Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 6:25:40 GMT -5
With the addition of Sean to the committee a new "have fun at all costs, damn reality" attitude has taken hold As a result, starting in 2021 the NSBL will use the DH across both leagues. No more pitchers hitting in NSBL.
---------------------------
Effective following the end of the Winter Draft the rules governing free agency eligibility will be amended to eliminate the service requirement and become age based only. In short, once a player becomes 26 years old (all birthdays considered 1/1 for simplicity) he becomes eligible for free agency and loses draft eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejaysgm on Jun 17, 2020 6:52:14 GMT -5
Awesome!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by marlinsgmed on Jun 17, 2020 7:05:56 GMT -5
Too bad I only have Nelson Cruz for this year.
However, my organization thanks you.... especially Yandy Diaz.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Jan 3, 2021 17:41:59 GMT -5
We don't need the world, but does anyone know when we might at least be getting updated rosters to officially begin the 2021 offseason?
Even if we don't have FA, etc. sorted out yet, that would be a nice starting point. Thanks!
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Jan 4, 2021 16:21:23 GMT -5
We don't need the world, but does anyone know when we might at least be getting updated rosters to officially begin the 2021 offseason? Even if we don't have FA, etc. sorted out yet, that would be a nice starting point. Thanks! JIm +1 to this. I'd been pretty burnt out after getting eliminated and haven't really checked any NSBL stuff until now so def understand the committee not having it together yet, but a general timeline would be helpful so I can at least know when to start ramping up my offseason to-do list etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2021 16:22:44 GMT -5
Effective following the end of the Winter Draft the rules governing free agency eligibility will be amended to eliminate the service requirement and become age based only. In short, once a player becomes 26 years old (all birthdays considered 1/1 for simplicity) he becomes eligible for free agency and loses draft eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 3, 2021 11:44:15 GMT -5
Ian,
I know you expressed interest last season in possibly re-adding the LTC+2, or changing some of the calculations with it. Will we see any of that this year, or are we still using last year’s model?
Thanks,
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 3, 2021 11:53:31 GMT -5
LTC changes have not been a topic of conversation for this year, but that doesn't mean the topic has been forgotten.
Once we get thru this offseason, it is my plan to bring up the topic of new offseason/hot stove processes for next year. And continue the discussion for draft expansion for next Winter and possibly Summer 2022. The ever swirling and menacing "40 man roster" solutions will also be hanging around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 3, 2021 12:20:23 GMT -5
Thanks Sean. That sounds awesome.
I've long been a proponent that signing FA for up to 7 year deals is more of a hindrance to the league's liquidity than LTC+2 was. I would love to see the max FA contract length reduced for 4-5 years. That will allow a lot of these guys to hit the market one more time while they are still productive, and have more money tied up in shorter time frames, reducing the amount of teams that are hamstrung by bad contracts that new GMs may not want to inherit.
Glad to hear something might happen in the future. Thanks again!
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Mar 3, 2021 17:06:23 GMT -5
On the topic of future discussion of rules, I've said it before, but again implore the brass to look at maximum number of draft picks that can be held in any given year, as well as minimum number. I believe both are major contributors to the imbalance of the league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2021 20:51:29 GMT -5
On the topic of future discussion of rules, I've said it before, but again implore the brass to look at maximum number of draft picks that can be held in any given year, as well as minimum number. I believe both are major contributors to the imbalance of the league. when there are only 5 picks, what do you propose as a minimum?? I think the imbalance is due to a small number of team who see themselves as contenders and the rest are rebuilding. the incentive to "push in" and go for it, aren't enough to sway. I really, really hate the frequency with which I find myself agreeing with Jason lately. Someone shoot me now! |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 3, 2021 21:14:22 GMT -5
On the topic of future discussion of rules, I've said it before, but again implore the brass to look at maximum number of draft picks that can be held in any given year, as well as minimum number. I believe both are major contributors to the imbalance of the league. Counterpoint, teams that don't like drafting will just pick guys with high perceived value and trade them at first opportunity. I think the first problem to solve is getting EVERYONE in the league onboard with the pushing the Winter and Summer rounds up by 1. This gives us a baseline of 7 picks, 2 with NTCs on them. That might get us closer to the new talent distribution. I would like to attach a rider that says "Summer 1st round picks cannot be traded," but I also understand the draw of elite prospect talent makes 1st round picks great trade pieces. I think adding more picks will stabilize the perceived value of all picks. Or we just all get to draft more. Win/Win. |
|
|
|
Post by marlinsgmed on Mar 4, 2021 7:28:39 GMT -5
I really, really hate the frequency with which I find myself agreeing with Jason lately. Someone shoot me now! as always, we thank you for your support. I would like to see many more rounds of drafting. As you know, my style is different than anyone else's but I do not see teams anywhere near 60 players (I think Hayes has the most pre-FA with 56) and there are a lot of players in the league who are mostly useless. Why not expand the draft and work up to 60 players? There are definitely teams in the league who have no interest in winning and that is their right... though I would never agree. Why not give them more chances to draft and see if that spurs interest? I would imagine you have had this conversation before I came along, but those are my current thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Mar 4, 2021 7:29:25 GMT -5
On the topic of future discussion of rules, I've said it before, but again implore the brass to look at maximum number of draft picks that can be held in any given year, as well as minimum number. I believe both are major contributors to the imbalance of the league. when there are only 5 picks, what do you propose as a minimum?? I think the imbalance is due to a small number of team who see themselves as contenders and the rest are rebuilding. the incentive to "push in" and go for it, aren't enough to sway. I’m not sure what the minimum should be honestly. I do know that over my ten years here as a sample size, the teams that continue to trade them away are the weak franchises, or poorly cash managed teams. When ownerships are vacated and the committee makes the draft selections for teams, they seem to be stabilized quicker when new ownership comes in. That supports the idea that actually retaining picks is a plus for a franchise. Conversely, the teams with excess cash buy up picks, combine them in trades to move up higher in drafts and get more of the real talent in the drafts. It seems to have morphed itself into a pretty obvious cycle that is bad for the league on both ends. It’s odd that you can trade away all your picks for cash, or frivolously include them in bad trades, but once you actually make a draft pick, they are slapped with NTC’s for a year. Again, I’m only looking at this through the lens of a ten year sample size and the desire to see a well balanced league, but the rules allow draft picks to be handled like a drunken sailor until the picks are policed when they are actually used. I honestly don’t know what the answer is, but, to me, team’s number one pick is sacred and predominantly, the first round is where the talent is. I would lock the first round picks as non-tradable fas a start. That keeps talent in every franchise. On the flip side, I would make it that you can’t hold more than two picks in any of the other rounds, so, if we have a five round draft, you have your first round pick and up to a max of 8 others, which is three less than the current max of 12. |
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 4, 2021 7:56:25 GMT -5
While I appreciate this honest discussion, one of the things to consider is consistency in decision making. We all just expressed a desire not to have our management styles tampered with (trade reviews). By adding a NTC to 1st rounders, you are saying that people need to be policed while at the same time saying leave my trades alone. If they can't trusted with their picks, why should we trust them with their players.
The answer is more picks. I disagree with you on why 1st round picks are sacred right now. The only reason picks have such value is that there are too few picks. The better argument you make is to restrict the total number of picks teams can own for the Summer draft. If we expand the drafts by 1 each, I think it would be reasonable to put the draft picks cap at 8. Adding 30 more picks to the Summer draft does dilute the value of picks fairly significantly.
I respect the time and thought everyone has put into this topic. Let's not focus less on regulating what people can do with their picks and more on creating decision points with a pick cap. That's one of the reasons to expand the draft, to create additional decision points. I think it will make our game better.
Also, I'm not saying we should stop at 5 Summer picks and 2 Winter picks... I just think that's the logical next step. More picks could come.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigredmachine on Mar 4, 2021 11:40:57 GMT -5
What we are seeing in NSBL is the same thing that has been discussed in other leagues. Thats to say this league is NOT alone. Those of you in MLBSA may remember that prior to my leaving there, I brought up the wild idea that the league administration (the sheet guys) were paying an awful lot of attention to mlbsa team's prospects rankings.( ie the league roster spreadsheets were highlighting each teams system, with prospect ranking data from a series of sites.) While NOT highlighting other aspects of the team roster. There was no attention paid to the 35 year old guy who outperformed his Zips, or anything like that. The general consensus was that I was insane and I was looking for things to complain about. What I think was not understood about my argument, is what we are seeing across simulation baseball, and fantasy baseball at large. The cache' and reward for winning the league has become second in priority to having a great farm system. You can argue all you want that isn't the case, but... Its quite clear based on the number of teams shortening their perceived contention windows, trading away guys in arbitration. It was introduced in BNSL, the idea that we all have a pretty good idea where our team is going in February. Zips are out for most of our players, we don't need spring training to tell us if Kelenic is ready to be called up. Szymborski has told us if he's "ready." We know, before free agent market even opens, where our teams are. AND what I call Fantasy Limbo (not enough wins to make playoffs, not enough losses to get a top 5-8 draft pick) is death to a team. You can get stuck there forever, and there is NO incremental improve worth sacrificing the top 5-8 selection. ( I use 5-8 as a rough estimate where the top tier of amateur players lands each year of the MLB draft.) You can claim all you want that winning the championship is motivation enough to get 30 guys behind trying to contend. You can legislate, and make rules against tanking... but what do you do when a GM is decidedly not trying to win? We aren't in a growth hobby my friends. Our game isn't as instant gratification enough for most. So replacing that "bad GM" isn't easy and to my mind, having constant churn of GMs is far worse for the league, than anything else. Cap Space rewards for winning, meh. I don't feel thats a significant motivating factor either. What is our great currency??? There has been a bunch of talking on it over the years. Draft Picks are the currency of the realm. a 4 round pick in our market is about to net $10M in cap space... if you play things right, and watch yourself thats 4-5 above average MR (ERA+ of 115 types). Adrian Houser signed for $8M. but the promise, the hope, the chance that a 4th round pick is more. is worth more than those pieces. So what is the fix?? how do we make the desire to push in a little, or win more in 2021 than we did in 2020, get beyond what February tells us about our teams?? I don't know, precisely. As I said other leagues are struggling with this as well. Each one has a different set of rules they are working from and as I've said before in these forums, league economics are as simple as a minor tweak here, or adding 2 draft rounds there. it might be bold, but I think there might be something to rewarding playoff teams with Winter Draft Selections, and refining eligibility of the summer draft to include INT signees based on a set date. Whereas the Winter draft eligibility would be for minor leaguers already "under an MLB team control." Expand the summer draft by at least 2 rounds, and the winter draft by at least 1. If Draft picks be the currency, then reward wining teams with the currency thats desired. I think we have to consider some form of forced player promotion / release. I think we need to consider NOT bringing in more long term contract extensions and encourage players to enter free agency, not for the top tier players, but for the tiers 2,3 types last year there were no SP who earned between $9M and $17M in free agency. where was the 3 year $15M starting pitcher. Bauer got 5 and $17 then Houser @ 3 and $8. there is a ton of money flowing way at the top, and then its bargain shopping for some pretty good players, but those players in the $10m a year for 2-3 years are gone probably as thats where the LTC makes sense for most people. These ideas are typically looked down upon. I realize this, we've argued about them a ton. I think Sean is right, that Decision point, as he calls them, are good for the league. I think activity is good for the league. Communication is paramount. Giving winning teams more draft picks is a horrible idea. Why should the rich get richer? The problem is the salary cap itself. The only way teams can directly influence it is with wins or losses. I do agree we should increase draft picks though. Id be more in favor of a 10 round draft with the first 5 rounds non-tradeable. Then remove the salary cap all together and use the later round picks as luxury tax items. When teams spend more they lose picks. Those who stay under the luxury tax threshold would have more picks. Eliminating the salary cap would eliminate the need to trade picks for money. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 12:35:18 GMT -5
I know this isn't quite on point but is it possible to share the spreadsheet used to calculate the Base Salary Cap on the Excel document we have? I have a general idea how it works, but I feel like seeing the exact calculation would help to better understand the value of a win.
As far as solving the imbalance, I don't like the idea of making assets untradeable.
If we think about playoff teams vs. non-playoff teams, by setup, it's likely that playoff teams have more money and better major league rosters so if you're a non-playoff team you need either need to focus on your minor league roster (tanking short term) or sell your future assets to add immediate major league help. If we reduce the ability to trade future assets, we're just going to push more teams to tanking.
Doesn't it make more sense to modify a cap system that makes the rich richer? If each additional win over a minimum adds $500K (no idea what the numbers are just saying), then let's reduce to $300K so the top teams still have an advantage but less of one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Mar 4, 2021 12:51:22 GMT -5
I know this isn't quite on point but is it possible to share the spreadsheet used to calculate the Base Salary Cap on the Excel document we have? I have a general idea how it works, but I feel like seeing the exact calculation would help to better understand the value of a win. As far as solving the imbalance, I don't like the idea of making assets untradeable. If we think about playoff teams vs. non-playoff teams, by setup, it's likely that playoff teams have more money and better major league rosters so if you're a non-playoff team you need either need to focus on your minor league roster (tanking short term) or sell your future assets to add immediate major league help. If we reduce the ability to trade future assets, we're just going to push more teams to tanking. Doesn't it make more sense to modify a cap system that makes the rich richer? If each additional win over a minimum adds $500K (no idea what the numbers are just saying), then let's reduce to $300K so the top teams still have an advantage but less of one. The short and dirty of the base cap is this: In the course of a season, a total of 2430 are played (30 teams times 162 games, but then halve that so you aren't counting games twice since it takes two teams to play a game). Over the course of 5 years, that makes 12,150 games (sorry if my quick math is wrong). We then have an idea of how many games your team won over the last five years. This might be weighted with recent seasons rating higher. But then we take all the real life team salaries and add them up to get an idea of total salaries and divide by 30 to get an average team salary. Based on how your team performed (above or below the average team) you then get an equal percentage of salary cap room. That's probably wrong in a couple minor areas, but that is the basics. |
|
|
|
Post by bigredmachine on Mar 4, 2021 12:53:30 GMT -5
Winning teams get higher WINTER draft picks, and players available in the WINTER Draft are minor leaguers. draft picks are the ONLY currency. so If I spend more than $150M I lose a 7th round pick?!?! for example? If I stay under $80M do I get MORE picks? cause guess what happens in that scenario?!?! 6 teams spending $200M and 24 Teams fielding no competitive AAAA type teams. I appreciate the boldness of the idea. but Draft picks are the only currency. money means nothing. I don’t have the time to flesh out a whole system of luxury tax penalties right now but for fun let’s just work with everybody getting 10 picks and a tax threshold of 130mm. After that the first tier you’d lose your 10th and then every tier you lose an additional pick. You wouldn’t get more picks for spending less you’d just get to keep the ones you have. You’re right money means nothing which is the very root of the issue. The money has lost any value so why are we fixated on trying to solve a money issue? If draft picks are the currency, directly influencing the amount of that currency you can obtain in a given season seems to be a better solution. We already have an economic system where we end up with 6 contenders and 24 quad a teams anyways so not sure I really understand where you’re going with that point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2021 13:00:53 GMT -5
I know this isn't quite on point but is it possible to share the spreadsheet used to calculate the Base Salary Cap on the Excel document we have? I have a general idea how it works, but I feel like seeing the exact calculation would help to better understand the value of a win. As far as solving the imbalance, I don't like the idea of making assets untradeable. If we think about playoff teams vs. non-playoff teams, by setup, it's likely that playoff teams have more money and better major league rosters so if you're a non-playoff team you need either need to focus on your minor league roster (tanking short term) or sell your future assets to add immediate major league help. If we reduce the ability to trade future assets, we're just going to push more teams to tanking. Doesn't it make more sense to modify a cap system that makes the rich richer? If each additional win over a minimum adds $500K (no idea what the numbers are just saying), then let's reduce to $300K so the top teams still have an advantage but less of one. The short and dirty of the base cap is this: In the course of a season, a total of 2430 are played (30 teams times 162 games, but then halve that so you aren't counting games twice since it takes two teams to play a game). Over the course of 5 years, that makes 12,150 games (sorry if my quick math is wrong). We then have an idea of how many games your team won over the last five years. This might be weighted with recent seasons rating higher. But then we take all the real life team salaries and add them up to get an idea of total salaries and divide by 30 to get an average team salary. Based on how your team performed (above or below the average team) you then get an equal percentage of salary cap room. That's probably wrong in a couple minor areas, but that is the basics. Thanks! I tried calculating it that way before, but it was still off, seems like it was due to the weighting by season. I should note here that I prefer to maintain the current salary cap calculation as I prefer the idea of overcoming the imbalance but if we're looking at ways to fix the imbalance this is the one area where winning teams benefit. Reducing that benefit seems like the easiest way to fix some of the imbalance. |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 4, 2021 14:39:05 GMT -5
The formula is the weighted sum of your last 5 year win totals times the RL MLB cost of 81 wins plus weighted sum of post season success.
So (Y5 wins *.15 + Y4 wins *.15 + Y3 wins * .2 + Y2 wins *.2 + LY wins *.3) * (LY MLB sum payroll / 2430) + (the same weighted sum formula but playoff success by series wins with these values: 20,14,7,2,1)
In theory it sounds nice, like it favors winning and promotes trying to win. In reality if you run the projected numbers out it keeps high payroll high and low payrolls low unless something drastic alters the trending.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 4, 2021 15:40:51 GMT -5
First things first, 5 years seems like a large sample of data to determine a teams "current market" value. I would think 3 years would be a more accurate reflection.
Luxury tax baseline of 125% of the league average payroll? How harsh should the penalties be? There are a lot ways it could go.
Hypothetical - 8 Summer rounds and 2 Winter rounds (draft pools are irrelevant for this)
2021 NSBL Luxury Tax Threshold - $175MM (125% rounded up)
1st penalty - exceeding your soft cap number
2nd penalty - exceeding the luxury threshold
addional penalties at 133% and 150%
Where do the penalties start? Losing an 8th round pick isn't much of a penalty. Do we start at round 5 and work our way up?
Just brainstorming here. Want these quick hits recorded while they are in my brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 4, 2021 16:39:27 GMT -5
The formula is the weighted sum of your last 5 year win totals times the RL MLB cost of 81 wins plus weighted sum of post season success. So (Y5 wins *.15 + Y4 wins *.15 + Y3 wins * .2 + Y2 wins *.2 + LY wins *.3) * (LY MLB sum payroll / 2430) + (the same weighted sum formula but playoff success by series wins with these values: 20,14,7,2,1) In theory it sounds nice, like it favors winning and promotes trying to win. In reality if you run the projected numbers out it keeps high payroll high and low payrolls low unless something drastic alters the trending. This seems like something that could be fixed by making adjustments to the formula. Also, I thought there was supposed to be an element of profit sharing to prevent this from happening in any extreme fashion. I wasn't that interested in the math 18-19 years ago when I wrote the original set of rules. I wasn't involved in developing the formulas or adjusting how debt is handled. So, the fact that none of the math makes sense to me actually makes sense. Does removing the playoff values and only using regular season wins have any significant impact? |
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 4, 2021 16:54:07 GMT -5
For some teams I think it was a nice jump. Overall for the league is think it was maybe a couple million off the average. I just closed the spreadsheet so I don't have exact but overall impact in general was small.
I do question the heavy weighting on in playoff success. Small window sim is such a craps shoot and random. What about higher weighting to make the playoffs and not necessarily succeeding in the playoff since random rather than talent is a bigger success factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Mar 4, 2021 17:08:26 GMT -5
For some teams I think it was a nice jump. Overall for the league is think it was maybe a couple million off the average. I just closed the spreadsheet so I don't have exact but overall impact in general was small. I do question the heavy weighting on in playoff success. Small window sim is such a craps shoot and random. What about higher weighting to make the playoffs and not necessarily succeeding in the playoff since random rather than talent is a bigger success factor. My thoughts exactly. We want to reward regular season success because that is the path to the playoffs. I'm not sure any reward is required beyond that because of how random playoff sims can be. |
|
|
|
Post by nestorm15 on Mar 10, 2021 7:53:44 GMT -5
I am not a big fan of having more draft picks. I think maybe a luxury tax like what MLB has right now is a great idea. A team should be able to go over the cap if they choose. They make the playoffs they get a small extra percentage to offset the cap. That way the tax isn't as big a hurt. They win the world series they maybe get a reward almost covering the cap if they went over. Just some thoughts. I hate salary caps. I think it has ruined the other sports disparity. Baseball has more different teams in the playoffs than any other sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 10, 2021 8:07:54 GMT -5
Baseball is easily the worst of the big 4 sports for parity. We know half the franchises in Baseball have no realistic expectation of winning the world Series outside the "blind squirrel" mathematical probability. Sure one or two will make the playoffs, and sure one may make a nice 'once a century' run and win it all. As far as probabilities and expectations ... the numbers are higher for hitting a bullseye blindfolded than one of this group winning the world series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Mar 10, 2021 8:40:25 GMT -5
Baseball is easily the worst of the big 4 sports for parity. We know half the franchises in Baseball have no realistic expectation of winning the world Series outside the "blind squirrel" mathematical probability. Sure one or two will make the playoffs, and sure one may make a nice 'once a century' run and win it all. As far as probabilities and expectations ... the numbers are higher for hitting a bullseye blindfolded than one of this group winning the world series. I disagree with this. The leaked Deadspin financials from the Pittsburgh Pirates and Miami Marlins from a few years back show that even "small market" teams are ridiculously profitable. Both franchises- usually among the worst in baseball- were comfortably in the black due to the MLB TV deal and Revenue Sharing prior to a single fan walking through the gate on Opening Day. The reality is that there AREN'T "small market" teams anymore, just small, cheap owners, who won't invest that money in their teams. The late George Steinbrenner was right all along. Look at this year's expanded playoff field. Over half of those teams could've been considered "small market." JIm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 10:40:06 GMT -5
I’m working off my memory of the deadspin article since the attached financials aren’t included on the site anymore but my takeaway was different. My takeaway was even small market teams were very profitable BUT large market teams were as profitable after spending much more on payroll. All teams spend up the point of still making their desired profit, which means larger payroll for large market teams.
Complete off-topic side note for anyone interested in the Accounting for MLB purchases. When you purchase a baseball team, player salaries are considered a depreciable asset. So if you buy a team with $100M in payroll, you can deduct the $100M in expenses and another $20M for the asset($100M divided 5 years). Bill Veeck successfully pushed this accounting with the IRS arguing baseball players were similar to cattle. It’s so surprising to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Mar 10, 2021 11:04:41 GMT -5
That's the problem in Baseball. Large market teams have SO much money after profit that they cannot prevent it from going back into payroll. They almost have to spend it on players just to keep the books legal. They are still a business that has to keep some semblance of legal accounting. Smaller market teams do end up with much less available money after profit to spend anywhere close to the level of some teams. Then there are others that have no real business sense to understand you need to spend money to make money or are happy with bare minimum. Having a cap, also bring a floor which offsets some of that sandbagging or anti marketing aspect to some ownership groups that cannot succeed no matter how much money they have.
|
|
