Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Apr 8, 2016 14:12:01 GMT -5
I, for one, am strongly opposed to any change in the number of players in each slot that isn't voted on at least 2 seasons in advance. So if we want to discuss changing the number of players per slot this season, I would be opposed to having that change actually take effect before 2019. I would feel the exact same way if we were talking about changing to starting two catchers, or four outfielders, or three shortstops, or any other combination of players. I would see such a change as a "major" change, at the same level of us changing from BA to OBP, or changing from Ws to QSs or any similar change that would have a drastic impact on the structure and balance of the league.
Relief pitchers are valued in large part based on their reliability. The top guys are the top guys precisely because they are Ron Popeils ("set it and forget it"). Their FA contracts have been bid based on their values relative to replacement, and replacement is defined by "the last guy not active". As it stands currently, the 121st-best RP essentially has zero value other than as a rotating bench guy who picks up occasional replacement innings. The top 120 occupy the 4 active slots on each of 30 teams, and the replacement threshold is #121. Having the threshold where it stands now is what determined the bid value for everyone who went out to bid in this year's Free Agency, including some guys who went out with 4 and 5 year contracts.
If you move to allow teams to "start" 5 or 6 or 7 relief pitchers on a daily basis, you are making the relief pitchers currently ranked between #121-210 more valuable relative to the contracts they currently hold, and you are reducing the value of the players above them. A $6 reliever isn't worth $6 if he can be easily replaced by 2 guys that are $1 each. The $6 reliever currently holds his $6 value because you can't just roll out a whole bunch of $1 relievers and rack up as many SVHD as he gets on his own. The roster parameters prevent you from doing so. That's where his value comes from.
As a secondary effect, if you allow teams to roll with a whole bunch of active relievers on a daily, you are reducing the relative value of starting pitchers as well. Currently no team is likely to get more than 18 wins or so from his bullpen. So those starters who generate more wins have extra value because it's a difficult category to accumulate stats. If you allow daily streaming, and increase the number of bullpen slots, most teams will be able to manufacture 22-25 bullpen wins a season (with teams who snapped up a bunch of 7th-inning guys in free agency and trades getting even more than that). Those extra bullpen wins dilute the value of a guy like David Price or Adam Wainwright or Jeff Samardzija. GMs who paid "extra" because quality SP who play on "winning" teams are worth significantly more than their counterparts on bad teams would suddenly find that they have wasted part of their budget on a relative advantage that no longer exists. Every single team would be rolling out the absolute maximum number of relievers they could every single day, and streaming in starters only on their rotation days. If I paid $20 on a 4-year contract for a premium starter and then saw this rule change take effect next season, I would be pretty upset...
If the league wants to go this direction, and the group consensus is in favor of it, then I will certainly learn to play by the new rules. But you have to seriously consider the secondary and tertiary effects of a rule change like this. And if it is going to be made, it needs to happen with serious lag time, so that GMs can make strategy changes based on when it takes effect. "Next year" is simply not enough time.
As for how strongly I feel about the timetable of implementing something like this? If this change was made and took effect next year, I would withdraw from the league. I don't say that as a threat. Just an observation on my interest in being a part of a league that changes major rules that quickly. And for what it's worth, a 2017 rollout would have almost no effect on my own team. I have a ton of relievers but none are on long-term contracts. And I have no big name starters on long term contracts either. So this isn't about "that would hurt my team so don't do it". My own team would be unaffected. But a 2017 rollout of this change would cause significant harm to several teams, teams that likely wouldn't have even see it coming.
Relief pitchers are valued in large part based on their reliability. The top guys are the top guys precisely because they are Ron Popeils ("set it and forget it"). Their FA contracts have been bid based on their values relative to replacement, and replacement is defined by "the last guy not active". As it stands currently, the 121st-best RP essentially has zero value other than as a rotating bench guy who picks up occasional replacement innings. The top 120 occupy the 4 active slots on each of 30 teams, and the replacement threshold is #121. Having the threshold where it stands now is what determined the bid value for everyone who went out to bid in this year's Free Agency, including some guys who went out with 4 and 5 year contracts.
If you move to allow teams to "start" 5 or 6 or 7 relief pitchers on a daily basis, you are making the relief pitchers currently ranked between #121-210 more valuable relative to the contracts they currently hold, and you are reducing the value of the players above them. A $6 reliever isn't worth $6 if he can be easily replaced by 2 guys that are $1 each. The $6 reliever currently holds his $6 value because you can't just roll out a whole bunch of $1 relievers and rack up as many SVHD as he gets on his own. The roster parameters prevent you from doing so. That's where his value comes from.
As a secondary effect, if you allow teams to roll with a whole bunch of active relievers on a daily, you are reducing the relative value of starting pitchers as well. Currently no team is likely to get more than 18 wins or so from his bullpen. So those starters who generate more wins have extra value because it's a difficult category to accumulate stats. If you allow daily streaming, and increase the number of bullpen slots, most teams will be able to manufacture 22-25 bullpen wins a season (with teams who snapped up a bunch of 7th-inning guys in free agency and trades getting even more than that). Those extra bullpen wins dilute the value of a guy like David Price or Adam Wainwright or Jeff Samardzija. GMs who paid "extra" because quality SP who play on "winning" teams are worth significantly more than their counterparts on bad teams would suddenly find that they have wasted part of their budget on a relative advantage that no longer exists. Every single team would be rolling out the absolute maximum number of relievers they could every single day, and streaming in starters only on their rotation days. If I paid $20 on a 4-year contract for a premium starter and then saw this rule change take effect next season, I would be pretty upset...
If the league wants to go this direction, and the group consensus is in favor of it, then I will certainly learn to play by the new rules. But you have to seriously consider the secondary and tertiary effects of a rule change like this. And if it is going to be made, it needs to happen with serious lag time, so that GMs can make strategy changes based on when it takes effect. "Next year" is simply not enough time.
As for how strongly I feel about the timetable of implementing something like this? If this change was made and took effect next year, I would withdraw from the league. I don't say that as a threat. Just an observation on my interest in being a part of a league that changes major rules that quickly. And for what it's worth, a 2017 rollout would have almost no effect on my own team. I have a ton of relievers but none are on long-term contracts. And I have no big name starters on long term contracts either. So this isn't about "that would hurt my team so don't do it". My own team would be unaffected. But a 2017 rollout of this change would cause significant harm to several teams, teams that likely wouldn't have even see it coming.
