Post by Captain America on Nov 18, 2013 15:18:31 GMT -5
BBSBL is 8 seasons in and we just keep going from there. For my 2004 roundtable, I got Spencer, Darell and Pete (Royals GM) together to discuss some of the most concerning BBSBL issues and to check in on their teams and their progress. Here we go!
1. It's 2004 already. We've almost reached a full year in real time for BBSBL. Are we still at a good pace generally speaking? What season do you think we will be at by this time in 2014 (real time)? Are you particularly anxious to get to having all fake players? If so, why?
Spencer:
I think the pace is great overall. I think Erbes took a step back this last year with consistency and extra sims. Extra sims aren't needed but they add for the excitement of the sim. If the Commish isn't overly excited to sim, or to see what happens, it kinda kills it for the GM's. I know its hard to keep up that level of excitement but its necessary. Commish excitement and posting habits really rub off on the GM base.
As for fake players I only look forward to that because it will be easier for Erbes and the pace of the league will be more consistent we wont have to stop for the draft to get finished. Erbes will have an easier time. Hell just go through the default draft file and tone it down a bit and then we'll be ready to go again. Should make things much smoother, much easier.
Darell:
I hope the pace picks up a little bit, last season was a drag and it sucks because when I was on the sidelines waiting for my expansion team, it seemed like bonus sims were happening left and right but I've yet to see any since I got my team. Im really excited for the fake players, I don't really care for the realistic aspect of it because all it does is make you attached to your favorite players. I know when C mike put Bagwell on waivers I was really hoping to trade for him even though he had a bad contract and he was in decline. Despite all that I was still going to trade for him, c mike then wanted wayyy too much for him and I was glad he did because I snapped out of it and decided against trading for him. Not only that but with the fake players the game will tend to balance itself out and make the drafts complete shit or make it top heavy. It puts less of a strain for people making the draft and tends to make it run a lot smoother.
Pete:
I would expect the pace to continue which is fine with me. Erbes, like all of us has things outside that league that pull us away. Overall the league seems to be in great order as enthusiasm is high. Some new faces have come on board and I am very excited about my team.
2022? haha, seems like a long way off, but who knows fast we can move. It all depends on our draft process, ability to maintain active teams and interest. I hope we get 2100.
I always favor realism, but I'm for whatever keep the league going seamlessly and everyone engaged.
Shale:
I definitely think this league is progressing at a great pace. It feels like everyone wants it even faster and faster, but when you think about it, what's the rush? We should enjoy what we have right now a little more instead of always being anxious to see what happens next. Bonus sims and other things like that are always great to see and hopefully Erbes does more of that this season.
Being that we're closing in on starting 2004, which will be our 8th season, it seems like 8 seasons per calendar year is what we should expect to see. It might go faster with fake players, but still, probably no more than 10 season at most in a calendar year. In other words, we probably won't see all fake players until 2015 in real time, so let's just hope BBSBL stays afloat at least through then!
2. How would you evaluate your team's 2003 season? Any particular successes or failures? Any regrets you wish you could go back in time and change?
Spencer:
Pretty poor season for me. Still won over 90 but it was my first season under 10 and my first season out of the playoffs. I sold on Greer and Gonalez too soon. Had ay too much confidence in my other players. Really shouldve kept one or both and probably wouldve won the division. On the other hand there is no way I couldve gotten Berkman and Griffey if I still had Gonzalez and Greer. So Im slightly younger and I still have a ton of talent. Love my lineup. Love my staff. Should have a good year.
Darell:
My team did about what I expected, A-gon is developing according to schedule and Eugene Delrio is developing nicely also. The PD to Anibal sucked but oh well. Im gonna try to avoid losing 100 but if it happens then it isnt the worst thing in the world because according to Shale the 05 draft is gonna be amazing! If I could go back in time I would probably avoid going on a spending spree in FA but I had enough cash to cover my ass so it wasnt too bad.
Pete:
The Royals had significant growth in all areas including the Major League rosters. When I committed to develop from within, I knew it would take several seasons. I feel my team has a deep young talent pool, but we still lack that front line starter. I'm hoping now that Beltran is re-signed, I can focus on bringing in more consistent pitching to take the next step. Playoffs.
I think I can win 85 games right now, I will try to find some help to add 5-7 wins to that number. I don't regret decisions very often. I commit to plan and sometimes the results work and sometimes they don't. You never know who will or won't produce or develop. It's a game just like baseball.
Shale:
2003 was another underachieving season for the Rockies. The potential to have a winning record was there, but age caught up with a few too many players and the lack of hits, walks and runs scored from the lineup was very surprising. The pitching did better, but the offense just did not always give enough run support. Gibbons was carrying the offense through the 1st half, but he sucked in the 2nd half. Alfonzo, Gibson and Hundley all struggled for most of the season and their RBI totals were very low for all the power they provided. Reitsma should've had at least 15-16 wins if he had gotten more run support. Buddy Groom completely fell apart and the bullpen struggled in the 2nd half. Only regret might be Timlin's extension because he's under contract for 2 more seasons at 37 and is just a bad PD or 2 waiting to happen. If/when it happens, I'll have to probably move Benitez to closer.
3. What are your 2004 plans and how do you plan on accomplishing them? Give us all a reason or reasons why your team or at least some of your players will be particularly relevant in the upcoming season.
Spencer:
I think I have a great lineup. I know that in my park they wont put up great numbers but 1-8 im strong. Mark Kotsay/Garret Anderson/Lance Berkman/Ken Grifey Jr/Wil Cordero/Aubrey Huff/Rich Aurilia/Jorge Posada. Love it. Should get up near 800 runs. Also love my SP. I think I have 3 stud SPs. If it weren't for the Cubs I think everyone would talk about my 3 guys, Chris Gissell/Jim Pittsley/William Workman. Aces all 3 IMO. I think I win 100 again and reclaim the NL West.
Darell:
Hmm guess I sort of answered that question lol. My team won't be relevant, Im not gonna pull a Shale and make a stupid claim even though my team is horribad. I think A-Gone could be relevant, an ASG appearance isnt out of the question for him. Besides that im fielding average to below average players at every other position.
Pete:
My hope is that my young starting pitching can improve even further. I would estimate 90 wins will get me in the wild card mix, it's just finding players to help bridge the gap. When the post season nears, 5 wins can make a huge difference. I will spend the next few months trying to add whatever we need to reach that goal.
I want to make the postseason in 2004.
Shale:
2002 and 2003 were both failed attempts to compete, but I think the Rockies are now only going to get better. The Hawkins signing boosted my rotation and allowed me to move Benes to the pen. Buck and Valladares are up and I expect huge numbers from Buck, who should definitely be a top NL Rookie of the Year contender. I was able to move Buddy Groom to gain more financial flexibility. I don't know about the postseason just yet. 2005 or 2006 is a more realistic postseason goal, but the Rockies should be better as long as the pitching does it's part and the lineup doesn't underachieve as much as it did in 2003. 3rd place and 75-85 wins should be doable. Maybe I'll get lucky and get past the Giants for 2nd. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
The sky is the limit for John Buck's slugging potential with the Rockies.
4. What do you see your team doing five seasons from now? Contending for a championship? Treading in mediocrity? Or rebuilding?
Spencer:
I plan to continue to compete. I don't like rebuilding in OOTP. My team is actually younger then it was 2 or 3 seasons ago wen everyone said my reign was over. Just retool. Rebuild on the fly. I want to win over 90 games every year in the history of this league. That's my goal.
Darell:
I don't think I'm that far off from competing but I really need my prospects to develop a little quicker because FA is always a pile of shit and trading for guys is so frustrating. The trade market is in such horrible shape right now, whether its GM's that don't answer their PMs or overvalue their guys and undervalue your guys. Sometimes you get somebody trying to sell his shitty 1* pitcher with a 3 in runs for your 5* prospect. My only option is to build through the draft and its gonna be tough, hopefully Pablo can make some strides these next two seasons and become a stud. Other than that its just a waiting game for me, and hoping for some awesome PD's.
Pete:
Contending for titles is my goal, but not just for a couple of years, I want to compete for a sustained period of time. Our pitching is the key. If Pineiro, Sheets, Ledezma, Harang and others can continue to get better, then the Royals should be competitive, long term. We feel that our offense is built to produce runs, and that's what we've done the last few years. It just simply comes down to getting more consistent starting pitching.
Wil Ledezma should soon become one of the best young pitchers in the AL.
Shale:
The critics will call me out on this most likely, but the Rockies' future should keep getting brighter and brighter. 2004 could be a major transition year that shows that my team has legit potential. 2005 is when a real postseason push should occur and by 2006, I think the Rockies will be the team to beat in the division. I plan on running the NL West for the rest of the decade after that and by 2010, we'll see if they can keep going or if a rebuild will be necessary by then. Basically, I'll find a way to get the last laugh against all the critics.
5. The 2004 winter meetings resulted in the franchise player rule no longer including just homegrown players. Are you in favor of the verdict here? Could this potentially change any of your franchising plans for the future?
Spencer:
I never planned on using the Franchise option. The change doesn't affect me. I liked some of my ideas towards multiple franchise guys. Core guys. But I can see Erbes' reluctance to make more rules. I like getting rid of the hometown part of the rule. I only liked the hometown option as one of multiple Franchise player options. As far as things are now, I guess this is the best possible scenario.
Darell:
Great rule change here, would love to see what Play suggested which is a hitter and pitcher to franchise. Lots of young studs in the league right now that could've been franchised before but now its possible.
Pete:
It would be unfair for me to talk about the franchise rule because I'm really not a fan of it. I think there are enough ways for players to remain productive without it. I would not want to limit my players talents or skills just so that I can hold onto them a little longer. If I have a player on the verge of a huge raise, I will decide if my team is better served retaining that player, or trading him for other assets.
Shale:
I was happy to see this happen. It's more fair and gives people more options to work with. If Erbes had always done the homegrown option from the start, that would've been one thing, but he changed it on the fly and people weren't happy about it. It was too late to make a favorable change like that because it was not well received. I'm even starting to have second thought of franchising Wright, just because Buck will be sick. I'll probably still end up franchising Wright though because he's younger.
6. Another result of the 2004 winter meetings was the return of the article voting system. Are you happy that this happened and why?
Spencer:
Love it. Who cares if everyone gets 3's? It creates activity. It makes more people do articles if they know they'll get rewarded. It brings people into the article board. Who reads articles if they don't have to? Most don't. If you know you have to vote you'll check them. You'll post. Etc. No brainer IMO.
Darell:
Really happy with this because of how long it took Erbes to grade articles, I was thinking about putting up some articles but it was really discouraging to see how long it took to get your board cash. Hopefully this change sticks around because its better for the league. People can complain and whine all they want about how guys like Spencer/Shale keep getting richer with these articles but it really doesn't take that long to earn board cash like this so I really don't blame them. Especially roundtables/Interviews, they're fun to participate in and they don't require that much effort at least for the person answering the questions.
Pete:
Yes, because I think that owners want the ability to invest in their teams and talk about the league. It adds a dimension to the league that increases activity, debate and improvement. I think it's a worthwhile system and will take advantage of it by writing more articles.
Shale:
I was thrilled to see this! I'm not that patient with waiting for article grades. If I post something up, I prefer to see votes and grades ASAP. There are things I need board cash for and the sooner I have it, the better. Furthermore, it seemed like Erbes never really wanted to do all the grading himself. It was a drag for him and that's why he kept putting all off until some of us actually started to believe that the article system was dead. I enjoy writing these articles/interviews/roundtables and having others be able to vote for them makes it more fun because it shows how much attention your work really got. If it's just 1 person grading it, there just isn't as much of an incentive for everyone to read it. This brings us all closer and hopefully, this change will remain forever.
7. Yet another aspect of the winter meetings was the addition of TIB's for fielding percentage. Is this even an important aspect to pay board cash for? Do you value fielding percentage higher than defensive range?
Spencer:
I like it a lot. I do value % more then range. Both are important but I really could use it on some dudes. % IMO is so important. You don't want 950% guys in your lineup. Its a huge disadvantage. Takes a ton of errors to get to 950. Ill probably use this cash on % tbh. And I would've used my year end cash money on %s if I had the option.
Darell:
Not sure how I really feel about because its not something I really pay attention to but Im sure once my team starts competing I will. Ive never seen a huge impact as far as defense goes but at a position like C, it could definitely be worth while.
Pete:
I think fielding percentage can make a difference and I do believe this is a solid addition to the points system. A player that must cover ground should have range, and the ability to make plays. I think for middle infielders and outfielders it can pay a huge dividend in the long run.
Shale:
This was a good addition. It makes sense for this to be a part of the TIB's. Both range and fielding % are important, but certain players have A/B range, but a low fielding %. Before, there was no way to ever fix it. Now there is and it can be a useful TIB for certain players.
8. Which losing team(s) from 2003 do you think could turn things around and surprise people in 2004? On the other hand, which 2003 postseason team is most likely to miss the 2004 postseason?
Spencer:
Im not sure KC was a losing team, but they're coming up. Love their team a lot. They have a ton of talent an with the White Sox falling off I really think they'll come up this year.
As for the faller, Id have to put both Chicagos there. The White Sox are getting ol. The Cubs dealt all their offense. Both teams will be good, but they wont be as good as last year.
Darell:
I think the Dodgers could do something this year, they've made a lot of moves, maybe getting some bullpen help in FA could possibly put them in borderline WC contention. Play retooled a little bit and although saying he might miss the playoffs might sound crazy I think his only option will be via a WC spot. That division should be Pittsburgh's for the taking and I don't see anyone really much of a threat to him in the Central.
Pete:
Well the Cubs are supposedly blowing it up, and the Yankees seem to be cutting payroll also, so I think we will have some new contenders in the NL Central and AL East. The Royals have a pretty offense and bullpen, so they can make some noise too!
I am going to watch the Braves as well because they seem to have reshuffled a bit. It could be interesting in all 6 divisions as we have a wealth of talented, young players coming up in every area.
Shale:
Of course, I'll say the Rockies could do better and surprise some people, but you all saw that coming.
For real though, while the Mets have been a better team in recent seasons, I really think they'll become an elite NL team this season and could win the NL East. They have so much pitching and a significantly improved lineup. Like Spencer, I also think the Royals could surprise some people and make the AL Central a 3-team race.
The Yankees and Expos are the 2 postseason teams from 2003 that have the best chances of missing the postseason in 2004. I think the defending champion Jays are definitely the team to beat in the AL East. Erbes has already traded some of his better players and with the Orioles still fielding a competitive team, the Yankees could even fall to 3rd place in the division this season. The same end result could happen to the Expos this season with all the improvements the Mets and Marlins have both made. To me, the Mets are the NL East favorite and the Marlins and Expos will have to battle each other for the Wild Card.
The Brewers had a winning record last season, but they were still mediocre overall. However, I think a lot of people are ignoring and overlooking the Brewers and they could be a legit sleeper team this season. They're in better shape now than ever before and currently have the best minor league system in the game.
9. Lately, Erbes has been heavily criticized about the draft classes and with how he goes about it. Do you think a commissioner should have full 100% say in what a player's ratings will be, even if they do not look thoroughly realistic? Should he be allowed to play favorites with particular players and screw other players over to potentially spite another GM (similarly to what Break thought Erbes did with Pedroia)? Do you think Erbes' ratings generally speaking look accurate or is there noticeable room for improvement? And what exactly should it take for someone to have a Brilliant talent in a particular category? Just by the numbers or should we be looking beyond that as well?
Spencer:
Drafts are one of the main reasons to be a commish. It needs to be a fun and interesting part of the commish duties. So I'm all for whatever each individual person wants. Personally I like realism. Especially when using an engine like OOTP that changes players so much as is. Id rather have a very realistic draft class.
Darell:
Well this is a very detailed question lol. Commish can do what he wants, if he wants to make every Red Sox complete shit than that's his choice but I think Erbes is better than that. He's been giving explanations for doing everything, why aren't the players as good as they should be? Its because we have the ability to spend board cash on them and make them better, im sure if there wasn't a board cash system in place than the draft prospects would be better. I don't even think he screwed with Pedroia that much, look if you and Break want to avoid getting "trolled", quit making your hardons for your favorite players so public. Brilliants are tough to gauge in this league especially for hitters. I won't get into the specifics because it would make this answer longer than needed, but something like a BA of 330+ is fine for a Brilliant in hits.
Seeing a non-clutch Laser Show on the draft board brought some tears to BreakTheWalls' eyes.
Pete:
I think that he is trying to give the league more parity. The ratings escalate and with the ability to improve the talent pool with board cash, I am fine with the league keeping initial ratings a tad on the conservative side.
Any player with brilliants should be a the top of the game in that regard. For example, there aren't 15 pitchers in the majors with 250+ strikeouts per season. This is rare and should be reflected.
Shale:
I'm all for reasonable realism as much as possible. The whole OOTP is fantasy simulations in themselves, so why not put realistic aspects into it in order to make it more fun? I do think Erbes does certain things to spite a few people here and there, but generally speaking, he is reasonable and fair with all the choices and decisions he makes. I think his pitching ratings chart is fair and that all the hitting ratings are fair, except for brilliant in home runs. That I feel he put a little too high, but it's not the end of the world. I believe the ratings should be done by the book as far as stats go. If the rating is borderline, then other aspects like impact on one's team, leadership and legacy could all be determining factors as to what talent the player ends up starting with. For example, if a great player is almost at good in home runs for his career average, but had 3 or 4 amazing seasons, he should get the benefit of the doubt.
10. We have recently lost a few of our original GM's, most notably Matt (Braves) and Styro (Expos, and who has now returned as the Twins' new GM). They were two core members of BBSBL and the NL East for one certainly does not look the same now. 18 original GM's are still here and that number could go up to 20 include Habes because the Padres never actually had a GM in 1996 and Darell who has been with D-Backs since even before expansion. As far as personnel is concerned, do you think having 18-20 original GM's still here after eight virtual seasons and one calendar year is a success or a bit of a failure? Do you think many of the original GM's will stick around for a good or would you not be surprised if one or a few of them were to step down? And how important is it for a league to have a lot of original GM's around throughout the course of its existence?
Spencer:
I think 18-20 is good. It isn't great, but its good. And I'd say those 18-20 are great members. Baseball leagues are hard because BBSBL is a hybrid league that moves much more quickly then other baseball sims. So you get that frenetic pace but it tends to be to fast for long time OOTP guys. I think Erbes has made it work. I'd still love 5 really good guys joining over the next couple of months and cutting ties with some dudes that don't seem to want to be here.
Darell:
Its not that important to have your original GM's but it is important to have GM's that are active and posting on a daily basis. It would be nice to have a full league but it's unrealistic to expect that because this is a fast pace league that promotes activity more-so than any other league I've been in. If you are only exporting/checking the site you cant take advantage of the board cash system, which is basically a game-changer. Board cash is valued so highly that having a lot of it gives you some leverage in trade talks.
Pete:
I've been involved in sim leagues for a long time and I've come to recognize that everyone has a life and their own way of thinking. Things change and people either can commit to the league or lose interest. Like anything in life, these leagues change. It's all about the people who want to continue and what they bring to the league. If we have an active league that is fun to be a part of, we will always have new people waiting to join.
I don't worry about who has left or who is new. I treat this seriously and my job is run my team to the best of my ability. Some people have left and some of them have done great things here.
Shale:
While the actual number of original GM's remaining is not the most important factor, it is a reflection of how devoted GM's are here generally speaking. If a newcomer sees only 5 original GM's left in a league, he will probably think that most people there are not too devoted and passionate enough about the given league. On the other hand, BBSBL still has original GM's representing over half the league, which shows dedication, commitment and passion. It's definitely a big factor that newcomers should consider before possibly joining. I think most of the original GM's left will stick around unless Erbes decides to boot someone in particular. 2 or 3 names in particular keep getting thrown around as GM's that others feel should be booted. I just want everyone here to be comfortable around each other and on good terms with everyone.
11. To go a step further, do you think the newer additions will have a positive impact on BBSBL or will it take a while for that to happen if some of the new GM's are not able to catch on with everything quick enough?
Spencer:
I think new blood is good. Different value systems. Different tradeable players. Different personalities. Sometimes things get kinda old and stale when the Gm core doesn't change. Plus I love that Kobe and Styro are kinda recharged with new spots. Temp an Greeme are solid additions. Dodgers GM is stepping up. Things are looking good right now.
Darell:
It will take a while for them to become accustomed to this league and learn all the rules because its seems like there are so many of them, plus it seems like we are changing them around every season. As long as they stick around and are active/having fun they eventually learn create a positive impact.
Pete:
Like anything people are either dedicated to it or they aren't. We usually find out pretty quick if the new GM's are engaged and we can determine whether or not a replacement is warranted.
Shale:
I like this new breed of GM's. Kobe gives us another very active presence and apparently knows a good number of the BBS guys real well. Greeme is another solid addition as well. Temp hasn't been as active, but he sounds like a good guy too. Dale has really opened up and is more active than ever before, which is great because he tells some good old school stories. He and Bosoxi are a good duo in that aspect. Greg seems more devoted and focused than before, which is great to see. More importantly, we now know that he was never lazy and careless, but that he just does not enjoy typing generally speaking.
These guys seem to have caught on real well for the most part, but it's important that if they are ever unsure of anything, that they read over every single list of rules they see and if still unsure, ask the veteran GM's before they make any correctable mistakes. We might all be competitive against each other, but at the same time, we're all here for each other to make everyone's experience here more enjoyable.
12. The Cubs have certainly been one of the more fascinating teams to follow in BBSBL history. After a short rebuild, Play built a monster of a young and very talented team that he felt was supposed to establish a dynasty. But yet after all this time, he has yet to win it all. He's talked the talk and as far as winning a bunch of regular season games and putting together a very solid organization from top to bottom, he has certainly walked the walk. But it seems like whenever it's the postseason, his mighty confidence shrivels down to nervous fear. If the Cubs have been so talented for so long, why exactly haven't they won anything? Has it just been a bad luck of the draw? Is Play an unlucky person? Or are the Cubs themselves actually cursed in all walks of life from reality to sim leagues and to video games? How deep is this curse? And will Play ever get past it or will it haunt his nightmares forever? Have you ever seen a Cubs team of any kind ever win a championship of some sort?
From billy goats to black cats to Steve Bartman, the Cubs and their fans have seen it all.
Spencer:
Like most sims there is so much luck involved. Id say that OOTP is even more fickle then FBB. I was so lucky ton win 3 titles. I thought my other teams were better then the teams that won. Its just luck. its fictional players getting hot at the right time. Essentially just a roll of the dice. Play needs to stick it out and continue to win with that staff. He'll be fine.
Darell:
I think you're looking too much into this. OOTP and especially the older version has some weird algorithm that makes the playoffs a complete crapshoot. Ive noticed that in OOTP13/14 its a bit more realistic and the teams that SHOULD win usually do. There is a lot of tough competition in BBSBL, especially in the NL so it's tough to just dominate with an amazing pitching staff. It doesn't seem like guys that he acquired like Berkman lived up to their potential maybe its because he didn't have that Brilliant in HR's but some players just don't sim as well as their ratings. It happens in pro sports all the time, you have teams with all this unbelievable talent but they don't mesh and the teams usually have to rebuild. Finding that right combination of talent is equally as important as finding talent, I like what he's doing now though. Hes going with a Speed/defense team philosophy and that could work. Play still has an amazing staff and having guys behind those pitchers who are great defenders could make them better.
Pete:
I'm not one to throw people under the bus on a regular basis, but I think the problem is that some GM's get impatient and make too many trades. I've been patient with my club and I think that if others were as patient, they would see some better results. It takes patience I guess, which is hard to find around here. Just being patient and identifying the teams weakness is a better route. Example, maybe he had good relievers, but did he have the right ones?
Shale:
The Cubs are cursed pretty badly in reality. 105 years of no championships. That is crazy just to think about. I've honestly never seen a Cubs team of any kind in my life win a championship of some sort. This goes back to my little league days, and even includes all the many different baseball video games I've played over the years. As a result, I really don't know what to believe anymore. I'm not saying Play's team is definitely cursed because of the real Cubs, but it's still possible. Anyway, Play obviously has the pieces to succeed, but maybe he has a few too many guys that are "very inconsistent" and "suffer in clutch". If that's the case, maybe Play should be focusing more on TIC's when it comes to spending board cash. It wouldn't hurt. Maybe those ratings are more significant than most people would think. The speed and defense strategy could work out for him, although he did not have much power when he first started to really compete and he didn't win it all in those seasons either.
13. Play might not even be alone there. For all their outrageous contracts and division titles, the Yankees and White Sox have yet to win it all as well. It has even gotten to the point that Erbes has seriously considered rebuilding a very good team that he put together in a short amount of time. Waldo on the other hand has kept pretty much the same team together and they are not getting any younger. Are the Yankees and White Sox cursed here? Are they actually not as good as some other teams? Or what exactly is the best explanation for Erbes' and Waldo's postseason failures?
Some of you may had forgotten that the White Sox had their own 88-year championship drought before finally winning their last real World Series in 2005. As a result, the Cubs and White Sox are technically in the same boat here.
Spencer:
I don't believe in curses. I do believe in luck. For Erbes, I think he kinda sat on a team he thought was elite. Didn't try to get better when he was good. Always stuff you can upgrade on your team. For Waldo, hes done a great job of winning without great day to day activity. I think if he were around more or tweaked his lineup more he'd have more success. He pretty much just runs the same things out there day after day.
Darell:
Now you're just talking crazy here Shale. It's understandable to say the Cubs are cursed but the White Sox/Yankees? I mean what reasoning do you have for that. Someone has to win and someone has to lose every year, I'm sure the White Sox and Yankees will have their time but to say they're cursed is a bit crazy.
Pete:
Again, it comes down to building a team that you feel has a solid core and then adding to it to get better. If a team wins 95 games and then loses in the post-season, there is a cause. Identify it, resolve it. Hope for the best. I will continue to apply that strategy, others do as well.
Shale:
First off, Darell, I never specifically said that I definitely think those 2 teams are cursed. I was merely exploring the slight possibility. They've had such good teams and have always fallen short. The White Sox not having won a championship yet is particularly surprising because within the last few seasons, they've had arguably the most talented team overall, but they just choked it away again and again. But yeah, if Waldo was more active and made more moves for his team, that wouldn't hurt. I feel Erbes keeps trying to find a certain identity for his team and that he just still hasn't found it yet. Waldo and Erbes are polar opposites in that way. Waldo doesn't do enough tinkering and Erbes sometimes does too much tinkering. A middle ground could be just what both of them need to get to the next level of success.
14. Which team do you think is in the best overall situation for the future? Please consider major league talent, minor league systems, financials/revenue, team markets, fan interests and general competition for this. On the flip side, which team is in the worst situation going forward?
Spencer:
I love Seattle. They have so much talent. So much amazing hitting. Really good pitching. Now he needs to check his financials and make sure he can keep everyone. SO much depth and amazing high end talent. hes done a great job. I still think overall CIN is the worst. I don't really like much beyond Beckett. Tough to get excited about 1 guy. More then that Stutter seems to want to rush to win and that will only make matters worse. He really needs to get better slowly but still garner some top end first round picks. Use FA well. Pick up guys on waivers. And make a ton of board cash. Long road ahead for him.
Darell:
Really like Toronto's situation right now, lots of talent on that team and he has enough flexibility to add an additional 20-30 million onto his payroll. Game could really make some moves to make a run this year. C-mike's situation is pretty horrible right now, its like click start/accessories and you see that tiny little icon that looks like a calculator? USE IT! I don't know how it got that bad for him, he should've let all his vets go last deadline and started a rebuild/retool. He has no cash and not a great way to acquire any more. Unless he decides to sell off his players for cash which would be unheard of.
Pete:
I do. I spent a lot of time to build a strong system. I also feel that my pro team is on the verge of a huge improvement. There are a lot of quality teams out there, it's a matter of who has the best young core and mix of veterans that will be in it at the end of the season. I would love to find a veteran starter, but the price is always too much for me.
Tampa has an impressive crop of young starters and he's slowly been turning them into hitters. He should have a very solid and balanced team for a long time.
The Cubs have a ton of assets as well. Hopefully he can let them grow and continue his winning ways.
Shale:
As loaded as the Jays and Mariners in particular are, I like the Marlins' future the best of any team. They've made so many trades and still have an amazing minor league system. They have so much young offensive talent that it's not even funny. The fact that Miguel Cabrera's homers still have yet to fully develop is scary. He's gonna be ridiculous. Then they have Ryan Howard, Jason Kubel, Andy Marte, Dallas McPherson, Corey Hart and Shane Victorino as well. With so many more teams having great pitching spects, Ashes can easily flip at least one of those hitters for an elite ace pitcher. He's in such a great position for the future and will have one of the best NL teams in the latter part of the decade.
As much as I wanna make fun of Stutter and his joke of a Reds team, even he isn't in the worst overall situation among all GM's here. I was originally going to say the Twins are in the worst overall situation because they never had a GM that really did a lot to improve them and they've been bad since the start. But the fact that Styro is now in charge of them means that they will eventually become decent. With that being said, the Astros and their financial mess are in the worst situation overall. Bohsandos will have a lot of work to do to fix that team. Those veterans all need to go, he needs to participate in articles and make a ton of board cash to flip for in-game cash and he needs get as many prospects and picks as possible because the Astros' minor league system is also weak. It's gonna be a long long time before the Astros are relevant again, but hopefully, Bohsandos will steer them in the right direction.
Miguel Cabrera and the Marlins have a very bright future ahead of them.
15. If you could think of a new and fun forum event for board cash via participation, what would it be and why?
Spencer:
Lots of guys love betting. So maybe sim bets? Like head to head for series wins. Or 500 sims. Make each sim important. Give rewards but also allow people to be each other for cash.
Darell:
Some other leagues I've been in the past have done a "mystery picture" event. Basically you take a picture of a MLB player and you use photoshop to blurr it or create different effects to not make it recognizable. Then you let everyone guess who it is, you get it right and you get board cash, get it wrong and you don't. Pretty simple if you ask me, could promote activity a little bit and would be a new fun way to earn board cash.
Pete:
I think the league has a lot going for it already, but I think having co-GM's would be fun. Teams that aren't as active can have someone help make decisions.
Shale:
Pete has a point, with the fact that we already have a lot of activities. At least one postpad per season would be nice. I like Spencer's idea too, but I'm not sure if everyone would be willing to place bets like that. Bush's idea isn't bad either and it reminds me of iSketch haha. We all should definitely have a "New Forum Activity" thread and discuss all this further.
16. Last but not least, what are your 2004 predictions?
Spencer:
I think it'll be Seattle and San Francisco. I think its my time to come back. I think Seattle is ascending. If I make it I'm winning btw.
Darell:
I'm assuming you just mean who's going to win it all, if that's the case then I'm going to say a Toronto vs Montreal World Series.
Pete:
The usual players will be in the mix again. Padres, Cubs, Pirates - Jays, Royals, Pale Hose, Mariners.
I just want Aaron Harang to learn that giving up doubles is not good.
Shale:
I think the Jays, White Sox, Mariners, Indians, Orioles and Yankees will be the AL postseason contenders. The best NL teams will probably be the Mets, Marlins, Expos, Cubs, Pirates, Padres and Giants. For a World Series match-up, I'll go with the Mariners and Pirates. 2 young and very talented teams. Maybe Steve1213 won't get the short end of the stick this time.
