Cameron's points take the opposite approach of my view. That doesn't mean they are bad or wrong, in fact, they help decide what kind of league PB players want to be in.

Cameron writes, "Like it or not the reason for the balance problem is because there are some managers who are very good traders and dealers and there are some that are very bad. That's life" So if I understand this logic correctly, no trade should ever be vetoed including trades that involve collusion because collusion happens in real life and hey that's the way it goes. A legimate point, but IMO this has more negative consequences than positive ones. Specifically, more owners are harmed by bad trades, especially ones where the impact will be felt for many years.

Another point he makes,"The best of whatever the bad traders get eventually winds up in the hands of a few very skilled traders." That isn't going to be true if you cap PB values. It means that "good" traders are going to have to make "good" trades much more frequently in order to maintain all star rosters.

That brings me to what the definition of a "good" trader is, is it someone who makes consistently outlandish offers until the trader gets someone to finally agree to one of those outlandish offer? Afterall, it doesn't take that many trades, if the gains are high enough, to turn a good team into an allstar team. This type trader is not a bad trader certainly, but IMO this doesn't count as someone who is a good trader either. This trader is simply gaining to the determent of every other owner in that league.

Cameron objects in the following way as well, "PB value is a joke.. I want to see it fixed over a period of time before roster limits that severe are put into place based on it." While I agree that the PB value system is another debate that the league needs to have in order to get a more enjoyable game, it should not be seen as a reason not to take actions to better the game in the mean time.

Cameron quantifies the changes as severe, "roster limits that severe" If the average PB value of a team is currently 70 that means that a team would have to get down to a PB value of 84 if 120% of the average PB value is the cap(91 if it is 130%). (I think the average number is a little in most leagues, though admittedly I haven't done all that much research.) I think if you look at teams with a PB value in the low 80s, you would find some very good teams. Therefore, I don't quantify the change as severe.

To wrap up this long post, my main objection to having dynasty style teams in leagues is that it removes the strategy of managing from the game when playing those teams. I joined PB to match wits with fellow owners in the strategy of the game of baseball. Stuff like when to bring in a lefty reliever to face a guy in the opposing line up that can't hit lefties ect. These types of stragies get rendered moot when facing teams that have few if any weaknesses.

I hope that people do not see my comments as whining, but rather as one point of view in a healthy debate for the improvement of what the owners in PB want from the game they play. I do not suggest that my views are neccessarily the views that the majority hold, but if they are, then capping PB value would go a long way into solving the problem of competitive balance.

Thanks for reading,
Marshall