ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Topic started by: joeshmoe on May 06, 2013, 09:53:09 AM
-
Let me start by saying that my following words are not directed at anyone in particular and certainly not meant to offend anyone.
I have always been dead set against league transfers. I believe that it removes the critical incentive for owners to improve their existing teams. Furthermore, it leads to a "squatting" element whereby we are simply rewarding tenure and the patience to stick something out.
I believe that the ability for teams to sign minor league players for minimal cost outside the normal draft allows any team to improve rapidly. Lastly, removing the draft bonuses should also allow cap strapped struggling teams to add better players in the draft w/o regard to cost.
Except it takes about 3+ years for an MLB prospect, maybe longer depending on position blockage and etc. Is three years what you mean as rapid?
-
I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC. THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:
1. Should internal transfers be allowed going forward?
2. If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?
3. Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.
We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.
Why is it we are to disregard Colby's executive order because it's an exceutive order, but you're creating an executive order and it's gold?
-
Let me start by saying that my following words are not directed at anyone in particular and certainly not meant to offend anyone.
I have always been dead set against league transfers. I believe that it removes the critical incentive for owners to improve their existing teams. Furthermore, it leads to a "squatting" element whereby we are simply rewarding tenure and the patience to stick something out.
I believe that the ability for teams to sign minor league players for minimal cost outside the normal draft allows any team to improve rapidly. Lastly, removing the draft bonuses should also allow cap strapped struggling teams to add better players in the draft w/o regard to cost.
You can't just disallow transfers because you think it's something you don't like. Members have been believing they could transfer teams since at least 2010. The rule was on the books and it was used time in and out.
It's because to take your value that you wouldn't switch teams and apply it across the board immediately disregards and disrespects that I may have a different value than you do. That's not a bad thing or a good thing, it just is. And no manager should be forced to accept the lesser value if the better perceived value is opened. This naturally will take care of the issue.
For examples: Roy, you are content with the Rangers, so you moving hasn't been an issue. I prefer a change of logo and history associated with a franchise. When my means to my ends are satisfied I wouldn't be looking for another transfer, and I'm not trying to transfer to just any team just to transfer, it's to go to a club with rich and deep and interesting history. So here, our value will not match up. But once my value is satisfied, yours is, and the list of current members have found the value they desire the market will have fixed itself. People wont be asking to transfer and then the issue of finding the candidate, tenure vs new, won't be an issue, you'll have satisfied GMs who wont be looking to move.
-
I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC. THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:
1. Should internal transfers be allowed going forward?
2. If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?
3. Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.
We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.
Personally I do not feel like having tenure be the only measure as an issue. Yes a guy who puts his time into a league should be valued simply for this. And sitting waiting for a transfer shouldn't be the goal of anyone also agreed. I do not believe there can be other "objective members" because not each team will be equalized. No manager will have the same challenge and not all managers SHOULD HAVE TO use the same manner of building/maintaining a club.
If the next owner takes over the Dodgers should they be expected to make the NLCS? Probably.
If the next owner takes over the Atlanta Braves (obviously not open) should they be expected to make the NLCS? Probably not.
What should we expect from the Braves....well now everyone starts having their own opinion and it's subjective again. And here's my concern restated, what is the way to have an objective transfer process.