2 for the Money

Moderator: Palmtana

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

cascboas

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostFri Aug 31, 2012 9:28 pm

1) JCHansen - PRE WAR NY Yankees (incl Highlanders)
2) katzenjammer - POST WAR NY Yankees (incl M&M boys)
3) Dinsdale - Pre War NY Non Yankees (Giants/Dodgers)
4)andycummings65 Pre War Philadelphia A's
5) mrharryc - NeL
6) RJOH - Post SF Giants/Seattle
7) tomwistar - Pre St Louis (incl Browns)
8) cascboas - Pre Detroit
9) LJs
10) bontomn
11) 2cityfan
12) fraank123

Post you selection next to your name and remove it from the list below:

14 Pre War Cities
Philadelphia Phillies
Boston
Chicago White Sox
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburg
Cinncinatti

Cleveland
Washington


19 Post War Cities
Philadelphia Phillies
Boston
Chicago White Sox
Chicago Cubs
NY Mets

A's - Philadelphia/Oakland/KC (incl Royals)
Los Angeles (Dodgers (Incl Bkln)
Angels and Padres
Pittsburg
Cinncinati
Detroit (+Fla, Cabrera)
Cleveland
StLouis
Milw (Braves and Brewers)/Atlanta
Canada (Toronto/Montreal)
Cowboys - Texas/Houston/Colorodo/Arizona
Wahington/Baltimore/Minn
Offline

Musial6

  • Posts: 2248
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:56 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 8:02 am

Just a comment or question. I realize having 2nd pick, I've got a wealth of talent from the post and exp yankees, but when looking at all the various franchise combos, I think in the first go-round anyway, everyone will have an adequate supply of talent. Since, in the end, we'll probably have at least 4 franchise eras (except if anyone picks the aforementioned lonesome george Mets) to choose from, wasn't a 100M cap kind of limiting?
I just sort of hate filling up almost half the roster with .50 guys when you could fill in with a little bit more high caliber talent.
I hear the theory is this makes it more competitive for the lower picking managers, but I just hate leaving Bobby Murcer off a roster, and having to put Ping Bodie on it for the umpteenth time.
I wasn't advocating 200M, but wouldn't a 120M or even 140M have been doable and still kept it competitive across the board?
What's the traditional or underlying thought on this.....just curious?
Offline

rjohaire

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 8:18 am

yeah, it might be fun to do this with a higher cap, but I like the idea/chanllenge that you need to make some decisions on who to leave off.
Looks like 1 round would be enough to staff a 100mil league, but, as you said, this gices the lower picks an equal chance to field a team.
I was thinking an 80mil league might be next.
Although this isn't as much of a challenge in matching two teams because each one has so many players.

Any suggestions on how to pair it down? Spliting it up further would seem to add to a lot more players on multiple squads, thereby making it hard to draft since you don't know what players you'd have.
Offline

bontomn

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:26 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 11:35 am

I agree that a higher cap (at least $120 nil) would be better. No matter what franchise I end up with after LJs picks, my next choice will be whichever team has the most .50 players available, making the original aim of this draft almost pointless. Perhaps a better way would have been to pick two teams from any of the FOUR eras (that is db, pre, post or exp). Then, the lower cap would work better.
Offline

rjohaire

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 11:39 am

The concern I have with picking from 4 ERAs is there are soooo many crossovers.
At least with the lower cap and a limit of only 2 teams you will have to use players you don't usually use and you will probably have to make a decision on where your holes are. You won't be able to take all the greats and field a viable team.
Offline

rjohaire

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 11:40 am

With the Giants I took, I can have a powerful offense, vut no pitching. If I want Marical etc I'll have to take some players off.

These kind of decisions is what makes the game fun.
Offline

bontomn

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:26 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 12:09 pm

Sorry, I was unclear (too early in the morning in Calif.). I meant taking a total of only two teams period, but using all four eras, so you might end up forming a team from only the pre-Yankees and db-Cubs, or only the exp-Yankees and db-A's. That might better solve the goal of using players you've never picked before.
Offline

rjohaire

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:51 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 12:35 pm

yes it would limit the pool but won't there be too many player overlaps?
Offline

mrharryc

  • Posts: 657
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:58 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 1:26 pm

I think we should consider either bumping up the salary cap to 120 mil here or simply leave it at 100 and do a future league as Bontomn suggests with , e.g. Yankees DB, REDS EXP, ETC. Otherwise, with half the first round draft complete we're changing the character of the league in mid-stream.

The major attraction for me here was the grouping of franchises so it's not a pure franchise league, but a hybrid forcing us to make selections that are compatible with each other.
Offline

bontomn

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:26 pm

Re: 2 for the Money

PostSat Sep 01, 2012 1:33 pm

I'll be out until 5 p.m. PDT. If LJs has chosen by the time I return, I'll make my pick immediately. My choice depends entirely on his,
PreviousNext

Return to Individual League Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Turtle and 248 guests