League Office => Captain's Quarters => Topic started by: dgonser on October 23, 2017, 11:05:59 AM
Title: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 23, 2017, 11:05:59 AM
Full overview of these changes is on www.msbsim.com
Here are the highlights.
Expansion Drafts Each owner will be able to protect 25 players form their existing rosters. These players will remain on their original team. The expansion draft will provide 5 players from each 40-man roster and 5 players from each minor league roster to the expansion teams.
Expansion Drafts - Considerations None of us want to lose a player. The rule-set attempts to impact each tenured team as equally as possible, provide the expansion teams some depth and quality, and not devastate a team. All teams will lose a player they like or were planning to be a part of their future. It is our hope that the changes to arbitration and usage counter the impact of these changes to your team.
Arbitration Inaugural Contract Extensions which give an owner the possibility of adding a single year of control to a single player each year will be replaced by a process that simulates Arbitration. Arbitration will allow an owner to extend EVERY rookie player up to additional two years on a salary structure based on their prior year's performance.
Arbitration - Considerations Introducing this rule with expansion was very important. Let's say you lose your 2B in the expansion draft. You were not planning on signing an additional infielder, so now you have to change your plans. With this rule instead of having to decide which single player was going to receive a contract extension this off-season you are now able to extend all of the players that were previously eligible for an ICE.
Usage The performance penalty in DMB for a player exhausting their real life usage was set at 120%. This is being reduced to 105%. When a player exhausts their usage limit they will be penalized by DMB.
Usage - Considerations This will increase the value of mid-tier players as owners will have to fill their roster with increased depth. The 120% benchmark allowed a player to miss an entire month in real life and still be able to complete a season in simulation. This negated the need for a utility infielder, a 4th outfielder, a 6th pitcher (let's be serious the need for even a 5th pitcher).
The Cutthroats and Scurvy Dogs are two examples that benefited greatly from this rule. Kershaw's month long injury had no impact on Rod using Kershaw all season long. Darrell was able to play Pomeranz and Martinez all season without any regard for their real life shortened seasons.
Summary While arbitration and usage changes are meant to improve the simulation they have been included at this time to dampen the impacts of the expansion drafts. For example, we will be increasing the overall Salary Cap to $1.8 billion or another way to look at it is increasing the money spent in free agency to nearly $1 billion. Arbitration and Usage should offset any inflation concerns we anticipated.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 23, 2017, 01:54:10 PM
Expansion Drafts - Considerations None of us want to lose a player. The rule-set attempts to impact each tenured team as equally as possible, provide the expansion teams some depth and quality, and not devastate a team. All teams will lose a player they like or were planning to be a part of their future. It is our hope that the changes to arbitration and usage counter the impact of these changes to your team.
Which group does the to be promoted minor league players fit into?
Arbitration Inaugural Contract Extensions which give an owner the possibility of adding a single year of control to a single player each year will be replaced by a process that simulates Arbitration. Arbitration will allow an owner to extend EVERY rookie player up to additional two years on a salary structure based on their prior year's performance.
Arbitration - Considerations Introducing this rule with expansion was very important. Let's say you lose your 2B in the expansion draft. You were not planning on signing an additional infielder, so now you have to change your plans. With this rule instead of having to decide which single player was going to receive a contract extension this off-season you are now able to extend all of the players that were previously eligible for an ICE.
This is a welcomed change regardless of the expansion decision.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 23, 2017, 02:35:31 PM
Which group does the to be promoted minor league players fit into?
This is a welcomed change regardless of the expansion decision.
1. They fit into your 15 minor league protections.
2. That's good to hear. We think this proposal will make the league a better place - with how good some young players have been, those $6.5M for 5 years of Mike Trout contracts are just too good a value. Let alone Darrell with his Corey Seager, Bryce Harper, Yasiel Puig combo for less than $4.25M total.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 23, 2017, 02:37:39 PM
Quote
Which group does the to be promoted minor league players fit into?
Great clarification. Promotions will not happen before the expansion draft. So if you have a player on your minor league roster that is eligible for promotion they will be part of the 15 minor league protections.
Let me know if that answers your question.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 23, 2017, 02:41:57 PM
Which group does the to be promoted minor league players fit into?
Great clarification. Promotions will not happen before the expansion draft. So if you have a player on your minor league roster that is eligible for promotion they will be part of the 15 minor league protections.
Let me know if that answers your question.
It does, thank you Darrell and Rod.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 23, 2017, 05:59:55 PM
Regarding Arbitration:
I love it. But a question/thought: Why don't we just call rookie contracts 3-year contracts, and eliminate any confusion about any difference between year 4 and years 5&6. Basically, the way it stands right now, it's only a "$500k/4yr" deal by force (for that 4th year). Why not call it a $500k/3yr" deal and allow GMs to pass on that 4th year if they want to (thus adding more players to the FA pool, which was a semi-argument about allowing for 5 years of team control with the ICE, if I recall)? MLB teams don't have to pay a player a major league salary in his 4th year if he sucks. Heck, they don't have to guarantee ANY money to players inside their first 3 years unless they're on the 25-man a certain number of games. I even kicked around suggesting we don't have multi-year rookie contracts at all - to better simulate real life - but after trying to explain it by typing it all out, I think that's a bad idea. But 3-year contracts seem to make sense, if you all know what I'm getting at.
So here's what I'm saying: Make rookie contracts 3-year/$500k deals (kicks in the immediate season after that player hits the thresholds, as stated in the proposed rule), with arbitration eligibility kicking in for years 4-6 using WAR from the previous year each new season.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 23, 2017, 07:15:38 PM
I get what Kyle is saying and it makes total sense to me. I believe that until after the expansion draft is over that the 4th year of a rookie draft should still be looked at. The 2020 contract players are limited the most and it would be easier to keep those seperate.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 23, 2017, 08:17:49 PM
Regarding the Expansion Draft:
Can you guys elaborate further on what the "rookie expansion draft" is? Does this mean I could lose 5 of my unprotected minor leaguers who are eligible to be promoted this offseason? If so, why is it separate from the first expansion draft? Is it because I get to further protect my players after the first draft?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 23, 2017, 08:38:31 PM
Yes. You could lose an unprotected player that is currently on your minor league roster.
There are two drafts to balance the arbitrary draft order and to allow owners a separate strategy based on the results of the major league expansion.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on October 23, 2017, 09:24:28 PM
Plus the expansion draft will happen during the transaction freeze or in other words prior to you having an opportunity to promote them.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 24, 2017, 04:32:24 AM
The statement about the expansion rookie draft following all other minor league draft rules confuses me.
The player pool is limited to current MSB Minor League rosters.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: tigersfancj on October 24, 2017, 05:53:46 AM
Do expansion teams have a minimum salary to reach by the conclusion of the expansion draft?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 24, 2017, 06:21:04 AM
How will the expansion teams be placed into the 2018 Minor League draft?
As a team having the #1 pick, I would really prefer to keep that pick as mine.
I'm not as frustrated today as I was last evening and I'm sure it will reduce as I'm able to plan and my strategy for the players I'm choosing to protect. The core of my team is 2019 contracted players I signed as free-agents coming into the 2017 season and from what I can see I am only going to be able to keep five of those core players.
I know the answers have been coming fast and furious, so address as allowed. The CO's are doing a good job of implementing all of this in the time frame that has been given to work with to keep the off-season on schedule.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 24, 2017, 09:03:27 AM
Quote
The statement about the expansion rookie draft following all other minor league draft rules confuses me.
The player pool is limited to current MSB Minor League rosters.
This is simply meant to convey that rules regarding the allotted time to make picks, the window for when teams are on the clock, etc. will all follow our normal draft rules.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 24, 2017, 09:06:36 AM
How will the expansion teams be placed into the 2018 Minor League draft? As a team having the #1 pick, I would really prefer to keep that pick as mine.
This is still being decided, thus it wasn't released. We understand wanting to keep the #1 pick and are trying to balance the need to provide expansion teams with an appropriate slot in the draft.
More to come.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 24, 2017, 09:19:31 AM
Quote
I'm not as frustrated today as I was last evening and I'm sure it will reduce as I'm able to plan and my strategy for the players I'm choosing to protect. The core of my team is 2019 contracted players I signed as free-agents coming into the 2017 season and from what I can see I am only going to be able to keep five of those core players.
We truly hope the frustration passes quickly for all owners as the excitement for the 2018 season swells.
I expect all owners started going through their rosters in the last couple of days (I know I did). In our simulations we expected teams to feel some level of pain on about 2 players. A few things that helped me:
Simulate another team's protections. This helped me recognize that we're all losing some players and will all be doing some creative roster management this off-season. So while you might be losing a few players you really expected to be counting on, other teams will be experiencing similar losses.
Simulate what an expansion team might look like.
Do not forget to contemplate the arbitration impact. Both to your roster but also to your salary cap.
Do not forget to contemplate promotions.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 24, 2017, 09:41:43 AM
Can you guys elaborate further on what the "rookie expansion draft" is? Does this mean I could lose 5 of my unprotected minor leaguers who are eligible to be promoted this offseason? If so, why is it separate from the first expansion draft? Is it because I get to further protect my players after the first draft?
Kyle, it is a separate draft for the expansion teams. Following the draft that includes 2018-2020 contracts, we will hold a separate draft for minor league players. Expansion teams can select up 20 players (i.e. 20 rounds) of which a maximum of 5 of them can come from any single existing team. Yes, they can select your MLB-ready players. However, given that you can protect 15 of your players, I would imagine you are going to protect any players who are ready to contribute next year.
Do expansion teams have a minimum salary to reach by the conclusion of the expansion draft?
Craig, we did not require that though I can see why you'd ask. One limitation for expansion teams is that, even if they chose 0 players in the draft, they'd still only be able to spend $50M this offseason, so there is no significant benefit to drafting no one. Moreover, some teams (like Kyle's) are going to have huge amounts of money this offseason as well, so requiring they sign some minimum number of salaries is problematic.
That said, if you have a suggestion, we are all ears.
The core of my team is 2019 contracted players I signed as free-agents coming into the 2017 season and from what I can see I am only going to be able to keep five of those core players.
Brent, you'll be able to keep 6 if you choose. 3 are required 2019 protections and you get 3 wild cards to use how you see fit. You could use all of them on 2019 contracts.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: scubadan on October 24, 2017, 07:55:09 PM
Was any thought ever given to eliminating the 4 year rookie contract? If the goal is to replicate MLB, when we promote a rookie, he'd be paid league minimum (500k). For years 2 and 3, we could tender a contract or non-tender the player. Perhaps we could set year 2 minimum salary at 550k and year 3 at 600k. Then arbitration kicks in as defined for years 4-6. It allows owners to dump rookies that don't pan out at the risk of giving up on them too soon. After all, anyone non-tendered becomes a free agent.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 24, 2017, 09:17:25 PM
Was any thought ever given to eliminating the 4 year rookie contract? If the goal is to replicate MLB, when we promote a rookie, he'd be paid league minimum (500k). For years 2 and 3, we could tender a contract or non-tender the player. Perhaps we could set year 2 minimum salary at 550k and year 3 at 600k. Then arbitration kicks in as defined for years 4-6. It allows owners to dump rookies that don't pan out at the risk of giving up on them too soon. After all, anyone non-tendered becomes a free agent.
Dan, I thought about this, too. Pretty much wrote out exactly what you did. However, I'd propose the CO table this idea for a couple reasons. 1) There are already SO MANY changes coming this offseason, it seems a bit much. 2) Gives us all some time to contemplate the impact of releasing young, one-and-done players into the FA pool. There are pros and cons to this that I think would be a very interesting and rather long discussion.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 25, 2017, 11:24:39 AM
I'm in support of the arbitration idea and the concept.
Looking at one star player, Mike Trout if I'm reading this correctly he would be 15 Million for his 6th year. This feels high to me, sure he's the best player, but where is the reward for that owner to hit on a prospect and capitalize.
I'm sure this is the extreme, but the raise values feel to be about 75% higher than needed. We're still way over the 2M salary and I think that is the point.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on October 25, 2017, 04:47:35 PM
I think if you have Chris the option of paying Trout $15 mill right now vs seeing what happens in FA he will gladly give him $15 mill
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 25, 2017, 09:54:51 PM
I'm in support of the arbitration idea and the concept.
Looking at one star player, Mike Trout if I'm reading this correctly he would be 15 Million for his 6th year. This feels high to me, sure he's the best player, but where is the reward for that owner to hit on a prospect and capitalize.
I'm sure this is the extreme, but the raise values feel to be about 75% higher than needed. We're still way over the 2M salary and I think that is the point.
Wait. The arbitration dollars get piled on, year-to-year? Why? That doesn't happen in real life. The player gets paid based on his performance, and it doesn't carry over from the previous year. Maybe an extra 10% is tacked on if his season is similar to his last, but that's about it. I don't like it if that's the rule.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on October 25, 2017, 10:13:34 PM
How will the expansion teams be placed into the 2018 Minor League draft?
As a team having the #1 pick, I would really prefer to keep that pick as mine.
And I want it for me! Even at the expense of taking it from another Bren(d)t...
Honestly, I agree that this is a big discussion in itself. I completely understand your point about wanting to keep the pick. I wouldn't want to give it up either. But on the other hand, I and the other expansion teams will be coming from relatively nothing in terms of the minor league roster while all existing teams will still have their top 15 prospects that they protected. Darrell asked the expansion GM's about this (and other issues) by email and my opinion was that expansion teams should be placed at the top of the minor league draft next season. My reasoning really revolved around two main points. A) The minor league roster is where the expansion teams should be looking to build their teams for the future, and B) we are already behind the curve in terms of minor leaguers because of the number of protected players the existing teams are allowed.
As it stands right now, the existing teams are going to protect 15 of their minor leaguers. That effectively takes the top 240 minor leaguers off the table before the expansion teams are even able to start drafting. Honestly, what kind of talent is left if the top 200+ is protected and unavailable? I suggested a lower number of protected players, but even then the top 150 or so are going to be off limits for the expansion teams. There just isn't going to be much to pick from no matter what.
Now honestly I'm somewhat okay with that. I don't want existing teams minor league rosters to be decimated. You guys have spent time building those and I respect that. But if the expansion teams are not given any concessions in next years minor league draft, then our building efforts are slowed down even further.
I hope I'm not coming off too harsh. It's not my intention. But I do want to be able to begin to build my team and not be on a four or even five year plan for contention. And with the new arbitration rules (which by the way I LOVE) it honestly could take that long for expansion teams to build. In early years (and in SCRUBS) it was always said that a good GM could rebuild in as little as two years because of contracts expiring on a set three year cycle. But with the arbitration process effectively taking the top end young minor league talent off the market for up to five or six years (depending on final decisions), the free agent pool will be shrunk at the same time that the number of teams competing for those free agents is increasing. It's going to take longer for the expansion teams to build.
Anyway, I probably took that further than it needed to go right now, but I do think this is an issue that has a lot of discussion still in it.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: BrewOR on October 26, 2017, 12:13:19 AM
Big Bro pretty much stated my thoughts on the minor league situation so I won't post a log explanation. I don't know what the answer is, but I think it might warrant some more discussion.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 26, 2017, 02:55:37 AM
Quote
Wait. The arbitration dollars get piled on, year-to-year? Why? That doesn't happen in real life. The player gets paid based on his performance, and it doesn't carry over from the previous year. Maybe an extra 10% is tacked on if his season is similar to his last, but that's about it. I don't like it if that's the rule.
First forgive any errors I'm replying on my phone after two days of no sleep.
When I initially read the rule I didn't like it either. For the same reason you cited (it doesn't happen that way in real life). Then I reviewed what it would have looked like for a crazy number of different players and when I did that the math works. Not only does it works but it greatly improves our game.
These are the types of the solutions we were looking for ... a result that improves simulation but isn't overly time consuming or complex.
Trout is probably the worse player to analyze because of his rarity, but the numbers work for him too.
Had this rule been in place Trout's salary history would have looked like 2012 - 500k 2013 - 500k 2014 - $4.5m 2015 - $9.5m 2016 - $14.5m
Altuve was signed for $15m last year, so I think we would all agree that Trout would still be at a discount. It might still be a decision for the GM though. Maybe with the HTD he could sign him for less. That's a risk, but the GM now has a decision to make. Just like in real life arbitration.
The beauty of this is that the owner still gets four years of insane reward for drafting well, but arbitration is more than just salary increasing year over year. It's an event where the GM has to make a decision that will impact the team.
With Arbitration this is a huge increase in salary over ICE. If that is the concern then remember to adjust expectations based on the new usage rules and the increase in salary cap.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 26, 2017, 05:58:24 AM
I'm in support of the arbitration idea and the concept.
Looking at one star player, Mike Trout if I'm reading this correctly he would be 15 Million for his 6th year. This feels high to me, sure he's the best player, but where is the reward for that owner to hit on a prospect and capitalize.
I'm sure this is the extreme, but the raise values feel to be about 75% higher than needed. We're still way over the 2M salary and I think that is the point.
Wait. The arbitration dollars get piled on, year-to-year? Why? That doesn't happen in real life. The player gets paid based on his performance, and it doesn't carry over from the previous year. Maybe an extra 10% is tacked on if his season is similar to his last, but that's about it. I don't like it if that's the rule.
Kyle,
Take a look at how arbitration is handled (https://www.fangraphs.com/library/business/mlb-salary-arbitration-rules/) and I think you'll realize that this is not a mechanic we can simulate in DMB. We think that what we've proposed is as close as we can get. For example, players do have the right to visit the arbitrator every year from years 4-6. And when they do, their salaries always go up. I don't think you'll be able to find a single player whose value goes down or even stays the same. So I think our proposal does mimic real-life baseball in that sense.
David
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 26, 2017, 08:26:13 AM
OK, I'll roll with it.
One question: Darrell's example looks as if we're starting arbitration in the 3rd year of the contract. But with having to promote the player one year sooner than previously allowed, shouldn't arbitration start with the 4th year?
So, I'm thinking this: 1. $500k 2. $500k 3. $500k 4. arbitration based on the player's WAR from his most recently played season. 5. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last two seasons 6. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last three seasons
Am I close?
I also threw out the idea of just a 3/$500k rookie contract going forward, with the OPTION of agreeing to arbitration for up to 3 years (which is basically what I have above, minus the clear instructions about the option).
Sorry - hope I'm not being difficult. I'm just a little slow on grasping the rule.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: baseball4good on October 26, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
I.m still waiting for my frustration to pass.. ;)
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: bcbarnes on October 27, 2017, 11:24:11 AM
can I suggest we create a time to end discussion I this and the COs make a decision? Seems like we are spinning out questions and options faster than answers.
Generally I like everything that's going on and just want to start the expansion process.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 27, 2017, 11:53:12 AM
Brian, Hopefully this discussion has helped owners understand all of the rule changes. At this time the CO's list of action items includes only sharing the 2018 Minor League draft order.
The league spreadsheet has been updated (2017 contracts have been removed), so teams can start planning. This can be downloaded under the "Files" menu on the main page. Team pages will be updated this weekend.
The next item is to have those protections to the CO by the EOD on November 7th.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 27, 2017, 01:53:37 PM
One question: Darrell's example looks as if we're starting arbitration in the 3rd year of the contract. But with having to promote the player one year sooner than previously allowed, shouldn't arbitration start with the 4th year?
So, I'm thinking this: 1. $500k 2. $500k 3. $500k 4. arbitration based on the player's WAR from his most recently played season. 5. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last two seasons 6. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last three seasons
Am I close?
I also threw out the idea of just a 3/$500k rookie contract going forward, with the OPTION of agreeing to arbitration for up to 3 years (which is basically what I have above, minus the clear instructions about the option).
Sorry - hope I'm not being difficult. I'm just a little slow on grasping the rule.
There are some FAQ comments that I would like to see ironed out. Can we keep the player under contract for the 4th year at $500K and decline arbitration for the 4th season? Following the 4th season, like now the player would become a free-agent.
I too would like a ruling on the year to year question. Instead of the arbitration years adding up. We have increased the minimum salary of promoted players. I'm expecting to have five players promoted this season, that is 1.25M additional that is being soaked up those new players and not available for free-agency or to be used for a mid-season trade.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 27, 2017, 02:32:50 PM
Brian, Hopefully this discussion has helped owners understand all of the rule changes. At this time the CO's list of action items includes only sharing the 2018 Minor League draft order.
The league spreadsheet has been updated (2017 contracts have been removed), so teams can start planning. This can be downloaded under the "Files" menu on the main page. Team pages will be updated this weekend.
The next item is to have those protections to the CO by the EOD on November 7th.
I'm with Brian. Whatever you guys decide to make as the rules is obviously totally cool. I'm just hoping you could address the 3-year vs. 4-year rookie contract question. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you stay with the 4-year contract, I hope you guys might be able to elaborate. :)
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 27, 2017, 05:41:35 PM
Q. Can we keep the player under contract for the 4th year at $500K and decline arbitration for the 4th season? Following the 4th season, like now the player would become a free-agent.
A. Yes, this was by design and again one of the reasons why I loved the Arbitration change so much. In reviewing the players "on the bubble" the balance of deciding between a 4th year at $500k or $1m created a decision to be made by the owner. Does the savings outweigh the ability to enter into arbitration in year 5? In my "simulations" this decision involved a lot of outfielders and bullpen arms that with the changes to usage are going to be EXTREMELY more valuable in our league. I get goosebumps.
Q. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you stay with the 4-year contract, I hope you guys might be able to elaborate. :)
A. Let me know if more elaboration is needed. I thought I responded to the Trout example, but yes you are correct. Arbitration would start in year 4. It looks like I didn't copy 2011 year in the Trout example. Again, I was doing that from memory. If needed I could pull up more examples from the simulations. Kyle's response was a clearer explanation.
Q. I too would like a ruling on the year to year question. Instead of the arbitration years adding up. We have increased the minimum salary of promoted players. I'm expecting to have five players promoted this season, that is 1.25M additional that is being soaked up those new players and not available for free-agency or to be used for a mid-season trade.
A. We DEFINITELY want the arbitration years adding up. By increasing the ability to extend ALL of your rookies through arbitration the contracts have to increase. Remember before that only 1 player per year could receive an ICE. I believe it was Brendt that pointed out the impact this has to free agency. Years 1-3 are ridiculously budget friendly. Year 4 is still an amazing bargain. Year 5 is like getting a coupon. Year 6 forces a decision.
The comments from Dan and Kyle regarding 3 vs 4 year contracts are interesting. Our concerns with these types of additional changes focused on additional complexity versus gameplay, but more importantly the increased documentation, tracking, etc. that would be left on David's plate.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 27, 2017, 06:45:54 PM
A. We DEFINITELY want the arbitration years adding up. By increasing the ability to extend ALL of your rookies through arbitration the contracts have to increase. Remember before this was only 1 player. I believe it was Brednt that pointed out the impact this as to free agency. Years 1-3 are ridiculously budget friendly. Year 4 is still an amazing bargain. Year 5 is like getting a coupon. Year 6 forces a decision.
The comments from Dan and Kyle regarding 3 vs 4 year contracts are interesting. Our concerns with these types of additional changes focused on additional complexity versus gameplay, but more importantly the increased documentation, tracking, etc. that would be left on David's plate. e
I'm satisfied, game on. Play Ball!
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on October 28, 2017, 02:50:28 AM
One question: Darrell's example looks as if we're starting arbitration in the 3rd year of the contract. But with having to promote the player one year sooner than previously allowed, shouldn't arbitration start with the 4th year?
So, I'm thinking this: 1. $500k 2. $500k 3. $500k 4. arbitration based on the player's WAR from his most recently played season. 5. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last two seasons 6. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last three seasons
Am I close?
I also threw out the idea of just a 3/$500k rookie contract going forward, with the OPTION of agreeing to arbitration for up to 3 years (which is basically what I have above, minus the clear instructions about the option).
Sorry - hope I'm not being difficult. I'm just a little slow on grasping the rule.
Just so I am clear, as I understand it, arbitration is based on the most recent real life years WAR each year of eligibility. We don't tally the multiple years of WAR. We just add what the previous years salary is to the new arbitration number. Which is why the raise in the 5th and 6th years is less than the equivalent raise in the 4th year.
Am I interpreting this correctly? My brain is a little tired. Its been a long week and I am struggling to sleep tonight.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on October 28, 2017, 07:31:39 AM
If we evaluated the salary by and individual seasons WAR and added it to the previous years arbitration salary you get this:
Real life year 3 they have a WAR of 3.9 so their 4th year contract is 2.5M.
Real life year 4 they have a WAR of 1.9M so their 5th year contact is their prior salary of 2.5M + arbitration raise of1M = 3.5M
Real life year 5 they have a WAR of 3.9M so their 6th year contract is their prior salary of 3.5M + arbitration raise of 2M = 5.5M.
---
If instead we evaluated the salary by the cumulative WAR each arbitration year you get this:
Real life year 3 they have a WAR of 3.9 so their 4th year contract is 2.5M.
Real life year 4 they have a WAR of 1.9. Add previous 3.9 WAR and currrent years 1.9 WAR + 5.8 WAR and their salary is 3.5M.
Real life year 5 they have a WAR of 3.9M. Add previous 5.8 WAR and current 3.9 WAR = 9.7 WAR and their salary is 5M.
---
So their is a difference and in year 6 of .5M and could be in year 5 depending on how the WARs add up.
I assumed it was the first one, but Kyle's interpration seemed to suggest the 2nd option. Which one is it?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 28, 2017, 08:37:41 AM
Seeing as how it's a subtle difference, sure seems like the career WAR figure would be a LOT easier to go by, year by year.
However, what career WAR will also do is add from their previous seasons in which they didn't accumulate rookie status. My personal example would be Jorge Alfaro. His 123 career ABs thus far allow me to let him stay in the minors for another season. I'll probably choose to do that, seeing as how much cash I have to spend, and won't want to promote him for 2018. But, he already has amassed a 0.5 WAR. That will be added to his 2018 WAR, but I never used him in 2018.
So, looking at Matt's question, it's a GOOD one. Especially when you consider that Alfaro had a 0.9 WAR in 2017 (he had a -0.4 WAR in 2016).
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 28, 2017, 08:43:41 AM
Q. Can we keep the player under contract for the 4th year at $500K and decline arbitration for the 4th season? Following the 4th season, like now the player would become a free-agent.
A. Yes, this was by design and again one of the reasons why I loved the Arbitration change so much. In reviewing the players "on the bubble" the balance of deciding between a 4th year at $500k or $1m created a decision to be made by the owner. Does the savings outweigh the ability to enter into arbitration in year 5? In my "simulations" this decision involved a lot of outfielders and bullpen arms that with the changes to usage are going to be EXTREMELY more valuable in our league. I get goosebumps.
Q. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you stay with the 4-year contract, I hope you guys might be able to elaborate. :)
A. Let me know if more elaboration is needed. I thought I responded to the Trout example, but yes you are correct. Arbitration would start in year 4. It looks like I didn't copy 2011 year in the Trout example. Again, I was doing that from memory. If needed I could pull up more examples from the simulations. Kyle's response was a clearer explanation.
Q. I too would like a ruling on the year to year question. Instead of the arbitration years adding up. We have increased the minimum salary of promoted players. I'm expecting to have five players promoted this season, that is 1.25M additional that is being soaked up those new players and not available for free-agency or to be used for a mid-season trade.
A. We DEFINITELY want the arbitration years adding up. By increasing the ability to extend ALL of your rookies through arbitration the contracts have to increase. Remember before that only 1 player per year could receive an ICE. I believe it was Brendt that pointed out the impact this has to free agency. Years 1-3 are ridiculously budget friendly. Year 4 is still an amazing bargain. Year 5 is like getting a coupon. Year 6 forces a decision.
The comments from Dan and Kyle regarding 3 vs 4 year contracts are interesting. Our concerns with these types of additional changes focused on additional complexity versus gameplay, but more importantly the increased documentation, tracking, etc. that would be left on David's plate.
On all this, thank you. I'm satisfied, save for the career WAR vs. year-by-year WAR totals.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on October 28, 2017, 09:55:28 AM
However, what career WAR will also do is add from their previous seasons in which they didn't accumulate rookie status. My personal example would be Jorge Alfaro. His 123 career ABs thus far allow me to let him stay in the minors for another season. I'll probably choose to do that, seeing as how much cash I have to spend, and won't want to promote him for 2018. But, he already has amassed a 0.5 WAR. That will be added to his 2018 WAR, but I never used him in 2018.
So, looking at Matt's question, it's a GOOD one. Especially when you consider that Alfaro had a 0.9 WAR in 2017 (he had a -0.4 WAR in 2016).
I think the FAQ backs up that WAR is evaluated on a year by year basis and the corresponding salary is added to the last Arbitration salary. I think that is a simple way to go about this rather than adding WAR.
But since Kyle has a different take I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 28, 2017, 10:12:38 AM
Yes, sorry about the confusion. I misread Kyle's post and should get more sleep. The FAQ has a good example and I've included Matt's explanation and Kyle's explanation (with correction).
Quote
If we evaluated the salary by and individual seasons WAR and added it to the previous years arbitration salary you get this:
Real life year 3 they have a WAR of 3.9 so their 4th year contract is 2.5M. Real life year 4 they have a WAR of 1.9M so their 5th year contact is their prior salary of 2.5M + arbitration raise of1M = 3.5M Real life year 5 they have a WAR of 3.9M so their 6th year contract is their prior salary of 3.5M + arbitration raise of 2M = 5.5M.
Quote
1. $500k 2. $500k 3. $500k 4. arbitration based on the player's WAR from his most recently played season. 5. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last two seasons his most recently played season. 6. arbitration based on the player's WAR over the last three seasons his most recently played season.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 28, 2017, 10:13:59 AM
I think the FAQ backs up that WAR is evaluated on a year by year basis and the corresponding salary is added to the last Arbitration salary. I think that is a simple way to go about this rather than adding WAR.
But since Kyle has a different take I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.
I agree. I read the original "arbitration" link again, and I see it. I'm satisfied.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on October 28, 2017, 03:06:15 PM
Are we allowing trading during the Expansion Drafts?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 28, 2017, 03:29:18 PM
Not during, but your more than welcome to trade once the transaction freeze is lifted.
So, yes Matt, once Kyle leaves Strasburg unprotected and I draft him, you can trade me Rafael Devers, Yuli Gurriel, and Alex Bregman for him...
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 29, 2017, 11:48:49 AM
If I had a player that is a 2018 contract and a minor league promotion I would have chose already not to extend. There was only one yearly option, ICE available.
Will this group of players be eligible for arbitration?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 29, 2017, 06:59:14 PM
If I had a player that is a 2018 contract and a minor league promotion I would have chose already not to extend. There was only one yearly option, ICE available.
Will this group of players be eligible for arbitration?
Our intention is to allow arbitration going forward with everyone, including players currently on their 4 year rookies contracts. In the short term, it allows you to get an extra year out of them (since we still had the bonus year in effect for those players), but it is the easiest way to implement and still requires you to accept a higher salary if you want to extend.
EDIT: Darrell pointed out that my reference to "extra year" is misleading. What I meant is that under our new rules, that player should have been promoted a year earlier than they were (since we have eliminated the bonus year before promotion). So it's not an extra year of time on your team, but rather an extra year of MLB experience under their belt before you lose them (provided you keep them for 6 years). Going forward, that won't be the case.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on October 29, 2017, 07:57:30 PM
Our intention is to allow arbitration going forward with everyone, including players currently on their 4 year rookies contracts. In the short term, it allows you to get an extra year out of them (since we still had the bonus year in effect for those players), but it is the easiest way to implement and still requires you to accept a higher salary if you want to extend.
Sorry to have another question. If the 2018 players are eligible for arbitration, would that be viewed as year five? I only ask this because of the different structure levels between year four and years five and six.
FYI, I don't have any 2018 players that would be arbitration eligible, but I do feel I have a good feeling for what is going on.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 29, 2017, 10:04:15 PM
Sorry to have another question. If the 2018 players are eligible for arbitration, would that be viewed as year five? I only ask this because of the different structure levels between year four and years five and six.
FYI, I don't have any 2018 players that would be arbitration eligible, but I do feel I have a good feeling for what is going on.
Brent, there are two types of players with 2018 contracts - those that are on their original 4 year, $250K contract and those that were ICEd two offseasons ago and are on the final year of a 5 year, $250K/$250K/$2M/$2M/$2M contract. Players in the first group can be offered arbitration as if the upcoming year is year four of their contract (which it actually is). I would note that it appears that Leonys Martin on your team is arbitration eligible based upon that.
For the players in the second group, it's unclear what we are going to do. It's a different scenario than that previously presented by Kyle about Dellin Betances who is actually in year 4 of a 5 year contract. And there are only 6 players that are included in this second group - 4 of whom are under contract to teams run by the CO. Given that, allowing those six players to enter arbitration primarily benefits the same group of guys making the decision. So we may not allow it for that reason.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: scubadan on October 30, 2017, 01:24:37 PM
Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows: * Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7) * David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5) * Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)
Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.
Is that correct?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: dgonser on October 30, 2017, 01:38:32 PM
Quote
Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows: * Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7) * David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5) * Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)
Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.
Is that correct?
I didn't look at your roster to verify that these players are in fact at the end of their 3rd year, but if they are then yes you are 100% correct.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on October 30, 2017, 01:40:11 PM
Dan, you've got it. You basically need to ask yourself is whether any of those guys are good enough that you may want to keep them for up to an extra two years and, if so, are they going to fetch significantly more money on the FA market? At a minimum, in the case of Hendricks, the answer is most likely a resounding yes.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Kyle on October 30, 2017, 08:58:58 PM
Sorry if I'm slow but real life examples might help me understand the arbitration rule. Looking at my roster, I have three players with a 2018 contract that were promoted in 2015. These players are Nick Castellanos, David Peralta and Kyle Hendricks. As I understand the rule, I can either keep these guys for one final year at $250k or I can offer them arbitration. If I offer them arbitration, their 2018 salary would be based on 2017 WAR as follows: * Nick Castellanos - $1M (2017 WAR = .7) * David Peralta - $2M (2017 WAR = 2.5) * Kyle Hendricks - $2.5M (2017 WAR = 3.5)
Going further down the road, If I offer any of these guys arbitration for their 2018 contract year, I could also offer them arbitration in 2019 and 2020 (Years 5 and 6) and their salary would be increased by their 2018 and 2019 WAR. Or I could cut them in either of those years by not offering arbitration.
Is that correct?
Not sure I have kicked myself enough for letting Hendricks go so cheaply to you, Dan. Just did it again, as I'm sure I'm deficient.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: scubadan on October 31, 2017, 08:47:10 AM
1/18/2016 The Asterisks send Ian Kennedy (2016/$2.25M) and Kyle Hendricks ($250K/2018) to the Kraken for JP Howell (2016/$2.75M) and Kike Hernandez ($350K/2017).
\I think David keeps that in the excel file somewhere. But all I remember is that I personally considered Hendricks somewhat of a "throw-in" at the time.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on November 08, 2017, 08:42:08 AM
Even though I will be losing some players I would much rather keep, I'm a sucker for a draft! :o I'm excited to see this thing play out.
I'm excited to see the tactics and strategies teams employ as they begin to shape the foundations of their new franchises. .
And I'm curious to see what holes I'll need to plug.
So when's this draft going to take place? Are we thinking over the weekend? To soon?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 08, 2017, 12:01:55 PM
I agree with Matt, even as a spectator.
Something I thought of that I wanted to bring up. As an existing owner, we are able to use the HTD for players who have been on our franchise for three seasons.
I would like to propose to waive this for any expansion team that would have a player with an expiring 2018 or 2019 contract from the expansion draft only. This wouldn't apply to any player that is traded for during the next two seasons.
I didn't know which forum to bring this up to, but I think it fits into the Expansion discussion.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 08, 2017, 03:06:31 PM
Something I thought of that I wanted to bring up. As an existing owner, we are able to use the HTD for players who have been on our franchise for three seasons.
I would like to propose to waive this for any expansion team that would have a player with an expiring 2018 or 2019 contract from the expansion draft only. This wouldn't apply to any player that is traded for during the next two seasons.
I didn't know which forum to bring this up to, but I think it fits into the Expansion discussion.
So you're proposing expansion teams would be allowed the HTD on players we draft with 2018 and 2019 contracts?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 08, 2017, 03:11:10 PM
Also will repost this question from another thread: I would appreciate a clarification on arbitration rules for players selected in the expansion draft. I am assuming the expansion teams will have arbitration rights to any player we select that would be eligible?
Further question would be, is there a quick reference somewhere for us to know whether a player we are thinking of selecting is eligible for arbitration or not?
Example; If I were to draft Ken Giles (2018 contract / $250K) who I am assuming is on the third year of his rookie contract, would I have the option to bringing him to arbitration to extend him past 2018?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on November 08, 2017, 06:20:51 PM
In regards to the HTD question - we hadn't discussed that issue. We will get back to you.
Expansion teams will have arbitration rights for players that are selected. Arbitration is available for all players that on our their original contract and which either expires in 2018 and wasn't extended as an ICE or contracts that expire in 2019 and were extended. So basically:
Unfortunately, the spreadsheet I sent the four expansion teams this evening doesn't have the info on whether players were promoted or just signed in free agency. You'd have to cross-reference that list with the updated 2018 rosters spreadsheet located here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F1WqVE-4fvA3V7JdwyZsDT-5PnWS46HIBfrnd4wd3Ow/edit#gid=1280360356 We haven't posted a link to it on our website, but will soon. The information you need is located in the notes section next to each player. Look for players that say "Promoted" somewhere in the notes and that meet those other two criteria.
But yes, Ken Giles is eligible for arbitration.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on November 08, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
So when's this draft going to take place? Are we thinking over the weekend? To soon?
Probably. The four expansion owners are ready to start, though Darrell and I both started new jobs this week so the CO is a bit behind. We'll get it going by the weekend for sure.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on November 08, 2017, 07:30:35 PM
Congratulations to you both!
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 08, 2017, 07:31:38 PM
Sorry to be a bother, but this confuses me a little. A 2018 contracted player would be up for arbitration next winter, right? And a 2019 player the next winter, and 2020 the winter after that. Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm also confused by the 2019 contracts you mentioned. Did you mean 2019 contracts @$250K?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 09, 2017, 04:43:05 AM
D,
I'm just a guy trying to figure this along with you as well.
Here is the way I see things. Each rookie contract is a four year deal initially. Take my roster for example, Alex Wood was promoted for the 2014 season. He was not awarded an extension and his contract expired in 2017. He's going back to the free agent pool, but is HTD eligible if in the winning team.
Back to your question, Giles and all other players on the 4th year of rookie contract will come under Arbitration. If you choose to keep him at the $250K that is allowed, but like Alex Wood he'll go into the free agent pool for 2019. Once Arbitration is offered for year four, 2018 in this case you would have the same option for 2019 and 2020.
Below are three examples from same team where Arenado and Myers were promoted the same year, Arenado is extended and in year five already following the ICE. I hope this helps and answers your questions as I know this is all new to us. I'm not a member of the CO, but I feel I have a good grasp on this.
Sorry to be a bother, but this confuses me a little. A 2018 contracted player would be up for arbitration next winter, right? And a 2019 player the next winter, and 2020 the winter after that. Am I understanding this correctly?
I'm also confused by the 2019 contracts you mentioned. Did you mean 2019 contracts @$250K?
A 2018 player would be eligible this winter as in right after the expansion draft. You have to choose arbitration or not before they enter their 4th year. Otherwise they remain at $250K for year 4 and you lose them at the end of year 4.
The 2019 contracts I mention are a product of our now defunct ICE rule that allowed teams to extend one rookie per off-season to an extra year. This is a temporary issue that will go away after this off-season as all the players who received an ICE in the past will have either become eligible for arbitration or become free agents. Fortunately it only affects a few players this year and I think all of them were protected by their current team.
This 2019 issue affects:
Xander Bogaerts Matt Shoemaker Nolan Arenado Christian Yelich Michael Wacha Dellin Betances Masahiro Tanaka
All of those players are eligible for arbitration this off-season.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 09, 2017, 11:36:29 AM
A 2018 player would be eligible this winter as in right after the expansion draft. You have to choose arbitration or not before they enter their 4th year. Otherwise they remain at $250K for year 4 and you lose them at the end of year 4.
Okay, I see part of my confusion. Initial contracts are FOUR years, not three, and arbitration starts in that fourth year not after.
Any player promoted is automatically given a four year /$500K contract. *IF* we choose, we can start him on arbitration after his third year, effectively replacing his fourth year, $500K salary with the arbitration salary. That's our 2018 initial contract players this year.
I know you've already said all this . . . I just needed to hear myself process through it to make sure I have it now.
I do . . . right???
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 09, 2017, 11:40:13 AM
I'm just a guy trying to figure this along with you as well.
Here is the way I see things. Each rookie contract is a four year deal initially.
I guess that makes you No-D... ;-)
The four year initial contract is where I was confused. No good reason why I was as even in SCRUBS rookie initial contracts were four years as well. I think I just got futzed up when factoring in the new arbitration rules taking effect after year three. Brain fart...
I got it now . . . . . I think...
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 10, 2017, 06:01:06 AM
I'll take that as fair. We are all in this together. For fun, for the love of the game as I was told initially by @DataDriven05 when I first joined another sim league that went defunct for lack of a better term.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 11, 2017, 11:23:05 AM
I'll take that as fair. We are all in this together. For fun, for the love of the game as I was told initially by @DataDriven05 when I first joined another sim league that went defunct for lack of a better term.
Amen to all that.
The greatest game in the world!
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: bcbarnes on November 11, 2017, 12:48:41 PM
as I was told initially by @DataDriven05 when I first joined another sim league that went defunct for lack of a better term.
I remember that league, that may have been my first league with you Brent. I love this deep/salary cap format.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 11, 2017, 04:45:24 PM
Yes, that is correct. ESB was that league. Just a few owners in common from that league. Up to a count of four leagues in common. Two of them sim baseball, two of them fantasy football.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 12, 2017, 07:46:08 AM
When do minor leaguers have to be promoted so they are not exposed in the Rule 5 draft? Immediately following their real life season in which they surpass the 50 IP / 130 AB limit, or one year removed?
ie: a player like Nick Williams. Surpassed his rookie status in MLB in 2017. Does he have to be promoted this winter, or does David have one more season in which to leave him on the minor league roster?
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: thebuland on November 12, 2017, 07:56:31 AM
Previously it was one year removed, but this year it has changed (along with adding the Arbitration Rule) to the immediate year following the player surpassing his rookieosity.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Brendtmc on November 12, 2017, 08:00:33 AM
Previously it was one year removed, but this year it has changed (along with adding the Arbitration Rule) to the immediate year following the player surpassing his rookieosity.
Thought I remembered seeing that change. It's not reflected in the rule book yet though, so just wanted to confirm.
Thanks Matt
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on November 12, 2017, 08:25:04 AM
Matt is right. I will do my best to update the Rule book tonight. Should get some time alone (provided my daughter doesn’t start vomiting like Linda Blair for the third night in a row.)
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: Rum Runners on November 15, 2017, 01:28:38 PM
Are the expansion teams limited to 50M of spending during the free-agent period?
I cannot recall if this was discussed, completed and I don't really want to look through five pages of comments to find it back. I'm not pointing fingers, but I see a whole lot of 250K players being selected.
Title: Re: Expansion Discussion
Post by: David Johnson on November 15, 2017, 01:33:28 PM