|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 4:35:05 GMT -5
I know this one is going to come back up, since there was some heated debate about it in-season. I think the most recent idea- which I wasn't a fan of, but Joe and some other guys liked- was to allow other teams to "bid" for the right to enter a CE battle with a team that currently has a player. So for example, since 1B Paul Goldschmidt will be 6th next season, the highest bidding team out of 29 would then be in a bidding war with me to CE him- and the proposed idea was that this would allow a team to sign him not just to a 1-year CE, but a multi-year FA contract.
And this idea was proposed as a "solution" to eliminating 2-year contract extensions after 6th.
I don't think this would be a good idea for the following reasons:
1. It doesn't really mimic anything that MLB does. Teams never lose players to other teams against their will, without them hitting the open market.
2. It would deplete the FA pool, by allowing the most marquee players to be signed up to an additional 7 years past 6th. Our recent FA pools have already been scratching for elite talent, and this would ensure that the very best players aren't even hitting FA for the first time until their mid-30's. Again, this doesn't mimic anything that MLB does, as the most elite players there want to hit FA as soon as possible.
3. Finally, while the holding team of a player has a chance to lock them up long-term prior to FA, they have to try to do so through a Roulette-style bidding war that risks them coming away with nothing at all.
So for example, if I knew I wouldn't be able to retain Goldschmidt through his +2 CE as the current rule states, I could trade him in the offseason for a significant haul of prospects and picks. But in this scenario, I would want to retain him, but then still lose him for nothing. You would have to bring back 1st round compensation picks, and the whole reason we created the Winter Draft years ago was because it became too difficult to determine which players were worthy of what compensation picks.
I recall the whole CE+2 debate spinning out of an unrelated debate I started by giving suggestions on how to make the CE numbers more equitable across all positions. I never thought being able to extend a player 2 years past 6th was really a problem in any way. Thanks!
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 9:16:08 GMT -5
The idea of doing an open market CE before the sixth year was quickly amended to doing it after their sixth. I've stated that probably a dozen times in the original discussion but it keeps getting brought up as a reason to not do my proposal.
As long as players don't get a say in the contracts they sign, we'll always need a system that does not mirror real life.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 10:27:49 GMT -5
But even then, you're still losing potentially 2 extra years that you could've retained the player in our current system.
And you can't even argue that it's increasing market liquidity, because you basically have these guys getting locked up without even really hitting the open market. Which, if we use the "Sim MLBPA" like Sean likes to bring up sometime, I can't imagine they would be fans of that.
I'm not going to call saying players "don't get a say" something mean like a copout, but I don't see how that's really relevant. The AI of Diamond Mind is nowhere close to having individual player negotiation tendencies, so I think as you yourself have said, the market sets the prices in their place.
Joe, I guess my biggest issue is that nobody outside of you really ever had any issue with the CE+2. The issue that a lot of GMs have is the large positional differences in CE payouts. You can absolutely fix that part without blowing up the system entirely.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 11:02:24 GMT -5
so I think as you yourself have said, the market sets the prices in their place. The market cannot set the price on a player's worth if they never reach the market. And obviously I am not the only one who had an issue with the system as it was constructed, since I am neither the person who brought up changing it last year, nor the person who created the proposed system. You seem to think teams are entitled to these extra years that we've been allowing teams to sign players to. No team is entitled to any season past their sixth in real life. We constructed a system to try to allow teams to sign players to extensions, but it's broken. We've tried to establish a way to make them close to market value, but we can't do that. It is impossible to make a contract market value without the market setting that value. It is impossible to set market value with a formula. All you come out with is a Spreadsheet value, not market value. In the proposed system every single player hits the open market after six years. You keep saying they don't, but you're wrong. How is letting 29 teams bid on a player "not allowing them to hit the market". Basically, every team gets to bid on being the Day 1 team, and the former team is automatically the Day 2 team. It's that simple.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Oct 27, 2016 14:48:14 GMT -5
I agree that the market will have to set the CE price in order to have a better system. There is no formula that can emulate the market in the way needed. The best way to set up a market price system would be to have open bidding, and the retaining team is D2 bidder. Im on board with a system like this, its the best way to make this process some what realistic.
Maybe put a cap on the years teams can offer? Say a 2-3 year max?
If an stud/mvp in his prime is coming off his 6th year, his bidding would probably lead to a lengthy contract. Which would put him in the free agent pool well after his prime years, in order to make sure that some premium players do see free agency in their prime years (which is what agents/players in RL do want) a year cap on proposed contract extensions would have to be in place.
Im against any system that hands out contract extensions like the Kyle Seager one.
Thats my penny thought
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 15:36:35 GMT -5
You seem to think teams are entitled to these extra years that we've been allowing teams to sign players to. No team is entitled to any season past their sixth in real life. This simply isn't true. A great majority of pre-arb and arbitration-eligible players are extended into their first guaranteed contracts by their original teams prior to their 6th years. And I posted articles last year showing that the trend of this happening in Major League Baseball is actually growing, not diminishing. Simply put, teams are realizing the value of retaining their own talent, and players are realizing the value of taking less money by having it locked in far, far earlier. Now if you wanted a change, allowing teams to lock up players earlier than their 5th year, to extend to the CE+2, is actually more in line with what MLB is doing right now. GMs could have the advantage of locking in a rate early prior to arbitration skyrocketing in years 5-6, while giving up the flexibility to simply non-tender a player in arbitration if he does poorly. This allows the sim players the advantage of having the money locked in and guaranteed earlier, just like real life. To me, if a change is desired, something like that seems a lot more akin to what's actually going on in MLB right meow. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 15:59:23 GMT -5
You seem to think teams are entitled to these extra years that we've been allowing teams to sign players to. No team is entitled to any season past their sixth in real life. This simply isn't true. It's very true. Show me where a team is entitled to a player after their sixth year (or seventh if they spent enough days in the minors to enbsure a 7th year). The current CBA allows teams to control a player for up to 6 years. If a player signs for longer, that is the player's choice. Teams are not entitled to players past their sixth year. This is not Reserve Clause Era baseball. We are in the post-Curt Flood Era. We are doing our best to mimic what is done in real life, but because there is an absence of player involvement in the negotiation process, we can't fully replicate the process. We don't have the ability to let players decide if they want to stay with a team or not. Or for players to exercise No Trade Clauses. These simulation players are completely at our mercy. Just because you want players at below market value, doesn't mean that everyone does. Everyone complains about players on other teams that get low CE numbers, but I have yet to see a single owner say "Hey, this CE for my player is too low. I should pay them more to make it fair and they're worth it." Again, the only way to get a true market value is to let the market set the value.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 16:04:24 GMT -5
Oh c'mon Joe. Now you're just playing loose with words to prop up a pretty questionable idea. Teams aren't entitled to anything. But both players and teams have realized the shared advantages of signing guaranteed contracts for longer years early, and there's a multitude of evidence to support that.
I'm fine with making rule changes that add to the fun and enjoyment of the league. But this one will just piss people off. It's one thing to lose a free agent to another team in a bidding war. All you're really out is your hometown discount. But it's quite another to have a player poached from you in some Roulette-style bidding war when you are trying to CE them.
It's going to piss people off, and you're going to have a ton more inflated contracts in the sim. Then after the thrill of poaching the player wears off, GMs are going to be trying to move the contract a season later.
Sorry man. Respect the passion, but don't like the idea at all.
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 16:04:44 GMT -5
Look at it this way: when was the last time you payoffs a signing bonus for your first or second round picks? Or paid a contract buyout when you declined an option year?
We get enough breaks when it comes to paying these players, and now that the salary cap numbers have been fixed, take a look at how much extra was out there floating around.
Teams have the money.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 16:50:18 GMT -5
It's not a matter of having the money entirely; it's a matter of screwing a GM out of a player that he or she is trying to keep prior to free agency, which we've never done before. Regardless of whether your plan is happening in 5th or 6th, teams are going to be faced with either trading a guy way early to avoid this showdown, or go to the dance and risk losing a marquee player for absolutely nothing in return. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 18:25:08 GMT -5
I'm fine with making rule changes that add to the fun and enjoyment of the league. But this one will just piss people off. It's one thing to lose a free agent to another team in a bidding war. All you're really out is your hometown discount. But it's quite another to have a player poached from you in some Roulette-style bidding war when you are trying to CE them. It's going to piss people off, and you're going to have a ton more inflated contracts in the sim. Then after the thrill of poaching the player wears off, GMs are going to be trying to move the contract a season later. What is the difference between teams "poaching" players in the proposed system and the system that's currently in place? You do it after the 6th year, instead of the 8th if the player had a CE. That and now you're assured of being in the bidding war. No matter what. Everything else you're saying is going to happen already happens. Nothing changes. Teams already trade players with a year left, and teams already trade players after that first season. You're crying "wolf" while sitting in a wolf sanctuary. The absolute only thing you're upset about is the idea of having to pay players what they're worth. You want to institute a Reserve Clause and dictate what players make instead of letting the market dictate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 19:45:31 GMT -5
Honestly, the CE system should be something like you have to extend after year 3 or 4 (so going into years 4 & 5), it is +1 with a team option year for +2 that is highly inflated.
Once you get to year 6, no CE'ing a player.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 19:59:34 GMT -5
What is the difference between teams "poaching" players in the proposed system and the system that's currently in place? You do it after the 6th year, instead of the 8th if the player had a CE. That and now you're assured of being in the bidding war. No matter what. The major difference is that the team knows the player's contract is up when their CE expires. So going into the final season, they have a clear cut choice to either keep him for one last run, or trade him at some point during the season for prospects. The player will be a free agent, and they would have to win him back. No hard feelings there. IMO, that's completely different than what you're advocating for this system. Here, a GM would be faced with trading a player up to 3 years prematurely, or risk losing him for nothing by trying to keep him. Here, a GM would be poaching a player prior to FA, rather than winning him straight up in FA. Nothing about this is good. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 20:00:51 GMT -5
Honestly, the CE system should be something like you have to extend after year 3 or 4 (so going into years 4 & 5), it is +1 with a team option year for +2 that is highly inflated. Once you get to year 6, no CE'ing a player. While I still don't think this is better than what we already have, it is a far superior option that at least comes close to approximating real life, and still affords the opportunity to extend to +2. Thanks Mike, JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 20:22:12 GMT -5
The major difference is that the team knows the player's contract is up when their CE expires. So going into the final season, they have a clear cut choice to either keep him for one last run, or trade him at some point during the season for prospects. The player will be a free agent, and they would have to win him back. No hard feelings there. How is that any different? You ALWAYS know when your contract with a player ends. How is the end of a CE any different than the end of the 6th year? If you want to extend them, you know you will face competition to do so. You just want two extra years, at below market value, of control. That's what it comes down to. IMO, that's completely different than what you're advocating for this system. Here, a GM would be faced with trading a player up to 3 years prematurely, or risk losing him for nothing by trying to keep him. Here, a GM would be poaching a player prior to FA, rather than winning him straight up in FA. Why do you have to trade them three years early? You're just making up stuff now. That's like me saying "well, I may lose them in three years after their CE is up, so I might as well trade him now." It's a ridiculous statement. And it's not prior to free agency. This basically is free agency. You got a player for six years. That's all you're entitled to. But for expiring 6th year contracts, we would allow only one day of open bidding, and then the source team is automatically the Day 2 bidder if they want (or they can withdraw without a counter). How is being assured of ALWAYS being in the bidding war for your players a bad thing? I wish I knew that for every player that I drafted and hung on to for six year, that I would automatically have a chance to keep them as long as I paid them what they're worth. I don't have to worry about just missing out on both the Day 1 and the Day 2 bids, and then losing them for nothing. This system guarantees you the chance to always keep your players. Nothing about this is good. You act like this is burning down the earth. How does this system compare to the first four years or so of the league before we even had a CE system. When 6th year players just hit free agency and all you had was a hometown discount? (And we didn't even have that the first couple years if I remember correctly). The league didn't fold. People weren't trading their players before their 4th year because they might lose them in two years (if they traded them, it's because it brought in value). The league didn't collapse in on itself. It operated just fine. But we tried to improve it and have had multiple incarnations, and all of them have failed because they rely on a spreadsheet formula. The CE system has failed. This new system just resets itself, but with a wrinkle.... you automatically get into the bidding war of any player completing their 6th year. But now, because we tried a system that failed, you feel entitled to keep these players longer than their six years of servitude, without having to pay them market value. That's all this comes down to. Entitlement to own players for longer, instead of allowing them to hit free agency while their value is still higher.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 20:29:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 27, 2016 21:10:35 GMT -5
Why do you have to trade them three years early? You're just making up stuff now. I'm not, actually. In our current system, if you are willing to pay the CE+2 rate, you can keep them 2 years after 6th. With your proposed system, teams would have to give serious thought to trading players before their 6th year, or risk losing them for nothing. 6th CE1 CE2 ...that's 3 years. I'm sorry, but this new "entitlement" angle you are playing is just plain silly, and again, flies in the face of what ALLLLL MLB teams and players are doing these days. With very few exceptions, the only MLB players in real life hitting free agency after their 6th years are those not worth signing to long-term extensions. Too bad the consequences to this "guaranteed chance" is losing them for nothing. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's relevant. As a testament to you and Sean, this league has been around since 2003. It's almost 2017. Why are we making comparisons to what the league did back in 2007? At the time, we were just happy to have wrestled the league from the control of the nefarious Jeff W. Cissna, before he burned the whole damn thing to the ground. Maybe the formulas just suck? My initial foray into this was simply to correct the formulas. It's disappointing to me that wasn't given serious consideration prior to this very radical change being proposed. I truly think you're one of the only people that think that. Are GMs unhappy with the positional inequality payouts for certain positions? Sure. But that can be fixed. I think everyone is pretty happy being able to extend their better players 2 years past 6th. Again with the "entitlement." They aren't hitting free agency though. They're put into some random 1-day affair, where 29 other teams get one single bid at them before they disappear again for another 7 years or so. Doesn't sound like much fun to me. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Oct 27, 2016 22:45:17 GMT -5
Too bad the consequences to this "guaranteed chance" is losing them for nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 0:19:30 GMT -5
The only problem with that, Joe, is that players do routinely sign for less than market value to buy out a couple of years, in order to guarantee themselves a payday through arbitration.
I'm not for holding down salaries, hell I came up with a CE system last year that a few abhorred because it was putting high values on the best individual players in the CE pool (while maintaining relatively the same overall avg CE per player).
My thoughts are, after year 3 and year 4, go to CE negotiation for 6th +1 w/ a team option for the +2.
That locks in the arb years and one FA for the players (cuts risk on their end). Use whatever system to come up with the value. The option year would be a predefined high value (maybe 75% increase, 100% increase, whatever). Make it an uncomfortable decision for the GM to make.
Remember, the CE will be averaged over 4 years (4th, 5th, 6th, +1), so the value will seem to be high at first but won't go up because we don't track contracts like that. So, where in MLB, a player in that situation might sign for yearly amounts of $3M (4th), $5M (5th), $8M (6th), $12M (+1), the same NSBL contract would be for $7M annually. A 100% increase to $14M makes sense here for an option year. I don't recall how the CE's are being calculated now, but we'd have to ensure it was a fair market value to the player. The good thing about doing this with players after 3rd year is that their salaries wouldn't yet be messed up by our crappy arbitration value formula that is being used.
If we would indeed go to this, the first year we would have to grandfather the 6th year players in under the old (current) system.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 28, 2016 5:29:37 GMT -5
The only problem with that, Joe, is that players do routinely sign for less than market value to buy out a couple of years, in order to guarantee themselves a payday through arbitration. Yes. This is the point I'm trying to get across. And frankly, there's only a few positions (C comes to mind) where the CE values are really abnormally low. That could be relatively easily fixed by altering the equations. I mean, if you want higher numbers and don't like the positional differences, why not alter the equations to reflect all hitters, as opposed to making it position-by-position? JIm
|
|
|
Post by Bal-Ty-more on Oct 28, 2016 8:50:06 GMT -5
Didn't we go over all this shit last year and already fix the system? What are you complaining about now, Jim? Are you just mad that Joe likes a different system, that we're not even using? Is your complaint that Joe has a different view that isn't even being applied to the league, and that he wasn't even suggesting right now?
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 28, 2016 10:09:09 GMT -5
1. Back off, Ty. Complete weak game on your part. #rabblerousin'
2. On the General board, Joe asked us to start listing changes for the offseason on this Suggestions board.
3. No, it was never "fixed." I proposed a simple system that would've adjusted for positional inequalities and prevented huge salary surges within the traditional CE+2 system. Joe or somebody proposed a radical change which somewhat diverted the original conversation- which is fine, but then it never went anywhere.
4. It wasn't suggested yet, but I also know that this was a big enough issue that it wasn't going away. So, I chose to head it off and at least talk about it, before the new idea was rubber stamped through.
JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 10:30:14 GMT -5
I am still of the opinion that any CE should start at the qualifying offer level, which is currently the average of the Top 125 salaries in the league. Then guys that should be extended can be at "near market rates". if we bid against a second team from there in good with that, if that is where it ends and a team can take or leave that level I'm good with that also.
|
|
|
Post by Bal-Ty-more on Oct 28, 2016 12:30:39 GMT -5
1. Back off, Ty. Complete weak game on your part. #rabblerousin' 2. On the General board, Joe asked us to start listing changes for the offseason on this Suggestions board. 3. No, it was never "fixed." I proposed a simple system that would've adjusted for positional inequalities and prevented huge salary surges within the traditional CE+2 system. Joe or somebody proposed a radical change which somewhat diverted the original conversation- which is fine, but then it never went anywhere. 4. It wasn't suggested yet, but I also know that this was a big enough issue that it wasn't going away. So, I chose to head it off and at least talk about it, before the new idea was rubber stamped through. JIm No Jim. Pay attention. This was changed last year and the CE formula was altered. Ian does it now. All this is, is you always needing something to complain about. If the system isn't exactly as you like it, you complain and complain and complain. Have you ever noticed that since you've gone all Alex Jones on the message boards no one else says anything? You have no regard for anyone else's enjoyment in this league, only yours. You left the committee and your opportunity to change the league to your liking. But now you want to just complain about the powers that be because you like to complain. You and everyone else can talk a big game but when it comes down to actually doing something to help the league you are nowhere to be found. How many of you people actually sent the money after he paid a ton of money for the website this year and for the projections and software in previous years? Last I heard, the couple bucks I gave him was all he'd ever received from anyone. How many times do they have to change the system before you realize it does not work? Why should they spend their valuable time working on this league when all you do is complain about it? If you want things done your way why don't you create your own League? Are we just going to change the system year after year after year until only Jim is happy? You and Mike are the only two complaining about the CE system as it's currently run. You keep quoting that all these other owners are going to be upset yet we hear nothing from them. I think this is just another example of you assigning your beliefs to a greater majority. I've seen how much time is taken away from his family for the benefit of this league. And now Ian isrunning the CE and free agency I am guessing he loses just as much time with his family. And from what I hear he is about to have twins on top of the child he already has. Have you ever thought that maybe they just don't have the time to run all these numbers for everyone?
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 28, 2016 19:59:16 GMT -5
That's one of the most bizarre posts I've ever read here.
I have no problem with the CE+2 system as is. I like it, and aside from ironing out some positional discrepancies, I think almost everyone else does too. I started this conversation because Joe asked for offseason suggestions, and I knew a small amount of people were going to have CE modifications at the forefront.
There's no reason we can't keep this professional without taking personal shots about me somehow trying to sabotage Ian's personal life.
I was pulling for a Jim-Ty World Series, but I don't think it would be much fun at this point. Go Patrick! #hipstersunite
JIm
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 29, 2016 2:30:44 GMT -5
You and everyone else can talk a big game but when it comes down to actually doing something to help the league you are nowhere to be found. Last I heard, the couple bucks I gave him was all he'd ever received from anyone. By the way Ty, this is completely false. I have mailed money in the past, and I'm pretty sure Tracy has too. I asked Sean this past season if he'd give me his address so that I could send more, but he politely declined. I think being in the league for all 13 years since its founding, being involved, and being on the Committee for a good 5 years or so counts as "doing something to help." JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 12:16:41 GMT -5
This seems topical here - www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2017-free-agents-who-could-have-been/Fangraphs looks at the 12 players who could've been free agents for the first time this offseason who signed extensions to push back their first time free agency dates. They are looking at it from players perspective, whether it was a good or bad decision (meaning would they make more money if they hadn't signed is a bad decision). Four of the 12 they come to conclusion made good/okay decisions - Francisco Cervelli, Starlin Castro, Michael Brantley, and Giancarlo Stanton. Eight of the 12 would like a do-over Fangraphs thinks - Carlos Santana, Madison Bumgardner, Chris Sale, Freddie Freeman, Jonathan Lucroy, Craig Kimbrel, Josh Tomlin, and Chris Stewart. Now, Tomlin and Stewart wouldn't get CE here, but I think there's a pretty good case that the other 10 would. The guys on the second list are some huge names, and they indeed took contracts that bought out free agent years at a reduced price. I think this validates the need for a CE system, and most likely a return to a CE+2 system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 13:16:20 GMT -5
How does this verify the need for a CE system? If anything it shows that players will be less likely to sign extensions in the future or if the do it will need to be sufficiently in the players favor with opt-outs included (a la Kershaw).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2016 13:52:28 GMT -5
How does this verify the need for a CE system? If anything it shows that players will be less likely to sign extensions in the future or if the do it will need to be sufficiently in the players favor with opt-outs included (a la Kershaw). It shows that star players are indeed signing "less-than-market-value" extensions. This isn't new or going away either, as guys like Trout, Marte, Quintana, Altuve, B. Crawford, Kipnis, Belt, Sal Perez, Andrus, Kluber, and Matt Moore (amongst others) will be on this same list in the next two years.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Nov 7, 2016 14:43:10 GMT -5
I knew what you were getting at Michael. That lots of players make the mistake of signing for guaranteed money and forgoing some early free agency money. But there are several players who don't. I don't have a list in front of me, but Scherzer and Strasburg are two off the top of my head because it has been well publicized. Did Pablo Sandoval do it too?
But the thing is, those deals are negotiated. In the NSBL, players do not have the ability to negotiate the best deal for them. Most of these CE offers are extremely team friendly and if they aren't, they're being rejected. Players IRL have the ability to say no to a contract extension, but here they don't. Those deals IRL are set on market value standards, not on some Excel Spreadsheet formula that can't take everything into account, and in fact takes a flawed system like the arbitration calculations into account.
Not everything done IRL in the MLB is transferable to a Sim or Fantasy League that desires realism. This has shown to be one of those things. Qualifying Offers and Compensation Picks are an example of that. 40 Man Rosters, Rule V Drafts, DFAs, etc. They are ideas that we've either actively decided to leave out of this league, or they just don't work with this league. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the CEs are the same way.
We went over all this last year and made some changes to the system. Ian changed the formulas and we've limited them to just 1 year past Arbitration. We were all good with letting that ride for a few years to see how it went. But Jim's unwarranted attack on a system that we weren't using, nor talking about using, has caused enough interest in it that the Committee is now revisiting the idea. His email to the Committee last night has opened up a conversation about it that we weren't previously having.
|
|