Post by Micah (White Sox GM) on Dec 19, 2016 12:43:25 GMT -5
Yes we seem to be trying to find ways of becoming more realistic and I just thought that free agent salaries were starting to get out of proportion with cost-controlled salaries. I didn't think this was the intent and wondered if there were some unintended consequences starting to appear like cost-controlled players becoming more and more valuable, and the differences between top teams and bottom teams becoming more pronounced. I think we should either keep the cap stable, or keep raising cost-controlled salaries along with the cap, once we find the correct proportion.
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Dec 19, 2016 13:19:33 GMT -5
The successful teams are headed by GMs who invest in time when it comes to looking for talent in drafts and/or trading for that talent. Those GMs tend to be active traders and smart negotiators. GMs, like Micah, who spends time and effort researching and coming up with something to better the league is a great example. Those traits and others won't disappear whether or not the above changes occur or not.
I'm not convinced that the above changes will make less successful GMs/teams better unless those GMs become more engaged. If this action is perceived however by a majority as doing so that is great and I'm eager to see the results.
The successful teams are headed by GMs who invest in time when it comes to looking for talent in drafts and/or trading for that talent. Those GMs tend to be active traders and smart negotiators. GMs, like Micah, who spends time and effort researching and coming up with something to better the league is a great example. Those traits and others won't disappear whether or not the above changes occur or not.
I'm not convinced that the above changes will make less successful GMs/teams better unless those GMs become more engaged. If this action is perceived however by a majority as doing so that is great and I'm eager to see the results.
I don't think it will necessarily make those GMs better, but I think by making the league more equitable it could potentially lead to more widespread engagement.
I'm going to quote part of Micah's PM to me, because he really did some interesting research:
I looked at the players from each team this past year, and counted the number of cost-controlled players (that were over 300 AB for hitters, or over 100 IP for SP, or over 35 innings for RP) on each team:
Top 6 teams averaged 14 cost-controlled starters. And this is skewed a bit low by including a team with only 6 cost-controlled starters because they gave up all of their young players and prospects to get players at zero or low salary in order to be competitive this year. Without that team, the average is over 15.
The other 6 playoff teams averaged 13 cost-controlled starters.
The next 4 teams (double-digit wins but no playoffs) averaged 11 cost-controlled starters.
The next 8 teams (more than 4 wins) averaged 9 cost-controlled starters. This is skewed a bit high by a couple teams that were rebuilding. They had quite a few cost-controlled players but didn't really try to win and didn't spend anything in free agency. Without those teams the average is under 8.
The bottom 6 teams averaged only 5 cost-controlled starters per team.
This really does show that our league puts a lot of emphasis on cost-controlled players. The fact that there's such a clear difference between winning teams who have these players and losing teams who don't goes to show how crucial they are to success in the league. The fact that they also cost so little means teams can collect them with almost no concern whatsoever about the cost of having too many. This makes it even harder for the teams at the bottom to assemble a cost-controlled core of their own. Raising the price means these players might get traded more, as teams with more of them are more motivated to move them in order to clear cap. It also might mean more non-tenders, with more interesting free agent lottery tickets becoming available each winter, exactly the kinds of players that you might want to build around if you're rebuilding. And it means a bit more cap flexibility for the teams that need it, and less for the teams that don't, rather than a scenario where the rich get richer.
Minors: $0.4 million 1st year: $0.4 million 2nd year: $0.5 million 3rd year: $0.6 million 4th year: $1.0 million 5th year: $1.5 million 6th year: $2.0 million
****
Against a 100 million dollar cap ( i.e. the listed original cap when the league started)
Minors: $0.4 million = 1/250th of total cap 1st year: $0.4 million = 1/250th of total cap 2nd year: $0.5 million = 1/200th of total cap 3rd year: $0.6 million = 1/167th of total cap 4th year: $1.0 million = 1/100th of total cap 5th year: $1.5 million = 1/67th of total cap 6th year: $2.0 million = 1/50th of total cap
******
Against a 125 million dollar cap ( i.e. the current cap)
Minors: $0.5 million = 1/250th of total cap 1st year: $0.5 million = 1/250th of total cap 2nd year: $0.625 million = 1/200th of total cap 3rd year: $0.7485 million = 1/167th of total cap 4th year: $1.25 million = 1/100th of total cap 5th year: $1.865 million = 1/67th of total cap 6th year: $2.5 million = 1/50th of total cap
******
My Proposal ( make the increase relative to the increase in the cap since league inception)
Against a 125 million dollar cap ( i.e. the current cap)
Minors: $0.5 million = 1/250th of total cap 1st year: $0.5 million = 1/250th of total cap 2nd year: $0.6 million = 1/200th of total cap 3rd year: $0.7 million = 1/167th of total cap 4th year: $1.5 million = 1/100th of total cap 5th year: $2.0 million = 1/67th of total cap 6th year: $2.5 million = 1/50th of total cap
Rounded down 2nd and 3rd years, rounded up and increased slightly for 4th and 5th years, factoring in 2nd and 3rd years are boondoggles if you get a player who ends up a rookie All Star and produces at that level, but 95 percent of players that young are still developing and many just don't pan out. I think rounding down here reflects a little more flexibility for risk when signing UDFAs to small contracts as fliers that you hope will develop. By 5th and 6th years, you kind of know what the player will or will not be, based on aging/production trends in real life, and the decision to hold or shed will tend to flow with general market value and team situation.
My thinking is this forms a "model", i.e. it can be applied as a rule whenever the cap goes up, and it's proportional to the actual increase in the cap.
Couple of considerations, I don't know the roster size at league inception when the cap was 100 million. If we are applying the NBA CBA standard of "cap holds" for roster spots, then if the roster size increased, lets say by 10 since inception, then that would be a 5 million "grace" ( 10 guys at 0.5 contracts) before applying the calculations. ( i.e. applying the ratios against a 120 million cap instead of a 125 million one, even if actual cap is 125 million)
Raising the cap from 120 last season to a proposed 140 this season would be a massive jump into one offseason. To me, this would increase the gap from paid veteran free agents and cost controlled players. More money to spend, more money to compete for players in a limited FA pool. The current NBA is facing this problem, they got a big "soft cap" infusion based on their CBA pie sharing agreement with the owners. The owners wanted a "smoothing" option, which meant the cap increase would be progressive over a period of years, but the difference in money IIRC, would be put in escrow for the players association to be divided by all players.
I.E.
2016 - 120 million 2017 - 125 million 2018 - 130 million 2019 - 135 million 2020-2021 - 2 Year Lock on Cap Increase
I wouldn't recommend the cap going up dramatically in one offseason or even two, a progressive increase ( more like the NFL model) will reduce the risk of creating a spike in value based on scarcity/positional value, etc.
One issue to consider is salary coverage and dead money accrual in future years. Teams with more spending power but less likely to contend, but want to contend in the future are served by renting their cap space out for future assets ( i.e. sign a free agent, wait for the trade threshold timeline to move said player, move them and offer salary coverage, which is pretty liberal for the most part here) To me, raising the cap while also raising the cost control salaries out of ratio to the actual cap increase will naturally create more dead money in salary coverage on non contending rosters. They have more to spend, more incentive to dump valuable veterans for draft picks/young players and with liberal salary coverage, and creates a cycle where its easier to punt multiple future season in succession than not.
***
If the issue is general interest and participation, then I suggest a carrot and stick method.
Make voting on all league issues mandatory. Pick a week or two where league issues can be brought up and discussed, but not voted on. During one specific week X amount of time before free agency, have a vote week. You've got a week to vote, if you don't within the timeline, you lose your first round pick, and it becomes a supplemental pick after the 8th round of the draft. If it happens two season in a row, you are automatically put up for league vote for removal.
Make a separate roster thread, each team posts a reply. Within each reply, each team is responsible for updating their roster and salary cap for the entire playing season ( 25 weeks?) This does several things. It forces teams to keep evaluating their roster. It keeps salary cap/roster concerns up to date, no more assessing if a team is using an old list in their clubhouse and not be sure who is actually on their roster or what their cap situation is going to be. Force teams to address their cap situation in current times and be accountable for what they list. Also this would be an unofficial list that would ease some off of the workload from the Staff here for updating the Official Roster. I don't think it's much to ask every owner, once a week, to keep their roster based on the weeks transactions or trades or waivers or cuts or signings up to date.
I brought this up before
- You must finish in the bottom 8-10 of the end of season, post playoff standings - You must use at minimum 1 post draft addition from your "home team" to your roster the previous season - You must use your Rule 5 pick or trade it for a player or other tangible asset the previous season - You must conduct at least 2 trades in the previous calendar year - You must post a trade wants/haves/interest list in the Trade Block at least twice during the Preseason/Season of play previously - You must not have any salary cap violations or be subject to any other kind of league discipline within the last calendar year - You must not "time out" more than once in the previous league amateur draft
Teams in this situation would be an extra Rule V pick, in a 2nd round of that draft just for teams in this situation. They would also get an extra post draft addition. They would also get a 2 roster spot exemption i.e. they can go to 82 players on the roster, but they can only do that if they stay at 82 at all times. ( i.e. they cannot have 70 rostered players and get an exemption to 82, to have it, you gotta use every single roster space) To me, this encourages max roster use.
Failure for any team to vote, update weekly roster/cap, get their rosters in on time will result in your home town discount reduced from 10 percent to 5 percent. Also any signed FA over 10 million AAV will have a tax of 15 percent on the entire contract. And of course, your lose your 1st round pick and it becomes a post 8th round pick. If you don't have a 1st round pick, you lose your 1st round pick the next available year and your next highest pick in the current year.
I'm not trying to pick hairs with any specific team, I'm glad to be in this league with all of you. But if you want folks to be active, changing the format IMHO won't do it. I've played fantasy for a long time, more football than baseball, and I've seen leagues try it and it just doesn't work. Owners simply choose to participate or they don't. To me, the carrot and stick method has always worked because teams who are participating never have to worry about the basic benchmarks. Teams that don't get taxed to the point where they want to leave, and maybe that's for the best in many cases, there is a "speed" of league for every person, and maybe they need a league with less investment because they've got a ton of real life commitments to deal with and just can't dedicated the time/energy to a specific kind of league.
My take on it. All due respect to everyone here of course.
Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas, Happy Hanukah, all that, etc.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 20, 2016 9:14:42 GMT -5
Thanks David, I'd be fine with a less aggressive increase as well, although I think an overcorrection isn't necessarily the worst thing given how much disparity there is between the haves and the have nots right now. Brian brought up a similar concern about the massive cap increase though. I'm thinking maybe we go to $130 million next offseason and meet somewhere in the middle? 1st year - 0.5 2nd year - 1.0 3rd year - 1.5 4th year - 2.0 5th year - 2.5 6th year - 3.0
I guess that's not that different from my original proposal with the early years, but it saves some money with the 5th and 6th year guys. I dunno.
Regarding some of the other proposals, I like some of the ideas of incentivizing voting, using rule v picks, using post-draft additions, not timing out in the draft, posting rosters on time, etc. I'm not convinced that a second rule v pick is necessarily the best incentive, however, and I don't like the punitive measures of reducing discounts or adding taxes. An alternative, since we're doing the gold system for draft picks now, would be to give out gold points for completing these various tasks. One or two gold points depending on how significant a task it is (one gold point for using or trading your rule v pick, two for posting your roster on time, something like that). I'd like to focus on the cost control raises for now, but we'll discuss it at some point.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 20, 2016 9:43:18 GMT -5
How about something with reducing the number of SP we have? I know that's been a concern in the past. Teams struggle filling out their pitching staff each year.
How about something with reducing the number of SP we have? I know that's been a concern in the past. Teams struggle filling out their pitching staff each year.
Absolutely. Last time I proposed this it was pretty decisively shot down, but I'd really like to go to 4 SP, 4 RP, and P
I'm not convinced that the above changes will make less successful GMs/teams better unless those GMs become more engaged.
No I don't think this change will make GMs more successful by itself, but I do think that we need to be thinking about not allowing more disparity between top and bottom teams. I do think that GMs can get discouraged by the amount of work to get to the top tier, or all the work think they have put in just to be still so far away, and be less involved and/or quit because of it. I also think we have good teams with very involved GMs that decide to rebuild because they aren't close enough to the top tier, and if we can get them to see themselves closer to competitiveness, I think that would be a good thing for our league as well.
Minors/1st year: $0.5 million 2nd year: $1.0 million 3rd year: $1.5 million 4th year: $2.0 million 5th year: $2.5 million 6th year: $3.0 million
(Option 2 would come with a cap increase to $140 million, to cover higher cost of minor leagues and higher salaries)
****
I realize the polling is closed for this proposal now, first chance I've had in the last few days to post in the proposals area. I would still suggest a "smoothing" option in terms of cap increase. I.E.
2018 - 130 million 2019 - 140 million 2020 - Cap Freeze 2021 - Cap Freeze
or
2017 - 130 million 2018 - 140 million 2019 - Cap Freeze 2020 - Cap Freeze
The cap would still go up to 140 million as voted on, but progressively.
Large cap spikes in a short period of time IMHO tend to create wonky ripple effects in the general marketplace environment. Just a consideration.
Large cap spikes in a short period of time IMHO tend to create wonky ripple effects in the general marketplace environment. Just a consideration.
I agree, but only if the large cap spike results in more overall money in the game, which won't be the case here - perhaps the opposite, in fact.
Take your roster for example. By my admittedly hasty calculation, if we implemented the medium increase right now, your payroll would increase by $26 million. The cap spike, however, is only $15 million. Of course, you're on one of the extreme ends of the spectrum, but there are a number of teams over there with you, myself included, that will likely lose $10 million if they don't prune their rosters a bit. At the other end of the spectrum there are a couple teams that stand to gain $3-5 million in cap space. But the overall amount of free-cash in the game definitely decreases.
Teams will be able to prune their rosters, however, so that will help alleviate the burden, but with pruning, by my estimation, the free cash in the game should remain roughly constant. This seems to be the fairest way to do it, in my opinion, since some teams have already committed long-term money, and taking free cash out of the game when those commitments already exist would make those commitments a heavier financial burden.
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2016 8:17:54 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 22, 2016 10:53:57 GMT -5
Alright everyone, all the polls are closed, and I think we've made some really positive changes. Thanks everyone for being flexible - regardless of which way you voted, I appreciate all the participation!
I don't have any other changes on my agenda for this offseason, although I think we should continue to discuss David's idea about some sort of performance incentive bonus.
I'd lean towards using Gold Points as a performance incentive, rather than an extra round of Rule V (not that many people seem to care about Rule V anyway). Something like this:
Making it through the draft without timing out: 2 gold points (1 gold point if you time out once, or if you volunteer to go on autopick) Posting rosters on time: 2 gold points Making two trades in a calendar year: 2 gold points Making it through the calendar year without roster/cap violations: 2 gold points Using your post-draft additions: 1 gold point Using or trading your Rule V pick: 1 gold point Voting in a poll (polls would have a 48 hour time limit or something): 1 gold point Posting a trade block: 1 gold point (once per calendar year)
Something like that. I'd kind of like to see the Gold System in action before deciding to modify it, however. But if we revisit it next offseason, I don't think we'd need to wait another year to implement it... it could be done right away.
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2016 10:59:20 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Eliminated Teams: Team name (Week of Elimination) - Points as of 9/5 (end of regular season) Minnesota Twins (16) - 39 Cleveland Indians (15) - 34 Cincinnati Reds (17) - 34 Texas Rangers (17) - 28 Chicago Cubs (18) - 27 Los Angeles Dodgers (14) - 26 Oakland Athletics (15) - 24 Pittsburgh Pirates (14) - 21 Kansas City Royals (14) - 19 Boston Red Sox (16) - 19 Milwaukee Brewers (16) - 15 San Francisco Giants (17) - 13 Atlanta Braves (17) - 8 Philadelphia Phillies (19) - 4 Baltimore Orioles (20) - 4 Washington Nationals (21) - 1 St. Louis Cardinals (21) - 1 Seattle Mariners (21) - 1
****
Looking at the Gold Point distribution for 2016, here are my suggestions for tweaks to the above :
Making it through the draft without timing out:
1 gold point for not timing out at all.
- 1 gold point if you time out more than twice. or - 1 gold point if you time out more than three times, if you submit a proxy list at any point before the violation
- 1 gold point for each instance you time out past the third time or - 1 gold point for each instance you time out past the fourth time, if you submit a proxy list at any point before the violation
Posting rosters on time:
- 1 gold point for not posting your roster by the deadline
Exemption: Any team can ask for a 1 week exemption to the deadline in the Vacation thread ( Recognizing people have families, work commitments, vacations, etc, but I don't think it's a ton to ask folks to check in) . Posting in it within said week will result in zero gold points lost. Failure to post after this week, if you take this option, is - 3 gold points
After one week past the deadline, without an exemption, you lose - 1 gold point for each day you don't post your roster until you do.
If at the end of the year, you accrue negative gold points, you lose 2.5 million in cap penalty for each - 5 gold points you accrue. Negative gold points will be rounded up or down to the nearest 5 ( i.e. -3 is -5 or -19 is -20)
Making two trades in a calendar year:
1 gold points
Making five or more trades in a calendar year:
2 gold points
Making it through the calendar year without roster/cap violations: 1 gold points
First roster/cap violation within said calendar year : Warning in private
Each successive roster/cap violation within said calendar year after warning : -1 gold point and running on said schedule :
First violation after warning - 1 million salary cap penalty plus gold point loss Second violation after warning - 3 million salary cap penalty plus gold point loss Third violation after warning - 5 million salary cap penalty plus gold point loss
Using or trading at least one post-draft additions: 1 gold point ( Teams at the max roster limit are exempt but receive no gold point)
Using or trading your Rule V pick: 1 gold point ( Teams at the max roster limit are exempt but receive no gold point)
Voting in offseason league vote for changes/upgrades/updates (Teams will have one week to submit votes, all categories for vote will be discussed but not voted on before hand until the one week period):
- 1 gold point for each subject matter not voted on. Every vote of this nature must be by reply, not by polling
Posting a trade block:
1 gold point (At minimum twice, once in the offseason before or during free agency AND once at the league trade deadline)
Additions :
A) Post your roster on time, make at least two trades, post a trade block as described, use or trade one post draft addition and Rule V ( or be exempt for max roster), vote in all voting categories, have no cap/roster violations and finish bottom 10 the previous season - Receive an extra Rule V and an extra Post Draft Addition the following year. If people don't use them, they don't but teams trying to get better and are active, the opportunities are there.
B) Trade vetos. Any team can submit a veto. Three veto requests by reply within 48 hours trigger a vote. Teams within the same division as the two or more teams involved in the trade cannot vote. Voting is by poll. 75 percent of votes to veto are needed to veto. Everyone eligible must vote either Veto, Pass, or Abstain. Abstains count as zero votes.
Thoughts : Not trying to pick hairs with any specific team. I know people have real life obligations and things get in the way. Will say if you can't reply to say Yes Or No in a vote for 3 minutes or post your roster when you get a months notice plus a week of exemption grace, not sure what to say. I think enforcing voting and submission of rosters sets the right "tone" to be active. I think Chris Rock said it best, that he's always disturbed by people who brag about taking care of their kids. He says you are supposed to take care of your kids. Not sure rewarding teams with gold points for issues IMHO that are about the bare minimum sets a positive tone ( i.e be on time to deadlines, vote on issues that impact everyone)
Also think defining what is a roster/salary cap violation specifically will help. I.E. What happens if Team A trades Player X to Team B, but Team B took it on faith that Team A listed things correctly and it ended up not being so? Or if there is a notation or math error in free agency by the person making the official calculations/FA awarding, etc. I.E. there's a difference between a casual mistake and intentional deception, I'm not looking to tax human error.
Looking at last years list, some teams could have jumped 1 or 2 places up in the draft. That tends to add up over time and over picks, etc.
My take on it, thanks.
Last Edit: Dec 22, 2016 16:16:49 GMT -5 by Deleted
