to hit the incredibly high minimums? OR how many people signed shit pitchers to screw up their rate stats so the could hit the minimums and trade their good pitchers away at the deadlines. I think that the minimums that were set in the beginning were high enough to discourage tanking. You should be able to rebuild a little without a HUGE cap penalty enforced. I think there needs to be a balance between "rebuilding a little" and trading your most of your roster without being able to field an entire team during the season. Also if you are rebuilding you know that you aren't going to be competitive so why does it matter if you signed "shit pitchers" who screw up your ratios. The minimums are not high at all and frankly require just a small bit of planning in the offseason to hit them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 8:03:43 GMT -5
There is obviously some unrest with the current AB and IP minimums - the admins will discuss this to see how we should proceed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 8:57:32 GMT -5
It seems like it's kinda hard to differentiate between tanking and having a crappy team with a 50 point minimum. I can see where even if you fill every position every day you still may not make the 50 minimum just because you have horrible players or you have injuries to you decent ones and have to start the backups.
Maybe if we just set a minimum IP and AB and do away with the point total. No matter anyway you do things, each situation could be manipulated. But I think the owners we have now have enough competence to play how the league dictates. And if a team doesn't meet the IP and AB minimum then the Board could evaluate each situation as it stands.
I'm not sure if you can have a league that is healthy without a couple of teams in a partial-full rebuild. As it was stated before there are enough crappy FA that could be picked up to meet IP and AB limits and then an owner could still have incentive to play for next year or the next.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 11:20:19 GMT -5
So for clarity - is the feeling that the PA and IP minimums are too strict, meaning that teams who wish to 'rebuild' are not able to sell players because they are too worried about not being able to meet the minimums that were voted in by the league membership last offseason?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 14:04:52 GMT -5
I guess what I meant was the 50 point total is the problem. If you meet the minimums for ab and ip then I was thinking that you would be fielding a team everyday. If you are rebuilding then you may not have the best players and may be last in every category. But you tried and fielded a team everyday then you could prove that by meeting the ip and ab minimums. Every knows there are no garuantees in baseball so your not guaranteed to accumulate enough stats to not be in last place in every category.
And just for the record I voted for both ip/ab minimum and point total minimum. But maybe how this year is playing out for some teams the point total may be a rule that may need to be re-evaluated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 14:48:24 GMT -5
But have teams that fielded a full team this season been in danger of reaching the ip/ab or the point total minimum? I think that to me is the larger question. Or did teams that gutted their roster via trade without picking up replacement players in the offseason put themselves at such a roster depth disadvantage they fall prey to these types of issues?
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Jul 23, 2015 17:37:30 GMT -5
I'm gonna lock this thread. I think we have enough input on this topic. If anyone has any pressing concerns please message an admin. Overall we like where the minimums are but we will revisit this in the offseason and determine if we need to make any changes. For now I don't think this should be affecting anyone too adversely, and I say that being the one with the least points
|
|