Mutiny Simulation Baseball

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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. 

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).

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.

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.

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.

Are we allowing trading during the Expansion Drafts?

Not during, but your more than welcome to trade once the transaction freeze is lifted.