|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Oct 31, 2020 7:30:28 GMT -5
I would really like to see a more transparent LTC calculator come about this offseason.
I had some interesting talks with Ian last offseason, most of which were very positive. On one hand, he is in favor of an LTC +2 again, which I love. I feel the lack of player "liquidity" is always miscast towards that 2nd LTC year, where in reality, if we just shortened FA max bids to 5 years instead of 7, the league's best players would be back on the open market that much quicker, and there would be less franchise-crippling contracts.
The one negative in my talks with Ian was the realization that there is some degree of subjectivity to the LTC numbers. For example, for real-life elite players like Cody Bellinger, Ian goes with the actual calculations straight up. But for other players, he rounds them down a bit, and that's where the subjectivity enters into play.
Ironically, I feel like Ian and the league's arbitration system from years 2nd-5th is fantastic. I think the numbers are highly realistic. But it's that 6th-CE +1 area where numbers get really out of whack, and there are huge positional variances.
As someone who builds most of his team with XXX-6th year players and relies on FA very little, I would like a more transparent calculator in place, so that we can actually project our salaries going forward, without having to always roll the dice when CE numbers are revealed. Thanks!
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 2, 2020 0:19:14 GMT -5
I would really like to see a more transparent LTC calculator come about this offseason. I had some interesting talks with Ian last offseason, most of which were very positive. On one hand, he is in favor of an LTC +2 again, which I love. I feel the lack of player "liquidity" is always miscast towards that 2nd LTC year, where in reality, if we just shortened FA max bids to 5 years instead of 7, the league's best players would be back on the open market that much quicker, and there would be less franchise-crippling contracts. The one negative in my talks with Ian was the realization that there is some degree of subjectivity to the LTC numbers. For example, for real-life elite players like Cody Bellinger, Ian goes with the actual calculations straight up. But for other players, he rounds them down a bit, and that's where the subjectivity enters into play. Ironically, I feel like Ian and the league's arbitration system from years 2nd-5th is fantastic. I think the numbers are highly realistic. But it's that 6th-CE +1 area where numbers get really out of whack, and there are huge positional variances. As someone who builds most of his team with XXX-6th year players and relies on FA very little, I would like a more transparent calculator in place, so that we can actually project our salaries going forward, without having to always roll the dice when CE numbers are revealed. Thanks! JIm I'll +1 the "more transparent processes", but also okay with just scrapping the LTCs right now. It seems almost more trouble than it's worth at this point |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2020 5:46:03 GMT -5
I think it became that way when the +2 component got dropped. It’s one hell of a lot of work for one extra year of service.
I don’t want to see us lose the system, because I like that this league at least approximates real life. While I feel NSBL exceeds MLBSA in many areas, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with adopting their CE system. It seems they have the bugs worked out of it, and I think it gives teams some discount for locking in a player early, just like real-life. Our CE system basically just gives a GM one uncontested year of a player at near open-market value, which doesn’t really approximate anything in real life.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA Angels GM on Nov 2, 2020 11:49:32 GMT -5
Im of missed opinions on this topic. On 1 hand, I can respect a GMs desire to hang on to an asset that they drafted and "developed". Good job. you are awesome. but on the other hand... Its a fantasy league. and the most fun times o the fantasy season are Draft Times, and Free Agent times... and shallow free agent pools not only suck from a player pool perspective, but from an avail cash perspective as well. Sooo much money to over spend on Bryce Harper cause its fun. Adding to this complexity is the NSBL rule that allows players to be stashed until their receive a more "playable" projection. This is where I think I start to find my opinions shift heavily to the side of NO resigning of players / no player extensions. you hit year 6, year 7 you are a free agent. economically, I think there is room for some real adjustment, but there are several moving parts. If a team wants to extend a player... I see the appeal, but... the GM holding all the cards is bad for "labor" If players become free agents at year 7, young players are going to get stashed on the reserve roster even more than they do now. I have no problem calling a young player up at 22 right now, because I know that I can extend them to get to their age 30/31 seasons. If I can't extend them, I'll lose them in their age 28/29 seasons. I agree that having premier free agents = more fun, I just don't think that doing this will create more premier free agents. I think that we would be solving one problem by creating another. We would need to create a system that "forces" teams to not stash players. This league is very hesitant to add options, which I understand why, but something like that would need to happen. Just my .02 cents, which I know doesn't add much. |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2020 11:59:26 GMT -5
economically, I think there is room for some real adjustment, but there are several moving parts. If a team wants to extend a player... I see the appeal, but... the GM holding all the cards is bad for "labor" I respect your opinion, but I also feel this is somewhat deceptive. A GM isn’t “holding all the cards.” Our system limits the amount of CE a team can have at any one time, so you really have to extend players who are worth it. I would not be opposed to a creative compromise, whereby each team can “franchise” one player for +2 or even +3 CE, while the remainders of CEs stay at +1. From a league health perspective, I don’t think the argument of “get all these guys to the open market as soon as possible” holds water. The player is worth far more when he is under a pre-open market contract. Once he hits FA, and elite players in particular have 7 year deals paying $25-35MM per season, that is a huge liability. Especially on the club holding the contract. Especially if that GM gets himself into a huge hole, and bolts the league soon after. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 2, 2020 12:06:51 GMT -5
I think it became that way when the +2 component got dropped. It’s one hell of a lot of work for one extra year of service. I don’t want to see us lose the system, because I like that this league at least approximates real life. While I feel NSBL exceeds MLBSA in many areas, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with adopting their CE system. It seems they have the bugs worked out of it, and I think it gives teams some discount for locking in a player early, just like real-life. Our CE system basically just gives a GM one uncontested year of a player at near open-market value, which doesn’t really approximate anything in real life. For those uniformed (like me), what is MLBSA's CE system? |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2020 12:12:17 GMT -5
I just messaged Marlin to see if he can send me the specifics.
Certainly not trying to pull a coup on Ian here, but perhaps there are some things we can take from that system to make a good hybrid that everyone can enjoy, and can perhaps allow GMs to have a good idea of what their players' CE values are going to be in advance.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2020 17:46:36 GMT -5
Okay, here is the LTC procedure from MLBSA. Some things I think are positive:
1. You can LTC as early as 4th in the sim.
2. You can LTC up to +3.
It actually appears their approach is LESS stat-driven. They have each committee member submit what they feel is the accurate value of a contract. They throw out the high and low, and average the rest together. Somehow though, it seems to generate realistic results.
B. LONG TERM CONTRACTS (LTC)
Long Term Contracts (LTC) will be a feature of the MLBSA.
1. Players eligible for a LTC will be any players entering their 4th, 5th or 6th YOS.
2. Each off-season teams will be allowed to submit to the EC the names players from their team for LTC negotiations. However, each team may only accept at most two LTC per off-season.
a. If a GM fails to request LTC numbers by the deadline, he/she forfeits the right to sign a player to a LTC for that season.
3. Each team will be allowed no more than 5 LTC players on their roster at any given time, but can sign up to 5 in any given year, as long as they don’t exceed the rule of 5 per roster.
4. The date for submitting names of players for LTC consideration will be set each off-season by the EC on or around the same date as arbitration decisions are due.
5. The maximum length of a LTC shall be 4 years for players entering their 6th YOS, 5 years for players entering their 5th YOS or 6 years for players entering their 4th YOS effectively extending the player for 3 years past the end of their regular service time.
6. The annual value of a LTC shall be determined by the EC by:
a. Each member of the EC will submit a “bid” as to the fair market value of each player up for LTC negotiations.
b. The EC will take the 7 “bids” throw out the highest and the lowest and average the remaining 5. The resulting value will become the annual salary component of the LTC offer.
c. The minimum annual value must conform to the minimum annual value for FA contracts per Article VII.B.2
7. After the EC has calculated the LTC offers for all teams, they will be presented to the GM’s on a date before the beginning of the regular season.
8. GM’s will have a set period of time in which to either accept or decline LTC demands before the beginning of FA. Any demands not accepted or declined will be automatically declined.
9. All players signed to LTCs receive a 1 year “no trade” clause.
10. Once a player who was signed to a LTC is traded, he will be granted V status in the league therefore not counted as one of the 5 allowed LTC players on the receiving team’s roster.
11. Once signed to a LTC, a player loses all remaining options and must be placed on waivers to be sent to the 40 Man roster.
12. Players retain their YOS after signing a LTC in the event that the LTC ends before the player would enter free agency.
13. Beginning in 2020, 2 year LTCs for 4 YOS will no longer be an option, and have been eliminated.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 2, 2020 17:51:56 GMT -5
As I said its bigger... connected system... no matter whats decided in free agency, something has to be done about players getting stashed until their projection is optimized. because it does have an effect on the larger player market. the old year 27 performance max is over. the window for most starts earlier, and Zips doesn't adjust back down as quickly as it "rounds" up. I know you've been beating this drum for a while, but so far, I've found your examples to not be as strong as you think they are. For example, you were furious that the Rockies were "stashing" Gregory Polanco on their roster. I know Brian's team well, as he and I are former lovers. Polanco was still on his reserve for at least 1-2 of those years because his OF was loaded, and there wasn't a place for him. Further, it's actually HURT Brian to keep him "stashed" for so long, as witnessed by: 2017 83 OPS+ 2018 128 OPS+ 2019 89 OPS+ 2020 45 OPS+ You were furious about a player who, in hindsight, has a 96 OPS+ at age 29. As John alluded to, the only way to REALLY prevent "stashing" on reserves and have it be objective is to add options. We've talked about that, but everyone knows it's a ridiculous amount of work to do so, and this is already a huge time commitment for the guys running our league as is. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 2, 2020 22:47:54 GMT -5
Just wanted to add, if we wanted to go the fully automated route, we could use my market value calculator to make CE amounts for 5th/6th year players (basically takes a playing time adjusted zipsWAR and adds a very basic aging curve). It would probably need some cleaning up (and remember these are market value, so no discounts for buying out 1/2 years of arbitration level salaries) but here are some randomly selected examples of 2020 CE players:
Player Pos CE +1 CE +2 CE +3 CE +4 CE +5
Aaron Hicks CF 15.76 30.787 44.645 56.938 67.328
Aaron Nola SP 28.4 57.802 87.537 116.908 145.214
Byron Buxton CF 17.051 35.082 53.637 72.229 90.36
Carlos Rodon SP 6.906 14.045 21.176 28.048 34.408
Chris Taylor SS 14.691 29.064 42.697 55.184 66.156
Danny Salazar SP 5.328 10.256 14.571 18.201 21.319
Dylan Bundy SP 11 22.379 33.816 44.974 55.514
Ender Inciarte CF 13.977 27.639 40.579 52.404 62.759
F. Lindor SS 49.703 102.008 155.832 210.02 263.387
J.T. Realmuto C 25.618 51.013 75.517 98.483 119.312
James Paxton SP 19.58 38.021 54.843 69.628 82.047
Joc Pederson LF 21.187 42.522 63.455 83.434 101.931
Josh Bell 1B 17.579 35.705 53.902 71.679 88.546
J. Profar 2B 18.504 37.584 56.745 75.477 93.272
Kevin Gausman SP 14.475 28.737 42.385 55.03 66.314
Kris Bryant 3B 34.466 69.247 103.528 136.496 167.373
Kyle Hendricks SP 23.954 47.153 69.011 88.986 106.609
M. Conforto RF 28.814 58.521 88.423 117.804 145.947
Miguel Sano 1B 21.787 44.25 66.831 88.953 110.043
Mookie Betts RF 45.845 93.107 140.755 187.726 232.962
N. Syndergaard SP 27.784 56.548 85.635 114.362 142.039
Raisel Iglesias RP 5.4 10.496 15.136 19.18 22.506
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 3, 2020 6:29:39 GMT -5
I like the idea, but is there a way to get those numbers down a bit? I mean, if players are getting $45MM CE extensions, it’s likely GMs will just let them hit the open market and try to get them re-signed for better value.
I do like the CE+3 and +4, and think the values increase pretty reasonably. That starting number just seems sky high for some players.
Thanks ConnorDog,
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 3, 2020 6:31:07 GMT -5
PS Stupid question, but is the figure in the CE+2 columns and beyond the yearly amount the player is earning, or the total contract value at that point? I assumed the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 3, 2020 13:26:40 GMT -5
I propose we eliminate salaries and contracts. you can keep <this many> players year over year. summer draft of amateurs and winter draft too, then spring draft of unowned players. then you can keep players forever. minimal administration. I think creating an extreme, sarcastic straw man is not really advancing your argument either. There’s a wide gulf between hoping the CE system becomes more transparent and maybe adds a +2, vs. abandoning salaries and keeping all players “forever.” But you know that. *** Another neat compromise- if we would consider bringing back CE+2- is that we reduce the number each team can extend to balance it out. I believe right now, we can CE up to (5) players for +1. Maybe drop that down to (4) players at +2. |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 3, 2020 13:47:25 GMT -5
I've mentioned it before, but almost every time, when a decent discussion comes along, it gets lumped in with a broader discussion. Then it loses steam.
I moved this into it's own thread, since there is solid dialogue here (Thank you, JIm), and I don't want it to 'lost' in the shuffle.
I've got a lot of thoughts and feedback on this (obviously), and will chime in with a proper response at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 3, 2020 14:52:41 GMT -5
I like the idea, but is there a way to get those numbers down a bit? I mean, if players are getting $45MM CE extensions, it’s likely GMs will just let them hit the open market and try to get them re-signed for better value. I do like the CE+3 and +4, and think the values increase pretty reasonably. That starting number just seems sky high for some players. Thanks ConnorDog, JIm Those are just what I calculate their fair market value to be, so their CE amounts would be lesser PS Stupid question, but is the figure in the CE+2 columns and beyond the yearly amount the player is earning, or the total contract value at that point? I assumed the latter. Yes, total contract value for those seasons |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 3, 2020 19:28:10 GMT -5
Well done, Connor and Ian. This discussion pleases me so.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 4, 2020 11:40:34 GMT -5
here's an idea... you want to extend longer? how about extensions have to happen earlier? as in, you don't get to extend players in year 6 at all, GMs have to make that decision before players enter year 6. After all players all the time talk about concentrating on the playing season and not wanting to discussion contracts until after the season. While we have the option to do that here in 5th, forcing GMs to decide prior to 6th doesn't really make any sense. I don't see how that honestly provides an advantage to either side. With Diamond Mind projections so variable from year to year, currently teams take the trade-off of paying a slightly higher amount to CE at 6th, but the advantage is that they may get to see an extra year's worth of projections, depending upon if their real-life player's team is early in the releases that offseason. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 5, 2020 15:03:08 GMT -5
Okay. And there are a number of good, young players that elect to have their remaining arbitration years bought out + 1-2 seasons past arbitration in real life. It is a win-win for both sides. The team gets cost certainty over multiple seasons, and at a rate lower than what the player might receive on the open market. In exchange, the player sets himself for life with a guaranteed contract that pays him whether he's healthy or not, productive or not, for the length of the deal. I've always found these "Our NSBL players don't have sim agents!" arguments to be extremely cherry-pickey. JIm |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 6, 2020 13:19:59 GMT -5
Well, here's my proposed model just to get the ball rolling, and then I'll step away in case anyone else wants to contribute, because people are probably bored seeing you and I go back-and-forth, Jason.
CE modification idea
1. Each team can have one "franchise" CE +3 player, one CE +2 player, and two CE +1 players, which would be a reduction of one CE player per team.
2. CE +2 and CE +3 players must be retained through at least the first 2 years of their extension, while CE +1 players must still be retained through their first full year.
3. Players may be CE'd as early as 4th in the sim, as opposed to 5th like we do now.
4. The CE number calculation will consist of the following average:
a) Like MLBSA, all 5 committee members submit a value. High number and low number are thrown out (=3 numbers).
b) One part Ian's current CE projection system, which uses a weight between real and sim stats (mostly real).
c) One part Connor's proposed CE system, as long as he can get those totals for elite players a little less crazy.
Divide all of that by 5 to give the new CE projections for teams requesting them.
JIm
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 6, 2020 15:02:08 GMT -5
For reference, here's a quick summary of the CE calculations... For 5th year player:
- Player's 5th year ARB salary + projected 6th year ARB salary + projected salary of one free agent season, 2 years from now - Then take that total and divide by 3, since the CE would cover 3 seasons, to get the proposed CE salary For 6th year player:
- Player's 6th ARB salary + projected salary of one free agent season, 1 year from now - Then take that total and divide by 2, since the CE would cover 2 seasons, to get the proposed CE salary A few minor notes:
- There is a minor age multiplier. (It will take more cash to convince a 27 year old to delay his free agency by a season, than it will to convince a 35 year old.) - There is also a premium applied to 6th year players. (It will take more to convince a player to delay his free agency, if that player is only a year away from getting paid.) - Currently, the projected salary of that one free agent season is achieved by comparing performance to players at the same position. There are categories for C, 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, SS, OF, SP, RP (Much more on this later...) Since there's been a lot said already, I'll try to respond to some things: I would really like to see a more transparent LTC calculator come about this offseason. I had some interesting talks with Ian last offseason, most of which were very positive. On one hand, he is in favor of an LTC +2 again, which I love. I feel the lack of player "liquidity" is always miscast towards that 2nd LTC year, where in reality, if we just shortened FA max bids to 5 years instead of 7, the league's best players would be back on the open market that much quicker, and there would be less franchise-crippling contracts. Jim, you and I have talked about this more than most. Transparency is a great idea. I'll put together a post showing the numbers from last offseason's group of CE players, and we can discuss further. As for bringing back CE+2, I would be in favor of it, but ONLY if the ARB salaries get closer to MLB levels. See below... The one negative in my talks with Ian was the realization that there is some degree of subjectivity to the LTC numbers. For example, for real-life elite players like Cody Bellinger, Ian goes with the actual calculations straight up. But for other players, he rounds them down a bit, and that's where the subjectivity enters into play. This seems off.... The only subjectivity involved is the method (i.e. Do we consider 3 years of past performance or 4? When are you allowed to CE players...4th, 5th or 6th year?). And those methods are almost always collective committee decisions. I'm wondering if something I said at some point wasn't crystal clear, so let me know where this came from please. Ironically, I feel like Ian and the league's arbitration system from years 2nd-5th is fantastic. I think the numbers are highly realistic. But it's that 6th-CE +1 area where numbers get really out of whack, and there are huge positional variances. This is where I disagree. Our arbitration salaries have not kept up with the increases we've seen in MLB. Cody Bellinger made $11.5M in his first year of ARB. Mookie Betts made $27M in his last year of ARB. We aren't even close. Our highest salary for a first-year ARB guy is just over $4M. Our highest salary for a last-year ARB player is also Mookie Betts (about $15.5M) and Castellanos is the only other guy over $10M. I will give Travis credit...the numbers have gone up, but I've been saying for a few years now that our ARB salaries are WAY too low. I don't think we need to match MLB, but I think our high-end ARB salaries could easily be 70-90% of what MLB has. Our very low ARB salaries have a few side effects...one of them is creating CE salaries that are too low, since the player's ARB salaries that are wrapped into the CE calculation are lower than they should be. As someone who builds most of his team with XXX-6th year players and relies on FA very little, I would like a more transparent calculator in place, so that we can actually project our salaries going forward, without having to always roll the dice when CE numbers are revealed. Thanks! Agreed. Hopefully, some further discussion will make it easier to project what your players could make on a contract extension. I'll +1 the "more transparent processes", but also okay with just scrapping the LTCs right now. It seems almost more trouble than it's worth at this point Setting up the initial spreadsheet a few years ago took a LOT of time. At this point, it's 90% automatic. I enter potential CE players and their salaries. Only take a few hours. While I feel NSBL exceeds MLBSA in many areas, I don’t think there would be anything wrong with adopting their CE system. I do not like any system where other GMs determine what a fair market value would be. Even if every GM is perfectly reasonable, there is inherent bias, because they have an incentive to have me pay more for that player than that player is worth. Just wanted to add, if we wanted to go the fully automated route, we could use my market value calculator to make CE amounts for 5th/6th year players (basically takes a playing time adjusted zipsWAR and adds a very basic aging curve). I would love to dig into this more. Even without knowing all the details, Connor's system would be light year's ahead of what we currently use to determine the value of players. With Diamond Mind projections so variable from year to year, currently teams take the trade-off of paying a slightly higher amount to CE at 6th, but the advantage is that they may get to see an extra year's worth of projections, depending upon if their real-life player's team is early in the releases that offseason. This is not the case. One of the benefits of having the CE decision AFTER the first group of free agents is that EVERY team's ZiPS projections is released by that point. Well, here's my proposed model just to get the ball rolling, and then I'll step away in case anyone else wants to contribute, because people are probably bored seeing you and I go back-and-forth, Jason. CE modification idea1. Each team can have one "franchise" CE +3 player, one CE +2 player, and two CE +1 players, which would be a reduction of one CE player per team. 2. CE +2 and CE +3 players must be retained through at least the first 2 years of their extension, while CE +1 players must still be retained through their first full year. 3. Players may be CE'd as early as 4th in the sim, as opposed to 5th like we do now. 4. The CE number calculation will consist of the following average: a) Like MLBSA, all 5 committee members submit a value. High number and low number are thrown out (=3 numbers). b) One part Ian's current CE projection system, which uses a weight between real and sim stats (mostly real). c) One part Connor's proposed CE system, as long as he can get those totals for elite players a little less crazy. Divide all of that by 5 to give the new CE projections for teams requesting them. I love the idea of CE+2 and even having one CE+3 'franchise' guy. Assuming we can get our ARB salaries a bit closer to MLB, I think that's easy to implement, whether using the current system of projecting value OR using Connor's projections. Very solid idea, JImbo I still don't want myself or any committee member to determine CE values using MLBSA's bid-style system. That is a level of subjectivity that I'm not comfortable with. One final semi-major point:
Every year, I've had plenty of conversations with Jim, Mark, Joe, etc on ways to improve this system. The biggest current flaw is the way players are divided into positional buckets. It creates giant shifts in value that (a) are unrealistic and (b) create badly underpaid CE for certain positions. J.T. Realmuto's CE number is a great example. I propose we eliminate the positional buckets for the position players. For clarity, we should still treat starting pitchers and relief pitchers differently. But I'll start another thread showing the different results using last year's group of CE players. If you made it this far, thanks for reading and for caring. Ian |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 6, 2020 17:14:34 GMT -5
If touching myself tonight to Ian’s well-explained Post is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 6, 2020 23:49:47 GMT -5
Great write up Ian! Just for those curious. I'm not 100% sure the formula I used, but it generates a projected 1-8 year contract for each player receiving zips. It's obviously not flawless, but if we want to use it, I'm happy to open it up for discussions and whatnot. Here's the first few rows for batters and pitchers. You can see how some players get altered when they receive a projection for a different team (like AJ Pollock going from ARI --> LAD and 2.5 WAR --> 2.7 WAR. Also, it only has players from the zips fangraphs posts, so we'd have to find a workaround to that and whatever other problems we'd encounter)   |
|
|
|
Post by raysgm on Nov 7, 2020 2:33:07 GMT -5
One last thing I forgot to respond to.
Ian said:
And I couldn't agree more with this. The general rule of thumb for the 3 years of arbitration is 40%-60%-80% of their market value, and until we implement a system where our arbitration values are closer to that, then I don't know if my CE valuations (which are based on what I'd expect their market price to be) will ever really be used. You're better off just pocketing the significant discounts in 4th-6th and using those savings to try and sign the player in free agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 7, 2020 6:04:22 GMT -5
One last thing I forgot to respond to. Ian said: And I couldn't agree more with this. The general rule of thumb for the 3 years of arbitration is 40%-60%-80% of their market value, and until we implement a system where our arbitration values are closer to that, then I don't know if my CE valuations (which are based on what I'd expect their market price to be) will ever really be used. You're better off just pocketing the significant discounts in 4th-6th and using those savings to try and sign the player in free agency. Exactly. It's almost pointless to pursue the idea of a contract extension that includes a projected fair value for a free agent season, when our ARB salaries are about half of what they should be. At that point, GMs would be better to just take the dirt cheap ARB salaries, since the cost-savings of keeping those affordable ARB salaries would probably outweigh any benefit you might see from extending a key player beyond his 6th year. |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 7, 2020 6:57:40 GMT -5
Just a quick thought, while I'm looking this over. Our arbitration salaries are closer/better than I initially thought when I was looking over the CE numbers last night. The vast majority of the guys I looked at seemed reasonable.
A couple tweaks I think we need.
1) An across the board bump to our first time ARB players (4th year). The way ARB works, the 4th year salary kind of sets up everything up for the next few years.
2) A generous bump to the high-end guys, especially first-time ARB players. Bregman, Devers, Judge, Bellinger, Gallo, Olson, Chad Green, Heaney, Glasnow, Musgrove. All 3rd year guys having a big year in 2020. Bregman and Devers especially should be the guys pushing that $10M number as a first-time ARB with the MVP caliber seasons they've had.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 7, 2020 8:18:33 GMT -5
Excellent discussion. 1. Totally understand not wanting the subjectivity of the Committee members deciding contract values. If Ian and ConnorDog, Inc. can take the best aspects of their systems and combine them- or just take an average between their two systems- then I'm all for that. 2. Love that Ian is cool with a "franchise" CE. Totally down with having one less CE per team if there's some strategy with 1-2 of them being longer CEs. 3. Totally in favor of dumping "positional buckets", except for RP. I think those values should remain lower, because RP just aren't worth what positional players are. And if a team wants to burn one of their 4 CEs on an RP, more power to them. 2) A generous bump to the high-end guys, especially first-time ARB players. Bregman, Devers, Judge, Bellinger, Gallo, Olson, Chad Green, Heaney, Glasnow, Musgrove. All 3rd year guys having a big year in 2020. Bregman and Devers especially should be the guys pushing that $10M number as a first-time ARB with the MVP caliber seasons they've had. 4. Okay, this is what I was getting at earlier. Ian, I'm glad you did not take affront to it, because none was intended. But when we talked about a hypothetical Bellinger CE in the offseason, you said because he was a high-end guy, he should receive the max CE amount in your system, whereas you had to round down some of the non-elite players. That's what I was referring to. It's a little subjective to decide who is "high-end" and who is not. 5. Even though you are both phenomenal with numbers, there's one big thing you're overlooking: While our current Arb figures may not be keeping pace with real-life MLB, neither have our team payrolls.For example, the highest team payroll in NSBL is Colorado, a little above $165,000,000 (which is the only reason Brian is good muhahahaha). In real-life MLB (and here I went with 2019 payrolls, since Covid threw 2020 numbers all out of whack), there are 7 teams with payrolls higher than that, with the Cubs, Yankees, Nationals, Red Sox, and Giants all at or above $200,000,000. A. So either we majorly bump up team payrolls across the league here, so the higher arbitration numbers are affordable. B. Or we understand that we have a representative financial system already in place, and we keep everything scaled back accordingly. I would personally favor B. You guys did a lot of work a few seasons ago to put this system in place, so I don't want to see it scrapped already. JIm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2020 8:35:18 GMT -5
Actually our payrolls exactly equal real MLB payrolls. It was designed that way when we revamped the payroll system. This isn’t a secret and was well publicized at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 7, 2020 9:42:24 GMT -5
Here is the list of 5th Year players that were included as potential CE BEFORE the 2020 season. I've included their 5th YR ARB numbers, their projected 6th YR ARB salaries in 2021, and the projected value of buying out one free agent season in 2022. Remember, the final CE number is those 3 seasons averaged (since we don't have contracts with increasing salaries). Also remember, those projected free agent salaries are using the current method, where players are compared to other players at the same position, both in terms of performance and salary.My notes and thoughts are below.
| Position | 5th YR ARB | Proj. 6th YR
ARB (2021) | Proj. FA (2022) | CE +1 Offer | | JT Realmuto | C | 3.530 | 6.911 | 20.860 | 10.434 | | Josh Bell | 1B | 8.045 | 10.581 | 24.749 | 14.458 | | Joc Pederson | OF | 8.402 | 10.050 | 29.499 | 15.984 | | James Paxton | SP | 7.965 | 12.192 | 35.776 | 18.644 | | Jurickson Profar | 2B | 6.317 | 7.367 | 13.621 | 9.102
| | Francisco Lindor | SS | 7.250 | 12.775 | 19.537 | 13.187 | | Kris Bryant | 3B | 8.955 | 12.336 | 24.167 | 15.153 | | Miguel Sano | 3B | 7.482 | 8.532 | 18.404 | 11.473 | | Michael Conforto | OF | 9.034 | 12.415 | 38.094 | 19.848 | | Raisel Iglesias | RP | 5.312 | 6.362 | 8.870 | 6.848 | | Eugenio Suarez | 3B | 5.565 | 8.101 | 20.794 | 11.487 | | Kyle Schwarber | OF | 7.965 | 9.613 | 30.841 | 16.140 | | Zach Britton | RP | 6.686 | 10.067 | 13.535 | 10.096 | | Aaron Hicks | OF | 6.100 | 9.481 | 30.858 | 15.480 | | Kyle Gibson | SP | 2.481 | 3.531 | 20.990 | 9.001 | | Carlos Correa | SS | 8.500 | 14.025 | 21.073 | 14.533 | | Dylan Bundy | SP | 5.142 | 6.192 | 23.873 | 11.736 | | Chris Taylor | OF | 4.623 | 6.271 | 26.093 | 12.329 | | Keone Kela | RP | 4.923 | 9.150 | 17.974 | 10.682 | | Roberto Osuna | RP | 7.047 | 11.274 | 21.173 | 13.165 | | Carlos Rodon | SP | 5.909 | 6.959 | 27.653 | 13.507 | | Robbie Ray | SP | 5.190 | 7.726 | 31.935 | 14.950 | | Aaron Nola | SP | 8.267 | 12.494 | 47.214 | 22.658 |
1) OF are overpaid. I've mentioned it before, but the Trout contract really skewed things. For just about every OF on this list, I feel their free agent season is projected 10-20% too high. 2) SS is unperpaid. For the same logic that overpaid OF in free agency creates inflated OF extensions, underpaid SS in free agency (or lack of quality SS altogether) has created bargain extensions for premier SS. ** These two reasons are why I think we need to stop comparing hitters to players at the same position for CE purposes. NSBL and MLB largely does NOT do that. Players are compared/evaluated based on their overall value and contribution to a MLB roster.3) Realmuto's free agent season seems undervalued by a bit, but the biggest reason for his very affordable CE number is his low ARB numbers, which are caused by the fact that he's been a garbage hitter in the sim for 3 years running now. I know I'm more aware of it because he's on my team, but he's been projected by ZiPS as one of the best hitting catchers for a few years now. From 2018 - 2020, he's hit 0.249/0.296/0.395 on the Diamondbacks. So I will take solace in his affordable CE, but I'd much rather have a top-performing catcher and be forced to pay him accordingly because his exceptional performance had forced his ARB salaries upward! 4) Middle to high end starters seem about right. When I was going through these in the spring, I thought deGrom, Thor and Nola all seemed high. But then Scherzer got almost $50M/year as a 35-year old free agent, and those other numbers didn't seem so high anymore. 5) Overall I think this method does a meh job of evaluating boring, bottom half of the roster regulars. Profar, Kyle Gibson, Carlos Rodon, Dylan Bundy. I'll have to look at ways to make that better. Here is what the numbers would look like with hitters all grouped together, instead of being compared to other players at the same position.
| Position | 5th YR ARB | Proj. 6th YR
ARB (2021) | Proj. FA (2022) | CE +1 Offer | | JT Realmuto | C | 3.530 | 6.911 | 26.349 | 12.636 | | Josh Bell | 1B | 8.045 | 10.581 | 16.200 | 11.609 | | Joc Pederson | OF | 8.402 | 10.050 | 23.102 | 13.851 | | James Paxton | SP | 7.965 | 12.192 | 35.776 | 18.644 | | Jurickson Profar | 2B | 6.317 | 7.367 | 14.043 | 9.242 | | Francisco Lindor | SS | 7.250 | 12.775 | 34.889 | 18.305 | | Kris Bryant | 3B | 8.955 | 12.336 | 32.057 | 17.783 | | Miguel Sano | 3B | 7.482 | 8.532 | 20.969 | 12.328 | | Michael Conforto | OF | 9.034 | 12.415 | 30.391 | 17.280 | | Raisel Iglesias | RP | 5.312 | 6.362 | 8.870 | 6.848 | | Eugenio Suarez | 3B | 5.565 | 8.101 | 26.193 | 13.286 | | Kyle Schwarber | OF | 7.965 | 9.613 | 23.578 | 13.719 | | Zach Britton | RP | 6.686 | 10.067 | 13.535 | 10.096 | | Aaron Hicks | OF | 6.100 | 9.481 | 25.676 | 13.752 | | Kyle Gibson | SP | 2.481 | 3.531 | 20.990 | 9.001 | | Carlos Correa | SS | 8.500 | 14.025 | 36.803 | 19.776 | | Dylan Bundy | SP | 5.142 | 6.192 | 23.873 | 11.736 | | Chris Taylor | OF | 4.623 | 6.271 | 20.996 | 10.630 | | Keone Kela | RP | 4.923 | 9.150 | 17.974 | 10.682 | | Roberto Osuna | RP | 7.047 | 11.274 | 21.173 | 13.165 | | Carlos Rodon | SP | 5.909 | 6.959 | 27.653 | 13.507 | | Robbie Ray | SP | 5.190 | 7.726 | 31.935 | 14.950 | | Aaron Nola | SP | 8.267 | 12.494 | 47.214 | 22.658 |
1) You can see the huge difference for Correa and Lindor. Seems much closer to what they might earn as a free agent, still could be a bit low. 2) 3B was also underpaid, Not as bad as SS though. 3) OF and 1B (the two most overpaid positions in free agency) numbers seem more reasonable. 4) Realmuto gets a bump too, but you can see the main driver for his affordable CE number was his low ARB numbers (which was mostly driven by his awful performance) 5) Pitcher numbers did not change, because starters and relievers will still be evaluated the same way. Connor, I'd be curious how these projected FA salaries compare to your numbers. Is there a way to go back to pre-2020 to get what your salary projections would've spit out? Specifically for the 2022 season? Feel free to chime in with thoughts, concerns, suggestions, etc... |
|
|
|
Post by Arizona on Nov 7, 2020 10:06:50 GMT -5
Excellent discussion. 1. Totally understand not wanting the subjectivity of the Committee members deciding contract values. If Ian and ConnorDog, Inc. can take the best aspects of their systems and combine them- or just take an average between their two systems- then I'm all for that. That's kinda what I'm thinking. Combine the strength of what Connor has (projections) with the strengths of the current system (general method). 2. Love that Ian is cool with a "franchise" CE. Totally down with having one less CE per team if there's some strategy with 1-2 of them being longer CEs. 3. Totally in favor of dumping "positional buckets", except for RP. I think those values should remain lower, because RP just aren't worth what positional players are. And if a team wants to burn one of their 4 CEs on an RP, more power to them. Agreed. I also think the concept of a CE being untradeable for half the duration of the contract is a good one. 2) A generous bump to the high-end guys, especially first-time ARB players. Bregman, Devers, Judge, Bellinger, Gallo, Olson, Chad Green, Heaney, Glasnow, Musgrove. All 3rd year guys having a big year in 2020. Bregman and Devers especially should be the guys pushing that $10M number as a first-time ARB with the MVP caliber seasons they've had. 4. Okay, this is what I was getting at earlier. Ian, I'm glad you did not take affront to it, because none was intended. But when we talked about a hypothetical Bellinger CE in the offseason, you said because he was a high-end guy, he should receive the max CE amount in your system, whereas you had to round down some of the non-elite players. That's what I was referring to. It's a little subjective to decide who is "high-end" and who is not. Ah..yes. I figured it was a matter of me not being clear. When I said that, I wasn't saying there should be some subjective component applied to those premier guys. I was saying that our system should have a built in 'boost' for high-end talent. The same way in MLB, the high-end ARB numbers seem really high. And the same way that free agency value is skewed toward the top of free agent class. Teams pay more per WAR for a 5 WAR player than they do for a 2.5 WAR player. This is true in NSBL and MLB. Based on what Connor already has, I'm sure he either already has this built in, or it could be added quickly. 5. Even though you are both phenomenal with numbers, there's one big thing you're overlooking: While our current Arb figures may not be keeping pace with real-life MLB, neither have our team payrolls.For example, the highest team payroll in NSBL is Colorado, a little above $165,000,000 (which is the only reason Brian is good muhahahaha). In real-life MLB (and here I went with 2019 payrolls, since Covid threw 2020 numbers all out of whack), there are 7 teams with payrolls higher than that, with the Cubs, Yankees, Nationals, Red Sox, and Giants all at or above $200,000,000. A. So either we majorly bump up team payrolls across the league here, so the higher arbitration numbers are affordable. B. Or we understand that we have a representative financial system already in place, and we keep everything scaled back accordingly. What Hayes said...sort of. Our overall payroll matches MLB. We lag behind by one season, of course, because we cannot predict the future. (for example, NSBL 2020 total salary cap closely resembles MLB 2019 payroll numbers). This concept might get screwy with COVID hitting 2020 MLB hard, but that's a conversation for another day. I will say that our 'spread' of payrolls is bunched together much more tightly than MLB, which is intentional. It would not be fun to have a Rays-like, $70M payroll and have to compete with a Yankees-like $200M payroll. If we had the same spread the MLB has, we would have GMs quitting because it could take years for them to 'dig out' of that low payroll situation. I think the general payroll/salary cap system put in place a few years ago works really well. Here are my suggestions:1) Bump up 1st-year ARB salaries 2) Bump up ARB salaries for high-end talent 3) Remove positional 'buckets' for hitters, when considering potential CE numbers 4) Incorporate Connor's projections into current system 5) Assuming the ARB numbers continue to creep up, allow CE+2 and *possibly* a 'franchise' type CE+3 player |
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Nov 7, 2020 11:55:22 GMT -5
That sounds like a really strong start!
I would like to see some tester numbers run at some point, just to see where they’re hitting. Would like to find a balance where it’s certainly a locked in increase for the player, but still a bit of a discount over what the player would get on the pure open market.
Great work,
JIm
|
|
