|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Nov 29, 2016 22:02:16 GMT -6
If you would like to see any changes regarding league rules or settings for 2017 please post your ideas here.
Discuss any issues as much as you would like and as always we will vote on any changes prior to the start of FA, which will be in late January/early February.
I'll start off by listing a few ideas from other managers that were brought to my attention during the 2016 season.
1) The 2 bid rule: Currently we can bid a max of 2 times per FA.
I received a couple alternative suggestions to this with the thought being that the opening bidder has a huge disadvantage.
Solution A) Go back to unlimited bids like we did in Years 1 and 2.
Solution B) Keep the 2 bid system but do not count the opening bid. That way the opening bidder still has 2 bids left and doesn't feel "penalized" for doing the digging.
2) Suspend Cuts during FA.
Currently we can cut players and gain 50% cap space back at any time.
With this proposal if voted in we'd have a cut date before and after FA, no cuts during FA. This way there would be no advantage to waiting until mid-FA to cut guys you were going to cut anyway to gain more space and wait out your competition who is already spending.
If anyone has anything else they want to discuss post it here and feel free to discuss the above items.
Thanks,
Keith
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Nov 29, 2016 22:33:30 GMT -6
The 2-bid rule:
Even though I was an initial supporter of the rule for two bids, I feel like it clearly needs to be changed. In my NBA league, we agreed to get rid of the two-bid rule altogether simply because there should never be an advantage to placing a bid for a player.
The proposal to not have the opening bid count helps, but there's still an advantage to waiting to be the last team to bid on a player to blow out the other teams so they can't bid anymore. That's a huge advantage if you have your sights set on a specific guy.
Threads can get long and the process can be frustrating, but a no-bid limit is the only fair system to determine a player's true market value.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Nov 30, 2016 9:02:31 GMT -6
I don't understand the reasoning behind suspending cuts during FA. It's a stretch to say Player X was going to be cut regardless. What if you have a decent option but still want to upgrade? You have to risk not getting your target and losing your backup plan? Seems counterintuitive.
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Nov 30, 2016 16:17:12 GMT -6
I agree with the 2 bid system with the opening bid having a disadvantage but I really can't stand the unlimited bid system, maybe going to 3 bids per manager where the opening bid isn't that critical.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Nov 30, 2016 16:29:35 GMT -6
I understand just how annoying the unlimited bid system can be but setting a limit keeps open the possibility of someone waiting out other teams and then blowing them out with the final bid.
At some point, we're going to have great players who will command massive salaries testing the unrestricted market. By having a limit, we're increasing the incentive for someone to wait out the other bidders.
You could also make the case by having an arbitrary limit, salaries could be suppressed, as some teams who have reached the bid limit may still be willing to increase their bids further.
I'm a firm believer of having no restrictions on the bidding process because it will come as close as any system to setting true market value salaries, which is important to the league economy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:08:10 GMT -6
I am and always have been for the unlimited bidding system. It doesn't bother me at all if it takes several days for a player to get signed. A limited bid system is always going to favor the GM who sets back and watches no matter how many bids we get.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Nov 30, 2016 18:58:09 GMT -6
I'm good enough either way but I do think the opening bid should not count towards the bidding process if we do keep limits.
|
|
|
Post by Chris(A's GM) on Nov 30, 2016 21:20:16 GMT -6
I like Option B and no cuts during FA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2016 10:37:33 GMT -6
Regarding the revised compensation pick rules, I thought we re-voted and turned that down? Or did I just dream that up?
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 1, 2016 11:49:09 GMT -6
It was voted in.
|
|
|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Dec 1, 2016 14:13:09 GMT -6
Regarding the revised compensation pick rules, I thought we re-voted and turned that down? Or did I just dream that up? This is what was voted in last year. 2017 1)Each team will have 2 franchise tags per season instead of 1.
2)We will have a new compensation pick system in which the team signing a franchise tagged player loses a 4th round pick(or lowest/worst pick if they do not have a 4th). If a team has no picks in the current season they will lose their lowest/worst pick in the following season. Maximum of 1 lost pick no matter how many franchise tagged players they sign.
The team declining to match receives a compensation pick based on the AAS(Average Annual Salary) in which his franchise tagged player was signed for. The scale is below:
$5M or less = Compensation Pick After 4th round $5.25M-$10M = Compensation Pick After 3rd round $10.25M-$15M = Compensation Pick After 2nd round $15.25M or higher = Compensation Pick After 1st round
|
|
|
Post by Marty(Astros GM) on Dec 3, 2016 21:07:56 GMT -6
1B - Initial bid should not penalize the manager who nominates the player.
Cuts - I don't think there should be a freeze.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 3, 2016 21:43:06 GMT -6
Question: Why should there be any advantage when it comes to bidding on players?
Keeping a two-bid system gives the last team to bid a huge advantage, even if we don't count the first bid.
It makes no sense to me why we would allow for there to be any advantage whatsoever when it comes to a major aspect of how the league functions.
|
|
|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Dec 5, 2016 21:12:28 GMT -6
A league member has suggested to me that we change the contracts for players we draft in the Minor League Draft from $0.5M(6 years) to this:
Year 1 $0.5M Year 2 $0.5M Year 3 $0.5M Year 4 $0.5M Year 5 $1M Option Year 6 $2.5M Option Year 7 $5M Option
When cutting you owe 50% of years 1-4. Cuts for Years 5-7 are free as long as they are before the season. Basically in Years 5, 6 and 7 you are deciding whether or not to tender a contract to the player at that price.
Minor Leaguers drafted in years prior are grandfathered in at $0.5M(6 years). When cutting these guys you owe 50% of years 1-6.
What do you guys think of this idea?
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 5, 2016 21:17:44 GMT -6
Interesting idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 10:41:07 GMT -6
Really interesting idea with the new draft-contract!
I'm in favor of keeping a two-bid system, though not counting the opening offer. I'm afraid we will end up with a ton of .25M bids, if we complete removes it.
I'm against a FA-deadline on cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 11:28:34 GMT -6
Really interesting idea with the new draft-contract! I'm in favor of keeping a two-bid system, though not counting the opening offer. I'm afraid we will end up with a ton of .25M bids, if we complete removes it. I'm against a FA-deadline on cuts. While $250K bid-ups can be annoying, I'd gladly take that over giving an advantage to the last team to place a bid and knock out a bunch of bidders. I can't understand for the life of me why we should allow there to be any advantage whatsoever when it comes to placing bids, and no one has offered a justification beyond "unlimited bids is annoying."
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Dec 6, 2016 12:13:46 GMT -6
I know your against the 2 bid system because someone can make a bid and knock other people out, but to me the same thing happens when a person keeps up bidding a manager who wants or needs a particular player. It's basically the same issue only done a different way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 12:20:13 GMT -6
I wouldn't call it the same. After 2 bids you have no choice but to be out but with unlimited bidding it's your personal value of a player that puts you out.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 12:27:51 GMT -6
I wouldn't call it the same. After 2 bids you have no choice but to be out but with unlimited bidding it's your personal value of a player that puts you out. Agree with Lance. It's not close to the same thing. Every year there are scenarios where people get pushed out even though they may have been willing to pay more because of an arbitrary bid-limit. It's better for the league to have salaries set by a free bidding system that will arrive at a true market value. Plus, (I can't stress this enough) there shouldn't be any advantages when it comes to bidding on players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 14:01:25 GMT -6
Then just hold off your bid, until later on?
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 6, 2016 14:19:20 GMT -6
Unfortunately there will always be advantages when bidding. It may just not come in the form of placing two bids.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 14:27:05 GMT -6
Unfortunately there will always be advantages when bidding. It may just not come in the form of placing two bids. Can you offer an example of how a team would have an advantage to bidding on players when there are no limits?
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 14:29:15 GMT -6
Then just hold off your bid, until later on? I wound up doing this last year with Matt Carpenter. I had him pinpointed as a main target. I waited until the very last minute to place a bid on him and knock everyone out, so that I could ensure I got him because it was late in the free agent market and there weren't any available options remotely close to him. I later sent Twins an apology message for making it seem like he got Carpenter before being blown out on a last minute bid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2016 15:06:18 GMT -6
Alright.
But everyone had the option to do that, except for the opening bid, which I assume we will vote as a free bid.
If you enter the bidding late, I will also assume, that you more often than not, increase the AAS more than you normally would, to try and secure the player with that bid. That tendency could counter the lack of .25M bids.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:19:08 GMT -6
Alright. But everyone had the option to do that, except for the opening bid, which I assume we will vote as a free bid. If you enter the bidding late, I will also assume, that you more often than not, increase the AAS more than you normally would, to try and secure the player with that bid. That tendency could counter the lack of .25M bids. It's true that everyone has the opportunity to wait to place the last bid if they want but this doesn't change the simple fact that being the last team to place a bid gives you the advantage to get the guy you want. No one has explained why it makes sense to have any advantage when it comes to bidding on players. So far we've got: 1) I hate unlimited bidding because there could be a lot of bids 2) Well, everyone had a chance to be the last team The point is that this should be about what's best for the league and I can't see how giving the last team to bid an advantage is the best approach to a core aspect of how the league functions. We just made this change in my NBA league and there wasn't a single complaint or issue from instituting unlimited bidding for players.
|
|
|
Post by Mike(Yankees GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:31:23 GMT -6
Just because there wasn't a complaint doesn't mean it was unanimously agreed on nor does one year of an enactment provide sufficient time to say it was a good or bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Joe(Diamondbacks GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:35:15 GMT -6
Then just hold off your bid, until later on? I wound up doing this last year with Matt Carpenter. I had him pinpointed as a main target. I waited until the very last minute to place a bid on him and knock everyone out, so that I could ensure I got him because it was late in the free agent market and there weren't any available options remotely close to him. I later sent Twins an apology message for making it seem like he got Carpenter before being blown out on a last minute bid. I agree with Nate, and I have to say I'm one of the many GM's that tend to bend the rules and wait until the last few hours to place my bid in order to have an advantage over the other managers. However, I think it's not fair for all the parties involved. If we want to make this league realistic as possible, I think we have to either: - Eliminate the bid limit.
- Increase the bid limit to at least 5 bids per GM.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:36:41 GMT -6
Just because there wasn't a complaint doesn't mean it was unanimously agreed on nor does one year of an enactment provide sufficient time to say it was a good or bad thing. Haha! Fair enough. What I mentioned was the truth. I got no complaints from anyone last year and I'm in regular contact with managers in the league. If you have a complaint, I'm all ears, Michael.
|
|
|
Post by Joe(Diamondbacks GM) on Dec 6, 2016 15:44:55 GMT -6
Let's face it guys, the truth behind everything is this: - Bid limit: Low salary cap and below market deals.
- No bid limit: True market value.
|
|