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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Jan 2014, 6:43 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 11:32 am

First, we can look at this two-year-old-discussion if desired:

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=2546

I don't want to rehash the "Franchise player" thing, but what I'd like to propose is a limit to contracts. Here's my initial proposal:

1. Limiting contracts to two (up to 3 year) contracts before a player must hit free agency, OR a max of 5 years (+5/+4/+3/+2/+1), in however many contracts you wanted (e.g. 3 years then 2, or 2 then 2 then 1, etc).

2. Current contract would count as the first contract in these proposals, since we know which were for however long they were.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 11:53 am

nightskyre wrote:First, we can look at this two-year-old-discussion if desired:

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=2546

I don't want to rehash the "Franchise player" thing, but what I'd like to propose is a limit to contracts. Here's my initial proposal:

1. Limiting contracts to two (up to 3 year) contracts before a player must hit free agency, OR a max of 5 years (+5/+4/+3/+2/+1), in however many contracts you wanted (e.g. 3 years then 2, or 2 then 2 then 1, etc).

2. Current contract would count as the first contract in these proposals, since we know which were for however long they were.


I don't know if this is THE answer, but for the sake of fun I think something should happen. Once in a lifetime players should not be locked into, essentially, lifetime deals.

I know, I know. The salaries increase.

Okay, I'll make it simple: when will Mike Trout be available in the draft? When he's 36?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Jan 2014, 6:43 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 11:57 am

Assuming he is currently in a 3 year deal, at the end of it his owner could sign him to another 3 year deal (since this is the introduction of the rule) and then after that, he has to go back to the player pool at least for one draft.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 12:05 pm

nightskyre wrote:Assuming he is currently in a 3 year deal, at the end of it his owner could sign him to another 3 year deal (since this is the introduction of the rule) and then after that, he has to go back to the player pool at least for one draft.


Sorry, no, I meant under our current system.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Jan 2014, 6:43 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 12:17 pm

Ah. Probably never. It's all about the release at a point where the keeper cost is at or below the draft cost. If he continues to produce, the value of the slot won't be there, so they'll keep keeping them.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 12:28 pm

nightskyre wrote:Ah. Probably never. It's all about the release at a point where the keeper cost is at or below the draft cost. If he continues to produce, the value of the slot won't be there, so they'll keep keeping them.


And, that's what I mean.

I think the "keeper" vs. "fun" factor is completely one-sided. If you land a once-in-a-lifetime player, you will not give him up and that doesn't seem reasonable--either from a competitive angle or from the sheer "fun" side of being able to take a stab at owning said player.

In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to be able to control a player for 12 years of his career and never have to worry about "free agency."

That is why I believe your idea has some merit.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 1:12 pm

As for an amendment possibility, I would argue for your first idea (a limit of 2 consecutive contracts of any length, excluding rookie contracts). My issue is bookkeeping - that would be an easy one.

I'm not advocating for it; just saying it's workable.

I'll email the ownership and put them on this thread.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 1:20 pm

From a bookkeeping standpoint, I'd probably rather limit it to one contract and lengthen the max contract, though there are clear downsides to that.

I still maintain that we should not write our league rules to handle Mike Trout - are we worried about this with any other player?
Adjutant
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 08 Jan 2014, 6:43 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 1:23 pm

Possibilities include:

Xander Bogaerts
Yoan Moncada
Clayton Kershaw
Nolan Arenado
Bryce Harper
Corey Seager
Andrew Benintendi

etc etc.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 1:56 pm

nightskyre wrote:Possibilities include:

Xander Bogaerts
Yoan Moncada
Clayton Kershaw
Nolan Arenado
Bryce Harper
Corey Seager
Andrew Benintendi

etc etc.


Wait a second! Some of those are mine! Forever!!!!

:laugh:

I am using Trout as an example. He is not the only player who is HOF material. I think we would do well, from both a fun perspective and a competition perspective, to limit how long an owner can have a player without competition.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 11 Jan 2017, 2:59 pm

I don't have a strong preference here. Not seeing any major advantage in limiting number of contracts that can be signed, but I like dynasty leagues. As I've said before, we do run into problems having a complex format in a relatively casual league. This feels like another rule trying to bridge that divide, which is a tricky thing to do.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jan 2017, 5:26 pm

I don't like the idea of a max number of contracts. I think it would be interesting strategy-wise if there were penalties that get higher for each succeeding contract. I am not sure what the amount should but let's say to offer a second contract (whether the initial contract is 1,2,3 years)you have to add an additional $5 to it. So for a 6,9,10 player the second contract would be $20,23,24. The third contract would be a $10 penalty so $39,42,43. The fourth contract would be a $15 penalty so $63,66,67 You would have to weigh only giving one year deals when if the player pans out you have a $16,19,20 player and not $11,14,15 player. I think our league could use turning over players a bit quicker.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 11 Jan 2017, 5:33 pm

OMG I went back and looked at the prior discussion and I made the same argument (essentially) last time! I am ok with how things are but if we change I (obviously and consistently) favor contract inflation over max contracts.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 11 Jan 2017, 7:57 pm

First, we can look at this two-year-old-discussion if desired:

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=2546

I don't want to rehash the "Franchise player" thing, but what I'd like to propose is a limit to contracts. Here's my initial proposal:

1. Limiting contracts to two (up to 3 year) contracts before a player must hit free agency, OR a max of 5 years (+5/+4/+3/+2/+1), in however many contracts you wanted (e.g. 3 years then 2, or 2 then 2 then 1, etc).

2. Current contract would count as the first contract in these proposals, since we know which were for however long they were.


So I like the idea of capping how long a single team can hold onto a player. My main reason for this is getting more top end talent into the draft. I think that will make it more exciting. Drafting is one of my favorite parts of the whole season but it feels like we're always drafting journeymen and the scrap pile. The regular season is for building up the farm system.

Now I also want a team to still be rewarded when they find a good player.

I like the option of allowing one contract. But I think we should also expand on it and add more options to it as well as the length. I'm thinking we could do a max 5 year contract, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15. And if you wanted to dedicate a specific year as an option years you would add 5 to that year and at the conclusion of that year you can decide to get out of the contract without incurring a buyout penalty. So a contract of a 1$ player with an option after year 3 would look like, 6, 10, 13, 20, 25. I would also be for allowing some type of injury protection clause.

I would also propose that any players under contract currently would finish out as normal and then the next contract would be the one as described above.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 11 Jan 2017, 8:59 pm

Brad's suggestion is reasonably in line with my thinking as well, minus the injury clause bit (I don't want to think about the judicial headaches involved in that). The option year idea is interesting too. I would definitely favor this over a limit of one or two of our current contracts.

I would also suggest that if we were going to do this, we should just eliminate rookie contracts.