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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 7:29 am

I think I disagree with pretty much everything you just said. But I also think the source of that disagreement is pretty evident from what I've already posted, so I'll try to let others chime in.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:30 am

That's fine. It's been interesting discussing possible changes, but I think at this point nothing proposed (including my own ) seems particularly compelling. Unless it's minor tinkering I don't think I would want to change the present system.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:38 am

Todd, I understand the logic behind your last proposal, but there are serious problems with opening up RFA bidding to all players. If you allow unlimited bids per team, it's a big free-for-all mess that's not far off from just throwing all players into the auction. However, if you do limit bids per team, you've created a different set of perverse incentives.

Let's use the perpetual example, Mike Trout. Who could expect to get him for +6 while he's still cheap? Nobody. So each individual's rational move is to not waste one of their limited bids on him, but if nobody bids on him then his inflation rate doesn't accelerate properly. This would be true for quite a few cheap, good players, and it's the big problem I see with any system that relies on bidding to correctly apply inflation. Bidding only works if there is some reasonable expectation that you could acquire the player with a high enough bid.

I think my RFA proposal, which uses Freeman's idea of expiring contracts to create the pool with unlimited bids per team and a +100% cap for the matching team, mitigates this problem somewhat but definitely doesn't eliminate it.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:54 am

All of the ideas to modify or replace our keeper system are just not compelling to me. They either require extra steps in the keeper process or eliminate the long-term contract. I like having the option of writing long-term contracts for the discount. I like the simple, one-step keeper process.

Furthermore, I think any major change to the system is mightily challenged by the 3/5 voting requirement.

How about a marginal change to see where it gets us? Something like altering the inflation rate:

5/8/10
6/9/11
Rookies are BY+1 or 2

It doesn't do too much for early tanking but maybe it will have an effect. I can't see much else to directly slow down tanking except for incentivizing the consolation bracket and I haven't seen any proposals I can really get behind for doing that. I don't want to mess with the auction dollars nor use monetary incentives. Maybe the winner can choose their division mates next year. Too far outside the box?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:55 am

freeman3 wrote:That's fine. It's been interesting discussing possible changes, but I think at this point nothing proposed (including my own ) seems particularly compelling. Unless it's minor tinkering I don't think I would want to change the present system.


I agree with this, and I include my own RFA proposal in there as well.

One of the lower-impact things suggested has been eliminating rookie contracts. I think it's worth further speculation and discussion on the effects that would have.

Let me also put forward, clearly, the lower bracket prize money proposal:

Proposal: Changes to Playoffs

1) Last place teams in all divisions are eliminated.

2) Senior Playoffs
Division winners qualify. The top two division winners earn 1st round byes. The next two teams by record earn wild card spots. Playoffs proceed as they have in the past, with 1st prize of League Championship and no other prizes.

3) Junior Playoffs
The remaining six teams are seeded by record. They enter a playoff in the same format as the Senior Playoffs. 1st prize is $10 in Contract Discounts. 2nd prize is $5 in Contract Discounts.

4) Contract Discounts
These may be applied to any player(s) under contract for the following year to reduce the cost of keeping as low as $1. Discounts do not have any effect on Base Year salary calculations.

Example:

I earn $10 in Contract Discounts during the 2015 postseason. For the upcoming 2016 season I have Player A under contract for $6 and Player B under contract for $6/$9/$10. I apply $5 to Player A and $5 to Player B.

Player A costs me $1 in 2016. His Base Year for future contracts remains $6.

Player B costs me $1 in 2016. His contract remains $9/$10 for years 2 and 3.

Pros

Increases the benefit to winning deeper into the season, potentially providing a more robust, competitive league throughout the year. Provides a consolation "safety net" for teams who are on the bubble and choose to go for the playoffs rather than selling. Semi-random nature of a playoff mitigates manipulation: purposely tanking from 6th to 7th doesn't guarantee you any reward. Real penalty for finishing in last place.

Cons

Potential for weird incentives. Teams on the bubble may choose NOT to go for the playoffs. Other problems...?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:58 am

SLOTerp wrote:How about a marginal change to see where it gets us? Something like altering the inflation rate:

5/8/10
6/9/11
Rookies are BY+1 or 2

It doesn't do too much for early tanking but maybe it will have an effect. I can't see much else to directly slow down tanking except for incentivizing the consolation bracket and I haven't seen any proposals I can really get behind for doing that. I don't want to mess with the auction dollars nor use monetary incentives. Maybe the winner can choose their division mates next year. Too far outside the box?


+5/+8/+10 would work for me as a tweak. I don't think we should increase the first year to +6, since I think that will have too much of an effect on borderline keepers that you want to try for 1 year. I'd also be in favor of doing the +1 or +2 for rookies, maybe more so than eliminating rookie contracts completely.

The consolation winner division change idea is interesting. How about all last-place teams are disqualified from the consolation playoffs (leaving a 6 team playoff) and the winner of that playoff gets to swap divisions with any last place team?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 04 Sep 2014, 11:56 am

I'm in agreement with pretty much everything Matt has said, minus the swapping divisions with a last place team thing. I like the contract discount reward, and the minor salary increase proposal Mike forwarded. It seems early to start changing divisions, and I'm not sure how I feel about owners assessing other owners to decide where to compete. It doesn't feel in keeping with the league's culture.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 12:27 pm

You're right on division shifting, Nick - it doesn't feel right. I can't speak for others on this but I like the permanent divisions we have now. I'm fine with a justified shift of a team or two but not wholesale change. It popped into my head and I threw it out there. If we're seriously considering the consolation bracket to mean something, I prefer a contract discount to an auction handout. I know they're two sides of the same coin but it seems less disruptive to the auction. Regardless, I'm not enamored with it and I'd still like to find something else as a reward. I'm stumped.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 1:14 pm

I'm going to come back to an idea that didn't seem to have legs before - maybe it just got caught up in everything else. Restrictions on rookie contracts:

Playoff teams (Sr.): 0 rookie contracts
1st & 2nd places in Jr. playoffs: 3 rookie contracts max.
3rd & 4th places in Jr. playoffs: 2 rookie contracts max.
5th through 8th places in Jr. playoffs: 1 rookie contract max.
Last 2 teams (no playoffs): 0 rookie contracts.

This would not preclude signing rookies to normal contracts.

It would require teams wishing to stash rookies to play quite the balancing act. Count the number of rookies I'm rostering right now and you'll find close to double digits. I imagine Ryan is in the same boat and maybe a few others.

Meh... even I'm not overly thrilled by the idea. Let's leave this place... it's only a model.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Sep 2014, 1:42 pm

I would support the +5,+8,+10 idea and +2 for rookie contracts. I doubt that the above will get significantly more players into the auction pool (which I think will cure early tanking--it's the inability to get enough players at auction that puts pressure on teams to find other means of getting players and that includes tanking early). I don't think the big problem is rookies or 3 year contracts--the big problem is teams adding guys for 1 year and keeping them out of the auction. Guys that are picked up for a$1 on waiver wire one year, but are worth just $10-$25 maybe and are not worth the risk to sign for three years, so they are added for $6 for one year. Or more expensive players that are getting a bit pricey, or are getting old, etc. Anyway, I don't get the sense that they is any support for putting restrictions on owners being able to do this, so we just have to live with owners trying to get competitive long-term by giving up early in the near-term. In my opinion, unless you get more players into the auction you cannot cure early tanking--it's here to stay The likely reason that early tanking is more prevalent than before is that by increasing the number of teams you have lessened the ability of teams to catch up competitively at auction or on the waiver wire. George can do it but the rest of us need to find other options.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 04 Sep 2014, 9:44 pm

I would vote no on any proposal that provides salary cap-related rewards for consolation bracket finishes. In fact, I'd probably just vote no on any proposal that provides endogenous rewards for consolation bracket finishes.

I agree with Nick that switching divisions seems like shenanigans.

I've already said I'd probably vote for +5/+8/+10.

Restrictions on rookie contracts sounds like unnecessary complication for an already marginally impactful rule. I'd rather just eliminate them entirely or give them an inflation rate of +1 or +2.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 6:13 am

The following amendments will be put forth in January (subject to modification):

1. Change contract structure to 5/8/10 effective 2015 season. Contracts already in place not affected.

2. Change rookie contracts to BY+1 effective 2015 (2016?) season.

3. Playoff FA's: 2 max for duration of playoffs & subject to FAB availability. Playoff acquisitions cannot be kept.

Amendment #3 is the rule we voted in for a year then voted back out. We are a fickle bunch...

Like Todd, I don't like the options for consolation bracket reward. I am willing, however, to put out an amendment once a reward is decided upon.

I'm also willing to put forth an amendment that replaces our keeper system but I don't know what that should look like. I'll leave it up to those more invested in that conversation to give me one.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 05 Sep 2014, 7:05 am

It's worth noting that if we agree on a consolation bracket reward, preferably Matt's, then there are not only four playoff teams vying for players. Teams in the consolation bracket would also (we hope) be adding players to get a competitive edge.

Now, the issue of a valuable player being dropped and potentially reverting to $1 by passing through waivers would pose a problem. Perhaps it's time for Todd to bring back the FAAB parade!
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 8:24 am

Looks good, Mike.

I'd vote that the rookie rule be adjusted to +2, and apply to keepers for the 2016 season so as not to impact teams who played this year with the expectation that the old +0 rule would apply.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 8:49 am

On Todd's note: Consolation teams will not be able to add if the bracket means nothing. If it means something, I'm not so sure they should be allowed anyway.

Matt - given the large number of rookies I'm sitting on, I'm inclined to agree with you on a delayed implementation! And I'm ok with the +2.