ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: chrisetc21 on October 03, 2017, 09:47:25 PM
-
I exchanged emails with Maydab23 this afternoon and these are some of the issues up for discussion. Please feel free to chime in on these issues and present your own issues. Thanks.
1) Recruitment Volunteers - We need dedicated recruiters to help find knowledgeable, long term owners for the league. It is a lot of work to operate the league so we need some help in recruitment.
2) Transaction limit - Limiting the number of promotions that can be conducted each season. I think we discussed a limit of 15. We had a couple of teams that were sort of streaming players up and down from their major league roster and that's really problematic from the standpoint of operating the league.
3)Executive Committee Volunteers - We need volunteers to help with FanTrax and the spreadsheets. Helping to move threads, edit threads for team logos and sticky them on the board, stuff like this that isn't difficult but is time consuming.
4) Possibly moving the league to another site - Unfortunately this site is dying on the vine, just neglect really. Right now for example, Maydab23 can't even log into the site and can't get any help. Personally I love how this site is set up but we have to be realistic in that this site could disappear at any moment and all of our work here with it. That is problematic.
5) Contraction - We have a great core of dedicated owners, people who've been with the league for many years but it's increasingly evident that a 30 team league creates significant problems when spots can't be filled. As teams go without owners they become increasingly difficult to turn around and as a result, less attractive for new owners to take over. We've discussed just a bit about contracting down to 24 teams. The worst ownerless teams in each division would be contracted and we would have a 3 round contraction draft with MLB and minor league players to be drafted in one large pool. Each team would inherit the contracts of the players drafted. This would really help the competitiveness of the league, strengthening some of the weaker teams much quicker than they could do normally.
6) Minor League Free Agency - Looking for a way to give teams an advantage in posting minor league free agents. As it stands, after someone has done all the work in finding and posting a minor league free agent any team can simply bid on it without any restrictions. It's sort of unfair that one person does all the work and every other owner can merely bid on that player all of a sudden. In international free agency a team has to double the bid of a player posted but everyone in regular free agency has much more money available. So I was proposing a team in minor league free agency have to make a bid 4 times the original bid. So a minor league free agent posted for $50k would require a second bid to be a minimum of $200k.
-
1) I don't have time to help in this area
2) 15 for a season seems to few, only 3 per month. Its the constant promotion/demotion transactions that eat the most time as the demotions have to be processed multiple times because of waivers. Possibly a set number allowed per season then limit after that threshold is reached. Maybe 1 every two weeks after the 15th.
3)yeah
4)above my paygrade, makes no difference to me.
5)Open to it, some teams are chronically ownerless and tilt the balance of the league. I would say eliminate the teams in terrible shape regardless of division and then shift rosters of newer owners to where needed to keep divisions equal. A 66 game schedule works with 24 teams.
6) Wouldn't mind this, though I think 3x would be a better starting point
-
1. Unable to help right now
2. No preference - whatever is easiest to manage is fine by me
3. Unable to help in this area either
4. I don't have any objections
5. I like this idea a lot
6. No strong preference but I would agree that 3x sounds a bit more reasonable
-
1) i can help with this on my 3 days off wensday,thurs,friday.
2) what ever the best for the league ill go with it.
3)i can handel fantrax part of it.
4) ill do what is best for the league.
5) open to it
6)ill go with whats best for the league
-
1) I would be happy to help recruit. I commish another league and I could easily recruit both leagues at the same time. In fact I posted on Rotoworld tonight.
2) I'm mixed on this. First of all, it's only fair to note that I am one of the teams you refer to. Secondly, this league is not your run of the mill dynasty league. It seems like the only rules that are proposed are rules that limit the work that has to be done, which also tend to limit teams' competitive ability. At the same time, it isn't very realistic. I would support something more like, you cannot use a waiver to send a player down to the minors more than once in a season. The second time is an outright release. This would be more realistic and limit the number of transactions.
3) I'd like to help, but I only have time to do this for one league and barely that, but I will help with #1.
4) If you move the league, I likely will not go with it.
5) Again, I am mixed on this as well. It does hurt the league to have players locked up by teams, however, again, it hurts the realism factor. There really has been little recruitment efforts in the league for awhile.
6) I'm not sure I understand why you would only 2x international, but 4x minor league free agency. Is this really a problem? If it is, shouldn't people just up their opening bid?
-
1) I would be happy to help recruit. I commish another league and I could easily recruit both leagues at the same time. In fact I posted on Rotoworld tonight.
2) I'm mixed on this. First of all, it's only fair to note that I am one of the teams you refer to. Secondly, this league is not your run of the mill dynasty league. It seems like the only rules that are proposed are rules that limit the work that has to be done, which also tend to limit teams' competitive ability. At the same time, it isn't very realistic. I would support something more like, you cannot use a waiver to send a player down to the minors more than once in a season. The second time is an outright release. This would be more realistic and limit the number of transactions.
3) I'd like to help, but I only have time to do this for one league and barely that, but I will help with #1.
4) If you move the league, I likely will not go with it.
5) Again, I am mixed on this as well. It does hurt the league to have players locked up by teams, however, again, it hurts the realism factor. There really has been little recruitment efforts in the league for awhile.
6) I'm not sure I understand why you would only 2x international, but 4x minor league free agency. Is this really a problem? If it is, shouldn't people just up their opening bid?
2) The discussion we had on limiting transactions had nothing to do with your team. Maydab can confirm if you like.
There was a team that may have had more transactions than every other team combined. The team was using the rules to their advantage and that's fine but it's a logistical problem. Ideally the waiver system would prevent this streaming of players issue but the players being demoted were very marginal players so nobody would claim them. We're trying to balance the realism of the rules with the realism of having nobody to run the league because it's too time consuming. This is why we're asking for volunteers.
I believe there were two teams in the league that had more than 15 promotions. This rule would not have any effect on the majority of the league.
-
2) Transaction limit - I’m ok with this. I can’t imagine using More moves than that.
3)Executive Committee Volunteers - Sorry, I’ve started coaching 2 sports, so I just don’t have the extra time.
4) Possibly moving the league to another site - I fear the site going as well. But I’m not aware of any better options.
5) Contraction - I hate the idea, but I believe you’re correct that it is probably necessary.
6) Minor League Free Agency - I would love to see something happen here. But I think the reason it works in international free agency is the finite number of players that everyone likes and a finite amount of money. If we require the first bid to be doubled or quadrupled, it makes no difference to the bidder if they have 10 million dollars to work with.
-
1) I can do some recruiting in my other leagues.
2) I'm against the transaction limit. Rebuilding teams are scrambling for any utility player that could potentially start. Teams should be allowed to stream marginal players that likely would also clear waivers in the MLB. I went much of the season without an everyday left fielder and I had a plethora of injuries with no depth. A transaction limit inhibits the ability to rebuild.
3) Dwight Gooden, Darryl Strawberry and myself will only be able to help the Executive Committee in the case of a league emergency.
4) I am alright with moving the league to another site. I'd like things condensed to a league page with spreadsheet.
5) I think you have a good argument for Contraction, however, I'd prefer keeping the teams and maintaining the realism. The vacant teams can be made competitive through a supplemental draft or with expansion style protection rules. Also, it can be entertaining to watch "dummy" teams play spoiler and a maintained computer picked team is no guarantee to finish in the cellar.
6) I agree with raising the minor league free agency bidding. I think the team who posts the player first should benefit and receive more protection.
I appreciate all the time and thought you've put into the league. It's a nice hangout. See you all at the draft.
-
We're nearing a point where we need to make some decisions so if you have something to add this would be the time.
-
1) I can do some recruiting in my other leagues.
2) I'm against the transaction limit. Rebuilding teams are scrambling for any utility player that could potentially start. Teams should be allowed to stream marginal players that likely would also clear waivers in the MLB. I went much of the season without an everyday left fielder and I had a plethora of injuries with no depth. A transaction limit inhibits the ability to rebuild.
3) Dwight Gooden, Darryl Strawberry and myself will only be able to help the Executive Committee in the case of a league emergency.
4) I am alright with moving the league to another site. I'd like things condensed to a league page with spreadsheet.
5) I think you have a good argument for Contraction, however, I'd prefer keeping the teams and maintaining the realism. The vacant teams can be made competitive through a supplemental draft or with expansion style protection rules. Also, it can be entertaining to watch "dummy" teams play spoiler and a maintained computer picked team is no guarantee to finish in the cellar.
6) I agree with raising the minor league free agency bidding. I think the team who posts the player first should benefit and receive more protection.
I appreciate all the time and thought you've put into the league. It's a nice hangout. See you all at the draft.
What do you mean by expansion style protection rules?
-
1. For those that volunteered, thank you. I know we are all busy but this might be the single most important thing for this league. We need to keep working to find owners to add to the strong core of committed great owners we already have.
2. The transaction limit is necessary. Especially as nobody is really able to help with the fantrax and spreadsheet processing. The league is massive work on the admin side. While a transaction limit is less than ideal, having a bunch of outstanding transactions that are not being processed (which we had this year including the lead up to playoffs) is not ideal either. The limit should be something that doesn't restrict owners freedom to promote/demote, only prevent the "im going to promote this guy for one game then demote him just because I can and I'm going for every point I can get" I commend that type of owner and want those types in this league BUT those types of transactions just aren't feasible admin wise in this league.
3. See above. Chris, Jeremy and myself will keep working hard for the league and appreciate any help somebody can give in the future.
4. I'm mixed. This site has definitely had an increase in issues in the last year or two. Ideally the league remains here but this is something to watch over the next year.
5. I respect some people's desire for realism as that's part of the draw of this league and what makes it unique. Like the transaction limit though, certain concessions have to be made IF the status quo is unsustainable. I feel right now we are teetering on that. This is why recruitment is SO important. If we can get the league to a point where we never have more than around 5 orphan teams then I feel that's a good and realistic place to be. This year we were at nearly 50% orphan rate at one point which is not okay. It's also not realistic to have so many teams being deadwood.
My position is, let's work out asses off recruiting and try to fill this league up with more great, committed owners. However, if we are near a 50% orphan rate again by the next off season then I think that contraction will unfortunately be a necessity.
6. Im mixed on this. Yes, I understand why owners feel frustrated they work hard to find minor league FAs just for someone else to swoop in. However, all this does is help the teams whose owners are most active (which are already the best teams in the league) Therefore, doing this might reduce parity which is was we are trying to avoid. The fact is not everybody has the same amount of time to find these guys. I've been in this league for years now and there were times I was finding lots of guys that were poached away and times in which my personal life was busy and was thankful others were finding and posting because I didn't have time at the moment so I see both sides. The best thing might be a compromise to implement something not too drastic.
-
What do you mean by expansion style protection rules?
Basehock like the Vegas Golden Knights. New owners select players from an unprotected list. I thought it might change the depth and could lower the transactions while also increasing the other teams attractiveness to new owners. However, the amount of orphan teams is higher than the fantrax owner list suggests and an increase in teams likely raises the transactions back up so I see the need for a limit.
286What do you mean by expansion style protection y
-
1) I could probably get a person or two to join from Wonderboy
2) Transaction limit. I wouldn't limit yearly transactions. Lets add a column with MLB options to the sheets. After the three options are done, they must clear waivers.
3) I will volunteer to help with sheets. I think we should look at the daily service time adder as well. I did it in Wonderboy and it wasn't hard but just one more step.
4) I agree. This site is on its last legs it seems like.
5) Contraction. I think 30 teams makes it more realistic. Has the idea of making it a money league ever been talked about? It always seems people are more competitive if money is on the line.
6) Minor league signings. Yes, this needs to be increased. Perhaps allow the 'finding' team a multiplier? Say like a 50% multiplier where if the finding team closes on the deal, the salary hit is only half of the bid.
I think there are some other things to look at:
A) Scheduling. I have a format for 162 game schedule where it plays out exactly like MLB.
B) Offseason FA. I am in a hockey league that uses REAL time bidding on Google Sheet. This will limit the work that has to be done by leaders of league. It is very, very innovative. I could share a copy from my buddy Alex.
C) Draft Pick Trading. It is not allowed in MLB, and specific owners in the past just trade all of their picks. This leaves the farm barren.
D) Salary Caps. I think winning should be rewarded. Have variable caps been discussed?
E) 40man active rosters. That's too many players because not every team will have a playable roster.
What do you guys think?
-
The version of this league that was a money league has already died. I don't think it would be more successful as a money league. And I would be out if it turned into a money league. I don't play money leagues.
I like having the salary caps the same in the league. It is the only league that I play in that maintains similar salary caps. It brings variety into my life. :)
-
1) I could probably get a person or two to join from Wonderboy
2) Transaction limit. I wouldn't limit yearly transactions. Lets add a column with MLB options to the sheets. After the three options are done, they must clear waivers.
3) I will volunteer to help with sheets. I think we should look at the daily service time adder as well. I did it in Wonderboy and it wasn't hard but just one more step.
4) I agree. This site is on its last legs it seems like.
5) Contraction. I think 30 teams makes it more realistic. Has the idea of making it a money league ever been talked about? It always seems people are more competitive if money is on the line.
6) Minor league signings. Yes, this needs to be increased. Perhaps allow the 'finding' team a multiplier? Say like a 50% multiplier where if the finding team closes on the deal, the salary hit is only half of the bid.
I think there are some other things to look at:
A) Scheduling. I have a format for 162 game schedule where it plays out exactly like MLB.
B) Offseason FA. I am in a hockey league that uses REAL time bidding on Google Sheet. This will limit the work that has to be done by leaders of league. It is very, very innovative. I could share a copy from my buddy Alex.
C) Draft Pick Trading. It is not allowed in MLB, and specific owners in the past just trade all of their picks. This leaves the farm barren.
D) Salary Caps. I think winning should be rewarded. Have variable caps been discussed?
E) 40man active rosters. That's too many players because not every team will have a playable roster.
What do you guys think?
To touch on the topics you brought up
A) Im interested. Jeremy (Phillies) re-did our schedule already for last year though and it was much better than years past imo. He is our resident schedule expert so I'd be interested to see what he thinks.
B) im definitely interested. PM me more info on this when you get a chance. Worth looking into.
C) I've always wondered this as well but it's a definitely in the fabric of the league. We've recently implemented some rules to prevent teams from just selling off a bunch of future picks. Personally, I would be okay with curtailing it more. Not sure if that would have owners support though.
D) I like the idea of every team having the same. Rewarding winning teams with more money just creates more imbalance and I want more parity in the league not less.
E) Was more of an admin thing. 40man mimics real life. It's only actually 25 "active" roster spots. If you put the 15 extra on the farm it just creates more needless roster shuffling. This helps simplify spreadsheets.
Love the discussion!
-
I can help out with everything but doing spreadsheets. I dont have a computer and just use my phone. I can move topics and add players to their teams.
-
So it seems there's agreement on a couple of things at least.
1) Contraction should be put off and have a more concerted recruitment effort.
2) Some type of benefit for teams posting minor league free agents. 4x or 3x initial bid or 50% off initial poster's bid.
3) Some type of transaction limit to prevent streaming marginal players.
4) Some help for recruitment, board transactions, and the spreadsheets.
The real time blind bidding is something that maybe we can take a look at. I know there was at least one league that tried that here with sending bids to an email address but it presents some problems if it's done poorly. Hard to stay within your budget if you're not sure if you've won or lost players or even if you won two players of which you only needed one but bid on both because you didn't want to lose out on them.
As for money league, I don't mind that but perhaps it could be an optional thing. Those who want to put up some cash would partake in the winnings and those who don't wouldn't. It's always an issue with rebuilding teams putting up money when they know they won't win for a few years.
Anyway, my thoughts.
-
Forgot to mention draft picks. I feel this is part of a larger discussion which is protecting franchises from themselves. When it comes to trading picks there is sometimes a bit of an uproar in the league that doesn't exist when a team doesn't sign minor league free agents, or gives bad contracts in free agency, or doesn't use their international money. If you're not exercising your ability to use all of the mechanisms available to you in this league then you're losing out. I would say the difference in trading picks is that you're at least getting some value. I think you will find that some of the teams that have engaged in trading their picks in recent years are the same teams that didn't use their picks in previous drafts. The drafts are in the history section, you can go see for yourselves.
From a personal standpoint, I can confirm it is incredibly difficult to rebuild an entire franchise in this league. It's took me 3 years to build mine. Without being able to get additional picks it would probably have taken even longer. I think a year or two ago we put in the rule that you couldn't trade your first round pick in 3 consecutive seasons because some teams started trading those picks every year. Maybe we can upgrade that protection somehow.
-
On the topic of minor league free agents, here is a suggestion that I have seen come up elsewhere that I have found interesting, maybe it was here. If the originating team does not win the bid, there is a "fee" paid to the finding team. It might be an interesting proposal.
-
To touch on the topics you brought up
A) Im interested. Jeremy (Phillies) re-did our schedule already for last year though and it was much better than years past imo. He is our resident schedule expert so I'd be interested to see what he thinks.
B) im definitely interested. PM me more info on this when you get a chance. Worth looking into.
C) I've always wondered this as well but it's a definitely in the fabric of the league. We've recently implemented some rules to prevent teams from just selling off a bunch of future picks. Personally, I would be okay with curtailing it more. Not sure if that would have owners support though.
D) I like the idea of every team having the same. Rewarding winning teams with more money just creates more imbalance and I want more parity in the league not less.
E) Was more of an admin thing. 40man mimics real life. It's only actually 25 "active" roster spots. If you put the 15 extra on the farm it just creates more needless roster shuffling. This helps simplify spreadsheets.
Love the discussion!
Don't care for a 162 game schedule.
-
Finders fee for posting players.
Even salary cap win or lose.
Trade players not draft picks.
Record that reflects 162 games.
Rename transaction limit-
"The Mets Rule!"
-
Bockey redispersion draft. Zamboni the diamond.
-
We can't exceed the salary cap, we had this issue last year with salary travel, so we can't have a finder's fee unless it's some kind of compensation draft pick.
-
I don't like finder fees for what Chris outlines above. More work. More conplicated and it could be used with the wrong intent by a creative owner.
It's not perfect but if people want something then I'm good with initial bid must be doubled like we do with J2.
I don't think the finder should have a huge advantage but that gives something. Hopefully, it will also encourage people to open with a higher bid and avoid the prospect threads that start at 50K and finally close 6 days later after 45 incremental increases. And if rebuilding teams who have the extra coins take those players away then I'm fine with that. That's realistic. It's good for the league and creates parity.
-
I don't like finder fees for what Chris outlines above. More work. More conplicated and it could be used with the wrong intent by a creative owner.
It's not perfect but if people want something then I'm good with initial bid must be doubled like we do with J2.
I don't think the finder should have a huge advantage but that gives something. Hopefully, it will also encourage people to open with a higher bid and avoid the prospect threads that start at 50K and finally close 6 days later after 45 incremental increases. And if rebuilding teams who have the extra coins take those players away then I'm fine with that. That's realistic. It's good for the league and creates parity.
Doubling means something in international free agency when teams have 2-5 million to spend and it takes very little effort to find the best talent because it's posted on lists everywhere. Doubling means very little when teams have 10-100 million to spend and it takes much more effort to find good unsigned players. Right now the teams that rarely post free agents but bid them up are benefitting at the expense of the teams that are doing the work.
I'm also thinking the bonuses for minor league free agents and major league free agents that people stash in the minors should be different. You shouldn't be able to pay the same $50k bonus to a 28 year old player with MLB experience as you pay to an 18 year old minor league kid. The comparative values are way off. If we say had a $250k minimum bonus bid for MLB free agents it would encourage people just to offer an MLB contract and a 40 man spot instead of trying to stash them in the minors. This also might be a way to dissuade the streaming of marginal players.
-
Doubling means something in international free agency when teams have 2-5 million to spend and it takes very little effort to find the best talent because it's posted on lists everywhere. Doubling means very little when teams have 10-100 million to spend and it takes much more effort to find good unsigned players. Right now the teams that rarely post free agents but bid them up are benefitting at the expense of the teams that are doing the work.
I'm also thinking the bonuses for minor league free agents and major league free agents that people stash in the minors should be different. You shouldn't be able to pay the same $50k bonus to a 28 year old player with MLB experience as you pay to an 18 year old minor league kid. The comparative values are way off. If we say had a $250k minimum bonus bid for MLB free agents it would encourage people just to offer an MLB contract and a 40 man spot instead of trying to stash them in the minors. This also might be a way to dissuade the streaming of marginal players.
Right, teams have 10-100M to spend. So no matter what you do to the bidding, if another team really wants the player you find, they will get them. That said, teams rarely spend frivolously and only the best minor leaguers go in the millions and the vast majority of the time it's under 5M. So if you find what you deem to be a really good find, rather than opening at a low amount to see if you can get a cheap buy to pass through quickly, you might open at 2M hoping nobody wants to go to 4.
This does a couple things.
1) Allows you to set the tone of bidding and start with an upper hand to sign.
2) Bids will not stay open as long as there will be less 5&10ing. This is good for the league.
I don't think a team should be rewarded just for finding a player. If you don't like that then don't find players and they will naturally find their way into being bid on a couple years later when on top prospect lists and a more casual owner finds them. Buuttt, you don't want to do that because you rather get the player now when nobody else knows he might be good and get him for cheap. So you will find him and spend a little amount to buy the big upside. That's already a reward. People just don't like somebody swooping in and stealing the thunder sometimes.
That said, if we look at everybody's rosters I guarantee you most of the best players acquired via MiLB FA will be on the same teams who generally find the players.
Personally, I want more parity in this league. Not less.
-
As far as the MLB experienced minor league FAs, I think it's fine the way it is. The market will dictate just like real life. A good team may try to stash him in minors for coverage but worse teams may give him a minimum level MLB contract and play to get whatever points they can because it's better than nothing.
Either way, for that level of player I don't think it would affect the "streaming" nature. Regardless of how much the initial expenditure was, a fringe player would still be streamed up and down the same.
As far as the initial callup having to be processed, well we processed plenty of players last year who were signed for 250k of so then called up and streamed.
I just think it would be making a rule for the sake of making a rule and not changing much. I'd rather not expand the rules and make the league more complicated than it already is. We already have enough trouble attracting and keeping dedicated owners. Which is another reason I like the doubling of initial bid to make it like J2. It brings everything in line and simplifies things while still being a bit of an advantage.
-
Right, teams have 10-100M to spend. So no matter what you do to the bidding, if another team really wants the player you find, they will get them. That said, teams rarely spend frivolously and only the best minor leaguers go in the millions and the vast majority of the time it's under 5M. So if you find what you deem to be a really good find, rather than opening at a low amount to see if you can get a cheap buy to pass through quickly, you might open at 2M hoping nobody wants to go to 4.
This does a couple things.
1) Allows you to set the tone of bidding and start with an upper hand to sign.
2) Bids will not stay open as long as there will be less 5&10ing. This is good for the league.
I don't think a team should be rewarded just for finding a player. If you don't like that then don't find players and they will naturally find their way into being bid on a couple years later when on top prospect lists and a more casual owner finds them. Buuttt, you don't want to do that because you rather get the player now when nobody else knows he might be good and get him for cheap. So you will find him and spend a little amount to buy the big upside. That's already a reward. People just don't like somebody swooping in and stealing the thunder sometimes.
That said, if we look at everybody's rosters I guarantee you most of the best players acquired via MiLB FA will be on the same teams who generally find the players.
Personally, I want more parity in this league. Not less.
The reward is that a team may have found a player that might end up good some day and they get the right to outbid all the people who didn't know he existed until he was posted. The reward for everyone else is that they don't have to do anything but sit and wait and then outbid for those players.
That is the problem.
-
I don't think it's an equal reward as you essentially lay out. Not much of a reward, but it's not equal. Hell, when you post a MiLB FA there is a good chance that some owners won't even look at that thread within the 2-3 days it's being bid on. That already gives you an advantage. Just knowing. It's not much but it's something and I think that's reflected by which teams are loaded with those types of guys. That's why I think something smaller like double bid is better than something more extreme.
I'm worried that ONLY teams finding players (which are already the best/most active owners) will be reaping rewards and that just creates an even bigger chasm between the haves and have nots of AFB. And good luck getting someone to take over an orphan team barren of any talent major or minor. Or stick around when they are at such a disadvantage because they can only commit a couple hours a week compared to who knows how many hours people like you and me commit. We already struggle to staff the league. I'm thinking of this not just in terms of "what do I deserve because I found the player" but in what is good for AFB as a league. That creates parity and fosters continued ownership.
-
I hate the idea of doubling J2 bids. Say someone works during the day and does not have access as soon as a player signs. So say a Kevin Maitan or Eloy Jimenez signs and someone bids 3m while I'm at work, then I can't bid. That's not right. The top players aren't even discovered. Everyone knows who they are so the first person to place a bid shouldn't necessarily get the player. I think every team should be able to bid if they feel free to.
-
I hate the idea of doubling J2 bids. Say someone works during the day and does not have access as soon as a player signs. So say a Kevin Maitan or Eloy Jimenez signs and someone bids 3m while I'm at work, then I can't bid. That's not right. The top players aren't even discovered. Everyone knows who they are so the first person to place a bid shouldn't necessarily get the player. I think every team should be able to bid if they feel free to.
A few things
1) most of the top J2s are signed before the signing period opens up
2) I live in Australia. Sometimes I work nights and weekends. Sometimes not. Sometimes I'm traveling. I manage okay. You can't appease everyone because this league is filled with people from all different situations. Maybe this time a guy signs while you're online and I'm at work. Maybe next time it will be the opposite.
3) Every year in this league when the J2 signing period opens up there are dozens of top guys already signed in real life and ready to be bid on in AFB. Usually, a week later there are still ones being posted. Not everybody gets bid on instantly and snatched up. We have rules already to ensure this. This allows everybody the opportunity to open bids on top J2s.
-
Hi all,
I am new to the league and am learning my way through these processes and all. I have a few things that I would like to propose for future seasons to make the league a little more competitive and realistic;
1. waiver claims should be submitted in private. this would keep trolls from not jumping on claims just because others are. Not saying its happening but it could. Also, this would not inflate the value of the player to other claimers for purpose of trade. Seems odd a lot of these waiver players are not being shopped prior to being traded but that is a different conversation.
2. Extensions for FA needs an overhaul. Here are some options...maybe discussion points;
A. To be treated like Football's Franchise tags (1 year @ top 5 avg salary, each following year is a 25% increase)
B. extension must be offered after year three of arb within extension matrix. non-arb must be extended before FA season at extension matrix amount per their percentile.
C. Top 2 percentile in past 2 years decline extensions to make more in FA market. allows a bidding war with all teams.
D. extensions must escalate each season. for example 10% additional per year. (18.9M year one, 20.8 year two, 22.9 year three, ect.)
3. FA and International signing to be private. Teams should not know how much other's are bidding...maybe only allowed to know what place they are in or just put your best offer in and let the dice fall as they may!
These may cause the commish more work which I really don't want to do; however, I'm trying to think of ways to make the league more competitive and allow teams multiple ways to build or potentially ruin their franchises. If nothing else, maybe its fun discussion.
Chime in and let's hear your opinions.
-Jeff
-
Hi all,
I am new to the league and am learning my way through these processes and all. I have a few things that I would like to propose for future seasons to make the league a little more competitive and realistic;
1. waiver claims should be submitted in private. this would keep trolls from not jumping on claims just because others are. Not saying its happening but it could. Also, this would not inflate the value of the player to other claimers for purpose of trade. Seems odd a lot of these waiver players are not being shopped prior to being traded but that is a different conversation.
2. Extensions for FA needs an overhaul. Here are some options...maybe discussion points;
A. To be treated like Football's Franchise tags (1 year @ top 5 avg salary, each following year is a 25% increase)
B. extension must be offered after year three of arb within extension matrix. non-arb must be extended before FA season at extension matrix amount per their percentile.
C. Top 2 percentile in past 2 years decline extensions to make more in FA market. allows a bidding war with all teams.
D. extensions must escalate each season. for example 10% additional per year. (18.9M year one, 20.8 year two, 22.9 year three, ect.)
3. FA and International signing to be private. Teams should not know how much other's are bidding...maybe only allowed to know what place they are in or just put your best offer in and let the dice fall as they may!
These may cause the commish more work which I really don't want to do; however, I'm trying to think of ways to make the league more competitive and allow teams multiple ways to build or potentially ruin their franchises. If nothing else, maybe its fun discussion.
Chime in and let's hear your opinions.
-Jeff
Jeff, thanks for offering some input and suggestions!
Doing free agency/waiver claims/J2 etc via private bidding is something we can discuss implementing at least in part if enough owners want it. A couple issues would be how to implement it and the fact that we might see some pretty crazy contracts. Way too low or way too high. Especially when you factor in new owners who are not used to how much is normally the going price for certain types of players. Having it open at least makes it clear that that player is getting paid at market value.
Doing different values for each year would make things a little more complicated but doable still. I can’t say I love all of the extension ideas but I do agree that we need to revisit the extension figures for next year.
-
Completely understand...again I’m new to the league and just seeing a few areas of possible improvement. I would love to discuss these areas in the next owners meeting :)
The biggest for me is FA and extensions. Seems crazy Bryce Harper can be extended for 18-19M for 5 years. Market would likely be 25-30M for a team with cap space. And FA being private could get crazy highs and lows but that would be dictated by owners...sort of like real MLB. There are alternatives and discussion points we can get into later.
Thanks for the consideration.
-
Hi all,
I am new to the league and am learning my way through these processes and all. I have a few things that I would like to propose for future seasons to make the league a little more competitive and realistic;
1. waiver claims should be submitted in private. this would keep trolls from not jumping on claims just because others are. Not saying its happening but it could. Also, this would not inflate the value of the player to other claimers for purpose of trade. Seems odd a lot of these waiver players are not being shopped prior to being traded but that is a different conversation.
2. Extensions for FA needs an overhaul. Here are some options...maybe discussion points;
A. To be treated like Football's Franchise tags (1 year @ top 5 avg salary, each following year is a 25% increase)
B. extension must be offered after year three of arb within extension matrix. non-arb must be extended before FA season at extension matrix amount per their percentile.
C. Top 2 percentile in past 2 years decline extensions to make more in FA market. allows a bidding war with all teams.
D. extensions must escalate each season. for example 10% additional per year. (18.9M year one, 20.8 year two, 22.9 year three, ect.)
3. FA and International signing to be private. Teams should not know how much other's are bidding...maybe only allowed to know what place they are in or just put your best offer in and let the dice fall as they may!
These may cause the commish more work which I really don't want to do; however, I'm trying to think of ways to make the league more competitive and allow teams multiple ways to build or potentially ruin their franchises. If nothing else, maybe its fun discussion.
Chime in and let's hear your opinions.
-Jeff
I am a new owner, so I will chime in having been in deep leagues like this.
1. If this was able to be done on fantrax, that would be something that may be of interest. Otherwise, there is no real good way to do it. I'm not a big fan of sending a PM type of situation, but I'd do it if that is what everyone wants.
2. I was actually surprised that extensions exist here. I was just expecting 6 yrs control, then fight for them in FA type of settings
3. GM's are better at piggybacking than actually doing work to find guys. This is proven 100x over. I get the frustration, but there is no way around it. In a 30 team league with 200 minor spots, you're gonna have to fight for everything.