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 30 Jan 2017, 12:15 pm

I vote NO on the proposed new divisional realignment approach. I would also like to propose that we shuffle divisions randomly, rather than based on prior year results, though I understand if it's too late to actually submit that proposal (I basically did so on the ESPN board, but I know that doesn't count).

I vote NO on A1 (service time), because without also altering the existing +5/+3/+1 contract structure, it seems like an awkward bolt-on, and not a comprehensive solution. I'd be more open to the suggestion if it also revised the contract structure to something that fit better with the idea of having six years of service time.

I vote YES on A2 (one year contracts, x1.5 base salary).
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 12:21 pm

Thanks, Todd - I have your votes.

I don't really much care about the division question, but yeah, it's too late to throw another option out there.

Personally, I liked permanent divisions but I was obviously not in the majority. Speaking of divisions, and more important than their construction... Matt, what are the new names?!
Adjutant
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 30 Jan 2017, 1:42 pm

I voted yes to division alignment but I don't care that much.

I voted to not change our salary structure because I didn't see any arguments that I found compelling for why the status quo is a problem.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 30 Jan 2017, 4:56 pm

The status quo isn't a problem imo either - but I think your proposal is an improvement.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 857
Joined: 13 Oct 2000, 9:42 am

Post 31 Jan 2017, 6:02 pm

I think service time is very interesting, but I also think it needs more refinement. It could be an elegant solution that really works, but I agree with Todd that as-is it feels a bit smashed on to our current system.

Considering voting yes to Nick's proposal of 1.5x base. One drawback is that it effectively eliminates one year keeps on mid priced bounceback players. Not sure this is a huge loss though. It really creates more savings in the early years while escalating more appropriately later. However, for a minimum salary player it's still not until year 8 (not including the $1 acquisition year) that you really see a difference.

Can someone remind me the logic behind changing the division reshuffling? Not opposed to it, just not sure why I'm voting yes/no here.

And finally, division names. Sorry for the delay on this. I'd like to name them after great Negro Leaguers with great nicknames this year. The four I have identified are:

- Cool Papa Bell
- Satchel Paige
- Turkey Stearnes
- Pop Lloyd

We can use the full names or just the nicknames. If anyone wants to make a case to sub someone else in, be my guest.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 01 Feb 2017, 10:33 am

So anyone want to trade for my vote? How strongly do you feel? How close do you think it's gonna be?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 4:37 pm

Post 01 Feb 2017, 5:40 pm

Well, first post and it's gonna be about amendments. :cool: Hopefully I don't start off making enemies right away!

I'd like to hear more from whoever proposed the A1 and A2 amendments. Would you please campaign for your proposal? Having watched last season over Andrew's shoulder, the multi-year contract system was one of the attractions of joining this league...

For A1:
Why 6 years of ST? Why not some other number? And why limit the contracts after FA year to 1-year? I do really like the notion of getting at least one crack at every player. Do rookies tend to come into this league via mid-season pickup (ESPN adding a minor leaguer to the system that made the news) or at the draft?

For A2:
It seems odd to me that A2 actually saves us money for 8 years... although year 9 and 10 are almost certainly too expensive to keep, so I'd expect most guys to get dropped by then. Given that the typical rookie age in MLB is 24, that means heralded players would go to auction by age 31 or 32. Late bloomers could still be locked up for an effective lifetime.
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 Feb 2017, 7:35 pm

GunnerJr wrote:I'd like to hear more from whoever proposed the A1 and A2 amendments.

Matt proposed A1 and Nick put up A2.

For A1:
Why 6 years of ST? Why not some other number?


I'll answer this. Matt did not have a specific number in mind so I, somewhat arbitrarily but not entirely, chose six. Justification is that you can sign two 3-year contracts under ST.

Do rookies tend to come into this league via mid-season pickup (ESPN adding a minor leaguer to the system that made the news) or at the draft?

Any rookie can be bought at auction as long he is in the ESPN database. Only the blue chippers seem to go in the auction.

Rookies acquired during the season are picked up like any other player. However, they do not have to be in the database. You make your claim in the league message area at the ESPN site and must leave an open roster spot. ESPN has gotten a lot better with getting rookies into their database the past couple of years so we don't see many of those claims anymore.

Nice to see you're jumping in with both feet! Thought about your team name yet?
User avatar
Rally Racer (Pro III)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 01 Feb 2017, 7:37 pm

By the way, Matt, I really like those division names.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 02 Feb 2017, 8:28 am

It seems odd to me that A2 actually saves us money for 8 years


This is only true in terms of net salary. The salary becomes more expensive than the current system as of year 7. That's an important distinction because, while the net savings reflects the cumulative impact of the differential in the contracts if you DO sign the player, the year-by-year comparison is what will determine whether those contracts are actually signed. More simply, the fact that I saved an extra $5 last year will have no bearing on whether I'm willing to pay an extra $3 next year.

It's also worth noting that the escalation looks very different for a different base salary. You save money every year for the first 6 if you start with a base salary of $1, sure. But if you start with a base salary higher than $10, you never save money with A2, as compared with the current system. So A2 really emphasizes getting long-term value on players that you identify when they're dirt cheap (which I think a lot of our owners enjoy doing anyway). Once the prices get into the double digits, whether at auction or because the player has been kept a few years already, they quickly outgrow the current system.

Given that the typical rookie age in MLB is 24, that means heralded players would go to auction by age 31 or 32.


I think you're conflating two different population averages here. Typical rookie age is not the same thing as typical rookie age for elite players. Elite players tend to come into the league significantly younger than the average MLB player (e.g. Bryce Harper came up at 19, Trout had a cup of coffee at 19 and then was full-time at 20, Machado had a similar thing at 20/21, etc.).

MLB teams get 6 guaranteed years before a player can first reach free agency, assuming no extension. Under A1, we'd basically have the same system at a very high level. Under A2, there's no similar explicit restriction, but a large proportion of players would price out in that time frame ($27 is a lot, and this is assuming the player started at $1), with a handful going to year 7, but very few going to year 8 ($41). Even if a Trout or Harper-type player gets kept through year 9 ($62), they'd RBL hit free agency around age 30.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 57
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 03 Feb 2017, 1:35 pm

Just to clarify, I did not propose changing the salary structure. I think Andrew started the discussion and others chimed in, and I just offered a way to do it that I thought people might want to consider. I think our salary structure is fine.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 31 Jan 2017, 4:37 pm

Post 03 Feb 2017, 7:25 pm

It's also worth noting that the escalation looks very different for a different base salary.


Excellent point, one I hadn't considered. I was assuming (considering my roster has both Benintendi and Moncada at $1) that even the blue-chippers tend to come into the league at $1.

I have a feeling very few auction players will be re-signed under A2, unless you get them for an absolute steal and/or their value skyrockets over that season.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 04 Feb 2017, 12:09 pm

I was assuming (considering my roster has both Benintendi and Moncada at $1) that even the blue-chippers tend to come into the league at $1.


We've seen this go a couple different ways, I think. One of those cases is Moncada - he won't be $1 for his first full season, whether that's this year, or later. So he'll be at least a little more expensive, because he was bought or picked up while still firmly a prospect.

There are also prospects who are purchased at auction because they're pretty clearly ready to graduate. Kris Bryant is an example - he went for $3 in the 2015 auction, because everyone knew he was coming up. Why he wasn't picked up during 2014, I couldn't say, but this does happen with a decent number of prospects.

And then there are the prospects who do have their first full season at $1, maybe because they weren't as heralded. The much-discussed Trout fit into this category.

Granted, you could say that this is marginal stuff - $1 vs $2 or $3, big deal, right? But it's like compound interest. It's particularly clear in this case - under A2, starting at $2 means you're one year further into the contract lifetime, and starting at $3 means you're two years further in, because from $1 the progression is to $2 and $3 in the next two years.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 08 Feb 2017, 7:58 am

geojanes wrote:So anyone want to trade for my vote? How strongly do you feel? How close do you think it's gonna be?


I've got zero offers. Zero! That's not much of a commitment to any of these positions.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 08 Feb 2017, 1:04 pm

I'll trade you $1 FA to mimic my votes.