Jump to content

Welcome to Mariner Central
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

2010 MCKL Rule Change Vote (#1)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
51 replies to this topic

#41
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
The corollary to that idea, as I stated before, is that you start to punish success. Maybe a team like yours or mine with 6 strong keepers can weather that storm... but what about a team that has a perfect storm 2010 season with a good draft and 2001-Mariners-like-Civic performance? That team is pretty much guaranteed to slide back to mid-pack anyways in 2011, and has no prospects for improving before 2012. With a high waiver priority, they at least aren't shut out completely. At some point, you want teams who do well to be rewarded for their efforts rather than penalized.

Although at this point, the question is likely moot... as top prospects appear to be in the draft either way, so the waiver position is of pretty low value. -_-

I don't think an automatic policy of 'robbing the rich to feed the poor' as a universally good thing is consistently league balancing. At some point, the pendulum swings too far. And I'm not sure that your idea (Matt) would improve competition for teams that 'lose interest'. If you increase the reward for finishing at the bottom of the league, tanking goes up. There's actually LESS incentive to do well and submit lineups in the current year. So those teams may be more involved in future years, and perhaps more likely to return the next year... but even less likely to continue participating in a bad season.

---

This is definitely becoming a very interesting conversation. Pro or con, though, I'd like to see these votes start coming in - even if they're changed later. It'd be good to resolve this one way or another.
  • 0

#42
55panhead

55panhead
  • Home Run Boosters
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pt Ludlow
My guess is that in the initial year of the Keeper league, the team that drafted last was awarded the #1 WW pick to compensate for drafting last. That makes sense for the initial season. However once you've established haves and have nots, then the advantage should IMO go to the have nots. Competive balance can only enhance the league. Why is NASCAR so popular? Because it is a level playing field (Well actually it is banked) and more than just a handful can win.
  • 0

#43
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Hmm.

Interesting. Well, if a vote is set up and people go with that, we can try it out. I'm pretty flatly opposed to this idea, but if the majority overrules me - hey, I'll try anything once. -_- (caveat - I actually won't, but in this case I will. B))

That's directly opposed to the direction this vote is taking, however... if enough people like Matt's idea, they need to speak up NOW, so we can change what we're voting on. Particularly since if we end up making that change, I'll become the strongest opponent to my own measure in its new context. Otherwise... we gotta finish voting on THIS proposal before moving on to the next idea.
  • 0

#44
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Matt and I are putting our heads together on this one. There may be a new replacement proposal soon... could be fun. -_-
  • 0

#45
TheZenador

TheZenador
  • Members
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palo Alto, California
That's interesting I thought it was the other way around. I even made that edit when I was reviewing last year's rules, which you can see in the league thread. Obviously I just forgot though.

My guess is that in the initial year of the Keeper league, the team that drafted last was awarded the #1 WW pick to compensate for drafting last. That makes sense for the initial season. However once you've established haves and have nots, then the advantage should IMO go to the have nots. Competive balance can only enhance the league.


Totally agree, and IIRC this is how I set up the dynasty league. KC your suggestion is a step in the right direction but I don't see any argument against doing this except that it would hurt the best teams, which is kind of the idea. Definitely something to be discussed though.
  • 0

#46
55panhead

55panhead
  • Home Run Boosters
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pt Ludlow
There really are two issues here. 1)How should the waiver wire priority be allocated and 2) Do we open the draft to the entire Yahoo data base or limit it to those players Yahoo expects to start the season on a major league roster. Both settings are available.

KC brought up an excellent point with the following scenario. If we allocated the #1 WW priority to the worst team, and if we select the option to draft only players Yahoo expects to start the season in the majors, AND if one of Heyward or Strasburg starts the season in the majors and the other is brought up later, then the worst team would have a shot at BOTH, one in the draft, and one on the waiver wire. IMO and KCs, that is too much gain for one team when they are 19 others.

If we open up the entire yahoo data base for the draft, then the above scenario can't happen. It will also lessen the value of the WW priority, since only players newly added to the data base or dropped players will be targeted with the WW. Another benefit to opening up the draft to the entire data base is more players are avilable on draft day. With 20 teams and 21 man rosters that's 420 players. For every major league ready prospect drafted on draft day that is one more major league player available.

That's interesting I thought it was the other way around. I even made that edit when I was reviewing last year's rules, which you can see in the league thread. Obviously I just forgot though.



Totally agree, and IIRC this is how I set up the dynasty league. KC your suggestion is a step in the right direction but I don't see any argument against doing this except that it would hurt the best teams, which is kind of the idea. Definitely something to be discussed though.


  • 0

#47
DocMilo

DocMilo

    Tequila Sunriser

  • Line Drive Boosters
  • 8,450 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tukwila, WA
If giving the worst teams an advantage to get the best players, then the next year they shouldn't be the worst team anymore. Isn't that the idea?

Closing prospects increases the value of the WW. I can understand that. Not all people will be waiting because there may be quality players coming up before the big names. Closing the waiver wire also means more action I would guess. If the top teams want the better waiver slots, they should pay for it.

The better teams are not getting "punished". Looking at the standings, the better teams are usually doing all the punnishing.

I will vote for closing the yahoo data base to current mlb players if the waiver wire is in reverse order of finish from the following year.
  • 0

#48
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Ugh. This is like campaigning to get cigarettes outlawed, and watching Congress respond by dropping all tobacco taxes... while replacing the stars on the American flag with Marlboro Lights.

Except for all the cancer-causing part, of course. That metaphor is very much TIC. :) And hopefully a good illustration.

---

Seriously guys, if you give top WW to the worst teams AND adopt my measure (incrasing the value of WW), I won't be very thrilled. The incentive to tank will be too high, and I'm too much of a capitalist to support that strong of an anti-winner penalty. SOME balancing is good for the league. That combination of rule changes, IMHO, will be UNbalancing... and at the expense of the 6-15 teams even more than of the 1-5 teams, which theoretically are better equipped to handle it.

If you guys follow that route, as before... I'll see what happens this year. But if it goes as badly as I'm imagining, you can expect a STRONG 'okay, that sucked, let's undo it NOW' campaign in the '10-'11 offseason.

---

I think we should adopt my original proposal (making waivers worthwhile again), and at the same time add Matt's idea of making waiver picks NOT linked to team performance. Rather, you would have the same pick you ended the previoous year with... and everyone eventually gets the same shot at top prospects. Some teams will get that after tough years... great for them! Some will get it after great years... and that's fine, cuz it's just their turn! And some will get it when they're in the middle of the pack, and it'll help propel them into a playoff run... which IMO will be exciting to watch.

I don't care so much how the picks are initially awarded this year if we adopt that system, although I'd still be concerned about going low-to-high. Maybe make it random... or leave it with the high teams for one more year if you don't want to rock the boat. Random draw might be the best solution.
  • 0

#49
55panhead

55panhead
  • Home Run Boosters
  • 527 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pt Ludlow

Ugh. This is like campaigning to get cigarettes outlawed, and watching Congress respond by dropping all tobacco taxes... while replacing the stars on the American flag with Marlboro Lights.

Except for all the cancer-causing part, of course. That metaphor is very much TIC. :) And hopefully a good illustration.

---

Seriously guys, if you give top WW to the worst teams AND adopt my measure (incrasing the value of WW), I won't be very thrilled. The incentive to tank will be too high, and I'm too much of a capitalist to support that strong of an anti-winner penalty. SOME balancing is good for the league. That combination of rule changes, IMHO, will be UNbalancing... and at the expense of the 6-15 teams even more than of the 1-5 teams, which theoretically are better equipped to handle it.

If you guys follow that route, as before... I'll see what happens this year. But if it goes as badly as I'm imagining, you can expect a STRONG 'okay, that sucked, let's undo it NOW' campaign in the '10-'11 offseason.

---

I think we should adopt my original proposal (making waivers worthwhile again), and at the same time add Matt's idea of making waiver picks NOT linked to team performance. Rather, you would have the same pick you ended the previoous year with... and everyone eventually gets the same shot at top prospects. Some teams will get that after tough years... great for them! Some will get it after great years... and that's fine, cuz it's just their turn! And some will get it when they're in the middle of the pack, and it'll help propel them into a playoff run... which IMO will be exciting to watch.

I don't care so much how the picks are initially awarded this year if we adopt that system, although I'd still be concerned about going low-to-high. Maybe make it random... or leave it with the high teams for one more year if you don't want to rock the boat. Random draw might be the best solution.



After much debating with Jordan behind the scenes, we reached a compomise that I can get on board with. It certainly adds some strategy. Do I use my waiver pick or do I save it for 3 years down the road to grab the uber prospect. What does everyone else think?
  • 0

#50
TheZenador

TheZenador
  • Members
  • 435 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Palo Alto, California
I like it
  • 0

#51
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Hey guys - I'm going to close this thread for now. This proposal is technically still on the table... but the new compromise proposal basically includes it, so it seems appropriate to consider the whole package.

Here is a link to the new proposal.

If the new proposal passes, as part of that proposal, this separate original proposal will be rejected (but its terms accepted as part of the new proposal). If the new proposal fails, this thread will be reopened for discussion and consideration. Until that time, however, please discuss this in the new thread.
  • 0

#52
KingCorran

KingCorran
  • Members
  • 2,230 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elk, WA
Proposal #2 passed, and as a part of that proposal, this one is rejected.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users