Some thoughts for the RC - and rest of the league

[shooter47]

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.

[Dan Wood]

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.

[shooter47]

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.

[Dan Wood]

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.

[h4cheng]

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.

[Dan Wood]

Tastes great...less filling...tastes great....less filling... Thank you for the summation Howe

[h4cheng]

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 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?

[Colby]

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.

[rcankosy]

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 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.

[h4cheng]

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 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.