Should we keep the franchise player rule as it is written or should we do away with it completely?
Franchise Players
Collapse
X
-
I chose keep it as written. I think it's a good thing to be able to keep at least a couple of players without anyone else being able to bid their value up hugely - even if that means I'll never get Walter.You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton
Comment
-
-
I have seen several comments that people drafting early in the first round of a league such as this get severe advantage by franchising their lucky first pick. I personally don't see the need or have the emotional attachment to keep a player long term. One way for owners to lose interest is to have the same teams always on top. If the are better gms, great. if the rules reward the lucky ones, bad. Move the guys around. Thereofre I vote to eliminate the franchise option.Illegitimi Non Carborundum
Comment
-
-
Come on guys, have your say. It's not a real good sign when you only have seven of twelve owners in a brand new league voting on a key issue.You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by dust bunnies View PostI have seen several comments that people drafting early in the first round of a league such as this get severe advantage by franchising their lucky first pick. I personally don't see the need or have the emotional attachment to keep a player long term. One way for owners to lose interest is to have the same teams always on top. If the are better gms, great. if the rules reward the lucky ones, bad. Move the guys around. Thereofre I vote to eliminate the franchise option.Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by catcher24 View PostCome on guys, have your say. It's not a real good sign when you only have seven of twelve owners in a brand new league voting on a key issue.
Comment
-
-
I don't think the Franchise rule works as written. It seems like it might be a good idea if modified, but 10 (or 12) million per year for Babe Ruth's career is probably LESS than half of what he should make. That's too lopsided.
Comment
-
-
I think the conversation stopped mostly because all the main points have been made. It boils down to what each owner prefers. There is no deadline but the sooner we iron out this rule the sooner we can finalize the rules and move on to bigger and better things. As it stands now, at the very least it will either end up a tie or the owners will vote to not have franchise players. If it ends up a tie I think I will have to come up with a compromise. I think though that at least one other owner will vote in favor of not having franchise players.
The more I looked at things I realized that the restricted free agent rule is going to really help teams hold on to the stars that they want to and it will keep salaries at closer to market value. The mega-stars will definately cause an owner to pay a premium which is really the whole point of having a salary cap. A team that drafts Babe Ruth will get a deal for 7 years and then someone will offer up 30M in RFA ..... whatever team signs him will have less to spent on a supporting cast. Doing that balancing act is what makes a good owner and manager, and restricted free agency will definately reward good team management - which I am always in favor of.Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by rmadachik View PostAs I was typing the deciding vote was cast. There will be no fanchise players in P2Pkl. I really think its for the better.You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton
Comment
-
Ad Widget
Collapse
Comment