ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: Colby on January 06, 2010, 12:59:20 PM
-
My original designs for this league had some simpler rules. I never expected the league to become this good or MLFB to grow as much as it did. With that said, I think the FA bidding process should be reviewed, specifically for the number of years in the contract. Currently, the winner of the bid gets to choose the years. However, this is flawed big time.
Wouldn't Matt Holliday go for a 5-year deal paying $18m a year versus a 2-year paying $23m a year? I wish there was some way we could fix this before free agency started, but I suppose it is a bit late. If you have any ideas, feel free to shoot them...
-
Another league I play in has minimum years set for players that in the top 10 and top 20 of their position in the year prior. I believe it's 5 year minimum if they are in the top 10, 3 years if they are in the top 20. Just a thought, it seems to work well in that league.
-
My original designs for this league had some simpler rules. I never expected the league to become this good or MLFB to grow as much as it did. With that said, I think the FA bidding process should be reviewed, specifically for the number of years in the contract. Currently, the winner of the bid gets to choose the years. However, this is flawed big time.
Wouldn't Matt Holliday go for a 5-year deal paying $18m a year versus a 2-year paying $23m a year? I wish there was some way we could fix this before free agency started, but I suppose it is a bit late. If you have any ideas, feel free to shoot them...
Not sure if you want my opinions here as I'm not a member of the RC, but here goes anyway...
How about the overall contract value takes the player, with the dollar value per year being within a certain percentage of the highest offer regardless of years.
Simple example
Mariners offer Holliday $25m per year, 1 year contract
If the percentage was set at 20% with a round-down rule, the further years could be offered at a minimum of $20m per year
So the Pirates then offer 2 years, $20m per = $40m. They lead the race for his signature.
Anyone wanting to offer more years would have to offer at least $20m per going forward.
Anyone wanting to offer the same number of years could do so at a higher rate i.e. $20.5m+
To continue the example -
Cardinals would like to offer 3 years, they would have to offer between $20m and $25m (or indeed more than $25m if they so wish)
Let's say they offer 3 years, $22.5m = $67.5m
Further interested parties would be looking at $23m+ on a 3 year basis ($68m), or offer the 4th year from within the original range of $20 - $25m from the maximum offer per year
There would have to be a rule that the maximum per year offer can only be increased if this makes the offer the highest dollar value contract, otherwise the baseline figure from which the percentage is flexed can be manipulated.
So any interested teams basically have to increase the dollar value for the same number of years, or add a further year from the given range to increase the overall value of the contract.
I think this may better reflect the free agency market, where offering the years normally is the deal maker rather than dollars, expecially over 1 year.
I think the main flaw with the current system is that you can offer a massive 1-year deal, then settle back next offseason and pay the contract rate, almost definitely at a lower dollar value.
-
we could use a formula to calculate total value for the contract, but I also have an interesting proposition, how about giving a winning team from last season a small advantage over a losing team? that would make it even more realistic. I would suggest this:
Total Value = winning factor * (# of years * yearly contract value + yearly contract value ^ 1.3)
I would suggest that the winning factor should be something like this:
win percentage (minimum) winning factor
1.000 1.15
.750 1.10
.600 1.05
.500 1.00
.400 0.95
.250 0.90
.000 0.85
This way it will be a small difference, but it may be more realistic. I would also suggest that the hometown team for each player always get the multiplier of 1.1 regardless of it's record.
-
I like both of those suggestions, and these were dynamics that I thought of before I created the league a year ago. If existing GMs are proposing such rules then this is something the RC should seriously consider. I think we could go with something simple in the mean time as this would have to be passed before the 15th.
-
Another option is to impose minimum contract lengths based on the salary, similar to the currently implemented maximum lengths. There are some MLB cases where players sign large contracts for only 1-2 seasons, but it seems to me that often than not big money means a long deal (3+ years), and this would be a simple way to enforce that.
For a more complex solution, we could calculate the total value of a contract using a time-value of money type approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money), where the value of future seasons are discounted. Teams propose a yearly salary and number of years - highest total value wins.
PV = [A / i] * [1 - 1/((1+i)^n)]
PV = Present Value
A = Annual Salary
i = Interest Rate (discount rate)
n = Number of Years
Comparing the hypothetical Holliday contracts of $18.0M/year, 5-years ($90M total) vs. $23.0M/year, 2-years ($46M total), and using an example discount rate of 0.05:
$18.0M/year, 5-years: PV = $77.93
$23.0M/year, 2-years: PV = $42.76
For the 2-year deal to be worth more, it would have to be $42.0M/year
If the interest rate were set to 0.5:
$18.0M/year, 5-years: PV = $31.26
$23.0M/year, 2-years: PV = $25.56
For the 2-year deal to be worth more, it would have to be $28.5M/year
Also, increasing to 3-years would be more - $23.0M/year, 3-years: PV = $32.37
-
I think any system would need to be simple to understand and apply, free agency will be hectic enough I would imagine and I think the values need to be easy to determine and move on. Plus any system that we were thinking of using before FA this year would need to be very clear to understand. I fear that applying net present values to contract offers would cause some confusion.
Not that I'm simply pushing my own idea, but one practical addition to it would be a clear statement per bid to set the current market state.
i.e. If the current market was at 1-year, $15m and I pushed to 2 years, $15m I would post
Seattle offer 2 years, $15m
Current contract value $30m
Current highest per year offer $15m
or some shortened format to make clear the current terms of engagement within the latest high bid.
Regarding home town discounts this is a nice idea to me, but I wonder how this affects RFA tagging. Multiple tags for the smaller market teams is a key advantage, if we are saying that they also get a discount for their additional tags then this would potentially increase that. Also with the ability to offer new contracts with no fear of refusal or the players agent taking them to the open market, that seems like a hometown advantage already.
-
Ben, I am an actuary, and while I would love to see discounted contracts used, it is a bit too complex for most people in the league. I am not saying that people are dumb, but the league should still be easy to understand and play. There is enough research that goes into one move. I am interested in what Chris has to say though.
-
Hey lets make it a little easier for the guys. But we really need to get this WRAP UP! in the next couple days!
-
Ben, I am an actuary, and while I would love to see discounted contracts used, it is a bit too complex for most people in the league. I am not saying that people are dumb, but the league should still be easy to understand and play. There is enough research that goes into one move. I am interested in what Chris has to say though.
Thats put it over exactly. I'm sure the members all followed the logic and understood the premise, but we are going to be dealing with multiple threads, maybe with more than one player on offer for your franchise, and we need to be able to look straight at the thread and see what it takes to get the lead bidding for the player.
If you guys are happy for me to run with this idea I can put a proposal together that reads like a genuine rule, and have that rejected / approved or tweaked.
This should be able to be done with the urgency reminded by Clive in his earlier thread. Do you think it's possible to review before FA begins, assuming I get the green light to post it up later today?
Chris
-
I'm not from the Rules Commitee, but just one thing that crossed my mind while reading the posts here...
If you wanna do a 'realistic' years/sallary relation, I would say that you should consider the player age factor... Youngsters normaly want more cash guaranteed... Old players want more years... And players in the middle look for both...
I don't know if it's really going to be practical and useful, but just to give you the idea... ;)
-
I am not on the RC either but I do like Chris's idea for FA's. However as we have noticed teams like to backload contracts. So lets my team offers Holliday a 4 year contract at 100 mil, and no one tops that. Would I, for instance, be able to do something like yr1 - 15, yr 2 - 25, yr 3 - 30, yr 4 30... I think that is something to think about. Not that I have the room or the budget for Holliday, nor do I think he is worth that much in fantasy or in real life, but I think it is something we should consider, since we are trying to mimic the MLB.
-
I am not on the RC either but I do like Chris's idea for FA's. However as we have noticed teams like to backload contracts. So lets my team offers Holliday a 4 year contract at 100 mil, and no one tops that. Would I, for instance, be able to do something like yr1 - 15, yr 2 - 25, yr 3 - 30, yr 4 30... I think that is something to think about. Not that I have the room or the budget for Holliday, nor do I think he is worth that much in fantasy or in real life, but I think it is something we should consider, since we are trying to mimic the MLB.
Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration. This is why I set up the flat salaries. I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested. All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1). Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%. Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.
Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years
This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract. Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old). The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.
-
Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration. This is why I set up the flat salaries. I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested. All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1). Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%. Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.
Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years
This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract. Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old). The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.
A sound idea, but I want to point something out. According to our rules, if I interpret them right, when a team claims an RFA tag on a player (say I claim Holliday's $22 at 5 years bid by the Blue Jays), the team who claimed them is allowed to set the years they want. Is that correct? I'll post the official ruling here:
RFA tags
When a player is due to become a free agent in the off-season, a team may tag them as restricted. Therefore, whenever a bid is finalized on the player, the team that tagged the FA restricted will be allowed to match the highest bid. They will be given one week to match the bid. Teams are given X RFA tags based on which tier they sit in.
For example, say Adrian Gonzalez is tagged RFA entering the 09-10 off-season. If the final bid is at $21m, then the retainer of the RFA's rights must match the salary amount ($21m) for any length up to 5 years (the contract limit).
Wouldn't our proposed ruling force RFA's that are claimed to take the final bid (in years) and not set the years for themselves?
-
Dan, this would pertain to you as the up and coming league executive, but that would require much more administration. This is why I set up the flat salaries. I think we could do something simple for bidding as Chris suggested. All bids are in form of annual salary with # of years (no years listed is assumed to be 1). Adding years to contract allows you to lower salary by 25%. Subtracting years to a contract bid forces you to raise salary by 50%.
Example
Pirates open up bid on Matt Holliday for $10m
Cardinals bid at $7.5m for 2 years (25% less for one additional year)
Rays bid $15m for 3 years
Rangers bid $11m for 4 years (25% less rounded up for one additional year)
Blue Jays bid $18m for 4 years
Rays bid $13.5 for 5 years (25% less again)
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years (50% raise per 1 year)
Phillies bid $20m for 5 years (25% less per 1 year)
Blue Jays bid $22m for 5 years... at this point one less year will cost $11m more per year, so the contract will surely be the maximum of 5 years
This is about as simple as you can get with giving a lot of respect to a longer contract. Let the GM dictate how much they want to give (young or old). The home-team discount is already present in the extensions and RFA process.
Like it. Particularly like the simplicity in that it's just the last offer which you baseline the next step on - Add dollars, add years at -25%, take away years at +50%, or drop out of the running. 4 simple options.
However referencing the above example I think we need to challenge or even remove the 25% threshold with possible tiering. In the example the step from the Rays to the Orioles reduces the contract value from $45m to $44m - and with one extra season played. I've just run some stats and as an example, a $25m deal for year 1 can be converted to $20m for year 2 ($45m total)...running this over at the maximum discount for a 5 year deal is total $50.2million, as the per year value continues to backflush and reduce the overall dollar value. Anyone would take the 2 year deal but that would not win out here. The 5 year deal would.
Maybe just drop the 25% reduction alltogether? More years, More dollars, or 50% premium for less years would be the 3 options.
Cheers,
Chris
-
Like it. Particularly like the simplicity in that it's just the last offer which you baseline the next step on - Add dollars, add years at -25%, take away years at +50%, or drop out of the running. 4 simple options.
However referencing the above example I think we need to challenge or even remove the 25% threshold with possible tiering. In the example the step from the Rays to the Orioles reduces the contract value from $45m to $44m - and with one extra season played. I've just run some stats and as an example, a $25m deal for year 1 can be converted to $20m for year 2 ($45m total)...running this over at the maximum discount for a 5 year deal is total $50.2million, as the per year value continues to backflush and reduce the overall dollar value. Anyone would take the 2 year deal but that would not win out here. The 5 year deal would.
Maybe just drop the 25% reduction alltogether? More years, More dollars, or 50% premium for less years would be the 3 options.
Cheers,
Chris
I noticed the exact same thing... I found one formula that would protect against those flaws, but would be a little bit complicated
To add years, the bid yearly value must be greater than:
[(# of Years added)*0.5 + (Old Bid # of Years)]*(Old Bid Value)/(New Total # of Years)
To remove years, the bid yearly value must be greater than:
(Old Bid Total Value)/[Old bid # of Years - (Years Removed)*0.5]
I'm thinking about ways to simplfy those formulas... I already got one idea for adding years, but I haven't found anything for removing years...
-
We are trying to keep it from being complicated. I like the idea of the years varying, so the 25% reduction is needed. We could always make it 20% if need be.
Jake, if this rule went through, I would add the caveat that if a team with the RFA rights matched the bid then they could still choose the years. There has to be some inherent advantage for the RFA tag.
-
We are trying to keep it from being complicated. I like the idea of the years varying, so the 25% reduction is needed. We could always make it 20% if need be.
Jake, if this rule went through, I would add the caveat that if a team with the RFA rights matched the bid then they could still choose the years. There has to be some inherent advantage for the RFA tag.
Gotcha. I'm all for some sort of new implementation then. I'll check back to see what the major players in this debate can agree to.
-
I don't know if you are looking for everyone to chime in on this, but I figured I'd throw my two cents out there from the mathematically challenged perspective. I think the less complicated the process the better, especially once bidding starts, since many of us might be bidding on multiple players at the same time, while managing our own payrolls as well, things could get a bit complicated. Just the explanations for some of these possible solutions; while well thought out and extremely thorough make my head hurt. And that's not a knock on any of you that presented them; it's more a knock on me and my own limited mathematical abilities. :)
Personally, I like the total value of the contract being the deciding factor, providing that the per year salary is at least 75-80 percent of the highest offer made. I don't know any player that would take one year for 25 over a two year for 38-40, especially in a sport where injury or one bad month could completely change your market value in a flash. Guaranteed money is almost always the deciding factor in all of the deals these days; its all about security and if we are trying to mimic real-life as much as possible, total dollars is more important than even the per-year average... provided that the per-year is commensurate with the market value of a player in their free agent year. Just my two cents. Trying to make it as simple and equitable as possible.
-
You could even tier up the percentages based on the length of the contract. For example.
Team A offers Matt Holliday a 1 yr/$20m deal, which is the highest dollar offer.
Based on a pre-established percent structure of 90-85-80-75 for each additional year, a two-year deal would need to be 90 percent of the $20m, or $18m per ($36m total). A three-year deal would need to be $17m per ($51m total). A four-year deal would need to be $16m per ($64m total), and a five-year deal would need to be $15m per ($75m total).
-
Another idea, a lot simple... Create a 'Market Value' for the bids... This MV would be calculated by the formula:
(Number of Years + 4)*Yearly Value
The winner is the higher MV...
Example:
Rangers open up bid on Holliday with $15m for 3 years => MV = 105
Blue Jays bid $17m for 4 years => MV = 136
Rays bid $15.5m for 5 years => MV = 139.5
Yankees bid $18m for 5 years => MV = 162
Mariners bid $27m for 4 years => MV = 216
Phillies bid $24.5m for 5 years => MV = 220.5
Blue Jays bid $26m for 5 years => MV = 234
For a 4 year deal to raise it, the sallary would be at least 29.5mi...
The only problem with this formula, is that you can't see exacly how much you're going to bid with less years in order to win it... You need to try a few numbers to find a bigger one...
-
This is all getting way out of sorts. I haven't opened a math book since the turn of the century. That being said, I think the salary should remain the same from year to year. MLB teams have lawyers and accountants to keep track of contracts. We have us, and Colby's excel spread sheet. Which I might add is pretty bad ass. So I think the winner should should be the person who offers the most money and the most years. Unfortunately this is all make believe and we don't get to wine and dine players, get them hookers, and tell them about our winning strategy for the upcoming year. This is strictly a numbers game, and who ever has the biggest number gets the prize. However if someone is offering 25 over 5 years, and someone is offering 40 over 3 years, I would think the 40 would win.
Plus just to bring this up, possibly an idea for next year. Since we have RFA's like the NFL. If you lose an RFA, you should get draft compensation from the signing team. Just a thought.
-
I think I agree that we have unleashed a beast!
My view is the discounting, MV, winning value factors, etc are all complications too far. I don't see that it needs to be that complicated.
In the spirit of my new role as a global moderator (although not in this area of the league admittedly and as a new guy after all) may I humbly summarise where I feel we are with this.
My original idea is covered by posts #2 and #6 on this thread which I feel is a single step forward from the current rules, and simple to implement and understand.
Colby's 50% down / 25% up idea is a further development of this, and is I feel a variation on my original '% variation of largest per year offer'.
Backloading is probably too complicated to implement without setting Colby's super-spreadsheet on fire.
Jake's point on RFA tags is completely valid and I think RFA retained players should be kept on the number of years the tagging team decides. It should be simple to work out the dollars they have to pay if the number of years they want is less than the winning bid, with a simple conversion of some kind. RFA tagging is an important revenue based advantage.
My request is to re-chime in on the original idea (posts #2 and #6), review what elements of Colby's ideas we implement, agree the RFA tag retention value rules when years differ, and make this into a final proposal.
Otherwise we will have multiple new ideas and never agree it.
I very much appreciate I'm not a member of the RC and I don't mean to overstep my place but I think that's where we are...
Cheers,
Chris
-
I like Colby's idea of the some percent down and some percent up, but I like it even better tiered like kdoc proposes, because it's not the same to take 25 percent down when jumping from 1 to 2 years, than when jumping from 4 to 5 years. For example a 4 year offer of 20 mil means 80 mil guaranteed money, while the 5 year 15 mil bid that would be needed to surpass it is 75mil guaranteed for more years which wouldn't make any sense. I would propose:
25 percent from 1 to 2
20 percent from 2 to 3
15 percent from 3 to 4
10 percent from 4 to 5
and also the tiers should apply to raising salaries for less years and I would propose
10 percent from 5 to 4
20 percent from 4 to 3
30 percent from 3 to 2
40 percent from 2 to 1
An example would be:
X offers Player 2 year contract for 10 mil each (20mil guaranteed)
Y offers 1 year contract for 14mil (14mil guaranteed)
X offers 2 year contract for 10.5 mil each (21mil guaranteed)
Z offers 3 year contract for 8.5 mil each (25.5m)
W offers 1 year contract for 16.5 mil (16.5m)
and so on. This will allow for plenty of bidding and guarantees that no player will receive less guaranteed money for more years.
-
Jake's point on RFA tags is completely valid and I think RFA retained players should be kept on the number of years the tagging team decides. It should be simple to work out the dollars they have to pay if the number of years they want is less than the winning bid, with a simple conversion of some kind. RFA tagging is an important revenue based advantage.
To simplify this, I would say the RFA would have to match the salary. No adjustments are made, but the owner of the tag chooses the number of years.
Also, as a member of the RC, the commish-in-place, founder, and executive, I feel I need to lead this discussion into what I think is best.
+1 year = 90% of previous bid
-1 year = 130% of previous bid
I tweaked these percentages down to reduce bidding volatility and give a bit more weight to the salary aspect of the contract. While I like all of the other ideas, I want something that is simple to practice for all GMs. This is an easy adjustment to remember or recall quickly in the rules.
What's your say RC?
-
I really like the PV idea, but it is a bit complicated. Is it possible to implement some sort of PV calculator in Excel?
(Of course, we also need to construct some sort of a yield curve...)
-
I really like the PV idea, but it is a bit complicated. Is it possible to implement some sort of PV calculator in Excel?
(Of course, we also need to construct some sort of a yield curve...)
If this was an all actuary (or people of professions that are quant-like) then it would be a great idea. We are trying to keep things simple.
-
Colby:
+1 year = 90% of previous bid => 171% interest rate...I don't think that too realistic.
Interest Rate 171%
Year Value PV Cum. PV Change in % Cum PV
1 10 3.688376822 3.688376822
2 10 1.360412358 5.048789181 73.05%
3 10 0.501771341 5.550560522 90.96%
4 10 0.185072178 5.7356327 96.77%
5 10 0.068261593 5.803894294 98.82%
Avg 89.90%
-
Colby:
+1 year = 90% of previous bid => 171% interest rate...I don't think that too realistic.
Interest Rate 171%
Year Value PV Cum. PV Change in % Cum PV
1 10 3.688376822 3.688376822
2 10 1.360412358 5.048789181 73.05%
3 10 0.501771341 5.550560522 90.96%
4 10 0.185072178 5.7356327 96.77%
5 10 0.068261593 5.803894294 98.82%
Avg 89.90%
Just chiming in here even though I am not in the league anymore... I think you read the +1 year = 90% of previous bid approach the wrong way. Example with Albert Pujols
COL bids $15m for 1 year
ATL bids $14m for 2 years (note that 90% of $15m is $13.5m and to top that bid is $14m, also note that the total contract is $28m, not $14m)
-
:iatp:
A-Ram, it appears as if you are checking out the framework of these rules for your agents league?
-
Just so I'm straight on this...
Under Colby's 90%+yr/130%-yr proposal, Matt Holliday's bidding could look something like this...
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $16.5m/ 3 yrs, $15m/4 yrs, $13.5m/5 yrs, as minimums by adding a year per bid
or
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $23.5/1 yr in a drop down back to a one year deal
Is that a correct breakdown?
-
Just so I'm straight on this...
Under Colby's 90%+yr/130%-yr proposal, Matt Holliday's bidding could look something like this...
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $16.5m/ 3 yrs, $15m/4 yrs, $13.5m/5 yrs, as minimums by adding a year per bid
or
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $23.5/1 yr in a drop down back to a one year deal
Is that a correct breakdown?
That's my understanding of it.
Anyone can jump in and increase the bid on the current year, of course. You don't have to add or take away years, you can add dollars to the existing years
-
Anything from the RC? If we are to pass this then it needs to be done ASAP as FA opens up on the 15th.
-
Just so I'm straight on this...
Under Colby's 90%+yr/130%-yr proposal, Matt Holliday's bidding could look something like this...
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $16.5m/ 3 yrs, $15m/4 yrs, $13.5m/5 yrs, as minimums by adding a year per bid
or
$20m/1 yr initial offer
followed by $18m/2 yrs, then $23.5/1 yr in a drop down back to a one year deal
Is that a correct breakdown?
Is this what you intended Colby, or would you still need to BEAT the previous offer? Increasing years +1 for salary at 90% only MATCHES the previous offer... I think any bidding scheme should force new bids to exceed the previous offer, where Colby's suggested valuation can be used to compare offers of different length (to determine what the equivalent salary would be at the different contract length).
-
Correct Ben... those numbers are used as an equivalence. An additional $0.5m would have to be tagged on AFTER the conversion.
-
I believe that FA offers should be judged by the *total* dollars on the contract, not the amount per year. This method would keep things simple and offer owners an interesting choice. It would force owners to choose between longer guaranteed contracts at less dollars per year or shorter ones at larger dollars.
-
Roy that is true but what if someone offers 10 years at 12 mil a year = 120 mil, and someone offer 4 at 25 = 100 mil, then by total contract the person that offered 12 mil per, would be the winner.
-
I believe that FA offers should be judged by the *total* dollars on the contract, not the amount per year. This method would keep things simple and offer owners an interesting choice. It would force owners to choose between longer guaranteed contracts at less dollars per year or shorter ones at larger dollars.
This may force us into long contract situations. Then again, I do like the simplicity part of it even though small market teams will drop out of bids that go over $40-50m.
The other issue with this is that it creates a longer bid process. How long would it take to get up to $90m total contract for Holliday? I don't know, it may be worth a shot Roy.
-
Roy that is true but what if someone offers 10 years at 12 mil a year = 120 mil, and someone offer 4 at 25 = 100 mil, then by total contract the person that offered 12 mil per, would be the winner.
5-year term limit prevents that offer....
-
This may force us into long contract situations. Then again, I do like the simplicity part of it even though small market teams will drop out of bids that go over $40-50m.
The other issue with this is that it creates a longer bid process. How long would it take to get up to $90m total contract for Holliday? I don't know, it may be worth a shot Roy.
My personal preference is discounting using a time-value of money formula. If we've decided not to go in that direction because we want to keep it simple, which I understand, then I'd personally prefer to keep it really simple and go with something like this (total value, no discounting schema).
-
Colby...
Your proposal of 90% / 130% looks good, but there are some flaws...
On bigger contracts it works fine, I tried it out, even tough I would change 130% for 110%, in order to keep things more 'linear', or there could be some jumps when you go down and up in numbers of years... Like, per example:
1 year 20 mi...
2 year 20*0.9 = 18 + 0.5 = 18.5mi
1 year again 18.5*1.3 = 24.05 = 24.5 + 0.5 = 25mi
Do you see? Almost consecutely deals jumping 5 millons... If it were 110%, the turn back would be: 18.5*1.1 = 20.35 = 20.5 + 0.5 = 21mi... One million from the original proposal, what would be the exact same value if the deal were raised twice at the same year level... Thats the 'linear' I was talking about...
With those values, the rounding up and adding at least 0.5m in each new bid, it would be guaranteed from 0.5m to 59.5mi that getting a deal, adding one year and consecutively reducing one year in order to be at the same level of the original deal, would make the new deal add at least 1mi from the original deal...
Mathematicaly speaking, add one year and reduce one consecutively, with 90% and 110%, would make cause this formula: x*0.99 + 1.05... What would guarantee at least the 1mi for deals of at max 54.5mi, rounding up.... With the rounding in the middle, from the reducing year, that value goes up to 59.5mi...
However, the big flaw I noticed is that for smaller contracts, this rates doesn't really look good...
Example...
1 year 5mi
2 years: 5*0.9= 4.5 + 0.5 = 5mi
This way, to add one year, it would be basicly keeping the same sallary... And if you use smaller values, like 2mi, there would be a need to pay 2.5m to add a year...
My suggestions would be something like allowing to teams to make the new deal at least 0.5mi smaller (with the exceptions of 1mi deals, or the guy would recieve 0.5 per year, or less the same or less money in more years)... So in the case of 5mi, the new deal would be 4.5mi...
Also, you could use the same rule from extensions in order to limit the number of years acordinly to the yearly sallary... It would help to minimize the difference while changing from 4 to 5 years instead of 1 to 2 years, and also with smaller deals... Because to raise go down from 1.5m in 4 years (6mi total) to 1mi in 5 years (5mi total) would be wrong... But with the same limit of extensions, we wouldn't get to this point...
That's it... Sorry for the big elaboration... I understand we must keep things simple, but I believe we can't just ignore the math side of it...
So, my point is... To add years, 90%... To reduce, 110%... Always round up after multiplying and then add at least 0.5mi to make the new bid... Unless the value ends up being the same of the original deal, so it would be allowed to reduce 0.5mi (except from 1 year deals)...
-
My personal preference is discounting using a time-value of money formula. If we've decided not to go in that direction because we want to keep it simple, which I understand, then I'd personally prefer to keep it really simple and go with something like this (total value, no discounting schema).
Ben, you know as I know that this league is designed to be a simple representation of MLB as it stands today. I think we are very close to getting to a point in which the base set of rules can be established for years to come.
With Ben un-offically voting for Roy's proposal, I will do the same in hopes of getting something passed. That is 3 out of 6 so far...
-
Ben, you know as I know that this league is designed to be a simple representation of MLB as it stands today. I think we are very close to getting to a point in which the base set of rules can be established for years to come.
With Ben un-offically voting for Roy's proposal, I will do the same in hopes of getting something passed. That is 3 out of 6 so far...
Count my vote as official. I think this is a reasonable approach that is simple and should not result in any major loopholes. That said, it would be worth revisiting this after we've gone through free agency for consideration in future years (having a real experience under our belts).
-
Count my vote as official. I think this is a reasonable approach that is simple and should not result in any major loopholes. That said, it would be worth revisiting this after we've gone through free agency for consideration in future years (having a real experience under our belts).
This is a great suggestion (total dollar value) in my opinion which keeps the intent of the original discussions and simplifies them to a huge extent which is a good development.
Total dollar value would also work better with RFA tagging. The total value would need to be matched but the retaining GM could choose the years.
It also keeps an element of confidentiality to the teams own plans - the dollar value will be out there in the public domain but the years offered would be in their own head.
May I suggest that the same contract tenures might be added to free agency, though. This would avoid offering say $2m to win an average player and then locking him up for 4 years at $0.5m. The contract tenure limits would avoid this.
Chris
-
makes it simple i agree
-
Chris, the term limits apply to both extensions and FA contracts.
With Chad agreeing to this, I think we can push this one through just in time! :win:
-
I have to say I don't like the total dollars reasoning. This way short term offers are almost impossible to pass and it becomes a bit unrealistic. A player will always go for a 1 year 21 million offer over a 5 year offer at 4.5mil per year. It's 4 years more of work and only 1.5 mil more guaranteed. Total dollars only makes sense when offers are of a similar value, but sometimes someone is willing to overpay big in the present to avoid burdening the team in the future.
I would prefer to keep it as it is than to do this change, but what would be even better is the valuation scale. Maybe 90% against 130% was too steep when going up and down but 90% against 120% should fix that.
-
I have to say I don't like the total dollars reasoning. This way short term offers are almost impossible to pass and it becomes a bit unrealistic. A player will always go for a 1 year 21 million offer over a 5 year offer at 4.5mil per year. It's 4 years more of work and only 1.5 mil more guaranteed. Total dollars only makes sense when offers are of a similar value, but sometimes someone is willing to overpay big in the present to avoid burdening the team in the future.
I would prefer to keep it as it is than to do this change, but what would be even better is the valuation scale. Maybe 90% against 130% was too steep when going up and down but 90% against 120% should fix that.
This is what I originally wanted, but in order to come to an agreement before the deadline, some ends of the RC had to make sacrifices in order to get the votes just like real legislation. We have had the four votes to make this official already.
What we will see is longer and more expensive contracts. The term limits will restrict giving far too little money over more years.
:judge: :judge: :judge: :judge:
-
Ok I understand, could I propose a small add-on to this rule? Any contract of a higher length has to be worth more than 50 percent the per annum value of the shorter contract. This will not influence a jump on years from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 or 4 to 5. But it will limit the damage when increasing 3 or 4 years length at once.
Example
x team proposes a 2 year at 20mil per year.
y team proposes a 5 year at 8.5 mil per year.
The first bid would prevail over the second one even when total dollar value of the second is slightly over the first offer.
y team would have to bid at least a 4 year 10.5 mil to get the best bargain.
I know this only takes us a tad closer to reality and I would prefer to set the bar a bit higher maybe 70 percent instead of 50 percent, but for simplicity's sake 50 should do the trick.
-
Ok I understand, could I propose a small add-on to this rule? Any contract of a higher length has to be worth more than 50 percent the per annum value of the shorter contract. This will not influence a jump on years from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 or 4 to 5. But it will limit the damage when increasing 3 or 4 years length at once.
Example
x team proposes a 2 year at 20mil per year.
y team proposes a 5 year at 8.5 mil per year.
The first bid would prevail over the second one even when total dollar value of the second is slightly over the first offer.
y team would have to bid at least a 4 year 10.5 mil to get the best bargain.
I know this only takes us a tad closer to reality and I would prefer to set the bar a bit higher maybe 70 percent instead of 50 percent, but for simplicity's sake 50 should do the trick.
<= $1m, 2 years
$1.5m - $5m, 3 years
$5.5m - $10m, 4 years
> $10m, 5 years (the overall limit)
The term limits prevent your 5 year $8.5m bid... the bid would be $42.5m, and it would have to be a 5-year contract if it was won.
-
Alright Franchise GM... this one is settled. Roy's proposal of whole contract VALUE (years need not be listed) is the new way for FA bidding in Franchise GM. :judge:
I'll put it in the rule book and announce shortly.