Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 12 Jan 2017, 8:36 am

I would not support a limit of two contracts.

I would support some kind of long-term contract or contract inflation or limit on number of years (say six). Or not, since I think our current system isn't broken.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Jan 2017, 9:49 am

geojanes wrote:I would not support a limit of two contracts.

I would support some kind of long-term contract or contract inflation or limit on number of years (say six). Or not, since I think our current system isn't broken.


Our current system isn't broken?

So, it's okay if one team owns a player without any other team having a shot at him for his entire productive career? The only player who would be worth "max money" under our system at the end of his career was Barry Bonds. (Big Papi would not have been under contract to one team for that long)

Note well: I'm not proclaiming our system a disaster or irreparably broken. What I am saying is that it sure would be more fun to be able to bid on more than scraps--like HOF material. That's only going to happen if we modify the system. Teams can still get a star player for cheap for several years, but they should not be able to keep him for as long as our current system permits. If MLB doesn't permit a lifetime contract, why should we?
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 12 Jan 2017, 12:02 pm

I think the most relevant argument here is about fun. More players in the auction pool probably makes it more fun (albeit longer - hello, four hour auction) for most of us. I don't much care for the other arguments.

- If you really want Trout, make Matt an offer he can't refuse.

- Some players in MLB do stay with one team their entire career - do you really think Trout will ever play for anyone but the Angels? Then there's Rivera, Posada, Williams, & Jeter for the Yankees. Jones for the Braves. Ripken for the O's. Bagwell & Biggio for the Astros. Larkin for the Reds. Helton for the Rockies. And those are just the ones who retired in the past fifteen years.

- Our system is not broken, it's just not giving the equitable outcomes some of you desire. I, however, subscribe to Nick's belief that Matt is just better at this game than the rest of us. Should we really be leveling the playing field because some owners are better than others?

- The truth is, we'll never be able to replicate the MLB system - MLB players can negotiate contracts, something impossible for fantasy baseball.

Anyway, I'm ok with putting any solution on the table as an amendment. Limited contracts, more inflation, whatever but I doubt I would support it. I want Trea Turner on my team... forever. :grin:

Also, there must be a transition plan. Any changes would not be put into place until 2018 but, even then, you'd have to decide how to deal with existing long-term contracts.

Nick, do I have my commas in the right place?
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 12 Jan 2017, 12:42 pm

Here's something interesting. Not necessarily relevant, but interesting.

MLB 2016: Trout's salary was 51st highest in the league.
RBL 2016: Trout's salary tied for 52nd highest in the league.

His 2017 salary will be 33rd highest in MLB. His long-term contract with the Angels is definitely not representative of his performance.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Jan 2014, 6:43 am

Post 12 Jan 2017, 2:51 pm

I'm similarly fine with the idea of contract inflation, but I think it should be higher. Make contracts go for up to 5 years, and then add 10 to each year of the re-up.

As noted, we can't perfectly replicate the system, but if you get a great player, or even a *good* player, going 1,6,9,10,25,28,29,44,47,48..... in a 3 year looping contract Is still 10 years of ownership.

A 5 year would make it:

1,6,10,13,15,16,31,35,38,40,41. Seems reasonable to me.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 13 Jan 2017, 9:12 am

SLOTerp wrote:- Our system is not broken, it's just not giving the equitable outcomes some of you desire. I, however, subscribe to Nick's belief that Matt is just better at this game than the rest of us. Should we really be leveling the playing field because some owners are better than others?


Wait, does this mean Dr. Fate has secret communist tendencies? I always wondered why he's always been so vociferously anti-communist. This would explain a lot . . .

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jan 2017, 12:49 pm

SLOTerp wrote:I think the most relevant argument here is about fun. More players in the auction pool probably makes it more fun (albeit longer - hello, four hour auction) for most of us. I don't much care for the other arguments.


I don't believe it will *significantly* add to the auction time. Not every player is going to be available every year. However, a few more may be.

- If you really want Trout, make Matt an offer he can't refuse.


Right. So, maybe two HOF players? (Sorry, but this is not only silly, but it misses the point)

- Some players in MLB do stay with one team their entire career - do you really think Trout will ever play for anyone but the Angels? Then there's Rivera, Posada, Williams, & Jeter for the Yankees. Jones for the Braves. Ripken for the O's. Bagwell & Biggio for the Astros. Larkin for the Reds. Helton for the Rockies. And those are just the ones who retired in the past fifteen years.


And again, you've missed the point, I think. It's not a matter of IF a player can do this, it's can a player do this WITHOUT EVER FACING FREE AGENCY?

Even Mike Trout would, at some point, have had the option of leaving the Angels if he had not signed an uber-long term contract.

- Our system is not broken, it's just not giving the equitable outcomes some of you desire. I, however, subscribe to Nick's belief that Matt is just better at this game than the rest of us. Should we really be leveling the playing field because some owners are better than others?


Oh boy. We are not communicating well. I'm not asking for a leveling of the playing field. However, I do find it disconcerting that some players will NEVER be available--not in 3, 6, or possibly even 12 years. This is the pre-Curt Flood system.

- The truth is, we'll never be able to replicate the MLB system - MLB players can negotiate contracts, something impossible for fantasy baseball.


Yes, in fantasy baseball, which is for fun, you can lock up a player forever.

*Again, this is not only about Mike Trout. He's just the most obvious example.*
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 14 Jan 2017, 3:39 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
I don't believe it will *significantly* add to the auction time. Not every player is going to be available every year. However, a few more may be.

It probably won't go to four but it will last longer than the current three hours.

Right. So, maybe two HOF players? (Sorry, but this is not only silly, but it misses the point)

It wasn't too long ago that Nick and I were in serious negotiations for Harper. I would've given up a lot but I was willing.

And again, you've missed the point, I think. It's not a matter of IF a player can do this, it's can a player do this WITHOUT EVER FACING FREE AGENCY?

Even Mike Trout would, at some point, have had the option of leaving the Angels if he had not signed an uber-long term contract.

I suppose I don't think replicating the MLB's labor rules is as important as you.

Oh boy. We are not communicating well. I'm not asking for a leveling of the playing field [my emphasis]. However, I do find it disconcerting that some players will NEVER be available--not in 3, 6, or possibly even 12 years. This is the pre-Curt Flood system.

If competitiveness (i.e. equity, parity, level-playing field, etc...) is not a factor for you, stop bringing it up. Regardless, I still believe your primary argument about fun is compelling. It may not sway me but it might others.

I'd like to have an amendment in a week or so. Here are the options I think I've seen so far:

Contract limit approach
1. Limit of 2 consecutive contracts (rookie contracts excepted?).
2. Limit of 5 consecutive years under contract (rookie contracts excepted?).
3. No consecutive contracts. Extend contract period up to five years (more expensive option year possible for contracts of less than 5 years).

Inflation approach
4. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts, increasing by contract (1st - $5; 2nd - $10, 3rd - $15, etc...). No change to current contract options.
5. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts fixed at $10. Extend contract options up to five years.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Jan 2017, 3:42 pm

I think Mike Trout is a very small part of it. When the argument is presented as do we need to change the whole league around because of one player, well of course that's ridiculous. It's more about the ability of stocking blue-chip players for several years at bargain basement prices and the lack of dynamism in the draft for those who don't have those players to compete with that. Mike Trout is just the most extreme example of that. All the 1 year contracts really reduce how dynamic the draft is as well. There hopefuly should be a balance between the fun of building a team over time versus other owners being able to come into the draft and have a legitimate chance to compete against that if they have a great draft. I think some contract inflation could put those things into better balance and there other ways I think we could get more players into the auction pool without unduly hurting the ability of building a team based on keeper.
Here would be my suggestions

(1) Adopt Nick's suggestion of a max 5 year contract. Then the second contract would get a $10 penalty, the third $15, etc.
(2) have a new rule where any waiver wire pick-ups can only be keepers if they were still rookies at the start of the year; all other pick-ups go back into the auction draft pool.
(3) No rookie contract. You want to keep someone you need to offer a 1-5 year contract. Secondly, after the draft for all of your players you picked up you have to offer a contract from 1-5 years (starting with the current year). So you can't wait until the end of the year to decide whether you want to keep someone you drafted--you have to take the risk prior to the season.This should result in a lot more players going back into the pool.

So we would not be doing away with a keeper based strategy but just allowing owners who did hit the keeper lottery more of a chance to compete because there would be a lot more players available every year.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Jan 2017, 3:55 pm

Actually, I think 5 year contracts would be too risky--I think sticking with 3 years would be better with perhaps lesser inflation than Nick proposed.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Jan 2017, 4:09 pm

SLOTerp wrote:I suppose I don't think replicating the MLB's labor rules is as important as you.


I've written nothing that warrants that. Really.

My point is a simple one: no player, not Trout, not Kershaw, not Barry Bonds (if he were still playing), no one should be able to be kept in perpetuity without any risk simply because one grabbed him as a rookie.

That's not MLB. Their system is far more complex.

But, you can't argue with the Commish. Actually, you can't even make a reasonable point without him trying to point out you're not being reasonable (by implying you said something you didn't).
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 14 Jan 2017, 4:10 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:But, you can't argue with the Commish. Actually, you can't even make a reasonable point without him trying to point out you're not being reasonable (by implying you said something you didn't).

That guy is such an @#$!, I don't even know why any of us want to be in this stupid league. I think we should break off and form our own. Want me to run it?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Jan 2017, 7:42 pm

You're the commissioner, Mike. If you want to keep the basic parameters of the league the same way say so. It might head off some of this bickering. If there is overwhelming demand for change, that's one thing. Otherwise...you can say to owners that if you like the league as it it stay. If you think the league is no good without rules changes obviously you will not want to be in it anymore. I am happy with my little team and the league, don't mind the current structure as is but if you give me the option I'll say how the league could be better. Maybe you just lay down the law on this--contracts. Then my opinion on doing things differently becomes irrelevant. Just a thought..most of the leagues that I have been in the commish runs the league like a dictatorship. You run yours more democratically which is great. But I am just wondering if you want to mark off a few issues as being finally determined and not up for debate.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 15 Jan 2017, 6:27 am

I'm always willing to change if the league demands it. There are a few things I won't budge on but not many (auction, head-to-head, keepers, and a few others).

My opinions regarding the current contract set-up are from my perspective as an owner. I'm obviously willing to change things up as the commissioner - an amendment on contracts will be put up to a vote. Now we're just trying to nail down what that will look like.

Sometimes it's just fun to poke Steve.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 15 Jan 2017, 11:35 am

There's a lot of potential for confusion with the two contract limit. What happens if I sign a player for two years? Do I still get one more contract after that? What happens if I go year to year? What happens when the player is traded? I can imagine someone paying big to acquire a player only to find out a year later that they can't keep him.

I am not against limits, but one thing I like about our current rules is that you need only two pieces of information: base year and current contract length. Once you have those, it's always the same.

I agree that having more blue chippers in the auction would make the league more fun. I think a more MLB style solution would really get to the root of this issue: service time. Unfortunately the record keeping would be quite a bit of work. Basic outline of this proposal:

- Each player starts at 0 for "service time," a number which corresponds to years under contract.
- Eliminate rookie contracts.
- Every time a player is signed to a contract, the years are added to his service time. (This can increment each year and be canceled if there is a buyout.)
- Once a player hits, say, 6 years of service time, he must be released to auction. This number could be anywhere from 4-7, I think.
- Players with X+ years of service time may only receive 1-year contracts and then must go back into the auction.

This way, we can add one more easy to understand number to the spreadsheet. You look at a player and see his base year, current contract, and service time, and you know how long you'll have him and whether you'll be able to sign him after the season. For a player past the limit, if he is on a contract then you know you can't sign him further. If he has no contract, then he was either acquired at auction or picked up off of waivers, and you know you can sign him for 1 year and then must release him.

Probably requires a contract database and some work to maintain it. I wouldn't want to put it on Mike, but I think it's doable if someone steps up to help. I might be willing if there is a lot of support for this proposal.