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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 08 Apr 2019, 3:00 pm

I would propose the following changes:

1. Adopt Nick's inflation idea of +5, +8, 9 for contract; +10, +13, +14 for second contract; a +15, +18, and +19 for third contract. And add +20, +23, 24, for fourth contract, etc...the escalation would go into effect on the next contract for a player(if currently on second contract then next contract would +15, +18, 19.)
2. Limit salary differential in trades to no more than $10. I was also thinking that it would be acceptable for three player trades that could be done to allow teams to accomplish this limitation but not sure this is feasible. Also, not sure if we would need to have a 48 hour window for trades to be checked for compliance.

Professional sports teams have to do this and I think it would do away with trades that just create superteams .
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 09 Apr 2019, 5:54 am

I would be fine with #1.

I do not like the idea of limiting trades based on salary differences. This would further give a team with a good deal better options. Say a Mike Trout further along in his career is sold off to acquire younger players. Now he has even more value because his salary dictates this. The whole idea of a team rebuilding is to take current value and turn it into future value. Which is the whole premise of creating as much of a gap as possible.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Apr 2019, 6:48 am

Our league has a design feature (I won't call it a problem..yet) that rewards owners for scouring the waiver wire and trading prospects (on many occasions that they just acquired) for rental players, very good players but with very expensive contracts (usually 1 year). Josh built Tom's team mostly by doing that; Nick has been able to build skeletal teams (around an elite core) by doing that. Matt is an exception though every play-off team takes advantage of this feature.

Certainly, (I think) there was always the tendency for teams in contention in the latter part of the year to make trades to non-contending reams to swap existing talent for future talent. But now it is more pronounced and has a more significant impact. And is that something we want to reward or we think is problematic, as it build teams that are extremely difficult to compete with unless you are doing something similar.

I think there is an inherent problem in allowing owners with no stake in a player (because they are out of contention, and the player is too expensive to keep) to trade those players for prospects who wont contribute (if they do at all) for several years. You can rebuild teams without trading rentals. I don't think we would change the things that are really fun about this league if we simply inhibit these huge transfers of present talent for iffy future talent

My proposal would take care of the problem; Corey's proposal about an in-season cap would take care of it. Most of the griping in this league centers around this one issue, though putting more inflation into contracts would also put more players into the the auction--the other major complaint.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 19 Jan 2011, 1:12 pm

Post 09 Apr 2019, 8:52 am

We also frown upon a team completely giving up. So we're left with teams who know they can't compete that year to bid on players to just get them through the season and filling in a roster of players who generally won't compete and win games anyways. If it was okay to not even have to attempt to compete, then I would agree that teams would be able to go head first into the draft and just fill their team with up and coming players, rather than having to fill a valid roster.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 5754
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 09 Apr 2019, 10:07 am

There is a setting in Fantrax that allows you to set a max number of minor leaguers on your roster. Interesting...
Adjutant
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 10 Apr 2019, 6:22 am

Okay, so if I can summarize here (and one of the challenges is that the people who are active here are not necessarily the same people who are active on GroupMe), what I'm hearing as the problems are:

1) Prospect for expensive rental trades
2) Ability to keep a player for 9+ years

It seems we have some traction - ie enough agreement to have 2/3 of owners on board - on these as things we want to fix. Therefore, it would seem to behoove us to try to find consensus on the best solution to both.

It seems that for 1), changing either when prospects can be picked up or the maximum $ differential in trades have been the proposals so far.

Changing when prospects can be picked up would not necessarily have affected the recent trade between Brad and me, or Frank and me last year. i could still buy prospects at auction, and rebuilding owners could still keep expensive rentals, or buy them at auction, with the intention of flipping them. Moreover, by not allowing the pickup of prospects in season until they've played, the ones actually on rosters would have even more value to rebuilding teams, since it would give them an avenue to acquire prospects before all the other teams. Therefore, I don't agree with this proposal as a solution.

Maximum $ differential would certainly prevent the expensive rental for prospect trades. The consequence though is that rebuilding teams would be hampered; it would be hard for them to get anything helpful in return for any rentals they had on their teams. Given that at least several (and often as many as 6) teams are going to rebuild each year, and it would seem we wanted them to be able to be as competitive as possible the following year, this proposal also doesn't make sense to me. It would significantly reward owners who acquired inexpensive talent and make it even harder for other owners to acquire any of those players once they were on other teams. Rebuilding owners would be encouraged (forced) to decide to rebuild in the auction, and would therefore have rosters of lots of minor leaguers.



I do think that simply increasing contract inflation for future contracts would mitigate both issues. I prefer it over service time because it reduces the advantage of the second contract, which reduces the value of prospects. I'm fine with a +5/+8/+9 first contract but I think the second should have a bigger jump, like the +10/+13/+14, or at least +8/+11/+12. More players would be released into the pool, and prospects would be less valuable because they'd have to be more elite performers to be worth signing for more than one contract.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 15 Apr 2019, 8:26 am

It's like we're playing different games . . .