Sunday, March 05, 2006

This Smells Of Something...

I received via email the following missive from one James Smithson (who also requests, Brian, that you resend him an invitation to post to the blog himself). As a prelude, allow me to offer an observation: after reading James' exposition on the proposed Sliding Scale idea, I'm tempted to level charges of collusion between the Commissioner and The Orphan Pandas, as the Scale, as suggested, would allow them to rule the league indefinitely.
First what firesales took place last year? I know we didn't make any, and I can't think of any others either. you are correct that under the current system trades do not necessarily have a impact on either teams cap, but that is only true of the season in which the trade is made. the following season the owner has to assume the full salary of any acquired players.

Now as for the sliding scale....where to begin? It is very hard for me to argue against this because it is so advantageous to the Pandas. however, is anyone familiar with the concept of inflation? if you decrease the amount of increase of the cheaper players you are also increasing the amount owners are able to spend on elite players. e.g. if all of our $2 players increase by five dollars we cannot keep roy oswalt. if they increase by $2 we would be stupid not to keep roy oswalt for $35. under the current system we would be keeping 14 players at a cost of $199. under Brian's proposed sliding scale we will be keeping 16 players for a total of $240. now those 16 players include a $30 barry bonds, $35 roy oswalt, $32 johan santana, and a $33 lance berkman. plus under the new system, barring injury, miguel cabrera would most likely play his entire career with the Orphan Pandas organization. whereas the old system would force us to cut him by the time he's 25.

just a few thoughts.....let me know what you think.

As an expansion on James' first point, I think that while reporting the amount "eaten" by each team is a necessary thing, I think further meddling into the issue does nothing but harm. Essentially, what Brian refers to as a "fire sale" is actually a number of owners mortgaging their futures to win in the short term. To that I say: good on 'em. Let them do it, if they're throwing me young guns at affordable/keepable prices in order to lift my unkeepable Studs (who will enter the draft next year no matter who owns them), who are doing me no good if I'm at the bottom or middle of the pile.

As for the second point: the more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that a sliding scale doesn't accomplish what it is set out for - the addition of more high-end players to the draft pool. By simultaneously decreasing the amount spent on cheaper (not necessarily worse - see Miguel Cabrera) players, it becomes economically feasible to keep these Studs as their prices escalate.

To address a point not expounded upon by James: the changing of OBS for OPS is, in my estimation, a Bad Thing. We already reward homerun hitters for hitting the ball out of the park (that's what the homerun category is for), so why redouble that reward? Why count homeruns twice (which is essentially what OPS does)? Not only are you increasing the value of power hitters, you are decreasing the value of...well, everyone else.

Okay, that's enough for now. More to come later - but you'll probably have to attend the meeting to hear it.



  • At 7:06 AM, Blogger Brian said…

    Suffice it to say, I can't even collude with myself. Why would I collude with the Pandas.

    Self-collusion. Can you not get arrested for that in some southern states?

  • At 10:21 AM, Blogger John Benoit said…

    Brian, I think that's only if your first cousin is somehow involved...
    Seriously, though, I don't think the sliding scale would necessarily be helpful, and the more complicated things get the less fun it is (at least for me.) I'd rather drop keepers all together and go to straight draft than have the sliding scale. I don't even understand the whole trade argument so I'll stay out of that one (except to say, again, that there is an inversely proportional relationship between complexity and fun...)


Post a Comment

<< Home