Resignings charts aren't as effective as Agents for creating FA depth and I don't really think that's the issue. (And no I'm not biased ;))
The issue is very basic and b/c one person asked for an explanation that's now been latched onto and my points are so far out of context this convo is getting mucky.... It's simply that too many studs means every nonstud is less effective and less valuable. If there are too many 90s players, the value and impact of the 80s players are mitigated.
When you have a superstar driven league, talent tends to pool and average players are mitigated. See the NBA is 90s versus now. There's no question there's more talent now than in the 90s and so to win you have to join with other superstar talent. We're seeing the same thing in FCM and teams who have pieced together decent rosters the right way aren't able to reap the rewards while teams who haven't like HOU, NYY, TOR, CHC find themselves flush with talent from the ever expanding talent pool. Now this alone isn't an issue, as Sean pointed out Great teams and Dynasties can be built.
When it does become a problem is when the numbers are consistently above what we agreed to, and set, as a league. Especially when you look at rosters and are seeing 8-10 90s players...on 5 or 6 teams. Going back to 1900 you can count on one hand how many teams have had that many "stars", or 90s overall players if you will, at one time. I went back 3 seasons and there's consistently 130 stars at any given moment which means some teams are going to have 8-10 studs. I don't care how good you are at drafting getting 5-6 90s players and still having enough ammo to acquire the other 2-3 to compete just ain't happening without some really insanely good luck. Again, if I'm rebuilding this is really freaking demoralizing.
If we drop the number of 90s players, teams rebuilding don't need to find as many 90s players to get back to the top. That's realistic.
The issue is very basic and b/c one person asked for an explanation that's now been latched onto and my points are so far out of context this convo is getting mucky.... It's simply that too many studs means every nonstud is less effective and less valuable. If there are too many 90s players, the value and impact of the 80s players are mitigated.
When you have a superstar driven league, talent tends to pool and average players are mitigated. See the NBA is 90s versus now. There's no question there's more talent now than in the 90s and so to win you have to join with other superstar talent. We're seeing the same thing in FCM and teams who have pieced together decent rosters the right way aren't able to reap the rewards while teams who haven't like HOU, NYY, TOR, CHC find themselves flush with talent from the ever expanding talent pool. Now this alone isn't an issue, as Sean pointed out Great teams and Dynasties can be built.
When it does become a problem is when the numbers are consistently above what we agreed to, and set, as a league. Especially when you look at rosters and are seeing 8-10 90s players...on 5 or 6 teams. Going back to 1900 you can count on one hand how many teams have had that many "stars", or 90s overall players if you will, at one time. I went back 3 seasons and there's consistently 130 stars at any given moment which means some teams are going to have 8-10 studs. I don't care how good you are at drafting getting 5-6 90s players and still having enough ammo to acquire the other 2-3 to compete just ain't happening without some really insanely good luck. Again, if I'm rebuilding this is really freaking demoralizing.
If we drop the number of 90s players, teams rebuilding don't need to find as many 90s players to get back to the top. That's realistic.
Houston Astros - 2012/2016/2023/2025 Champs!
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)