Steve
General Manager
Pittsburgh Pirates
"Say my Name"
Posts: 39,107
|
Post by Steve on Sept 28, 2013 16:29:30 GMT -5
It is what it is, but it would have been nice to be given a season (before Utley turned 25 in this case) to make a decision on who I was going to franchise. meh, play made a thread to speak out against the rule. It's just disappointing that no one else targeted the rule in general. It seemed like most people were focused on ashes situation. I might have missed it...I don't know...
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:29:50 GMT -5
yea, but implementing a rule and then saying "just let players from the upcoming draft forward be under this umbrella". I mean, people acquire picks and trade them. Why should draftees be phased into the new rule immediately, but not the old ones? To me, that's a double standard. ? if you draft the guy, you can franchise him still, so it doesnt change anything at all there, if you have a pick, you still drafted him, whether its your pick or somebody elses not all trades happen within a time frame of a draft. A gm should be able to trade for a player in this draft and franchise him in the future. Setting in what basically amounts to an immediate trade line is just as bad as setting an immediate franchise rule. It's basically the short time frame rule i proposed that you didn't agree with.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:30:02 GMT -5
It is what it is, but it would have been nice to be given a season (before Utley turned 25 in this case) to make a decision on who I was going to franchise. meh, play made a thread to speak out against the rule. It's just disappointing that no one else targeted the rule in general. It seemed like most people were focused on ashes situation. because it was a fucking joke that Erbes disallowed the original Hanley trade because we werent looking out for ashes, then proceeds to block ashes from franchising Cabrera...
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:31:36 GMT -5
? if you draft the guy, you can franchise him still, so it doesnt change anything at all there, if you have a pick, you still drafted him, whether its your pick or somebody elses not all trades happen within a time frame of a draft. A gm should be able to trade for a player in this draft and franchise him in the future. Setting in what basically amounts to an immediate trade line is just as bad as setting an immediate franchise rule. It's basically the short time frame rule i proposed that you didn't agree with. not really, the team that drafts him can still franchise him, that doesnt change, inherently yes, it does affect the trade value of the player after the draft, but that really is insignificant, because if the guy is legitimately franchise worthy, he will fetch the value, or be franchised by his own team
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:31:41 GMT -5
people traded away and for picks with the understanding they could franchise those players...that doesnt change at all with the rule change yes it does. I was targeting a player higher in the draft to possibly use as a franchise player later in the draft. I found out about the new rule and made all of my picks via phone basically. Telling me "if you want to franchise a player in this draft you have to trade for the pick" is just a short a notice as the rule you disagree with earlier.
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:32:28 GMT -5
not all trades happen within a time frame of a draft. A gm should be able to trade for a player in this draft and franchise him in the future. Setting in what basically amounts to an immediate trade line is just as bad as setting an immediate franchise rule. It's basically the short time frame rule i proposed that you didn't agree with. not really, the team that drafts him can still franchise him, that doesnt change, inherently yes, it does affect the trade value of the player after the draft, but that really is insignificant, because if the guy is legitimately franchise worthy, he will fetch the value, or be franchised by his own team nah, it's isn't insignificant. CC's value to me dropped a tad once he wasn't franchisable.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:33:34 GMT -5
people traded away and for picks with the understanding they could franchise those players...that doesnt change at all with the rule change yes it does. I was targeting a player higher in the draft to possibly use as a franchise player later in the draft. I found out about the new rule and made all of my picks via phone basically. Telling me "if you want to franchise a player in this draft you have to trade for the pick" is just a short a notice as the rule you disagree with earlier. it does affect trading within the draft, but if you get the pick, it really doesnt. Should just make it if they finish year one of their career on your roster, that would make it easier to track too.
|
|
Steve
General Manager
Pittsburgh Pirates
"Say my Name"
Posts: 39,107
|
Post by Steve on Sept 28, 2013 16:34:37 GMT -5
what's the point in limiting the franchise player to a guy you drafted? the rule is about protecting players, not about adhering to yankee fans' weird idea about who's a True Yankee
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:34:40 GMT -5
unlike a franchise player, a regular player (even if franchise worthy) isn't as valuable cause he's prone to pd's. Gm's start shitting on players based off a simple pd reversal that's been used. That's how much value changes based on shit like that. Saying it's insignificant is pretty ignorant cause vulnerability to pd's changes the way everyone values a player.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:35:20 GMT -5
not really, the team that drafts him can still franchise him, that doesnt change, inherently yes, it does affect the trade value of the player after the draft, but that really is insignificant, because if the guy is legitimately franchise worthy, he will fetch the value, or be franchised by his own team nah, it's isn't insignificant. CC's value to me dropped a tad once he wasn't franchisable. yes, but he wasnt franchisable regardless in trade, once you hit 24 or arbitration it was over. Name a franchise worthy player who is franchise eligible thats on the market right now without the rule. you gotta be 24 and under, not on arbitration (so year three of your career), then with studly talent ratings, and not being franchised by the team that owns them.
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:36:57 GMT -5
nah, it's isn't insignificant. CC's value to me dropped a tad once he wasn't franchisable. yes, but he wasnt franchisable regardless in trade, once you hit 24 or arbitration it was over. Name a franchise worthy player who is franchise eligible thats on the market right now without the rule. you gotta be 24 and under, not on arbitration (so year three of your career), then with studly talent ratings, and not being franchised by the team that owns them. I negotiated the deal when he was franchise worthy or i believed he was franchise worthy when i negotiated it. I wouldn't have offered as much had i known he wasn't franchisable, that's the point. It does drop value.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:37:42 GMT -5
unlike a franchise player, a regular player (even if franchise worthy) isn't as valuable cause he's prone to pd's. Gm's start shitting on players based off a simple pd reversal that's been used. That's how much value changes based on shit like that. Saying it's insignificant is pretty ignorant cause vulnerability to pd's changes the way everyone values a player. I can plan right now for trading for picks/players that I dont have yet. Its when you take away an option I knew and could count on (technically not true, since I wasnt franchising anybody on my team), thats when its a problem, teams knowing a season prior to the draft that guys in that draft will be unfranchisable allows for planning (the rule change was announced after last years draft, so it would fall under my complaint anyway that any player on the roster at the time of rule change should be franchisable)
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:42:39 GMT -5
what's the point in limiting the franchise player to a guy you drafted? the rule is about protecting players, not about adhering to yankee fans' weird idea about who's a True Yankee yea, we all agree Erbes sucks at this. This whole thing was horrible from the start. Erbes is a dipshit when it comes to implementing rules. 1. He implemented a rule out of the blue and put it into effect immediately. Act of Stupidity #1. 2. He posted a winter meetings thread and at no point made mention of a change to the franchise rule nor did he ever mention he was considering such a rule. Act of Stupidity #2. 3. Why would you implement a rule that hurts activity, in this case trading? It doesn't make sense as a commissioner of a league. Maybe you make a rule rewarding "homegrown" franchisable talent, but don't punish those looking for someone worth franchising. Act of Stupidity #3. 4. Single handedly shitting on Ashes by vetoing a trade that benefitted him in more ways than one and then doubling back to shit on him again by implementing a rule that punishes him the most. Act of Stupidity #4. 5. Not allowing any grace period whatsoever for a rule so drastic. Act of Stupidity #5.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:43:04 GMT -5
Im just confused as to what exactly you are arguing here. If you want a guy in next years draft, and are afraid he is gonna be unfranchisable, you can go get the pick, and the team with the pick knows to value it as such. If you think it changes last years draft, they fall under my complaint, since they woulda been on the roster and as such expected to be franchisable
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:43:58 GMT -5
yea, we all agree Erbes sucks at this. This whole thing was horrible from the start. Erbes is a dipshit when it comes to implementing rules. 1. He implemented a rule out of the blue and put it into effect immediately. Act of Stupidity #1. 2. He posted a winter meetings thread and at no point made mention of a change to the franchise rule nor did he ever mention he was considering such a rule. Act of Stupidity #2. 3. Why would you implement a rule that hurts activity, in this case trading? It doesn't make sense as a commissioner of a league. Maybe you make a rule rewarding "homegrown" franchisable talent, but don't punish those looking for someone worth franchising. Act of Stupidity #3. 4. Single handedly shitting on Ashes by vetoing a trade that benefitted him in more ways than one and then doubling back to shit on him again by implementing a rule that punishes him the most. Act of Stupidity #4. 5. Not allowing any grace period whatsoever for a rule so drastic. Act of Stupidity #5. dont forget number 6, though its just shady as shit, giving himself cash for picks which he woulda made for last week, but didnt actually make
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:44:50 GMT -5
dont give a shit if its 100k, you cant go giving yourself cash for something when nobody else woulda gotten the same leniency, he wont even give cash to teams who dont make every pick, much less none of them, fucking absurd
|
|
Steve
General Manager
Pittsburgh Pirates
"Say my Name"
Posts: 39,107
|
Post by Steve on Sept 28, 2013 16:45:14 GMT -5
yea, we all agree Erbes sucks at this. This whole thing was horrible from the start. Erbes is a dipshit when it comes to implementing rules. 1. He implemented a rule out of the blue and put it into effect immediately. Act of Stupidity #1. 2. He posted a winter meetings thread and at no point made mention of a change to the franchise rule nor did he ever mention he was considering such a rule. Act of Stupidity #2. 3. Why would you implement a rule that hurts activity, in this case trading? It doesn't make sense as a commissioner of a league. Maybe you make a rule rewarding "homegrown" franchisable talent, but don't punish those looking for someone worth franchising. Act of Stupidity #3. 4. Single handedly shitting on Ashes by vetoing a trade that benefitted him in more ways than one and then doubling back to shit on him again by implementing a rule that punishes him the most. Act of Stupidity #4. 5. Not allowing any grace period whatsoever for a rule so drastic. Act of Stupidity #5. Yup...I think the rule just flat-out sucks, but his implementing of it was an utter disaster.
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:45:24 GMT -5
I wish i had time during the week to post that earlier, but Erbes needs to find a much better way of implementing rules. Everything he implements something, he just shits on himself. His intentions aren't bad, he just sucks at communicating shit and looking at the whole picture most of the time. He's like a kid, "I like, I do" without any consideration for how it affects gm's.
|
|
Steve
General Manager
Pittsburgh Pirates
"Say my Name"
Posts: 39,107
|
Post by Steve on Sept 28, 2013 16:46:31 GMT -5
dont give a shit if its 100k, you cant go giving yourself cash for something when nobody else woulda gotten the same leniency, he wont even give cash to teams who dont make every pick, much less none of them, fucking absurd For real...I wasn't even allowed to collect 100K (I picked the Eagles the 1st week during around 4ish on Sunday) because my picks had to be made before 1 PM.
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:47:03 GMT -5
Im just confused as to what exactly you are arguing here. If you want a guy in next years draft, and are afraid he is gonna be unfranchisable, you can go get the pick, and the team with the pick knows to value it as such. If you think it changes last years draft, they fall under my complaint, since they woulda been on the roster and as such expected to be franchisable i'm arguing that i should be able to trade for anyone i want this upcoming season with the intent of franchising. If you're going to allow teams to take the "wait and see" approach i don't see why you put a halt to my pursuance of a franchise player of my own.
|
|
|
Post by Youth Movement on Sept 28, 2013 16:49:13 GMT -5
dont give a shit if its 100k, you cant go giving yourself cash for something when nobody else woulda gotten the same leniency, he wont even give cash to teams who dont make every pick, much less none of them, fucking absurd lol, i didn't see that but yea ERbes is just an all around idiot it seems.
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:51:36 GMT -5
Im just confused as to what exactly you are arguing here. If you want a guy in next years draft, and are afraid he is gonna be unfranchisable, you can go get the pick, and the team with the pick knows to value it as such. If you think it changes last years draft, they fall under my complaint, since they woulda been on the roster and as such expected to be franchisable i'm arguing that i should be able to trade for anyone i want this upcoming season with the intent of franchising. If you're going to allow teams to take the "wait and see" approach i don't see why you put a halt to my pursuance of a franchise player of my own. because inherently, counting on trading for a franchise player is broken logic, you can look, but it doesnt inherently affect the plans you woulda had. And you get the option to change how you value the players you are looking at anyway. If they cant be franchised, the value drops accordingly..you just shouldnt take the option away from a team thats waiting for whatever reason, whether it be for the game to decide for him, or for the guy to be ready etc. He had that right, its a legitimately well thought out plan.
|
|
Nanz
New Member
Seattle Mariners
Posts: 5,355
|
Post by Nanz on Sept 28, 2013 16:52:06 GMT -5
myette is like ummm rookie blues much lol
|
|
Nanz
New Member
Seattle Mariners
Posts: 5,355
|
Post by Nanz on Sept 28, 2013 16:52:40 GMT -5
the rest of our staff has been nastyyyyyyyyy we just need a couple more bats and boom YE
|
|
Broph
General Manager
Oakland Athletics
Im no longer a shitty GM
Posts: 29,215
|
Post by Broph on Sept 28, 2013 16:58:26 GMT -5
every time I look at David Ross's ratings, my jaw drops
|
|