|
Post by Brian Cashman on Nov 13, 2004 22:18:47 GMT -5
since we have a few new managers and everything lets see what the new Poll results would be.
I vote No. As I had traded away most of my farm and backups before we voted on injuries. Also there seems to be a little bit of bickering going on in another post about this and it just seems liek to much trouble
Again I VOTE NO
|
|
|
Post by metsrule101 on Nov 13, 2004 22:20:51 GMT -5
I also vote NO!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Dale Murphy on Nov 13, 2004 22:26:52 GMT -5
I vote no but i dont see why we just cant use our farm to replace the guy injured of sign FA for fill ins
|
|
|
Post by rtgjeg on Nov 13, 2004 22:26:53 GMT -5
I'd like to see injuries, but it looks like the league cannot find an equitable way to handle them, so I'll change my vote to no.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rizzo on Nov 13, 2004 22:31:20 GMT -5
yes injuries
|
|
|
Post by billybeane on Nov 13, 2004 22:45:04 GMT -5
no injuries
|
|
|
Post by Andy Van Slyke on Nov 13, 2004 22:51:25 GMT -5
yes injuries
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 13, 2004 23:10:41 GMT -5
since we have a few new managers and everything lets see what the new Poll results would be. I vote No. As I had traded away most of my farm and backups before we voted on injuries. Also there seems to be a little bit of bickering going on in another post about this and it just seems liek to much trouble Again I VOTE NO YES YES YES. I absolutely don't understand what is such a "hassle" about this. The game has a known bug. To counteract the bug, teams in the AL are allowed instaheals. It's up to them to use them. It would still take strategy, and if you don't use them, you dont' keep them. If you have 3 guys go down, then it's up to you to use the right one. Injuries keep it realistic, and the instaheals keep it from getting out of hand for the AL, and keep teams from having to use TOO many players. I have no idea why any NL team would have a problem with it... For the record, I am in a league that uses a very similar system. It runs very smoothly, and there has never been a problem. And for teams that "traded away their whole bench"....why wouldn't you want a good bench even without injuries? There are plenty of solid backups at FA when the new file comes out, and there's a reason we have full minor leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Hendry on Nov 13, 2004 23:13:54 GMT -5
I vote yes. Its makes the game more interesting and makes people MANAGE more than just trading their asses off in the preseason.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Nov 13, 2004 23:30:48 GMT -5
I vote yes. Its makes the game more interesting and makes people MANAGE more than just trading their asses off in the preseason. You said what I've been thinking in a whole lot less words...
|
|
|
Post by Jim Bowden on Nov 14, 2004 0:10:47 GMT -5
I vote no injuries.
|
|
|
Post by rangersgm on Nov 14, 2004 1:55:50 GMT -5
I vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by JP Riccardi on Nov 14, 2004 12:09:51 GMT -5
I vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Nov 14, 2004 12:58:05 GMT -5
i vote yes
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 13:26:40 GMT -5
No No No, I vote No.
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 13:35:05 GMT -5
Here is why you would not want a solid bench, when we had NO INJURIES, we didn't have to worry about the bench, here was why I did my trades. Why would I need a bench if all the players on my team can play 100% of the games and not get hurt. NOW you are trying to say that to make it more realistic we are going to change everything, which makes my team screwed if I get 2 big injuries. It would make every team that has one player that is eligible at C go down, example OAK last year, they played someone who isn't available at C, and had TONS of SB against and errors, well if someone's catcher goes down, and they don't have one to replace him, then they are going to end up in last place in the division automatically. If we were going to go with injuries we should have started the league that way, not changed it half way through the off-season, after everyone made trades and signed there FA. My money is spent on my starting players, because I and everyone else in the league was under the impression that there would be no need for a bench if your players were always healthy. If I was voting on whether I would like to have injuries on, I would say yes, but since I am voting on whether I want the file to have an injury plagued piece of shit system doing injuries for it, and we have to do all this stupid instaheal crap to make it better, and we have to start after a season in, and after everyone has done there teams as if there were no injuries, than I have to vote no.
|
|
|
Post by jamesevans on Nov 14, 2004 14:24:11 GMT -5
um no
|
|
|
Post by Mohandas Gandhi on Nov 14, 2004 14:26:55 GMT -5
ill vote ya
|
|
|
Post by Darryl Strawberry on Nov 14, 2004 14:30:22 GMT -5
Stop keeping it even lol, vote is 8-8
|
|
|
Post by kevintowers on Nov 14, 2004 21:28:54 GMT -5
If there is a characteristic of each player that made some more inury prone than others, I'd no doubt vote yes. If I hadn't read some of the stuff above, I'd no doubt vote no. You spent your money thinking you didn't have to worry about injuries? I call BS. You went after big players and would have done so if injuries were already on. With injuires you wouldn't spend half on two really good ss's just in case one got hurt but if one did, you'd have to figure it out. More strategy...not just, like Stonemand and someone else said, trade a million players (99% of which will never be on your ML team ever) set your roster then check back in two months and see if you won the WS. I agree 100% that it makes us use our bench and minors and thats a good thing, especially rewarding those who pay attention to what they've got down there. All we do with those now are trade them around as if they are every going to be used. For as much trading as we do in this league before the season even starts, I think injuries give incentive to in-season trading. If a top team has a main man go down, there is incentive for him to trade to fll the spot and opportunity for bottom feeding teams to still play an impact on the season and turn their misfortune into potential future gain. Take a team like Pittsburgh last year. He had Jose Mesa taking up space on his bench. If Mesa was a FA in the offseason, Pittsburgh might have had a good chance to really improve his team for the new season by trading away Mesa to a contender that lost a closer to injury. I think injuries would lead to more meaningful in season deals so I vote YES. 9-8 in favor of injuries with this vote and what the #%@^#& is this:
|
|