ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Flash on November 22, 2016, 08:15:57 PM
-
Last season I broached the subject of changing our Compensation Rules. There was a lengthy discussion, which you can find at the link:
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=244841.0
In that discussion I attempted to explain how we can mirror the MLB's practice of extending Qualifying Offers and still have a compensation system for those teams who lose Type A free agents. I am raising the issue again because in MLB, Type A and Type B designations are gone. Now, when a player reaches free agency, the team that is going to lose him can offer a qualifying offer that is the average of the previous season's top 125 salaries. This year it is $17.2m for one year. Last year, when the QO was $15.8m, three players accepted qualifying offers: Colby Rasmus, Brett Anderson, and Matt Wieters.
This year, 8 players were extended QOs:
OF Mark Trumbo (17 - 2016) ----------- $9.0m - Type B
SP Jeremy Hellickson (35 - 2016) ---- $6.0m - Type B
OF Dexter Fowler (14 - 2016) ---------- $10.5m - Type A
OF Yoenis Cespedes (19 - 2015) ----- $8.5m - Type B
OF Jose Bautista (6 - 2015) ------------ $19.5m (70% rule) - Type A
OF Ian Desmond (10 - 2016) ---------- $12.0m - Type A
CI Edwin Encarnacion (11 - 2015) ---- $14.0m - Type A
MI Neil Walker (13 - 2015) -------------- $6.5m - Type B
In FGM, we technically have the ability to make a Qualifying Offer to all our players on expiring contracts by extending their contracts based on their ranking in our Extension Value Scale. In MLB, a QO is the average of the top 125 salaries of all MLB players. In FGM, we utilize a ranking of the existing contracts for each position--from the highest to the league minimum--and we now revise that scale every year at the end of the season.
In the list of 8 players listed above, I included their highest rank for the past two years, the salary they would receive if they were free agents in FGM, and whether they would be Type A or Type B free agents. As you can see, they are split down the middle, 4 Type A and 4 Type B. With the exception of Jose Bautista, none of us would sign any of the remaining 7 players for $17.2m ($17.5m) because 1: our rules require a minimum 4 year contract for such a salary (unless it's a 70% contract); 2: it is a prohibitive contract within our limited salary cap structure; and 3: none of them are worth such a contract in our fantasy world.
For us, in Franchise GM, Type A free agents are as follows:
Top 6 C
Top 12 MI, CI
Top 15 OF
Top 30 SP
Top 6 RP
With all this, I recommend a change in our Compensation System to insure a more competitive balance within FGM. I believe the time has come to modify our Compensation System because, under our existing rules, we offer too much compensation and it hurts the smaller market teams. Teams cannot improve through the draft because our Type A and Type B system essentially takes away the opportunity to utilize a high draft pick to secure some much needed talent.
Right now we give TWO draft picks for a Type A free agent and ONE draft pick for a Type B free agent. In the recent draft, we had 12 Type A picks, of which :OAK: got 4, :CHC: got 2, :SEA: got 2, :COL: got 2, and :TOR: got 2. Eight of the picks were taken by playoff teams. There were also 10 Type B picks (:SF: got the 3rd pick of the Compensation Round). There were 20 picks between the 1st and 2nd Round and that really impacts the rest of the league because 50 picks were made before the start of the 2nd Round (and a 2nd Round pick essentially becomes a 3rd Round pick). This practice impedes the development of rebuilding teams with high draft picks because they lose the opportunity to get top tier talent--with needed talent essentially going to the more successful teams.
In MLB, it is the players who are declining the QO, and that offer is only a one-year contract. In FGM, we, as Owners/GMs, are the ones who chose to decline the contract offered by our Extension Value Scale. In MLB, there is no Type A and Type B as in the past. A team now decides whether a player is too valuable to lose without compensation and, thus, can decide to make a QO--which places the compensation for that player at ONE draft pick if he signs with another team. In FGM, I believe it is time to adopt the same principle.
So, in an effort to mirror the current practices of MLB, and apply it to FGM, I propose the following:
1: Top 10 first round picks are protected in FGM just like they are in MLB;
2: There are only Type A picks, no more Type B picks;
3: A team in slots 11-30 who signs a Type A player loses their 1st Round pick, but the team losing the Type A player does not assume that spot in the 1st Round. Instead, the pick is lost and the 1st round is condensed. The pick is then awarded in a Compensation Round between Rounds 1 and 2. A team in slots 1-10 loses their Round 2 pick to the team who originally owned the player they signed. If that team in slots 1-10 has a pick in the Compensation Round, because a team in slots 11-30 signed their player, then that pick would go to the team that would have gotten their 2nd Round pick;
4: There will be no compensation for players acquired during the season. The Compensation Rule only applies to players who were on their teams the entire season. This prevents compensation for "rental players acquired in trades".
Under this scenario, our recent 2016 FYPD would have had 28 1st Round picks and a Compensation Round with 6 picks. Instead of the 2nd Round beginning after 50 picks, it would have begun after 34 picks. I believe that promotes a more competitive balance in the league because the talent pool is more accessible to more teams.
What do you think?
-
The only issue I would have is the 4th point. I do agree but would I'm not sure how we would accurately track that type of player movement?
-
The only issue I would have is the 4th point. I do agree but would I'm not sure how we would accurately track that type of player movement?
There are several ways to track this.
1: We could establish a Child Board for current season trades;
2: When reviewing the list of Type A free agents, we can review the Transactions Log for a given team on Fantrax;
3: Keep an original Excel sheet from the beginning of the season to cross reference whether a given Type A free agent was on the original roster at the beginning of the season.
4: Conduct a ProFSL Board search to see when a player was added to a given team.
I really don't envision this as a problem.
-
As long as we can keep track of it thru Transactions :iatp:
-
I think you could possibly leverage the signed field in the spreadsheet or list them under the cap hits section with no $ value.
When I this start? I would think that you would have to wait a draft because this is something that factors into decisions to extend or not.
What happens if MLB substantially alters compensation in the CBA, which I think it will?
-
I think you could possibly leverage the signed field in the spreadsheet or list them under the cap hits section with no $ value.
If this is in reference to Item #4, I don't think it is very hard to verify which Type A free agents are not with a team all season. I believe most of us are aware which players have been acquired via an in-season trade. I don't envision many in-season free agent acquisitions being on an expiring contract.
When I this start? I would think that you would have to wait a draft because this is something that factors into decisions to extend or not.
Waiting a draft only prolongs the problem we have allowed to develop. Extensions are usually an economic decision: Can we afford to keep a player based on the effect it has on our available salary cap? We are all aware of how much cap we have available for the next free agent period, and I find it hard to believe any of us would decide we'd rather lose a productive player we can reasonably afford for an unknown draft pick, when we are not even sure where that particular pick would be in draft order.
What happens if MLB substantially alters compensation in the CBA, which I think it will?
This is a malleable issue. If we are committed to mirroring the MLB as much as possible, then we massage our process to reflect the changes. We can't continually balk at change simply because we think something might change in the future. There may well be some changes, but I am hoping we are a league which works with those changes in a proactive way and make the necessary changes to adapt them to our needs.
During the time this league has been in existence, we have had two major changes in our draft: 1) We got rid of signing bonuses; and 2) We stipulated that a draftee had to be signed to an MLB contract. Those changes were positive moves for FGM and I believe the changes I am proposing will help us close the gap between the competitive and non-competitive teams.
-
I like it. However I also think we should wait until the new CBA is made and see if there are significant changes we can mirror.
-
I'm ok with these changes. Our comp round is way too big and devalues all picks other than first rounders, like you explained. This seems to be a good way to fix that.
-
I like it. However I also think we should wait until the new CBA is made and see if there are significant changes we can mirror.
We could wait, but what are some of the issues being discussed?
--Roster size? Adding one more player so you have 26 active roster; limiting September roster sizes to 28 or 29;
--Quicker disabled list? Activating players sooner than 15 days;
--Shorten the schedule? Have more days off in season
--Revenue sharing?
--Domestic violence policy?
--Manipulation of service time?
There are more, and they are all viable issues for MLB. However, for our purposes, we are concerned with the issue of Qualifying Offers. I recently came across a summary of its differing effects in the following passage.
"REVAMPING THE QUALIFYING OFFER"
Just this past winter alone, the Dodgers are an example of the benefits and perils of literally every side of the qualifying offer: Zack Greinke declined their QO and netted them a compensation pick; Brett Anderson accepted it but injured his back in spring training and has yet to return, costing the Dodgers more than $5 million so far for no return; Howie Kendrick turned it down but found nowhere to sign and ended up coming back to the Dodgers on a two-year, $20 million deal that was a deep discount for LA on multiple levels; and Hisashi Iwakuma would have cost them their own first-round pick had he not failed a physical and thus nullified a potential contract.
In our fantasy world, we have all of these factors to a certain degree.
--A
TBD
-
Since we have already made decisions on FAs for this offseason, I can't see this happening until the 2018 FYPD or next season's FA class.
-
Since we have already made decisions on FAs for this offseason, I can't see this happening until the 2018 FYPD or next season's FA class.
I wholeheartedly disagree that we need to delay this change because "...we have already made decisions on FAs for this offseason." Let's be real here. Nobody made any sort of free agent decisions on the basis of whether they were giving up a Type A or Type B free agent. If anything, decisions were made on the basis of economics pertaining to available cap space. But more than that, we have to really take a good hard look at our league and realize that it has been it hard by the exodus to DynastysportsHQ--AKA Corey's new site.
Let's not kid ourselves, free agent decisions were not a high priority throughout the entire league. I grant you that a few veterans gave it some thought, but I don't think how many draft picks they were going to get entered into the equation. When we look at the massive amount of turnover we've had and the neglect teams have endured from absentee owners, we can get a better understanding why we can't justify a delay based on "free agent decisions".
I'm not trying to disrespect my Co-Commish, however, let me give a brief State of the League to illustrate my counter view.
-- :NYY: - OUDAN was a longtime owner, yet he became less involved after his championship season. He is quite invested in DynastysportsHQ and finally resigned and left ProFSL late in the season. We found a replacement for him, Draft Legends, and he seemed to have great enthusiasm. Yet once he found out he didn't make the playoffs, he announced he was quitting after just a short stint as a :NYY: GM. We now have a long-term replacement in Ginstwin, but even though the :NYY: had some productive players on expiring contracts, they became free agents out of neglect. The Compensation Rule was not a factor in whether those players became free agents.
-- :MIL: - VolsRaysBucs, like OUDAN, is invested in DynastysportsHQ and announced he would not be returning as a member of FGM late in the season. His team was open until just recently when bur.base.ball took over as the GM. During that lapse of ownership, there was no one to make any free agent decisions, so again, regardless of the rule, neglect was the overriding factor.
-- :OAK: - MillerTime was a longtime member and developed a very competive team. He too announced his retirement from the league and he was replaced by brandonj2262. Again, there was no conscious decisions regarding free agency because MillerTime was leaving and brandonj2262 came in after the extension deadline.
-- :CLE: - fantasyboi vanished after the waiver trading period. He deleted his FGM Fantrax membership and seems to have left ProFSL altogether. Rsmetana has agreed to replace him, but here again, no one was around to make any decisions on expiring contracts.
-- :CHW: - Dan Wood, an original member of FGM, finished as the runner-up in this year's World Series. He had several productive players on expiring contracts, but he resigned at the end of the season, and again, did not make any sort of conscious effort in regards to compensation for players going into free agency. He too has fled to DynastysportsHQ, which, like the others, is his choice, but to say he thought about Type A or Type B compensation for lost free agents is simply not reality.
-- :TOR: and :SD: owners are about to be replaced because neither of them have logged onto the site since late September and have not responded to my PMs regarding their continued membership. Both of them are veterans and although Daniel signed a couple of his players to extensions, when he found out Derek Dietrich was more costly than he thought, he got upset and has since vanished.
With all this, we have a variety of first year owners. Like most newbies, they are still learning the ropes, and I'm sure if you asked them, they're still trying to figure out a variety of the rules and did not make free agent decsions based on Type A or Type B compensation. I could be wrong, but I remember my first few seasons in FGM, I didn't post anything because I wasn't really sure what was going on. Not an insult, just a stark reality.
Without getting too carried away and alienating anyone, what's my agenda here? I hope you know it's to make FGM a league that is strong and appealing. FGM has been insulted time and again with the "dinosaur" label and I believe that since Rick and I took over, we have tried to make the league more stable and long-lasting. We improved the Trade Process, revised and clarified the Rule Book, instituted an MiLB roster that is working leaguewide, and have sought to make sure that we deal with every issue as it arises by making ourselves available.
But let's not drag our feet and perpetuate a problem we have a solution for. We need to do all we can to make FGM a league on the cutting edge. I have seen it happen many times in the past where we say we'll deal with something in the future and then nothing is done. We did it last year with this very issue, and now there's a call to delay it until 2018. Problems don't go away through avoidance, they go away when we fix them.
We don't need to wait until 2018 to do this, we can do it now, but only if more members speak up and offer their insights. If most of you believe everything is okay as is and no change is needed, then please speak up. If you agree with the proposed changes, then please let the league know. This is not my league or Rick's league, it is your league so we really need your feedback.
-
So if I understand how this works the players that are currently Type A and B FAs can still be signed by their 2016 team to contracts valued at an average of the Top 125 players at their position? This assuming that they were with that team all year.
I have no issues doing this and none with starting it this year IF we can get it done in time. Free agency starts in about 6 weeks
-
So if I understand how this works the players that are currently Type A and B FAs can still be signed by their 2016 team to contracts valued at an average of the Top 125 players at their position? This assuming that they were with that team all year.
I have no issues doing this and none with starting it this year IF we can get it done in time. Free agency starts in about 6 weeks
No, that is not the case because that would circumvent the Extension Value Scale we established for our pending free agents. Our "Qualifying Offers" are the rankings in our Extension Value Scale and the deadline to sign players to an extension has already passed.
The changes we are discussing are:
1) Only one draft pick as compensation for a Type A free agent;
2) The elimination of Type B free agents;
3) Type A compensation tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season;
4) Protection of 1st Round Picks for the top ten teams in the draft;
5) When a team loses a 1st Round pick, the team gaining the pick does not replace that team in the 1st Round. Instead, the 1st Round is condensed and that pick becomes a part of the Compensation Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds. If the pick lost is protected (1-10), then the pick lost is the teams 2nd Round pick, or possibly a Compensation Round pick, whatever is higher.
-
OK. Sorry, having a hard time wrapping my head around this! :iatp:
-
We could wait, but what are some of the issues being discussed?
--Roster size? Adding one more player so you have 26 active roster; limiting September roster sizes to 28 or 29;
--Quicker disabled list? Activating players sooner than 15 days;
--Shorten the schedule? Have more days off in season
--Revenue sharing?
--Domestic violence policy?
--Manipulation of service time?
There are more, and they are all viable issues for MLB. However, for our purposes, we are concerned with the issue of Qualifying Offers. I recently came across a summary of its differing effects in the following passage.
"REVAMPING THE QUALIFYING OFFER"
Just this past winter alone, the Dodgers are an example of the benefits and perils of literally every side of the qualifying offer: Zack Greinke declined their QO and netted them a compensation pick; Brett Anderson accepted it but injured his back in spring training and has yet to return, costing the Dodgers more than $5 million so far for no return; Howie Kendrick turned it down but found nowhere to sign and ended up coming back to the Dodgers on a two-year, $20 million deal that was a deep discount for LA on multiple levels; and Hisashi Iwakuma would have cost them their own first-round pick had he not failed a physical and thus nullified a potential contract.
In our fantasy world, we have all of these factors to a certain degree.
--A
TBD
My specific thought was that if the MLB scraps or significantly changes their QO system, we should do the same to mimic it, and hopefully a deal is coming by Dec 1 so we would only wait a few days.
However I like your proposed changes and am all for them.
-
I have no concerns with the changes being proposed...they make sense from a parity standpoint. However, I agree with Anthony in that we can afford to wait a few more days to see what happens with the CBA. I would prefer to wait instead of making a hasty change and then having to make more changes next year. As long as we have 2+ weeks before FA starts to digest whatever changes we go with and build a strategy around them, I believe that should be sufficient.
-
I have no concerns with the changes being proposed...they make sense from a parity standpoint. However, I agree with Anthony in that we can afford to wait a few more days to see what happens with the CBA. I would prefer to wait instead of making a hasty change and then having to make more changes next year. As long as we have 2+ weeks before FA starts to digest whatever changes we go with and build a strategy around them, I believe that should be sufficient.
Given the fact that our draft is essentially one year behind the current season, it would seem to be cogent to initiate a change where we mirror the 2016 CBA. Regardless of the modifications to come out of the negotiations surrounding the CBA, teams will still lose a draft pick in the 2017 draft because of the Qualifying Offers made to the eight free agents tied to those offers on the current market.
In the current CBA negotiations, there is a proposal to eliminate the draft pick compensation, and thus make it a true free agency. If such an agreement comes to fruition, then we, as a league wishing to mirror MLB, would follow suit and eliminate draft pick compensation altogether beginning in 2018. Then without any draft pick compensation for a Type A free agents, GMs would have to fully weigh whether to utilize the Extension Values Scale or simply let their player enter free agency.
I see this as a fluid situation where all members are aware of impending changes because they are happening in the future, some 12 to 24 months away. This is not a hasty change. It is something being done in conjunction with the longevity of the league. I will reiterate, if we are going to be a league on the cutting edge, we cannot keep succumbing to the "let's wait and see" approach that has plagued this league for many years. We want a league that is sustainable, and willing to be committed, to a framework which is based on the realities of MLB. If we keep things "interesting", maybe we won't have to deal with the consequences of continual turnover.
-
This has been a great conversation although I wish more GMs would throw in their two cents. I say we give this until 12/6 (Customary 2 weeks for rules changes) and then put it to an official league wide vote?
As previously admitted, I misinterpreted the immediate impact on the draft. If this passes all that will change is eliminating Type B FAs but we will potentially be shortening the 1st Rd. and certainly shorten the Comp. Rd., thus ensuring more competitive balance
-
Ya I'm still ok with these changes taking effect right away as well. Seems like a good change IMO. If anything in MLB IRL changes we can always address that later.
-
I've been following the entire conversation, but have more or less agreed with flash the entire way. I think it's a good change, that can be implemented right away and we can always adjust accordingly if things change again in the MLB.
-
There was a change to the Qualifying Offer in the new CBA, but it won't go into effect until the next off-season prior to 2018.
"There will be subtle changes to free agency, however, in that players will be virtually unrestricted. Teams will no longer forfeit a first-round draft pick when signing free agents. If a team is under the luxury tax, it would lose a third-round draft pick when signing a player who rejects the qualifying offer. If a team is over the tax, it would lose a second- and fifth-round pick and $1 million in international bonus money.
The team that loses a free agent with a qualifying offer will receive a pick, according to Fox Sports, only if the player receives a contract worth at least $50 million. The pick the team receives will depend on its market size."
With this, there are some factors which are not a part of how we operate in FGM, so we would have to adjust our rules accordingly. We do not have a luxury tax or international bonus money. We also don't expect to have many Type A free agents signed to a contract of $52m or more. With our salary cap structure, there has been a marked reduction in the contract amounts given to players we sign during free agency. We do have some "reckless" bidding sometimes, but the rule of the day seems to lean towards more responsible bidding.
So now that an agreement on a new five year CBA has been reached, here's what I am proposing:
For 2017:
1) Only one draft pick as compensation for a Type A free agent;
2) The elimination of Type B free agents;
3) Protection of 1st Round Picks for the top ten teams in the draft;
4) When a team loses a 1st Round pick, the team gaining the pick does not replace that team in the 1st Round. Instead, the 1st Round is condensed and that pick becomes a part of the Compensation Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds. If the pick lost is protected (1-10), then the pick lost is the teams 2nd Round pick, or possibly a Compensation Round pick, whatever is higher.
We would not have this tied to 2017, but would include it in the future, beginning in
---Type A compensation tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season.
For 2018:
1: Continue one draft pick compensation for Type A free agents;
2: Draft compensation would be a 3rd Round pick--which would be taken in the same spot as the team who signed the free agent would normally have.
3: Compensation would be tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season.
These changes are significant in that it reduces the large Compensation Round (as we have had over the years) in 2017 and completely eliminates it in 2018. We would the be mirroring, as best we can, the components of MLB's CBA. Additionally, it gives teams a greater opportunity rebuild through the draft and should help the league be more competitive in the future.
We all know that drafted rookies do not always perform at expected levels, and that sometimes we have surprises, both good and bad, but I believe this is a move which will benefit the league in the long term.
-
There was a change to the Qualifying Offer in the new CBA, but it won't go into effect until the next off-season prior to 2018.
"There will be subtle changes to free agency, however, in that players will be virtually unrestricted. Teams will no longer forfeit a first-round draft pick when signing free agents. If a team is under the luxury tax, it would lose a third-round draft pick when signing a player who rejects the qualifying offer. If a team is over the tax, it would lose a second- and fifth-round pick and $1 million in international bonus money.
The team that loses a free agent with a qualifying offer will receive a pick, according to Fox Sports, only if the player receives a contract worth at least $50 million. The pick the team receives will depend on its market size."
With this, there are some factors which are not a part of how we operate in FGM, so we would have to adjust our rules accordingly. We do not have a luxury tax or international bonus money. We also don't expect to have many Type A free agents signed to a contract of $52m or more. With our salary cap structure, there has been a marked reduction in the contract amounts given to players we sign during free agency. We do have some "reckless" bidding sometimes, but the rule of the day seems to lean towards more responsible bidding.
So now that an agreement on a new five year CBA has been reached, here's what I am proposing:
For 2017:
1) Only one draft pick as compensation for a Type A free agent;
2) The elimination of Type B free agents;
3) Protection of 1st Round Picks for the top ten teams in the draft;
4) When a team loses a 1st Round pick, the team gaining the pick does not replace that team in the 1st Round. Instead, the 1st Round is condensed and that pick becomes a part of the Compensation Round between the 1st and 2nd Rounds. If the pick lost is protected (1-10), then the pick lost is the teams 2nd Round pick, or possibly a Compensation Round pick, whatever is higher.
We would not have this tied to 2017, but would include it in the future, beginning in
---Type A compensation tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season.
For 2018:
1: Continue one draft pick compensation for Type A free agents;
2: Draft compensation would be a 3rd Round pick--which would be taken in the same spot as the team who signed the free agent would normally have.
3: Compensation would be tied to a player who has been on a team the entire season.
These changes are significant in that it reduces the large Compensation Round (as we have had over the years) in 2017 and completely eliminates it in 2018. We would the be mirroring, as best we can, the components of MLB's CBA. Additionally, it gives teams a greater opportunity rebuild through the draft and should help the league be more competitive in the future.
We all know that drafted rookies do not always perform at expected levels, and that sometimes we have surprises, both good and bad, but I believe this is a move which will benefit the league in the long term.
It appears that those that have replied are basically in agreement that we need to change our rules. I don't see this as a significant enough change to reset the clock on discussion. Let's continue, with this proposal in mind, until 12/6
-
I'm ok with the new proposal as well. Strategies will change a little since third Rd pick is obviously far less valuable than end of the first. By the third time they're all crapshoots pretty much. Which means small market teams will likely have to trade their big budget stars a year early to get any value. Or if they think they have a shot, play it out and take the third rounder when they can't keep them all. These rules really don't effect big budget teams much imo... They can more easily work around the cap implications of keeping and losing stars.
Just my thoughts on the proposals, but I'm ok with both, will just adjust our strategies accordingly.
-
I am good with the proposal. It does make the draft serve the purpose it is supposed to.
-
:iatp:
I would be interested to see if we can implement a certain cap threshold to mirror the MLB's luxury tax threshold and big market teams here spending past that threshold lose a 2nd and 5th pick. Helps us smaller market teams.
-
:iatp:
I would be interested to see if we can implement a certain cap threshold to mirror the MLB's luxury tax threshold and big market teams here spending past that threshold lose a 2nd and 5th pick. Helps us smaller market teams.
I like that idea too. If a cap threshold is tough to do with a hard cap, maybe over certain average annual salary.
-
I would be interested to see if we can implement a certain cap threshold to mirror the MLB's luxury tax threshold and big market teams here spending past that threshold lose a 2nd and 5th pick. Helps us smaller market teams.
I like that idea too. If a cap threshold is tough to do with a hard cap, maybe over certain average annual salary.
Keeping these two requests in mind, since we have a hard cap that prohibits us from exceeding our allocated salary cap limit, it doesn't seem possible to institute any form of a luxury tax. MLB has a soft cap and teams can exceed it. This, of course, results in a luxury tax and the corresponding loss of a 3rd and 5th round pick in the new rules governing the lost of a player with a designated Qualifying Offer.
However, jpmanchester's idea utilizing "annual average salary" as an alternative to crossing the luxury tax threshold is certainly viable. Here are the Type A free agents that were signed during the 2015 off-season free agency, who lost them, who signed them, and their new annual contract.
CI Joey Votto -- :CHC: -- :LAA: -- $22.0m
CI/MI Logan Forsythe -- :SEA: -- :CHC: -- $16.0m
SP Jake Arrietta -- :OAK: -- :PIT: -- $11.5m
SP Chris Archer -- :TOR: -- :LAA: -- $13.0m
C Francisco Cervelli -- :COL: -- :NYY: -- $2.5m
SP Jose Quintana -- :OAK: -- :ARZ: -- $6.5m
If we were to use the MLB's minimum contract provision of $52.0m, which, for FGM, constitutes an annual salary of $10.5m (rounded up from $10.4m), you can see that this would affect 4 of the 6 Type A free agents signed. OF those 4, the :LAA: signed 2, so we would have to tweak the rule a bit. Using our recent draft as an example, we could do something like this:
Option 1: Award :LAA: 3rd Round pick to the team with the worst record (:TOR:) and :LAA: 5th Round pick to the other team with the better record (:CHC:). Then give :CHC: a supplemental pick at the end of the 3rd Round and :TOR: a supplemental pick at the end of the 5th Round.
Option 2: Award :LAA: 3rd Round pick to the team with the worst record (:TOR:) and give :CHC: the very next pick in the 3rd Round. Then do the same thing in the 5th Round, with :CHC: picking ahead of :TOR:
I believe this would be a viable way to incorporate the essence of the new MLB CBA. The Annual Average Salary provision would simply be added to the others proposed for the 2018 season.
-
With a hard cap, I really don't see the need for a luxury tax rule. I agree we need to support team rebuilding, because having gone through a rebuilding process, and not having the draft picks early enough to really support a rebuild, is a true pain, and detrimental to league stability.
I like the idea of the Option 2 Award.
-
With a hard cap, I really don't see the need for a luxury tax rule. I agree we need to support team rebuilding, because having gone through a rebuilding process, and not having the draft picks early enough to really support a rebuild, is a true pain, and detrimental to league stability.
I like the idea of the Option 2 Award.
With our hard cap, there cannot be a luxury tax.
The provision outlined in the two options listed above is related to a Type A free agent being signed to a contract with an average annual of $10.5m or more.
-
I have a couple of considerations that were kicking around in this mostly hollow noggin of mine.
I believe there is a way to implement a luxury tax threshold. Our salary caps are variable, and it's based on market and fluctuates based on team performance for the most part...which is realistic. I consider those salary caps to be our "budget"...what ownership allows us to spend based on the state of the business. The team salaries fall varying degrees below that salary cap/budget, just like what would happen in reality. While I'm fairly certain it's not calculated this way in MLB, as I'm pretty sure it's predetermined in the CBA, 2016's luxury tax threshold was $189M, which was ~150% of the average 2015 team salary of $125M. IF we wanted to implement a luxury tax, I think we could based on 150% of the previous year's average team salary. Roster pages were updated to 2017 and forward, so i can't view 2016 team salaries to place a hypothetical on what the threshold would be for this year. If there's enough interest, maybe someone can go back and look.
Additionally, our milb rosters are much shallower than real teams and thus mirroring the same draft pick rounds as compensation may not give us the desired results. I took a look at the # of picks used in this past amateur draft to see how each round is valued within FGM:
Note: the 20 compensation picks are considered 2nd round, pushing the start of the 3rd round to pick 2 - 10, 4th started at pick 3 - 10, and 5th started at pick 4 - 10.
1st - 30 picks
2nd - 26 picks
3rd - 16 picks
4th - 15 picks
5th - 12 picks
With only 50% of the teams even leveraging the 3rd - 5th rounds, these are really the bottom of the barrel draft picks just based on our roster sizes. So they don't really add much value in my mind from a competitive balance standpoint.
I'm just piecing this together as I type, but what if we went with a luxury tax threshold and any team above the threshold signing a $50M+ FA sends the team losing the FA their 1st round, and any team under the threshold would send a 2nd round pick. (No protected picks in the first 10 of first round. If you're above the threshold AND finish bottom 10, you deserve to lose that top 10 pick!)
Feel free to poke holes...I'm sure I haven't thought of every gotcha. Just wanted to throw these ideas out there before we decided on anything.
-
I believe there is a way to implement a luxury tax threshold. Our salary caps are variable, and it's based on market and fluctuates based on team performance for the most part...which is realistic. I consider those salary caps to be our "budget"...what ownership allows us to spend based on the state of the business. The team salaries fall varying degrees below that salary cap/budget, just like what would happen in reality. While I'm fairly certain it's not calculated this way in MLB, as I'm pretty sure it's predetermined in the CBA, 2016's luxury tax threshold was $189M, which was ~150% of the average 2015 team salary of $125M. IF we wanted to implement a luxury tax, I think we could based on 150% of the previous year's average team salary. Roster pages were updated to 2017 and forward, so i can't view 2016 team salaries to place a hypothetical on what the threshold would be for this year. If there's enough interest, maybe someone can go back and look.
Upon reviewing the salaries for 2016 and 2017, I found that the average team salary was $103.5m, with the ~150% of this coming out to a luxary tax threshold of $155.5m. The only team this would really affect is the :NYY:, since no other team approaches their salary cap total.
In 2018, we will find that the average salary increases to $163.5m, with the ~150% luxuary tax threshold again finding the :NYY: and :LAD: the only teams exceeding that total.
I guess we could institute a luxury tax based on the premise of a ~150% threshold, but it seems like it really is not really feasible since our salary cap increases are based on success and not reckless spending. The :NYY: are going to experience a drop in their salary cap and the :LAD:, like many teams in FGM will see an increase in their cap allowance. Seems counterproductive to penalize teams for improving their salary cap when the basis of that increase was competitive success. In MLB, there is no salary cap, so if a team wants to spend a lot, like the real life :LAD:, then a luxary tax seems reasonable, but in FGM, it goes against the basic premise of the league--where success equals a bump in salary cap money.
I would not support a luxuary tax in FGM.
Additionally, our milb rosters are much shallower than real teams and thus mirroring the same draft pick rounds as compensation may not give us the desired results. I took a look at the # of picks used in this past amateur draft to see how each round is valued within FGM:
Note: the 20 compensation picks are considered 2nd round, pushing the start of the 3rd round to pick 2 - 10, 4th started at pick 3 - 10, and 5th started at pick 4 - 10.
1st - 30 picks
2nd - 26 picks
3rd - 16 picks
4th - 15 picks
5th - 12 picks
With only 50% of the teams even leveraging the 3rd - 5th rounds, these are really the bottom of the barrel draft picks just based on our roster sizes. So they don't really add much value in my mind from a competitive balance standpoint.
Although I see the basic premise of your argument that 3rd and 5th round picks are not as valuable in FGM as they are in MLB, I would offer this, with the disclaimer that I am not seeking to disrespect, or disparge anyone, as to how they run their team.
In this year's draft, if you take out the Compensation Round, gave only one pick for Type A free agents and did not give a draft pick for Type B free agents, the draft would have had a different persona. Under the proposed 2017 plan, there would only be 28 1st Round picks, a Compensation Round with 2 picks, and the remaining 5 Type A picks would have been taken in the 2nd Round (with the 2nd Round remaining at 30 picks). Therefore, 30 players would be drafted prior to the beginning of the 2nd Rould (28 1st Round picks and 2 Compensation Round picks).
With all this, there is the absentee factor that plagued this year's draft. :PIT:, for example, got the 1st pick of the draft, but did not participate in the draft. So, the first pick of each of the succeeding rounds was not utilized. :PIT: MiLB roster was full and the GM chose not to do anything to take advantage of his draft position. The same thing can be said of :ARZ: :SD: :COL: :ATL: :WAS: :BOS: and :TEX:.
The absentee factor was compounded by the fact that :TOR: :CHW: :MIL: and :CLE: all had replacement GMs come in after the draft had already started and they all lost the opportunity to utilize early round picks. There were a lot of autopicks for teams, but the main reason was absentee GMs (which lead to some of them being replaced in the interest of league success).
So while I see the premise of your argument, I believe that in a league with active GMs, a draft without the huge Compensation Rounds of the past, future drafts can be a valuable way to improve a team, with 3rd and 5th round picks having value.
I'm just piecing this together as I type, but what if we went with a luxury tax threshold and any team above the threshold signing a $50M+ FA sends the team losing the FA their 1st round, and any team under the threshold would send a 2nd round pick. (No protected picks in the first 10 of first round. If you're above the threshold AND finish bottom 10, you deserve to lose that top 10 pick!)
I believe that the if we use the MLB's minimum contract provision of $52.0m, which, for FGM, constitutes an annual salary of $10.5m (rounded up from $10.4m) we are sufficiently meeting the needs of the league. We are not seeking to punish any team, we are simply trying to seek a happy medium so that teams can get compensated for the loss of a free agent they could not sign because of the cost of the extension for that particular player. Again, with our hard caps, we are not allowed to spend recklessly, and still field a competitive team, so I am seeking a way to have the league continue to prosper by utilizing the processes adopted by MLB.