 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Speed Leagues » Cy Young League » this just proves chaperones need restrictions
STEROIDS_R_US
Another reason is 'incentive" to actually "BUY" the team. Meaning Temp owners can make day to day line up moves and send players down and bring them up, pick up waiver players etc to make the team competitive but should be restricted from any trades do to the fact they do not own the team. This is the "incentive" I am talking about because if they really like the team and really want to make trades etc then they will buy it. Instead of letting them do what ever they want with the team including trades then where is the incentive to buy it when they have it all for free ??
this just proves chaperones need restrictions
July 30, 2017 at 11:57PM View BBCode
Temporary owners or Chaperones need to have restrictions on their powers so they do not destroy perfectly competitive teams. Look at Boston, the previous Temp owner wanted to destroy the team and now they are playing for the Cy Young Championship. Previously the temp Seattle owner destroyed that team when it was in its prime and they could have easily won another 2 championships.Another reason is 'incentive" to actually "BUY" the team. Meaning Temp owners can make day to day line up moves and send players down and bring them up, pick up waiver players etc to make the team competitive but should be restricted from any trades do to the fact they do not own the team. This is the "incentive" I am talking about because if they really like the team and really want to make trades etc then they will buy it. Instead of letting them do what ever they want with the team including trades then where is the incentive to buy it when they have it all for free ??
Duff77
And frankly, it hurts the league. Let's say I quit tomorrow. My team is on the verge of a firesale. There are owners all over this league who would like to get their hands on my players. But none of that wheeling and dealing -- the thing SimD is all about -- is going to happen if my team is taken over by a powerless chaperone for five or six seasons. It hurts everyone's experience when teams are not being run competitively.
That said, I agree that Boston should not have been blown up (obviously). Seattle was an iffy proposition. They had fallen to the middle of the pack by the time Ty started the rebuild. I think that decision was justified. But as Ty said, he was thinking about building a team with the future owner in mind. Meazer, I assume, was thinking about the same thing with Boston. And with respect to both those owners, I disagree with that. I understand the logic, but I think the teams should be run competitively, whatever that means at any given time. Seattle's rebuild was, in my opinion, justified. Boston's would have been a travesty.
From my perspective as an owner, I could give a damn if a team is being run for free or not. I just want an environment I can operate in as an owner. It annoys me when I'm looking to trade and have to make my offers based on what teams are actually being run. So while I think there should be general guidelines to chaperones to run their teams competitively, as if they were permanent owners, I'd rather have the teams run in whatever way the chaperones want, rather than setting them on auto-pilot. It hurts everyone.
July 31, 2017 at 07:44PM View BBCode
You seem particularly concerned about someone having a "free team." Remember that it's free only until a permanent owner is found. So these are people who are running and maintaining a team and building for the future when it's entirely possible they will never see the fruits of their labor. I think the incentive works the other way: Once you've put all that time and effort into building a team you're more likely to buy it so you can see it through. If all you can do is maintain the lineup and make waiver wire pickups you're not likely to buy, in my opinion, and far less likely to give much of a crap about running a team you have no real control over.And frankly, it hurts the league. Let's say I quit tomorrow. My team is on the verge of a firesale. There are owners all over this league who would like to get their hands on my players. But none of that wheeling and dealing -- the thing SimD is all about -- is going to happen if my team is taken over by a powerless chaperone for five or six seasons. It hurts everyone's experience when teams are not being run competitively.
That said, I agree that Boston should not have been blown up (obviously). Seattle was an iffy proposition. They had fallen to the middle of the pack by the time Ty started the rebuild. I think that decision was justified. But as Ty said, he was thinking about building a team with the future owner in mind. Meazer, I assume, was thinking about the same thing with Boston. And with respect to both those owners, I disagree with that. I understand the logic, but I think the teams should be run competitively, whatever that means at any given time. Seattle's rebuild was, in my opinion, justified. Boston's would have been a travesty.
From my perspective as an owner, I could give a damn if a team is being run for free or not. I just want an environment I can operate in as an owner. It annoys me when I'm looking to trade and have to make my offers based on what teams are actually being run. So while I think there should be general guidelines to chaperones to run their teams competitively, as if they were permanent owners, I'd rather have the teams run in whatever way the chaperones want, rather than setting them on auto-pilot. It hurts everyone.
STEROIDS_R_US
Really could care less if free or not my point is when something is free you tend to not care as much as if you were paying for it. Not sure how misunderstood that ?
"Seattle was an iffy proposition. They had fallen to the middle of the pack by the time Ty started the rebuild."
Seattle had only fallen to the middle of the pack because no one was running the team anymore, no one was making the right moves for the lineup etc. They could have easily won 2 more championships and you should know you got Claude Rodriguez who has helped you win the last two championships from them as well as other players from Seattle that propped your team up when it looked like they were going to stop winning championships.
" I'd rather have the teams run in whatever way the chaperones want, rather than setting them on auto-pilot. It hurts everyone. "
Exactly how did setting Boston on auto pilot hurt anyone except you that wanted to raid their lineup for your team ?? It never hurt anyone and benefited Boston big time. You can't be hurt from not having what you never had to start with.
"It annoys me when I'm looking to trade and have to make my offers based on what teams are actually being run"
Welcome to my world, I have wanted to do trades with Seattle, Houston but never could because of no owners. Its not hard you skip over that team when making trade offers, sorry it is not a perfect world but letting temp owners trade away their respective teams is not right.
The whole idea of a Temp owner is run the team on a daily basis, make line up changes, bring youngsters up from the minors who should be getting at bats etc, maintaining a competitive team, thats it compared to the team sitting idle (like Seattle and Houston were) and ending up in last place because no one was making regular changes when needed, having youngsters sit in the minors when they should be in the majors. Not ripping apart and destroying CHAMPIONSHIP teams. If temp owners want to make trades so god dam bad then they will buy the team or should buy it.
"And frankly, it hurts the league. Let's say I quit tomorrow. My team is on the verge of a firesale. There are owners all over this league who would like to get their hands on my players. But none of that wheeling and dealing -- the thing SimD is all about -- is going to happen if my team is taken over by a powerless chaperone for five or six seasons."
If your team is so loaded full of all stars do you think it would really take that long to find a real owner - no it would not so your worry about you leaving your team and it not being sold for 5 seasons and hurting everyone in the league is not very feasible. Again you can't be hurt by not having players you never had.
Going by your way of thinking (letting temp owners trade players) Boston would never have won their very first championship. I don't think I need to say anymore then that one sentence to prove my point.
July 31, 2017 at 10:47PM View BBCode
" You seem particularly concerned about someone having a "free team.""Really could care less if free or not my point is when something is free you tend to not care as much as if you were paying for it. Not sure how misunderstood that ?
"Seattle was an iffy proposition. They had fallen to the middle of the pack by the time Ty started the rebuild."
Seattle had only fallen to the middle of the pack because no one was running the team anymore, no one was making the right moves for the lineup etc. They could have easily won 2 more championships and you should know you got Claude Rodriguez who has helped you win the last two championships from them as well as other players from Seattle that propped your team up when it looked like they were going to stop winning championships.
" I'd rather have the teams run in whatever way the chaperones want, rather than setting them on auto-pilot. It hurts everyone. "
Exactly how did setting Boston on auto pilot hurt anyone except you that wanted to raid their lineup for your team ?? It never hurt anyone and benefited Boston big time. You can't be hurt from not having what you never had to start with.
"It annoys me when I'm looking to trade and have to make my offers based on what teams are actually being run"
Welcome to my world, I have wanted to do trades with Seattle, Houston but never could because of no owners. Its not hard you skip over that team when making trade offers, sorry it is not a perfect world but letting temp owners trade away their respective teams is not right.
The whole idea of a Temp owner is run the team on a daily basis, make line up changes, bring youngsters up from the minors who should be getting at bats etc, maintaining a competitive team, thats it compared to the team sitting idle (like Seattle and Houston were) and ending up in last place because no one was making regular changes when needed, having youngsters sit in the minors when they should be in the majors. Not ripping apart and destroying CHAMPIONSHIP teams. If temp owners want to make trades so god dam bad then they will buy the team or should buy it.
"And frankly, it hurts the league. Let's say I quit tomorrow. My team is on the verge of a firesale. There are owners all over this league who would like to get their hands on my players. But none of that wheeling and dealing -- the thing SimD is all about -- is going to happen if my team is taken over by a powerless chaperone for five or six seasons."
If your team is so loaded full of all stars do you think it would really take that long to find a real owner - no it would not so your worry about you leaving your team and it not being sold for 5 seasons and hurting everyone in the league is not very feasible. Again you can't be hurt by not having players you never had.
Going by your way of thinking (letting temp owners trade players) Boston would never have won their very first championship. I don't think I need to say anymore then that one sentence to prove my point.
Duff77
As far as incentive goes... I maintain that a temp owner is more likely to buy a team if they get to actually control it for a few seasons. If it were THAT easy to find owners, we wouldn't have to have this debate. Put some guidelines out there, but let them run the teams. Once they're invested in the work they've done, they'll be more willing to buy. I'd even be open to letting the paying members of a league vote on what sort of direction a temp owner can take a team.
I hope this doesn't become a beef between the two of us because you're one of the only people in this league who ever posts anything. And I still owe you for letting me reclaim Ross Fries when I accidentally waived him all those years ago.
August 01, 2017 at 01:42AM View BBCode
Okay, on Seattle: You might be right. I just remember where they were in the standings and that a good portion of the team was aging. Boston and Cleveland were in ascendance -- if you were going for max value, that was the time. And Seattle got LOADS of value in those trades. So -- I don't think that one was crazy. But AS I SAID -- Ty made it clear in the other thread he was thinking about the next owner and as I said, I don't agree with running a team that way. And maybe I'm reading too much between the lines here, but if you think I'm arguing for temp owners having authority to run their teams as they see fit because it has personally benefited me, you might remember I argued AGAINST meazer taking the trade I was offering. And as for Seattle... Ty had control and he wanted to make the trades. So I did what was best for my club. Or said another way -- I got the players I felt I needed before my competitors could. And I don't regret that or apologize for it.As far as incentive goes... I maintain that a temp owner is more likely to buy a team if they get to actually control it for a few seasons. If it were THAT easy to find owners, we wouldn't have to have this debate. Put some guidelines out there, but let them run the teams. Once they're invested in the work they've done, they'll be more willing to buy. I'd even be open to letting the paying members of a league vote on what sort of direction a temp owner can take a team.
I hope this doesn't become a beef between the two of us because you're one of the only people in this league who ever posts anything. And I still owe you for letting me reclaim Ross Fries when I accidentally waived him all those years ago.
meazer
August 01, 2017 at 07:58PM View BBCode
No offense but you don't seem to understand the reason for a chaperone. Lets see how long it takes to find an owner for the team. As an owner I look for a team I can build into a champion not a team that will win one year then have no pieces left to rebuild because they are all too old. Who cares if an unowned team wins a championship if no one will buy it and all the players age off their roster. The reason I was going to rebuild is to get max value for the players on the team and build a solid group of young players that a new owner could have and build upon. It does no one any good if Boston remains unowned because nobody wants to buy a team with no youth and aging players that aren't worth anything.
STEROIDS_R_US
This is some seriously warped logic, no offense meant but I have been in leagues where "chaperone" means exactly that "chaperone" they take care of the day to day operations of the team so it remains competitive and that's it, they do not tear apart the team. Your line of thinking is exactly why we need restrictions on Temp owners hence the word TEMP. As you stated above " Who cares if an unowned team wins a championship" you also say "As an owner I look for a team I can build into a champion" well the team was already a championship team as proven. Also the fact that you don't care if an Unowned team can win a championship shows you simply do not care. You could have taken over Seattle or Baltimore in their prime, teams that win consecutive championships and you would have torn them apart to do what, to build the exact same thing you already have. Your excuse would have been "I am trying to make it look more attractive to a future owner" If I was the incoming owner I would not have wanted you to do anything with my players. I would want to be the one to trade them. The other thing is say a possible owner sees the team when he presses "buy" but then when he actually gets control of the team he sees the main player he liked has been traded!!! Not a good situation for sure. The very definition of chaperone is to take care of or look after, supervise - here is a simplistic example for you, a young couple has a chaperone with them on their date, does the chaperone take part in the date - no they are just their to make sure no one gets in trouble.
As for how long it takes to find owners in Sim D, it always takes a long time because Sim D is losing customers all the time, just look at all the teams for sale and it has been like that for a long time. I can remember when their used to be a short list of teams available but no more.
Keep in mind to this was Boston's very first championship ever (which you stated you could care less about)
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by STEROIDS_R_US]
August 02, 2017 at 05:06PM View BBCode
Originally posted by meazer
No offense but you don't seem to understand the reason for a chaperone. Lets see how long it takes to find an owner for the team. As an owner I look for a team I can build into a champion not a team that will win one year then have no pieces left to rebuild because they are all too old. Who cares if an unowned team wins a championship if no one will buy it and all the players age off their roster. The reason I was going to rebuild is to get max value for the players on the team and build a solid group of young players that a new owner could have and build upon. It does no one any good if Boston remains unowned because nobody wants to buy a team with no youth and aging players that aren't worth anything.
This is some seriously warped logic, no offense meant but I have been in leagues where "chaperone" means exactly that "chaperone" they take care of the day to day operations of the team so it remains competitive and that's it, they do not tear apart the team. Your line of thinking is exactly why we need restrictions on Temp owners hence the word TEMP. As you stated above " Who cares if an unowned team wins a championship" you also say "As an owner I look for a team I can build into a champion" well the team was already a championship team as proven. Also the fact that you don't care if an Unowned team can win a championship shows you simply do not care. You could have taken over Seattle or Baltimore in their prime, teams that win consecutive championships and you would have torn them apart to do what, to build the exact same thing you already have. Your excuse would have been "I am trying to make it look more attractive to a future owner" If I was the incoming owner I would not have wanted you to do anything with my players. I would want to be the one to trade them. The other thing is say a possible owner sees the team when he presses "buy" but then when he actually gets control of the team he sees the main player he liked has been traded!!! Not a good situation for sure. The very definition of chaperone is to take care of or look after, supervise - here is a simplistic example for you, a young couple has a chaperone with them on their date, does the chaperone take part in the date - no they are just their to make sure no one gets in trouble.
As for how long it takes to find owners in Sim D, it always takes a long time because Sim D is losing customers all the time, just look at all the teams for sale and it has been like that for a long time. I can remember when their used to be a short list of teams available but no more.
Keep in mind to this was Boston's very first championship ever (which you stated you could care less about)
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by STEROIDS_R_US]
STEROIDS_R_US
But getting back to Seattle I remember seeing them starting to fall in the standings so I contacted their owner to find out why some of his players were no longer in there normal positions and he told me he lost control of the team so he could not do anything. That was when Seattle was dropping in the standings and whoever took control of the team (commish or someone else) made sure to drive it into the ground not just with the trades but playing others out of position etc.
AS for Fries, right is right and wrong is wrong - it would have been wrong for me to have kept him knowing you dropped him by mistake.
August 02, 2017 at 05:17PM View BBCode
Duff - no worries mate it is just a difference of opinion. I am certainly not making a stand here just because it was your team that benefitted from the trades and the trades themselves were fair trades, no one is questioning that.But getting back to Seattle I remember seeing them starting to fall in the standings so I contacted their owner to find out why some of his players were no longer in there normal positions and he told me he lost control of the team so he could not do anything. That was when Seattle was dropping in the standings and whoever took control of the team (commish or someone else) made sure to drive it into the ground not just with the trades but playing others out of position etc.
AS for Fries, right is right and wrong is wrong - it would have been wrong for me to have kept him knowing you dropped him by mistake.
STEROIDS_R_US
Especially given the example of Boston there really needs to be a set of restrictions on Temp Owners.
August 02, 2017 at 05:22PM View BBCode
I did send a message to our Commish Lenoard asking him for a no trade policy on temp owners but have yet to hear back from him on this issue.Especially given the example of Boston there really needs to be a set of restrictions on Temp Owners.
Leonard
In addition, one of teams that I am chaperoning has been available since November. If a chaperone has restrictions placed on him/her such a team could be a mess.
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by Leonard]
August 02, 2017 at 09:22PM View BBCode
Commissioners don't have much control over chaperones. Admin would have to add the restrictions or else the chaperone can do as they please. I would rather have chaperones than have the teams be unowned because that means the commissioner has to set the rosters, lineups, and rotations. That's ok for a season or two but it gets tedious when you have several teams that have been without owners for several months. When I chaperone a team, I treat it as if it were mine and try to make it as competitive as I can. I think that makes the team more attractive to potential owners. Part of the problem, as I have stated elsewhere, is that leagues with six or more ownerless teams should be shut down as was previous policy and that isn't being done.In addition, one of teams that I am chaperoning has been available since November. If a chaperone has restrictions placed on him/her such a team could be a mess.
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by Leonard]
STEROIDS_R_US
obviously each league is different and certainly not all chaperones have their teams best interests in mind, just look at Meazer. He would have torn apart Boston at their prime, they just won their very first championship and sit in first place in the follow up season. He would have torn it apart to rebuild it to accomplish the very thing the team is doing now and when you rebuild there is no guarantee that the team will even win a championship.
So Leonard basically you have been playing for free with total control over the team you said you were chaperoning for 9 months !! So why have you not bought the team then ?
Obviously if you have not bought the team after having full control over it for 9 months you have no interest in buying the team and actually either inherited a really bad team or did a bad job of rebuilding it since no one else is interested in buying it.
That could be a very important restriction to add to TEMP owners, if they are granted 'full control" then place the restriction of a certain time period that yes they can run it with full control but say for only 1 month or 2 months, if an owner is not found and the Temp owner is not interested then it would be time to find another Temp owner to see if they like it or can do a better job of rebuilding it since no one was interested in it.
Bottom line is we have one of the more active leagues in all of Sim D for Baseball for the amount of actual owners in this league compared to many others with only 8, 9 , 10 owners being shut down or merged to other leagues. We have maintained a true base of good owners. It should be easier for this league to fill spots compared to those other leagues. Unfortunately now with Horseradish leaving that will bring our vacant owner teams up to 4 meaning we have 12 real owners in the league. Which makes it very important NOT TO LET A TEMP OWNER RUN A TEAM FOR 9 MONTHS like Leonard in another league. We need someone willing to commit to their teams so if no one is found or the temp owner does not buy his team in say 2 months then another temp owner is needed to replace him or her for a couple of reasons.
1. the temp owner is obviously not interested in buying the team
2. the temp owner must have done a bad rebuilding job for no one to be interested in buying the team so better off getting another temp owner in to rebuild it properly.
I sent a message to ADMIN concerning this with suggestions on restrictions for Temp owners - 1. for no trades and if trades and full control is allowed then a TIME LIMIT for the Temp owner.
[Edited on 8-4-2017 by STEROIDS_R_US]
August 04, 2017 at 09:43PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Leonard
In addition, one of teams that I am chaperoning has been available since November. If a chaperone has restrictions placed on him/her such a team could be a mess.
[Edited on 8-2-2017 by Leonard]
obviously each league is different and certainly not all chaperones have their teams best interests in mind, just look at Meazer. He would have torn apart Boston at their prime, they just won their very first championship and sit in first place in the follow up season. He would have torn it apart to rebuild it to accomplish the very thing the team is doing now and when you rebuild there is no guarantee that the team will even win a championship.
So Leonard basically you have been playing for free with total control over the team you said you were chaperoning for 9 months !! So why have you not bought the team then ?
Obviously if you have not bought the team after having full control over it for 9 months you have no interest in buying the team and actually either inherited a really bad team or did a bad job of rebuilding it since no one else is interested in buying it.
That could be a very important restriction to add to TEMP owners, if they are granted 'full control" then place the restriction of a certain time period that yes they can run it with full control but say for only 1 month or 2 months, if an owner is not found and the Temp owner is not interested then it would be time to find another Temp owner to see if they like it or can do a better job of rebuilding it since no one was interested in it.
Bottom line is we have one of the more active leagues in all of Sim D for Baseball for the amount of actual owners in this league compared to many others with only 8, 9 , 10 owners being shut down or merged to other leagues. We have maintained a true base of good owners. It should be easier for this league to fill spots compared to those other leagues. Unfortunately now with Horseradish leaving that will bring our vacant owner teams up to 4 meaning we have 12 real owners in the league. Which makes it very important NOT TO LET A TEMP OWNER RUN A TEAM FOR 9 MONTHS like Leonard in another league. We need someone willing to commit to their teams so if no one is found or the temp owner does not buy his team in say 2 months then another temp owner is needed to replace him or her for a couple of reasons.
1. the temp owner is obviously not interested in buying the team
2. the temp owner must have done a bad rebuilding job for no one to be interested in buying the team so better off getting another temp owner in to rebuild it properly.
I sent a message to ADMIN concerning this with suggestions on restrictions for Temp owners - 1. for no trades and if trades and full control is allowed then a TIME LIMIT for the Temp owner.
[Edited on 8-4-2017 by STEROIDS_R_US]
rodrayha
I own 6 teams in SD and know many different owners either through messaging or just name and watching how they run a franchise and feel I have earned some respect from them. They know I am doing what is best for the website and the league. Good chaperones can help leagues until real owners are found and remember that chaperones get no recognition for the time they put in to make your leagues better and more enjoyable. I appreciate the owners that take the time to thank me.
I would say you might be correct on setting a time limit on how long it takes to get a team sold. I'm not saying this to ruffle feathers, but I thought it might be different coming from someone who takes chaperoning serious and has been successful at it and also had decent success in this league (since I do have the team with the most total wins in league history I had to say that now because I might not be able to next year!!)
August 05, 2017 at 01:23AM View BBCode
I would like to disagree with some of your thoughts on chaperones. I have been chaperoning many different teams for about a year and can say that I have done the best job I can to get my teams sold. I have had about 20 sold in that span. I look at my job as one who is trying to entice another owner to buy it. That means it needs to be young and on the verge of being competitive for 8-10 years. I don't agree with a chaperone who trades for any player over 30 who has no value for a potential owner. If I build an old team that is a contender, then an owner will come in and buy it for a couple of years and unfortunately then let it go . i have seen many owners who just bounce around trying to win championships and leave the league just like that or they are trying to help their owners card and don't really care about the league. I would take a poor chaperone over those owners any day!! ( I have actually chaperoned the same team twice. Both times an owner won multiple championships and then left)I own 6 teams in SD and know many different owners either through messaging or just name and watching how they run a franchise and feel I have earned some respect from them. They know I am doing what is best for the website and the league. Good chaperones can help leagues until real owners are found and remember that chaperones get no recognition for the time they put in to make your leagues better and more enjoyable. I appreciate the owners that take the time to thank me.
I would say you might be correct on setting a time limit on how long it takes to get a team sold. I'm not saying this to ruffle feathers, but I thought it might be different coming from someone who takes chaperoning serious and has been successful at it and also had decent success in this league (since I do have the team with the most total wins in league history I had to say that now because I might not be able to next year!!)
STEROIDS_R_US
Admin does not come out and actually say they will enforce anything at least not yet.
August 10, 2017 at 01:54PM View BBCode
from ADMIN ChrisOriginally posted by Admin
Chaperone owners should show a small c after their name, I will double check to see if it is working.
Preventing chaperone trades is not a terrible idea. At a minimum they should not be able to trade away draft picks. A Commish can request removal of a chaperone if needed.
After a month of being chaperoned, we are supposed to turn the team over to DynastyBot but that was very unpopular so I haven't been doing it lately. But for some of these long-term chaperone situations it may be the lesser of two evils.
Chris
Admin does not come out and actually say they will enforce anything at least not yet.
Ty031699
I believe there's still flaws with the dynasty bot, you can just take a look at Boston's roster and see for yourself. Would you or a chaperone really have Hisano still sitting in the minors, especially over Beck, Graves, or even a 3rd catcher that has had 26 AB this year? Walk still sitting in the minors? 16 players in the minors? C endurance pitchers in the starting lineup?
August 10, 2017 at 02:52PM View BBCode
I'd be all in favor of a time restriction on a chaperone but the only issue there is the team will get turned over to the dynasty bot.I believe there's still flaws with the dynasty bot, you can just take a look at Boston's roster and see for yourself. Would you or a chaperone really have Hisano still sitting in the minors, especially over Beck, Graves, or even a 3rd catcher that has had 26 AB this year? Walk still sitting in the minors? 16 players in the minors? C endurance pitchers in the starting lineup?
STEROIDS_R_US
August 10, 2017 at 04:03PM View BBCode
For the "unowned" who do not have a chaperone or BOT the commish is supposed to be setting the lineup so things like that do not happen.
Ty031699
August 10, 2017 at 04:21PM View BBCode
In my experience, the "unowned" teams act exactly like a bot. The commish would have to reset any changes ABE makes everyday, lineups remain relatively unchanged but rotations and minors are changed daily.Pages: 1