I have e-mailed everybody a copy of my proposed salary cap idea, current player salaries and a team by team breakdown of player salaries. I also posted this on Google Docs for everyone to see (I apologize if I sent multiple e-mails. Google kept saying their server was down but then it sent the invites anyway. )
Comment back on here and let me know if the general idea sounds good. If so, we can work on editing the rules throughout the season and implement it next offseason.
16 comments:
I'm confused (which is probably why I don't like) about the offseason stuff.... basically what I understand is that it's an auction draft... but does the salary cap for a player indicate their fantasy value or something? because if you look at the $$ lists that you have posted, it doesn't have the bottom at the bottom anymore... Aka I would have taken last last year, but from what I'm reading I wouldn't have any advantage over people who were middle of the road.... or if I made the CC/scherzer/et al trade, then it would have hurt me for the spring (drafting) session....
I still think last place deserves the first pick even if they make good other moves during the offseason (unless they really want to give it up aka trade it away).
Yes the salary of a player indicates their fantasy value. And yes, you are not bottom anymore because you have 2 of the best pitchers in the game. If you want more money, you can drop players to increase salary cap room. It would be just like a salary cap in football.
Maybe we could have 1 wwek of renegotiation salaries, 1 week of free agent signing, then 1 week of rookie only signing, where the last place gets the first pick in the rookie draft, etc.
Remember when agruing this kyle, you are no longer the worst team. You have CC and Webb. I doubt you will be in the bottom 5 just because of those 2.
I don't expect myself to be that low... course i dont really have a C, 1B or 3B so that puts me down pretty low, but still... I'm just arguing so the next person who is in the shoes I was THIS offseason doesn't get screwed.... cause it's stupid to say "I'm not gonna be last place so I don't care about them anymore".... I seem to be the only vocal one in the bottom half so maybe it's just me and bad luck, but I seriously think the bottom 5 (as a whole) got worse and the top 5 (as a whole) got better and improved on their future. That's not how I think offseasons should work.
lets work though the salary cap rules and go from there....when you understand the salary cap, you will see that it greatly benefits the bottom 1/2 of the league. Connor has an idea for it and I have another idea....we will work to compile a few different options for the league to vote on, including no salary cap if that is what you want.
So I just breezed over the player $$ values... How exactly are players worth negative dollars?
Corey Hart costs more money than Ryan Howard? OK I already have a problem with this system. BTW sorry for the stream of consciousness responses...that's how I do.
negative dollars is due to me setting the minimum salary cap to -10. Not many people that we owned were negative. The ones that were, I have a 1 dollar value to in the team breakdown sheet.
PETCOA Projections for each:
Howard: .271 98 41 112 0
Hart: .289 85 22 89 22
The reason Howard is valued so low is because position scarcity is taken into account. 1B is stacked this year, so this system is saying dont go after howard for a huge amount, because you can still go after teix, or miggy, pujols, berkman, morneau, fielder, etc. Besides, his cheap value is great for you.
If 1B is stacked this year then why the hell wont anyone trade me one?
I'm still not even close to satisfied with this. Someone really needs to explain to me the offseason/draft part of it.
Far as I'm concerned we could adapt something like this. But the cap should be set high enough that people dont have to drop 2-3 good players to just reach cap.
Also I'm failing to see how this helps the teams that are stuck with players like Ordonez/Ibanez who will be worth a ton, but are just eating space. I cant drop em cause of the cant cut list..
My vote is that we go back to line order draft for 1 year while we evaluate other possibilities and see how they would work. Also, it gives us a chance to find all the loopholes so we can patch that crud up.
I'm fairly certain this league doesn't have a "Can't Cut List". Even if it does, Ordonez and Ibanez definitely aren't good enough to make the list.
And try reading the different versions of the rules Zach and I included in the Google Doc if you're unsure of how it would work.
What I'm reading right now is that if I want strasburg (assuming he's the next available pick) I would have to pay $1 more than anyone else is willing to pay for him...?
so he could be worth $25 when someone like CC is probably worth the same amount? doesn't really sound right...
ok....i will call you and explain kyle....not enough space to do so here
It looks like you're proposing that the players whose value turn out to be negative are readjusted to be $1. However, if they were allowed to remain negative, then I could see people trying load up their bench with the worst players possible to effectively increase the salary cap for starters.
Also, to Kyle about Ordonez and Ibanez: the salary has nothing to do with (directly) whether or not they're veterans like it does for actual salaries. It is just a number based on statistical projections one year out.
right, but both are 100 RBI players that just happen to be on my bench because I have better players... makes for an expensive bench for me and a more impossible way to get rid of them....
I talked to Zach about a number of concerns...
My biggest one is still with the 2 drafts. I like the idea, but why should me making a trade like CC/Webb for Morrow/Scherzer, which is probably going to turn out in zach's favor in 2-3 years effect my draft pick for that offseason? I still am of the opinion that if you are a last place team you deserve the first place pick... even if it's like my case where you "shouldn't" have been last but having 11 guys injured at the same time caused me to not have players to play in 3-4 positions for half the year. Like Zach had said... my team would have been lower in value with scherzer/morrow than cc/webb, but I still wouldn't have been where elliot is... why should he get first pick at the offseason?
The more and more I think of it, the more I'm liking the idea of doing 1 offseason draft in reverse order and basically the lower part of the draft can either grab the good players that were dropped by the top teams or prospects... makes the draft deeper (closer to 2-3 rounds moreso than 5-6 picks).
When Kyle said 2 drafts, here is what he is talking about:
Draft 1: Only rookies (rookie = delta between FA list at the end of the season and FA list at the beginning of the yahoo season....so the players who were added new to the system)...this would be a snake draft just like in MLB for the college draft. last place picks first, etc. This way, prospects go to bottom teams supposedly.
Draft 2: All other players using salary cap. In Kyle's post, he is still using the words "first pick" instead of "most salary cap room". There is a huge difference there, but i think he means the same thing (which is that the person with the most salary cap room will have first choice of any player, if he wishes to spend the money on him).
In response to his post, we cannot do a salary cap AND a snake draft to draft everyone. that kinda defeats the purpose of a salary cap. the whole point is that each team has the same resources to bid on each player.
Also, the reason Elliot would get first pick over you is because you just got CC and Webb. Your team is much better now. The whole point of the salary cap is that teams like me will have to trade cc and webb to teams like you who can afford them. If you wanted to, you could choose not to attempt these trades and save money to go after people in the draft. However, I think you made the best move here Kyle.
The offseason cannot consist of the bottom teams getting first choice of prospects, first choice of dropped studs, AND the option to trade for players like cc and webb because top teams cant afford them. There has to be some competition.
Why do the teams that benefit least from the rules that we've put in place and those that are proposed support them the most and vice versa? This is like the wealthier northern states voting for politicians who will tax them and give it to the less wealthy southern states who vote against said politicians.
Post a Comment