Thoughts on Salary Cap Manipulation

[Astros GM (Adam)]

This one is a challenging topic to post. If enough league mates chime in so that it leads to a vote, it would undercut my own team.

After a year of enjoying the benefits of unprotecting hometown players, I feel like the advantage is too large. A team with a few hometown 4th, 5th, or 6th year players can effectively have a salary cap of $110 or more.

Right now, only a handful of teams are employing this advantage by streaming hometown pitchers who would otherwise exceed the cap. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s the allowed by the rules. I personally built my current team banking on this advantage.

The danger as I see it is that the advantage is so large that more GMs will join in and employ this strategy. If too many teams are all interested in keeping hometown players, it could lead to a suppressing effect on trades, making the league less enjoyable. We aren’t at that point yet. But after playing this way for a year, and seeing the difference it makes, I have to wonder.

Years ago, when I first joined Darth’s league, I asked the Mariners GM (Robert) why everyone doesn’t max out their roster that way. His answer was that it’s too much typing. For now, typing does seem to be the main barrier to streaming well above the $100 cap. It might be worth considering adding another more tangible barrier.

I had one poorly worked out idea in mind, but Stephen shared with me some rules that had been developed in a similar league to address this same concern. However, perhaps before looking at some options, the first question is: “Is the ability to exceed the cap with hometown players an issue that could use improvement?”

Again, please don’t take this as criticism if you are using this strategy. It’s built into the rules. Probably encouraged by the rules. I’m planning on using it in a more extreme way in 2024. But I do think the competitive balance and activity of the league would be improved if we start moving toward a system that doesn’t incentivize hometown streaming.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Hello all,

Thanks to Adam for raising this discussion point.

Firstly, I would like to preface my own comments by stating that there is absolutely no suggestion of wrong-doing by any of our owners. Quite the opposite in fact - I commend and admire anyone with the foresight and patience to identify an opportunity and to implement it effectively enough to realise this edge.

The loophole being utilised by some teams has always been present in our rules, but I think this is really the first time that we have seen it exploited quite so aggressively. It is interesting that several teams are simultaneously taking advantage of it, when it has not really been used before to my memory.


Adam wisely stopped short of looking for a solution, instead asking "Is the ability to exceed the cap with hometown players an issue that could use improvement?".
My answer to this question is "yes".

Personally, I feel that this exploit is not really in keeping with the intent of the protect/unprotect concept that our league is heavily built on. A certain level of flexibility and strategy is invited by the concept, but to my mind it is not meant to extend to the point where in specific circumstances a small number of teams may be able to benefit so significantly.
I would support the exploration of a solution to close this loophole, assuming we could find one which did not detrimentally impact any other aspect of our game or cause unmanageable administration.
With teams currently operating with this as part of their strategy, I would not foresee any changes that would suppress this strategy prior to the 2024/2025 offseason.


I would like to keep this thread focussed first on whether there is widespread feeling that improvement is required and could be explored, but at the bottom of this post I will add a quick note on how I have seen this exact loophole closed in the past.

Thanks,
Stephen




In the now-defunct 15 team league which existed prior to (and initially alongside) this league - from which much of our current rulebook was liberally 'borrowed' - this particular strategy was controlled by limiting the number of times a 4th-6th arb player could be protected in the same season. I guess it could be likened to running out of options on a player in real life - a point was reached where a player was stopped by rule from yo-yoing back and forth. In that solution, once a 4th-6th year arb player was protected for the third time in any given season, it was no longer possible to unprotect them (they could be traded, but upon that third protect their salary/contract was effectively guaranteed for the remainder of the season).
This allowed reasonable flexibility in managing that category of player throughout the season, whilst really only stopping the volume of repeat protects and unprotects which were required to utilise the advantage of cycling hometown 4th-6ths.

[D'backs GM (Mo)]

What if only 1st, 2nd & 3rd players can be unprotected / protected a unlimited amount of times.

For 4th, 5th, 6th they would simply go thru a waiver system if Unprotected.

Simple enough?

[Braves GM (Eric)]

If you look at some of my early protects, I think I was still counting them? I know that Stephen messaged me once and was like, ‘we don’t count protects in this league’.

I’ve only done it twice this year and once last year, but it is nice to stream Minter/Fried whenever I can. I hadn’t noticed others doing it, but it’s allowed and helps you win…but I agree that it could be improved.

Easy fix is a cap on the protects, three per player per season or something, as was mentioned. I’d be behind that…even if it hurts my team a bit!

[Rangers GM (Stephen)]

Aug 16, 2023 8:30:03 GMT -5 D'backs GM (Mo) said:

What if only 1st, 2nd & 3rd players can be unprotected / protected a unlimited amount of times.

For 4th, 5th, 6th they would simply go thru a waiver system if Unprotected.

Simple enough?

Hi Mo,

The introduction (re-introduction?) of a waiver system could be a solution. However, before looking for solutions I think it best to stay focussed on whether there is support for exploring an improvement here. 

How do you respond to Adam's question: "Is the ability to exceed the cap with hometown players an issue that could use improvement?"?

Thanks,
Stephen

[Orioles GM (Andy)]

“Is the ability to exceed the cap with hometown players an issue that could use improvement?”

Standard caveats-what some teams are currently doing is legal and completely legit and in no way shady etc.
However—I think this process needs improvement.

[D'backs GM (Mo)]

I agree with the Mighty Orioles, I also think the process needs improvement.

[bill (Bill, SD)]

Yes, it could use improvements

[Brewers GM (Bill)]

Nothing like waking up, logging in, and being called a cheater. This wasn't an issue my first go round when Kyler was doing it. Not an issue for other OGs like Adam and Eric. I start doing it and "we've got big competitive balance problems!"


I'm going to step away before I lose my mind, but I'll just say the impetus to attempt to make this league like every other league is both dismaying and disappointing.

[Orioles GM (Andy)]

Hey Bill-I think those of us who have commented have tried to make it clear that is not at all what we think, that what’s being done is completely legit and above board. But also that maybe the process could be improved.

[Braves GM (Eric)]

Aug 16, 2023 10:22:01 GMT -5 Brewers GM (Bill) said:

Nothing like waking up, logging in, and being called a cheater. This wasn't an issue my first go round when Kyler was doing it. Not an issue for other OGs like Adam and Eric. I start doing it and "we've got big competitive balance problems!"


I'm going to step away before I lose my mind, but I'll just say the impetus to attempt to make this league like every other league is both dismaying and disappointing.

Nobody is calling anyone a cheater, Bill. Adam acknowledges his own play, as do I, but even I see this as clearly within the limits of the rules but against the spirit of them. I’m operating with a $108 cap because I can, and Adams concern is that ALL owners will seek to replicate this strategy, thereby limiting the free-for-all trading we do around here. Legitimate concern, and one I think deserves discussion.

[White Sox GM (Micheal)]

I applaud those owners who are doing it. More power to you to find a way to improve your teams without breaking the rules. I personally don’t think I will ever employ that way of managing just because I guess I’m not that dedicated. I thoroughly enjoy being an owner and participating. Might be the difference between winning it all and just making the playoffs. I’m ok with that. But I have zero issues with it. If nothing changes and we continue like so you won’t hear me complain.

But if the purpose of the league is for everyone to be on an even playing field then maybe there is probably a huge gap between people who have 1 transaction a month vs those who may reach 1 a day.

I play in some other football and basketball leagues and I know it’s different because of the amount of games played. But one way they control roster manipulation is to just limit the number of weekly transactions. One league is 2 transactions a week. I know we are just seeing where everyone stands but I think it’s a considerable option if there is a concern about the gap.

[Washington Nationals GM (Alex)]

I don’t see this as being that big a deal. It can only occur under the scenario that your affiliated team has a good SP in their 5-6th year, and that you still own that player; even then it is only an advantage you get until their ARB runs out. I would agree that it is slightly against the spirit (though not the letter) of our rules, but isn’t having RP that qualify in SP slots or rookies that still qualify at positions they abandoned years ago against the spirit of having positional limitations? I just don’t think it’s enough of an issue to warrant a rule change.

[Angels GM (James)]

I do find it somewhat problematic that this strategy has been employed by some of the longer tenured teams here for multiple years and that it now becomes a topic for debate/potential problem once other less seasoned GMs take advantage of the same benefit.

I personally view it as a reasonable competitive advantage for the teams capable of managing their cap to enjoy the extra $8 - $10 that can be used.

This is a game of skill and a game of luck. If you are skillful enough to manage your cap to make this work and lucky enough to have players in 4th - 6th years who are tied to your real life team with cap hits worth the change, then I see no problem with GMs taking advantage of that situation.

[Brewers GM (Bill)]

Aug 16, 2023 10:42:45 GMT -5 Braves GM (Eric) said:

Aug 16, 2023 10:22:01 GMT -5 Brewers GM (Bill) said:

Nothing like waking up, logging in, and being called a cheater. This wasn't an issue my first go round when Kyler was doing it. Not an issue for other OGs like Adam and Eric. I start doing it and "we've got big competitive balance problems!"


I'm going to step away before I lose my mind, but I'll just say the impetus to attempt to make this league like every other league is both dismaying and disappointing.

Nobody is calling anyone a cheater, Bill. Adam acknowledges his own play, as do I, but even I see this as clearly within the limits of the rules but against the spirit of them. I’m operating with a $108 cap because I can, and Adams concern is that ALL owners will seek to replicate this strategy, thereby limiting the free-for-all trading we do around here. Legitimate concern, and one I think deserves discussion.

The real manipulation is the 2 teams that have used this stratagem to greatest effect, seeing waning utility for their team and greater league-wide use of said strategy, trying to change the rules to eliminate that strategy being used against them. 

Maybe I'd take this a bit better had TJ not attempted to shut down bidding in FA, but this is another example of long term managers trying to limit competition.