Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 0:40:21 GMT -5
Well again this makes my main concern that as we already have a pretty nice prize for the person who assures themselves the worst record (#1 overall pick) this ups the stakes and really makes it more tempting for a team to tank. I kind of think maybe IFA dollars could also be given to "the most improved team" or "most active manager" etc? I dunno, I just don't want to encourage tanking.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Jan 4, 2014 3:13:34 GMT -5
That's a solid idea but I'd rather just have the current system in place. That proposed system would only further encourage tanking, and I would really rather not have another 2013 Marlins-type team.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Jan 4, 2014 9:37:30 GMT -5
Well let's just add it to the rules that if you don't get a certain number of ABs or IPs in a matchup that you forfeit your round 1 picks or something. That would prevent ghost teams. I mean don't go overboard with it because let's be honest, it's tough for every team here to have a full roster of active players but every team should easily get 30-50 ABs and 5-10 IP. I dunno about the cutoffs. Would require some additional thought. Just throwing it out there
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2014 10:00:57 GMT -5
Well again this makes my main concern that as we already have a pretty nice prize for the person who assures themselves the worst record (#1 overall pick) this ups the stakes and really makes it more tempting for a team to tank. I kind of think maybe IFA dollars could also be given to "the most improved team" or "most active manager" etc? I dunno, I just don't want to encourage tanking. That's a solid idea but I'd rather just have the current system in place. That proposed system would only further encourage tanking, and I would really rather not have another 2013 Marlins-type team. Tanking seems like a separate issue to me. I do like the idea of maybe giving the top 4 slots to different "improved category" clubs, but not implementing an idea that can help keep our payroll and roster size debate simmered down and really is an improvement to the league imo (now everybody would get to participate in bidding for IFA's instead of a few clubs with payroll bashing the bid button) because we have a tanking loophole in the rules doesn't make sense to me. Instead maybe fix the loophole. |
|
