February 20th, 2009 by Banditos GM
Ok, first and foremost, if anyone leaves the league it will be the end
of the league. I'm not saying that to create a sense of guilt, if you
can't do it then you can't do it. I bring it up, instead, to point out
that all efforts will be made to accommodate everyone in the league. I
think we would all agree that having a slow league or imperfect league
is better than no league.
A couple of things to address:
1)
Regarding Time. I don't think any of us have any problem accommodating
time constrictions. The thing is that we have to be aware of them.
Justin you kind of let this all out after the fact. If you knew you
were going to be busy, I think I speak for Mike too, when I say that
we'll happily adjust the schedule. That goes for all of us. You guys
know I try to sim on a regular basis but if I can't do one, I'm not
going to push myself it will just have to wait. And when Mike has
surgery I'm sure we'll have to pause as well. My point is that the
league should not feel like an obligation, but instead a hobby. That's
kind of the beauty about being in a 3 person league with friends as
opposed to a full human league, you can always adjust to individual's
needs. As far as the ballots and HOF, we'll figure it out. I'll do
them if we need to.
2)
Regarding Control of AI. This also has to do with the time
commitment. I proposed taking over the AI for a couple of reasons.
First, it allowed the AI to be more competitive and not get ripped off
as bad. In the prior system I always felt that we were overseeing
trades and were reluctant to veto unless it was outrageously bad. The
problem was there were a lot of bad trades perpetrated on the AI,
especially with regards to contracts. I don't believe I was alone on
this sentiment. By allowing a human to represent the AI, the trades
become more competitive which is what we wanted. I truly believe this
does not make trading more difficult to accomplish, just more even.
Secondly, it was to add another element to make it fun. We could now
propose to humans with the AI teams, which the computer was not doing.
This would allow the human glut of talent at AAA to help the computer
and also make them more competitive. Once again this is optional not
an obligation, I don't have to help Pitt propose to Omaha. In fact
this system should be more efficient because you're dealing with one
person and it doesn't have to have deep rationalization. Just propose,
counter etc. The Omaha style of trading looks like this:
"The Omaha Wolverines offer you a 2nd round pick
in the 1995 Amateur draft for Ernesto Hernandez."
Obviously
not all trades are that simple, however, in the old system just as much
convincing would go into the complicated trades as they would now. As
far as the rule change affecting Washington unfairly given the timing,
I would say that any change has to be implemented at some time and will
probably affect a team. There's no way around it. The important thing
was that there was no intent to harm Washington, I think we can all
agree on that. Finally, I would say that, speaking for Miami, we too
had some big contract obligations locked up and by Pythag. were
probably just about the same as Washington. So I don't see there being
a huge competitive disadvantage. With regards to the shop function, if
we want to bring it back I have no problem. However, just let me point
out that in both the old system and presumably in the new system the
shop function was never a final ok. The trade still had to pass human
muster. My point is that the differences between the old and new
system are really minute but in my opinion helped competitive balance
between HUMAN and AI. Finally, if we want to revert back to the old
system of trading I don't care enough to fight about it. Once again my
main point is accomodations and concessions are better than a dead
league.
3)
Regarding MacGregor/Hearn. Really the only thing I want to say is that
I sympathize with Justin on his points about time investment and his
feelings about the trade system. The only problem is that using the
backdrop of this trade probably made it harder for the other two of us
to understand because the trade was really far off. It kind of felt
like here propose this unbalanced trade (by the standards of Miami,
Omaha, and most importantly the AI) and then when it gets denied attack
the whole system. Now Justin thoroughly explained his frustration in
the game and in real life so I get it and it's no big deal. However,
if the trade was closer and Mike was playing extreme hardball I think
it would be a different story.
4)
Solutions. Here are some things we can contemplate this offseason.
First, regarding the time committment, do we want to switch to a
different sim schedule? Like once a week, twice a week etc? We will
need to switch up the ballot obligations. Secondly, are we going to
revert back to an older system of trading and/or bring shop back? I
think Justin has made it clear how he feels so we'll need to discuss it
on the next Yugma.
Finally, I hope I don't sound judgmental or
accusatory towards Justin. Nor do I really want to be argumentative. I
think the main point I wanted to make is that no league issue is too
big we can't figure something out and work it out. If real life is
just to time consuming than it's a different story. Like I said
before, this league should be enjoyable and a break from the stresses
of real life, once it's not then we need to make some adjustments.
That being said, we are going to take a week or so off. Justin already
said that he's going to be extremely busy and I actually have some
projects, like cleaning my garage and start working out again, that I
want to get done. I may sim up to the Awards and hopefully we'll
continue in a week or a week and a half.
Also,
on a brighter note, OOTP 10 is scheduled to come out this spring. They
sent me the email about it and if it delivers what it promises some of
these issues will be moot. It looks kick ass, so that will definitely
freshen things up. I will forward the newsletter.
