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.
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.