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: rcankosy on September 04, 2012, 12:03:08 PM
-
Please choose one of the following options related to rookie bonuses:
1. Keep the rules as is.
2. Eliminate rookie bonuses altogether.
3. Allow rookie bonuses to be spread out in the same manner as standard player contracts, BUT allow the rookies to retain all of the existing rights of rookies whose bonuses are not spread out (i.e. prospect extension rights, EDR, etc).
4. Allow rookies to be signed to standard player contracts WITHOUT the benefits listed in option # 3.
5. A draft budget based on salary cap. Highest for lower tiered teams, lower for the upper tier.
6. Draft budget based on final standings. Highest for low, lowest for high.
-
I would like to vote for what I proposed in the other thread (someone mentioned that this is how MB handles it as well?):
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)
-
That was not one of the choices, but I will add it to the options listed above. LOL.
-
I would like to add some options...
1. A draft budget based on salary cap. Highest for lower tiered teams, lower for the upper tier.
2. Draft budget based on final standings. Highest for low, lowest for high.
-
I would like to add some options...
1. A draft budget based on salary cap. Highest for lower tiered teams, lower for the upper tier.
2. Draft budget based on final standings. Highest for low, lowest for high.
Added.
-
This should come as a shock to no one but I vote to get rid of how we currently do it. As far as a replacement I think any of the other options is fine. I am more partial to a cap based on final standings, but that might over complicate things. I'm fine with howe's suggestion, or no bonus at all.
-
So that is yay on 2,3,6
-
So that is yay on 2,3,6
Please pick one so we can tally the votes.
-
I could go with either one...let's see what the rest of the RC has to say
-
I am fine with it now but some slight improvements could help. I like options 3 and 5.
-
Changing my vote to #5.
-
I could go with 5...so that's 3 for 5...out of 7 members....who has yet to vote?
Then we get then treat of discussing numbers
-
I believe that eliminating the bonuses would achieve the same objectives as # 5 without the burden of establishing draft budgets by team and tracking rookie bonuses. It seems as if the main objective is to get the top talent into the hands of the neediest teams without compromising their ability to compete in the regular season. I see no advantage to option # 5, because a reasonable draft budget would allow teams to afford the rookies they want regardless of bonus level. Some top prospects fell to the better teams this year, because some teams could not afford the rookie bonuses. Please let me know if I am missing something, because simpler is generally better, unless there is an advantage to draft budgets that I am missing.
-
I'm good with #5 as well.
-
To be clear, I would like someone to explain the practical advantages of # 5 over # 2. # 5 sounds good in theory, but the same objectives could be achieved by # 2 without the extra work of establishing draft budgets and tracking bonuses. A draft scenario comparing one option to the other would be ideal, because I don't see a difference between the two options and # 5 involves a lot more work.
-
I tend to agree Roy, but there seems to be a concesus of maintaing the bonuses. Giving teams a budget limit adds to the strategy of the draft. Again, I am fairly open to any of the suggestions on the board, but those are the positives that I can see coming from option 5
-
#2 would eliminate any strategy besides picking the best player. With #5, teams would still need to take money into consideration which is more realistic. My vision of the draft budget would be a supplement. Teams are still welcome to spend regular cap space on the draft.
I think what #5 is doing essentially it to shrink the gap in cap space between big market and small team. A cleaner solution might be to bump up the cap space of smaller market teams so we dont have to keep track of 2 caps.
-
I realize that we are trying to emulate real life, and a draft budget appears to add strategy, but I do not believe that it will. Let's take the Orioles as an example. We would need to give them a large enough budget to accommodate the best and 31st player available in the draft. Apply that same logic on down the line to the the other teams. The second you separate the draft budget from the regular one, all the teams would have funds readily available for the players that would probably fall to them in the draft. Where is the strategy assuming everyone drafts the best player available and they have the cap budget to do so? Again, it seems like a lot of work for nothing unless someone can provide a workable example of how the supposed strategy behind a draft budget would come into play.
-
My thinking on it is as such...
Giving a team a draft budget (cap) that is all they would be allowed to spend in the draft, unless they wanted to spend some of their money and sign the player to a MLB contract, add that player to their 40 man, and not receive any benefits of having said player as a prospect (see Mike Trout as an example).
In my head #6 works better because that way the cap amount is fluid from season to season. ANd would emulate the way the Rays were built. High picks until they got good, then the gravy train runs out. The numbers I had more or less imagined were 10 mil for the lower end teams and 3 mil for the higher end (rich or playoff teams depending if we are talking 5 or 6) and 5 mil for the guys in between. Again the numbers can be finagled.
I tend to agree with Howe that #2 doesn't involve any strategy because of all of the auto picking that goes on here.
-
I like option 5 and 6 but if I had to pick just 1 I would go with 6
-
I am skeptical that the new method will add any strategy, but I won't fight the majority.
I propose the following draft budgets based on the current rookie bonuses and the final 2012 standings. There is no need to change both if we simply create draft budgets based on the current bonus levels. For example, the Orioles budget should be enough to afford the 1st, 31st, 61st, and so on ranked players based on the current bonus levels. We could build the Orioles budget as follows:
1st pick = 7m
31st = 1.5m
61st = 0.5m
91st = 0 (no bonus)
Therefore, the Orioles budget should be 9m. I like dealing in round numbers, so we could give them a budget of an even 12m to allow for supplemental picks and players with higher bonuses than 1.5m slipping for the 31st pick. To keep things simple and avoid creating individual budgets per team, I suggest 6 budget tiers based on the standings such as the following.
Tier 1 (26 through 30) = 12m
Tier 2 (21 through 25) = 11m
Tier 3 (16 through 20) = 10m
Tier 4 (11 through 15) = 9m
Tier 5 (6 through 10) = 8m
Tier 6 (1 through 5) = 7m
-
I would probably cut those numbers in half. In my mind, the draft budget should be a supplement not a replacement for the draft fund a team has available.
-
I would probably cut those numbers in half. In my mind, the draft budget should be a supplement not a replacement for the draft fund a team has available.
Imo, we would be back to square one if we did that. Teams like the Orioles and the Padres would have to choose between spending to become winners and saving money for the draft. I thought that the whole premise to revamping the draft system was to allow the worst teams to sign the best players without compromising their major league salary cap. I really don't want to re-visit this topic like IP for the next 3 years, LOL. Would it not be better to have slightly inflated draft budgets? Who would be harmed?
-
Roy your proposal would drive up the salary for major league players since everyone is getting a bonus. I would suggest a 5m bonus for the bltt 5 teams and a 2.5 bonus for 6 to 10. Teams can decide whether they want to blow it on one player or spread it out. Note that in your proposal the gap between tier 1 and 5 is also 5m
-
I would say a 30% cut in Roy's prices is fair. Considering the first overall pick will get 7 mil, and that would take care of that teams entire draft budget.
-
Tier 1 (26 through 30) = 7
Tier 2 (21 through 25) = 6
Tier 3 (16 through 20) = 5
Tier 4 (11 through 15) = 4
Tier 5 (6 through 10) = 3
Tier 6 (1 through 5) = 2
Another thing I would like to suggest, and it was successful in Moneyball was an up and down minor league system. Allowing the movement of players from the 40 man to the minors (EDR) is an easy way of clearing cap without dropping players. And I know a few of us would like to replace some of the garbage in our EDR with what we consider useful prospects. Again just a suggestion.
-
Tier 1 (26 through 30) = 7
Tier 2 (21 through 25) = 6
Tier 3 (16 through 20) = 5
Tier 4 (11 through 15) = 4
Tier 5 (6 through 10) = 3
Tier 6 (1 through 5) = 2
Another thing I would like to suggest, and it was successful in Moneyball was an up and down minor league system. Allowing the movement of players from the 40 man to the minors (EDR) is an easy way of clearing cap without dropping players. And I know a few of us would like to replace some of the garbage in our EDR with what we consider useful prospects. Again just a suggestion.
I think those numbers are a fair compromise between what Howe and I proposed. I would like the others to digest this proposal, but barring any strenuous objections, I think we may be able to put this issue to bed.
I would like to table the elimination of the EDR for now. My brain can't take too much change right now, LOL.
-
Tier 1 (26 through 30) = 7
Tier 2 (21 through 25) = 6
Tier 3 (16 through 20) = 5
Tier 4 (11 through 15) = 4
Tier 5 (6 through 10) = 3
Tier 6 (1 through 5) = 2
Another thing I would like to suggest, and it was successful in Moneyball was an up and down minor league system. Allowing the movement of players from the 40 man to the minors (EDR) is an easy way of clearing cap without dropping players. And I know a few of us would like to replace some of the garbage in our EDR with what we consider useful prospects. Again just a suggestion.
Not a ec member, clearly, but I think this I think this is the most fair. I agree with Howe's logic, and it is supported with this system suggested by Dan. Potentially eliminate tier 6 and maybe 5? Is that more in line with Howe?
-
Howe has shown that bonuses did not seem to have a huge impact on hitters this year, and many have devalued pitching so it is expected that they would be drafted later than BA/MLB with bonuses avoided.
I'm sticking to my guns with if it ain't broke don't fix it, I know some disagree but I personally think our current rules are fine and representative of MLB effects. I vote for no change.
-
Ben... You're not on the RC anymore... You were replaced in your absence by Freddy
-
Oh, I wasn't made aware and must have missed the thread.
The only time I was contacted for my absence was by Colby and I was back on the boards within a few days... I will admit that I'm disappointed to hear this but understand if things were happening and I wasn't around to help out.
-
Oh, I wasn't made aware and must have missed the thread.
The only time I was contacted for my absence was by Colby and I was back on the boards within a few days... I will admit that I'm disappointed to hear this but understand if things were happening and I wasn't around to help out.
Consider yourself reinstated, so your vote counts.
-
3. Allow rookie bonuses to be spread out in the same manner as standard player contracts, BUT allow the rookies to retain all of the existing rights of rookies whose bonuses are not spread out (i.e. prospect extension rights, EDR, etc).
I'm not 100% clear on the benefit of #3 (or #4). In the short-term, yes if you spread the bonus out it will give you more room in that year for a larger bonus. However, the next year you'll have that much less cap space, and if you do this on a regular basis you're back at square one of having no room left because the space you should be saving for bonuses is already used up from prior years. Am I missing something?
-
Another thing I would like to suggest, and it was successful in Moneyball was an up and down minor league system. Allowing the movement of players from the 40 man to the minors (EDR) is an easy way of clearing cap without dropping players. And I know a few of us would like to replace some of the garbage in our EDR with what we consider useful prospects. Again just a suggestion.
A reminder that the EDR is not the equivalent of the minors, it is the Entry Draft Roster.
There are tons of players available in the minors for free that would be better bets than guys drafted after the first few rounds. If you can clear up 'the garbage' on your EDR and fill it up players you add via FA then you'd be nuts not to do so and we'd render the draft obsolete. You can't do that in MLB, those players are already on someone else's roster.
The purpose of the EDR is to keep the entry draft relevant by giving a special exemption to those players you draft. We decided it was important to preserve the draft, if you disagree with that I think it's a different discussion (but I don't believe that's your position).
-
Not what I was saying, I was just making a suggestion since it worked rather well in Moneyball
-
Not what I was saying, I was just making a suggestion since it worked rather well in Moneyball
Fair enough, I'm not really familiar with that league. Do they have a direct EDR equivalent, and has allowing non entry draft players to be placed there had any impact on the entry draft itself? How many rounds of the entry draft are actually useful?
-
Does this issue go away if we simply cut existing draft bonuses by 50%? After further thought, the administrative burden of maintaining one salary cap for 30 teams is daunting enough let alone two. Also, I believe that many teams can create the cap space by cutting impending free agents and players that might no longer be in the team's plans.
-
Roy, that may work...it seems to be doing well in MB. I would vote for that.
Ben - to answer your question, it makes things a lot easier. We are currently in the second round of the first draft, but it was a big help during the season as I believe it facilitated trade activity as well as GM management.
Again, I will use myself as an example...in order to sign my first rounder I dropped four specs who I liked, yet had limitations to them. Had I been allowed to move them to my EDR roster (MILB - in MB) I could have created to room without dropping anyone. That would benefit my team in that I scouted the players dropped, but if given the choice I would have gladly removed them from my 40 man roster. This in my mind would have helped my team long term because, as I stated before, I valued those prospects even though they may have been fringy at best. It just gives a GM more choices I feel. By the time the end of the draft rolls around, most are checked out. This is also an easier way of managing funds.
A lot of the people in this league play in Moneyball, and there are certain aspects where that league is more fun, and more real.