Issues with the league

[Deleted]

I feel like we solved a lot of issues this offseason, but I believe there are some issues that should get discussed and not implemented until next season giving everyone a full year to process this:

1. Salary Cap- Are we giving everyone an extension and raising max cap- I was initially against this but seeing how high salaries have gone up I am now okay with this.

2. Position eligibility- If it's 20 for the year to gain eligibility it should be 20 to keep it into the next season. I think this change should be implemented now. This is no where in the rules and I traded for Stephen Drew based off this.

3. DL spots- what's going on with those last I heard we were adding one, but it can't be used to store a guy for an extra roster spot.

4. Salary Cap Audits and Power Rankings- Are those happening these year?

5. TRC-We keeping 7 what's going on think we need to decide before we process any trades.

That's all I have to say, anyone else can post any issues they have

[Deleted]

Mar 8, 2014 19:40:02 GMT -5 @mikeyp1515 said:

I feel like we solved a lot of issues this offseason, but I believe there are some issues that should get discussed and not implemented until next season giving everyone a full year to process this:

1. Salary Cap- Are we giving everyone an extension and raising max cap- I was initially against this but seeing how high salaries have gone up I am now okay with this.
I'm against giving more cap out, but i would be for taking off the 160M ceiling while keeping the 100M floor.

2. Position eligibility- If it's 20 for the year to gain eligibility it should be 20 to keep it into the next season. I think this change should be implemented now. This is no where in the rules and I traded for Stephen Drew based off this.
Meh

3. DL spots- what's going on with those last I heard we were adding one, but it can't be used to store a guy for an extra roster spot.
I'm against adding a DL spot

4. Salary Cap Audits and Power Rankings- Are those happening these year?
I can help with these if given direction

5. TRC-We keeping 7 what's going on think we need to decide before we process any trades.
I think we should keep it at 5 and if 2 TRC's trade and there is a "No" vote by one of the remaining TRC members have two emergent backups who can only vote in that circumstance.

That's all I have to say, anyone else can post any issues they have

I just thought it'd be easier to add my thoughts like this.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

I'm against a cap increase. I think its more interesting to force teams to make drops because of salary increases. I know small increases don't affect much, but I'd prefer a league going forward with more TPB contracts.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

The position eligibility is dictated by ESPN.

I'm not in favour of expanding rosters, I think we talked about reducing active slots and replacing that with DL slots. Too late to change now.

I like the cap as it forces stronger teams to trade away or drop talent making it easier for weaker teams to acquire talent. It's a natural balancing effect which is what a cap is supposed to achieve. Dropping minimum salary was supposed to offer some relief here and did.

I think the TRC needs to be 7. We have enough knowledgable owners so this shouldn't be hard to achieve.

[Halejon/Nationals GM]

I think you have to plan longterm on what to do about cap. Even without all the TV money lately inflation is a fact, and will eventually force the league to give out money in some way (or wind up with hugely undervalued TPB contracts for some stars which has its own problems). But you don't want it to be done in such a way that it's just whenever enough people get in trouble to approve some random increase then that's what the league does, because it's not fair to all the teams that have been planning ahead.

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2014 16:46:03 GMT -5 Halejon/Nationals GM said:

I think you have to plan longterm on what to do about cap. Even without all the TV money lately inflation is a fact, and will eventually force the league to give out money in some way (or wind up with hugely undervalued TPB contracts for some stars which has its own problems). But you don't want it to be done in such a way that it's just whenever enough people get in trouble to approve some random increase then that's what the league does, because it's not fair to all the teams that have been planning ahead.

Keep the overall TPB cap at the same as the MLB imo....right now we're about 10M ahead iirc

[Halejon/Nationals GM]

I get 3710M for this league. Majors were at 3140 (Cots says 3181) in 2013, estimated to go to 3272 in 2014 though that's probably somewhat low. So yeah, something like 15 mil over per team right now and if you tied the yearly increase to the major league increase for this season it would have been 4.4M. Which is probably roughly what was handed out with the 1M->500k change.

www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_25179996/map-major-league-baseball-salaries-2013-payroll-cost

[Deleted]

Mar 10, 2014 18:17:12 GMT -5 Halejon/Nationals GM said:

I get 3710M for this league. Majors were at 3140 (Cots says 3181) in 2013, estimated to go to 3272 in 2014 though that's probably somewhat low. So yeah, something like 15 mil over per team right now and if you tied the yearly increase to the major league increase for this season it would have been 4.4M. Which is probably roughly what was handed out with the 1M->500k change.

www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_25179996/map-major-league-baseball-salaries-2013-payroll-cost

Right so there is absolutely no reason to add to the league salary cap for another 4-5 years at this rate and then 5M/year increases maybe.

[Halejon/Nationals GM]

Mar 10, 2014 18:23:39 GMT -5 @ahhhhhsht said:

Mar 10, 2014 18:17:12 GMT -5 Halejon/Nationals GM said:

I get 3710M for this league. Majors were at 3140 (Cots says 3181) in 2013, estimated to go to 3272 in 2014 though that's probably somewhat low. So yeah, something like 15 mil over per team right now and if you tied the yearly increase to the major league increase for this season it would have been 4.4M. Which is probably roughly what was handed out with the 1M->500k change.

www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_25179996/map-major-league-baseball-salaries-2013-payroll-cost

Right so there is absolutely no reason to add to the league salary cap for another 4-5 years at this rate and then 5M/year increases maybe.

Well, assuming that increase for this year is right (it's almost certainly low) and is consistent going forward, it would be ~3 years until we get even. And considering the rosters are bigger than MLB's and there are a bunch of wacky international contracts on the books, I'm not sure if trying to get totally square would be a good thing. I mean, if you tried to institute a 15M cut across the league right now, it would be utter chaos. I've seen what happens and it sucks -- basically the market crashes; half the league has to cut elite players since the league runs out of trade partners for the big contracts and a bunch of them wind up being picked up for pennies on the dollar without enough competition on the open market, which throws things out of whack going forward. And if you don't have any more cash in the TPB economy than MLB's at all, there will be a bunch of major league players left unowned since not everyone will want to be at 100% of their payroll. 

Anyway, I think being X million over per team compared to MLB is fine, since it provides some wiggle room for bidding on new players, past overvaluations, different strategies, etc. But what X should be is arguable. After that, tying the yearly increase to MLB's is a no-brainer. 

[Deleted]

I agree except that IFA contracts should not be tied to this issue at all. There should either be a new system put in place for IFA's or managers should consider those contracts when bidding on them.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

I agree about the IFA system needing revitalized

[Deleted]

Yes, IFA's should be a main issue of concern for us right now. For me, I feel like we should go with what Rays has been proposing for a while.

[Deleted]

The IFA system is something that really needs to change, and Rays has a great idea. I also think cap increases will be needed soon, but they aren't as urgent as giving 8M to 16 year old Dominicans who scouts get for a sack of potatoes.

[Deleted]

I propose each team gets 43 sacks of potatoes but we set the salary cap at 60 sacks of potatoes and the minimum number of potato sacks at 25.

Hilarious jokes aside, I agree we need to revamp the IFA thing and I say we proceed with the IFA system Rays proposed. My only hesitation is I don't think the worst record in the league should get #1 overall draft pick AND the top dollar slot for IFA players. That makes tanking even more appealing and it is very hard to monitor every team to see if they are benching their stars once in awhile, etc going for that worst record.

I proposed the idea of taking the worst 5 records and the team among those with the most ABs and IP (showing that they were working hard to put a team on the field) would get #1 dollar amount for IFA spending, second most IP and ABs #2 dollar amount etc.

Another idea is keep it based on record but also have some "bonus" amounts that are given to clubs, say X million for having the most improved record from last year, X million for best new owner based on voting or manager or the year whatever, and whatever other prize pools we can come up with.

[Deleted]

I think we should all have the same amount. Isn't that how real mlb does it?

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2014 10:02:18 GMT -5 @mikeyp1515 said:

I think we should all have the same amount. Isn't that how real mlb does it?

No

[Deleted]

Are we going to allow trading of IFA dollars

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2014 10:34:07 GMT -5 @mikeyp1515 said:

Are we going to allow trading of IFA dollars

Yes

[Deleted]

What if IFA dollars are correlated with whoever has the lowest salary cap? I'd have to look but I think it is probably safe to say the teams with the very lowest cap might have the lowest record? Obviously this isn't something I'm pushing to help my team as that would put me dead last.

[Deleted]

Mar 11, 2014 11:04:29 GMT -5 @royals said:

What if IFA dollars are correlated with whoever has the lowest salary cap? I'd have to look but I think it is probably safe to say the teams with the very lowest cap might have the lowest record? Obviously this isn't something I'm pushing to help my team as that would put me dead last.

I liked your AB's and IP's idea better personally but whatever the powers that be decide i can implement into the IFA dollars.

I assume I am taking responsibility for this right?