|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Oct 11, 2016 5:41:26 GMT -5
Alright, so recently I proposed the possibility of contraction and have received nothing but positive feedback since. Could everyone vote here to give us a feel on whether or not this idea would float, and then post the issues it could cause and your ideas on how to sort them out below.
Some ideas already posted:
- Keep player values the same and have a draft
- Throw them all into free agency and let the market set values
- Have a base cost for those players in the top 100 (at a minimum), another minimum for those in the 101-150 range, and another value for those in the 151-200 range. All others would be a minimum of $400K as per league rules. My initial thought here would be to make the values as follows:
Top 100 = $10,000,000 minimum
Top 101-150 = $6,000,000 minimum
Top 151-200 = $3,000,000 minimum
All others = $400,000 minimum
Payouts will need to be adjusted if we do this and it increases the cost of Fantrax per person, but that will still be much less than 2016's cost for CBS.
REALLY open to ideas, thoughts, and concerns here guys and girl, so make yourself heard!
|
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Oct 11, 2016 6:56:03 GMT -5
I'm in favor of contraction..
However, I'm not in favor of having a draft of the players that were on the other teams.. As Astro's said having a top pick is a HUGE advantage and it negates a lot of work that teams have put in to this point.. I'm assuming Paul Goldschmidt goes #1.. for someone to just add him to their team is a big advantage.. compared to those in the back of the draft (myself) who may get a Zack Grienke, etc..
Open for ideas and if the draft is the best course of action for our league, I'll be on board.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Oct 11, 2016 10:11:44 GMT -5
I voted yes, but I'd like to see how we resolve the players getting picked up first. I'm not sure I'm a huge fan of a snake draft because of what Rockies said. I think it would just be to much of an huge advantage. Is there anyone that can list the players who will be going into FA? Maybe we can get a clearer image of how much of an advantage it is for the last place team against the first place team.
|
|
|
|
Post by TwinsGM (Kaj) on Oct 11, 2016 10:12:29 GMT -5
I am OK with contraction. Not fully loving it but I would rather have a competitive league of active owners over 20 teams. I am also not in favor of a draft. I would prefer all players to hit FA and let the fun begin. I understand a draft when expanding but not in contraction. The fairest way in my mind is to let the market set the value and who can do the best money management can get the best team not who gets the number on draft choice or high draft choice. I believe I have the least amount of cap room and would benefit least from this option but believe it is the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Oct 11, 2016 10:18:18 GMT -5
Freedie Freeman
Devon Travis
Taijuan Walker
Jacob Degrom
Paul Goldschmidt
Zack Greinke
Jon Lester
Dee Gordon
Jose Abreu
Kyle Seager
Chris Sale
Johnny Cueto
These are the "bigger" names I was able to pick up. About 12 of them, while there are still other good options after these, its a bit of a drop off.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Oct 11, 2016 10:24:45 GMT -5
Really, the only teams that get hurt by the snake draft are playoff teams. Even then though, their roster will for sure get better. Plenty of players on the four teams that would be a upgrade for their team.
The(Theoretic I'm open to different interpretation) problem I have with dumping into FA is that playoff teams could just grab the top two guys and wouldn't their teams become monster teams? It would be hard for the lower teams to catch up unless they just dumped a huge portion of their salary into multiple players which would hurt in the long run? Not sure, kinda just rambling and throwing stuff out there lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Oct 11, 2016 11:06:54 GMT -5
Really, the only teams that get hurt by the snake draft are playoff teams. Even then though, their roster will for sure get better. Plenty of players on the four teams that would be a upgrade for their team. The(Theoretic I'm open to different interpretation) problem I have with dumping into FA is that playoff teams could just grab the top two guys and wouldn't their teams become monster teams? It would be hard for the lower teams to catch up unless they just dumped a huge portion of their salary into multiple players which would hurt in the long run? Not sure, kinda just rambling and throwing stuff out there lol. You have valid points Kenji and these are definitely issues that need to be discussed before we do this. |
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Oct 11, 2016 11:51:57 GMT -5
Alright, so recently I proposed the possibility of contraction and have received nothing but positive feedback since. Could everyone vote here to give us a feel on whether or not this idea would float, and then post the issues it could cause and your ideas on how to sort them out below. Some ideas already posted: - Keep player values the same and have a draft - Throw them all into free agency and let the market set values - Have a base cost for those players in the top 100 (at a minimum), another minimum for those in the 101-150 range, and another value for those in the 151-200 range. All others would be a minimum of $400K as per league rules. My initial thought here would be to make the values as follows: Top 100 = $10,000,000 minimum Top 101-150 = $6,000,000 minimum Top 151-200 = $3,000,000 minimum All others = $400,000 minimum Payouts will need to be adjusted if we do this and it increases the cost of Fantrax per person, but that will still be much less than 2016's cost for CBS. REALLY open to ideas, thoughts, and concerns here guys and girl, so make yourself heard! As stated above not really in favor of a draft, but it's probably looking like that is the most logical way to go about this.. I do like Mat's structure a lot, however, I would recommend that the top 50 be $15m per player, 51-100 10m, 101-150 6m, and so on... This would ultimately make teams make an informed decision based on salary cap and talent level.. plus future performance.. I think there is a large gap between players #1-#100.. A player like Goldschmidt should cost more than say a guy like Nomar Mazara.. If I could draft Goldy for $15m per year or Mazara for $6m per year (no clue where they finished in the rankings, just spitballing here) .. i'd have a decision to make there.. do I want to go for it all now with Goldy or keep cap space and build for the future? This would make it more fair down the line.. at the 16 spot I could essentially get a guy like Mazara at 6m who I might value the same as Goldy at 15m.. the guys at the front may not value goldy as a 15m a year player causing him to fall down the board.. If we do decide to do a draft, I would like there to be a minors snake draft in reverse order after the majors draft.. I think this would be the most fair way possible.. Teams should not be penalized because they had good years last year. We already award Rookie draft picks based on worst to first.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 12:22:00 GMT -5
I am extremely opposed to a draft for the release players. As Jarrod mentioned, the value of someone like Goldschmidt is way, way higher than the players in the 10-15 range. Letting a team getting a player like that just because they struggled the previous year is extremely unfair... And it would affect the league for the duration of the players contract (likely 6 years). The only way that I can see myself maybe being okay with a draft is if we set it up somewhat like Jarrod just mentioned.
As for what I think we should do with the players I'm not sure... Still trying to think of an option. I also dislike the FA method, but I do think it's better than the draft
|
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Oct 11, 2016 12:27:11 GMT -5
As stated above not really in favor of a draft, but it's probably looking like that is the most logical way to go about this..
I would recommend that the top 50 be $15m per player, 51-100 10m, 101-150 6m, and so on... This would ultimately make teams make an informed decision based on salary cap and talent level.. plus future performance..
I think there is a large gap between players #1-#100.. A player like Goldschmidt should cost more than say a guy like Nomar Mazara.. If I could draft Goldy for $15m per year or Mazara for $6m per year.. i'd have a decision to make there.. do I want to go for it all now with Goldy or keep cap space and build for the future? This would make it more fair down the line.. at the 16 spot I could essentially get a guy like Mazara at 6m who I might value the same as Goldy at 15m.. the guys at the front may not value goldy as a 15m a year player causing him to fall down the board..
If we do decide to do a draft, I would like there to be a minors snake draft in reverse order after the majors draft.. I think this would be the most fair way possible.. Teams should not be penalized because they had good years last year. We already award Rookie draft picks based on worst to first..
Who would decide the player rankings - what players are 1-50 for example. And is the dollar amount ($15M 0r $10M) per year? The most expensive player salary now is $6M/yr - are you saying that Goldschmidt($15M) is worth 2.5 times more than Trout or Harper($6M each)? I understand we're trying to make this equitable to everyone, but owners weren't expecting to have to pay 2.5 times for a player in the league's 2nd year when they were setting up their salary in 2016 - to me it's giving an unfair advantage to teams that have the biggest salary cap room. Just my random thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Oct 11, 2016 12:33:54 GMT -5
As stated above not really in favor of a draft, but it's probably looking like that is the most logical way to go about this.. I would recommend that the top 50 be $15m per player, 51-100 10m, 101-150 6m, and so on... This would ultimately make teams make an informed decision based on salary cap and talent level.. plus future performance.. I think there is a large gap between players #1-#100.. A player like Goldschmidt should cost more than say a guy like Nomar Mazara.. If I could draft Goldy for $15m per year or Mazara for $6m per year.. i'd have a decision to make there.. do I want to go for it all now with Goldy or keep cap space and build for the future? This would make it more fair down the line.. at the 16 spot I could essentially get a guy like Mazara at 6m who I might value the same as Goldy at 15m.. the guys at the front may not value goldy as a 15m a year player causing him to fall down the board.. If we do decide to do a draft, I would like there to be a minors snake draft in reverse order after the majors draft.. I think this would be the most fair way possible.. Teams should not be penalized because they had good years last year. We already award Rookie draft picks based on worst to first.. Who would decide the player rankings - what players are 1-50 for example. And is the dollar amount ($15M 0r $10M) per year? The most expensive player salary now is $6M/yr - are you saying that Goldschmidt($15M) is worth 2.5 times more than Trout or Harper($6M each)? I understand we're trying to make this equitable to everyone, but owners weren't expecting to have to pay 2.5 times for a player in the league's 2nd year when they were setting up their salary in 2016 - to me it's giving an unfair advantage to teams that have the biggest salary cap room. Just my random thoughts.Paul, no I'm not saying Goldschmidt is worth more than those guys.. But, It would not be fair for the rest of the league for the team having the first pick get Goldschmidt because they lost the most games last year.. As they already get the first pick in the rookie draft for being the worst team.. Owners wouldn't have to pay 2.5 times more for a player if they didn't want to.. that is their option.. they could essentially draft a guy at 3m if they so choose.. That's where strategy would come into play.. do I want to pay 15m for a player like Goldschmidt or save money and pick a guy like mazara for 6m and save cap space? I would imagine the rankings are based off of how the players finished in 2016.. There may not be a really good way of going about this, freezing these players for 2017 might be the best interest of the league.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 12:56:18 GMT -5
The issue with freezing all of the players until after the 2017 season is that we will still have a problem prior to the 2018 season. One option would be to release the FAs in batches - a select number this off-season, another batch next off-season and so on as we see fit. I'm not really sure how we would decide the number of players to release, but it's an idea at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Oct 11, 2016 14:50:05 GMT -5
I've thought it over quite a bit, and I do believe that allowing the market to decide could be the best way to go, and here's why:
1 - Sure, one lucky team will get to land Paul Goldschmidt, but he's going to cost that team an amount so great that the team's ability to land strong minor leaguers will be diminished by a huge amount. To put this in perspective, when I was stuck in this situation in another league, I lost out on both Mookie Betts and Xander Goegarts because I didn't have the cash to land them after over-spending elsewhere. They're pretty talented as well. What I guess I'm saying is that there are more opportunities to chase than to simply land 1 player and all teams will get plenty of chances to land special players.
2 - It's the fairest and easiest way to turn the page. If we drag this on too long it's just going to become a crutch, a pain, and the results won't be much different than they otherwise could be.
3 - We're all within the same vicinity of budgets. Sure, some have a slight but more than others, but assuming the team that lands Goldschmidt has to sign him for 6 years, that team will be handcuffing themselves from other signings with the FIRST huge contract this league has ever experienced. Remember, until now the most expensive players have cost us only $6M. During this free agency you're going to see some relievers or starters cost more than that. In short, we all have insanely good deals already to work with and all have money to spend.
4 - The only other fair way I could see is doing it involves so much complexity that it will still result in some resentment by owners who lose out. By allowing ALL owners to bid on ALL players, owners have nobody to blame but themselves if they lose out on a player. To me, this is the biggest point.
I'm definitely enjoying the discussion and think it's a great way to mull things over, so by all means keep'em coming. We'll move on this when we finally have the vote for the site complete and have a minimum of 10 yes vote above.
|
|
|
|
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Oct 11, 2016 15:02:49 GMT -5
Not sure I like the idea of freezing players. I do kind of like what Stephen (the Dodgers) suggested of having a one round draft in reverse order of the 2016 records, then whoever isn't drafted in that one round goes into the FA pool. But instead of using their original contracts in that draft, we would use the system Jarrod (the Rockies) suggested of assigning yearly contract amounts based on their ranking at the end of 2016 (doesn't MLB or other baseball sites rank players, at least for fantasy purposes?  ) with say those ranked 1-50 at $10M, 51-100 at $8M, 101-150 at $6M, etc. The owner with the first pick would still have to determine if he wants to pay someone $10M/year or draft a lesser player for less money. This would only remove 16 players as FA, so the rest would be up for grabs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2016 15:48:20 GMT -5
Not sure I like the idea of freezing players. I do kind of like what Stephen (the Dodgers) suggested of having a one round draft in reverse order of the 2016 records, then whoever isn't drafted in that one round goes into the FA pool. But instead of using their original contracts in that draft, we would use the system Jarrod (the Rockies) suggested of assigning yearly contract amounts based on their ranking at the end of 2016 (doesn't MLB or other baseball sites rank players, at least for fantasy purposes? ) with say those ranked 1-50 at $10M, 51-100 at $8M, 101-150 at $6M, etc. The owner with the first pick would still have to determine if he wants to pay someone $10M/year or draft a lesser player for less money. This would only remove 16 players as FA, so the rest would be up for grabs. I just don't know how we would assign those salary numbers and still make it fair... If we did $10m/year for first 50 players, that means the team picking last in the draft (16th) would be spending the same amount per year to grab the 16th best player than the one who got Goldschmidt... that's not fair at all. Anyone in this league would gladly drop $10m/year for Goldy - that's still fantastic value for 6 seasons. I know the contracts in the initial draft were $6m/year for the players drafted in the first 3 rounds, but that was designed to give teams some cap space at the start (it's definitely not their true market value). If you want to see what the market for FA in our league is actually like, look what guys like Kenta Maeda and Gurriel went for when they hit the market ($11.9m/year and $8.5m/year), and they're far from the value of players like Goldy or Chris Sale. While releasing all players into FA at once isn't ideal, it's by far a fairer solution than holding a draft (IMO). I'd rather let the market decide the players' values and where they go. Btw, I'm loving the discussion... hopefully we can find an ideal solution for the players being released. |
|
) with say those ranked 1-50 at $10M, 51-100 at $8M, 101-150 at $6M, etc. The owner with the first pick would still have to determine if he wants to pay someone $10M/year or draft a lesser player for less money. This would only remove 16 players as FA, so the rest would be up for grabs.