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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 7:17 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:17 pm

I am resolutely opposed to any artificial limitations on the number of contracts a team can sign a player to. If I had veto power, I would exercise it and levy a $100 salary cap reduction on any teams voting in favor of such. There are players that spend their entire career with a single team and star players especially are the most likely to do so. Matt shouldn't be punished for getting to Mike Trout first and I sure as hell don't want to be punished for making investments in players like Carlos Correa or some other prospects.

I think that this would severely limit one of my favorite parts of the game: identifying the "next Mike Trout" (there is no next Mike Trout, but you get the idea) and hopping on that train early (including devoting a roster spot to such). I actually don't much care for the auction. It's probably my least favorite part of this league.

I would be willing to consider an adjustment to salary inflation, but probably none of the current proposals. We already are "overpaying" for younger players because we don't get the cheapest service time years that all players put in now. For example, Correa isn't even arbitration eligible until 2019 at which point he will have already cost me $26. The way I see it, compared to MLB values, we currently have to "overpay" for young players on their first contract (pre-arb years), stay even through their second contract (arbitration years), and then come out ahead in their third contract (free agency years). I'd be open to adjusting it so that it more closely matches the MLB system, but I think the way it is works well.

Every player is available at any time, except from the trade deadline until the end of the season. You just pay in players instead of dollars (and players just convert to dollars). I love looking for young guys that I could keep for 3 or more contracts (I am irrationally attached to my players) and I think that the ideas mentioned so far to artificially limit the amount of time a team can keep a player out of the auction would devastate that part of the game. I'd probably try a new system for a year, but a strict contract limit would probably be a deal-breaker for me on remaining in the league.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 7:27 pm

1. Strictly speaking, there is no "limit" on the number of contracts an owner can offer. There might be a limit on the number of contracts an owner can offer without fearing the player going for 'free agency.' No MLB team can avoid it, but in our league you can avoid it por vida .
2. Every player is *not* available at anytime. That's ridiculous. Yes, you can make an overwhelming offer for Kershaw and I can trade him. That is NOT the same as being able to obtain him at auction. Sorry, that's a logical fallacy.
3. I am very thankful you don't have unlimited power. You'd kill the league in a day. :laugh:
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 10:18 pm

Would five years under contract plus the ability to re-acquire at auction be that bad?

I do like the simplicity of Nick's system, insofar as it's one year contracts with values that accelerate in such a way that it's impractical to never throw a player back into the pool (but you always have the option to keep). That way, instead of getting the savings on the back end of a contract, you get the savings when they matter most - up front - and aren't required to take harder to read, longer-term risks in order to get the most bang for your buck.

However, I'm not convinced that the particular progression he suggested is ideal (in fact, there was an inconsistency between the year-by-year increases he listed and the resulting prices he listed), so I threw together a spreadsheet that shows some different numeric patterns. I can add anything to the list if people have other ideas, but hopefully it helps illustrate some of the ways we might tinker with that basic idea.

Note that with at least some of those examples, it wouldn't be hard to shift them by a year, e.g. starting Fibonacci at +2 rather than +1. Also, in case it isn't clear, the second column with each example is how much you've saved over the life of the contract relative to our current system, so even if you're spending more in year n, you might still be ahead because of savings in past years.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 18 Jan 2017, 8:47 am

Thanks Todd! I played with the numbers a bunch so I'm not surprised I ended up with an inconsistency. I will check out your ideas, and Mike's poll.