[ ] karak maintains solid reading comprehension skills

Yeah, that all looks simple and good. As long as all twelve owners are actually around to start auctioning, I don't see why we can't get this started this week. Like, Wednesday, say.

Before auctioning two things i think we should double check that we agree on, because it's pretty necessary to valuate/bid on players, and most other league rules can be tweaked afterwards.

1)the positions we use, i think the current setup as shown a few posts up has too many bench players.

2) how the players contracts evolve. i don't really have a problem with how it is now, but it'd really mess with things if we want to change it later.

20% increase team options for 5 years looks like:
1x
1.2x
1.44x
1.73x
2.07x

seems a little steep(which isn't necessarily bad, it'd prevent you from keeping super studs for very long i think). maybe 3 years of 20% 2 of 10%? some other sliding scale?

and to compare them rookie contracts (players moved from minorleague roster->active roster) go on a pay schedule of:
400k (1x)
500k (1.25x)
1M (2.5x)
3M (7.5x)
5M (12.5x)
7M (17.5x)

doesn't seem right, something like 400k, 400k, 400k, 1M, 3M, 5M i think more accurately reflects MLB's structure.

----

also another step before auctioning is to set up an escrow and collect funds.

I like the auction system posted by Exitonly, nice and simple.

----------

On the topic of player contracts, we are still going with six years (starting with their first "full" season as defined by league rookie status requirements) for rookies and five years for a typical FA until they re-enter the FA pool, correct? These time frames are the same as those used in MLB and were taken from the big rules post from earlier.

I had suggested revising rookie eligibility from the original level of "25 or fewer ML appearances or 50 or fewer ML IP, whicever is higher" for pitchers and "100 ML AB or fewer" for hitters to the official MLB rule described here:

"A player shall be considered a rookie unless, during a previous season or seasons, he has (a) exceeded 130 at-bats or 50 innings pitched in the Major Leagues; or (b) accumulated more than 45 days on the active roster of a Major League club or clubs during the period of 25-player limit (excluding time in the military service and time on the disabled list)." My main issue was that the 100 ML AB was too low as is, but never saw any feedback on this proposal.

-----------

I agree with Exitonly's "400k, 400k, 400k, 1M, 3M, 5M," rookie salary structure. The three 400k years reflect pre-arbitration years, with the rest reflecting the remaining pre-FA years, so in that neighborhood numbers-wise looks good. Also fwiw, I was looking at some contracts of some young players and here's Gutz's in Seattle: $0.3819M, $0.4044M, $0.455M, (new contract) $2M, $4M, $5.5M (jumps to $7M in first year of would-be FA). Pretty close to what was proposed, so I'd say that's a decent benchmark for our purposes.

I also liked his suggestion of using a sliding scale for veterans, rather than the static 20% increase in salary each year. My view of a sliding scale is that you have the big FA payday that typically comes when a player first hits the market or picks up a new contract, but rather than seeing their value (both monetary and skilled) continue to rise by 20%, it rises in smaller increments. It's not like we have to worry about taxes, the economy, shifting FA market, etc. in our league when "signing" players, which are some of the major considerations in backloaded contracts. Makes more sense with a sliding scale and a more gradual salary increase, imo.

I'm finding it difficult to figure out whether 20% is a good number. What's the objective of the scheduled pay raises?

Instead of signing people to long, expensive contracts, like real baseball, here we sign people to repeating 1 year contracts. By increasing the value of contracts, it gives incentive to cut a player who you might keep for a cheaper salary, creating league parity and keeping the FA bidding process going. If there was no incentive to cut players as salaries increased, a team that got entirely ****ed over by injury or just could not compete would have problems competing in the years in the future.

However, if you guys want truly static rosters and want to keep the salaries fixed, I can understand that. It will create a much more punishing league when it comes to mistakes, as the FA bidding process won't happen very often.

We can also force a team to commit to a player for x number of years if we want.

We could even incorporate that into the bidding process, but I think we want to keep things simple and that's too complicated.

I'm hoping to create monetary incentives to still field a competitive team (and not just dump off for prospects) throughout the season even if you think you can't win.

Ideas:

-A small bonus for winning a category (could even stipulate you only get the bonus if you don't place in the top 2 spots of the league or something)
-Bonuses for winning each month or week
-Bonuses for winning each half of the season

These would be small, but substantial enough to create a tough decision when it comes to "do I build for the future" or "do I hedge and stay somewhat competitive now." These are similar to the decisions MLB teams have to make when they still want to fill the seats, but know they can't win now.

Thank you for your patience as we work the league out. This is why I started things in early January, as I knew it would take this long to get it together. Stick with it, and we will be rewarded. Remember, no rules are set in stone. We can always make alterations (in the fairest way possible) down the road.

Gchatting with Pecota and he brought up a good question/point.

The 15% cap hit for cutting a player is pro-rated throughout the season (amount of games left for that player divided by 162). So if I cut someone who I am paying 10 mil after game 81, I only take a cap hit of 15% of 10 mil. If I cut this player after the season and before the "tender date" (which we can arbitrarily set or just use MLB's), I take no cap hit as I have essentially just chosen not to retain him.

Having a debate with myself here, and I offer this alternative plan:

When a player is cut mid-season, the player will then hit the FA waiver process, where he will be bid on just like we bid on every other player. The bid amounts will be based on a FULL YEAR'S SALARY, but the new team will only have to pay the prorated portion for the rest of the season. The original owner who cut the player will then be on the hook for whatever was remaining on the original contract LESS the amount the other team is paying for him. However, for next year's arbitration increases, the new contract will be the deciding factor.

Do we want this to reset the clock on 5 years of FA? I think it should.

Is this too complicated? Should we just make the original owner be on the hook for all of it? (prorated of course) Should we stick with the cap hit?

Sorry for so many posts, but Pecota and I are having a good talk and he keeps bringing up really great questions, so I'd like to address them.

Won't the 20 % (or whatever we pick) increase make it almost unwieldy to field the top tier players? What if you get a guy at 30 mil in the first bid?

Exactly. That's the point. In the initial bidding process I want people to be asking themselves "ok if I bid this amount, how many years can I reasonably hang onto this player? Am I willing to sacrifice contract length to get a better player? Or do I want a lesser player but with better cost controls?"

It also will induce people to trade players in a "salary dump" format if a team has cap space mid-season. I like that, because it's like real baseball. Why would a team dump salary if they are out of it anyways? This way they free up money to pick up undrafted prospects (or trade for undrafted prospects), bid on players who are cut to make their roster more balanced (say you have 3 superstar first baseman but lack depth at 2B and 3B, one signed to a huge contract, you dump that contract on another team and can then use the extra cap space to trade for or bid on 2Bs and 3Bs with lesser contracts) or, as aforementioned, execute better trades.

Teams will also have to consider: when I draft, do I draft mid-level players at lower contracts so I will have a more balanced roster 3-5 years from now, or do I bid to win now and go after all the superstars? Decisions, decisions.

Basically a lot of my rules were created in mind of making the league difficult strategically. I wanted there to be 2, 3, 4, 5 different viable tactics of approach to the league. I want people to think and have to make tough decisions. Honestly, if you guys do want to tone it down a little, let me know and I'm fine with that, but for now I'm advancing forward with that thought in mind.

An example of the thinking I think is fun, courtesy of Pecota (completely unprovoked by me, he was just trying to analyze the rules out loud):

Pecota:

"I'm just trying to play out different scenarios in my head about what if this team drafts superstar A and makes modest cap concessions. where will they be in three seasons. Will they end up like st. louis in real life with one very good-great position player and bunch of NL scrubs or what? it's hard to figure out
I need a simulator
please don't make me build a simulator
lol
I feel like managing the cap is going to be more important than evaluating talent
because you have to project so far out because of the dramatic salary hike
I can see one way it'll play out is you won't have any mid-tier guys sitting on the bench. you'll want to pay them as little as possible, so they'll prob be scrubs. legit players getting used to the max, only
so no ridic benches like in previous leagues
actually, I will have to run some payroll projections for my team
buahahahaha"

See I think that's fun. Sadistic. But fun.

I can't take credit for that, it's actually a direct quote from Moneyball.

I think Karak's reasoning on setting up the contracts with the 20% hike is sound. You can see from my earlier post that I was against it, but after re-reading some of the older rule postings, I'm starting to come around on this approach.

I also like some of the mechanisms that would be associated with having the salaries structured this way (salary dumps, refueling the FA market, etc.). Thoughts from others?

I'm cool w/ the 20% increases, i just wanted them to be thought over before we commit.

I don't like the idea about owing the difference between original contract and 2nd contract for waived players. then you would only clear salary space if they get picked up by another team. There needs to be a mechanism that clears space even if it's a player that will never get picked up. 15% prorated seems reasonable.

For salary cap infractions what is the penalty? no stats count from days when they're over the cap? a real $ penalty?

and prizes to keep the league competitive, what's wrong with just a last place tax? i think the other rewards you set up basically just have the same incentive - to win the league (win a category, win a month, win a half season) and i don't think it will really impact the teams that are really out of contention.

Yeah, that's a good point, we hadn't figured out what the salary cap penalty would be yet. Wasn't it something like, if you're going to go over the cap, you are required to clear cap space before bringing in that player or making another addition? So basically there's no way you'd be allowed to exceed the cap in the first place, right?

Personally, I don't like the idea of a "last place tax" because I think this league will be very competitive and it would suck to have a decent team, but still get fined just because you happened to end up in last place.

2. we need to talk this over. I need to think about it.

3. Credited. we can discuss moving it to 4 or 5 or possibly more. I do not want it to the point, though, where people start rostering every DL'd player (who is an undrafted FA) at the minimum salary and stocking their roster like a lottery ticket.

4. Let's use the standard you just posted recently for rookies. The MLB standard.

As for what defines a minor leaguer, we can simply start the season with anyone that is in the minor leagues on opening day is a minor leaguer. This should also apply to unsigned (in real life) free agents, should anyone choose to retain them in our league.

If at any point someone is optioned down to the minors, you may option them down too, but you have to option them back up if they come back up at any point in the season. The only way you can keep a minor leaguer on the minor league roster when he is in the majors IRL is if he starts the season in the minors IRL and in the minors on your team. If he is called up at any point IRL, you then have the option of bumping him up or simply leaving him down there. However, once you bump him up you must leave him on your major league roster.

We could introduce a caveat where if he is optioned back down IRL in 10 days or less, you et a one time exemption.

Does this all make sense? Obviously I'll be taking all these arbitrary rules we are posting about the thread and consolidating them before the draft. Honestly this reminds me very much of a bunch of legislative and statutory history research I did for a summary judgment brief recently, haha.

I don't like the idea of moving a player back down to your minor league roster.

Once they get a real contract with your team, that should be that and you're stuck with them. Then if they don't reach rookie qualifications their contract doesn't progress a year yet.

I'm all for a last place penalty, but I think this needs to be paid upfront as a bond to ensure no one welches. Or we could simply enforce it by saying if you don't pay the last place penalty, you are out of the league and you eat the 100 you already paid for your team next season. Yeah, the 100 you are posting for season 2 is probably bond enough to ensure payment. However if the last place tax is somewhat significant, 50 dollars or so, then maybe we should require a 25-50% bond paid upfront.


Responding to paragraph 1: If you are over the cap, your entire team roster is locked out until you get back under the cap. You can cut players, trade, etc. You should keep in mind that trades take time, so if you want to execute a 3-way deal to shed salary to one team while taking on increased salary for another, make sure it's all a go before you execute it. I'm sure we can facilitate this for you.

We could introduce a grace period of a few days if we wanted. So you have 3 days to get back under the cap. If this is instituted, however, it would have to be a grace period you only get once per season, or it could be exploited. Although I guess we all oversee the league and can punish someone if they think they are exploiting the system.

This brings up another point: by joining the league you also agree that if it (meaning an absolute majority of the league) at any point decides you are doing something unethical, unfair or against the spirit of the league, the league has the authority to pass a rule or put a stop to whatever you are doing. An example would be if we forgot to cover something in the rules and it allowed you to exploit the gap. I do NOT expect anyone in this league would do that, but there are a few guys in here who I simply don't know, so I'd feel more comfortable putting that in there.

Of course any rule changes, punishments, etc. could be openly discussed on 2+2 with people not in the league, and their opinions can play heavily into the decision. I'm thinking people like KyleB, rwperu, etc.

Responding to paragraph 2: Sucks for that guy. Should have drafted better/ran better. Of course if most of you don't want the last place tax, we won't have it.


Credited, but the only thought was if a team announced they were bringing up a prospect, and then they sign a FA a few days later and decide to send him down again or they were smoke screening and you get ****ed. Brandon Wood comes to mind.

I think changing P slots to: 3 SPs, 2 RPs and 2-4 (thoughts?) Ps would be better.

Also, do we want an IP cap on the year? IP caps are put in to put you to a decision each week and prevent people just gunning for Ks and Ws, but on the other hand salary cap issues should keep streaming to a minimum.

As far as the bench being deep, yeah it is. I'd rather not start more than 9 guys though. It creates too many odd spots where you'd prefer to not start a player and keep your OBP and SLG up since you are getting enough HRs from your starting 9. The people beyond the 9 are unlikely to be power hitters (since they are at a premium in this league), so this weird dynamic could happen. We simply have a lot of people riding the bench who might not see playing time. *shrug*

I don't think we need an IP cap because of the salary cap.

While I'm super focused, a few more things:

Administration of this league will be taxing, and no one really has the time to oversee it all. So I have a few requests that I'd like you guys to agree to before we start things off.

First of all, we'll create some sort of reporting medium or thread to state these things. For example, we could have a shared google spreadsheet. Anytime you make a personnel move, the onus is on you to make an alteration in the google spreadsheet. Not only will you have to show your updated roster, but you will also have to update what your current salary is at and what the individual player's salary is. This shouldn't take long. If you could then just post in the thread, "I dropped X for Y. My payroll was 85. My payroll is now 93." that would be helpful. Of course this is somewhat on the honor system, but all your work will be public for everyone to see.

The same goes for trades. You can propose a trade and discuss it one-on-one all you want, but you must post it publicly, as aforementioned, before it may go through. This can be on the thread here or a spreadsheet somewhere.

League administrative moves: I gotta check out each site's software, but I assume there is no site out there that can handle the functionality we need. So, of course, it needs to be done manually. There's a few ways we can do this. We'll have the 25-man active rosters stocked with players in the software, of course. The minor leaguers/rookies can be kept on a separate list in the google spreadsheet and/or on the thread here. Some minor leaguers might still be in the Yahoo software or whatever, so you gotta double check before you add someone to make sure he isn't retained for another team. Of course it should be obvious which players you need to check for.

If a player gets called up, feel free to grab him as soon as Yahoo adds him. *shrug* If he, for example, starts the next season in the minors, and thus you get the option of starting him in the minors too (or should you?), albeit at an increased salary, you can just cut him and no one else will touch him.

I'm really, really pleased with how the league rules and format are shaping up right now. I hope you guys can all agree with me on that. I'm getting pretty excited. This should be a lot of fun.

The money is nice, but I think the bragging rights of doing well in this league will be awesome. Plus, can you guys imagine the props? Oh, the props.

I'm hoping that if we can get an effective and fluid dynasty league rule set going, we can put it out there as a model league. Dynasty MLB fantasy leagues are far and few between, simply because of how intricate they are. Maybe we can prompt some other leagues on 2+2 to start!

Apparently my status has changed to "grinder." Does that mean I can draft myself to start at second base now?

bwahahaha A+ reference

Pecota has never played poker ever. He must feel out of place here.

Also, Pecota will handle most of the day-to-day transactions and roster moves during the season. I will help too, but I cannot be trusted with a task like that really haha (meaning I'll get ADD or busy and forget). Pecota, on the other hand, is likely to never forget or miss anything, so we'll be good.

To be clear, the players don't have a contract/count towards the $100M until they are moved to the 25 man roster right? With possible exceptions being if we allow players to move from 25man to our minors roster?

and 3SP 2RP 4P is good with me, that'd lower it to 7 bench players which is more reasonable.

Good point. I'd say as long as they aren't signed to a major league contract, they shouldn't count against the cap. But if the player is nominated and bid on during the auction, then he should have a "major league contract" and be counted against payroll (IRL example: Andrew Brackman for the Yankees), even though he can stay in the minors.

One caveat: if we allow that, then we introduce incentive to not nominate a fringe player in the auction you might want, creating a waiver wire feeding frenzy during the season. How do we want to handle undrafted players? If you want to add an undrafted player, should you have to "place a bid" of the minimum salary on him and start the auction process mid-season?

For example: say Ramiro Pena SS Yankees goes undrafted. He gets traded to the Giants for Tim Lincecum (hey, it's Sabean) and starts at SS for them, making him a valuable addition to the roster. Team X will post "nominate Ramiro Pena and bid the minimum." Then if no one else outbids in a 24 hour period, team X gets to add Lincecum. We'll have to set minimum bid increments so there is no potential for griefing by drawing the auction out.

Or say I just suffer a rash of injuries, and I need to add a new bench OF. I want to pick up Randy Winn. Same process. Only issue is you can't quickly add or drop players, so there's really no potential for streaming. I'm fine with that. With the benches as deep as they are, we shouldn't have to worry about having to quickly add or drop players on the notice of a day or two.

What if some young kid who meets the rookie requirements but wasn't drafted in the rookie draft starts raking in the minors? What do we do then? Should we allow free add/drops of undrafted rookies? I think so, pending a standard waiver system. Meaning each week the waiver wire rolls over on rookies (say on Sunday), and you send in a waiver claim for a player. Person with the lowest ranking in the league who placed a claim gets the player.

Holy **** this is a lot to think about.

Are you referring to current (at the time of the bidding) major leaguers? What if someone uses a late pick in the ML draft to pick up Prospect X? Is that illegal and they'd have to wait until the rookie draft to get Prospect X? If the answer to the second question is "yes," then the first question is moot, obv.