|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 7, 2020 11:27:52 GMT -5
MLB does this. They are "Competitive Balance Picks". The original proposal would be to add 2 supplemental rounds between rounds 2 and 3. One for the bottom 10 budget teams. And one for all teams with a market size below Average. Yes, a team that fell into both categories could end up with 2 extra picks.
My initial thoughts:
Drafting in Stats+ has made manual modifications to the draft pretty easy, so I don't mind taking this on.
I like the idea of offsetting franchise challenges with talent. The ultimate fix for a franchise is to have the talent to win and grow budget and market size organically through success.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 7, 2020 16:09:23 GMT -5
I will say that this idea has the advantage of helping weak teams without hurting top teams (at least directly).
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 8, 2020 14:43:57 GMT -5
Manual work for Commissioner, even if easy. With credits, any team can already buy picks if they maximize participation, to potentially imporve their draft, if they feel it's of value.
More related to the other thread, but the 2017 CBA might help here too. If a lower tier team loses a COMP player to FA, they have the ability to acquire multiple lower picks (all done in the game - less work).
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 8, 2020 22:05:13 GMT -5
Manual work for Commissioner, even if easy. With credits, any team can already buy picks if they maximize participation, to potentially imporve their draft, if they feel it's of value. More related to the other thread, but the 2017 CBA might help here too. If a lower tier team loses a COMP player to FA, they have the ability to acquire multiple lower picks (all done in the game - less work). For some reason this isn't in the game when it is part of the 2017 CBA. Regardless, I'm confused how you could be against this at all.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 6:49:02 GMT -5
With the ability to trade picks in this league, if a team chooses to part with their best players (as a low budget and/or small market team usually does before they cost them a lot, I guess I just see this as a way to obtain picks.
Plus that denies those picks to the trading team (possibly/probably a better teams). Which I view as more of a positive. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 9, 2020 8:59:45 GMT -5
With the ability to trade picks in this league, if a team chooses to part with their best players (as a low budget and/or small market team usually does before they cost them a lot, I guess I just see this as a way to obtain picks. Plus that denies those picks to the trading team (possibly/probably a better teams). Which I view as more of a positive. That's all. This is my problem with your position on nearly everything. Your position appears to be that successful teams need a penalty, regardless of market size, fan loyalty, budget, and owner. I strongly disagree with that position. Small and mid size budget teams that are doing well should be able to benefit too. They are doing well while fighting with the same disadvantages that you describe from the large market and budget teams. No one here can control the decisions another GM makes with their draft picks, however adding talent that is cheap is by far better IMO than an $8 mil bump in revenue sharing.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 9:08:55 GMT -5
In the end this proposal provides additional assets to small market teams. How well assets are leveraged towards success lies on the shoulders of the GM.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 10:20:57 GMT -5
In the end this proposal provides additional assets to small market teams. How well assets are leveraged towards success lies on the shoulders of the GM. And respectfully, we could live by this statement alone and not change a single thing? Always an option.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 10:28:14 GMT -5
With the ability to trade picks in this league, if a team chooses to part with their best players (as a low budget and/or small market team usually does before they cost them a lot, I guess I just see this as a way to obtain picks. Plus that denies those picks to the trading team (possibly/probably a better teams). Which I view as more of a positive. That's all. This is my problem with your position on nearly everything. Your position appears to be that successful teams need a penalty, regardless of market size, fan loyalty, budget, and owner. I strongly disagree with that position. Small and mid size budget teams that are doing well should be able to benefit too. They are doing well while fighting with the same disadvantages that you describe from the large market and budget teams. No one here can control the decisions another GM makes with their draft picks, however adding talent that is cheap is by far better IMO than an $8 mil bump in revenue sharing. Sorry you have a problem with my position on nearly everything? Yikes. In that case, 'll just let this specific thread slide then Sean and live with whatever decision is made. I just thought I would offer some discussion points so any decision is the best posssible.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 11:13:52 GMT -5
In the end this proposal provides additional assets to small market teams. How well assets are leveraged towards success lies on the shoulders of the GM. And respectfully, we could live by this statement alone and not change a single thing? Always an option. Does that then deny the opportunity to assist a wise GM? Not all of these changes will be implemented. In the end I imagine most of them will not be. But I appreciate the discussions and brainstorming. I still maintain that the separation between the large and small markets is contrary to a fun, competitive league.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 11:43:47 GMT -5
I still maintain that the separation between the large and small markets is contrary to a fun, competitive league. With this I wholeheartedly agree!
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 9, 2020 14:02:16 GMT -5
In the end this proposal provides additional assets to small market teams. How well assets are leveraged towards success lies on the shoulders of the GM. And respectfully, we could live by this statement alone and not change a single thing? Always an option. Similar to your argument about budgets and disparity.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 15:43:34 GMT -5
And respectfully, we could live by this statement alone and not change a single thing? Always an option. Similar to your argument about budgets and disparity. Sean, I'm not sure I entirely follow what you mean, but if you mean status quo, then I have previously said that is always an option. As has been pointed out, others have been successful at digging themselves out. I do maintain there is a big difference between Ron's point about this proposal offering additional assets to a smaller market/budget team, which of course it does, and looking at other proposals that better and more directly, in my opinion of course, try and narrow the gap between the budgets and revenue of the top of the food chain and the bottom. And I will be much more supportive of the latter. But status quo is always an option.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 17:42:35 GMT -5
Similar to your argument about budgets and disparity. But status quo is always an option. Of course status quo is an option. Doesn't mean we shouldn't brainstorm and discuss ideas. None of this is anywhere within 10 miles of implementation.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Mar 9, 2020 22:01:57 GMT -5
Similar to your argument about budgets and disparity. Sean, I'm not sure I entirely follow what you mean, but if you mean status quo, then I have previously said that is always an option. As has been pointed out, others have been successful at digging themselves out. I do maintain there is a big difference between Ron's point about this proposal offering additional assets to a smaller market/budget team, which of course it does, and looking at other proposals that better and more directly, in my opinion of course, try and narrow the gap between the budgets and revenue of the top of the food chain and the bottom. And I will be much more supportive of the latter. But status quo is always an option. I was referring to your response to Ron's statement about it falling onto the shoulders of the GM. It seems like you believe certain teams success and failures are dependent on game factors rather than GM decisions. I really don't see how giving a team like the Expos for example $8 mil more per year is going to do much at all to improving the teams performance, but I believe adding young cost controlled players into a farm system has a greater impact than $8 mil per year in extra revenue sharing.
|
|