|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 17, 2021 17:01:50 GMT -8
All,
I'd like to start some discussion on our current league incentive structure, and how it affects the trade market for competing and non-competing clubs.
While I have not had to rebuild in the JBL (yet), it's clear to me that if a team finds itself clearly out of the running for one of the 8 playoff berths, there is no incentive to compete for middle of the pack standing. Instead, the seeding structure for both AMAT and MiLFA drafts place increased importance on finishing in last place to obtain the highest value picks. Logically, it appears that we are seeing this manifest in the current trade market with an increased number of expiring contracts being dealt to the few teams that were already established as the prime contenders (my Cubs included). One complicating factor in this offseason's trade market is the high quantity of expiring 2021 contracts, as most high-level players were signed to 5 year deals when we began the league in 2016.
In my opinion, we should strive to separate the JBL from the MLB in this regard since the way in which MLB salary and JBL salary cap differ significantly, and instead encourage the most level competitive environment for the sake of keeping the league interesting for all members.
Some existing rules attempt to do this and prevent outright tanking: 1. Requirement to field a nearly-full scoring roster (17/23 starting lineup spots) 2. Permanent salary cap increases for playoff berths, reclaiming some value for future years in making win-now trades
I'm interested in hearing the league's thoughts on adding additional mechanisms to promote a wider competitive landscape for future years (to be implemented no sooner than 1 year from now, prior to the 2022 season). 1. Revised draft pick seeding strategy, such that the last place regular season finish no longer obtains the 1st overall AMAT and MiLFA picks a. Best non-playoff finisher obtains #1 pick in one or both drafts b. Best non-playoff finisher obtains the highest probability for #1 pick and we conduct an offseason draft pick lottery like the NBA conducts 2. Expanded playoff seeding from 8 to 10 or 12 teams
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 17:12:20 GMT -8
Good thoughts Curtis.
I've used a lottery style system in my main home league and that seems to work well. I think expanding the playoffs would be a good idea as well since we have so many teams.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 17, 2021 17:45:36 GMT -8
I do think this year is a special case with all the 5 year contracts ending, however, a draft lottery for all non-playoff teams may be helpful. I’m not sure giving a better chance to the last team not to make the playoffs works though. That just may make teams throw a series in the last couple of weeks, which is the worst time for that to happen.
I feel level like everyone looked at my win last year and thought “That’s easy. I’ll just rebuild. “. Lol, I wish you all good luck. When I was rebuilding, not many teams were which helped me out a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 19:37:47 GMT -8
I'd propose instead of having the non playoff teams not do anything when our playoffs are going, they have their own little bracket.
The bottom 4 teams have a bracket and the winner of the bracket gets the 1st pick in both drafts. While we also can have a stage for the remainder non playoff teams, but can go from 5-14 or whatever pick is the last non playoff team. This can create a competitive environment, but also gives the worst teams the best chance to rebuild.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 19:44:55 GMT -8
I agree, this league is becoming very top heavy, we need to come up with a way to balance the overall of the league.
I came to this league because of the depth of the drafts amd building my team that way instead of making easy star rental trades. In my position, I have no choice, but to give in to the rental market to compete. Also, we are going to have another problem with the money being handed out in this years FA. I feel like we have teams not looking to compete, buy big names and look to trade them immediately. I propose, if you sogn a player to a 3 year or longer deal, you are required to hold on to that player for a year or longer.
I don't know the details entirely, but those are some ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2021 19:47:18 GMT -8
I think it would be good to expand the playoffs to 10 teams, it has teams to remain competitive and to keep a good built team.. instead of trading everyone away when things look bleak. And it keeps the league more interesting as well
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2021 22:45:55 GMT -8
Hey guys!
I totally agree with the fact that now we have two very different type of teams: good ones and really bad ones. I am looking at Jon (who I consider the best manager in this league...no offense to Curtis or Carter or Robin) who made lots of great trades in the past couple of seasons and teams that are doing really bad long term like White Sox who sold all his assets in 2020 for one playoff run.
My ideas to try to improve this league are the following:
1. Eliminate the cap bonus for previous playoff success. This way by next season when a lot of great players will become FA all teams will have the same chances to bid for them. In my opinion giving more cap space to playoff teams it is a terrible idea that creates more inequality between teams. It is not the first time I am saying this and really hope that we will make a change based on the will of the majority of the owners. 2. Hold a Rule V draft every year. Before the start of the season each team will be able to protect a number of players (MLB+MiLB) - (Eg 40/50 players) and all the other players will be available for this draft. The draft will have 4 (or 5 rounds) and use the reverse order from previous year standings. If you pick a player in rd 1 you will give up your 4th (or 5th Amat) rd pick to the previous owner. If you pick a player in rd 2 of this draft you give up your 3rd rd Amat pick (or 4th). The first team you picked a player from will get the better pick and the second one the worst pick. I did this in another league and it worked really great. 3. Create a system to evaluate new owners experience. In the past we had lots of managers who quit pretty quickly or were not that good. 4 Rearrange divisions every year based on a predetermined algorithm. In a 6 divisions league you will have: East Conf 1,12,13,24 West Conf 2,11,14,23 West Conf 3,10,15,22 East Conf 4,9,16,21 West Conf 5,8,17,20 East Conf 6,7,18,19 5. Use multiple matchups per week (2-3 would be good 4-6 would be great). 6. Move to a daily lineup. I always considered a better system than the weekly one. 7. Increase the number of playoff teams to 10 or 12. Keep a separate consolation bracket to determine the final standings and draft order for next season. You win the consolation bracket you get pick #1. You win the championship you get pick 20 instead of 24 as a bonus or something like that. 8. Keeping in touch more with each others via GroupMe or Discord.
I also believe that we should move to a system where all managers are able to vote on these types of changes.
Cheers!
Mihai
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 19, 2021 8:56:05 GMT -8
Great feedback all, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. After a few days thinking about this, I am leaning towards the following 2022 changes. 1. Expansion of playoffs to 12 teams. This adds a 5th playoff week for the initial Wild Card round. I have looked at a 10 team playoff in the past, but the bracket doesn't work without some sort of round-robin configuration. 2. Elimination of East/Central/West divisions for fairer playoff seeding. AL/NL distinction to be retained. 3. AMAT draft will be retained as current seeding. MiLFA draft will be established as a lottery system. I plan to develop some additional proposals for what this looks like, either a consolation bracket for the 13-24th place regular season finishers with the winner receiving the highest number of entries into the lottery, or just a strict lottery allocation based on regular season finish. 4. Implement a 5 year limit on salary cap increases, such that 2016 awards begin to roll-off prior to the opening of the 2021-22 offseason free agency opening in Feb/Mar 2022. Response to specific suggestions: - Regarding governance structure, I will not be moving these types of league change decisions to pure majority vote. I've participated in leagues like this in the past and found them to have a much more scattered approach to administration and ultimately be far shorter lived than this league has been. I'm 100% invested into the long-term health of this league and put a TON of time into it's upkeep, so you can rest assured that I don't make decisions lightly!
- I like the idea of a rule 5 draft and we even conducted one in the first couple of years in the league, but it was an absolute pain in the ass to conduct and process over the course of the year. I don't have the time to keep up with it, and that's the reason for the original removal
- I also love the suggestion for multiple matchups per week, but this is a Premium feature in Fantrax. We obtained a free Premium entry last season through a promotion on Twitter, but to keep this going forward we'll all have to pitch in $5 or so. The hassle is less about the money, and more the effort to collect $5 from everyone, but if someone wants to take the lead on this I'd be supportive
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays (Mark) on Jan 19, 2021 9:09:21 GMT -8
Are you sure about multiple matchups being a Premium feature? I used it in several leagues last year and it did not require the upgrade; I'm looking now at another league I administer, and there's no diamond symbol next to the #weekly matchups option.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 19, 2021 9:26:54 GMT -8
Are you sure about multiple matchups being a Premium feature? I used it in several leagues last year and it did not require the upgrade; I'm looking now at another league I administer, and there's no diamond symbol next to the #weekly matchups option. Good catch! I just confirmed that multiple matchups are not a premium feature after all, only the ability for semi-weekly scoring periods (e.g. Monday and Friday lineup changes). We can implement this in addition to the division elimination if the league liked it in our trial last year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 11:43:56 GMT -8
I like the Rule V draft, but only for minor leaguers. I wouldnt want to worry about my major league part of the roster
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 13:18:46 GMT -8
I like a lot of the ideas. Especially removing the cap increases for playoff teams. If there is concern about the league getting top and bottom heavy this would seem to amplify that issue. I think everyone should just calm down a little. This year and last are anomalies that wont happen again. Some of the teams you big dogs are accusing of Tanking are in various phases of rebuilds. I dont think taking the small advantage the bottom teams get each year via the draft is gonna solve the issues that will continue at the top end of the league without changing the cap increase. As long as they are active owners and keeping in compliance with minimum requirements we shouldnt be removing the advantage they are getting to help their long term goal of being playoff contenders. We havent had a draft or relevant trades associated with it, or FA which both could change the look of many teams before the season starts. Besides the whole league is gonna look a lot different after next season. I know how the big dogs feel about keeping their advantage but going into a 2022 FA period with a large advantage over non playoff teams would set the league back another 5 years. I love this league because of the long term building and being free to run your team as you wish. No one freaked out last year when a new owner came in and gutted their minors roster for a year of 2 of championship ambitions. And thats a good thing. Everyone should be allowed to run their team how they see fit, and what is FUN for them. No one will ever completely agree on strategies and pushing teams to adapt to the same one that only works for 6-10 teams at the current moment would set those teams back that have put in countless hours of work to make their fake baseball team viable in this league though long term dedication. I like the ideas, but dont decide on anything until 2021 has played out further. Unless its removing the cap increases for playoff teams. Do that right away.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 19, 2021 14:28:56 GMT -8
You make a lot of great points Casey. I think I am guilty of assuming team behavior without the key free agency period having even begun so I'll wait until that is completed before announcing any changes officially.
Regarding salary cap increases: I think this rule has been overblown in it's capacity to affect the competitive landscape. My Cubs have the largest salary at $237 MM due to two WS titles, $12 MM higher than the starting point of $225 MM. As far as free agency goes, $12 MM really doesn't get you much more than an average, consistent MLB veteran. In fact most teams have more than $12 MM in unspent salary over the course of a season to begin with. The next highest salaries are six teams at $230 or $231 MM, and the average salary is $227.7 MM. Personally I don't think this is a big deal at all, but I do realize that I'm in the minority and am willing to phase it out.
I think that expanding the retained salary cap restriction from $20 MM to $50 MM net might have stressed this issue more. Personally, in dealing with the $20 MM cap I had to negotiate a lot of tough trades that involved my team sending a player on a fair but relatively expensive salary as part of a bigger package for a win-now upgrade, instead of just dealing unpaid minor leaguers. This helped to keep all teams at a slightly higher degree of MLB competitiveness, I think. Again, let's see how free agency unfolds.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 19, 2021 14:31:27 GMT -8
I agree that last year and this year are unusual years, both in real baseball and here in our league. I think all of that has made it a perfect storm for rebuilds to happen now, after free agency next year we are going to see big changes around the league. Where I don’t agree is the the increased salary cap for winning teams is our biggest problem. Right now the difference between highest and lowest is $12 mil. That’s roughly enough to add Avisail Garcia, Yoshitomo Tsutsugo or Daniel Murphy, but not enough to afford Ken Giles or Shogo Akiyama. Rebuilding is not going to be done through free agency in this league. There is too much money out there every off season to make that feasible. At the same time though, we can’t take away the draft from the worst teams. That’s their shot to get better on the cheap. Rebuilding is a long slow process that takes patience. You can’t buy your way out of it. This comes from experience as I joined the league and then immediately spent $31 million on a player that had never played in this country, lol.
One idea I had was for free agent compensation. Right now if I own Mookie Betts on a 2021 contract and have a poor chance to win it all this year, then I have to sell him to the highest bidder. Otherwise I get nothing. If we had some compensation, like the signing team next year giving up a 1st round Amat to sign him, then it may help me decide to see what I could do this year knowing I’m not losing him for nothing. I know this would take more work on the commissioners part, just like the rule 5 draft, but both ideas may help to even out competition. By the way Curtis, I would be willing to help in this or any other area if needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2021 14:43:41 GMT -8
I didnt know it was so little. My bad guys im with you that its not a big problem then. I really like the idea of the free agent compensation. I was one of the teams that had enough to try to compete but knew that there was more value to my long term team building from these players as opposed to getting nothing if my team wasnt good enough to make the playoffs. I would have probably kept my guys and played it out. That idea is my favorite so far. I also liked Texas's idea earlier in the post.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Jan 19, 2021 17:33:32 GMT -8
I like a lot of the ideas. Especially removing the cap increases for playoff teams. If there is concern about the league getting top and bottom heavy this would seem to amplify that issue. I think everyone should just calm down a little. This year and last are anomalies that wont happen again. Some of the teams you big dogs are accusing of Tanking are in various phases of rebuilds. I dont think taking the small advantage the bottom teams get each year via the draft is gonna solve the issues that will continue at the top end of the league without changing the cap increase. As long as they are active owners and keeping in compliance with minimum requirements we shouldnt be removing the advantage they are getting to help their long term goal of being playoff contenders. We havent had a draft or relevant trades associated with it, or FA which both could change the look of many teams before the season starts. Besides the whole league is gonna look a lot different after next season. I know how the big dogs feel about keeping their advantage but going into a 2022 FA period with a large advantage over non playoff teams would set the league back another 5 years. I love this league because of the long term building and being free to run your team as you wish. No one freaked out last year when a new owner came in and gutted their minors roster for a year of 2 of championship ambitions. And thats a good thing. Everyone should be allowed to run their team how they see fit, and what is FUN for them. No one will ever completely agree on strategies and pushing teams to adapt to the same one that only works for 6-10 teams at the current moment would set those teams back that have put in countless hours of work to make their fake baseball team viable in this league though long term dedication. I like the ideas, but dont decide on anything until 2021 has played out further. Unless its removing the cap increases for playoff teams. Do that right away. I really like Casey's perspective here, I feel the cap increase should be done away with for playof winners. Kimda the whole.rich get richer theory a bit. And I also absolutely love the freedoms this league has and love ypu can truly GM your team. Just like in real life every GM has a different way of doing things and sometimes the original plan don't work out so ya take a look and do what ya feel is best for ypur franchise. I like the rule 5 idea as well, depending on how it's structured. As for the draft, I kinda like the way the league runs now. I see a few teams that got new GMs and were left with absolute crap. It takes a couple years to truly build what ones ideas might be. If you want to make win now moves well you'll probably get hurt on the back end and rely on FA which with the way it is makes contracts super inflated and a bunch of teams have money.. I feel like this league is still developing but definitely something I really enjoy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2021 19:22:57 GMT -8
Another idea is to implement a system with 2 flex tags per team per year. The options are ( 1 Franchise + 1 Restricted, 2 Franchise or 2 Restricted )
A Tag allows GM's first right at re-signing a player after his contract expires. GM's will receive 2 different types of Tag's every season
1. Franchise Tag - simply put, Trouts contract expires and the GM can use a Franchise Tag, multiply his salary by 1.5 and re-sign him to 1,2,3 or 4 more years.
2. Restricted Tag - Carlos Gomez, your unsure what he's worth, the Restricted Tag is used to determine the fair market value of the player. This Tag allows for biding on the player using the FA process.
==> 2.i) The Tag owner still owns the rights to Gomez so he can retain him at the FA value, or release him to the FA winning team and accept compensation in return (draft picks and supplemental picks)
Tags can be traded IF attached to a player. You cannot trade a Tag without a player and vice versa (ie. you can't trade an expiring contract without an attached TAG).
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 20, 2021 20:10:51 GMT -8
@dinamo14 this is a really simple suggestion that I think bridges the gap between simplicity and providing really clear incentives to retain superstars, increasing their cost on the trade market. I'm going to be thinking about this a lot this weekend!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2021 12:47:00 GMT -8
Mihai just said exactly what i was thinking
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2021 12:21:06 GMT -8
I'm okay with a lottery based system or even a playoff based system for the MilFA picks. Milfa is kind of a crap shoot already, and I've never been in a league with a lottery, so sounds fun at least.
I wouldn't be for anything but reverse standing order for AMAT draft though, just feels it hurts the new member too much. I think switching both would be a bit of an over-steer.
Expanding the Playoffs to 10 seems like a good compromise. Hot pitching at the right time you never know, should make the fun comeback from deep in the division fodder. Though it's still a large percentage of the league, but I guess it's not 50 percent of the league.
I've seen Re-signs a few times, I like re-signs, every league I'm in has a re-sign, some are way too complicated, some are way too lenient, some are way to strict. So it's hard to balance all that into a workable solution. Still think re-signs in some form, even if it's one guy a year, could work.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Jan 23, 2021 17:10:14 GMT -8
I agree tanking is a problem. I think maybe it would make it more difficult to do that if we cut severely back on the amount of retained salaries.
Also, perhaps we could do reverse order of awarding picks in amat such that the team with the best record which doesnt make the playoffs get first pick, the second best the second and so on. Perhaps the same for the minors draft.
I am for allowing contract extensions one time like we do in the HIL. This would help. It would also make it more of a dynasty league. We could place maybe a two year limit or so on players who are from the farm system.
I guess expanding the playoffs would help but I am not certain.
I agree with Mihal that it would be preferable if we could at least vote on some of the more important rules.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Jan 23, 2021 17:58:28 GMT -8
Mihal's idea is intriguing and could work well.
I support the idea of doing away with playoff awards. Though I am not sure this relates to dumping.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 24, 2021 9:42:38 GMT -8
Have been thinking about this issue this morning...
I think that some opportunities for improvement are to (1) add some incentive for non-playoff teams to retain good players and (2) to allow some mechanism through which owners can retain their favorite/most valuable players upon contract expiration.
To address (1) we can add a Qualifying Offer mechanism in the same vein of the MLB. This would be a round of free agency prior to the regular 1st week of offseason free agency, in which any team can extend any number of expiring contracts a QO. This would be equivalent to a 1-year contract at $20 MM, and be worth the corresponding number of bid points per the calculator. The player extended the QO would then be up for auction as per normal, with other teams being able to offer contracts in excess of this bid point number, complying with the normal bid point calculator restrictions. The original team receives a compensation pick in the AMAT draft (say a new round following the 1st round but prior to the 2nd round). I'm not decided on if we should make the eventual winning bidder also forfeit a AMAT pick - in a different league a similar mechanism is in place and it leads to a very quiet QO round as teams just wait to sign players in the non-QO portion of free agency and rebuilding clubs typically don't receive the compensation picks.
To address (2) I love Mihai's Franchise tag idea, and think that 2 tags per year is a good number. The Restricted tag sounds to me to be equivalent to the QO option detailed above. Franchise: I'd rather base the new salary as the average of the last 3 years of that player's "dollars earned" that I track each offseason for purposes of arbitration awards, rather than a % of the expiring JBL salary. You can find these tabs in the league spreadsheet. Perhaps we add a 10% discount to reflect some loyalty the player feels towards his JBL manager?
These are probably enough incentive to address our issues without needing to change the draft order via lottery, or expand the playoffs from 8 to 12 teams.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 24, 2021 10:04:19 GMT -8
I like it. Just one question.
What if the player was injured during that 3 year period? Let’s say it’s Chris Sale, who was hurt for most of 2019, out all of 2020, and will miss half of 2021? Will he be able to be signed extremely cheaply by his owning team? On one hand I can see it. The owner has just paid millions the last 3 years and should get something back for all of that. On the other hand, I could see myself and others trading for injured players every year just to benefit from this.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 24, 2021 10:23:22 GMT -8
I can see it working out either way, especially since most consider the best indicator of future injury to be previous injury. I'm not sure which way it might lean on the aggregate - there would certainly be some relative discounts applied, and some players that wouldn't work out.
As an alternative we could average the two highest of the three prior years' production value?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 10:24:41 GMT -8
The ways I've seen it would either be related to a score based on the last few years of scoring or to revert the RL salary. I prefer the point system that is basically a weighted mathematical equation based on the last 3 years avg production, so in that scenario you wouldn't be paying 30M for Sale (or w/e you're spending) and would bring down the salary.
The other way not so much. I prefer the mathematical part anyway, not just since most of our salary system stays away from RL salary but we already in a equation based league, but because it is much more efficient. Sale couldn't sign a 30 M salary in RL this year either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 10:32:12 GMT -8
Here's the process of the league with the system I like most. Just to show what I mean:
We can still work in the Qualifying Offer angle as well as that's another interesting wrinkle to the team building process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 10:56:49 GMT -8
All the ideas are great. None of them should go into effect until after the 2021-2022 off-season. Otherwise all the players just traded before knowing of this rule change would be worth way more than they were, when they were on true expiring contracts. Basically the teams that are "going for it" this year would be totally set for years now.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 24, 2021 11:02:01 GMT -8
All the ideas are great. None of them should go into effect until after the 2021-2022 off-season. Otherwise all the players just traded before knowing of this rule change would be worth way more than they were, when they were on true expiring contracts. Basically the teams that are "going for it" this year would be totally set for years now. 100%. Anything we do wouldn't go into effect until 2 offseasons from now
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Jan 24, 2021 11:28:21 GMT -8
I like Mihal's tag idea.
I also strongly think the retained salaries should be at least cut in half, it's way too high and lends to dump trades. Dont think there is any great advantage in it being this high other than to facilitate dump type trades.
|
|