2017 League Discussion, Rule Changes

[rotodojo]

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!"

[rotodojo]

Bockey redispersion draft. Zamboni the diamond.

[chrisetc21]

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. 

[Maydab23]

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.

[chrisetc21]

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.

[Maydab23]

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.

[Maydab23]

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.

[chrisetc21]

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. 

[Maydab23]

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.

[kidd5jersey]

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.