|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 6, 2017 19:57:16 GMT -5
Every now and then, the topic of large market and budget/revenue teams vs smaller market teams comes up in the PBL during various discussions. MLB acknowledges this as an issue, and has come up with different variations of "Competitive Balance" draft picks that are awarded after rounds one and two of the Amateur Draft. Under the previous CBA, the Competitive Balance Lottery gave teams that have either one of the 10 smallest markets or 10 smallest revenue pools one of six additional choices after each of the first and second rounds. Additionally, any other clubs that receive revenue-sharing funds were eligible for the supplemental second-round selections. A lottery was then held to divide the draft picks among the eligible teams. Under the new CBA, a formula was created to determine the teams that are eligible. I know that one of the criticisms is that MLB teams like Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Baltimore are getting picks and they are already successful. IMO, this criticism shows a lack of understanding about what competitive balance picks actually are meant to do. These picks are to balance out things like revenue, market size, etc. and have nothing to do with whether a team is winning or not. I think this might be a good way to help teams with a smaller market or revenue and I'd like to hear you guys' opinions on the possibility of doing this. Here's an article from a few years ago about the first iteration. m.mlb.com/news/article/85923640/competitive-balance-lottery-pays-out-12-draft-picks/And here's an article on the new variation. www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/14-small-market-teams-receive-competitive-balance-pick-for-2017-mlb-draft/
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 6, 2017 20:39:53 GMT -5
Not to be a super weiner but I don't know how much of a fan I am of these things, at least not in an online league. Playing as the Yankees or Red Sox makes winning easier; playing as Montreal makes winning harder. I mean, winning with anyone is a challenge, but it is understood that when you sign on to play as the Dodgers you're getting an easier game than taking over Houston. This is why some GMs jump to harder teams for more of a challenge. It is also why the GMs of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Miami and Baltimore merit such respect; because they're playing a harder game than others of us.
I think it makes a kind of sense for the MLB because markets are relatively fixed; Minnesota's fanbase is always in Minnesota and it will never be the size of New York. I understand the impulse to try and give all of your markets a fair shot.
I think it makes less sense for the PBL because we GMs can move around. David can build LA up and then jump to Montreal. When the opportunity presented itself I, or any small market GM, could have jumped to a larger market team. If our goal was to win, and win only, we should aspire to run the biggest market team possible, because doing so maximizes our chances of success.
I wouldn't want the picks if they were offered because I want to win because of my own performance, not because of a handout. If this league hadn't proved over and over again that quality of management can trump market limitations I'd be more receptive.
|
|
|
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Jan 8, 2017 8:35:18 GMT -5
Not to be a super weiner but I don't know how much of a fan I am of these things, at least not in an online league. Playing as the Yankees or Red Sox makes winning easier; playing as Montreal makes winning harder. I mean, winning with anyone is a challenge, but it is understood that when you sign on to play as the Dodgers you're getting an easier game than taking over Houston. This is why some GMs jump to harder teams for more of a challenge. It is also why the GMs of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Miami and Baltimore merit such respect; because they're playing a harder game than others of us. I think it makes a kind of sense for the MLB because markets are relatively fixed; Minnesota's fanbase is always in Minnesota and it will never be the size of New York. I understand the impulse to try and give all of your markets a fair shot. I think it makes less sense for the PBL because we GMs can move around. David can build LA up and then jump to Montreal. When the opportunity presented itself I, or any small market GM, could have jumped to a larger market team. If our goal was to win, and win only, we should aspire to run the biggest market team possible, because doing so maximizes our chances of success. I wouldn't want the picks if they were offered because I want to win because of my own performance, not because of a handout. If this league hadn't proved over and over again that quality of management can trump market limitations I'd be more receptive. I actually disagree with some of this. Strictly from a GM standpoint, I found winning in online leagues are not harder with one market size or another. Let me explain... When the PBL first started out and we were filling the teams, I took my hometown team (Boston Red Sox) and everyone jumped on big market teams first (except Shane and about 2 others) with the thought that "big market teams have it easier" and lets face it, the game for most is more fun when you're winning. This proved to be a big mistake because what comes with big markets? Big payrolls! We did not start out with a fantasy draft or anything where teams could have a big market then sign who they wanted in free agency. Most big market teams were really handcuffed. There were a lot of HUGE contracts handed out to players that OOTP did not rate well at all. Ryan Howard, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, etc... If you look from 2011-2016 (I excluded 2010 because rosters were set) the top 10 winning franchises were: 1. Tampa Bay 2. Boston 3. San Francisco 4. Seattle 5. Colorado 6. LA Dodgers 7. Pittsburgh 8. Texas 9. Miami 10. Washington Only 2 big market teams (Boston, LA Dodgers) were able to remain a top-10 team as the others were average, above average, etc. The Cubs were 16th, St. Louis 17th, NY Mets 20th, NY Yankees (24th!!!), LA Angels (30th)... The fact too that earlier versions of the game led teams to easily take advantage of young players so those with prospects locked them up 4-5-6-7 years and minimum money and left the FA pool dry. Then new GMs jumping at opportunity to take big market teams over, spend tons of cash on poor free agent classes just to see it not work out and then jump ship left a lot of franchises in disarray as well. I think mid-market teams had the best advantage in online leagues and small market with good farm systems really make winning online leagues the much easier. Now this isn't really the conversation but I just wanted to point out that big market teams in online leagues are not as easy as one expects. I have won with Boston, Oakland and Miami and I think they all had challenges and benefits but the challenge really isn't THAT MUCH different. NOW there is one exception to the rule, that is the 2040 Montreal Expos who were on the verge of a collapse and possible contraction so that is another topic all to itself. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Sean_RedsGM on Jan 8, 2017 10:55:42 GMT -5
Thank you for your opinions on this.
Winning in an online league historically can be won by any size team, however one aspect that was not discussed was the effect of the "Moneyball" mentality that many people seem to now have. The problem that this thinking creates is that things like free agent compensation for example are no longer as much of a guarantee as in the past. As a league, we've changed the compensation rules so that the "tag" on free agents is removed at the beginning of the season which further reduces the chance of a team receiving compensation for their players.
Why is this an issue? Large market and big budget teams can afford to lose free agents and sign others. That's not always the case for the smaller market and budget teams. The reason that free agent compensation and competitive balance picks exist in the MLB is not to give a team a "handout". It's because there is no salary cap like other leagues and that if a big budget team was run correctly, they would have a distinct advantage over many teams.
Can a small market and low budget team win it all? Heck yes they can but I'm pretty sure the reason the large market teams haven't won is more so due to poor management more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Jan 8, 2017 11:08:31 GMT -5
Not to be a super weiner but I don't know how much of a fan I am of these things, at least not in an online league. Playing as the Yankees or Red Sox makes winning easier; playing as Montreal makes winning harder. I mean, winning with anyone is a challenge, but it is understood that when you sign on to play as the Dodgers you're getting an easier game than taking over Houston. This is why some GMs jump to harder teams for more of a challenge. It is also why the GMs of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Miami and Baltimore merit such respect; because they're playing a harder game than others of us. I think it makes a kind of sense for the MLB because markets are relatively fixed; Minnesota's fanbase is always in Minnesota and it will never be the size of New York. I understand the impulse to try and give all of your markets a fair shot. I think it makes less sense for the PBL because we GMs can move around. David can build LA up and then jump to Montreal. When the opportunity presented itself I, or any small market GM, could have jumped to a larger market team. If our goal was to win, and win only, we should aspire to run the biggest market team possible, because doing so maximizes our chances of success. I wouldn't want the picks if they were offered because I want to win because of my own performance, not because of a handout. If this league hadn't proved over and over again that quality of management can trump market limitations I'd be more receptive. I actually disagree with some of this. Strictly from a GM standpoint, I found winning in online leagues are not harder with one market size or another. Let me explain...
I vehemently disagree with that statement. It is MUCH easier to win with a large market team in on-line leagues. The reason, small market teams are capped for revenue. Large market teams will always have 30-50 million more a year to play with for budgets if they are a consistent winner. With Carolina we went to the playoffs three years in a row, had good interest and my budget was never going to be more than 120 a year, while look at Boston with its 176 million budget or New York, who hasn't made the playoffs in years, still has a budget of 158 million. That is entirely due to market size, but the best example are the Angels, they are a consistent winner but since they are only an average market their budget is only 114 million, imagine if they had another 20-30 million to use. Any team would love to have an extra 30-50 million a year to play with.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Jan 8, 2017 12:19:46 GMT -5
I think we can all agree on two basic truths.
1. Differences in market size matter.
2. Not as much as gm skill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2017 21:12:10 GMT -5
Not to be a super weiner but I don't know how much of a fan I am of these things, at least not in an online league. Playing as the Yankees or Red Sox makes winning easier; playing as Montreal makes winning harder. I mean, winning with anyone is a challenge, but it is understood that when you sign on to play as the Dodgers you're getting an easier game than taking over Houston. This is why some GMs jump to harder teams for more of a challenge. It is also why the GMs of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Miami and Baltimore merit such respect; because they're playing a harder game than others of us. I think it makes a kind of sense for the MLB because markets are relatively fixed; Minnesota's fanbase is always in Minnesota and it will never be the size of New York. I understand the impulse to try and give all of your markets a fair shot. I think it makes less sense for the PBL because we GMs can move around. David can build LA up and then jump to Montreal. When the opportunity presented itself I, or any small market GM, could have jumped to a larger market team. If our goal was to win, and win only, we should aspire to run the biggest market team possible, because doing so maximizes our chances of success. I wouldn't want the picks if they were offered because I want to win because of my own performance, not because of a handout. If this league hadn't proved over and over again that quality of management can trump market limitations I'd be more receptive. I actually disagree with some of this. Strictly from a GM standpoint, I found winning in online leagues are not harder with one market size or another. Let me explain... When the PBL first started out and we were filling the teams, I took my hometown team (Boston Red Sox) and everyone jumped on big market teams first (except Shane and about 2 others) with the thought that "big market teams have it easier" and lets face it, the game for most is more fun when you're winning. This proved to be a big mistake because what comes with big markets? Big payrolls! We did not start out with a fantasy draft or anything where teams could have a big market then sign who they wanted in free agency. Most big market teams were really handcuffed. There were a lot of HUGE contracts handed out to players that OOTP did not rate well at all. Ryan Howard, Alex Rodriguez, Manny Ramirez, etc... If you look from 2011-2016 (I excluded 2010 because rosters were set) the top 10 winning franchises were: 1. Tampa Bay 2. Boston 3. San Francisco 4. Seattle 5. Colorado 6. LA Dodgers 7. Pittsburgh 8. Texas 9. Miami 10. Washington Only 2 big market teams (Boston, LA Dodgers) were able to remain a top-10 team as the others were average, above average, etc. The Cubs were 16th, St. Louis 17th, NY Mets 20th, NY Yankees (24th!!!), LA Angels (30th)... The fact too that earlier versions of the game led teams to easily take advantage of young players so those with prospects locked them up 4-5-6-7 years and minimum money and left the FA pool dry. Then new GMs jumping at opportunity to take big market teams over, spend tons of cash on poor free agent classes just to see it not work out and then jump ship left a lot of franchises in disarray as well. I think mid-market teams had the best advantage in online leagues and small market with good farm systems really make winning online leagues the much easier. Now this isn't really the conversation but I just wanted to point out that big market teams in online leagues are not as easy as one expects. I have won with Boston, Oakland and Miami and I think they all had challenges and benefits but the challenge really isn't THAT MUCH different. NOW there is one exception to the rule, that is the 2040 Montreal Expos who were on the verge of a collapse and possible contraction so that is another topic all to itself. LOL. I'd have to agree with you here, with OOTP GM's matter way more than payrolls and budget. In my league, Shane took over the low budget Rockies and had them built into powerhouses in no time. I had the Twins and although we never won anything, we were usually a playoff team. Meanwhile the Yankees were always near the bottom of the league, I don't remember the Dodgers or Red Sox doing well. I feel like the good GM's always took over a low budget team.
|
|