Some thoughts for the RC - and rest of the league

[rcankosy]

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 I want to be 100% confident in that the changes will benefit the league and would not be repealed/modified against next year.

My sense is that the league is tired of change.  Therefore, I am putting off option # 1 and # 2 for the time being.  Option # 3 was split into option # 3 and # 4 in the current vote placed before the RC. 

[Dan Wood]

The reason for the additional "draft budget" is to ensure competitive balance. If a low/or even high market team has a string of bad seasons, it doesn't take 10 years for a turnaround. Again, this is just in my eyes, but by making the bonus correlate to previous year standings (my preference) or salary cap budget (less of a preference - as we have had many successful low and mid market teams) it gives those teams a better ability to both compete in the now by spending money on players, as well as establishing a long term pipeline of talent from the minors.

Now I can use my team as an example. I have a mid-tier budget, but it does shrink because I have had one fair season, one disaster, and one good season. Now the talent that I have assembled in order to be decent pretty much costs me my cap. When it came to this draft I chose a player that was affordable (Seager) as opposed to one that was expensive, but more of a future need (any of the top flight pitchers that fell). And it seems fairly consistent with a few other teams as well, as they were choosing affordability over preference.

I also don't think it is a good idea to have a team spend 7 mil on a signing bonus that comes from their 40 man roster bonus. And I am not alone in this thinking. Many of the other leagues that have been formed in the image of FGM, are discussing doing away with signing bonuses because they are kind of pointless. The choice to spend either 7 mil on a signing bonus or 5 mil on a player is not realistic. No team would ever be faced with that. But in our rendition of the entry draft, Mike Napoli and Carl Pavano were dropped in order to clear cap space. Now to me that is totally unrealistic. Again this is just my two cents.

We should want teams that haven't done so well to think that they can in fact turn in around in a short period of time, by spending money on both MLB pieces and talented prospects. But there is not enough money on a majority of the rosters for both.

And yes this league is bat heavy, but the talented pitchers that fell would have never dropped that far if there was no sining bonus. I honestly don't think that point is arguable.

Lastly, this league is supposed to be fun, but if 5 teams continually dominate, who is going to want to sign up? This league started off skewed in a favorable direction for a few teams due to inactivity of just about every team until the following season (2010). I don't want to see that trend continue, nor do I think it is a good idea because eventually what you have is a dead league.

Not all teams have the money that the Cubs had to spend in order to become somewhat competitive.

[h4cheng]

The reason for the additional "draft budget" is to ensure competitive balance. If a low/or even high market team has a string of bad seasons, it doesn't take 10 years for a turnaround. Again, this is just in my eyes, but by making the bonus correlate to previous year standings (my preference) or salary cap budget (less of a preference - as we have had many successful low and mid market teams) it gives those teams a better ability to both compete in the now by spending money on players, as well as establishing a long term pipeline of talent from the minors.

Now I can use my team as an example. I have a mid-tier budget, but it does shrink because I have had one fair season, one disaster, and one good season. Now the talent that I have assembled in order to be decent pretty much costs me my cap. When it came to this draft I chose a player that was affordable (Seager) as opposed to one that was expensive, but more of a future need (any of the top flight pitchers that fell). And it seems fairly consistent with a few other teams as well, as they were choosing affordability over preference.

I also don't think it is a good idea to have a team spend 7 mil on a signing bonus that comes from their 40 man roster bonus. And I am not alone in this thinking. Many of the other leagues that have been formed in the image of FGM, are discussing doing away with signing bonuses because they are kind of pointless. The choice to spend either 7 mil on a signing bonus or 5 mil on a player is not realistic. No team would ever be faced with that. But in our rendition of the entry draft, Mike Napoli and Carl Pavano were dropped in order to clear cap space. Now to me that is totally unrealistic. Again this is just my two cents.

We should want teams that haven't done so well to think that they can in fact turn in around in a short period of time, by spending money on both MLB pieces and talented prospects. But there is not enough money on a majority of the rosters for both.

And yes this league is bat heavy, but the talented pitchers that fell would have never dropped that far if there was no sining bonus. I honestly don't think that point is arguable.

Lastly, this league is supposed to be fun, but if 5 teams continually dominate, who is going to want to sign up? This league started off skewed in a favorable direction for a few teams due to inactivity of just about every team until the following season (2010). I don't want to see that trend continue, nor do I think it is a good idea because eventually what you have is a dead league.

Not all teams have the money that the Cubs had to spend in order to become somewhat competitive.

I understand it's tough to compete given limited budget. Is the solution not then to shrink the salary cap between rich and poor teams, and then let the team choose whether they want to spend the money on the draft or FA?

[Dan Wood]

I really don't think that is the solution at all. Because then you have to make drastic changes in the salary structure. Right now, we are discussing a minimal change in the draft structure. And using MLB as an example, that is how lower to mid level teams maintain a level of balance. The Yankees are always at the bottom of the draft, but they remain good because of their budget. No one goes to see the Rays, but they are good because of Price, Longoria and some very good drafts. But even a low level team like the Rays wouldn't balk at the cost of Price because he was who they considered the best player in that draft. But in our version of the draft he might fall to 29.

On a different subject, I did argue at the beginning if this post, what is considered success in order to elevate one's payroll. But even that comes down to be difficult to quantify and qualify. I think the best way to maintain a balance in this league is to not have a team spend an enormous chunk of their budget on a bonus. It's not even a choice because do most people want to head into the season as a "loser"? That may be feasible in MLB, but here it affects activity which then affects overall league satisfaction.

[h4cheng]

I really don't think that is the solution at all. Because then you have to make drastic changes in the salary structure. Right now, we are discussing a minimal change in the draft structure. And using MLB as an example, that is how lower to mid level teams maintain a level of balance. The Yankees are always at the bottom of the draft, but they remain good because of their budget. No one goes to see the Rays, but they are good because of Price, Longoria and some very good drafts. But even a low level team like the Rays wouldn't balk at the cost of Price because he was who they considered the best player in that draft. But in our version of the draft he might fall to 29.

On a different subject, I did argue at the beginning if this post, what is considered success in order to elevate one's payroll. But even that comes down to be difficult to quantify and qualify. I think the best way to maintain a balance in this league is to not have a team spend an enormous chunk of their budget on a bonus. It's not even a choice because do most people want to head into the season as a "loser"? That may be feasible in MLB, but here it affects activity which then affects overall league satisfaction.

To me at least there's more work in implementing a new cap compared to changing the numbers to an existing cap. I think I prefer the option of spreading out the bonus over a new cap.

[Dan Wood]

So that is

3 for cap - Colby, Me, Mike
1 for keep - Ben
1 for spreadable bonus - Howe

Need votes from rest of RC...Shooter, Kungfuwig, and Roy I believe (unless you voted and I missed it)

[Brewers GM]

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

To clarify, I meant someone calculating VORP for our league, our scoring system.  This is no different than setting up a value based draft calculation.

[Brewers GM]

As far as #5 goes, I spoke with Colby because I was confused about why my cap was dropping every year, and he said because the Reds in real life made the play-offs and I had not. His Pirates had a poor 2010 and a good 2011 and his cap climbed both years. Why? Because the real life Pirates suck, that is until this season. So no, the cap influences aren't totally based on what happens in this league. If I finished 16th of 30 teams, and in my mind my cap shouldn't have gone up or down. I also apologize for talking about my team, but it is what I know best, not really familiar with how everyone else feels about their cap situation.

I'm confused here, because I did not think there was any tie between your MLB team's performance and your FGM salary cap.  The payroll from MLB teams is currently used, but not one to one with your FGM team.  If you finish 5th in FGM, then your STAND will include the 5th highest MLB payroll in your future salary cap calculations.  There should not be any tie to your MLB team's actual performance or directly to their payroll (at least no more than to any other team's payroll).

Now, we include a rolling three year average in the calculations, meaning performance from the previous three years will impact your current cap.  Since prior to 2009 we did not have FGM standings, MLB performance was used.  This would impact numbers up until 2012, which included 2009, 2010 and 2011 performance numbers.  However 2009 was the last year of MLB data so starting in 2013 it should be purely FGM based.  Also, no MLB performance for 2010 or 2011 should have impacted the cap.

What am I missing?

[Dan Wood]

Just what I was told

[Brewers GM]

Just what I was told

Fair enough.  Colby, can you clarify?