with the changes on the stats etc for 2014, below are my suggestions from 2014.
1)option year allow GMs to offer an option year for contracts less than 3 years. buyout it say 10% of the average annual salary and picking up the option is plus 5%. should limit the number of active contracts with option to say 5 to avoid bankruptcy
2)additinal discount for the league champ the team that gets to advance to the playoffs(or the top 5 teams) gets 5%, and world series 10%. What about for winning the league? getting into the playoffs is something and winning the league is another. my suggestion is playoffs;5%, league champion(10%, world series, 15%. the existing discounts(hometown, contract lengths etc) could remain as they are..
3)trading cash This might become associated with Ben's idea about the frontloading of the contracts. we don't have to move the cash. All we have to do is allow a team to cover the salary of a player even if that player is not directly involved with the trade.especially with the fact that salary of cost controlled players cannot be absorbed by the trading team, this should give all GMs more flexibility and should make the league more active and should help the team to build up.
4)penalties for teams with an incomplete lineup there should be penalties for the teams with an incomplete lineup. having an inactive player for more than 2 weeks in their lineup(excluding bench) should not be allowed even though they could some from FA or trade. we have bunch of players on FA pool, they are not good, they may go 1 for 15 a week or will just give a you a few starts at 0/5 but they will help you complete your lineup. I've seen teams with a minor leager on his lineup all year closing his fingers to have the player be promoted.this is something that cannot be addrerssed by including PA on the stats from next year.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Aug 27, 2013 9:35:09 GMT -5
1.) I don't understand the first suggestion as it is stated; can an example be provided?
2.) I agree with the second suggestion
3.) maybe in 2015 for the third idea; I want to see how the front loading deal plays out first...
4.) I understand the spirit of the 4th suggestion; that is why I suggested PAs and raising IPs a couple of months ago. However unlike in real life, we don't have the ability to call up players from Triple A/AA to plug into holes when guys go on the DL. We are dependent on how many bench players we have been able to obtain and keep with a hard cap salary ceiling in place. I agree that our GMs should field as complete a lineup as possible and intentionally leaving someone in the minors or stashed on the bench is not right but on the other hand sometimes the dollars and players at a given position may not be there. I'm unclear also as to what form the suggested penalties would take.
3 Year 10 million for Miggy with a 4th year option. if i decide to to pick up the option, i will have to pay miggy 11 million on his 4th year. if I decide to not pick up this option,miggy goes FA but will cost me 0.5 million. Actually, i think the buy out should be 20%, and picking up the option is plus 10% of the annual salary.
for suggestion number 4, i agree with your input Max. my point is, we should issue a some kind of penalty for those who keeps on stashing minor leagers on their lineup especially from the start of the season. easiest penalty is first round pick for the following year. whether that GMs gets a penalty or not will be determined by voting
I liked the 4th suggestion and don't see the hard cap as that big of an issue. If you have a hole at a position can you not sign a replacement player for 0.4M and if you are at the cap you just release one 0.4M prospect.
Is that not doable? Forgive my ignorance if there aren't a lot of MLB players available in free agency and it isn't as simple as picking up a 2B or OF for one year 0.4M who might see a few ABs during the week. I assume based on how many active pitchers were taken during the draft there should be no reason for teams to have holes in their pitching staff or minor leaguers filling spots on a weekly basis.
Right now there is no incentive to field a full lineup once you are eliminated, a punishment of dropping one or two draft spots for each week an incomplete lineup is fielded after a warning is given to a GM would force GMs to use the free agent or trade market to fill holes rather than be content with incomplete lineups and use excuses like injuries as a justification.
I do like the PA suggestion too as it rewards teams with more everyday players and gives a little more value to the top of the order guys who might not put up big #s in OPS, XBH and HRs.
Last Edit: Aug 27, 2013 10:46:03 GMT -5 by Deleted
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Aug 27, 2013 12:43:28 GMT -5
So here's my quick opinion. I'll give more explanation later/if you guys want.
1)indifferent, I just think it makes it a bit more confusing.
2)I'm completely against any more discounts for successful teams. It puts the rebuilding teams behind the 8 ball. The World Series champ already has a 25 percent discount I believe, 35 if its their own guy. There's no reason they should be able to get up to 40 percent off. That's absurd. I can go more into this if you guys want.
3)I just think this gets too confusing.
4) there are a finite number of players in the majors. If I'm rebuilding and trade my guys away, there aren't enough FA's too fill all the holes. So no i have to start trading for guys just to fill my lineup? At what point do you start handing out punishment?
As for Matt, the reason active P's are being taken in the draft Is because they are draft eligible. I couldn't sign them in FA. Seeing as how Ryan cook went 19th overall last draft, there's no way I'm burning a first round pick to fill a roster spot. There's way more incentive for competing teams to draft active guys than there are rebuilding teams.
Ok back to work, more later. Sorry if this sounded harsh
2)I'm completely against any more discounts for successful teams. It puts the rebuilding teams behind the 8 ball. The World Series champ already has a 25 percent discount I believe, 35 if its their own guy. There's no reason they should be able to get up to 40 percent off. That's absurd. I can go more into this if you guys want.
I'm glad Tucker brought this up because I was going to say the same thing. How are teams supposed to fill lineups and sign decent players in the off season when the top teams who are already solid continue to sign the best players? The discounts are a little extreme if you ask me. Isn't the best team already being rewarded by winning the championship? Honestly, the discounts should go to the worst teams in each league if you are going to give them out. It keeps thing close and more competitive and gives the bottom teams a chance to improve. With the discounts the way they are, the best teams are going to remain good and will continue to sign the best players and the bottom teams will continue to struggle.
Giving discounts to the worst teams in each league (maybe the bottom 5 in each league) will give these teams a chance in the future. Even if its something small like a 5% or 10% discount at most it is better then nothing. Now I know people will say that this would be rewarding a losing team but the draft is the same way (worst team picks first, best team picks last). But if you ask me that is no enough to help a struggling team. I feel there is a big gap between the good and bad teams and if it stays the same it will get boring fast.
2)I'm completely against any more discounts for successful teams. It puts the rebuilding teams behind the 8 ball. The World Series champ already has a 25 percent discount I believe, 35 if its their own guy. There's no reason they should be able to get up to 40 percent off. That's absurd. I can go more into this if you guys want.
I'm glad Tucker brought this up because I was going to say the same thing. How are teams supposed to fill lineups and sign decent players in the off season when the top teams who are already solid continue to sign the best players? The discounts are a little extreme if you ask me. Isn't the best team already being rewarded by winning the championship? Honestly, the discounts should go to the worst teams in each league if you are going to give them out. It keeps thing close and more competitive and gives the bottom teams a chance to improve. With the discounts the way they are, the best teams are going to remain good and will continue to sign the best players and the bottom teams will continue to struggle.
Giving discounts to the worst teams in each league (maybe the bottom 5 in each league) will give these teams a chance in the future. Even if its something small like a 5% or 10% discount at most it is better then nothing. Now I know people will say that this would be rewarding a losing team but the draft is the same way (worst team picks first, best team picks last). But if you ask me that is no enough to help a struggling team. I feel there is a big gap between the good and bad teams and if it stays the same it will get boring fast.
So, let me make sure I clarify. While I think that the discounts are enough as is, I don't think we should give discounts to the bottom teams. Playoff teams get rewarded with a 5% discount, that's fine. Te champion gets an extra 5, I'm fine with that too. But the bad teams are already being rewarded with draft position. That is their 5%. I just don't want to see a situation where (hypothetically) Ben is the champion and resigning miggy. A offer of 4/40 will end up at like 24 mil a year. An offer of 4/41 from me is like 35 still. That's wayyyy to big a gap in my book.
I'm glad Tucker brought this up because I was going to say the same thing. How are teams supposed to fill lineups and sign decent players in the off season when the top teams who are already solid continue to sign the best players? The discounts are a little extreme if you ask me. Isn't the best team already being rewarded by winning the championship? Honestly, the discounts should go to the worst teams in each league if you are going to give them out. It keeps thing close and more competitive and gives the bottom teams a chance to improve. With the discounts the way they are, the best teams are going to remain good and will continue to sign the best players and the bottom teams will continue to struggle.
Giving discounts to the worst teams in each league (maybe the bottom 5 in each league) will give these teams a chance in the future. Even if its something small like a 5% or 10% discount at most it is better then nothing. Now I know people will say that this would be rewarding a losing team but the draft is the same way (worst team picks first, best team picks last). But if you ask me that is no enough to help a struggling team. I feel there is a big gap between the good and bad teams and if it stays the same it will get boring fast.
So, let me make sure I clarify. While I think that the discounts are enough as is, I don't think we should give discounts to the bottom teams. Playoff teams get rewarded with a 5% discount, that's fine. Te champion gets an extra 5, I'm fine with that too. But the bad teams are already being rewarded with draft position. That is their 5%. I just don't want to see a situation where (hypothetically) Ben is the champion and resigning miggy. A offer of 4/40 will end up at like 24 mil a year. An offer of 4/41 from me is like 35 still. That's wayyyy to big a gap in my book.
The bottom teams are being rewarded by getting a good draft position but is that really on the same level as getting even a small discount on a great player? That 1st round pick may not be in the majors for 3 or 4 years and even then it isn't a guarantee that they will be good. Then there is still the issue of filling a roster with decent players to just compete.
If I am reading the rules correctly, the World Series winner will get a 5% discount, 5% for making the playoffs and 10% for signing their own player. That is a 20% discount which is huge considering that the bottom teams simply cannot outbid those offers without not being able to sign anyone else to fill their roster.
If we don't want to reward losing could we maybe give 5% discounts to the bottom 5 teams in each league for only the first 3 players they sign in the offseason? This would allow them to sign up to 3 players to help them improve while giving them some extra cash to spend later on to fill out their roster but it would not allow them to get extra discounts for every player they sign.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 27, 2013 15:41:42 GMT -5
Billy, the problem with that plan is that then there is a dividing line between the very bottom teams, which get a discount, and the slightly better teams, which don't - it'd be an all or nothing thing. Suddenly there's a huge incentive for teams to try to finish 10th instead of 9th. Do we really want to reward the team for finishing 10th instead of 9th? I think not.
Billy, the problem with that plan is that then there is a dividing line between the very bottom teams, which get a discount, and the slightly better teams, which don't - it'd be an all or nothing thing. Suddenly there's a huge incentive for teams to try to finish 10th instead of 9th. Do we really want to reward the team for finishing 10th instead of 9th? I think not.
There is already an incentive to do that for draft picks.
This isn't going to help everyone. There isn't really a way to do that. But what this would do would balance out the teams a bit more and make things closer than they are right now. I feel that there is a big gap between the top teams and bottom teams that doesnt give the bottom teams a chance and that won't go away by helping the top teams and not doing anything for the ones on the bottom.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 27, 2013 16:07:57 GMT -5
But the difference is right now, if you're in 9th, the only incentive for ending up in 10th is that you move up one slot. With your rule it's all or nothing, so if you're in 9th you have so much more to lose by playing it fair.
This would cause far more problems than it would solve. We're looking to discourage tanking, and this does just the opposite.
Last Edit: Aug 27, 2013 16:08:33 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Aug 27, 2013 17:40:38 GMT -5
I think the discounts in place are good as is. Giving losing teams discounts makes no sense. Rewarding teams for losing? Every1 has an equal platform to succeed in this league. Changing of the guard won't happen overnight in a league like this. Giving any more discounts to winning teams would just be overkill. With the red shirt tag in place and having a home town disscount I don't think having option years are necessary.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Aug 27, 2013 17:47:08 GMT -5
Any thoughts on the World Series runner up getting a 7.5% discount instead of the current 5% discount? Obviously this impacts/rewards just one team and provides a tip of the hat that league's champion.
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Aug 27, 2013 18:19:18 GMT -5
So here's something I've been thinking about. I'll do my best to try and explain it, but I doubt this would be a 2014 thing.
Currently there are a couple different % discounts someone could receive Contract length (5,10,&15) Home Town Discount (10) Playoff/Top 4(5) WS Champion(5)
What I propose is that the Home Town Discount and Playoff/Top 4 Discount can't be used at the same time. My biggest issue is that it is extremely difficult/expensive to try and sign a guy away from a playoff team. All the math i do from here on out is based on a 4 year offer on Player A.
A playoff team resigning Player A currently gets a 30% discount. Other playoff teams would get a 20% discount trying to sign the same player. Non playoff teams would only get 15%. On a 35 mil offer, the team resigning would be on the hook for 24.5, for another playoff team it would be 28 and for a non playoff team it would be 29.75. To me that's a huge difference. To get to that same 24.5 cap hit, and non playoff team could only offer roughly 29 mil.
My suggestion would keep in in tiers without there being a big jump. To resign Player A, the team would have a 25% discount (No Playoff discount). To sign him away from that team, a playoff team would still have their 20% discount, and non playoff teams would have 15% still. This also makes the discount for winning it all a bit higher, since they would still keep their 5% to use on top no matter what. The WS champ would get 30% to resign their own player, and 25% off if they sign a player from somewhere else.
Ultimately I just think this makes it so non playoff teams aren't at a significant disadvantage when trying to sign players away from playoff teams.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 27, 2013 20:44:30 GMT -5
Guys, this is getting out of hand. 6 teams making the playoffs, option years, trading cash, discounts... we've already made a lot of changes this offseason, and if I do say so myself it's not exactly like the league needed a complete overhaul to begin with. Let's let the changes we've already made take effect and sink in first.
As for the discount suggestion Tucker made, I think it has its merits, and if we do decide as a league that the discount system needs to be changed, I think this might be a good way to go about it. However, I really don't think it's a necessary change. The discount system that we have in place was designed to reward teams for succeeding in a league that's free to play and doesn't have a cash prize. It's actually a really minor reward when you examine it closely. The teams with a reasonable chance at making the playoffs have an average off $29 million coming of the books this offseason (based on my quick calculation). A 5% discount on $29 million is less than $1.5 million per season. If you use all of that money on four year contracts you can stretch it to $6 million. $6 million stretched over four seasons as a reward for making the playoffs really isn't that unreasonable. As for discouraging parity... for the most part, when teams decide to go for the win, they have to sacrifice the future somewhat to do so. Whether it's trading a top prospect for a missing piece, deciding against redshirting a youngster, or overpaying for a free agent, the decisions that help a team do well today will usually lead to fewer riches tomorrow. Giving them some of those riches back in the form of a small discount encourages teams to do well even when it's not necessarily in the team's long term interest. We've been doing this for three years. Eight teams make the playoffs each year. In the first two seasons, only three teams made the playoffs both years. That means 13 different teams made the playoffs in two years. If the 2013 season were to end today, three new teams who've never made it before would be in the playoffs. Sixteen different playoff teams in three years, and it could very well be seventeen if either the Cubs or Astros wins the NL Central instead of the Reds - in which case only one team would have made the playoffs all three years. Five teams that haven't ever made the playoffs have come within 3 games of doing so, and that doesn't include the Cubs and Astros, so after this season 23 teams will have at least been involved in a playoff race. The four World Series teams have been different each year, and if you ask me, the favorites from both leagues this year are teams that haven't played in it before. That doesn't sound like a league with a parity problem to me. But like I said above, if we were to decide to change the current discount structure, I think Tucker's way is actually a really clever way of doing it. However, my main problem with it goes back to the $29 million, which is the average amount of salary that the current playoff contenders have coming off the books. This is probably enough to sign one major free agent and one minor free agent. If we were to employ Tucker's suggestion, those teams would have to choose - do they want that major free agent to be somebody that they re-sign? Because if we make it so that it's either a playoff discount or a hometown discount, but not both, then those teams would have to waive their playoff discount in order to re-sign their own player. If they decide to use their cap space to re-sign players, then they will have gotten nothing in return for making the playoffs.
Now I understand the concern about discounts piling up and making it really hard for teams to sign free agents away from other teams, especially when those teams have multiple discounts in their advantage. But keep in mind the reason we have a hometown discount in the first place: we don't have option years or contract extensions, and the maximum length for a free agent contract is four years. Every single player becomes a free agent after six years in this league, unlike in the majors where half of them sign extensions long before they reach that point (many at way below market value), and from then on they're free agents again every four years. We see a lot more players reach free agency here than in the major leagues, and they get there far more frequently. So while it's true that the piling up of discounts can make it seem a lot tougher to sign free agents, it's actually a good deal easier here than it is in the real world.
Last Edit: Aug 27, 2013 20:48:16 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Aug 27, 2013 20:57:05 GMT -5
Geez. No one open there mouths again. RL baseball added a playoff team thought we could entertain the idea. God forbid we have discussions in the discussion thread
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 27, 2013 21:02:25 GMT -5
Wow, way to take it personally Chris. Never mind that I was responding to the whole collection of ideas, and about 99.5% of my post was directed at an entirely different idea.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Aug 27, 2013 21:53:03 GMT -5
Sorry Chris, that was uncalled for. I see how "this is getting out of hand" might have been a little harsh as well. I was honestly referring more to the general volume of ideas, no one specific idea or person. My impression from some of the other threads about various changes we've made already this year was that people were starting to feel like it was enough already. That said, ideas are always welcome.
If Yahoo were to add a second Wild Card option I think we'd definitely use it. Because that's not an option, I still think four teams is more realistic than six. The new "contender's discount" idea was somewhat of a response to the MLB implementing the second Wild Card.
Last Edit: Aug 27, 2013 21:54:05 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Aug 27, 2013 22:36:37 GMT -5
Really not a big deal. I'm good at overreacting. First line about "getting out of hand" irritated me. Thought a topic labeled "2014 suggestions" was a decent place to suggest something. Never really even gave a 6 team playoff much thought, just threw it out there. Never considered that the extra disscount was compensation for the 2nd wild card. This league clearly has things in order. We've had roughly 20-25 of the same owners for multiple years. The league realistically doesn't need any tweaking. Sorry again for coming off as an ass.
it is true that those discount makes it slightly harder to sign the FAs. However, I don't think that's the reason why the top teams are on the top right now.
the Giants, they have a good line up, they got Cano and Braun. but I don't think that's the reason why they are contending right now. they got Segura, Trout just to name a few of the young studs on his line up which he got most from trading.
the Dbacks, they acquired what they needed to build a contending team during the offseason in exchange for sacrificing most of his farm.
the losing team of the WS would be a runner up, but it still doesn't change the fact that they are the league champ and deserves to be rewarded.
I am completely against the discounts for the teams at the bottom. they get the draft picks and should be enough. i can see a lot of teams at the bottom with their farm really loaded and could shop them to acquire talent to at least try to be competitive. Common guys! We're not playing piggy bank of young talents here.
reason why I suggested option year is to hopefully give am positive that it will give all GMs some flexibility and more options on signing FAs. trading cash(without moving them here and there) should help the league more active
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Aug 28, 2013 0:38:36 GMT -5
Jay, something you said is exactly the reason it's so hard to acquire talent. I shouldn't have to give up youth or prospects just to fill roster spots and most if the teams contending aren't sellers. Those who are really only want to deal veteran contracts, not the young cost controlled players. There are only so many trouts and harpers, and its hard to get those guys. If you look at teams like the rays and giants, it's a bunch of young talent, with one or two big FA's. dbacks has done it differently, so it can be done, but its hard to sustain success like that. I want to be competitive for a good long while. I think the best way to do that is stockpile talented prospects and then fill holes as needed. Some teams farms are loaded. Why should they have to deal them?
As for the discounts, I just think they shouldn't go higher than they are.
my point Tucker is, having a very incomplete lineup with your farm loaded doesnt make sense to me. if you got chips you can use to acquire players in order to complete your line up even if it means over paying, I think it's worth it rather than competing for example without a SS, a C, 1xOF, and just a couple SPs at the same time. you could either trade or sign low profile players from FA to complete that line up.
Post by Tucker (Padres GM) on Aug 28, 2013 1:25:38 GMT -5
I think we just have a different philosophy. I do get your point,I just can understand its hard to filed a full lineup. I have 16 P's on my roster, some are fringe guys thoug (bass, Lyons). My fringe guys have been up and down all year, but as soon as Tepesch, Gast, and Hefner got injured, almost all my fringe guys were in triple A. I more than reach the ip minimum, but there's just no realistic way for me to field a full lineup of P's. you could say I should have kept Affeldt, but he was on the DL when I cut him, and since I needed roster space for the draft it would be irresponsible for me to keep him over one of my cost controlled fringe guys.
I just think we differ in opinion on this, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that there is no right or wrong way to do it. I do think everyone should try to field the fullest lineup they can though. I just don't think threatening punishment if you have a couple guys on the DL or in the minors is fair.
completely agree with you tucker and one of the reason I posted this is to hopefully find a better way to do it. I see some minor leaguers who have been on the line up since the beginning of the season crossing fingers that they'd be called up or players on the DL who are confirmed that will be gone for months etc. and I think that should be addressed as much as possible. to not at least try to address or not being competitive should have some penalty. whether a team should get that or not should be determined by commitee.
