|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 6, 2011 21:40:10 GMT -5
Reply to this thread with thoughts about any topic in here, or start a new one...
Topics currently discussed in the thread:
1. Doing Away with Tiered Salary Cap and making one Flat One
2. Making IF / OF positions more specific, rather than IF make it into CI & MI positions, eventually hoping to make it 1b/2b/ss/3b...
3. Looking @ the need for Franchise Tags
[/size]
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 6, 2011 21:43:01 GMT -5
I am going to do away with the Salary Cap Tiers and make it a straight Salary Cap - it will be towards the higher number so as to not put the big spenders at a huge disadvantage to start next season.
I just don't think that in a dynasty league, anybody wants to be a perennial loser because they can't spend money on FAs as much as the big market teams. So you have high turnover. To have owners want to come back, it's got to be fair for everyone over the long haul. That being said, maybe we'll make it so if you win the World Series or go to the playoffs, you get to spend slightly more (sort of like real life then).
But at least we'd all be starting from the same spot and any discrepancies would be driven by our performance here and not how much the real life market is.
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 6, 2011 22:29:16 GMT -5
I am going to do away with the Salary Cap Tiers and make it a straight Salary Cap - it will be towards the higher number so as to not put the big spenders at a huge disadvantage to start next season. I just don't think that in a dynasty league, anybody wants to be a perennial loser because they can't spend money on FAs as much as the big market teams. So you have high turnover. To have owners want to come back, it's got to be fair for everyone over the long haul. That being said, maybe we'll make it so if you win the World Series or go to the playoffs, you get to spend slightly more (sort of like real life then). But at least we'd all be starting from the same spot and any discrepancies would be driven by our performance here and not how much the real life market is. The caps should be tiered but each tier should have a different amount of franchise tags. The lower tiers should have more tags so that they can keep their home grown players while the big market teams have less of no tags so they have to fight in free agency. |
|
|
|
Post by Victor on Jun 7, 2011 9:53:18 GMT -5
I would not get rid of the salary tiers because that was apart of original concept. But what Logan said is correct. The amount of tags the teams get needs to be changed. The top tier should only get 1 restricted tag. Tier 2 should get 1 franchise and 1 restricted. Tier 3 should get 2 franchise and 1 restricted. This helps balance out the tiered caps. I also think the tags should be tradeable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 10:00:03 GMT -5
To be honest, I do not like the Franchise Tag concept at all. But that is just my opinion.
I think some of you guys are too set on keeping this league exactly the same. There are ways we can improve this because in my opinion, the rules were set up in a way to benefit certain owners at the expense of other owners. You have to remember that I am fairly certain that the Commish/Co-Commish were cheating and had set it up for themselves to do so. I look at all the rules in that way so I know there are ways to make them better.
Baseball is the only major sport without a flat salary cap, and at the end of the day it makes it so the playing field is not fair. I do not want to run a league where I know the rules are not fair for everyone.
Either way I appreciate these discussions and hope they will go on throughout the year. By the offseason's winter meetings, most owners will have their opinions and we can vote on things. That is the hope at least.
Thanks guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jun 7, 2011 10:13:00 GMT -5
As a GM of a team with 160 mil and 2 franchise tags I agree with a change. However please remember that if you lower the cap I will be at a disadvantage because I bid on players and traded for players based on that salary. So my proposal is that you give everybody the top salary(160 mil) and the same tags (2). Otherwise your helping the lower salary teams but hurting the higher salary teams. As far as the tags go I myself didn't trade for many FA for 2012 that I would want to tag but others have. So taking them away or lowering the tag amounts for team hurts what they have built. So in conclusion I think you have to add thing to the lower salaried teams not take away from the higher salaried teams. Just My Opinion!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 10:15:53 GMT -5
Thanks and agreed 100% Darren
If you read the first 2 sentences carefully, you'll see that I mentioned the "flat cap" will be towards the higher teams' number so as to not put you high spenders at a disadvantage by forcing you to cut payroll
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jun 7, 2011 10:22:20 GMT -5
Yeah I read that. Just wanted to throw my opinion out there agreeing with you on that. Plus wanted to put my opinion out there about the tags. Thanks Brain doing a good job!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 10:26:46 GMT -5
good call on people planning their teams for next year based on the tags - we'll have to keep the tags identical for at least one more season, and if we're going to change it for the season after next, that'd be the way to proceed.
or maybe we transition it down
next year: 2 tags
year after: 1 tag
year after: 0 tags
|
|
|
|
Post by darren on Jun 7, 2011 10:34:59 GMT -5
I know I read it somewhere but I also agree with moving our league site to a place where we can break down the infield spots. Such as a CI and MI or whatever. As it is it sucks in my opinion. I know i read it somewhere that it had already been proposed but wanted to throw it out there in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 10:46:18 GMT -5
Thanks another good call - knew I was forgetting something major. Definitely needs to be tweaked. Instead of CI/MI (that might be how we do it next year as the transition), I'd eventually want to see a true 1B/2B/SS/3B setup (potentially for OF as well).. makes it much more realistic. We might have to transition in by starting with next year as the change to make the IF into CI/MI positions and then in 2 years make it the actual positions so that no one is at a supreme disadvantage next year since we didn't plan it in advance
I'll be keeping track of all the
|
|
|
|
Post by dolphinzrule2009 on Jun 7, 2011 14:12:12 GMT -5
well I am willing to work with things here and I will be one to voice my opinion if I see things unfair.... and be willing to help work out solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by prestonb1291 on Jun 7, 2011 14:22:52 GMT -5
For many of the reasons mentioned above, I am in favor of starting from scratch though I don't think that's an option. Changing the cap, tags, or positions penalizes those who made moves based on the leagues settings. I feel that some of these proposed changes are too drastic for that reason. In my opinion, you either gradually make things even, such as closing the gap between the tiers year to year, and same with positions and tags. Anyone agree?
|
|
|
|
Post by dolphinzrule2009 on Jun 7, 2011 14:27:54 GMT -5
I am willing to work with whatever direction seems best for everyone...but I think that what brought some people in here was the salary cap style...I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 14:33:33 GMT -5
I am officially scrapping the 'starting from scratch' option as I don't think many people would be in favor of it
** that being said, if you ARE in favor of it, we can discuss that matter privately and if it is enough people, then maybe we discuss it **
I do agree Preston in that we don't want to too drastically change things for next year so as to affect how people would have done things. Perhaps some of the changes would still be too big with that in mind. I think that regardless, we want to transition slowly so that it might be a 2 year transition to the changes we eventually see
Appreciating all the feedback so far - the more the merrier, keep it coming
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 14:35:04 GMT -5
Why don't people like the franchise tags? There is no way to sign extensions so you should be able to keep the players you really want. The tiers should have a different amount of tags to make it fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 7, 2011 14:41:05 GMT -5
I think it's mainly because I haven't seen tags in action yet
I'm not stone set on wanting to remove them or anything, and all potential changes will go to a vote except the salary cap issue (all teams eventually moving to ONE cap). That one I am firmly set on, although I'm open to making it a 1-2 year transition to that point if enough people feel strongly.
Let's keep in mind that this is a good opportunity for us - let's not be set on keeping the rules IDENTICAL as much as we should be concerned with making the rules the most FAIR going forward. Most of Mike's ideas in the setup are great as they are and don't need to be fixed. But other ideas can be tweaked in the way of fairness I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Jun 7, 2011 16:39:39 GMT -5
I am in favor of keeping the salary cap structure the same, but changing the amount of Franchise Tags each tier has. Changing the cap tiers would be too drastic of a change for teams who have built around that cap number from the start.
What I do believe, and agree with some of the previous posters, is that the number of Franchise Tags should not be one league wide number of 2 Tags.
The teams in the highest tier should get the fewest number of tags, while the team in the lowest tier should get the most number of tags.
My proposal would be as follows:
Tier 1: 1 Franchise Tag
Tier 2: 2 Franchise Tags
Tier 3: 3 Franchise Tags
This would be fairly simple, and it is a pretty easy way of giving the smaller market teams an advantage at signing their own free agents.
|
|
|
|
Post by metsgl on Jun 7, 2011 17:58:28 GMT -5
I am in favor of keeping the salary cap structure the same, but changing the amount of Franchise Tags each tier has. Changing the cap tiers would be too drastic of a change for teams who have built around that cap number from the start. What I do believe, and agree with some of the previous posters, is that the number of Franchise Tags should not be one league wide number of 2 Tags. The teams in the highest tier should get the fewest number of tags, while the team in the lowest tier should get the most number of tags. My proposal would be as follows: Tier 1: 1 Franchise Tag Tier 2: 2 Franchise Tags Tier 3: 3 Franchise Tags This would be fairly simple, and it is a pretty easy way of giving the smaller market teams an advantage at signing their own free agents. Read my plan. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian R (Rangers) on Jun 18, 2011 13:13:12 GMT -5
Since it seems like more people want to keep the rules the same as opposed to changing them, NO changes* will go into place next season from the currently stated rules.
Any changes that are discussed this offseason would be geared towards small potential changes for the years that follow next year if at all.
*the only exception is the IF spot (currently DH); we will put that one up for vote during the all-star break through the end of the season.*
|
|
|
|
Post by shully23 on Aug 18, 2011 19:11:15 GMT -5
I think the rule where you can't trade a player you just signed for 1 month should be reduced to 2 weeks
|
|
|
|
Post by Harris (Braves) on Aug 18, 2011 19:12:37 GMT -5
I think the rule where you can't trade a player you just signed for 1 month should be reduced to 2 weeks Agree! |
|
|
|
Post by ahwood23 on Aug 18, 2011 21:40:36 GMT -5
I think the rule where you can't trade a player you just signed for 1 month should be reduced to 2 weeks I would agree with this as well. Btw, not that it matters, as I'm late to the party, but I also would vote to work towards a closer cap number similar for all teams. Just seems more fair. But if we need to take 2-3 years to do it, that's fine as well... |
|
