2010 NFBC Draft Dates and Locations Revealed

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:29 am

Originally posted by Captain Crunch:

Gotta love it when someone quotes an external reference but conveniently leaves off part of the definition. Soooo, let's look at the next part of the article from Wikipedia ...

"A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly."

No trouble here figuring out potential "external interference" ... :-þ CRUNCH, you of course left out the part of the quote relevant to "external interference" ...

A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly. Although some may view "government interference" to slant the field in reality the level playing field is created and guaranteed by the implementation of rules and regualtions ... building codes, material specifications and zoning creat a starting point/ a minimum standard --- a "level playing field".

So is the government, the NFBC, or some other external force telling you which day to draft your team CRUNCH, or mandate that you draft a player who will get injured?

Unless there are a different set of rules for drafting one day or another, I am 100% certain Greg's plan can be defined as "level playing field" as there is one set of rules for anyone and everyone that wants to sign up.

[ October 10, 2009, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Thunder · Post by **Thunder** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 8:40 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Captain Crunch:

Gotta love it when someone quotes an external reference but conveniently leaves off part of the definition. Soooo, let's look at the next part of the article from Wikipedia ...

"A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly."

No trouble here figuring out potential "external interference" ... :-þ CRUNCH, you of course left out the part of the quote relevant to "external interference" ...

A metaphorical playing field is said to be level if no external interference affects the ability of the players to compete fairly. Although some may view "government interference" to slant the field in reality the level playing field is created and guaranteed by the implementation of rules and regualtions ... building codes, material specifications and zoning creat a starting point/ a minimum standard --- a "level playing field".

So is the government, the NFBC, or some other external force telling you which day to draft your team CRUNCH?

Unless there are a different set of rules for drafting one day or another, I am 100% certain Greg's plan can be defined as "level playing field" as there is one set of rules for anyone and everyone that wants to sign up. [/QUOTE]i just now realized this was a political issue!!

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:25 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A level playing field is a concept about fairness, not that each player has an equal chance to succeed, but that they all play by the same set of rules.

NFBC plan = level playing field. You have too much time on your hands! [/QUOTE]Sorry, but I hate sloppy conclusions built on not understanding what something means.

Also, Lance doesn't believe anything I say, so I have to find an authority to state my case. Maybe I should go out and find a Glenn Beck quote for him.

[/QUOTE]So having one draft a month before the other would be cool, right?

...and Greg...I predict that so few will show up the first weekend (aside from the sheduling conflicts THIS year due to the surprise switch-a-roo that would be adjusted for the next year, and the two time players)...as well as the costs associated with housing/hosting in high rent, classy areas in mulitple cities that first weekend during high rent March Maddness to boot...and getting smallish turnouts...that it will prove to be a very poor investment, eating up far too much of the players prize money, that it will be phased down from two weekends to two different drafts during the same "second" weekend...like most successful models are doing now.

You've always over-estimated the "home league" effect, and LABR and TOUT WARS will have an easy decision to make...alter their draft dates, or play in the kiddie league vs. the money league.

[ October 10, 2009, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: sportsbettingman ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:26 am

I take off for the weekend and all hell breaks loose. Is this how you folks behave when I'm away?

Seriously, I'll add my thoughts to all of this for those who might be interested:

As Greg and Ryan have said, we appreciate your passion for everything we do. That's a big reason why we've been able to grow the event and why Ryan, Greg, myself and everyone at Fanball has such confidence we can grow this event (and the NFFC) even more in the years to come. We want you to be passionate about what we offer and we value your opinions and feedback. That was true when it was just me and Greg running all of this and it's true now. Nothing has changed in that regard.

People do need to understand that the decisions that have been made are ones that were made after lengthy discussions with everyone involved. This isn't a case of Ryan (or Fanball) telling Greg and I what's going to happen. These decisions have come after several meetings, phone cals, emails, IMs etc. We are trying to come up with a plan that will grow this event and make it more available to as many people as possible. Hence, the two-weekend idea. Is there some risk involved? Yes there is and we're conscious of that. But as Ryan said, the idea for having two weekends is due in large part to trying to enable as many people to be in our event who want to take part.

We know based on past experience that certain draft days don't work well for some people but other ones do. Well now we are offering multiple options which we believe will enhance the opportunity for people who want to compete in our event to take part. I don't believe that's a bad thing. The exciting thing about what we're unveiling (and we haven't unveiled everything yet) is we have a LARGE number of options available for people. We'll have the NFBC, we'll have the first-ever national auction championship, the online championship, a $10,000 entry league and a whole lot more. We have options available at a wide variety of entry fees which means we have options available for a large number of fantasy baseball players. Again, I think this is a good thing.

We are trying to grow this business. We want to make it more profitable. No one is denying that nor are we going to apologize for that. But we also understand that the reason why we have grown the NFBC (and NFFC) and one of the key reasons why Fanball purchased everything we do is because of the care we take to make our events user friendly. We believe we are going to continue doing that when people see everything we're goign to offer this year and beyond.

We're not going to please everyone. Greg and I know firsthand that no matter what we do someone isn't going to be happy about it. We both take that personally because we would like to run events which make everyone happy. Call us naive or crazy but that's the approach we both have. The reality, however, is someone isn't going to like something. As Greg said, if we offer chips and cookies, we get ripped. If we offer a gourmet feast, we get ripped. It's the nature of the beast but Greg and I do take the criticisms personally because everything we do is a reflection of the time and care we both put into it.

I can appreciate any frustrations people might have with the changes we're making. There are some big changes. We understand that. But they are being made to help us grow the event in ways that will enable you the fantasy baseball player to have a more rewarding and exciting experience. That is our goal and will always be our goal.

DiamondKing · Post by **DiamondKing** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:28 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

I tend to agree he really did improve his D this year.But,the thinking is he is getting too big for the position. You need to stop listening to scouts. Imagine where the game would be if they were still playing the Mark Belanger types at SS. [/QUOTE]I am not saying I would do this.I am saying the Marlins have had a mind to do it.But,if you ever stand next to the guy he is massive and gets bigger every year.The reason the Marlins moved Miguel Cabrera from short is early in his career they thought he would be too large for short.I know he had the range of a coffee table.But,Hanley was awfull defc.in the minors also. [/QUOTE]Really don't care if Houston has a party or not and I couldn't care less that the NFBC is having two weekends as long as it is in a good geographical location on week two.

But the Hanley thing I'll argue. What the hell is the difference what size he is if he can play D? I hear you saying, "He's gotten better, but he's bigger." So what? If he is the size of Eckstein or Ryan Howard, what is the difference if he can play?

His UZR/150 in 2007 was -20.9, basically meaning he cost the team 21 runs more than an average shortstop. That is pretty abominable and if it continued would challenge Shawn's idea that he is worth more there.

But then in 2008 he had a -0.6 and in 2009 a 0 (perfectly average). I don't care if he gained 400 pounds over that time; he clearly improved his play at the position to the point that it would be a horrible idea to stick him in a position that has a much better offensive standard. [/QUOTE]But,He is still growing.And I am sure there is a limit to how large a person can be and still play a respectable shortstop.I know the Marlins are not the only team to take this position.Perhaps this is part of the reason that it made more sense for AROD to go to third.Didn't Chipper start out a shortstop?I am quite certain this is not the first time you have heard of a player getting too large for shortstop.Once again this is not my idea.But,I know for a fact that the Marlins talked about it.Same as I can tell you that the Royals came very close to a trade involving Zack Grienke last offseason.This is just something that the braintrust of the Marlins are putting thought to.Does not mean for sure that it will happen.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:49 am

I respect you and Greg, Tom, and thinking about this even more...it's quite a pickle.

You could in essence use the old "Movie to sell popcorn" theory where they give you a reasonable price to watch a movie, knowing they'll make the real profits on the sale of popcorn and soda and such.

Having the high stakes drafts "live" and glamorous sells the image of the event...but honestly...how many people are you going to find who are willing and able to play $1300.00 entry main events...that haven't discovered them by now?

Could the real magic be in events that are closer to the higher end of the popular home leagues? Say, the $250-500 range. Offering this type of main event makes the cost of travel no longer worth it...and the online option would most likely be the chosen option...so there wouldn't be that "live" image to sell. Tough call.

I think having a nationwide $500.00 or less online event would grow bigger, and thus have larger payouts than a live higher stakes event...but then it's just another online league, with no reason to have cities as host sites at all.

My guess is the combo is what's planned...but how to do that, and also keep some sort of community/cozy feel? Tough call.

Go brain tank!

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:10 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Having the high stakes drafts "live" and glamorous sells the image of the event...but honestly...how many people are you going to find who are willing and able to play $1300.00 entry main events...that haven't discovered them by now?

That's the ultimate question. One thing I can say with 100% certainty is we are in a MUCH stronger position to market and promote our events than we were in the past. Being part of Fanball enhances that in ways Greg and I could only dream of before. I also want to add that had we not been purchased by Fanball, there's a very real chance this event and the NFFC would have died. Greg alluded to some things that were going on with our former company in that regard. Greg and I feel like we have been given new life with the purchase and we believe that being a part of Fanball will enable us to reach countless more fantasy players than ever before.

How many of them are interested in high-stakes events? I don't think any of us knows the answer to that. But we are going to find out. The good news here is like I mentioned before we have a wide variety of options available for the fantasy baseball player. We want the NFBC to be the premier destination for anyone who wants to play fantasy baseball in an exciting, competitive and challenging format. Whether it's a $125 satellite league or the $10,000 league, we want fantasy baseball players to think of us first when deciding where to participate.

We have some big plans, there's no question about that. But please believe me when I tell you that no matter what we do everything will be done with the intention of making the experience one all of you will enjoy. That has been the No. 1 goal for Greg and myself since we began these events and I know Ryan shares that belief as well.

billywaz · Post by **billywaz** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:11 am

As someone who is somewhat new to the NFBC, but has played in the NFFC since it's inception, here are my comments...

While I am not a huge fan of the "two weekend for the same prize deal", I understand why the NFBC wants to do this.....to gain more participants.

Also, while the 2nd week looks to be drafting at an advantage, what happens if a player is "iffy", and goes on average in round 4-5 on draft weekend one. Then news comes out that he is MUCH BETTER than originally thought?? Now this player will goes in round 3 the 2nd weekend.

Isn't this an advantage for the 1st weekend???

Obviously if given the choice, MOST will draft the 2nd weekend, but it might not be as "bad" as perceived to be.

As for multiple teams.....who cares??? If someone is willing to pony up the catch, it means they are RISKING twice as much, and has twice as much "worK' to do, which MAY hurt them from focusing on just one team. People who play in only one league have NO IDEA the work that goes into managing multiple leagues, and just want to highlight the possible BENEFITS. When in reality, the risks FAR OUTWEIGH the benefits.

As for Greg and Tom, the NFBC and NFFC have always had a "home league feel" with a big prize and the customer service is the best in the business (this coming from someone who is not on Greg's "buddy" list)

. As for adding in FanBall and Ryan Houston, I guess we will all have to see.

I'm REALLY hoping that ONE PERSON doesn't think he is better than the bunch, because that would DESTROY both the NFFC/NFBC. That being said, the "Ryan Houston MVP party", sounds a bit pompous ("hey, look at me" ), but I am willing to give Ryan a chance to see what he, Greg, and Tom can do TOGETHER to improve the NFBC/NFFC. Also, if it was intended that Ryan was using his name as an example (like Shawn said) I too apologize. However, I just looked at the picture of the pass, and it certainly doesn't appear that way.

Just my opinions.

[ October 10, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: billywaz ]

mlbbug · Post by **mlbbug** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:32 am

Greg,

The only issue that I would have with one person having multiple teams in the NFBC main event is ensuring that they don't have multiple teams in the SAME LEAGUE!! That would certainly be an unfair advantage if that ever happened.Are there safeguards in place to prevent this situation from ever taking place? Not sure if this issue might have already been addressed since there are over 22 pages of posts.....far too many to read through each one.

Personally,if someone wants to draft a team on both weekends,I see no reason for them not to.Lets just make sure that they can never help one team by making roster adjustments on another.If this new format can help the NFBC reach new heights then let's lend our support to it and give it a chance in 2010 and see how it works out.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:36 am

After reading Tom's comments, and knowing how easy it is to lose proper context/blow things out of proportion on these boards, let me say this ... well done Ryan "E" Houston! I did not like F+W owning the NFBC, and without Ryan/Fanball we might not have an NFBC this year. I am very happy the business is now under control of a fantasy-oriented company with more aggressive ownership who also had the wisdom to keep Greg and Tom intact. Long live Ryan and fanball.

K "J" Duke.

[ October 10, 2009, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:37 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

Could the real magic be in events that are closer to the higher end of the popular home leagues? Say, the $250-500 range. Offering this type of main event makes the cost of travel no longer worth it...and the online option would most likely be the chosen option...so there wouldn't be that "live" image to sell. Tough call.

I think having a nationwide $500.00 or less online event would grow bigger, and thus have larger payouts than a live higher stakes event...but then it's just another online league, with no reason to have cities as host sites at all.Well Lance, you're finally onto something. We are already well ahead of you and have planned another national event that will be between the main event and the online championship and offered that first weekend and second weekend in each city. We'll announce that on Monday (I chose not to do that yesterday because there would be too much at once). So all of your projections of how bad the first weekend will be could be accurate or you could be making bad estimations based on lack of information. So stay tuned.

Again, we built a main event model for 405 teams, one more league than 2009. So obviously we have some other plans for growth those two weekends, right? The Auction Championship is just one piece of the puzzle. Maybe other folks will like the other option we'll be offering. Between all three options plus the Ultimates, Supers, Platinums and more, we don't think there's enough time in one weekend for all of it and our participants may need both weekends to whet their appetites.

So hopefully you'll hold all of your opinions until you see everything.

But we still have Lance predicting that nobody will come the first weekend and so many others begging us not to allow folks to play in the main event twice because so many good players will do both weekends. It's starting to get hard to decipher the real discontent today. Are we allowing too much or too little? And why are we doing both weekends when we could lose so much money the first weekend in Las Vegas and on the East Coast?

Let's talk more on Monday after we unveil our Online/Live contest. Sound good Lance?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:40 am

Originally posted by mlbbug:

Greg,

The only issue that I would have with one person having multiple teams in the NFBC main event is ensuring that they don't have multiple teams in the SAME LEAGUE!! That would certainly be an unfair advantage if that ever happened.Are there safeguards in place to prevent this situation from ever taking place? Not sure if this issue might have already been addressed since there are over 22 pages of posts.....far too many to read through each one.

Personally,if someone wants to draft a team on both weekends,I see no reason for them not to.Lets just make sure that they can never help one team by making roster adjustments on another.If this new format can help the NFBC reach new heights then let's lend our support to it and give it a chance in 2010 and see how it works out. No, nobody has ever taken two main event teams in the NFBC that I'm aware of and if they did they certainly could not be in the same league. I'll guarantee that doesn't happen in our new format.

There's now a few more folks saying they don't mind owners having multiple teams. I'm open for this discussion or even Glenn's idea, which didn't get as much support as I expected. Thanks again.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:45 am

For the record Greg, I also have no problem with multi-team owners. If someone wanted to do it in the past (or in the future) they still could have by having a partner/proxy. I'd rather have the bigger prize pool.

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:46 am

I can only throw into my "great blender in the sky" the info presented...so yes...I'll hold off knowing you'll surprise me with new info planned for "week one" rendering my prediction void.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:50 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

There's now a few more folks saying they don't mind owners having multiple teams. I'm open for this discussion or even Glenn's idea, which didn't get as much support as I expected. Thanks again. I believe we've lost some of the naysayers. After Friday's "spirited" message board conversation, take a look at what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:50 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

After reading Tom's comments, and knowing how easy it is to lose proper context/blow things out of proportion on these boards, let me say this ... well done Ryan "E" Houston! I did not like F+W owning the NFBC, and without Ryan/Fanball we might not have an NFBC this year. I am very happy the business is now under control of a fantasy-oriented company with more aggressive ownership who also had the wisdom to keep Greg and Tom intact. Long live Ryan and fanball.

K "J" Duke.

Now that is good stuff K "J Duke!!

I don't think Ryan is reading this thread anymore, but I'll copy and paste this one to him later today!!

Tom and I are very fortunate that a) we landed with a company that was smart enough to see that we were important to the growth of these events and magazines which they also purchased; and b) that we landed with a fantasy company that has hundreds of thousands of current fantasy players to market our games and content to, while also being owned by a major media company.

Folks, we've all been saying that we need new members to go along with the 80 percent each year who stay with the NFBC. In the past, we were just recruiting those members through our print publications. That's why I felt we needed a big partner, but unfortunately the deal with NBC Sports/Rotoworld.com didn't work out. Had Ryan and Fanball not come through when they did, trust me, I don't believe NFBC VII would be around.

We're not crying for sympathy on this subject, just stating that without even more growth this live events model is minimally profitable at best. Our old company felt changing the prize structure was the way to get more profitable. Fanball believes continued growth with aggressive programs is the way to go. I think we can do that while still offering a level playing field for all involved. Choose the second weekend for the main event, draft in satellite leagues if you want, take our ADPs free of charge from the sats and the first weekend, and then win your league title and the overall. Nobody will have an advantage over you.

Too simplistic? As Tom said, it beats the alternative that we thought was going to happen in 2010.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:51 am

Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

I tend to agree he really did improve his D this year.But,the thinking is he is getting too big for the position. You need to stop listening to scouts. Imagine where the game would be if they were still playing the Mark Belanger types at SS. [/QUOTE]I am not saying I would do this.I am saying the Marlins have had a mind to do it.But,if you ever stand next to the guy he is massive and gets bigger every year.The reason the Marlins moved Miguel Cabrera from short is early in his career they thought he would be too large for short.I know he had the range of a coffee table.But,Hanley was awfull defc.in the minors also. [/QUOTE]Really don't care if Houston has a party or not and I couldn't care less that the NFBC is having two weekends as long as it is in a good geographical location on week two.

But the Hanley thing I'll argue. What the hell is the difference what size he is if he can play D? I hear you saying, "He's gotten better, but he's bigger." So what? If he is the size of Eckstein or Ryan Howard, what is the difference if he can play?

His UZR/150 in 2007 was -20.9, basically meaning he cost the team 21 runs more than an average shortstop. That is pretty abominable and if it continued would challenge Shawn's idea that he is worth more there.

But then in 2008 he had a -0.6 and in 2009 a 0 (perfectly average). I don't care if he gained 400 pounds over that time; he clearly improved his play at the position to the point that it would be a horrible idea to stick him in a position that has a much better offensive standard. [/QUOTE]But,He is still growing.And I am sure there is a limit to how large a person can be and still play a respectable shortstop.I know the Marlins are not the only team to take this position.Perhaps this is part of the reason that it made more sense for AROD to go to third.Didn't Chipper start out a shortstop?I am quite certain this is not the first time you have heard of a player getting too large for shortstop.Once again this is not my idea.But,I know for a fact that the Marlins talked about it.Same as I can tell you that the Royals came very close to a trade involving Zack Grienke last offseason.This is just something that the braintrust of the Marlins are putting thought to.Does not mean for sure that it will happen. [/QUOTE]Yes, shortstops tend to be smaller guys and of course players slide down the defensive spectrum all the time. I think that is at least 95% getting older and less effective on defense but it makes sense that weight can quicken their grasp on the more premium positions.

However, Hanley has gotten progressively better over three years even while gaining weight, and he is still just hitting his peak. He's done nothing to demonstrate he can no longer play it. Quite the opposite. Basically what you're saying is that they'll be proactive just in case. That is a horrible idea because if they're wrong, it will be at a huge detriment to the team construction, whereas they can make a change in season if he suddenly falls off a cliff, no problem.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:52 am

Originally posted by sportsbettingman:

I can only throw into my "great blender in the sky" the info presented...so yes...I'll hold off knowing you'll surprise me with new info planned for "week one" rendering my prediction void.

Did you bet Ryan this is a one-year wonder for both weekends or not? C'mon Sportsbettingman, put up or **** up!!

Nah, wait for all the details first and then let's all decide if this is worth two weekends or not. I think it will be.

DiamondKing · Post by **DiamondKing** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:17 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

quote:Originally posted by DiamondKing:

I tend to agree he really did improve his D this year.But,the thinking is he is getting too big for the position. You need to stop listening to scouts. Imagine where the game would be if they were still playing the Mark Belanger types at SS. [/QUOTE]I am not saying I would do this.I am saying the Marlins have had a mind to do it.But,if you ever stand next to the guy he is massive and gets bigger every year.The reason the Marlins moved Miguel Cabrera from short is early in his career they thought he would be too large for short.I know he had the range of a coffee table.But,Hanley was awfull defc.in the minors also. [/QUOTE]Really don't care if Houston has a party or not and I couldn't care less that the NFBC is having two weekends as long as it is in a good geographical location on week two.

But the Hanley thing I'll argue. What the hell is the difference what size he is if he can play D? I hear you saying, "He's gotten better, but he's bigger." So what? If he is the size of Eckstein or Ryan Howard, what is the difference if he can play?

His UZR/150 in 2007 was -20.9, basically meaning he cost the team 21 runs more than an average shortstop. That is pretty abominable and if it continued would challenge Shawn's idea that he is worth more there.

But then in 2008 he had a -0.6 and in 2009 a 0 (perfectly average). I don't care if he gained 400 pounds over that time; he clearly improved his play at the position to the point that it would be a horrible idea to stick him in a position that has a much better offensive standard. [/QUOTE]But,He is still growing.And I am sure there is a limit to how large a person can be and still play a respectable shortstop.I know the Marlins are not the only team to take this position.Perhaps this is part of the reason that it made more sense for AROD to go to third.Didn't Chipper start out a shortstop?I am quite certain this is not the first time you have heard of a player getting too large for shortstop.Once again this is not my idea.But,I know for a fact that the Marlins talked about it.Same as I can tell you that the Royals came very close to a trade involving Zack Grienke last offseason.This is just something that the braintrust of the Marlins are putting thought to.Does not mean for sure that it will happen. [/QUOTE]Yes, shortstops tend to be smaller guys and of course players slide down the defensive spectrum all the time. I think that is at least 95% getting older and less effective on defense but it makes sense that weight can quicken their grasp on the more premium positions.

However, Hanley has gotten progressively better over three years even while gaining weight, and he is still just hitting his peak. He's done nothing to demonstrate he can no longer play it. Quite the opposite. Basically what you're saying is that they'll be proactive just in case. That is a horrible idea because if they're wrong, it will be at a huge detriment to the team construction, whereas they can make a change in season if he suddenly falls off a cliff, no problem. [/QUOTE]While I tend to lean on your side.Marlins management gets a lot of critisism for some of their moves.But,they tend to be ahead of the curve.I have watched almost every game Hanley has played in the major leagues,and I never thought he could play as well on defc as he did this year.Actually the Marlins may never get a chance to play him in the outfield as his attitude is wearing very thin.It would be a shame to lose one of the top players in baseball.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:25 am

I think Boston will take him!

Captain Crunch · Post by **Captain Crunch** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:30 am

DUKE: I did say the next PART ... and then implied my interpretation of same ...

I'll try to be clearer next time ... :-þ

[ October 11, 2009, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Captain Crunch ]

751542 · Post by **751542** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:35 am

you gotta give back beckett...i guess the way he pitched this year that wouldnt be a problem

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:46 pm

Upon further review...

Earlier in this discussion, I suggested that I had an issue with the possibility of participants purchasing multiple teams. But since that was a first-blush, emotional reaction, I decided to hold off on sharing my reasons, preferring to think things through and post rationally.

And I am glad I did as I have done a 180 on this and have only a very, very minor issue, one which is justifiable but not even close to a deal-breaker for me.

My primary hang-up with someone owning multiple teams was the ability for that person to "game the system", to "hedge". This is what has turned me off to the very popular CDM games, which are now coincidentally owned by Fanball.

By means of a brief explanation, these are salary cap contests using the whole pool of players, the better players carrying a higher salary with the cap set as such that you have to fill in your roster with a big bunch of lesser priced players to stay within the cap. Here, if you have the money and time, it is very possible to construct a series of rosters that will ultimately give one a better chance of winning. The easiest way to demonstrate this is using the NBA playoffs from the Bulls hey-day. CDM ran a playoff contest and I was in a division that had 4 teams owned by the same guy. All the teams had all the Bulls. One had the rest Rockets, another Jazz, another Suns and another Trailblazers. The idea being one will consist of both teams in the finals and have an outstanding chance of winning that league and faring high in the overall. As a grad student at the time, I could only afford one squad and felt I was at a disadvantage. And even though it would be infinitely more difficult to do this with the salary cap baseball league, a bad taste was left in my mouth and I swore off contests where you could buy multiple teams. Though, as a means of supporting Charlie Wiegert and CDM in their battle against MLBAM, I did purchase a baseball team for those seasons.

Anyway...

For the life of me, I cannot come up with a plausible scheme to successfully game/hedge the NFBC if one owns multiple teams.

Ergo, my 180.

There are going to be 389 or 404 other teams I need to beat regardless of who owns them. BRING IT ON!!!

As far as the 2 weekends are concerned, while there is a chance one of your players gets hurt if you draft early, there is also a chance your 26th pick becomes a regular during the ensuing week or your 29th round speculative closer wins the job before the following weekend.

And has been alluded to by a few others, for those of us that fashion ourselves as game theorists/strategists as much as talent evaluators, there are some inherent advantages to drafting early.

Oh yeah, my minor beef with owning multiple teams?

Those owning multiple teams get a disproportionate shot at the bonus for winning multiple events. What I mean is I pat $1650 for one Main team and one on-line squad so I get one shot at the bonus and that shot cost me $1650.

If you buy the 3-pack for $950, you pay $2250 for 3 chances, or $750 per chance.

If you own 2 Main squads and a 3-pack, you have 6 chances for $3550 or $591.67 per shot.

But really, what are the odds someone wins both contests

[ October 10, 2009, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

billywaz · Post by **billywaz** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:26 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

So let's take a look at the schedule:

Friday, March 19th (Las Vegas & East Coast):

Special national auction contest and national live draft to be announced soon

Saturday, March 20th (Las Vegas & East Coast):

10 a.m. PST/1 p.m. EST: NFBC main event

4 p.m. PST/7 p.m. EST: Super League & other live drafts to be announced

Sunday, March 21st (Las Vegas & East Coast):

To Be Announced Soon

Friday, March 26th

Las Vegas, New York City, Chicago (stay tuned):

9 am: Auctions and special drafts, all to be announced soon.

Saturday, March 27th:

Las Vegas, New York City, Chicago (stay tuned):

10 a.m. PST/1 p.m. EST/noon CST: NFBC Main Event

4 p.m.: Super League + special draft to be announced

Sunday, March 28th:

10 a.m. PST/1 p.m. EST: Ultimate League Draft, Super League Draft, 1 more Draft to be announced, plus special draft to be announced

Can we assume from this post that the FIRST weekend will be somewhere OTHER than New York City (as it says East Coast)?

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 6:35 pm

Originally posted by Dirt Dogs:

I think that if you do the two draft times you should only allow one team per owner. This is the MAINE EVENT, THE WORLD SERIES. You get one team, one year, one chance to "pull a lindy". Your guy gets hurt your done, guy pulls an ace on the River card get up and walk away your done.

I dont like an owner being able to run multiple main event teams. yes to win is still an enormous achievement but isnt the main event all about this being your one team and if you do it your the best if your not you have to wait till 2011.

One team per owner I'm only on page 3 of this 24 page thread but I couldn't agree more here.

One thing that made the MAIN EVENT great was 1 team for everybody (NOT 2 teams) and everyone drafting at the same time.

I've read the first 8 pages and skimmed the last 16 or so...

My 2 cents: Since it's so late, all I can come up with is that I like the one team/one chance for the main event... although now I've read that some owners have actually had multiple teams... Still, I like the idea of everyone drafts one team , same time in different cities - just seems to make the main event unique. AND, I feel like I'm on more of a level playing field with everyone else.

ONLINE Championships: YEs, I played in 2009 but I still didn't like the idea of the 3 pack because I knew I could only afford 1 team and felt at a disadvantage to win the grand prize because I only had 1 chance to other people's 3 chances. I didn't like it but I still played.

Now, I do understand the NFBC is trying to grow but I just want the main event to be limited to one owner/one team. If it's not, it won't stop me from playing but I won't like it as much.

To Sum it up: I'm in favor of 1 weekend (not 2) and one owner gets 1 team for the main event. It's late and just hoping my reasons make sense and echo that of some of the others who have posted here.

[ October 11, 2009, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: rkulaski ]