FA Smack Talk

[Preds]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Not to be funny Burt but that seems to me exactly what the quotes above are suggesting

Why are you so opposed to adjusting the scale. I don't get your opposition to bring the IDP rookie salaries more in line with the IOP's.

Whatever, you;re 1 vote against, lets move on.

[smsmith40]

Ah! The tyranny of the democracy.

THis is such a complicated league that I just think we should wait until something is actually broken before we try and fix it, and its not like this fix is even going to solve the perceived problem. Seems like a waste of time, change for change's sake

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Ah! The tyranny of the democracy.

THis is such a complicated league that I just think we should wait until something is actually broken before we try and fix it, and its not like this fix is even going to solve the perceived problem. Seems like a waste of time, change for change's sake

I know you're a bright guy, and because of that I hesitate to say this, but, if you think the bolded sentence is true, you simply don't understand the problem. Changing the scale explicitly solves the problem, because the problem is with the scale.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Not to be funny Burt but that seems to me exactly what the quotes above are suggesting

None of those quotes made the suggestion that we SHOULD be drafting IDP higher than anyone thinks they should. We are just saying we should be ALLOWED to draft them higher without being penalized with their outrageous salaries. How often does it make sense to take a TE with a high first round pick? Preds did last year, and compared to other TE salaries, got a pretty good deal. You take a LB with that high a pick, and you aren't going to get a good deal. I thought the point of the rookie draft was to fill in and build your team with young players at cheaper prices than Vet players. We don't allow that with LB rookie picks. Once again, you seem to want to FORCE everyone to HAVE to wait to take an IDP, rather than allowing someone the ability to take one, if they are foolish enough to do it, in the higher rounds.

[smsmith40]

ND- Don't worry I'm secure in the fact that I'm an EXTREMELY bright guy but that's beside the point. THe point I ma trying to make is that the value of rookie LBs and where they make sense as a draft pick is not defined by the rookie scale. A point you obviously agree with as you took an LB with the 14th pick WITH the current scale you now fundamentally disagree with. I have played in at least 3 IDP leagues for the past 5 years. I have won twice, had the best reg season record another twice and the top points scorer another time. I am fairly confident I understand the relative value of IDPs and their relationship to IOPs and starting requirements.

BtB

None of those quotes made the suggestion that we SHOULD be drafting IDP higher than anyone thinks they should

SO the words "You shouldn't have to wait until rounds 5 or 6 to draft IDP's. Our goal should be to have all positions well scattered throughout the draft." doesn't mean the author thinks we should change things to have IDPs drafter earlier.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

SO the words "You shouldn't have to wait until rounds 5 or 6 to draft IDP's. Our goal should be to have all positions well scattered throughout the draft." doesn't mean the author thinks we should change things to have IDPs drafter earlier.

Of course it does...earlier than round 5 and 6; the way it is set up now, we are forced to wait until those rounds to get a good deal on a rookie.....

And you still haven't addressed my claim that you would rather force us to draft IDP's later, rather than having the option of drafting them earlier for fair value. Talk about a tyranny!

[smsmith40]

Exactly how does one guys opinion force anybody to do anything?

Its just that I still haven't had it explained to me exactly what problem we have to fix that requires the drastic step of changing the rules.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

THe point I ma trying to make is that the value of rookie LBs and where they make sense as a draft pick is not defined by the rookie scale.

Yes, it is, and I do not agree with this statement. Let's address my pick first, and move on to the real issue. The ONLY reason I took Pos at the place I did was that I am an unabashed Penn State homer, and after watching Pos for a couple of years, he was the only player in this draft I HAD to have from a homer perspective. To show how much I wanted him, I could have passed him up and taken Adrian Peterson, who I think is the best RB prospect since LT2, and plays for my hometown Vikings. I passed that up for the opportunity to take Pos. I didn't take Pos where he was because I thought he offered value at the position. I took him where he was because right now my team sucks, and I want some guys to root for while I continue to build for the future. He won't be part of my future plans because his contract prohibits me holding on to him when I actually do get comepetitive. Had I not been a homer, I would never look at taking a LB until way later in the draft.

Now, on to the real issue. Look at the scale in the Frenzy. At no point, for no position (other than kicker for obvious reasons) do you consider what the contract value is when taking a player. An rookie drafted is cheap, can be fit onto an active roster if they have a opportunity to play, and if they perform at all offer a discount to what you'd pay on the open market for similar talent. NO position starts over market. Even kickers only start at 150, and if there was a huge kicking talent that could kick 60 yarders with his eyes closed wouldn't be cost prohibitive to draft.

However, in SAC'D, you can't consider taking defensive players for several rounds (unless you are out of your mind homers). Their cost doesn't offer the discount originally intended by the rookie scale. It does not matter if LB scoring value dictates the strategic play to wait until the late part of the draft, the fact is that the original intention was to offer a discount to ALL position at ALL points in the draft, and be forced to pay closer to market value only when they started to perform and earn their bonuses.

Now, I had never played IDP leagues before, and when I started with the rookie scale, I looked to those who had played IDP for insight. I was told that LBs would be the second most valuable position next to RB, so their salaries started second highest next to RBs. With our starting lineups, that is obviously not the case, and having all three IDP positions starting where they are is just a flat out mistake, and does not do what was intended.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

Exactly how does one guys opinion force anybody to do anything?

Its just that I still haven't had it explained to me exactly what problem we have to fix that requires the drastic step of changing the rules.

The problem has been well explained by several people. We've stated our side, you've stated your side, so we'll move on and put it to a vote and see what the majority thinks. Time to move forward.

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Yes, it is, and I do not agree with this statement. Let's address my pick first, and move on to the real issue. The ONLY reason I took Pos at the place I did was that I am an unabashed Penn State homer, and after watching Pos for a couple of years, he was the only player in this draft I HAD to have from a homer perspective. To show how much I wanted him, I could have passed him up and taken Adrian Peterson, who I think is the best RB prospect since LT2, and plays for my hometown Vikings. I passed that up for the opportunity to take Pos. I didn't take Pos where he was because I thought he offered value at the position. I took him where he was because right now my team sucks, and I want some guys to root for while I continue to build for the future. He won't be part of my future plans because his contract prohibits me holding on to him when I actually do get comepetitive. Had I not been a homer, I would never look at taking a LB until way later in the draft.

I think there's a reason your team sucks and will continue to suck....

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Flaxwless

I think there's a reason your team sucks and will continue to suck....

I think I've proved my ability enough in the Frenzy. Want me to pull out the record books? Yeah, you won it once, but not since I've been around...

[Flaxwless]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I think I've proved my ability enough in the Frenzy. Want me to pull out the record books? Yeah, you won it once, but not since I've been around...

So what do the record books indicate?

And it was a joke BTW.

[smsmith40]

OK, I will admit, what I should have said is that there is no problem as long as people draft IDPs at the appropriate point in the draft as defined by their relative value to other positions. If you draft them too high then you look like a fool. Feel free to adjust the scale to compensate for people's lack of understanding of that fact.

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by smsmith40

OK, I will admit, what I should have said is that there is no problem as long as people draft IDPs at the appropriate point in the draft as defined by their relative value to other positions. If you draft them too high then you look like a fool. Feel free to adjust the scale to compensate for people's lack of understanding of that fact.

It's all subjective relativity. And I'll make sure to check with you in the 2008 draft before drafting my first IDP to make sure I won't look like a fool in doing so at that level.....

[smsmith40]

Just shout anytime you feel you need some advice

[pacificscrub]

Mutts does realize that Josh McCown is no longer with Detroit, right?

[Burt the Butcher]

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

Mutts does realize that Josh McCown is no longer with Detroit, right?

Either that or it's a smoke screen....I'll change it...

[Mutts]

No - I missed that one. Good thing Burt was willing to up that bid from me.

Originally Posted by pacificscrub

Mutts does realize that Josh McCown is no longer with Detroit, right?

[pacificscrub]

You shouldn't be. He'll be starting in Oakland (at least for the 1st month or two) whereas he probably wouldn't have seen the field in Detroit.