|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2017 5:35:44 GMT -5
How should free agent contract minimums be determined?
Currently, 5.3.1 reads:
“5.3.1 Free Agency Contract Lengths
Free agents will receive guaranteed contracts (meaning that they cannot be unprotected) ranging from 2 years to 5 years in length, with a possible club option to add another year to the end of the contract.
If a Free Agent finished in the top 5 in the ESPN rankings (per position) then he will receive a minimum 5 year deal.
If a Free Agent finished in the top 10 in the ESPN rankings (per position) then he will receive a minimum 4 year deal.
If a Free Agent finished in the top 15 in the ESPN rankings (per position) then he will receive a minimum 3 year deal.
DH-only eligible players will be allocated minimum contracts in line with performance of the 1B position.
All other players will receive a minimum 2 year deal.”
Options:
1. Continue to base minimum contracts on player rater rankings according to position. (Currently in practice.)
2. Allow the commissioners to use their discretion and judgement on a case by case basis.
3. Revise 5.3.1 to be less dependent on positions.
“If a Free Agent finished in the top 50 in the overall ESPN rankings then he will receive a minimum 5 year deal.
If a Free Agent finished in the top 100 in the overall ESPN rankings then he will receive a minimum 4 year deal.
If a Free Agent finished in the top 150 in the overall ESPN rankings then he will receive a minimum 3 year deal.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Oct 23, 2017 6:15:02 GMT -5
This might complicate matters, but I think option 2 can exist in conjunction with either 1 or 3.
Perhaps it would be better to remove option 2 from this poll, and have a separate one where the league vote on whether they would like to see more commissioner judgement in special cases?
|
|
|
|
Post by Reds GM (Kyler) on Oct 23, 2017 8:26:26 GMT -5
I'd personally rather keep the objective nature of our current system. I'm not sure what the benefit would be to having you use your discretion. What's the impetus for this discussion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Oct 23, 2017 9:16:35 GMT -5
I'd personally rather keep the objective nature of our current system. I'm not sure what the benefit would be to having you use your discretion. What's the impetus for this discussion? I believe that option 3 would value overall contribution rather than a postion-by-position ranking. Option 2 allows discretion that can account for anomolies - star players having an injury-affected season, or aging players having a career year. To me, Kurt Suzuki having the same minimum contract as Bryce Harper this FA simply isn't right... same as Giancarlo Stanton not having a 4 or 5 year minimum last offseason wasn't right... |
|
|
|
Post by Reds GM (Kyler) on Oct 23, 2017 10:02:04 GMT -5
Well since this league aims to mimic real life, and the current policy does that in my opinion. Guys have career/contract years all the time and get paid more both in salary and years all the time than they would if they played at their talent level. Kurt Suzuki in real life is going to make more money next year than he did this year. Same is true for really good players who have down years due to injury or performance, and have to go sign prove it deals for either shorter length or less money than they would if they played to their talent level.
The market also corrects the "problems you cite", Giancarlo still signed a massive contract to Travis. Kurt Suzuki is going to be paid very little and Bryce Harper will have a $20+ contract still even after his injury season because he's great. I don't think arbitrarily deciding what a guy's contract length should be is a good policy, particularly when the owners in this league will pay guys what they think their worth and can sign them for more than their minimum anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2017 12:55:13 GMT -5
This might complicate matters, but I think option 2 can exist in conjunction with either 1 or 3. Perhaps it would be better to remove option 2 from this poll, and have a separate one where the league vote on whether they would like to see more commissioner judgement in special cases? Very true, option 2 can exist in conjunction with either of the other options. If it would be better to rewrite the poll, I’ll be glad to do so. As a late minute addition, this was in my mind the lightest of all poll questions, since our current system works perfectly fine. I viewed option 3 as a possible improvement since it does weed out positional outliers like Flowers, Grandal, and Suzuki. Instead it would put Bryce Harper into the 5 year minimum class, and scoop up some of the more valuable pitchers like Keuchel and Rich Hill. By just dumping it in as a three way question, we each get to at least put forward quick ideas for possible improvement in an area of little concern. However, if it’s worth the effort to show a little more nuance, I’ll be glad to rewrite the poll as two separate questions. Just let me know and I’ll get onto it as soon as possible. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (Travis) on Oct 23, 2017 13:04:19 GMT -5
The issue with three options is what is the criteria for passing? Most votes wins?
I do think you could just put a clause in stating commissioners reserve the right to make exceptions for special cases no matter which of the other two options we use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 23, 2017 13:38:53 GMT -5
Correct. Most votes wins.
5.3.2 is such a clause. Full disclosure: I’ve been opposed to using it. If league sentiment views a more tailored approach as a better solution, I’ll try to be willing to yield.
My thinking in presenting it this way was that if my unvetted suggestion (option 3) can get onto the ballot solely based on commissioner’s discretion, then it’s only fair to grant the same opportunity to the other proposed solution. (option 2)
If we pose this as two separate questions, the wording could perhaps be as simple as: Should we employ 5.3.2 on a more liberal basis than at present?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Oct 24, 2017 17:15:13 GMT -5
Personally I am opposed to any change. I don't see any problem with how our system is currently working. And the more we tinker with rules from season to season, the less confidence GMs have in applying a long-term strategy (given that any long-term strategy they use might be useless if the rules they are relying on get changed). I also think that simple majority is a terrible threshold for rule changes. It should take a significant majority (at least 2/3 and likely 3/4) for changes to our rules. When we have discovered that rules had unintended consequences, we tend to be unanimous in wanting a change. So the "bad" rules would still get fixed even with a higher threshold. But when you only require a simple majority for rule changes, you open a distinct possibility of factions/cliques in the league trying to steer rule changes to their own benefit. The rules we currently have are working very, very well. This isn't a one-year league. It's a two-decade league. And the rules we had in November 2015 likely would have served us fine for ten years. We have made a few changes since then, and most have been improvements. But this isn't some dying league that desperately needs new rules to woo new GMs. In other news: Get Off My Lawn!  |
|
|
|
Post by gepetto69 (Stuart, LAD) on Oct 24, 2017 17:30:46 GMT -5
What classifies as "a simple majority?" For example it's possible that a group of owners decide not to vote for whatever personal reason they have. So if they don't vote, and lets say the final tally is 7 to 6 then what's the simple majority? Only 7 owners want a change or not. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Oct 24, 2017 17:56:07 GMT -5
What classifies as "a simple majority?" For example it's possible that a group of owners decide not to vote for whatever personal reason they have. So if they don't vote, and lets say the final tally is 7 to 6 then what's the simple majority? Only 7 owners want a change or not. Just a thought. Agreed. The way we are currently structured, when you offer 3 options and say "most votes wins", we can easily have rule changes that less than a third of the league wanted. Out of 30 members, maybe only 22 actually vote. And you get a vote that goes 9-7-6. I don't think 9 votes should ever be enough to change our rules. Especially when many of us joined here in part because of just how good the rules were... |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 24, 2017 20:00:43 GMT -5
Due to the multiple concerns here, I’ll move to void this poll once I get Stephen’s approval as well.
The three way vote was an attempted compromise to present two possible solutions to a single problem. However, the format overshadowed the question at hand.
This is also not an issue where many GMs are likely to be making long term decisions based on the outcome of this simple vote. If option 3 had succeeeded, then high performing pitchers would be a little more likely to have minimums attaches to them. But for someone to make a long term decision based on expectations that a pitcher would fail to reach top 15, while still finishing within the top 150 seems like it would require infinitely more faith in projections than I’ve ever imagined.
Having said that, I do agree that the three way vote was not ideal. It only pushes down the number of votes from the winning minority. Because of these concerns, and Stephen’s suggestion that option 2 could be split off, I’ll agree that this should be voided.
Stephen and I have talked a lot about this in the past. I don’t like option 2 as a solution, and wouldn’t be very content with seeing it as a separate vote. Therefore it most likely makes sense that my proposal needs to go back on the shelf as well. As TJ said, the rules work. There’s no harm in addressing this at a later time - if there’s enough league support and conversation.
Lastly, although the three way vote wasn’t ideal, in the case of a two way vote, I see no issue with allowing a simple majority to win. This is true even if it’s a minority of the total. After all, we can’t force anyone to vote. Nor can we read into the non-votes any intended message. We can only work with what we have, and don’t want to get to a point where problems can’t be corrected.
Of all this, the pertinent part is that I’ll approve voiding the results of this poll once I get Stephen’s agreement as well. Thanks for the interesting points to consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Oct 25, 2017 2:13:40 GMT -5
Agree.
Although perhaps this highlights that we should put into the constitution something which formalises the structure and limits for future votes?
|
|
