IBC

RedSox wrote:

Pirates wrote:

Mariners wrote:
Just to make sure we are being consistent here, that is also just "an opinion".

It is hypocritical and I'm not sure how else it can be taken.

You cannot trade Juan Rivera for an A-ball prospect.

You can trade Juan Rivera for a mid range draft pick.


That's not hypocritical?

Yup, it is. And as you observed, the restriction on the draft pick trading should be returned, it's too hard to accurately gauge the value of those
picks. Like I have been saying all along.

or the AA rule could go. Or both.

The rule was generated because GM's were trading prospects as if the 50% likelihood of failure wasn't there. The Rule is essentially a reminder that the failure rate is there, that it can't be ignored, which it was.

Let's not forget that draft pick trading contributed to one of the most active and fun offseasons we've ever had. I'd go as far as to say it was the most active offseason ever.

Are draft picks value hard to judge? Sure. But this was also our first year trading them and the market needs time to find its place. The majority of GMs took part in pick trading this year and I have heard very few complaints. It was a great move for the league and reverting back to the old rule should not be considered, at all.

If the choice somehow comes down to getting rid of the AA rule or getting rid of draft pick trading, without a doubt the AA rule should be the one to go. I understand the market needs some restrictions, and thats why I support the AA rule, but if the choice is between more rules or less rules, we gotta go with less.

More rules v. less rules, of course people will choose less. They'll want more opportunities to take advantage of the absence of rules, then complain more when their teams are on the wrong end of it or get left in the dust because other teams are pushing ahead because they're blasting other teams in deals.

That perspective you're talking about gabe, on draft picks, it will never come. The batch of eligible players will be different every year and the value will change. It's simply too fluid a market. It's always goign to be ridiculous. Getting rid of the TRC could probably push up trade activity too, doesn't mean it should be done.

it didn't CREATE activity either. it shifted it. instead of there being a whole ton of activity after the draft, it was before the draft instead. Then there was a little after the draft, then things died off.

Based on the results of the poll up to this point, this shouldn't even be a point of discussion. It's pretty obvious so far. The league as a whole doesn't like the rule.

To say this rule is NEEDED is ridiculous. We're in a league with lifetime contracts...how else is a team supposed to compete?? Do "prospect hounds" change the complexity of the league?? Of course they do....it's simply the teams that are running scared that are making a big deal of this. You want to falsely manipulate the market....simply let supply and demand dictate the market value for each player...if the value is not to your liking, then accept it. and don't attempt to manipulate market value.

Every owner in this league values players differently....as long as you think you have a league full of competant owners, then we really need to let these owners run their teams as they see fit.

Shawn, you, like everyone else in this league, joined a league with rules. By joining the league you acknowledged that you would accept and abide by those rules. The AA rule is part of those rules. It doesn't matter if you like the rule or not. The rule exists because it is necessary, this was proven in the past.

"as long as you think you have a league full of competant owners, then we really need to let these owners run their teams as they see fit."
Everyone thinks they're a good GM. Everyone thinks they won't be the GM that gets taken for a ride on a deal, yet it happens. And on the other end of the deal you'll usually see one of the top few teams smiling back at you, the rich getting richer. Rules exist to ensure fairness and to protect the greater good. Returning to a standard which was doing more to help the rich keep getting richer is not in the public good (no matter what some political pundits may think).

As a side note, I think it's kind of funny that you misspelled competent.

"As a side note, I think it's kind of funny that you misspelled competent."

Yes Bren, you would.

Bren whether or not I agree with the rule your right that when we joined the league we joined knowing the rules. However I do believe there should be some sort of adjustment. Not that this is the right way to go about doing it but I think that players on the BA top 100 should get an exemption from the rule. Players like Porcello and Lars Anderson hold more value then a lot of AAA AA or even some lower end MLB players. While I also agree with what you said how people forget that prospects have a 50% failure rate I think that the higher end A players are capable of being recognized as AA players.

why BA? Why not BP? Or John Sickels?
being on the BA top 100 doesn't exempt players from the high failure rate that exists among low minor leaguers. Being on the BA/BP/JS top 100 is already considered in the value of a player, makign a top 100 or top 10 doesn't mean a prospect doesn't still have a high chance of failure.

Why not let GM's use their own judgment?

Pirates wrote:Why not let GM's use their own judgment?

The kind of judgement that people insist says they know how fast is too fast to drive? How much alcohol is too much to drink before they drive? The kind of judgement that we relied on in our first year which resulted in the development in a couple of massive juggernauts and a league otherwise of mediocrity?

We've seen before what that kind of allowance did. Going back to it is flat out stupid. Everyone thinks "I won't be the one taken for a ride". Well, guess what, yes, you probably will and the rest of us will have to deal with the consequence of your foolishness.

"and the rest of us will have to deal with the consequence of your foolishness."

According to the vote thus far, I would say the vast majority of the league is willing to live with this.

Astros wrote:"and the rest of us will have to deal with the consequence of your foolishness."

According to the vote thus far, I would say the vast majority of the league is willing to live with this.

Too bad. The rule isn't going away. If you don't like it, find another league.

RedSox wrote:

Astros wrote:"and the rest of us will have to deal with the consequence of your foolishness."

According to the vote thus far, I would say the vast majority of the league is willing to live with this.

Too bad. The rule isn't going away. If you don't like it, find another league.

That's quite a mature comment.

Maturity has nothing to do with it, it's a fact.

I personally don't care how popular or unpopular a rule is. I care about it's long term effect on the health of the league. If that makes me unpopular, ~shrug~ so what? It doesn't matter how unpopular this rule is, it's the right rule, it's necessary and it's better for the longterm viability of the league than any alternative that has been presented. If you've got a new idea, by all means, present it but so far there hasn't been a better alternative than the rule we have. What makes me so sure of that? 6 years of experience running the league. Pretty much everyone here has seen how quickly other leagues have come and gone, leagues that were very good ideas, leagues that seemed like they would be fun. Leagues started by experienced sim league players, leagues that were second or even third tries at starting a league. How many of them have fallen apart? We're in our seventh year, how many Sim leagues do you think actually make it that long? There are many reasons for the success of the IBC, but if you think that my complete (and totally unhealthy) devotion to the league and making sure it DIDN'T fail, obsessing over every rule to make sure it was the right decision for the long-term viability of the league... If you can't give me credit for that then you're probably just a hater.
This was the first league I ever started or even considered. For most of you, it's 'just a baseball game', which is something you tell yourself when you get too carried away so you can relax and gain some perspective. And that's a good thing, it's healthy. For me though, this isn't 'just a game'. You weren't the one sitting up at night dreaming up 'the perfect baseball league'. Something that went beyond fantasy baseball. You weren't the ones pouring long hours into making it a reality, trying to find 28 other people to join it, not giving up when half of them disappeared before the first opening day and constantly looking for new GM's because there were always 2 or 3 teams turning over.
You're not the one who takes every failure of the system personally, because you made the system so if it fails, you failed.
You're not the one who not only will never, but CAN never walk away from the league, even when it gets to a point where a part of you is begging to because you see ridiculous decisions being made or no action being taken on things that ought to be acted on but you can't because you can't bear to abandon something you have thought of for so long as your baby, your creation.
When it gets to the point where you've had that much experience and invested that much time into a sim league and care that much aboutthe elague, not about YOUR team... then you can question my judgment and my maturity. Until then, play the fucking game and be grateful that there's some nutcase like me who will make sure it's ALWAYS there.

What I'm hearing sounds more like control issues than anything else.

The fact of the matter is no all A-ball players should be treated the same.

I traded Joba last year when he was an A-Baller, and by rule, I took less value than I should have gotten, but since he was only in A-Ball, he was worth less.

and so far 76% of the league doesn't like the rule...by Bren's comment, that 75% should find another league....That's a lot of vacancies to fill because of ignorance.

Rockies wrote:What I'm hearing sounds more like control issues than anything else.

The fact of the matter is no all A-ball players should be treated the same.

I traded Joba last year when he was an A-Baller, and by rule, I took less value than I should have gotten, but since he was only in A-Ball, he was worth less.

If you're dealing a player for less than you feel like he's worth.... the obvious question then is WHY are you trading him?

RedSox wrote:

Rockies wrote:What I'm hearing sounds more like control issues than anything else.

The fact of the matter is no all A-ball players should be treated the same.

I traded Joba last year when he was an A-Baller, and by rule, I took less value than I should have gotten, but since he was only in A-Ball, he was worth less.

If you're dealing a player for less than you feel like he's worth.... the obvious question then is WHY are you trading him?

Maybe because John goes on a year to year basis with his club and a non-sim player is worthless to him for that season? I doubt many thought Joba would be as nasty as he turned out to be, but he still should have been able to get more, but because of his status, he could receive nothing.

Not that that is exactly what happened but my GUESS would be something along those lines.

JP nailed it....If I had Joba in any of my other 4 leagues...he'd probably be on those rosters still.

Okay - gotta finally weigh in here.

My personal opinions aside, I think it is the commish (or in this league, the OOPPS, or whoever mandates league rules) job is to work in the best interest of all the owners. To cling onto the past years rules because that's the way it's been and everything is fine sounds like Ban Johnson a century ago. Or to a more extreme extent, Judge Landis 70 years ago.

My experience in business is that all decision makers are resistant to change. To translate that into a baseball context, there is still many scouts and media that dismiss stat-hounds. Right or wrong, those who have an open mind and accept and consider all options will ultimately prove to form the best opinion.

If those who are in charge of mandating and enforcing the rules as they are, then fine, and we all should be on board. But to accept any rules without everyone's input and voicing our opinion, and having those opinions dismissed because those in charge demand status quo is not acceptable.

Pirates wrote:

RedSox wrote:

Rockies wrote:What I'm hearing sounds more like control issues than anything else.

The fact of the matter is no all A-ball players should be treated the same.

I traded Joba last year when he was an A-Baller, and by rule, I took less value than I should have gotten, but since he was only in A-Ball, he was worth less.

If you're dealing a player for less than you feel like he's worth.... the obvious question then is WHY are you trading him?

Maybe because John goes on a year to year basis with his club and a non-sim player is worthless to him for that season? I doubt many thought Joba would be as nasty as he turned out to be, but he still should have been able to get more, but because of his status, he could receive nothing.

Not that that is exactly what happened but my GUESS would be something along those lines.

If you deal a player for less than you think he's worth, either 1. you need to be getting back value in some other way (i.e. you believe it will give you a shot at the playoffs; mortgaging the future to play for the present) or you're a trigger happy fool.
Nobody will ever force you to make a trade or force you to take less than you think a player is worth.
If you took less for Joba than you thought he was worth it was because you chose to, not because a rule made you. If a player is worth more in your opinion than the market or a rule allows, then keep the player. Joba was an 06 draftee, it's not as though he was taking up space on his active/inactive roster.

Indians wrote:Okay - gotta finally weigh in here.

My personal opinions aside, I think it is the commish (or in this league, the OOPPS, or whoever mandates league rules) job is to work in the best interest of all the owners. To cling onto the past years rules because that's the way it's been and everything is fine sounds like Ban Johnson a century ago. Or to a more extreme extent, Judge Landis 70 years ago.

My experience in business is that all decision makers are resistant to change. To translate that into a baseball context, there is still many scouts and media that dismiss stat-hounds. Right or wrong, those who have an open mind and accept and consider all options will ultimately prove to form the best opinion.

If those who are in charge of mandating and enforcing the rules as they are, then fine, and we all should be on board. But to accept any rules without everyone's input and voicing our opinion, and having those opinions dismissed because those in charge demand status quo is not acceptable.

i agree, to a large extent. However, there is nothing innovative being suggested here. It's essentially two options, go back to the old way, which we know was causing problems or continue with the current method, which helped resolve those problems though with the reminder to the decision makers (TRC) about the intent and scope of the rule.

if someoen has a third suggestion I think we would all be thrilled to hear it, but beating the same two issues over the head over and over is not going to be productive. The ExCo won't change the rule back to the old way. You can keep ramming your head against the wall on this, but it won't change that. Try thinking outside the box for a change.

RedSox wrote: If you deal a player for less than you think he's worth, either 1. you need to be getting back value in some other way (i.e. you believe it will give you a shot at the playoffs; mortgaging the future to play for the present) or you're a trigger happy fool.
Nobody will ever force you to make a trade or force you to take less than you think a player is worth.
If you took less for Joba than you thought he was worth it was because you chose to, not because a rule made you. If a player is worth more in your opinion than the market or a rule allows, then keep the player. Joba was an 06 draftee, it's not as though he was taking up space on his active/inactive roster.

The point was, I was going for the playoffs.

I decided to trade Joba...because of league rules, I got Nate Robertson, where if the rule was absent, I could have netted a more talented pitcher....perhaps....we'll never know....I never tried, because I knew even if I did strike a better deal, it would be rejected under league rules....kinda up against a wall on that one.

RedSox wrote:

Rockies wrote:What I'm hearing sounds more like control issues than anything else.

The fact of the matter is no all A-ball players should be treated the same.

I traded Joba last year when he was an A-Baller, and by rule, I took less value than I should have gotten, but since he was only in A-Ball, he was worth less.

If you're dealing a player for less than you feel like he's worth.... the obvious question then is WHY are you trading him?

This argument has gotten borderline ridiculous Bren, because you're suggesting that GMs shouldn't make moves because of league imposed sanctions.

It is brash statements like this that will both bring down this rule and lower expectations of you.