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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Apr 2014, 9:33 am

geojanes wrote:[. . . I get Derek Jeter for his career, but I wouldn't have paid 50 bucks for that privilege.


Yeah, my point.

Now, let's say my "guy" is Mike Trout. Can I keep him every year?

First of all, he will not be available in our league until he can no longer walk.

Second, even if he was, I could not keep him without going to nearly $50 in the draft.

Third, I get it. "We like the league the way it is."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Apr 2014, 12:36 pm

Trout would be worth $70-80 in an auction so, yeah, $6 is a pretty good bargain. The problem is that he is such an outlier that there is no really not a way to deal with him. Any rule to deal with Trout would be way over-inclusive.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Apr 2014, 1:40 pm

freeman3 wrote:Trout would be worth $70-80 in an auction so, yeah, $6 is a pretty good bargain. The problem is that he is such an outlier that there is no really not a way to deal with him. Any rule to deal with Trout would be way over-inclusive.


How about a rule that just forces Trout to switch teams every year? :laugh:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Apr 2014, 3:15 pm

Just for fun...

Mike Trout Rule

(1) if any player finishes in the top ten in Yahoo ratings (or whatever rating service) their team must offer them if they want to keep them (unless the contract is already over $30) a contract with a first year starting with $30.
(2) If they finish #1 the contract must start with $40.

There you go, Steve!
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:13 pm

I decided to make a Redscape account since some of you guys don't go on Google+ and Todd let me know about this discussion when I was talking to him yesterday.

The big question for me is: how much of this conversation is a result of one player (Trout) and one owner (Matt)? Trout is a once-in-a-generation talent, so I'm not in favor of changing a rule that applies to every player just because of a set of extreme circumstances (Trout is ridiculously good AND was owned as a rookie so has a great salary for the next decade). Everyone in the league had a chance to own Trout, so it shouldn't be Matt's problem that he had the good fortune to pick up Trout. And in terms of the one owner, let's give credit where it's due. Matt's better than the rest of us at fantasy baseball. He doesn't have a lot of great contracts because of sheer dumb luck. He won before he had Trout. With the exception of Freeman and Michael, all of us have at one point had a fair chance to assemble a team to rival Matt's. And some owners have succeeded as Todd pointed out.

None of this is to invalidate the discussion of our salary scale. I think it behooves us to examine our rules periodically to see if they can be improved. The two observations I've seen so far that would perhaps indicate the need for a tweak are: two year contracts are underused and megastars signed as rookies can be kept for too long. I told Todd yesterday, just for comparison's sake, that another league I'm in does an inflation scale like this:

year 1: lesser of $4 or double salary
year 2: lesser of $4 or double salary
year 3: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 4: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 5: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 6+: double salary

Let's use Mike Trout as an example. Using the scale above, his salary would look like this (assuming he's won at auction or picked up for $1) :

2) $2 current RBL scale: $6
3) $4 current RBL scale: $9
4) $8 current RBL scale: $10
5) $16 current RBL scale: $15
6) $48 current RBL scale: $18

The key difference here is that under our current scale (and of course this assumes consistent performance from Trout) you could keep Trout for probably seven more years before he'd even close to approach his auction value. In the other model you get savings on the front end but by year six he's approaching his auction value (or exceeding it for almost anyone except Trout) and no player is keepable in year seven at $96. This other league does not do multi-year contracts, so the two year contract is not a potential problem area. I do like the risk/reward we have with contracts, so I can chime in on that if this discussion continues. I wanted to start by throwing out some food for thought.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:34 pm

schulni wrote:I decided to make a Redscape account since some of you guys don't go on Google+ and Todd let me know about this discussion when I was talking to him yesterday.


Welcome to Redscape!

For me, FB is enough of a time-sink. I don't need Google+ too!

The big question for me is: how much of this conversation is a result of one player (Trout) and one owner (Matt)?


I raised Trout as an example, perhaps THE example. I just think it's a bit ridiculous that one can basically keep a player like him for his entire career (or at least the productive years) at a bargain.

Everyone in the league had a chance to own Trout, so it shouldn't be Matt's problem that he had the good fortune to pick up Trout.


Sort of true. It's true in the theoretical sense. However, some of us can't really run our franchises like they're real MLB teams. In other words, time is the unequalizer and there's no rule that can flatten it out. However, a more realistic structure would not hurt.

None of this is to invalidate the discussion of our salary scale. I think it behooves us to examine our rules periodically to see if they can be improved.


QFT.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:39 pm

schulni wrote:year 1: lesser of $4 or double salary
year 2: lesser of $4 or double salary
year 3: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 4: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 5: lesser of $8 or double salary
year 6+: double salary

Let's use Mike Trout as an example. Using the scale above, his salary would look like this (assuming he's won at auction or picked up for $1) :

2) $2 current RBL scale: $6
3) $4 current RBL scale: $9
4) $8 current RBL scale: $10
5) $16 current RBL scale: $15
6) $48 current RBL scale: $18

The key difference here is that under our current scale (and of course this assumes consistent performance from Trout) you could keep Trout for probably seven more years before he'd even close to approach his auction value. In the other model you get savings on the front end but by year six he's approaching his auction value (or exceeding it for almost anyone except Trout) and no player is keepable in year seven at $96. This other league does not do multi-year contracts, so the two year contract is not a potential problem area. I do like the risk/reward we have with contracts, so I can chime in on that if this discussion continues. I wanted to start by throwing out some food for thought.



Math looks wrong to me. You jump from $16 to $48, when you should be jumping to $32. Then $64 in year 7, which would be the last possible year for keeping Trout. While it's not at all obvious he'd be keepable at that price, it's at least possible, whereas $96 is isn't.

Not a huge difference in your point either way, though.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 23 Apr 2014, 12:44 pm

Oops - good catch! It should be $32. In actuality there is a $24 year for rookies like Trout who are called up to the major leagues (we have a minors), but I didn't want to complicate it further. I forgot to change that one year back though.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 09 May 2014, 9:54 am

Back on topic, sorry for provoking George intentionally. What if we kept our inflation scale the same but added a fixed penalty that accounted for the number of contracts a player had been signed to by a certain team? For example, you could pay a +$3 acceleration for the second contract and a +$12 acceleration for the third contract. I haven't thought those numbers through, so they are just placeholders used to illustrate the concept right now. If a player under contract is traded, the number of contracts would reset to 1 or maybe even zero, so the new owner would pay a maximum of $5 to resign the player for the first time. Trout's progression would then look like this:

R1
6
9
10
(+$3 premium for second contract)
18
21
22
(+$12 premium for third contract)
39
42
43

I kind of like this idea the more I think about it. The salaries make sense to me. Some might want the third contract even higher, but I think it's about right.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 09 May 2014, 8:38 pm

To play devil's advocate, here's my workaround:
(your numbers in parenthesis)

R1
6
9
10
2-year contract
15 (18)
18 (21)
2-year contract
23 (22)
26 (39)
2-year contract
31 (42)
34 (43)

Seems to me if you wish to increase the inflation in contracts... well, increase the inflation in all the contracts. Here's an example of an extra $1 for each contract year:

R1
7
11
13
(3-year contract)
19
23
25
(3-year contract)
31
35
37

I would not vote for such a system since I'm sitting on a couple of studs that will be coming up this year (Taveras & Polanco). I want my version of Mike Trout too!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 10 May 2014, 8:22 am

I would assume that the multiple contract inflation Nick mentioned wouldn't just apply to 3-year contracts.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 11 May 2014, 5:33 am

Yes, Mike's math was completely wrong because he didn't add penalties for successive contracts.

And Polanco and Taveras aren't remotely in Trout's stratosphere.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 11 May 2014, 11:19 am

schulni wrote:And Polanco and Taveras aren't YET remotely in Trout's stratosphere.


Corrected.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 11 May 2014, 1:09 pm

SLOTerp wrote:
schulni wrote:And Polanco and Taveras aren't YET remotely in Trout's stratosphere.


Corrected.


Provided that only Taveras enter's Trout's stratosphere, I am okay with this.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 12 May 2014, 1:33 pm

Jeez Todd, even Polcen couldn't get an apostrophe into "enters."

I'll give you this Mike: your team is doing impressively well considering that you are burning two roster spots waiting for Taveras and Polanco. They may both end up being awesome, but I doubt we see another Trout for awhile.