|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 11, 2019 13:45:22 GMT -5
This issue boils down to the same one that caused us to expand rosters 3 or 4 years ago. At that point is was that GM's had rosters full of kids with 5 to 6 year development tracks and didn't have any more room. Rather than adapt their draft model to fit the league they pushed to change the league to fit their model. Now, there isn't enough talent available at reasonable cost (which is a bullshit argument) so rather than use the draft to help fill out their rosters these GMs want to use other team's depth instead. In both cases it is a matter of teams wanting the league to adapt to their tendencies rather than adapting their tendencies to the league. So in other words teams did not try to win but instead collected baseball cards? Then when that did not work the rules were changed to accommodate the collectors? So in other words having roster restrictions did actually work. Teams reached their limits and had to make tough decisions. I say definitely stop roster expansion and add another round to either draft immediately. Imagine if real life teams started whining and complaining about the 40 man limit being too restrictive and wanted it expanded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 14:06:57 GMT -5
That is a spot on analogy.
I love to draft, but I think the end result could be obtained without adding additional rounds. Just halt the expansion.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 11, 2019 14:22:24 GMT -5
So locking rosters creates the equivalent of a 40 man for our purposes, at least in terms of decision making. We just need to keep the rules fixed this time.
I still say adding another round provides not only more fun but helps provide more value for players on the back half of our rosters. I think it would free up that 2nd or 3rd a little more for some and the 5th/ 2nd might be a good value for a trade deadline deal. Right now a 4th is too steep for most rentals or 5th SP's or mid relievers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 14:39:07 GMT -5
This issue boils down to the same one that caused us to expand rosters 3 or 4 years ago. At that point is was that GM's had rosters full of kids with 5 to 6 year development tracks and didn't have any more room. Rather than adapt their draft model to fit the league they pushed to change the league to fit their model. Now, there isn't enough talent available at reasonable cost (which is a bullshit argument) so rather than use the draft to help fill out their rosters these GMs want to use other team's depth instead. In both cases it is a matter of teams wanting the league to adapt to their tendencies rather than adapting their tendencies to the league. this here is literally telling people how to build their team. not a bullshit argument when Brandon Belt gets the contract he got 2 years ago. it was 5 years $22 mil per. fresh off a 2.3 FG WAR / 119 WRC+ season in SF. I tried to play in FA that year... I thought 3 years around 12 looked right based on market and availability at the position. shit, Zack Godley that hurts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 15:00:18 GMT -5
This issue boils down to the same one that caused us to expand rosters 3 or 4 years ago. At that point is was that GM's had rosters full of kids with 5 to 6 year development tracks and didn't have any more room. Rather than adapt their draft model to fit the league they pushed to change the league to fit their model. Now, there isn't enough talent available at reasonable cost (which is a bullshit argument) so rather than use the draft to help fill out their rosters these GMs want to use other team's depth instead. In both cases it is a matter of teams wanting the league to adapt to their tendencies rather than adapting their tendencies to the league. this here is literally telling people how to build their team. not a bullshit argument when Brandon Belt gets the contract he got 2 years ago. it was 5 years $22 mil per. fresh off a 2.3 FG WAR / 119 WRC+ season in SF. I tried to play in FA that year... I thought 3 years around 12 looked right based on market and availability at the position. shit, Zack Godley that hurts. And what exactly am I telling people to do? What pathway did I describe as the one and only way to build a team? I only suggested working within the existing parameters. T Brandon Belt is on a contract to pay him $19MM thru 2022 in MLBSA. Maybe the contract was more people betting he was the 4 win player he had been for each of the 2 years prior? Probably doesn't fit your narrative. Neither does the fact that Zack Godley got his contract following a 3.5 win season. I would be willing to bet he saw similar contracts in nearly every sim league in existence, 40 man rosters, Rule 5 draft etc. $20MM per year through 2020 in MLBSA for those playing at home.
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Nov 11, 2019 20:54:24 GMT -5
I don’t think anyone in this league would appreciate more player movement than I would. I absolutely live for that shit. I think many of the old school GMs would agree that I’m one of the more active GMs in the league when it comes to trading. I trade established star players and solid veteran performers while also trading high end prospects and not so high end prospects. I traded Mookie Betts last off-season with years of controllability and I'll probably do the same with Francisco Lindor this offseason (send your offers in ).what I’m getting at is I have constant roster turnover while trying to balance my desire to win with my desire to have a solid reserve roster with sexy names I can use to reload if needed. I put a lot of time into drafting players but I know full well they’ll likely never see my active roster. Some either don’t garner enough attention or I develope a prospect-crush on them and that’s usually the only way they get to my active roster. So loving player movement like I do, I agree with Hayes that simply halting roster expansion will garner the desired affect. Expanding rosters has proven to facilitate draft and hoard type GMs and thus limiting overall player movement. Halting roster expansion will make teams either trade prospects or draft picks. They will no longer be able to do both without feeling like they got screwed by a rule change. They will simply have to change their approach to fit under the current guidelines. I am also strongly opposed to locking first round picks under a no-trade blanket. Trading first round picks has been a wonderful bridge for GMs looking to add big talent now with ones that know the future is their best bet. Again, I’m strongly against this idea. I am also generally opposed to adding a round to any draft but understand that it is a big draw for new GMs and an extremely fun portion of our league for current GMs. So I will not be opposed to adding a round to summer or winter drafts but not both. One thing I don’t like about our league structure, not many folks bring it up so it may just be me, but I think running both the winter and summer drafts by order of finish is an issue. At first thought you believe that’s the way it should be but it really does give the bottom portion of the standings a severe advantage. Those teams get to double dip into both the recent RL summer draft’s top prospects but also the top international players each and every year. Of which there are only a handful and they are generally super-high end type players. So maybe this is a problem with our international rules and not draft order? I don’t know but I do know this advantage is massive and rarely discussed. I feel this loophole has fueled the recent “tank” trend which is well within the rules but also a growing issue in my book. My handling of Gregory Polanco is a popular example used by those against prospect hoarders. So I’d like to address that now too. You see, sadly, I’m a Pittsburgh Pirates fan in real life. I was as bullish on Polanco becoming a star player as I have been on any Pirate prospect in ages. So as his pro career began, I’d anxiously await his ZiPS. Well needless to say, they just weren’t very strong. They were usable, sure, but I wasn’t looking for “usable” from my absolute favorite young player. Combine that with usually having better projections from other corner outfield players (I’m old school, I need a certain amount of SLG there) and I’d say to myself “I’m going to wait on Polanco because THIS is the year he breaks out!”. Well that didn’t happen. In 2018, Polanco finally had a solid year with 128 OPS+ and I decided to sell my once coveted prospect that offseason. Why trade him then you might ask? well I watch a lot Pirate baseball and decided that Polanco’s .340 OBP wasn’t sustainable And he was expected to miss the first month of the 2019 season. I then traded him at xxx status this past offseason for Monte Harrison (he was coming off a horrible season at .715 OPS with 215 Ks) and a first round pick. This may have been too detailed of an explanation but I wanted to point out that there was no desire to hoard prospects/players but more a simple prospect-crush gone awry. If you made it through this post, thank you. I’m not the best at typing out my thoughts but I was told to get Jim’s balls out of my mouth and jump into the fray. So excuse my choppy delivery and improper English but I’m getting involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2019 20:58:38 GMT -5
ok, sorry. not specifically telling me what to do... Jim's formula was his opinion on the best way to construct a team in this league. That read like, in combination with Hayes' comments, like the elder statesman telling a simulation newb how to operate.
I was incorrect. I apologize to all involved. If there is capacity for increasing either draft by a single round. I do think that is a good idea. If there is majority that wish to reduce roster sizes, I would favor that as well (in order to force decisions)
I do think the pressure of having to make decision on guys is part of the entertainment. just as having different salary caps for different teams offers a challenge for some.
I do think that drafting high upside players that have the potential to be all-stars in the way to win in these leagues, while supplementing with a few free agents. in the mean time while your windows on contention is closed, I do favor rostering AAAA types / 26 year olds with a projection that would typically sent to the wire because of roster constraints. I tend to move on from guys quickly. Carter Stewart for instance. has signed a contract in Japan that means its at least 7 years before he could return to the US, I cut bait.
as to folks opinions of me. well, I enjoy forum activity and expressing opinions. I'm sorry I left this league 1.5 years ago to try something else. I thought the other league was going to be more time consuming.
So, then... my conversation with Joe should be filed away as speculation, not a commissioners will. Shit, is he going to change the baseballs?
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGuru on Nov 12, 2019 0:24:20 GMT -5
I knew it was only a matter of time before roster expansion was exposed as a problem. This is why I was against it for so many years. Combined with the "carry over" loophole, this is what led to a broken incentive structure. It forced teams to adapt to the system instead of rewarding calculated risks. You can't take risks when the resources are constantly funneled to winning-est teams.
I took too long to adapt. I tried to make a move this year and it was just plain WRONG and I'm going to keep paying for it for another 2 years at least. You have to play by the rules that were made. I'm not talking about the written rules; I'm referring to the unwritten rules that state if you don't use the singular path of hoarding.
This is basic economics. When you remove tension from the market, then the market breaks. Regulation is the way out, but it comes at the cost of some people being unhappy while they adapt. You can make the argument that the best GMs have been successful for extended periods of time. There are teams in this league that have not had to lose (unless willfully tanking into a reload by abusing the carry over loophole) for YEARS. The model is supposed to be that eventually your players become too expensive to sustain them, so they go into the open market. You lose while you replace those players. You win with a rebuilt roster. The cycle should repeat. This has not happened for a long time in this league.
The only way to correct this is to fix loopholes and replace the lost tension in the market. The only way to apply pressure to the roster without punishing teams that have attempted to adapt is to expand the draft. The ONLY way to truly prevent a repeat of the current cycle we're in is to protect the distribution of "1st round talent" and thereby modifying the value of the draft pick resources. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion. The real question is do we want to have a shot at balance and parity that is only broken by skill as a GM, or do we want to fine tune the system we have which rewards excess resources. I'm good either way, but we need to define it so that everyone is of the same understanding and can plan accordingly.
Some Notes -
Brian - "I am also strongly opposed to locking first round picks under a no-trade blanket. Trading first round picks has been a wonderful bridge for GMs looking to add big talent now with ones that know the future is their best bet. Again, I’m strongly against this idea." ~ You're wrong. If 1st round picks were locked, then the market for other picks would adjust. Also, the value of players with 1st round pedigree would increase. Those players drafted in the 1st and 2nd rounds would become the resource used to acquire star power and production instead of the picks themselves.
Jim - "GMs just need to quit being so damn greedy by insisting on drafting raw, toolsy BA Top-200 guys with every damn pick." ~ Though I love the sentiment, I believe this is incorrect given the current structure of the league. You are rewarded for putting as much high pedigree talent on your roster as possible. As Brian stated, those high picks are a resource. The players selected with those high picks are a resource. When you're rebuilding in this league currently, if you have low cap numbers then you have create your excess in talent. The only way to do that is to draft CHALK and grab sought-after players and then HOPE nothing goes wrong. If you can't generate wins because of your cap number, you have to use the only other available resource.
Hayes - "Actually, you are the one arguing that there is only 1 way to build a team and are asking to change the rules of the league to fit your model. There are a number of successful GMs in NSBL using several different methods to achieve success." ~ I fail to find any examples of this. All of he successful teams have won with the same model year after year. Look no further than the discussion regarding the carry over loophole when multiple winning GMs were like "oops! I was doing that too!"
Jason - "Shit, is he going to change the baseballs?" ~ We can only hope that if he does there is a stipend for each team to install a humidor.
~
Sincerely, I love this league. I love debating about what works and doesn't work. I just think we all need to look at some proven models here and be honest. Not let opinion get in the way. The league should not punish teams playing catch up by changing the rules entirely. We should complete our roster growth to 60 total players and STOP. We should also at least add 1 round of draft to offset that growth. The other things I'm talking about I believe to be true by the numbers and is proven out by the path our league has taken, but it's not like I'm gonna be mad cause my talking points weren't addressed.
I want there to be multiple ways to build a team, so let's get on the same page and take steps toward that goal.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 12, 2019 4:46:27 GMT -5
When I look at the guys raising the most Cain in this thread, it’s either GMs who have taken over teams ravaged by previous management, or ones who fluctuated back and forth between contending and rebuilding the last few years, and now have bits and pieces from each filling their rosters. In both cases, multi-year rebuilds are ahead.
There’s no real rule that can change that, or make the last few years go away. The league is unique, and you don’t get yearly do-overs like most fantasy sports. Be patient, make 2-3 years of good drafts and smart trades, trust the process, and you’ll be contending sooner than you think.
It seems most GMs are in agreement on the following:
1. Rosters should not be expanded any more, and keeping them limited is an easier solution than adding complicated 40-man rosters and a Rule V Draft.
2. The draft should be expanded in some way, either in Winter or Summer. Coupled with no increases to roster sizes, this will also increase player movement.
Would be good now to re-direct our focus to try to win Joe over on these, so we might get a rule change that almost everyone enjoys.
JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 7:58:46 GMT -5
Hayes - "Actually, you are the one arguing that there is only 1 way to build a team and are asking to change the rules of the league to fit your model. There are a number of successful GMs in NSBL using several different methods to achieve success." ~ I fail to find any examples of this. All of he successful teams have won with the same model year after year. Look no further than the discussion regarding the carry over loophole when multiple winning GMs were like "oops! I was doing that too!" That "multiple" winning GM's employed the strategy doesn't mean that its the only strategy being employed. Of the last 4 WS winners, none of them have employed that strategy. Of the GM's who have been successful in this league there is a good mix of those who draft only on ceiling versus those who mitigate risk and cost by drafting for both ceiling and also need. Some of those who draft ceiling use free agency to supplement and some use those same prospects to trade for need. I think probably the only thing that absolutely ties together successful teams in this league is the resistance to trading away all of their draft picks, although, David came in a won a World Series by doing just that and Mike Zimmerman the season before that.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 12, 2019 8:54:03 GMT -5
The only problem I had with the Polanco stashing was the fact that it was not an isolated incident. Not only was Polanco stashed, but Benintendi as well. He then proceeded to go out and sign two of the top FA outfielders in the FA market, giving 6 starting outfielders that year. He then proceeded to flip two of the four OF's (Polanco and one FA) that following off season. That was nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the market and artificially drive up the cost of talent through demand caused by hoarding and stashing all because he had the resources to do so.
Granted all of this is perfectly legal, there are no rules against stashing, hoarding or FA signing. Just like there is no rule against "tanking", something said GM went out of his way to point out as a legal activity that may not be in the best interest of our league.
|
|
|
Post by Texas GM on Nov 12, 2019 10:06:42 GMT -5
I don't often jump into the mix with the roster and draft discussion, but I will add my two cents as someone who's been around a while. In my opinion, there is no one single "winning" formula. Some work for one or two years and some work to sustain perennial contenders. I happen to believe that draft expansion and/or roster expansion primarily aids the best GM's in this league. I say "this league", because if there was 30 knowledgeable, competitive and, most importantly, active GM's, the playing field would be level and my points wouldn't be valid. Very good GM's have more money, and like a very good car dealership, have many very good high end cars. Bad GM's have less money, a few nice cars and mostly used cars with flaws. IMO, increasing the roster size and draft size simply increases the size of the car lots, allowing for the best to have more of the best and the worst to have more of the junk. To me, the past roster expansions have only helped the rich get richer, wait longer for their real young and speculative picks to mature in value and for them to be able to trade more used cars to the poor GM's for 1 good car, because the poor GM has more roster room to take them.
My hope for all the years that I've been here is for there to be 30 active, baseball educated and vested GM's first and foremost. Once you have that, it wouldn't matter if the roster size was 50, 75 or 100, or the draft was 4.5 or 10 rounds. Until then, I'm afraid all we're doing is increasing the size of the showrooms of those that put in the work. I've had some decent year to year success here, but it would be feel more fulfilling if it came against 30 GM's and not 10-15 that are giving max effort. I'm not saying that effort alone is the key, but effort does get you into the top half. That all said, I really have enjoyed the current influx of inspired GM's that have brought new strategies and ideas to the table. I just don't think that roster and draft expansion is going to help 10-12 bad organizations close any gap. Let's continue to get the GM participation gap closed first, then work on refining rules that make it more MLB realistic and enjoyable for a league full of active GM's.
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Nov 12, 2019 10:25:42 GMT -5
The only problem I had with the Polanco stashing was the fact that it was not an isolated incident. Not only was Polanco stashed, but Benintendi as well. He then proceeded to go out and sign two of the top FA outfielders in the FA market, giving 6 starting outfielders that year. He then proceeded to flip two of the four OF's (Polanco and one FA) that following off season. That was nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the market and artificially drive up the cost of talent through demand caused by hoarding and stashing all because he had the resources to do so. Granted all of this is perfectly legal, there are no rules against stashing, hoarding or FA signing. Just like there is no rule against "tanking", something said GM went out of his way to point out as a legal activity that may not be in the best interest of our league. “Two of the top FA outfielders “ ? Are you referring to Michael Brantley and Brett Gardner? Brantley was coming off an injury plagued season with an .801 OPS from a corner outfielder and Gardner was coming off a .778 OPS season. Neither of which were in high demand. In fact I didn’t even have a bidding war for either player. And as you can see, both of those contracts were extremely reasonable and could have issued by just about any team in the league. Brantley was three years at 14m and Gardner was three years at 10m..roughly. Neither is a case of a GM throwing around his weight because he can. While I have a good sized payroll (one which I’ve earned through winning games) I am not the GM throwing around big money contracts in free agency. So if you want to continue grinding an axe with me, please state the facts and ease up on the hyperbole in order to best suit your agenda.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 12, 2019 12:39:08 GMT -5
The only problem I had with the Polanco stashing was the fact that it was not an isolated incident. Not only was Polanco stashed, but Benintendi as well. He then proceeded to go out and sign two of the top FA outfielders in the FA market, giving 6 starting outfielders that year. He then proceeded to flip two of the four OF's (Polanco and one FA) that following off season. That was nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the market and artificially drive up the cost of talent through demand caused by hoarding and stashing all because he had the resources to do so. Granted all of this is perfectly legal, there are no rules against stashing, hoarding or FA signing. Just like there is no rule against "tanking", something said GM went out of his way to point out as a legal activity that may not be in the best interest of our league. “Two of the top FA outfielders “ ? Are you referring to Michael Brantley and Brett Gardner? Brantley was coming off an injury plagued season with an .801 OPS from a corner outfielder and Gardner was coming off a .778 OPS season. Neither of which were in high demand. In fact I didn’t even have a bidding war for either player. And as you can see, both of those contracts were extremely reasonable and could have issued by just about any team in the league. Brantley was three years at 14m and Gardner was three years at 10m..roughly. Neither is a case of a GM throwing around his weight because he can. While I have a good sized payroll (one which I’ve earned through winning games) I am not the GM throwing around big money contracts in free agency. So if you want to continue grinding an axe with me, please state the facts and ease up on the hyperbole in order to best suit your agenda. Actually I went after Brantley but you outbid me. I had no capabilities to continue with someone having about as much in free payroll as I had in total payroll. It was a simple case of the have vs the have not's, the rich are able to stay rich and the poor are forced to stay poor. The problem right now is the top tier of GMs have the talent AND the payroll to maintain a strong position of power and overdrive the cost of talent. The replacement GM's not only have to overcome a lack of talent but a secondary lack of payroll power and flexibility that further suppresses the ability to build that payroll depth to compete at the same level as the have's on a annual basis. We have to compete against other GM's AND the system, you just need to compete against other GM's. When GMs can manipulate the cost of talent because of their position of power you perpetuate the cycle of have and have not. I don't like tanking but I can respect the objective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 12:45:02 GMT -5
legit question I have.
how long do you expect it to take a typical GM to get their team to contention window?
I recognize there are a lot of variables at play, and I don't necessarily mean winning the league, but making the playoffs at least. how long?
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 12, 2019 13:00:40 GMT -5
Actually I went after Brantley but you outbid me. I had no capabilities to continue with someone having about as much in free payroll as I had in total payroll. It was a simple case of the have vs the have not's, the rich are able to stay rich and the poor are forced to stay poor. This is incorrect. When we began the league, I had one of the lowest payrolls in NSBL, because we were based off of real-life numbers, and real-life Pirates' ownership is abysmal. A few years ago, the payrolls were readjusted league-wide to reflect actual success each NSBL team had over a multi-year period, with a more direct correlation between wins and payroll. This was done to address your biggest concern, and to narrow the gap between your "haves" and "have nots." Because of that, the Pirates wound up with one of the highest payrolls, because we were able to bridge that gap and still have success despite our originally low payroll. So the system is in place, but the key is patience, and success over a multi-year period to drive your cap number up. JIm
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 12, 2019 13:03:05 GMT -5
legit question I have. how long do you expect it to take a typical GM to get their team to contention window? I recognize there are a lot of variables at play, and I don't necessarily mean winning the league, but making the playoffs at least. how long? JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 14:16:42 GMT -5
legit question I have. how long do you expect it to take a typical GM to get their team to contention window? I recognize there are a lot of variables at play, and I don't necessarily mean winning the league, but making the playoffs at least. how long? It depends on the GM. You should talk to Colby about how he turned the Reds into a consistent contender. That team was probably second only to the Phillies in how bad it was. I remember looking at that roster when it was ownerless and counting 3 guys who hadn't been in the organized baseball for at least 3 years at that point and that was with a reserve roster of 9. The Braves were also in pretty bad shape when Pat took over. Ed took over a Marlins team that was mostly devoid of usable pieces. All 3 of those guys have made it to the playoffs since. I would argue the Twins had more in place than any of those teams when you got there. In fact, that team was a playoff team as recently as 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 12, 2019 14:51:18 GMT -5
When I look at the guys raising the most Cain in this thread, it’s either GMs who have taken over teams ravaged by previous management, or ones who fluctuated back and forth between contending and rebuilding the last few years, and now have bits and pieces from each filling their rosters. In both cases, multi-year rebuilds are ahead. There’s no real rule that can change that, or make the last few years go away. The league is unique, and you don’t get yearly do-overs like most fantasy sports. Be patient, make 2-3 years of good drafts and smart trades, trust the process, and you’ll be contending sooner than you think. It seems most GMs are in agreement on the following: 1. Rosters should not be expanded any more, and keeping them limited is an easier solution than adding complicated 40-man rosters and a Rule V Draft. 2. The draft should be expanded in some way, either in Winter or Summer. Coupled with no increases to roster sizes, this will also increase player movement. Would be good now to re-direct our focus to try to win Joe over on these, so we might get a rule change that almost everyone enjoys. JIm I don't really see any reason to expand the draft at this point, but I won't fight against it like I will arbitrary player movement reforms.
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Nov 12, 2019 15:05:51 GMT -5
WTF is going on here.
1) Im still sour about my early playoff exit. Fuck you Connor. But you deserved it...in some way... I guess.
2) Congrats to JIm for finally pushing through to win the World Series, after an underwhelming regular season your team stepped it up in the playoffs. Good stuff from the "Mans division" for allowing an 86 win team win the division title and play with the big boys in the playoffs. Hats off to JIm. But surely no way his head could get any bigger, right?
3) Im not sure any of this talk is even necessary about expanding (or unexpanding?) rosters and adding rounds to the draft and locking picks and other weird stuff that has been mentioned, but I could be wrong. I just dont see many good points brought up to justify such adjustments.
4) I would absolutely hate to lock the first round, trading right now is currently difficult as is with so many GMs hyperly overvaluing prospects that they have drafted (I am guilty of this), and with no clear market setting consensus for trading star players, first round picks are essential trade assets. I thought the reason winter picks were untradeable was for GM safety. This seems more about a general debate of deontological ethics than anything else. Who really knows what is best for themselves or their team?!
5) There are multiple ways to build a perennially contending team in the NSBL, but the only significant correlation to winning is being active and doing research. JIm has his way, and Connor has another way. Both have proven to be successful and both are active GMs.
6) I would be open to adding a round to the summer draft, one part in why trading has become harder over the years, is a lack of variety in available assets, adding a fifth round would allow for more fringe/throw in prospects to be available, which I believe would help in trade negotiations. 7) I really have no preference on a rule V draft and 40 man roster options, im not sure its necessary and worth the time it would take the committee to implement. However, I am not sure how I feel if the rule V draft would poach off current rosters with guys who are unprotected yet been in pro ball (stashed) for several years, especially given how random ZIPs seems to project prospects. Also not sure if there is a reasonable talent pool of guys who are not real draft eligible or FA eligible...
8) Many know I am against prospect stashing. BUT only legit prospects (or even prearb players), such as Kris Bryant and Alex Bregman randomly being demoted as a 3rd year player, or some GM signing JORDAN LUPLOW to an MLI and using him instead of RONALD ACUNA all year long....and he wonders why he didnt win his division...I have no problem with the Mike Foltynewiczs or Martin Perezs of the world being stashed. If a players projection simply isnt really useable to the level the team desires, why should a team be forced to use him? I have stashed some guys over the last couple years due to an underwhelming zip projection, and I was able to find a better replacement for them (Joe Musgrove, Brandon Nimmo, Max Kepler, etc). Neither of the players I stashed was solely to save a year of arb (and to tank), only because I thought they were not one of my best 25 players, (the fact that I could stash them to save an arb year also did weigh in the decision)
9) Finally, I think the biggest thing that needs to be addressed is when teams refuse to use their best 25 man in order to either save a year of service, tank for two high draft picks (winter and summer), or both. However, I am not sure of a reasonable remedy to this situation that doesnt limit GM autonomy. I think it is more of a personality trait and exploitation of a large loop hole in the system. However, it does rob the entire league of quality players, and is incredibly unrealistic to do, even for this league.
Thats my 9 cents on these issues, carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 15:10:57 GMT -5
legit question I have. how long do you expect it to take a typical GM to get their team to contention window? I recognize there are a lot of variables at play, and I don't necessarily mean winning the league, but making the playoffs at least. how long? It depends on the GM. You should talk to Colby about how he turned the Reds into a consistent contender. That team was probably second only to the Phillies in how bad it was. I remember looking at that roster when it was ownerless and counting 3 guys who hadn't been in the organized baseball for at least 3 years at that point and that was with a reserve roster of 9. The Braves were also in pretty bad shape when Pat took over. Ed took over a Marlins team that was mostly devoid of usable pieces. All 3 of those guys have made it to the playoffs since. I would argue the Twins had more in place than any of those teams when you got there. In fact, that team was a playoff team as recently as 2016. I appreciate the answer, but that is a lot of information that is around the answer. What do the EC and the GMs of the league consider an appropriate amount of time to rebuild? im looking for a theoretical / philosophical concept. the Twins have pieces now, after 2 #1 picks, and a few splattering of guys I drafted in 2018, and a very few from prior to that or sones I got in trade, but... its not about this team, or how long you think it'll take ME to contend. Its about whether a new GM joins the league, does everything he/she should, drafts right, trades right, sends in MPs on time but doesn't;t find a Lindor or Trout, or Betts to jump start the team, philosophically how long would you tell a new GM it might take to build a play off team?
|
|
Whitesox
AAA
I'm just here for the free kool-aid
Posts: 773
|
Post by Whitesox on Nov 12, 2019 15:14:18 GMT -5
It depends on the GM. You should talk to Colby about how he turned the Reds into a consistent contender. That team was probably second only to the Phillies in how bad it was. I remember looking at that roster when it was ownerless and counting 3 guys who hadn't been in the organized baseball for at least 3 years at that point and that was with a reserve roster of 9. The Braves were also in pretty bad shape when Pat took over. Ed took over a Marlins team that was mostly devoid of usable pieces. All 3 of those guys have made it to the playoffs since. I would argue the Twins had more in place than any of those teams when you got there. In fact, that team was a playoff team as recently as 2016. I appreciate the answer, but that is a lot of information that is around the answer. What do the EC and the GMs of the league consider an appropriate amount of time to rebuild? im looking for a theoretical / philosophical concept. the Twins have pieces now, after 2 #1 picks, and a few splattering of guys I drafted in 2018, and a very few from prior to that or sones I got in trade, but... its not about this team, or how long you think it'll take ME to contend. Its about whether a new GM joins the league, does everything he/she should, drafts right, trades right, sends in MPs on time but doesn't;t find a Lindor or Trout, or Betts to jump start the team, philosophically how long would you tell a new GM it might take to build a play off team? He's saying it can be done quickly, if you know what youre doing and you get lucky. But building up a team that is set for perpetual success will take longer than building up a team for with a brief window of contention. I guess what ever route you want to do is your call.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 12, 2019 15:15:04 GMT -5
Thats my 9 cents on these issues, carry on. Dang. That was a pretty darn good post. Hoppy must've allowed the interns to answer his e-mails out of the GM office today JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2019 20:49:10 GMT -5
It depends on the GM. You should talk to Colby about how he turned the Reds into a consistent contender. That team was probably second only to the Phillies in how bad it was. I remember looking at that roster when it was ownerless and counting 3 guys who hadn't been in the organized baseball for at least 3 years at that point and that was with a reserve roster of 9. The Braves were also in pretty bad shape when Pat took over. Ed took over a Marlins team that was mostly devoid of usable pieces. All 3 of those guys have made it to the playoffs since. I would argue the Twins had more in place than any of those teams when you got there. In fact, that team was a playoff team as recently as 2016. I appreciate the answer, but that is a lot of information that is around the answer. What do the EC and the GMs of the league consider an appropriate amount of time to rebuild? im looking for a theoretical / philosophical concept. the Twins have pieces now, after 2 #1 picks, and a few splattering of guys I drafted in 2018, and a very few from prior to that or sones I got in trade, but... its not about this team, or how long you think it'll take ME to contend. Its about whether a new GM joins the league, does everything he/she should, drafts right, trades right, sends in MPs on time but doesn't;t find a Lindor or Trout, or Betts to jump start the team, philosophically how long would you tell a new GM it might take to build a play off team? As a newer owner maybe I can help with this: My plan was a 5 year rebuild to contention. That changed for me because of Juan Soto. Once Soto became a stud and got a huge projection, I changed paths. I did get lucky that in the off season I decided to move from rebuild to contend, that Mookie Betts and Max Scherzer were available, but I also drafted and traded well enough to get these guys. Long term I might regret going for it this year as I still have major holes, but I'd rather be in contention than rebuild and I still think my team is solid enough to compete with a few right moves.
|
|
|
Post by rockiesgm on Nov 12, 2019 22:07:14 GMT -5
“Two of the top FA outfielders “ ? Are you referring to Michael Brantley and Brett Gardner? Brantley was coming off an injury plagued season with an .801 OPS from a corner outfielder and Gardner was coming off a .778 OPS season. Neither of which were in high demand. In fact I didn’t even have a bidding war for either player. And as you can see, both of those contracts were extremely reasonable and could have issued by just about any team in the league. Brantley was three years at 14m and Gardner was three years at 10m..roughly. Neither is a case of a GM throwing around his weight because he can. While I have a good sized payroll (one which I’ve earned through winning games) I am not the GM throwing around big money contracts in free agency. So if you want to continue grinding an axe with me, please state the facts and ease up on the hyperbole in order to best suit your agenda. Actually I went after Brantley but you outbid me. I had no capabilities to continue with someone having about as much in free payroll as I had in total payroll. It was a simple case of the have vs the have not's, the rich are able to stay rich and the poor are forced to stay poor. The problem right now is the top tier of GMs have the talent AND the payroll to maintain a strong position of power and overdrive the cost of talent. The replacement GM's not only have to overcome a lack of talent but a secondary lack of payroll power and flexibility that further suppresses the ability to build that payroll depth to compete at the same level as the have's on a annual basis. We have to compete against other GM's AND the system, you just need to compete against other GM's. When GMs can manipulate the cost of talent because of their position of power you perpetuate the cycle of have and have not. I don't like tanking but I can respect the objective. I do agree with you that through the years the assets have shifted toward the GMs that have been consistent with their strategies and also the implementation of them. I’m open to ideas on how to help close the gap because it should help the new GMs enjoy the league . My problem is that you keep acting as if your opinion of how I’ve gone about running my team is with some sort of malicious intent with lines like this:. When in reality I ended up with six outfielders because my philosophy in free agency has always been to hunt solid contracts no matter the position. I happened to identify those two outfielders as such and bid on them. I didn’t expect to land them both and quite frankly didn’t want to (and that’s documented with guys in our current email group). I bid on them both the same exact day and neither player had a single day two bid on them, so there I was with six outfielders. So I then proceeded to figure out how best to utilize that grouping . My conclusion was to reserve both Polanco and a young Andrew Benintendi. Now sure, feel free to argue the inequalities that may have led to me being able to business this way..but don’t sit on this board and pretend that you know without a doubt what my motives were that offseason because you clearly did not. I’m trying to be extremely transparent here with you but at some point it’s insulting to have someone take pot shots as if I only win games because of my payroll and that anyone could do it. That’s simply not true. First and foremost, I’ve earned that payroll by winning and making the postseason, granted all but once I’ve been eliminated from those playoffs. I put a lot of effort into drafting and feel I do solid work there. I put even more effort into emailing GMs to talk about trades and baseball in general. I do a lot more conversing than I do trading and I trade an awful lot. Ask around, I’m pretty a jovial guy that likes talking about the league and baseball in general. I also do a lot of work on potential free agents. You always seem to bring up my payroll and cap room as if it were some sort of gift..well it isn’t. Outside of payroll size, i generally have that amount of cap available becuase I don’t usually throw my weight around and bully guys off of players because I have the money. I don’t give out the monster contracts that some have chosen to do and I move contracts in offseason to ensure I have the means to take advantage of an undervalued player. When I bid on a player I have a value attached to that player and I rarely stray from that number. Well except for Lonnie Chisenhall this past year. I had a certain bench type I wanted and all the players I identified to fill that void were gone. So Ian and I were in a bidding war and I decided I wasn’t messing around and went to 7+ mill for two years. Ian told me I was crazy and I agreed with him and the bidding war was over. You can look back on the previous free agency bidding to see that I VERY rarely even come over the top on people and use day 2 Bids. I’m pretty cordial when it comes to that and when I am in a bidding war because someone came over top on me, I’m still cordial and we figure things out. So just email me In the future and I’d be happy to discuss my thoughts and or motives on something with you. Don’t just jump to the conclusion that I’m being malicious and manipulative. As for tanking, I understand the objective as well from the have nots trying to gain relavence but what are your thoughts that the recent tankers have mostly been on the side of the have’s (Ty, Colby, Joe etc.)? That is NOT a shot at ANY of those GMs or Mike. it’s all been perfectly legal, I’m just curious as to Mike expanding on his comment.
|
|
|
Post by phillies17 on Nov 13, 2019 9:55:58 GMT -5
I did a quick analysis once again of the correlation between wins and salary and the AL held to its trend of the past few years. Just looking at the top 5 base payroll teams, 4 of the made the playoffs. The 5th, not to put words in their mouth, but I believe was not all in on winning this year and that opened up a playoff spot which was won by the 6th highest payroll team. This is a standard trend of the past few years and the correlation has become stronger with more recent seasons.
The NL had a slightly different dynamic, with a similar overall outcome. Of the top 5 base payroll teams, 3 made the playoffs and two were successful at not trying to win. We also had two teams force their way into the net salary top 5 through a combination of rollover and trade money. One was very successful while the other not so much. The remaining playoff spot was a battle between the next two payroll teams.
I guess we could debate what is the driving factor behind this, are the good teams built well and good regardless of payroll or are the bad teams staying bad because they continue to stay well below the market average. The AL has a clear top 6 in terms of payroll, none from the central which gets an automatic playoff spot, so of the 20 possible playoff spots the in the past 5 years, only one time did a team that tried to win ("tanking" excluded) were beat out by a low payroll team. So if they tried to make the playoffs they were successful 19 times out of 20. The NL is better balanced, all 3 divisions are represented in the top 5 for payroll. They were a little less successful, 5 times in the past 5 years a lower tier team took a playoff spot from a top tier team but 4 of them were single year jumps.
|
|
|
Post by Elephanti! on Nov 13, 2019 10:33:14 GMT -5
The largest base caps (everyone over 160M): Tampa Bay New York (N) Colorado San Diego Seattle Oakland Pittsburgh
Outside of New York and maybe Seattle, there is not a large market team in this mix. These cap figures have been earned by years of success. Additionally, the average base cap is 140M, so we're talking about 38M over the average in the worst case (Tampa Bay). That is a fairly flat market structure.
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 13, 2019 16:30:16 GMT -5
Man wtf is goin on in this thread. I can't keep up. From what I'm reading, we want 25/40 man roster splits, 6 levels of minor league depth, a rule 4 draft, international free agency, different option types on player contracts, player extensions for your own players, a rule 5 draft, and a players association that will keep us from abusing player service time.
*side note, I don't know how to read
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 13, 2019 17:50:22 GMT -5
Man wtf is goin on in this thread. I can't keep up. From what I'm reading, we want 25/40 man roster splits, 6 levels of minor league depth, a rule 4 draft, international free agency, different option types on player contracts, player extensions for your own players, a rule 5 draft, and a players association that will keep us from abusing player service time. *side note, I don't know how to read I'm going to add "mandatory dick picks" as a contingency to each trade. I've been campaigning for that one for years. In trade talks with Hayes now. It's so big it wouldn't send as a single file. He had to hook me up with a Google Drive link. JIm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 6:31:46 GMT -5
I'm going to add "mandatory dick picks" as a contingency to each trade. I've been campaigning for that one for years. In trade talks with Hayes now. It's so big it wouldn't send as a single file. He had to hook me up with a Google Drive link. JIm Damn!! you must REALLY want to see it, isn't your Google-Apps-Hatred well documented?
|
|