|
Post by Oakland Nationals (Brendan) on Jun 1, 2016 9:49:30 GMT -5
I agree with this idea.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Jun 1, 2016 11:23:03 GMT -5
I'm good with this too. If the aim of the league us to (sort of) parallel real life, what player wouldn't want to be paid upfront, rather than waiting?
Only thing to add on this would be that for administrative ease, I think it's preferable that you have to make the decision when you release the player, ie you can't re-decide later how the payments are allocated between the years.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Jun 1, 2016 11:26:38 GMT -5
I would definitely agree
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jun 1, 2016 11:51:14 GMT -5
Seems like a good idea. How does it work? How is it managed? Do I do the same thing I do now and just apply cap hits on Fantrax with a certain amount allocated to specific seasons.
I have a lot of questions. Sorry. So if I drop a guy and there are 4 years remaining on the contract after this year (2017-2020), then I can pay all of the cap hits in 2017 and 2018 if I want?
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Jun 1, 2016 12:06:11 GMT -5
Seems like a good idea. How does it work? How is it managed? Do I do the same thing I do now and just apply cap hits on Fantrax with a certain amount allocated to specific seasons. Yup. When you drop him you would have the option of restructuring the cap penalty any way that moves dollars earlier, so a 4 year buyout is 50%, 25%, 25%, 25%, you could pay 50% in current year and the 75% in year 2 to be done in two years (at the expense of having a tough year 2). Or you could pay all 125% in the current year assuming you have enough cap space. Another example, let's say you have an escalating contract, costs 4M 2016, 10M 2017 and 16M 2018. Normal buyout would be 2M, 2.5M, 4M. Here's some examples of common ways people might restructure the penalty: 1. 8.5M, 0M, 0M (sacrifice this year to remain competitive in the future) 2. 4M, 4.5M, 0M (two years of pain) 3. 3M, 3M, 2.5M (even out the spread) Ultimately I believe most people would leave it as is, or take option 1.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Jun 15, 2016 20:48:15 GMT -5
I propose that DD3 league continues to use Proboards, but we move the league to ESPN. After using Fantrax for three months, I'm not a fan of it. The only thing that is somewhat useful is milb players on team rosters. But I don't see that being necessary. In another dynasty league I'm in, all milb teams are kept track of on the message board. The team owners time stamp their milb transaction, and in a different thread, only the League Manager edits milb rosters. I feel it to be very well organized. Proboards could still be used as we are now- draft, trades, etc.
I'm also suggesting that the buyin is $30 and not $50. I personally don't like playing for money. Real fantasy baseball competitors will be in it for the sake of competition and comradery.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jun 16, 2016 8:31:37 GMT -5
Thanks for the feedback Paul. Always great to hear from the league.
I'm totally open to lowering the entry fee if that's something the league wants to do. It would need to be voted on.
As for moving to ESPN, I'm not doing that. I'm in one football league on ESPN and one baseball league and that's all I will do. I know their Commissioner Options are nowhere near what Fantrax offers. Salary cap hits, ability to override illegal rosters at anytime for you guys, deepest minor league player database I know of, etc. I have 3 Diamond Duos leagues on Fantrax and am considering a 4th for 2017. If for some reason that's a dealbreaker for you and you don't want to participate because we're still on Fantrax I totally understand but would hope that you hang with us.
-SG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2016 18:06:11 GMT -5
Something I think would be cool and impact the 2018 draft and FA signs for this off-season is to add a sandwich compensation round(s) to the draft between round 1 and 2 and between rounds 2 and 3 to provide compensation for losing a restricted FA.
Say if you chose not to match an offer on an RFA and he signs elsewhere for more than 10M AAS then you get a comp pick between 1 and 2. If you choose not to match an RFA who signs elsewhere for between 5 and 9.99M then you get a comp pick at the end of round 2 prior to the protected parent franchise pick.
Comp picks would go in reverse order of the standings and be awarded for high dollar FA leaving your team.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Aug 15, 2016 9:28:52 GMT -5
OK guys, I want to start thinking more about 2017 and getting this Constitution tweaked and revised as needed. Thanks for all the previous comments in this thread. Here are some items that we need to address: 1) Minor league claims in season - to be posted on the board as opposed to sent in via blind email. 2) Compensation for Restricted Free Agents (RFA) that sign with another team. 3) I think we should have a minimum of AAS $1M for 3 years or more of free agent contracts in season. 4) Outrighting process - is it from time of outright post on the board, or should we use standings as of 48 hours later, or even 2 days later end of games? This needs to be clarified. 5) Trade deadline. Some feel the August 7th deadline is too early in the season and it doesn't allow teams to improve over the last 2 months of the season in ways other than FA signings. Should we modify this rule and allow for some sort of trading after August 7? Maybe something similar to MLB and players have to pass through waivers after that date? Definitely up for discussion. 6) League fee change? Keep $50, make it $30 or something else? Not sure this needs to be in Rules discussion but something we want to address.
What else am I missing?
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Aug 15, 2016 13:49:47 GMT -5
I like the trade deadline where it's at but I'm alright with anything. One thing that'll keep me motivated is playing less buy-in. $30 is good but I'll also play for free.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 22:27:47 GMT -5
My thoughts on the questions posed.
1: Yes 2: This seems fine. Thinking loss of draft pick (signing team) and gain of draft pick (team losing FA)? 3: Makes sense. This would need a larger discussion, but I also think more weight should be placed on length of contract (doesn't have to be as complicated as WalkOff, but a previous league I was involved with used a grid system that was pretty easy to manage) 4: I would go with whatever is easiest to manage from commissioner side. 5: Allow trading of players who clear waivers and/or not on 40-man roster (this could also open up trading of prospects/picks for prospects/picks) 6: I'm happy with the $50 buy-in, but perhaps consider flattening the payouts to include top 5 (33% of league gets money) or even more. But the lower end essentially just gets money back.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Nationals (Brendan) on Aug 22, 2016 23:02:51 GMT -5
My thoughts:
1. Fine. No difference to me. 2. I don't like this idea. The owner already has the right to match, and this further dilutes a talent source that is drained by our deep farm systems. 3. Fine with me. 4. Agree it needs to be clarified, no real stake in how it is clarified. 5. I'm fine with some kind of waiver process for post-deadline trades, but I also think it's a little unnecessary. 6. I like the $50 buy-in. No need to change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 23:42:08 GMT -5
1. I'm good with either way. Makes sense to just post it on the board though since it's essentially first come first serve for MILB players. 2. I like this idea. Why not make it a identical to the MLB Qualifying offer process. Use whatever rate MLB uses (I think its something around $16.5M). 3. I don't see why we need a minimum. This punishes owners that are identifying valuable players early on and rewarding teams that may not be as saavy. 4. Agree with whatever is easiest to manage. However, I tend to think that offers expire 48 hours from claim, but winner is decided by standings at end of games played the day of 48 hours later, unless its prior to all games. 5. I think the trade deadline is fair where it's at. No need to change it. 6. I like the buy-in price where it's at but would be open to spreading the wealth to the top 5 as Brian suggested.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Aug 23, 2016 8:23:57 GMT -5
RFA comp is a little tricky when you allow trading of draft picks. You have to state that a team is required to have their own picks in order to make a bid.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Aug 23, 2016 9:22:58 GMT -5
1) Minor league claims in season - to be posted on the board as opposed to sent in via blind email. I would prefer it be that way, since it is essentially a "first come/first serve" type of add.
2) Compensation for Restricted Free Agents (RFA) that sign with another team. I am not a fan of this. As Brendan stated, we already have right to match an offer. I think this is a level of complexity that may be tough to keep up with/administer. 3) I think we should have a minimum of AAS $1M for 3 years or more of free agent contracts in season. I would not want to mess with our current set-up. I think I should have ability to take a flier on a player for a 1 year deal if wanted. It's not all win/win with those offers. A lot of risk involved.
4) Outrighting process - is it from time of outright post on the board, or should we use standings as of 48 hours later, or even 2 days later end of games? This needs to be clarified. I don't have any stake in this, however, for purposes of simplicity, I think it should be the standings at the end of the 48 hour period.
5) Trade deadline. Some feel the August 7th deadline is too early in the season and it doesn't allow teams to improve over the last 2 months of the season in ways other than FA signings. Should we modify this rule and allow for some sort of trading after August 7? Maybe something similar to MLB and players have to pass through waivers after that date? Definitely up for discussion. I think the trade deadline should extend until the end of August. With this being a money/salary cap league, as well as a league of highly competitive owners, we're not at risk of collusion for intentional tanking and/or intentionally making someone's team stronger at the expense of another.
6) League fee change? Keep $50, make it $30 or something else? Not sure this needs to be in Rules discussion but something we want to address. I like the $50 buy-in. I think this helps keep people from drifting away and showing minimal/no interest (people are motivated by money LOL!)
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Reds (Sam) on Aug 23, 2016 9:25:48 GMT -5
OK guys, I want to start thinking more about 2017 and getting this Constitution tweaked and revised as needed. Thanks for all the previous comments in this thread. Here are some items that we need to address: 1) Minor league claims in season - to be posted on the board as opposed to sent in via blind email. 2) Compensation for Restricted Free Agents (RFA) that sign with another team. 3) I think we should have a minimum of AAS $1M for 3 years or more of free agent contracts in season. 4) Outrighting process - is it from time of outright post on the board, or should we use standings as of 48 hours later, or even 2 days later end of games? This needs to be clarified. 5) Trade deadline. Some feel the August 7th deadline is too early in the season and it doesn't allow teams to improve over the last 2 months of the season in ways other than FA signings. Should we modify this rule and allow for some sort of trading after August 7? Maybe something similar to MLB and players have to pass through waivers after that date? Definitely up for discussion. 6) League fee change? Keep $50, make it $30 or something else? Not sure this needs to be in Rules discussion but something we want to address. What else am I missing? 1. Fine with me. 2. I like the concept. Have to work out the details. May not be able to mirror MLB exactly. We have RFAs. They have Qualifying Offers & don't have Salary Caps. 3. I'd prefer no minimum. Might just want to pick up an older player for the current season stretch run and not be saddled with his cap hit in subsequent years. 4. Because of the 48 hour time window to claim, I feel it's easier to manage with standings at the end of the 48 hours. 5. I'm open to discussion. I can manage either way. 6. My own decision would be skewed based upon the confidence I have in my team's ability to win some of that back. I do feel there is a level of commitment with a higher fee that you would not see with lowered fees. Perhaps you provide a discount to returning players as an incentive/reward.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Aug 24, 2016 7:40:19 GMT -5
Hey guys, my quick 2c
1) Minor league claims in season - to be posted on the board as opposed to sent in via blind email.
I like this, my only problem being that it crystallizes the fastest finger first thing a little. However, it would make lives a lot easier to do it this way, so am happy to go with it, but I'd like to suggest a small amendment. Maybe if someone's really itching to get a new prospect they could put in an advance interest to the fablindbids account. The winning bid would then be chosen randomly from the blind advance interest claim(s), plus the first claim posted on the board (as long as it's within 12h of the start of the month). I doubt this would happen often as there's nothing to lose by putting the bid on the board, and people couldn't 'copy' bids on the board as the blind bids would have to be submitted before the start of the new month.
2) Compensation for Restricted Free Agents (RFA) that sign with another team.
Looks like this one's divisive. No opinion either way
3) I think we should have a minimum of AAS $1M for 3 years or more of free agent contracts in season.
I'm easy, but I see where the question's coming from, there needs to be a higher burden for long contract obligations. I think that's better done by changing the percentage penalty of salary you are charged for dropped player contracts, but that's probably a discussion for another time.
4) Outrighting process - is it from time of outright post on the board, or should we use standings as of 48 hours later, or even 2 days later end of games? This needs to be clarified.
Definitely prefer the 'at time of outright' option (or more precisely, the most recent close-of-play standings at the time of outright). Now we know how to look up standings on a given date, there is no hassle, and it's closer to real life and completely rules out the temptation to 'minitank' to beat someone to the claim.
5) Trade deadline. Some feel the August 7th deadline is too early in the season and it doesn't allow teams to improve over the last 2 months of the season in ways other than FA signings. Should we modify this rule and allow for some sort of trading after August 7? Maybe something similar to MLB and players have to pass through waivers after that date? Definitely up for discussion.
I like when the trade deadline is for ML trades. I like a bit of jeopardy where a team makes trades not fully knowing whether they are in or out of the race. However I don't see why minor leaguers can't be traded for other minor leaguers at any time, but if we allow this after the trade deadline, we should say that any minor leaguer traded after the deadline can't be promoted until after the end of the season.
6) League fee change? Keep $50, make it $30 or something else? Not sure this needs to be in Rules discussion but something we want to address.
Happy with the fee where it is (not averse to changing it), like Brian's top 5 idea
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Aug 24, 2016 9:17:01 GMT -5
Hey guys, my quick 2c 1) Minor league claims in season - to be posted on the board as opposed to sent in via blind email. I like this, my only problem being that it crystallizes the fastest finger first thing a little. However, it would make lives a lot easier to do it this way, so am happy to go with it, but I'd like to suggest a small amendment. Maybe if someone's really itching to get a new prospect they could put in an advance interest to the fablindbids account. The winning bid would then be chosen randomly from the blind advance interest claim(s), plus the first claim posted on the board (as long as it's within 12h of the start of the month). I doubt this would happen often as there's nothing to lose by putting the bid on the board, and people couldn't 'copy' bids on the board as the blind bids would have to be submitted before the start of the new month. I think this fastest finger thing won't be a problem long term. In my 2 other leagues that use open posting for MiLB claims I've never heard a peep about it. Once the guys who were missed in the initial draft have been taken it's not all that common to conflict with anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Aug 24, 2016 10:45:23 GMT -5
Exactly, it's not a big deal but the provision should be there. 99% of the time it'll be people just posting on the board. But if you're especially keen and aren't going to be around at 12 midnight ET (or 5am for me) you can just presubscribe, and be in a draw with and on a par with the early bidder on the board. Which seems like a small concession to generate a fair outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Aug 24, 2016 12:51:47 GMT -5
Henry, I totally get where you're coming from, but it's all timestamp. I don't want the success or failure of this league to be based on whether or not an owner can post a claim right at 12:00am EST. To be honest I have 2 owners out of 12 that have emailed claim right at 12 when a new month begins. What I can't envision is the ability to have earlier emails come in. It has to be that new calendar month, whether we're emailing claims or posting on the board. It's all timestamp and it has to be for the ease of management of the league. Might that in some cases be a disadvantage for you on UK time? Sure, but for the most part we've really not had many issues.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Rockies (Henry) on Aug 25, 2016 12:04:46 GMT -5
All right, I'll take one for the team in that case! Brent was mega nice to me before on Ockimey, so I'll let it go...
What do you reckon to allowing the trading of minor leaguers after the trade deadline?
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Orioles (Drew) on Aug 27, 2016 10:23:13 GMT -5
I propose a rule change to make all offers of $15M or more require at least a 2 year commitment, with the Moyer rule being the exception. This 2 month Gourriel rental is total BS and a complete skirt of the spirit of the Franchise tag rule.
Either that, or I vote that we require at least one full season on the roster in order to be Franchise tagged.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2016 10:29:15 GMT -5
Omg so many whiners in this league! He's going to be RFA'd not tagged. Price is being tagged. You'll have a chance to sign him.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Aug 27, 2016 12:12:02 GMT -5
Franchise tag allows ANY player on your roster coming off a contract to be kept for 1 to 5 more years at $15M per year. It has nothing to do with how long a player has been rostered. We have a lot of things to discuss in the offseason but not sure this is one. Tripp had $30M+ in cap space currently and bid a lot for this year to get Gurriel. Now he has the control and could decide to RFA or Franchise Tag him. And even if he doesn't then the player just goes back into Free Agency in the offseason. Heck, if I had $30M+ in cap space to have offered that much, if only for this year, then maybe I would have. That $28M and a Gurriel added to my team right now could have solidified my offense for the next month.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Orioles (Drew) on Aug 27, 2016 12:55:48 GMT -5
I fully understand that no rule was broken, I just think there is a flaw in the system. No offense or whining meant to Tripp, but you have done a good job of exploiting weaknesses in policy. All good coaches do it, and then the rules have to catch up. There is no MLB comparable policy that would allow a team to sign a highly coveted player for one year and then get an extreme discount off of that year for going forward.
Maybe this only applies to the Rusney Rule? I just think it is ridiculous for a team that is clearly not interested in improving this year to win a 1 year bid on a player for the sole purpose of then getting a future discount on that player's salary. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but I'd at least like to hear other opinions.
|
|