RS Review Time!

[Colby]

Mike PM'ed me with a couple concerns over this year's RS period.  I agree with some and disagree with others.  It's a good time to start reviewing what needs to be changed in RS and what needs to stay.  Issues to be considered are:

1) simplicity
2) similarity to MLB
3) fairness (all the while considering point #2)

[lp815]

I guess my biggest concern, right now, would have to do with fairness, but in this case, no one is at fault.  We just simply do not have many teams engaged in RS.  Teams like the Pirates and Marlins will be getting great deals in RS if the bids stay this low.  I'm by no means upset by this, it is a simply a part of the game we play. 


In regards to simplicity, I feel comfortable with the current settings.  However, if anyone wished to show a simpler way of setting guidelines, I'm open to listening.

In regards to similarity, I think what we have is a good balance between guidelines that are clear and easy to the league and how the MLB regulates RS.

So really, no worries from me. :koolaid:

[Canada8999]

With the rule that no bids will go final until after Nov 1st, I've focused my attention elsewhere and have not yet engaged in RS.  If there is a lack of participation, other owners may be taking the same approach.

[Colby]

With the rule that no bids will go final until after Nov 1st, I've focused my attention elsewhere and have not yet engaged in RS.  If there is a lack of participation, other owners may be taking the same approach.

The A's and Rangers are vacant spots right now.  I have recruited several GMs in the past couple weeks, but no one seems to want the A's or Rangers (no surprise with barren Texas).

[Colby]

I think revenue sharing could have used some improvements.  With the tier system, the idea of revenue is the same as how much a team spends, so simply moving salary is a bit vanilla hence why I created the RS system.  What can we do to improve it?

[Colby]

The new salary cap system puts teams into markets based on existing markets and winning.  Revenue sharing has nothing to do with a team's payroll, but with how much money they bring in.  I think we can perfect the system by bringing in real-life revenue figures and adjusting them per the finishes of the fantasy franchises here.  The revenue sharing would simply be a cash adjustment to the caps.  This would be a lot less confusing and much more realistic.

[Colby]

Revenue info: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=126

I would say we look at the same three year averages as we do for the caps... so 2007-2009 would affect 2011 cash distributions.  The average 2007-2009 standing in fantasy DIVIDED by the real life team's 2007-2009 average standing would be the adjustment factor to the revenue.  We could reduce the power of this to reduce the effect of a last place team in real life compared to a top team in fantasy by adding another 30 to each part of the fraction...



The smallest possible adjustment would be and the largest possible adjustment would be .  Basically, a team's real life revenue could either be multiplied by two or divided by two, so if the Yankees were doing horrible in this league, yet great in real life, then their top revenue would be divided in half, most likely taking them out of revenue sharing responsibilities.  Likewise, a team in the middle can go either direction if they were polar opposites of their team in reality.

[Canada8999]

I don't think we want to include Real numbers, as in a year or two we could have a completely different landscape from MLB.  For instance, would you put the Brewers #3 in Real MLB power rankings?

[Colby]

I don't think we want to include Real numbers, as in a year or two we could have a completely different landscape from MLB.  For instance, would you put the Brewers #3 in Real MLB power rankings?

Naturally, the winning is different, but that is why we have the adjustment.  The natural market of the franchise is taken into account by real life revenue numbers.

[bridgestone]

While I don't like the idea of having our franchises still connected to the real life ones, I see Colby's reasoning for having it.  The factor of each franchise's market, not the winning, can be extracted from real life revenues.  I don't know if that prorating is just right.  Perhaps if we could prorate only on ticket sales and use the rest of the revenue number?  Either way, I have no vote, but I see the reasoning for the suggestion.