|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 21, 2024 14:04:03 GMT -5
Preamble: mlbbaseballleague.proboards.com/post/53576/threadPossible area for improvement: Salary cap extension in-season through repeated transactions of non-guaranteed contracts Why this could be considered an area for improvement: A core concept of this league is to allow each owner the flexibility to distribute their salary as they see fit, and to protect or not whatever volume of 1st-6th assets that best suits their needs. Traditionally, this decision has generally concerned how much cap space to invest in prospects and how much to invest in the major league roster. The more you spend on the MLB roster, the fewer prospects you can protect - and the more hometown prospects you leave unprotected the greater the risk you lose them for nothing if they are traded in real life. There are numerous other scenarios where unprotects and future re-protects occur - for instance the unprotect of established MLB players whose production does not currently justify their arb salary, or the temporary unprotect of high-value hometown players to free space for a short-term free agency bid or trade. Our current rules allow teams to effectively exceed the $100 salary cap during the season through a sequence of well-timed protects and unprotects of hometown MLB players. Usually involving 4th-6th pitchers - especially including a starter who will only want to be in the active lineup once every 5 or 6 days - an extreme theoretical circumstance of this could result in a team utilising $115+ of salaried players into their active lineup without exceeding the $100 cap. The capability to realise value through this method is reliant on a viable combination of contracts, gaining ownership of that combination, and the skill and patience to accurately complete the administration required to ensure that the production is in the active lineup and the Proboards roster is valid under our current rules. Possible solution: Restrict the number of times a 4th-6th can be protected in the same season (opening day to end of world series), guaranteeing their arb contract for the remainder of the season upon the occasion of their third protect. Pros of solution: - Teams without any possible combination of players in their real life org to make this strategy possible would not be at a disadvantage when compared to those who do have such a combination. - Teams who do have a possible combination of players in their real life org to make this strategy possible would not feel pressured to invest the significant time and effort necessary to make this strategy work to compete. - This concept could be considered more relatable to real life (the option system) than the repeated protect and unprotect of established big league players. - Less roster transaction 'noise' of repeated protects and unprotects to cycle players on and off a roster, and less opportunity for mistakes to be made or eligible lineups to be reviewed. - This rule was implemented to address the same topic in the (now defunct) 15 team league from which some of our rule book was taken, and it worked. See rule 7.2 here: fantasybaseball.boards.net/thread/2/section-unprotecting-protecting-year-players Cons of solution: - Extra administration required to track how many times each 4th-6th has been protected in any given season. - It could be argued that disallowing this method of non-guaranteed contract management removes an avenue for an owner to gain an edge through specific and skilful roster building and maintenance, and that that sort of ingenuity should be rewarded if it can be pulled off rather than eliminated. Notice period for adoption if solution voted in: Long (2+ years) |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 21, 2024 19:27:44 GMT -5
Is there a broad sense (or feeling) that the protect / unprotect juggling is being abused?
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Adam) on Feb 21, 2024 21:13:42 GMT -5
Is there a broad sense (or feeling) that the protect / unprotect juggling is being abused? Just speaking for myself, I enjoy shuffling my starting pitchers on and off of my paid roster. I’m happy if this process remains, but also see the value in considering a change. One additional “pro” for the solution: - Player movement might tick upwards if there’s less incentive to hold hometown pitchers. (This might be slightly offset by a reduction of overall effective cap space in the league, but I’d imagine the net effect still leads to an increase in trading.) One additional “con” for the solution: - One of the enjoyable aspects of this league is that it blends fantasy and fandom. In many leagues, rostering one’s favorite players is a sure way to lose. However, the hometown advantages here make this league particularly appealing to any GM who was able to align his rooting interest with his fantasy team. Leveling out the player values could remove a little of the unique flavor of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 22, 2024 4:27:44 GMT -5
Is there a broad sense (or feeling) that the protect / unprotect juggling is being abused? I would say that "abused" is not a word that is fair to use in this situation. Within the current rules this sort of management is totally legitimate - perhaps even admirable given the effort required to make it work - and I do not think it would be appropriate to use any words with negative connotations to describe this practice. Perhaps a fairer question might be - does this strategy provide an unfair edge to the small number of teams where it might be possible/viable, and is that edge significant enough that the league wants to legislate to remove the edge? Alternatively, as it is potentially an edge which is not easily achieved (since it requires some planning and not an insignificant effort to execute), perhaps it is an edge which the league things is well-earned if a team is able to pull it off. In a theoretical (extreme) scenario where you were in a playoff matchup against a team who had three 5th/6th hometown SP whose salaries were $7.5, who protected the SP on the day they started but left the other two unprotected when they weren't started, and were running against the cap limit with only one of the three pitchers protected, would you feel that was fair? |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (James) on Feb 22, 2024 11:19:11 GMT -5
Is there a broad sense (or feeling) that the protect / unprotect juggling is being abused? I would say that "abused" is not a word that is fair to use in this situation. Within the current rules this sort of management is totally legitimate - perhaps even admirable given the effort required to make it work - and I do not think it would be appropriate to use any words with negative connotations to describe this practice. Perhaps a fairer question might be - does this strategy provide an unfair edge to the small number of teams where it might be possible/viable, and is that edge significant enough that the league wants to legislate to remove the edge? Alternatively, as it is potentially an edge which is not easily achieved (since it requires some planning and not an insignificant effort to execute), perhaps it is an edge which the league things is well-earned if a team is able to pull it off. In a theoretical (extreme) scenario where you were in a playoff matchup against a team who had three 5th/6th hometown SP whose salaries were $7.5, who protected the SP on the day they started but left the other two unprotected when they weren't started, and were running against the cap limit with only one of the three pitchers protected, would you feel that was fair? I would think that it is fair. They are playing within the constraints of the league and were either lucky or skilled enough to be in a situation where they could take advantage of that portion of the rules. I feel similarly to how I did when this topic originally came up. I view this type of rule change as a solution in search of a problem. There are so few instances where a team can truly take advantage of this “loophole” and I don’t see the point in creating a rule to limit this. To the point Adam made about this spurring more player movement/trades. That could absolutely be the case, but is that truly necessary at this point? This league already obliterates every other league I have ever experienced in terms of trade volume and I don’t necessarily see a reason for additional trading being an improvement on league experience for our members. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 22, 2024 11:41:48 GMT -5
I would say that "abused" is not a word that is fair to use in this situation. Within the current rules this sort of management is totally legitimate - perhaps even admirable given the effort required to make it work - and I do not think it would be appropriate to use any words with negative connotations to describe this practice. I think that's what I mean, I'm with Adam where I feel like it's part of the rules and doesn't seem to be an issue. I only notice Adam doing it with his SP at times, but don't see a problem with it. I'm wondering if other people feel like it's abusive or unfair to use the rules in that manner. I also haven't noticed anyone else doing that. |
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Eric) on Feb 22, 2024 13:16:23 GMT -5
I think that's what I mean, I'm with Adam where I feel like it's part of the rules and doesn't seem to be an issue. I only notice Adam doing it with his SP at times, but don't see a problem with it. I'm wondering if other people feel like it's abusive or unfair to use the rules in that manner. I also haven't noticed anyone else doing that. I know I used it for Fried/Minter last year, specifically during the playoffs. I think, even with a three-protect rule in place, I would’ve been able to use it fairly well for the CS/WS, given that I could choose to use Fried if he was necessary…and given that my SP was healthy at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 22, 2024 13:41:39 GMT -5
I have received a PM from one of our league-mates with an alternative suggestion. I enclose it below, adding a bit of my own commentary (and a couple of cons).
Possible solution (B):
In the event that a hometown 4th-6th is unprotected during the season (opening day to end of world series), the player would then be subjected to a 2-3 day waiver period (timeframe isn't super important) during which another team could claim that player. A claiming team would then take on that player salary and would have to keep them protected since unprotecting would work like normal and send them back to the original team. Waivers could be administered through a waiver wire board with claim priority based on either current or previous season standings.
Pros of solution:
- Teams without any possible combination of players in their real life org to make this strategy possible would not be at a disadvantage when compared to those who do have such a combination.
- Teams who do have a possible combination of players in their real life org to make this strategy possible would not feel pressured to invest the significant time and effort necessary to make this strategy work to compete.
- Mirrors real life baseball operations with the cap structure as a stand in for the 40 man roster cap. To me [the idea proposer], this reflects when an MLB team designates a player for assignment to remove them from their 40-man roster.
- Not a significant amount of additional admin required to keep track of how many "options" a player has had [from the original proposal]. Once the parameters of the system are defined, its basically self administering.
- Still allows for ability to run the pitcher streaming strategy but introduces some risk/reward aspect to it. This is more favorable to me than introducing a hard cap on unprotect transactions.
Cons of solution:
- Addition of a new league concept (waivers), and rules to govern practicalities such as waiver orders.
- Effective total removal rather than restriction (when compared to the original proposed solution) of the ability to unprotect valuable/high-salary hometown 4th-6th players - an ability which has existed since the inception of the league.
- It could be argued that disallowing this method of non-guaranteed contract management removes an avenue for an owner to gain an edge through specific and skilful roster building and maintenance, and that that sort of ingenuity should be rewarded if it can be pulled off rather than eliminated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Bill) on Feb 22, 2024 15:22:44 GMT -5
The assignment of and ability to protect/unprotect drafted/hometown players, including 4th-6ths, is a feature of this league, not a bug. I endorse Angels GM (James) comment completely. One additional item I'll add that is not being mentioned is that there is a real chance of losing a player for nothing in-season. Just using the Brewers here as an example for obvious reasons, had I been trying something similar after taking over in 2022, there's a chance that I'd have lost a $6.1 5th Josh Hader when he was traded unexpectedly in the middle of a pennant race. It definitely informed my not doing this last season until around the deadline when it became clear-ish both Woodruff and Burnes would survive the deadline. It's an interesting additional big market/small market trickle-down into this league, much like automatic assignment of pro-IFA or competitive balance picks. I keep seeing the idea of "disadvantages" and "fairness" being brought about and I think it's way misplaced. The team with the biggest disadvantage in this league is the Rockies and they just had the best record in the NL due to excellent management. I'm in this league to manage against people like Rockies GM (Mike) . I'm in this league to manage against excellent managers who are up to working around injuries and poor drafting and development and constraints of real-life clubs. I'm in this league to manage against creative managers who take chances and are willing to push advantages, whether that was created by skill or just some good old fashioned luck. Legislating out this little piece of "unfairness" makes the league less competitive and less interesting, in my opinion. Feature, not bug. |
|
|
|
Post by Rays GM (Mike) on Feb 22, 2024 16:06:05 GMT -5
I have been in this league sense we started. I don't think this rule was intended to be used this way. It is a loophole that allows teams to rotate to starters like Corbin Burnes and
Famber Valdez to be placed un unprotected limbo when they clearly should not be. This is a HUGE disadvantage in the playoffs when playing these teams.
Other 30 teams leagues I play in you can't make any transactions during playoff series. This league it feels like you playing two teams at once.
I can't see how this is good for any league. I like the idea of of 4-6 year control players having options. Very simple to use when you unprotect them just say "using one option"
Also not letting teams unprotect and protect players during a playoff series.
Another issue is unprotecting those players who generally have big contracts during free agency to add more cap. For me that would be Adams and Lowe. I could unprotect them add free
agents trade them or other players and bring those players up to fit under the 100 Mil Cap. We don't have A firm 100 Mil cap in this league we have a floating 100 Mil cap.
Good owners will always take advantage of every rule there is nothing wrong with that but is it good for the league as a whole. It is up to the commissioners to decide.
A decision will need to make or voted on before the season. This is a very well run league. I will adjust either way. I'm sure other owners will too.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 22, 2024 16:30:56 GMT -5
A decision will need to make or voted on before the season. This is a very well run league. I will adjust either way. I'm sure other owners will too. The intention of this thread (and the other rules discussion threads) is to try and identify the pros and cons of suggested changes, and where something workable exists try and come up with the best possibility. This would then be put to vote in the next voting period (after the 2024 world series). We have quite tough standards for changing existing rules, so any changes would require overwhelming support of the league membership. For a rule like this which potentially affects player values and strategy, even if it were voted in at the end of 2024 it would not be changed in the rulebook until the 2027 season. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Nick) on Feb 29, 2024 11:20:57 GMT -5
I second Mike’s thought about not allowing this in playoffs, with perhaps an injury exception. Sort of like how IRL you don’t have as much flexibility in postseason.
Given the nature of updating Proboards AND Fantrax for these moves, this is a strategy I’d personally lean away from for fear of an unprotected player getting traded or just not wanting to constantly manage the logistics. If Adam wants to have a ten page transaction log, that’s his choice lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Adam) on Mar 1, 2024 1:37:11 GMT -5
Thinking about what both Mike and Nick have said - changing the playoff rules might be all it takes to accomplish the objective.
Rather than adding new regulations with 4th - 6th year options, if there were a roster freeze for each playoff matchup, it would seem unlikely that anyone would stream pitchers in the regular season either. At the very least, I’d imagine that it wouldn’t last deep into the season for fear of entering the playoffs with a watered down roster.
Interesting idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Mar 1, 2024 2:10:44 GMT -5
Is the suggestion a roster freeze for only teams remaining active in the playoffs, or for all playoff teams for the duration of the playoffs?
A consequence of even a playoff roster freeze that lasts whilst a team remains in the playoffs would be that your World Series teams would go into the offseason roster freeze period with the same roster that they entered the playoffs with.
A roster freeze for all playoff teams would see ten teams encounter that fate.
I don't know how people would feel about that, but I guess it could be argued that the jeopardy that brings puts a deservedly higher price on success and lean roster management - that perhaps is/was one of the intentions of the concept in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Adam) on Mar 1, 2024 2:48:42 GMT -5
I was imagining the idea could be to mirror MLB teams. Before each playoff series, they have to declare which players they will carry on their 26 man roster.
One possibility would be that active playoff teams wouldn’t be allowed to make any changes during a matchup to the team “on the field”. Any roster transactions would only take effect at the end of the current matchup. (Thus still allowing for changes before facing a new opponent or starting the offseason.)
However, upon further reflection, I spoke before thinking… as usual. 🙂 There still might be reasons for someone (such as myself, or anyone else) manipulating the cap during the regular season despite being aware of the restrictions during the playoffs. (So my previous post may confidently be ignored.)
|
|
