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: Dan Wood on August 27, 2012, 10:50:30 PM
-
As we enter into yet another off-season, there have been a few things that have been bandied about and I would like to bring it to the RCs attention and hopefully bring it to a vote. We will probably need to start other topics, but I just want to check the temperature on some of these ideas.
1. Doing away with signing bonuses during the draft. IMO, this is just dumb. We assemble a team, then we start dropping guys to sign a prospect. No team in MLB, maybe the Mets, would be that bereft of funds that they would have to do this. "Sorry Wright but you make too much, and we really want to sign our third rounder". As I have said before, MLB teams have different budgets for active roster and scouting. Bad teams should get the good players. I hate the fact that we have to cut players just to be a part of the draft. And it has nothing to do with money management.
2. Going back to trading draft picks. Again this may help with the rebuilding process of certain teams. I used to be staunchly against this and it is very un-MLB like, but personally I kind of miss it.
3. No more divisional play. Play everyone in your league equal amount of times. Also very un-MLB like, but if you play in a tough division, you know what I am talking about. How good is a team really if it beats up on teams that score 500 a week, while another team loses when scoring 1200? Of course there is the argument, well the Rays do it in real life and they do OK, they also sucked for a solid decade to be good. Again, I have heard the arguments for this, and they make a lot of sense (Mike B - jump in any time). I also think it might add to the overall enjoyment of the league.
4. New CBA implementation...I say as soon as we craft it to our league, it should go into effect immediately, just like the 2nd WC did.
5. Re-configuring how salary caps work. At this stage in the game, our teams no longer represent the MLB teams that they were born from. To compare them against the success or lack there of, of our facsimile brethren is not the way to go about it. Here's why, the Marlins went berserk on the FA market this season, no way anyone in this league can do that, regardless of how good they have performed. IMO it should be based on .500 with a high and low ceiling that you can reach for each market. My Reds for example should have a 75 as a low and a 90 as a high, or something to that effect. My team has been .500 or better 2 of the 3 years I have run them, and my cap continues to drop because the real life Reds do better than me. IMO that is an apples to oranges argument. We have now reached a point where each team is its own entity.
That's all I got now, maybe some more will pop up in the near future. I would like to hear everyone's opinion in it all.
-
Options 1, 2, and 3 all sort of go together in that they would alter the competitive balance. Basically, closing the gap between the best and worst teams.
It would really amount to whether the league wishes to allow for a more balanced field of teams more quickly, which I wouldn't disagree with.
Not on the RC, but I'm bored watching my kids watch a cartoon.
-
As we enter into yet another off-season, there have been a few things that have been bandied about and I would like to bring it to the RCs attention and hopefully bring it to a vote. We will probably need to start other topics, but I just want to check the temperature on some of these ideas.
1. Doing away with signing bonuses during the draft. IMO, this is just dumb. We assemble a team, then we start dropping guys to sign a prospect. No team in MLB, maybe the Mets, would be that bereft of funds that they would have to do this. "Sorry Wright but you make too much, and we really want to sign our third rounder". As I have said before, MLB teams have different budgets for active roster and scouting. Bad teams should get the good players. I hate the fact that we have to cut players just to be a part of the draft. And it has nothing to do with money management.
2. Going back to trading draft picks. Again this may help with the rebuilding process of certain teams. I used to be staunchly against this and it is very un-MLB like, but personally I kind of miss it.
3. No more divisional play. Play everyone in your league equal amount of times. Also very un-MLB like, but if you play in a tough division, you know what I am talking about. How good is a team really if it beats up on teams that score 500 a week, while another team loses when scoring 1200? Of course there is the argument, well the Rays do it in real life and they do OK, they also sucked for a solid decade to be good. Again, I have heard the arguments for this, and they make a lot of sense (Mike B - jump in any time). I also think it might add to the overall enjoyment of the league.
4. New CBA implementation...I say as soon as we craft it to our league, it should go into effect immediately, just like the 2nd WC did.
5. Re-configuring how salary caps work. At this stage in the game, our teams no longer represent the MLB teams that they were born from. To compare them against the success or lack there of, of our facsimile brethren is not the way to go about it. Here's why, the Marlins went berserk on the FA market this season, no way anyone in this league can do that, regardless of how good they have performed. IMO it should be based on .500 with a high and low ceiling that you can reach for each market. My Reds for example should have a 75 as a low and a 90 as a high, or something to that effect. My team has been .500 or better 2 of the 3 years I have run them, and my cap continues to drop because the real life Reds do better than me. IMO that is an apples to oranges argument. We have now reached a point where each team is its own entity.
That's all I got now, maybe some more will pop up in the near future. I would like to hear everyone's opinion in it all.
1. I agree. I think doing away with it would help with the competitive balance.
2. I also agree with trading draft picks. It allows the small market teams to get better value for there older players and allows quicker rebuilds.
3. I like the divisional play and think we should keep it.
4. I agree any changes should go into affect in 2013
5. I agree. Real life should have nothing to do with our cap.
-
I am in favor of all 5 proposals. I am more open to "divisional" play in free leagues than I am money leagues, as I think money leagues should pay the best teams, period. Of all 5 options, the divisional play would be least important to me (I am looking forward to banging heads with the Red Sox and Yankees in 2013). I do think all 5 would potentially be very good for the competitive balance of the league.
-
I have brought up 1) and 2) already in the draft thread, and I agree with both 3.
I like division play, it builds rivalries. Keep in mind that the top 10 scoring team all made the playoffs this year, so it's not like divisional play is precluding good teams from making the playoffs.
I hate 4). It completely destroys any incentive for long term strategy.
I don't enough knowledge about the salary cap formula to comment on 5)
-
1. Doing away with signing bonuses during the draft. IMO, this is just dumb. We assemble a team, then we start dropping guys to sign a prospect. No team in MLB, maybe the Mets, would be that bereft of funds that they would have to do this. "Sorry Wright but you make too much, and we really want to sign our third rounder". As I have said before, MLB teams have different budgets for active roster and scouting. Bad teams should get the good players. I hate the fact that we have to cut players just to be a part of the draft. And it has nothing to do with money management.
In my opinion the draft bonuses have everything to do with money management. As a re-buildling team in the league I look at my salary cap as the total amount of money I have for the year. Some teams decide to compete and spend right up to the salary cap in a given year. I know that as the Orioles I will have a high pick every year and must save part of my cap to cover any draft bonuses that I will have. In my opinion the teams that are forced to cut players are the GM's who don't think about building a team and player acquisitions in the long term. The draft happens every August and teams should be prepared for it. No draft bonuses takes some strategy out of the draft. Re-building teams that are smart can often make more out of the draft by getting players that drop because there are teams that can't afford them due to spending all of there money trying to win this year.
2. Going back to trading draft picks. Again this may help with the rebuilding process of certain teams. I used to be staunchly against this and it is very un-MLB like, but personally I kind of miss it.
I personally like not trading draft picks. The premise of this league is to follow real life MLB and this would change the entire meaning of the league. Any team that is re-buildling should be trading for prospects and not draft picks. Most players drafted are years away from the Majors.
3. No more divisional play. Play everyone in your league equal amount of times. Also very un-MLB like, but if you play in a tough division, you know what I am talking about. How good is a team really if it beats up on teams that score 500 a week, while another team loses when scoring 1200? Of course there is the argument, well the Rays do it in real life and they do OK, they also sucked for a solid decade to be good. Again, I have heard the arguments for this, and they make a lot of sense (Mike B - jump in any time). I also think it might add to the overall enjoyment of the league.
Once Again I like divisional play. This is the same scheduling that MLB has and keeping it would maintain the league's emphasis on mimicking the MLB as close as possible.
4. New CBA implementation...I say as soon as we craft it to our league, it should go into effect immediately, just like the 2nd WC did.
These changes are far greater then adding a 2nd wildcard. These changes affect team strategies and player acquisition far more then adding a second team to the wildcard did this year. Any changes should go into effect after one year.
5. Re-configuring how salary caps work. At this stage in the game, our teams no longer represent the MLB teams that they were born from. To compare them against the success or lack there of, of our facsimile brethren is not the way to go about it. Here's why, the Marlins went berserk on the FA market this season, no way anyone in this league can do that, regardless of how good they have performed. IMO it should be based on .500 with a high and low ceiling that you can reach for each market. My Reds for example should have a 75 as a low and a 90 as a high, or something to that effect. My team has been .500 or better 2 of the 3 years I have run them, and my cap continues to drop because the real life Reds do better than me. IMO that is an apples to oranges argument. We have now reached a point where each team is its own entity.
I like the current salary cap structure. Your cap for the reds isn't droping because the reds are doing better but because the reds continually underperform in FGM. The salary cap is determined by the average of three past seasons with one year as a buffer. The salary cap for the reds in 2013 is determined by the reds performance in FGM from 2009-2011. The formula does contain Stand values which are based on Real life MLB payrolls but that is it. The reds in FGM finished 22nd in 2009, 16th in 2010 and 22nd in 2011. This is why the reds salary cap has dropped. Cincinnati finished 16th in 2012 which will likely cause there salary cap to increase in 2014. The Salary cap is just delayed from the results of FGM. Basing the Salary cap off of the average of three previous years and a one year buffer makes the salary cap changes from year to year less drastic. After looking at this system it seems to be very realistic.
In my opinion the current league mimics the real life MLB league fairly well and that is what it is supposed to do. The league premise in the rules is as follows.
League Premise
To represent the current atmosphere of MLB for GMs in a manner that works effectively with fantasy baseball while not making it overly complicated to play.
I am of the opinion that the league doesn't need changes but needs no major changes and a period of continuity so that we can accurately assess the rules that we have. When they are changed continually every year we can't determine what improved the league and what may need changes in the future. If you want rules like those suggested there are other leagues to join like that or another league can be started. These changes would drastically alter the league and change the entire meaning of the league which is to be as close to the MLB as possible.
-
Shooter, you state that as the Orioles you know you'll have a high pick every year. Isn't it a goal to NOT have a high draft pick every year?
-
Shooter, you state that as the Orioles you know you'll have a high pick every year. Isn't it a goal to NOT have a high draft pick every year?
Yes that is the goal but the draft is also based on the previous years results. I already know that I have the Number one overall pick next year so I can plan ahead and know that I will need a certain amount of salary cap saved for that pick.
Take your washington nationals for example. You have had an exceptional season this year and will finish top 4 in the league this year. This means you will have a lower first round pick and don't need to save nearly as much salary cap next year to sign a player at that spot.
-
My beef with the signing bonus is not money management. It is with the fact that it puts small market teams at a disadvantage because of how high the bonus is. Zunino's bonus was 10% of :BAL:'s total cap space. Zunino's salary commitment for this year would make him the highest paid player on :BAL:. It's very easy for large market teams to clear cap space to sign players. It's much more difficult, for small market teams, especially well run ones, to clear cap space. For example, can :OAK: really clear up 2.5M in cap space to sign a draft pick? The draft is suppose to restore the competitive balance, if the small market teams have trouble signing the best players, then the purpose of the draft is void.
-
One additional comment: I would be ok with salary bonuses, if teams are allowed to spread the bonus through multiple years. This is not uncommon in real life as teams offers draftees major league contracts.
-
My beef with the signing bonus is not money management. It is with the fact that it puts small market teams at a disadvantage because of how high the bonus is. Zunino's bonus was 10% of :BAL:'s total cap space. Zunino's salary commitment for this year would make him the highest paid player on :BAL:. It's very easy for large market teams to clear cap space to sign players. It's much more difficult, for small market teams, especially well run ones, to clear cap space. For example, can :OAK: really clear up 2.5M in cap space to sign a draft pick? The draft is suppose to restore the competitive balance, if the small market teams have trouble signing the best players, then the purpose of the draft is void.
I agree 100% with Howe. I completely understand the original concept of one overall player cost budget including the rookie draft, but it makes little sense that rookie bonuses can be as high as 7m, while rookies acquired through free agency like Profar can be had for as little as 500K. Imo, it is simply unfair to ask small market teams like the Padres to hold back 12% of their caps for a player who might not impact their teams for 3-4 years.
As far as the other suggestions, I would NOT be in favor of trading draft picks, eliminating divisional play, adopting the new CBA rules until we get a better grasp of what it entails, or adjusting the formula we have for calculating team salary cap amounts.
-
For draft pick signings can't there be a formula that has a % say like Yankees Hughes payroll pays 100% of the bonus but if lowest payroll team has to pay a extremely lower % of the bonus and %s change for all teams in the middle?
-
As my opinions have previously been stated, I still feel that no one has presented a reason FOR having the signing bonuses. Shooter I understand your position in saying that you knew going in that you were going to have to make sure you had room to sign whoever. But might I also point out that you had 4-5 MLBers all season long. There was no way you were going to win with that (you won 1 game - woulda got you fired in real life), and unless everything breaks right, you might not win with what you have. Now don't get me wrong, you have done a commendable job with your team, I have always said as much, and you are a benefit to this league. But there might be a point in time where you are going to need that extra 6 mil to field a team, yet at the same time it could still be bad, or have a bad year, then you are stuck because you have to pay a pick out of money that you don't have. As I have said previously, MLB teams never face this obstacle. Most teams have a stressed cap as it is, then they have to cut what are useful pieces in order to signs some rookies. It is counter productive to constructing a winning ballclub, especially if you are a fiscal giant.
As you pointed out Jake had an amazing year, kudos to him, but he HAD to cut guys to sign a player who might help him in 4-5 years. Pavano could have helped him next season. Not a lot, but you get my drift.
As far as #5 goes, I spoke with Colby because I was confused about why my cap was dropping every year, and he said because the Reds in real life made the play-offs and I had not. His Pirates had a poor 2010 and a good 2011 and his cap climbed both years. Why? Because the real life Pirates suck, that is until this season. So no, the cap influences aren't totally based on what happens in this league. If I finished 16th of 30 teams, and in my mind my cap shouldn't have gone up or down. I also apologize for talking about my team, but it is what I know best, not really familiar with how everyone else feels about their cap situation.
2,3,4 that's fine if no one is on board. I threw them out there because I had heard a few rumblings when I was commish, and those were some things that were brought up.
-
For the signing bonus issue, would everyone be on board with keeping the signing bonus but allowing for teams to sign players to major league contracts (must adhere to max/min restrictions), and thus the bonus money would get spread out?
E.g., Zunino could be signed to a 3 year, 2.5M per year deal.
There are several disadvantages of signing major league contract (none are potentially to a team, but there are certainly enough incentives for teams to shoot for non-major league contracts):
1. Player would not be eligible for EDR, taking up a spot on the 40 men roster
2. Player would not be eligible for rookie extension provision (similar to any other major league contracted player)
3. There would be a penalty for dropping the player (similar to any other major league contract player)
-
Aren't we allowed to do that now OR is that only for prospect contracts in free agency?
-
Regarding Dan's comments, your team's salary cap is only due to increase if it performs better than expected. What is EXPECTED? Well, the Yankees are expected to win the World Series every year since they have the highest payroll. The Marlins and Padres are expected to be the worst. The expectations change with the payroll.
-
That is allowed in moneyball
-
Colby, I'm sorry but I staunchly disagree with that sentiment of expectations. The league is too far different now than to have the same expectations year in and year out. Angels are a playoff contender every year in MLB. Here they stink out loud. After being poorly run that clubs expectations have taken on a life of their own, different from the Arte Moreno led club. You can't say a team is supposed to do anything based on payroll. But if payroll is the key to the city, then my argument for no signing bonuses has more weight. Look at the small market teams, and see who they signed. I think that speaks for itself. Top flight pitchers going into the supplemental round is just out and out absurd. How I am the only one who sees this is beyond me.
-
Aren't we allowed to do that now OR is that only for prospect contracts in free agency?
This is currently not allowed in FGM. Only prospects in free agency can be signed to major league contracts.
-
1 Byron Buxton OF HS Appling County HS, Baxley, Ga. Ga. Bonus = 7 M - Mariners
2 Mike Zunino C 4YR Florida Fla. Bonus = 6 M - Orioles
3 Kyle Zimmer RHP 4YR San Francisco Calif. Bonus = 5 M - Brewers - 1-27
- this right here is a problem - no other teams before 1-27 could have used him?
4 Mark Appel RHP 4YR Stanford Calif. Did not Sign Bonus = 6 M - 1-62
Orioles - spent 13 million on draft - hasn't had a team in 2 years
5 Kevin Gausman RHP 4YR Louisiana State La. Bonus = 3.5 M - White Sox 1-13
- goes to a contending team - also makes sense
6 Carlos Correa SS HS Puerto Rico Baseball Academy, Gurabo, P.R. P.R. Bonus = 3.5 M
1-3 Mets
7 Albert Almora OF HS Mater Academy, Hialeah Gardens, Fla. Fla. Bonus = 3 M
1-5 Cubs
8 Michael Wacha RHP 4YR Texas A&M Texas Bonus = 3 M
1-25 to Cardinals - another team in need -
9 Lucas Giolito RHP HS Harvard-Westlake HS, Studio City, Calif. Calif. Bonus = 2.5 M
San Fran - auto picked at 1-8 - but better guys go 20 picks later - totally makes sense
10 Marcus Stroman RHP 4YR Duke N.C. Bonus = 2.5 M - 1-49 - #49? #49? PEDs aside - no one else could have used him prior to pick #49
I won't go any further - I think I made my point
I'm sure the lower end teams (Orioles non-withstanding - chose NOT to draft these guys on talent)
-
Furthermore - what happens when the Marlins, Padres, etc decide they are going to rebuild? They have to go to the established teams because they got all the good draft picks, that the lesser teams were entitled to in the first place. Since they valiantly tried to field a competitive team and spend on some pieces, they are now left with no money to sign draft picks. Thus creating a cycle of failure.
This whole draft system in this league is broken. Unless the goal is to send the best talent to a team that has won 300 games in the past 3 years, an eventual 3 time world series winner, or a team that just dominated the best division in the league. I am not trying to make examples of teams (good for you guys - goal is to win), but the evidence is there.
I also forgot what part of the draft it is when the best players fall out of the first round. Someone want to remind me. Totally realistic... :winner:
-
:toast:
-
Dan, I am not following you. Are you saying that the caps force the teams at the top of the draft to pass on talent? There is something to be said for that as we may need a separate budget for the draft.
-
That's precisely what I am saying.
-
1 Byron Buxton OF HS Appling County HS, Baxley, Ga. Ga. Bonus = 7 M - Mariners
2 Mike Zunino C 4YR Florida Fla. Bonus = 6 M - Orioles
3 Kyle Zimmer RHP 4YR San Francisco Calif. Bonus = 5 M - Brewers - 1-27
- this right here is a problem - no other teams before 1-27 could have used him?
4 Mark Appel RHP 4YR Stanford Calif. Did not Sign Bonus = 6 M - 1-62
Orioles - spent 13 million on draft - hasn't had a team in 2 years
5 Kevin Gausman RHP 4YR Louisiana State La. Bonus = 3.5 M - White Sox 1-13
- goes to a contending team - also makes sense
6 Carlos Correa SS HS Puerto Rico Baseball Academy, Gurabo, P.R. P.R. Bonus = 3.5 M
1-3 Mets
7 Albert Almora OF HS Mater Academy, Hialeah Gardens, Fla. Fla. Bonus = 3 M
1-5 Cubs
8 Michael Wacha RHP 4YR Texas A&M Texas Bonus = 3 M
1-25 to Cardinals - another team in need -
9 Lucas Giolito RHP HS Harvard-Westlake HS, Studio City, Calif. Calif. Bonus = 2.5 M
San Fran - auto picked at 1-8 - but better guys go 20 picks later - totally makes sense
10 Marcus Stroman RHP 4YR Duke N.C. Bonus = 2.5 M - 1-49 - #49? #49? PEDs aside - no one else could have used him prior to pick #49
I won't go any further - I think I made my point
I'm sure the lower end teams (Orioles non-withstanding - chose NOT to draft these guys on talent)
Does it surprise you that pitchers with high bonus values would fall in a leauge that puts significantly more value on premium bats then pitchers? Buxton, Correa, Zunino, Almora all went roughly where they should have in the draft.
Furthermore - what happens when the Marlins, Padres, etc decide they are going to rebuild? They have to go to the established teams because they got all the good draft picks, that the lesser teams were entitled to in the first place. Since they valiantly tried to field a competitive team and spend on some pieces, they are now left with no money to sign draft picks. Thus creating a cycle of failure.
This whole draft system in this league is broken. Unless the goal is to send the best talent to a team that has won 300 games in the past 3 years, an eventual 3 time world series winner, or a team that just dominated the best division in the league. I am not trying to make examples of teams (good for you guys - goal is to win), but the evidence is there.
I also forgot what part of the draft it is when the best players fall out of the first round. Someone want to remind me. Totally realistic... :winner:
You seem to be arguing a couple of different points in this post. The Dodgers, Cardinals and Brewers lost FA players and recieved compensation picks for those players. Them having multiple high picks is not an argument againist draft signing bonuses but an argument againist FA compensation which I agree should be overhauled similar to what the MLB has done.
Teams in this league have the choice to invest in the draft and invest in MLB players. The choice is not mutually exclusive as a team can decide to invest in both players and the draft. Teams aren't entitled to any players in the draft. The draft is a player acquisition system that isn't meant to be fair. All teams have picks in the draft and should be trying to use research and other tools at their exposal to bring the most talent in to their system as possible. Teams in the MLB don't all spend the same amount on the draft. The Boston Red Sox in the past have spent large amounts of money in the draft to acquire prospects. Other teams like recently the Chicago White Sox have chosen to go cheap and spend alot less in the draft. This is a choice that the teams have to spend money on the draft or to use that money in other ways. Has it occured to you that the "good teams" get better players because they make a concious effort to have money available and invest that money in the draft? The draft is also not a sure thing at all. Just because a player has a high bonus doesn't mean that player will make the MLB. They can bust and the team that invested this money will have wasted this value that could have been invested in MLB players. Other teams will also find low round bargains that will cost them nothing and become productive players in the MLB. You don't have to spend huge to have a great draft.
-
this strict salary budget may causing also some manage to lose interest in their team and leave them and not very attractive to new mangers to rebuild. I understand that we want to make this as real as posible, but an objective in this online fantasy games is to keep manages active and to attract new ones
-
I think it's time to put rookie bonuses to a vote, so I am creating a separate thread for it.
-
I agree 100% with Bob.
-
All I'm saying is that the talent isn't going where it should be. There is no reason for those guys to fall to the extent that they have. That's my argument. And comparing a hard cap in fantasy league is not an apples to apples comparison with MLB draft strategies. Im not making this argument over and over. I am not the only one that feels this way about it, so I must be onto something.
But it's whatever at this point. I'm done arguing. Maybe i'll just drop all my players and focus on the draft.
-
And the red sox would go above slot to sign guys away from commitments. Teams wouldn't be like, well crap, we can't sign our first pick because we are totally capped, so let's sign some guy that may be good enough for the fourth round. I also remember the last time I saw a team with two players on the field. It was a landslide victory by the other team.
-
But it's whatever at this point. I'm done arguing. Maybe i'll just drop all my players and focus on the draft.
I also remember the last time I saw a team with two players on the field. It was a landslide victory by the other team.
I hope that these comments are not personal digs at me and my management of the Baltimore Orioles. There is no need to take personal shots at people that don't agree with your opinions. Lets keep this discussion professional.
-
It is professional... If you are going to claim reality then you have to back it up... No? Can't have it both ways. Catch my drift. And I have had nothing but nice things to say about you, your team, and your influence on this league. But like I said above, your flaw in your argument is your team. Your team doesn't resemble reality, but you continue to bring up the reality of the MLB draft, and the former drafting habits of the Boston Red Sox.
-
It is professional... If you are going to claim reality then you have to back it up... No? Can't have it both ways. Catch my drift. And I have had nothing but nice things to say about you, your team, and your influence on this league. But like I said above, your flaw in your argument is your team. Your team doesn't resemble reality, but you continue to bring up the reality of the MLB draft, and the former drafting habits of the Boston Red Sox.
I was unsure of what your comments actually meant but now that they have been put into context I understand your point which is very valid. I am sorry to have misunderstood them as a personal attack. In the rules the league premise states
League Premise
To represent the current atmosphere of MLB for GMs in a manner that works effectively with fantasy baseball while not making it overly complicated to play.
Now in my opinion our current draft system does imitate the old system in MLB where players with high bonus demands would fall to teams like the Red Sox who would spend money. The MLB has changed to a new system that has capped draft bonus pools for team based on picks that they have. This system is seems to be fairer and done a better job of distributing players among teams. However I just don't see a way of reasonablly implementing this system in our league. The changing amount of supplemental picks every year would change bonus pools every year. Also in real life players who don't sign go to college or back to college. What would happen in our draft if a player fell in the draft and no teams had the cap space to sign said player but he was signed in real life. Would the player then be an FA the next year or would he go back into the draft in a later year? I would possibly support a system similar to what the MLB has implemented but haven't seen a proposal of what that would actually be. At this time though I can't support just eliminating bonuses all together.
-
I will add this one last response and then I am done, and then someone can explain to me how it is good for the league, and how it doesn't need to be tweaked.
There were some teams in the draft that could have used talent that slipped, but because of trying to field a team, that could possibly win a few games (the fun of any league), they have made it hard on themselves to sign top draft talent. Now the main goal of any team real or imaginary is to be successful. But since the mediocre to lower teams have constrained themselves by signing or trading for talent in an attempt to win, they are punished in the draft room. Which in my opinion is unrealistic. And this will lead to a continuous cycle of failure, and leaving the league.
My main goal is for this league to be sustainable. To have no more members leave. Recently the Angels were taken over for something like the 400th time in 3 years. A team that desperately needs to bolster their minor league system, is constrained by the 1.5 million cap they had remaining. And that as I have stated before is unrealistic.
When this league was formed several years back, it was done with the budget of the 40 man roster in mind. But here we are at the crossroads where mid-level and lower teams cannot maintain a roster of above average MLBer's and draft top talent should they falter with the roster they have. Now, Shooter, as I have said to anyone who will ask, what you are doing with your team is great, and I wish you all the success in the world. But, in real life it isn't feasible, it just isn't. I don't think that point can be argued.
In my mind, and maybe I am wrong, but the talent that reached the teams with the lower picks would and should never have gotten that far. But because teams decided to put up a fight, they were more or less punished for doing so. In my mind this is wrong. Should what you do prove to be successful, it worries me that copycats will follow suit. Does anyone really want 5 or 6 teams with 1 win? And at the same time to we want the Dodgers (sorry Howe - mean no offense, just using you as an example) to continually roll over the league because they have the budget and picks to continuously restock their system for run after run after run? That in my mind is not fair, nor is it fun.
Yes there was more parity in this league this year than in years past, but it is still the same names over and over kicking the crap out of most teams on a weekly basis. And yet the teams that were the door mats, didn't get the "best players" in the draft to potentially combat future ass kickings.
Maybe I am wrong about all this. Maybe deep down I am being selfish, but this is the second draft I have sat through and it seems to be more of the same.
-
I think I can summarize the arguments as this:
Bob: any changes we make would be contrary to the league premise. You don't need a lot of money to have a good draft. If you plan appropriately, there should be money left over for the draft.
Dan: Small market teams are getting killed if they put up a semi-competitive roster. If reality is what we are after, why are teams starting only two major league players?
I think having a separate draft budget based on the salary cap would help address Dan's concern, while at the same time is not too far from reality. Bob: you can think of the draft budget as revenue sharing money. I am changing my vote to #5 on the other thread.
-
Tastes great...less filling...tastes great....less filling... Thank you for the summation Howe :toth:
-
I found this interesting. Here is a list of all the hitters taken in the first round in order of when they are drafted, with BA ranking in brackets. I have bold the picks for which I *THINK* are budget picks.
1. Zunino (2)
2. Dahl (5) (fantasy wise, I would take Dahl #3 after Zunino and Correra, but it's not like :WAS: ended up with a scrub)
3. Correra (3)
4. Buxton (1)
5. Almora (4)
6. DJ Davis (10)
7. Seager (9)
8. Russell (16)
9. Coulter (27)
10. Shaffer (11)
11. Jankowski (31)
12. Hawkins (7)
13. Marrero (6)
14. Piscotty (14)
15. Gallo (17)
16. Fontana (25)
17. Ceccini (8)
18. Rahier (18)
19. Roache (12)
20. Robertson (19)
21. Brinson (29)
I think this is going to drive you crazy, but Dan, is the problem of bad teams not getting the right talent in the draft overblown?
-
Nice analysis Howe, but that is only focused on hitters. What about pitchers? Our scoring system while it is fair and Bill Jamesian promotes GMs to have a bias against pitchers. I imagine this bias is causing the overall variance between BA rankings and the draft selections to be higher.
-
I found this interesting. Here is a list of all the hitters taken in the first round in order of when they are drafted, with BA ranking in brackets. I have bold the picks for which I *THINK* are budget picks.
1. Zunino (2)
2. Dahl (5) (fantasy wise, I would take Dahl #3 after Zunino and Correra, but it's not like :WAS: ended up with a scrub)
3. Correra (3)
4. Buxton (1)
5. Almora (4)
6. DJ Davis (10)
7. Seager (9)
8. Russell (16)
9. Coulter (27)
10. Shaffer (11)
11. Jankowski (31)
12. Hawkins (7)
13. Marrero (6)
14. Piscotty (14)
15. Gallo (17)
16. Fontana (25)
17. Ceccini (8)
18. Rahier (18)
19. Roache (12)
20. Robertson (19)
21. Brinson (29)
I think this is going to drive you crazy, but Dan, is the problem of bad teams not getting the right talent in the draft overblown?
I agree 100% with Dan that the current draft system forces most team to draft the most affordable player rather than the most talented one available. I can't imagine most small market team trying to win this year holding onto the 7m required to draft Buxton. In my opinion, the system however well-intentioned is broken and needs to be changed.
-
I need to be re-convinced that adding another draft budget is a good idea. Are we not in effect just shrinking the salary gap between rich and poor teams? If so, I would rather we modify the salary capping formula then adding another cap.
If the goal is to give poor teams access to better players, I would this the following would do as good of a job, without having to upkeep another salary cap:
1) Change the FA compensation system. It's harder for teams like :MIL: and myself to dominate the draft if we don't have 10 picks in the first round. Ben brought up using the top 150 players by VORP. The problem with this approach is that there VORP does not correlate perfectly with our scoring system. Preferably, the top players are identified using our own scoring system
2) Implement the competitive balance draft (this is already in MLB, so implementing this would add another level of realism):
The Competitive Balance Lottery, which was agreed upon as a part of the 2012-2016 Basic Agreement between MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association, gives Clubs with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets the opportunity to obtain additional draft picks through a lottery. The 10 Clubs with the lowest revenues and the 10 Clubs in the smallest markets were entered into a lottery for the six selections immediately following the first round of the First-Year Player Draft. The eligible Clubs that did not receive one of the six selections after the first round, and all other payee Clubs under the Revenue Sharing Plan, were entered into a second lottery for the six picks immediately following the second round of the Draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery were based on its prior season’s winning percentage.
3) Allow teams to spread out signing bonus over multiple years. Not many small market teams can keep 7M to sign Zunino while competing. Most teams however do have the space for1.5M so that the 7M bonus can be spread out over 5 years. Again, this is not that hard to upkeep.
I apologize for flip flopping on this issue so many times. I want to be 100% confident in that the changes will benefit the league and would not be repealed/modified against next year.
-
I need to be re-convinced that adding another draft budget is a good idea. Are we not in effect just shrinking the salary gap between rich and poor teams? If so, I would rather we modify the salary capping formula then adding another cap.
If the goal is to give poor teams access to better players, I would this the following would do as good of a job, without having to upkeep another salary cap:
1) Change the FA compensation system. It's harder for teams like :MIL: and myself to dominate the draft if we don't have 10 picks in the first round. Ben brought up using the top 150 players by VORP. The problem with this approach is that there VORP does not correlate perfectly with our scoring system. Preferably, the top players are identified using our own scoring system
2) Implement the competitive balance draft (this is already in MLB, so implementing this would add another level of realism):
The Competitive Balance Lottery, which was agreed upon as a part of the 2012-2016 Basic Agreement between MLB and the Major League Baseball Players Association, gives Clubs with the lowest revenues and in the smallest markets the opportunity to obtain additional draft picks through a lottery. The 10 Clubs with the lowest revenues and the 10 Clubs in the smallest markets were entered into a lottery for the six selections immediately following the first round of the First-Year Player Draft. The eligible Clubs that did not receive one of the six selections after the first round, and all other payee Clubs under the Revenue Sharing Plan, were entered into a second lottery for the six picks immediately following the second round of the Draft. A Club’s odds of winning the lottery were based on its prior season’s winning percentage.
3) Allow teams to spread out signing bonus over multiple years. Not many small market teams can keep 7M to sign Zunino while competing. Most teams however do have the space for1.5M so that the 7M bonus can be spread out over 5 years. Again, this is not that hard to upkeep.
I apologize for flip flopping on this issue so many times. I want to be 100% confident in that the changes will benefit the league and would not be repealed/modified against next year.
My sense is that the league is tired of change. Therefore, I am putting off option # 1 and # 2 for the time being. Option # 3 was split into option # 3 and # 4 in the current vote placed before the RC.
-
The reason for the additional "draft budget" is to ensure competitive balance. If a low/or even high market team has a string of bad seasons, it doesn't take 10 years for a turnaround. Again, this is just in my eyes, but by making the bonus correlate to previous year standings (my preference) or salary cap budget (less of a preference - as we have had many successful low and mid market teams) it gives those teams a better ability to both compete in the now by spending money on players, as well as establishing a long term pipeline of talent from the minors.
Now I can use my team as an example. I have a mid-tier budget, but it does shrink because I have had one fair season, one disaster, and one good season. Now the talent that I have assembled in order to be decent pretty much costs me my cap. When it came to this draft I chose a player that was affordable (Seager) as opposed to one that was expensive, but more of a future need (any of the top flight pitchers that fell). And it seems fairly consistent with a few other teams as well, as they were choosing affordability over preference.
I also don't think it is a good idea to have a team spend 7 mil on a signing bonus that comes from their 40 man roster bonus. And I am not alone in this thinking. Many of the other leagues that have been formed in the image of FGM, are discussing doing away with signing bonuses because they are kind of pointless. The choice to spend either 7 mil on a signing bonus or 5 mil on a player is not realistic. No team would ever be faced with that. But in our rendition of the entry draft, Mike Napoli and Carl Pavano were dropped in order to clear cap space. Now to me that is totally unrealistic. Again this is just my two cents.
We should want teams that haven't done so well to think that they can in fact turn in around in a short period of time, by spending money on both MLB pieces and talented prospects. But there is not enough money on a majority of the rosters for both.
And yes this league is bat heavy, but the talented pitchers that fell would have never dropped that far if there was no sining bonus. I honestly don't think that point is arguable.
Lastly, this league is supposed to be fun, but if 5 teams continually dominate, who is going to want to sign up? This league started off skewed in a favorable direction for a few teams due to inactivity of just about every team until the following season (2010). I don't want to see that trend continue, nor do I think it is a good idea because eventually what you have is a dead league.
Not all teams have the money that the Cubs had to spend in order to become somewhat competitive.
-
The reason for the additional "draft budget" is to ensure competitive balance. If a low/or even high market team has a string of bad seasons, it doesn't take 10 years for a turnaround. Again, this is just in my eyes, but by making the bonus correlate to previous year standings (my preference) or salary cap budget (less of a preference - as we have had many successful low and mid market teams) it gives those teams a better ability to both compete in the now by spending money on players, as well as establishing a long term pipeline of talent from the minors.
Now I can use my team as an example. I have a mid-tier budget, but it does shrink because I have had one fair season, one disaster, and one good season. Now the talent that I have assembled in order to be decent pretty much costs me my cap. When it came to this draft I chose a player that was affordable (Seager) as opposed to one that was expensive, but more of a future need (any of the top flight pitchers that fell). And it seems fairly consistent with a few other teams as well, as they were choosing affordability over preference.
I also don't think it is a good idea to have a team spend 7 mil on a signing bonus that comes from their 40 man roster bonus. And I am not alone in this thinking. Many of the other leagues that have been formed in the image of FGM, are discussing doing away with signing bonuses because they are kind of pointless. The choice to spend either 7 mil on a signing bonus or 5 mil on a player is not realistic. No team would ever be faced with that. But in our rendition of the entry draft, Mike Napoli and Carl Pavano were dropped in order to clear cap space. Now to me that is totally unrealistic. Again this is just my two cents.
We should want teams that haven't done so well to think that they can in fact turn in around in a short period of time, by spending money on both MLB pieces and talented prospects. But there is not enough money on a majority of the rosters for both.
And yes this league is bat heavy, but the talented pitchers that fell would have never dropped that far if there was no sining bonus. I honestly don't think that point is arguable.
Lastly, this league is supposed to be fun, but if 5 teams continually dominate, who is going to want to sign up? This league started off skewed in a favorable direction for a few teams due to inactivity of just about every team until the following season (2010). I don't want to see that trend continue, nor do I think it is a good idea because eventually what you have is a dead league.
Not all teams have the money that the Cubs had to spend in order to become somewhat competitive.
I understand it's tough to compete given limited budget. Is the solution not then to shrink the salary cap between rich and poor teams, and then let the team choose whether they want to spend the money on the draft or FA?
-
I really don't think that is the solution at all. Because then you have to make drastic changes in the salary structure. Right now, we are discussing a minimal change in the draft structure. And using MLB as an example, that is how lower to mid level teams maintain a level of balance. The Yankees are always at the bottom of the draft, but they remain good because of their budget. No one goes to see the Rays, but they are good because of Price, Longoria and some very good drafts. But even a low level team like the Rays wouldn't balk at the cost of Price because he was who they considered the best player in that draft. But in our version of the draft he might fall to 29.
On a different subject, I did argue at the beginning if this post, what is considered success in order to elevate one's payroll. But even that comes down to be difficult to quantify and qualify. I think the best way to maintain a balance in this league is to not have a team spend an enormous chunk of their budget on a bonus. It's not even a choice because do most people want to head into the season as a "loser"? That may be feasible in MLB, but here it affects activity which then affects overall league satisfaction.
-
I really don't think that is the solution at all. Because then you have to make drastic changes in the salary structure. Right now, we are discussing a minimal change in the draft structure. And using MLB as an example, that is how lower to mid level teams maintain a level of balance. The Yankees are always at the bottom of the draft, but they remain good because of their budget. No one goes to see the Rays, but they are good because of Price, Longoria and some very good drafts. But even a low level team like the Rays wouldn't balk at the cost of Price because he was who they considered the best player in that draft. But in our version of the draft he might fall to 29.
On a different subject, I did argue at the beginning if this post, what is considered success in order to elevate one's payroll. But even that comes down to be difficult to quantify and qualify. I think the best way to maintain a balance in this league is to not have a team spend an enormous chunk of their budget on a bonus. It's not even a choice because do most people want to head into the season as a "loser"? That may be feasible in MLB, but here it affects activity which then affects overall league satisfaction.
To me at least there's more work in implementing a new cap compared to changing the numbers to an existing cap. I think I prefer the option of spreading out the bonus over a new cap.
-
So that is
3 for cap - Colby, Me, Mike
1 for keep - Ben
1 for spreadable bonus - Howe
Need votes from rest of RC...Shooter, Kungfuwig, and Roy I believe (unless you voted and I missed it)
-
1) Change the FA compensation system. It's harder for teams like :MIL: and myself to dominate the draft if we don't have 10 picks in the first round. Ben brought up using the top 150 players by VORP. The problem with this approach is that there VORP does not correlate perfectly with our scoring system. Preferably, the top players are identified using our own scoring system
To clarify, I meant someone calculating VORP for our league, our scoring system. This is no different than setting up a value based draft calculation.
-
As far as #5 goes, I spoke with Colby because I was confused about why my cap was dropping every year, and he said because the Reds in real life made the play-offs and I had not. His Pirates had a poor 2010 and a good 2011 and his cap climbed both years. Why? Because the real life Pirates suck, that is until this season. So no, the cap influences aren't totally based on what happens in this league. If I finished 16th of 30 teams, and in my mind my cap shouldn't have gone up or down. I also apologize for talking about my team, but it is what I know best, not really familiar with how everyone else feels about their cap situation.
I'm confused here, because I did not think there was any tie between your MLB team's performance and your FGM salary cap. The payroll from MLB teams is currently used, but not one to one with your FGM team. If you finish 5th in FGM, then your STAND will include the 5th highest MLB payroll in your future salary cap calculations. There should not be any tie to your MLB team's actual performance or directly to their payroll (at least no more than to any other team's payroll).
Now, we include a rolling three year average in the calculations, meaning performance from the previous three years will impact your current cap. Since prior to 2009 we did not have FGM standings, MLB performance was used. This would impact numbers up until 2012, which included 2009, 2010 and 2011 performance numbers. However 2009 was the last year of MLB data so starting in 2013 it should be purely FGM based. Also, no MLB performance for 2010 or 2011 should have impacted the cap.
What am I missing?
-
Just what I was told
-
Just what I was told
Fair enough. Colby, can you clarify?
-
Colby,
Could you please provide a re-fresher course on how team salary caps are computed? I too am curious when my own team's cap will be re-calculated and how it will be done.
-
Colby,
Could you please provide a re-fresher course on how team salary caps are computed? I too am curious when my own team's cap will be re-calculated and how it will be done.
You can just send me the spreadsheet (or Howe or whoever has it) and I will update the info. Essentially, if the A's win the World Series then the highest payroll in real-life 2012 MLB will be applied to their future caps (two years out, and used for three years). There is a stipulation that prevents volatile cap swings of more than 20%, so that is regressed against the current caps.
-
You can just send me the spreadsheet (or Howe or whoever has it) and I will update the info. Essentially, if the A's win the World Series then the highest payroll in real-life 2012 MLB will be applied to their future caps (two years out, and used for three years). There is a stipulation that prevents volatile cap swings of more than 20%, so that is regressed against the current caps.
What do you mean by the "highest payroll in real-life 2012 MLB"? I did not think there was a correlation between our teams and MLB teams. Perhaps, that is what confused Dan Wood as well.
-
What do you mean by the "highest payroll in real-life 2012 MLB"? I did not think there was a correlation between our teams and MLB teams. Perhaps, that is what confused Dan Wood as well.
From the chat
rcankosy: we need the layman's explanation for all this
Delete Today at 04:51:05 PM
rcankosy: I'm afraid no more than 5 people may understand all this
Delete Today at 04:51:27 PM
shooter47: Haven't the orioles come pretty close to bottoming out their cap...if you finish 30th every year the only fluctuation in the cap would be what the lowest team in the majors has spent?
Delete Today at 04:51:59 PM
shooter47: I understand the cap system...its not that bad
Delete Today at 04:52:10 PM
ProFSL: there is no layman's explanation other than this... you win, and your caps two years out will increase a bit
Delete Today at 04:52:25 PM
ProFSL: sound logic was developed to put it together, it doesn't replicate revenue sharing or ownership, but it is a great cap adjustment formula
Delete Today at 04:53:02 PM
rcankosy: the logic is sound
Delete Today at 04:53:46 PM
rcankosy: the effect are not predicatble (at least not to me)
Delete Today at 04:54:01 PM
rcankosy: asked another way
Delete Today at 04:56:38 PM
rcankosy: how many years of winning the WS would it take for the As to "inherit" the Yanks' real life MLB payroll?
Delete Today at 04:57:12 PM
rcankosy: 5, 10, 25 years?
Delete Today at 04:57:23 PM
rcankosy: ever?
Delete Today at 04:57:26 PM
shooter47: a long time...
Delete Today at 04:57:45 PM
rcankosy: understood
Delete Today at 04:58:22 PM
rcankosy: define long time
Delete Today at 04:58:26 PM
ProFSL: a long time
Delete Today at 04:58:40 PM
rcankosy: if it's more than 5 years, something is wrong
Delete Today at 04:58:45 PM
ProFSL: I can break out a spreadsheet for this one
Delete Today at 04:58:55 PM
rcankosy: we should not be wed to our real life counter-parts for that long
Delete Today at 04:59:02 PM
ProFSL: cap is at $81m, and say the highest payroll + $20m is $230m
Delete Today at 04:59:06 PM
rcankosy: that defeats the premise of winning
Delete Today at 04:59:14 PM
shooter47: It's designed to make the changes to the salary cap smoother and not raise or fall by huge amounts
Delete Today at 05:00:23 PM
rcankosy: I know we capped it at 20M per season
Delete Today at 05:01:00 PM
rcankosy: I mean 20%
Delete Today at 05:01:10 PM
ProFSL: got the answer...
Delete Today at 05:01:38 PM
ProFSL: if they win world series every year
Delete Today at 05:02:31 PM
ProFSL: their caps for 2012/13 are set
Delete Today at 05:02:38 PM
ProFSL: 2014 is at $90.5m right now
Delete Today at 05:02:46 PM
ProFSL: but looks like it will go to $102m
Delete Today at 05:02:52 PM
ProFSL: In 2017, it will be $148.6m
Delete Today at 05:03:07 PM
ProFSL: In 2019, it is no longer affected by the 20/20 smoothing adjustment and the cap is $184.0m
Delete Today at 05:03:42 PM
rcankosy: wow
Delete Today at 05:04:33 PM
ProFSL: 2020-2024, $195.5m, $204.1m, $210.6m, $215.4m, $219.1m
Delete Today at 05:04:37 PM
ProFSL: the increases slow down since they are so close to the top
Delete Today at 05:04:46 PM
rcankosy: effectively, they would become the Yankees if they continue to win
Delete Today at 05:05:09 PM
ProFSL: note that if all of a sudden they start losing big time, worst in the league, that there will still be two years in which their caps would increase based on the past
Delete Today at 05:05:19 PM
ProFSL: Of course... but it doesn't happen overnight, it takes up to a decade of dominance for a small market team to turn into the Yankees
Delete Today at 05:05:52 PM
shooter47: eventually yeah...this is assuming that the spending in MLB baseball stays similar to what it currently is.
Delete Today at 05:05:58 PM
ProFSL: also, those #'s aren't set
Delete Today at 05:06:03 PM
ProFSL: they are assumptions based on the $230m figure
Delete Today at 05:06:12 PM
ProFSL: MLB inflation will drive these numbers higher
Delete Today at 05:06:19 PM
ProFSL: and affect our market prices for players
Delete Today at 05:06:24 PM
ProFSL: We thought about all of this when the rules were developed
Delete Today at 05:06:32 PM
rcankosy: gotcha
Delete Today at 05:06:32 PM
ProFSL: As opposed to a simple layman's way which will turn the A's into the Yankees within a few years