ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: chrisetc21 on August 21, 2016, 11:33:49 PM
-
Some things I think we need to look at.
1) Tanking. In the past we had a 10 player rule for each roster. It's difficult to enforce as we need to constantly check roster to ensure each team has 10 active players. I think instead, we go with something like if your team finishes bottom five more than 3 years in a row then your first and second round picks go to the end of each round. Obviously a team without an owner would not be penalized.
2) Trading of picks. I think we need to put a limit on the number of consecutive years you can trade your 1st,2nd, or 3rd round picks. It's not good for our league to have teams constantly trading their highest picks. I think two years should be the limit. Also, no trading of picks more than 2 drafts away.
3) Salary cap. We need to look at raising the cap since many arbitration year salaries are dependent on MLB salaries. It's not realistic to keep that cap as MLB salaries continue to increase.
4) Minor league affiliates. I think it's become a waste of time to keep minor league affiliates. At this point it may be time to simply list a team's minor league players alphabetically. The affiliates and levels really serve no purpose at all other than to group your guys how you want. There's not enough benefit for the time spent doing it.
5) Revocable waivers changes. I think we need to look at having a 48 hour period for the waiver and then a 48 hour period for any claims/trades. Right now a team can make a claim and instantly post a trade without giving other teams the opportunity to claim. It's a loophole that exists now that could be problematic. Also, we need to treat revocable waiver claims to regular waiver claims in terms of the order. You make a claim and your team goes to the bottom of the list in terms of priority. Right now a team with the worst record can win every claim they want in revocable waivers. That's a problem.
-
1) Cap penalties might be a better option.
2) Depends on the situation, I don't think we have a problem with trading a pick later than the following year draft but yes a rule limiting traded picks to the current year draft and following year draft should be in writing.
3) Agreed but not yet as big a problem as it may seem. Average MLB payroll for 2016 was $130M up 3.9% year over year, so we are not really out of line at $125M. Possibly make the the following year's cap the previous year's MLB average + an extra 5% to cover the rest of the players on the 40man.
4) No-brainer in my book. Should be a depth chart style. Advocated for this a couple years ago.
5) Agreed, although in season waivers are not supposed to roll a winning claim to the bottom that's only for offseason claims.
I would add
6) removing one of the outfield spots to be replaced by an additional pitcher, also consolidate the CI and MI postions to make room to add a flex UT/P position.
-
1) I agree that I think a cap penalty would be better.
2) I don't think dealing picks is a huge issue, But wouldn't be opposed to some sort of rule being put in place.
3) I think a progressive increase like what was proposed is a great idea since our salaries are so tied to real life.
4) agreed on depth chart minors
5) I think the in-season waivers should continue to work like the real MLB with the worst record in league having the first crack at a claim. Off-season should roll with each claim made.
6) this is a huge one for me. Very difficult to ask people to fill full rosters when we play more players than teams roster. I this what was laid out in the previous post makes sense.
-
definately think we need a small cap increas to maintain compettiveness
-
1) I agree cap penalty would be better.
2) I think picks should only be traded for current draft and next year following. Two years out can damage a team pretty bad especially if the current owner resigns. I think picks should be eligible to be traded as many years in a row as possible due to competition. Teams currently competing generally do not need top picks as much as current players.
3) Salary Cap- I say do either the median salary ($114M- 2015) or an average ($130M in 2016) I am fine with either, but if we use median it will cut the cap some. As a result I would wait a year or two so teams could be compliant. I think that average salary is a better method going forward.
4) Minor League Affiliates- It is easier to track players but we can do it on our own if need be (which I will in that event). It is a lot of work at the end of the year for the commissioners so if we keep it please do it early so they do not get slammed with 1000 requests.
5) I agree. It should take 48hrs and highest claiming team receives negotiation rights.
6) Lineup- MLB teams generally carry 13 position players and 12 pitchers. I think our lineup should reflect that. As a result, I like the current setup due to the realism. It also makes it easier for non playoff teams to move players at the deadline for prospects etc.
My new proposals:
7) Rule 5 draft. Players that are in the minors and not on 40man after six years service time become eligible to be drafted to 40man rosters of other teams. This will prevent top teams from stockpiling talent and essentially blocking everyone else for that player's career. It also allows the lower teams to pick up fringe guys who could play.
8) International Signing needs a tweek. I am new, but I looked at the transactions from years past. First bid has to be doubled as a 'discovery' charge. However, top 20 or top 30 players are already known. So basically, the first person who bids can lock out the other teams with say a $2M bid or so. I think top international free agents set by MLB, Baseball America, or one good source should not be subject to that rule. That allows all teams to be able to bid for the top international players. Some people work, have kids, etc and I don't think it is fair to essentially punish someone because they didn't hear someone signed first.
9) Qualifying offers. We should set a qualifying offer (same as MLB charge) to impending free agents. If that player is signed via free agency, the signing team has to give their first draft pick to the team losing the player (however, it is top 10 protected). In the event a team does not have 1st pick, then a 2nd round is passed. If a team signs multiple qualified players, then it gives the picks to the teams in chronological order to whichever player is signed first.
-
Tanking teams don't really care about their cap space. Might as well call this the White Sox rule. They have $90m in cap space.
The kind of cheap impact players a team needs to be a winning team are much more likely to be found in the draft than in minor league free agency and a tanking team wouldn't sign mlb free agents until they were ready to win anyway. I'd gladly pay a $10, $20, or $30 million cap penalty every year to get a top five pick in the draft. A cap penalty doesn't deter tanking at all for me.
-
That's very true and my team would be a great example of that. If I was tanking and not trying to build, while putting some sort of product on the field, I wouldn't have used any of my cap space this off-season and would have just left my lineup void of MLB players. I think that the key is that it has to be obvious that tanking is occurring and not just a team that was left in a really bad place.
I also really like the idea of a Rule V draft. I am in another 30 team league that has a 100 player minor league system and it has a rule V draft every off season. We run it 2 rounds just like in the majors and generally see some players that can contribute being drafted. I do realize that it does however, create additional work for the person running the spreadsheet because 6 years of service time isn't something that can looked up. That clock starts from the time that a player is signed in free agency or drafted and isn't tied to any real life number, so it definitely creates extra work.
-
A rule 5 system wouldn't be terribly difficult to track going forward. Just list the year signed in the empty Level column. Back dating would be more difficult and not really worth the trouble. Starting the system with the first draft being years out I'm fine with.
I like the international system. Really outside of the top 5 guys they are all virtually unknown and it takes a good amount of homework to find gems cheap.
A QO is a bet with the player. w/o a player I don't think it will work. You will see most of the players with a QO go unsigned.
-
Leave Rule 5 to individual teams. If they draft ineligible player, that's on them.
QO is pretty expensive to resigning team. It gives team losing player a chance to recoup a prospect. Teams cannot offer QO unless cap compliant. Top players are generally worth sacrificing that pick, and team losing top player isn't hurt as bad.
-
1) Tanking - I find this a hard rule to enforce any way you go. I disagree with the practice, but there is not a good way to police it. I disagree with penalizing a team just based on where they finish in the standings.
2) Trading picks - I agree with limiting how far out we can trade draft picks, but I do not support limiting the trading of draft picks. I don't see how it is bad for the league when teams trade away their top picks, unless they are doing it frivolously and then isn't that where the trade committee comes in? Ideally you have a top team trading a top pick for players that help their team now.
3) Salary Cap - We should consider amending the salary cap every so often based on % increase of salaries in MLB or average annual salary cap.
4) Minor League Affiliates - I support eliminating the affiliates. We need to keep the workload down on those who administer this league.
5) Waivers - I agree the change should be made to the 48 hour period. However, the with the lowest record during the regular season should retain priority on claims. That is how MLB is designed and it is done to help the teams that need improvement.
6) Roster Changes - I support changes to the rosters to allow more teams to field a roster, but we also need to be careful to make sure we do not tip the balance of the league too heavily toward pitching.
7) Rule 5 Draft - I Support the Rule 5 draft. Recording the year they are drafted or signed would not be difficult.
8) International - No opinion here. Although, how is the pool determined?
9) QOs - This is probably going to change this year in the CBA anyway, however, I think we need to review the free agent compensation / extension rules.
-
1) Like Chris said cap penalty doesn't mean much to a tanking team void of MLB contracts. Not a fan of punishing a team that's bad in standings with pick losses either though. This one will always be a tough one.
Maybe put a minimum number of points teams must reach in Fantrax during a season or they forfeit picks. For example <1k points in a season loses 1st rd, 1k-2k lose a 2nd rd etc. Something along those lines. I think that is better than saying must have X amount of MLB players as in years past. It doesn't matter where the points come from. This will force those bad teams to either spend in FA or call up players.
2) I think trading is fine just no more than 2 drafts out. Personally I like only being able to trade current years. For example 2017 draft is a long ways out right now and there will undoubtedly be owner turnover and I hate to see someone trade picks then jump ship. That said if people like 2 years out as limit that's fine I just think only upcoming draft is better.
3) I agree salary cap should be something along the lines of previous years average or average plus 5%. This offseason should probably be a slight increase of a couple mil or so.
4) Everybody agrees on this. Make it easier on the spreadsheet person.
5) Revocable Waivers should require 48 to pass to give teams a chance to claim then start another 48 hour clock to negotiate/post a trade. As it is now a team can post on waivers and another team see, claim, agree to trade and post within 10minutes of being placed on waivers. That's not fair to all teams.
6) I'm mostly indifferent to roster changes. Maybe cut one position player for another P or UT/P spot.
7) I definitely support this. Hoarding of prospects is bad for the league and prevents those bad/mid level teams from getting better as there aren't players available to fill out rosters. This might help curb issue #1 as well.
8) I think international is fine the way it is for now. Wait and see when/if MLB creates international draft or something then change.
9) QO should be avoided for now. Rule will probably change soon in real life anyways.
-
We've had I think five or six different commissioners in the 5 seasons this league has been here so things that are additional spreadsheet or tracking work to what we're already doing is kind of a non-starter for me. I put in a lot of time to keep things going and I know Chris probably puts in more time on the spreadsheets. Jeremy and Sean could probably confirm how much work it is every day. Burn out happens very quickly when there's no help for running the league. So all these ideas about QO's and Rule 5 drafts that mimic MLB are great but practicality has to win the day.
Having said that, the MLB draft is too long. I haven't asked Chris about it but I would imagine he'd agree. I'd like to cut it to 20 rounds in 2017. There are very, very few players drafted in this league past the 20th round that matter. It's just as well to have teams bid on these players in minor league free agency if they want to take a chance on them. The draft is not only incredibly time consuming to manage, it's complicated even further when teams let their picks be skipped and then they show up and make up a bunch of skipped picks. I think 20 rounds is more than enough for this league.
1) I like the minimum points idea. There are three teams under 3k points currently. Perhaps you lose a 1st round pick if you're under 2k points, you lose a 2nd round pick if you're over 2k but under 3k. Unowned teams would not be subject.
2) I think here we need to protect the league. No trading of picks past two future drafts. In the NBA, they don't allow teams to trade 1st round picks in consecutive seasons. Our picks are not as valuable so I'd really like to make it three seasons in this league. You wouldn't be able to trade 1st round picks in three consecutive seasons.
3) We'll start increasing the cap by average of MLB plus 5%.
4) We'll do away with affiliates.
5) Revocable waivers will be 48 hours, after 48 hours any claims have 48 hours to be processed as pull backs of players or trades.
6) I'll have to look at the roster spots in FanTrax and what is possible here.
I don't see a problem with international free agency. It's worked very well since we instituted the current rules. Players are dispersed pretty well.
-
I don't think it is beyond practicality to ask for a 2 round Rule 5 draft, especially when we are all on board for slashing the amount of work by eliminating affiliates.
Additionally, cutting the draft in half is a significant move that significantly alters this league. It has the potential of setting this league on a path of becoming just another league at the site. First cut the draft, then we cannot fill rosters, so we rosters get cut too. This is not a good idea, it is part of the draw to this league to have the realism.
I don't understand why we are talking about protecting teams picks by not allowing them to trade them two years in a row, when it brings them beneficial players. Yet we talk about taking teams picks for tanking? How does that make sense. The teams that are doing the worst need their picks to be protected or if they so choose, let them turn them into profit. As a team, I am rarely willing to move that first round pick, but if it will bring me someone that will help me this year, next year and down the line, I just may pull the trigger.
We need to be careful that what we do is for the benefit of the league and doesn't alter the original purposes of the league in the name of making things easy.
-
The "White Sox Rule" is a great title and I am proud to be the inspiration for such a rule!
To tell you the truth, I am just trying to stock-pile players in order to compete at a certain period of time. Really, I'm not trying to cause problems. To me it is a strategy you put in place to compete at a point in time, somewhat similar to what the Marlins have done on a couple of occasions, and I'm talking real life.
If the concern is that there are organizations in our group, such as mine, trying to plan ahead to compete at a certain point in time instead of the present, then that is short sighted. You are either fielding a team who is challenging for the title, or doing what you can to get to that point.
Why all the concern about teams that are trying to re-build any way they can as opposed to teams currently competing?
-
The "White Sox Rule" is a great title and I am proud to be the inspiration for such a rule!
To tell you the truth, I am just trying to stock-pile players in order to compete at a certain period of time. Really, I'm not trying to cause problems. To me it is a strategy you put in place to compete at a point in time, somewhat similar to what the Marlins have done on a couple of occasions, and I'm talking real life.
If the concern is that there are organizations in our group, such as mine, trying to plan ahead to compete at a certain point in time instead of the present, then that is short sighted. You are either fielding a team who is challenging for the title, or doing what you can to get to that point.
Why all the concern about teams that are trying to re-build any way they can as opposed to teams currently competing?
The most glaring reason that it's a problem is the limited schedule that is roughly 1/8th of an MLB schedule. A win or 3 for teams fortunate enough to be scheduled or in the division with the team not fielding anywhere near a complete roster gains a large advantage especially for wild card spots. You can sell off and still build a team. Also if you don't stagger your Players service time payroll will explode in the later ARB years.
-
The draft is an albatross at 30 rounds and the overwhelming reason I could not continue as commissioner along with the headache caused by owners no longer here. 20-25 rounds is adequate. Possibly the opening bid for draft eligible players not drafted could be lowered to $5-$10k to make the cost of aquistion lower for teams looking to add more long shot players to their roster.
The only real problem I see with a rule 5 draft outside of the administrative work involved would is the salary implications of protecting a player. In MLB a player on the 40man put not the active roster earns about $70k a year. All players on our 40man earn a big league salary because we track service time by the year not the day. A player who would be rule 5 eligible may not be called up late in the season more for salary purposes in our league rather than service time reasons in MLB.
-
I would add
6) removing one of the outfield spots to be replaced by an additional pitcher, also consolidate the CI and MI postions to make room to add a flex UT/P position.
In looking at it, there is an MLB team position which I think would let a player pitch or hit but it can't specify starter or reliever. Teams do carry 12/13 pitchers but it's almost always 7/8 relievers. We can't specify a relief pitcher/hitter position, it would just be pitcher/hitter.
-
Or maybe just in the name of flexibility we add one RP and add the hit/pitch position. That'll give us 5 SP, 6 RP, 1 P, and 1 hit/pitch.
-
I don't think I chimed in about the draft when I posted.
I'm in favor of reducing the rounds. I think 20 is good. In the years I've been in this league once it gets that far it is just a couple owners left drafting whoever they want anyways. It won't be a big change. Just less admin work and the few owners hanging around can just post PC bids.
After rd 20 draft ends then owners could sign undrafted players to PC deals with no bidding (finders keepers) but only at a rate of 1 per day per owner. This would prevent one team from inundating the commishes with work while giving all owners still interested in signing players opportunities to get some more guys. Maybe also put a time limit on it to prevent some owners from going crazy and signing every player drafted. Something like 10 days following the end of 20rd draft which would effectively put a limit of at the most 10 undrafted signings per team and limit the work on commish. If you are worried about owners knowing when the draft ends/unsigned draft pick period begins then put a dead period in between end of draft and start of 10 day unsigned draft period to allow emails to be sent out notifying owners and time for commish to catch up with Fantrax and spreadsheets.
-
Just out of curiosity, is the league experiencing major problems from this "tanking" situation? Like real life, are teams not being competitive purposely so they can compete later?
-
Just out of curiosity, is the league experiencing major problems from this "tanking" situation? Like real life, are teams not being competitive purposely so they can compete later?
In real life a team still has to be fielded.
-
One more thing I wanted to discuss is the DL. Right now we can only place people on the DL that are on the MLB 60 day DL. I think this is flawed. MLB teams only place people on the 60 day when they need to clear 40 man roster space, it really doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the severity of the injury. Right now, if a player is out for the season in our league he cannot be put on the DL unless the corresponding MLB org puts him on the 60 day DL. I think we should change this. If a player is out for the year in our league he should be allowed to placed on the 60 day DL. The only caveat I would add is that once you add someone who is declared out for the season to the 60 Day DL he cannot be reinstated for that season.
-
I tried to tighten up some of the signing rules so they're easier to read. Please look them over.
Free Agency Rules
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=131562.0
International Free Agency Rules
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=159576.0
-
Every league that has a DL requires the player to be out on the DL by the MLB team. Why are we trying to change basic rules? Who is going to make the determination that the player is out for the season? or do we then lose the 60 day DL for those who are going to be out less than the rest of the season?
-
As someone who has had I think 7 or 8 different players go on and/or off the 60day DL at some point this season I don't like the idea of a player on 60day DL must be on it all year. A lot of those players on the 60day DL come back mid year from TJS from previous year and now you are telling me I either need to hold a roster spot for those 7 or 8 guys all year or commit to not playing them even as they spend half a year playing in real life.
That said I see the problem Chris is pointing out and agree it is a legitimate problem. Case in point, Jordan Walden took up a roster spot on my team for about 15 months while being injured before the real life Cards decided to Move him from 15 to 60day DL.
So, while I agree there is a problem I don't agree with the proposed solution.
-
Well we could tell someone is out for the year when the team says the player is out for the year. This happens all the time. Players who have surgeries or break bones are sometimes left on the 15 day DL but are listed out for the year.
The 60 day DL is a function of 40 man roster spots in MLB, it's not a function simply of the length of time someone is going to be injured.
I'm simply proposing, in addition to the 60 man DL, that players who have been declared out for the year can be placed on the DL in our league but would not be allowed to return to active status that year. This won't affect 60 day DL players at all, it's merely an add on for players out for the season. You wouldn't have to place him on the DL and lose him for the year, it would just be an option. It makes no sense that a player out for the year can't be placed on our DL because his real life MLB team just has him on the 15 day DL.
Either way, it's not a big deal. Just something I felt was a hole in our rules.
-
Average MLB team payrolls for the last few years. We probably don't need the +5% provision. As it stands, using the averages the cap would go up $17m.
2016 - $142m
2015 - $135m
2014 - $121m
2013 - $111m
-
Average MLB team payrolls for the last few years. We probably don't need the +5% provision. As it stands, using the averages the cap would go up $17m.
2016 - $142m
2015 - $135m
2014 - $121m
2013 - $111m
Where did you pull those numbers? Baseball Prospectus has these numbers
2016 - $130m
2015 - $125m
2014 - $115m
2013 - $106m
maybe you have year end numbers and these are opening day numbers
-
Where did you pull those numbers? Baseball Prospectus has these numbers
2016 - $130m
2015 - $125m
2014 - $115m
2013 - $106m
maybe you have year end numbers and these are opening day numbers
They're year end from spotrac.
http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/
-
They're year end from spotrac.
http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/
Would it not be better to use baseball pro since that's where our ARB numbers come from?
-
Would it not be better to use baseball pro since that's where our ARB numbers come from?
I've never used that for my salaries here but okay. It looks like the source I used incorporates signing bonuses for draft picks into team payroll which we definitely don't want to do.
Cots shows the average as 130, plus 5 percent comes to $136.5m