Expansion Discussion

Topic: Expansion Discussion (Read 15984 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #15 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #16 – October 24, 2017, 09:41:43 AM

Quote from: monsooner – 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?

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.

Quote from: 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?

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.

Quote from: FRANNY77 – on October 24, 2017, 06:21:04 AM

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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #17 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #18 – October 24, 2017, 09:17:25 PM

Quote from: 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.

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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #19 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #20 – 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

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #21 – October 25, 2017, 09:54:51 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – 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.

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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #22 – October 25, 2017, 10:13:34 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – 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.

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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #23 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #24 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #25 – October 26, 2017, 05:58:24 AM

Quote from: monsooner – on October 25, 2017, 09:54:51 PM

Quote from: FRANNY77 – 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.
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

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #26 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #27 – October 26, 2017, 08:34:18 AM

I.m still waiting for my frustration to pass..

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #28 – 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.

Re: Expansion Discussion

Reply #29 – 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.