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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 15 Jan 2017, 1:06 pm

That's an intriguing proposal, Matt. There is something rather elegant about it.

Questions to consider:

1. Transition: Would the service time clock start in the year of implementation (2018)? i.e. old contracts do not count towards service time?

2. Could you write a long-term contract past the X-year limit? If so, you could manipulate your contracts to extend the effective limit.

3. Perhaps allow any player past the X-limit to be renewed on a 1-year contract (no long-term) but players AT the X-limit must go to auction. This solves the 'never getting to free agency issue' and adds contract inflation. Too much record-keeping?

4. Why do away with rookie contracts? I've seen this brought up several times yet I don't really know why. I would argue for retaining rookie contracts and not counting them towards service time.

Here are what I see as the pros & cons of rookie contracts:

Pros
Rewards owners willing to research prospects.
Provides potential avenue for re-building a team.
Reduces auction time on the tail end (when prospects / marginal players would typically be bought but spots are instead taken up by those rookie contracts).

Cons
More record-keeping (tracking rookie status).
Locks up break-out players (perhaps this is where the sentiment is coming from?).
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 12:08 pm

I'll just put in another word in favor of the simplicity of Brad's proposal - you always have to hit FA after a contract expires, which is quite straightforward to track, and the lengthened max contract combined with the "option" idea means that you can still keep a player for awhile without adding excessive additional risk.

Why do away with rookie contracts? I think simplicity is the reason there too, for several of the proposals we've had. You don't have to worry about how they interact with these other restrictions.

I also want to respond to something Steve said, which I think is misleading:

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.


There's no such thing as a risk-free contract. Mike Trout could get injured, he could have a stroke, he could suddenly experience a dramatic drop in production. I do like the idea of requiring players to eventually re-enter the FA pool, but not because there's too much value accumulated. Rather, I just think, as Mike said, we're likely to make things more fun for everyone.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 16 Jan 2017, 1:41 pm

Interesting discussion. I will say this; we have the most generous salary inflation of any salary league I know of. Most I know of similar to ours are in the +$5 for each year or 1.5x per year with a higher base price for free agent pickups and rookies. I don't care if I never have access to a player at auction, but it seems to matter to several other people and I can understand that. I don't see anything broken about our system, and I'm generally not in favor of changing the league to make it less complicated/more casual, but that's because I invest a lot of time into it. There are a range of owners and I'd like to find a compromise if that's the direction others want to go.

Matt's service time idea is interesting. It seems like a lot of record keeping though. Here are some other options:

*A salary structure that goes something like $1/6/9/10/15/23/35/53 (+3, +5, +6, option 1.5x, option 1.5x, option 1.5x etc.) - the idea being that you get an initial benefit for finding the player, but then the salary accelerates quickly after that.

*A salary structure that goes something like $2/4/8/16/24/32/48/64, or +2/+4/+8/+8/+16/+16, one year contracts only, and you can sign players for any range of this cycle (so if you acquire a player for $10, because he's between $8 and $16, he'd be +$8 to sign for the following year etc.) This would get more players into the pool, but you'd still be able to hold a top player for six-seven years.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 2:10 pm

Sharur wrote:I'll just put in another word in favor of the simplicity of Brad's proposal - you always have to hit FA after a contract expires, which is quite straightforward to track, and the lengthened max contract combined with the "option" idea means that you can still keep a player for awhile without adding excessive additional risk.

Why do away with rookie contracts? I think simplicity is the reason there too, for several of the proposals we've had. You don't have to worry about how they interact with these other restrictions.

I also want to respond to something Steve said, which I think is misleading:

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.


There's no such thing as a risk-free contract. Mike Trout could get injured, he could have a stroke, he could suddenly experience a dramatic drop in production. I do like the idea of requiring players to eventually re-enter the FA pool, but not because there's too much value accumulated. Rather, I just think, as Mike said, we're likely to make things more fun for everyone.


"Misleading" only in the sense that one *can* misinterpret it. Of course, any long-term contract is a risk. What I meant, and have said at some length, is that there is no *risk* of losing the player.

In other words, Matt's Trout (for an example, not because he is the object of my desire) is nothing like a real-life Trout, except that he produces like few ever have. This Trout is a 'bot. He doesn't care about increasing his salary or his chance of going to a winning team. All he cares about is being a loyal Lumberjack.

No risk indeed.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 2:23 pm

Here's where were at. The names refer to who posted the idea for ease of finding the details.

We really need to start narrowing the options down at this point. If you put an idea out there and wish remove it, please let me know.

Contract limit approach
1. Limit of 2 consecutive contracts (rookie contracts excepted?). Andrew
2. Limit of 5 consecutive years under contract (rookie contracts excepted?). Todd
3. No consecutive contracts. Extend contract period up to five years (more expensive option year possible for contracts of less than 5 years). Brad S.
4. Contracts contribute to service time. Players go to FA after X-years of service. Matt

Inflation approach
5. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts, increasing by contract (1st - $5; 2nd - $10, 3rd - $15, etc...). No change to current contract options. Freeman
6. Base Value penalty for consecutive contracts fixed at $10. Extend contract options up to five years. Andrew
7. Progressive inflation in successive contracts. Nick
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 2:40 pm

I set up a poll. Hopefully this will help reveal some preferences.

http://www.redscape.com/viewtopic.php?f=150&t=3511&p=52505#p52505
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 16 Jan 2017, 6:55 pm

Brad (no contract renewals), Matt (service time), and Nick (one year contracts) all present ideas I can get behind (and I've voted accordingly). Most of the other ideas proposed I find to be overly complex patches to our existing system, and I'd probably rather just keep what we have than adopt any of them.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 16 Jan 2017, 7:13 pm

I still like my idea the best. I would like to keep rookie contracts as it does help keep teams active down the stretch. And with our new rule of +1 each year you're not just holding onto a 1 guy until he produces. The earlier you grab him the more expensive he is once he starts producing.

I like the simplicity of my proposition in that the record keeping would still be no more complex than it is now, it creates turnover of players and the draft will have more exciting acquisitions. I think it will change trading now knowing you can trade away a guy who is ending his contract but still obtain him in the draft. There will be more known players entering the draft pool and allow us to have more time than a week to understand the volume of players in the pool to better make ones own keeper picks.

I understand that a lot of you put a ton of time into the game of baseball and research all throughout the year but it's not as high of a priority as others of us who are just playing it to have fun, and without us you'd be a group of maybe six. I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, just being honest with where I come from. If/when I finally win a championship I will feel so LUCKY!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Jan 2017, 8:10 pm

Yes, the downside of being good at fantasy baseball...is being good at fantasy baseball. Something to wait to mention until after the first date I think and that one uses spreadsheets to analyze players I am not sure that should ever be volunteered...
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:17 am

This could be much ado about nothing, Brad. The last time (2015) we voted to change the contract structure, the amendment lost 7-9. All that one did was increase contract inflation. It takes 12 votes to pass an amendment - it wasn't even close.

I will also put out an amendment to eliminate rookie contracts but they seem to be immensely popular so I doubt that would pass either.

Most owners seem to like the 'dynasty' aspect of the league even with the implicit trade-offs.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:23 am

Completely understand Brad's logic, and I think his views probably align with several owners'. I'm glad he gets to the root of the issue here. Once again, we seem faced with the identity crisis that underlies competitive problems in the league.

This is a complex league. We have 16 teams. We have six bench slots. We have a nuanced contract system. We have an in-depth constitution. We use three non-standard categories for scoring. It is not a league that you can be routinely successful in while treating it casually.

I completely get wanting to play fantasy baseball more casually, and not putting "a ton of time into the game of baseball" and how having to do "research all throughout the year" takes a tremendous amount of investment. That's why 12 team redraft leagues with standard scoring exist, and are the most popular format. But let's be real here: If you treat this league casually, you will never win under the current league settings. You will rarely even sniff the playoffs. That's not a personal attack; all of the data, especially since expansion to 16 teams, points to that conclusion. If the league is still fun for you despite a lack of win/loss success, I respect that. But I don't think it's a secret that time-invested is the biggest determinant of competitive success in this league. That's how the league is set up. After that, skill comes into play. Then luck.

This really is not personal. I like everyone in the league on a personal level. I am only talking about my preference for having a league with more competitive balance, a league in which every owner invests a similar amount of time and therefore has more similar odds of winning and losing. Leagues in which owners invest vastly different amounts of time are going to have serious competitive balance issues, and to me that ultimately hurts the league. I happen to like dynasty leagues. I don't care if an owner has a player forever.

If the majority of owners vote to make the league more casual in order to try to make the playing field more level for less invested owners, I will absolutely accept that result and wish the league the best. I doubt I would stay in the league in that scenario though.

It is true that if all of the owners who invest less time into the league and baseball in general left, we would only have a little more than half of the owners remaining. But we could certainly find other owners. The league would not fold. I could fill this league quickly just recruiting from people I know from other dynasty leagues or NFBC-type leagues, or by posting on the reddit fantasy baseball community. The same would happen if I, and other owners left.

Basically, I think Brad makes an important point, and I'm always in favor of talking more directly about what people really want rather than dancing around minor amendments.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:45 am

I really can't imagine seeing the league move significantly in one direction or another. We rarely do big changes. The rules must be near enough to everyone's liking, or at least to what is minimally acceptable to play, based on the lack of departures. Very few leave (or get booted out).

We'll make a few marginal changes, almost everyone will stick around, Matt or Nick will win the championship. and then we'll hear some arguments for change. Rinse & repeat.

Personally, I like where we're at. It's an incredibly active league with LOTS of trading and some hope for owners that put in a modicum of effort. It's the most fun I've ever had in fantasy sports, bar none.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:57 am

I agree. It's still my favorite league! I am good with any amendment that a majority of owners want so long as it doesn't drastically change our current system, which I think works fine.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 6:57 am

SLOTerp wrote: It's the most fun I've ever had in fantasy sports, bar none.


And Mike's name isn't even on the trophy.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 17 Jan 2017, 7:00 am

geojanes wrote:And Mike's name isn't even on the trophy.

It's my holy grail...