A Very Darrelly Dynasty League

[GD]

I'd think an MiLB pick around 30 or waiver pick around 5-10 would be fair comp

[KingKat]

Do you seriously consider Ventura to fit that mold? A likely candidate to wash out of baseball?

The guy with the high 90's heater who is a year removed from consecutive seasons of 3.6 FIP?

The guy KC gave a 5 year extension to, pre-arbitration?

 

Its clear you never liked the guy, but think a little more objectively about it.

 

I actually don't have strong feelings about the guy as a person but he is objectively a ******** and having a two cent brain does factor into valuation. You can't separate his volatility as a person from his volatility as a fantasy asset. The benchmark I'm using here is Yasiel Puig. I'm pretty sure there was discussion about how we'd handle a player who is already considered a volatile asset and the sentiment was that there's a certain risk baked in to owning Puig and that you just have to live with it if something goes wrong. Well if there's no insurance on Puig why would there be insurance on a lesser player with worse character issues? And even if there was insurance, what would that insurance even be? Is the gap between having Ventura and having nothing really bigger than the gap between Jose Fernandez and the compensation he earned? I'd argue that it's much smaller in fact.

[Dr. Dinger]

What is really the harm in giving a small bit of compensation? Not withstanding that this is the third time, I really don't think this is going to be a common occurrence.

[BTS]

The harm is that it causes people to speculate over what the compensation should be immediately after the tragedy. It's dehumanizing. Celebrate what he represented as a person and player and move on. It happened and doesn't need to be fair.

 

Gibbers (I think that's who owned him at the time) didn't get Victor Sanchez compensation so there is precedent on both sides.

 

As I understood it, the intent of the rule was to give owners some hope of not being set back years in the event that a franchise cornerstone died tragically (which I agree with - we do this for fun, and losing a Fernandez or Taveras is crippling, on top of being very sad). I never thought those decisions were precedent for attaching a compensation value to every player that dies. It sucks that it happened, but if we're being realistic, it's not crippling catsass' team to the point where he's set back by it. Most likely outcome is that it doesn't hurt his team at all.

[z3r0s]

The harm is that it causes people to speculate over what the compensation should be immediately after the tragedy. It's dehumanizing. Celebrate what he represented as a person and player and move on. It happened and doesn't need to be fair.

 

Gibbers (I think that's who owned him at the time) didn't get Victor Sanchez compensation so there is precedent on both sides.

 

Not much to celebrate about Yordano the person. Non of us knew him, he was a dick on the field, an apparently nice while off. None of us know... he wasn't 'humanized' to us when he was alive.

 

If you are going to have compensation at all, these discussions are going to happen. Glib or not. If you reserve it for 'very good' players, you are going to have the same s***** conversations about who counts as 'really good'. If I lost Polanco tomorrow, is he 'very good'?

 

We need to hammer this s*** out with some stricter rules about compensation. If we don't, we'll keep on having to have these s***** conversations at s***** baseball times. The wishy washy rules sounds good when you dress them up with talk about 'every case is unique', but that always leaves a sour taste in someones mouth when they feel they deserve more (not putting this on TCA or anyone who else, just can and probably will happen).

[Spanky99]

Wow... this suxxx, R.I.P. Yordano, Marte died today in a seperate accident hitting a house? Crazy!

[Laika]

Not much to celebrate about Yordano the person. Non of us knew him, he was a dick on the field, an apparently nice while off. None of us know... he wasn't 'humanized' to us when he was alive.

 

If you are going to have compensation at all, these discussions are going to happen. Glib or not. If you reserve it for 'very good' players, you are going to have the same s***** conversations about who counts as 'really good'. If I lost Polanco tomorrow, is he 'very good'?

 

We need to hammer this s*** out with some stricter rules about compensation. If we don't, we'll keep on having to have these s***** conversations at s***** baseball times. The wishy washy rules sounds good when you dress them up with talk about 'every case is unique', but that always leaves a sour taste in someones mouth when they feel they deserve more (not putting this on TCA or anyone who else, just can and probably will happen).

 

No matter where you draw the line, there will be borderline situations. Making thick black boxes on things often just carries the air of objectivity without the substance. I don't think our rule really needs any tweaking.

[Laika]

As I understood it, the intent of the rule was to give owners some hope of not being set back years in the event that a franchise cornerstone died tragically (which I agree with - we do this for fun, and losing a Fernandez or Taveras is crippling, on top of being very sad). I never thought those decisions were precedent for attaching a compensation value to every player that dies. It sucks that it happened, but if we're being realistic, it's not crippling catsass' team to the point where he's set back by it. Most likely outcome is that it doesn't hurt his team at all.

 

This is my inclination and my feeling.

Also, we are talking about something between pick 20b and 40b, or maybe waiver #10. I feel like that level compensation is nearly insignificant and as a rule of thumb, in the spirit of our rule, if we ever find ourselves discussing such a small level of compensation it's probably best to step back and realize that the exercise is largely pointless and no compensation is warranted because it very likely won't have any substantial affect anyway.

 

Being said, I have a conflict of interest with TCA as a division rival and don't want to rule on this unilaterally. So I'd like an odd number of league leaders to discuss it quickly and come to some decision as soon as they can. Maybe three to five of you, dinger, KK, z3r0s, thehurl, and boxy would want to form that committee?

[Dr. Dinger]

This is my inclination and my feeling.

Also, we are talking about something between pick 20b and 40b, or maybe waiver #10. I feel like that level compensation is nearly insignificant and as a rule of thumb, in the spirit of our rule, if we ever find ourselves discussing such a small level of compensation it's probably best to step back and realize that the exercise is largely pointless and no compensation is warranted because it very likely won't have any substantial affect anyway.

 

Being said, I have a conflict of interest with TCA as a division rival and don't want to rule on this unilaterally. So I'd like an odd number of league leaders to discuss it quickly and come to some decision as soon as they can. Maybe three to five of you, dinger, KK, z3r0s, thehurl, and boxy would want to form that committee?

 

Let's just do a quick vote, 3 out of 5 wins it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over the results, but I vote for 20B compensation or 10B waiver compensation, owner's choice. I believe some compensation is appropriate. I think any player who is an MLB keeper warrants some level of compensation. I don't buy the slippery slope argument; players rarely die and I think it's fine to decide compensation subjectively on a case by case basis.

[z3r0s]

second.

[BTS]

For reasons I've already stated, I vote for no compensation.

[Laika]

I don't buy the slippery slope argument; players rarely die and I think it's fine to decide compensation subjectively on a case by case basis.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't characterize the 'no' argument as a slippery slope one. You're right that these are rare situations. I would characterize it as a "spirit of the rule" argument.

[KingKat]

FWIW, I wouldn't characterize the 'no' argument as a slippery slope one. You're right that these are rare situations. I would characterize it as a "spirit of the rule" argument.

 

There is a benefit to achieving clarity on this matter though Dinger's right that it's not a huge benefit in terms of future application. I think there's a certain subset of owners in this group who to some extent value clarity for its own sake and that's legit even it's not something that Dinger can relate to.

[Fearthedoc]

FWIW njh made a great point that changed my perspective on the situation. I was analyzing Ventura's value and felt 20b is fair value for what he's worth. However, in the past, we haven't handled compensation like that. If you're telling me hurl only got two prospects for Fernandez, and TCA receives 20b for Ventura, that would be ********. Relative to what Fernandez/Oscar received, I agree with KK that it's not fair to give anything more than a late pick.

 

It also opens up a can of worms. How is it that much different if players suffer long term injuries that prevent them from ever playing again or playing at a diminished level? If a player took a line drive off his head and retired due to brain trauma, would we have compensation then? Based on past compensation, I think we should only provide compensation for losing elite franchise crippling assets. The whole point is to make sure teams aren't crippled by these unfortunate tragedies.

[Dr. Dinger]

FWIW njh made a great point that changed my perspective on the situation. I was analyzing Ventura's value and felt 20b is fair value for what he's worth. However, in the past, we haven't handled compensation like that. If you're telling me hurl only got two prospects for Fernandez, and TCA receives 20b for Ventura, that would be ********. Relative to what Fernandez/Oscar received, I agree with KK that it's not fair to give anything more than a late pick.

 

It also opens up a can of worms. How is it that much different if players suffer long term injuries that prevent them from every playing again or playing at a diminished level? If a player took a line drive off his head and retired due to brain trauma, would we have compensation then? Based on past compensation, I think we should only provide compensation for losing elite franchise crippling assets. The whole point is to make sure teams aren't crippled by these unfortunate tragedies.

 

There's no precedent for giving compensation for baseball-related injuries, only death

[z3r0s]

I don't even agree with the 'trade value' augment in coming up with 20B. I sure as f*** wouldn't have traded Yordano for pick 21, and I know TCA wouldn't have either. Sure thats only a 2 team sample, but I see his trade value as more than 20B.

 

Not to mention pick 21 has a HELL of a lot less value than either of prospects Hurl got or either of the picks Boxy got (right as the caliber of the player is a hell of a lot less).

 

If you think 20B is too high for comp, I could be convinced, but I haven't heard anything that convinces me he TCA doesn't deserve anything for losing an intriguing young keeper

[TheHurl]

Just for fun and a frame of reference...pick 21 for each year since the inaugural draft:

 

2013 - Devon Travis

2014 - Alex Reyes

2015 - Hector Olivera

2016 - Delvin Perez

 

Pick 41:

 

Domingo Santana

Vincent Velasquez

Brian Johnson

Vladimir Guerrero Jr.

[Dr. Dinger]

Just for fun and a frame of reference...pick 21 for each year since the inaugural draft:

 

2013 - Devon Travis

2014 - Alex Reyes

2015 - Hector Olivera

2016 - Delvin Perez

 

Pick 41:

 

Domingo Santana

Vincent Velasquez

Brian Johnson

Vladimir Guerrero Jr.

 

Damn what a steal.

[Laika]

Just for fun and a frame of reference...pick 21 for each year since the inaugural draft:

 

2013 - Devon Travis

2014 - Alex Reyes

2015 - Hector Olivera

2016 - Delvin Perez

 

Pick 41:

 

Domingo Santana

Vincent Velasquez

Brian Johnson

Vladimir Guerrero Jr.

 

So it literally doesn't matter!

[z3r0s]

not too happy about De Leon to the Rays... but at least he'll be more likely to start this season.

[Laika]

Damn what a steal.

 

2 years away from being 2 years away. Yawn!

[Orgfiller]

not too happy about De Leon to the Rays... but at least he'll be more likely to start this season.

 

How could you not be happy? He's pretty much guaranteed a rotation spot now, and will have the likes of Evan Longoria, Matt Duffy and Kevin Kiermaier covering his back. As a co-owner in BORED I'm pretty ecstatic about what this move does towards his fantasy value.

[z3r0s]

b/c the AL. More s***** parks all around. DH's. No s***** divisional offenses (except the Rockies)

[z3r0s]

and a good pitchers park with a good team and boatloads of money, vs a s***** part with a s*** team of penny pinching owners.

[Spanky99]

and a good pitchers park with a good team and boatloads of money, vs a s***** part with a s*** team of penny pinching owners.

 

[TheHurl]

How could you not be happy? He's pretty much guaranteed a rotation spot now, and will have the likes of Evan Longoria, Matt Duffy and Kevin Kiermaier covering his back. As a co-owner in BORED I'm pretty ecstatic about what this move does towards his fantasy value.

 

pulled in the 4th or 5th every game...

[Spanky99]

and a good pitchers park with a good team and boatloads of money, vs a good pitching park with a s*** team of penny pinching owners.

 

ftfy...

[z3r0s]

so any movement on the Ventura comp discussion? LOD is going yes, sounds like BORED is going no. Dinger and I voted Yes, BTS voted no. I think we know KK's position without an official response to the 'vote'.

 

I think it makes sense to put this to bed sooner rather than later

[TheHurl]

so any movement on the Ventura comp discussion? LOD is going yes, sounds like BORED is going no. Dinger and I voted Yes, BTS voted no. I think we know KK's position without an official response to the 'vote'.

 

I think it makes sense to put this to bed sooner rather than later

 

I vote yes.

[Dr. Dinger]

Maybe we should comp a 4th rd pick, since that's what Ventura was.