IBC

I think the system worked nicely. Should we continue it for this offseason?

I think so. If I recall, the only crankiness was from Nils and Bren, who were mad that they didn't get a vote.

I would just suggest a more organized system in the actual message board. As is, we were just filing teams whose zips were filed with a link and in the same board, a player. Maybe we should create subfolders -- one for teams, one for players. Otherwise, I think it accomplished what it set out to accomplish.

Yeah I liked it.

Yup, thoughts on whether we should tighten the budgets to cause more of a spread of players across the league?

I would be fine tweaking the dollar amounts. Some people spent nothing. Others (ahem, Shawn, Brett) dumped all their budget on one guy. Only 14 guys were actually bid on. I could see reducing to $20 or even $15.

I'm fine with whatever you guys want to do on this. Shit I'm sounding like Obama in the Senate just voting present

If only 14 guys were bid on, I'm ok with going down to a $20 budget.

Same budget this year, or do we want to modify it?

Pirates wrote:Same budget this year, or do we want to modify it?

I thought the system worked last season so I see no need to modify it.

I say $20. Last year, people didn't spend a ton. Maybe this makes decisions a little tougher and opens up spending for more teams.

I agree we should drop it with only 14 players bid on last year.

Tigers wrote:I say $20. Last year, people didn't spend a ton. Maybe this makes decisions a little tougher and opens up spending for more teams.

Okay ... I'll be interested to see if it makes any difference.

I don't think it really makes any difference how many schrute bucks everyone has, so I'm fine with trying out a smaller number of units of schrute bucks.

Sure, let's try $20. I'll announce it.

Clarity: Do you lose your waiver position with a winning bid?

We did not do this last year from what I recall. Since we are using waiver order to determine tiebreakers, you probably should lose your waiver position when making the winning bid though.

We only used waiver position to break a bid tie. We didn't reset waivers based on a tie. I think that would discourage bidding.

Tigers wrote:We only used waiver position to break a bid tie. We didn't reset waivers based on a tie. I think that would discourage bidding.

I do too. It may be fairer to use up your waiver priority, but in light of our effort to encourage lesser teams to compete, I think this is a good avenue to encourage them to stock up on good simmers as much as they can.

Fine by me.

"To add: You will only lose your waiver claim in event of a tie. If you win a player outright, it will not affect your waiver standing"

I could see someone reading "will not affect your waiver standing" as meaning there is a way to affect your waiver standing. Am I the only one who reads it that way? Waiver priority would break a tie, but it won't move you down the waiver list. Is that what you're trying to convey here?

Yes, what JP said reads to me as "you will lose your waiver position if you win the tiebreaker on a zips bid."

I read it the same way, but JP’s clarification works.

Dodgers wrote:I read it the same way, but JP’s clarification works.

Sorry I'm confused. Are you saying we're changing the rule from last year?

No. The only thing we're changing is $30 to $20. Waiver spot only breaks a tie. You don't move down the waiver list at all.

Rangers wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I read it the same way, but JP’s clarification works.

Sorry I'm confused. Are you saying we're changing the rule from last year?

No, I was saying JP’s latest post in the public thread is accurate.