|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 5, 2017 17:58:16 GMT -5
Gratz everyone on another great PBL season. Activity has been very high and it has been a blast. I hope we can keep the momentum going.
Offseason is the time for the PBL Rules Committee to kick in to gear and discuss if there are any tweaks we may want to make to the league to make it even better.
Here are the items I have on the agenda that have came up since the last committee session.
1) Extensions. Has the game evolved to the point that we can lift restrictions and just let the game handle them? Are the rules in place appropriate and comprehensive?
2) A recommendation was made to consider a "Franchise Player" possibility.
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away?
4) We will revisit the "Ratings By League level" setting now that we understand it better.
5) Should we switch the Playoff Eligible roster to use the entire 40 man as of September 1 like MLB does?
Please post here or send me a private message if there is anything I have forgotten or if there is something you would like to bring to the committee.
Thanks and long live the PBL!
Ron
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 6, 2017 1:27:24 GMT -5
Post by earlweaver on Mar 6, 2017 1:27:24 GMT -5
Here are my quick thoughts.
1. No, i don't think OOTP 17 can handle this in any way that wont cause problems.
2. No, to me, too gimmicky...
3. This is a tough one. It's why trading draft picks with compensation isn't a great idea. In the NHL, RFA's, which are restriced free agents comes with draft pick compensation. If a team does not have the required draft picks to compensate with, they may not sign the player. This maybe to hard to police, but it's somewhat relevent to this issue.
So the way i see it...We do nothing, and let the game figure it out. We disallow teams to sign players they don't have the required compensation for. We assign a cash value to draft picks, a standard value, and pay the team losing the player if the signing team traded away said pick.....
4. Don't like it. I hate the application of the feature in game..
5. Yes.
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 6, 2017 16:59:56 GMT -5
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 6, 2017 16:59:56 GMT -5
3. This is a tough one. It's why trading draft picks with compensation isn't a great idea. In the NHL, RFA's, which are restriced free agents comes with draft pick compensation. If a team does not have the required draft picks to compensate with, they may not sign the player. This maybe to hard to police, but it's somewhat relevent to this issue. So the way i see it...We do nothing, and let the game figure it out. We disallow teams to sign players they don't have the required compensation for. We assign a cash value to draft picks, a standard value, and pay the team losing the player if the signing team traded away said pick..... I should clarify. When Derek enters a trade he moves the draft picks. When a team signs a comp eligible free agent the game removes the first available pick. So if a GM trades away his top three picks, signing the comp FA only costs the fourth pick. I come across this scenario at least once or twice every season when auditing the draft order. It just feels like a way a GM can job the system. They end up getting round one pick value twice. I think it could only be managed with a PBL rule that includes some kind of consequence. I don't even know if it is worth it but I wanted to bring it to the table for discussion.
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 6, 2017 17:46:11 GMT -5
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 6, 2017 17:46:11 GMT -5
Can we get some more info on the Franchise player tag and how it works? I have some vague conception that it gives you control over a certain player at a reduced locked in rate, but I don't know specifics.
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 6, 2017 17:58:14 GMT -5
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 6, 2017 17:58:14 GMT -5
Can we get some more info on the Franchise player tag and how it works? I have some vague conception that it gives you control over a certain player at a reduced locked in rate, but I don't know specifics. There is no PBL or OOTP franchise player tag. In the NFL it allows teams to block one player on the roster from going into free agency. For a salary he gets the average of the top 5 paid players at his position. I think the suggestion was made on the Forums here as a possible way to figure allow a small market team an opportunity to retain a real stud player at a lower cost. Like maybe allow each team to ignore the requirement of waiting until arbitration had been completed twice before signing a long term deal for one player. Then not let them ignore that requirement again until that contract had run it's coarse. Something along those lines. Maybe make it more complicated based on market size or revenue? Honestly I had a note saved that it was brought up for the PBLRC to review but I did not mark down who brought up the possibility. I don't remember who it was. Feel free to pop on and share thoughts on it.
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 6, 2017 18:42:39 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Wilson_DodgersGM on Mar 6, 2017 18:42:39 GMT -5
Personally not a fan of having a franchise tag.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Mar 6, 2017 18:49:08 GMT -5
Can we get some more info on the Franchise player tag and how it works? I have some vague conception that it gives you control over a certain player at a reduced locked in rate, but I don't know specifics. There is no PBL or OOTP franchise player tag. In the NFL it allows teams to block one player on the roster from going into free agency. For a salary he gets the average of the top 5 paid players at his position. I think the suggestion was made on the Forums here as a possible way to figure allow a small market team an opportunity to retain a real stud player at a lower cost. Like maybe allow each team to ignore the requirement of waiting until arbitration had been completed twice before signing a long term deal for one player. Then not let them ignore that requirement again until that contract had run it's coarse. Something along those lines. Maybe make it more complicated based on market size or revenue? Honestly I had a note saved that it was brought up for the PBLRC to review but I did not mark down who brought up the possibility. I don't remember who it was. Feel free to pop on and share thoughts on it. That was my suggestion My proposal is that a team with total payroll in the bottom half of the league be allowed to sign one player to a long term contract to buy out arbitration and free agency years. They would not be able to exercise that option again until that player reaches the 6 year service mark. That restriction would hold even if they trade the player, so no one could abuse the rule by signing a player- then trading him because his value is higher then signing another player long term. It wouldn't be all that difficult to track. So anyway that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Mar 6, 2017 18:49:57 GMT -5
1) Extensions. Has the game evolved to the point that we can lift restrictions and just let the game handle them? Are the rules in place appropriate and comprehensive?
I like what we have now.
2) A recommendation was made to consider a "Franchise Player" possibility.
No thanks, too much paperwork to keep track of things
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away?
No. The game already takes away your next highest pick if you traded away your 1st. You don't want to loose a player then sign him or trade him for value, simple as that.
4) We will revisit the "Ratings By League level" setting now that we understand it better.
No thanks. Did not like that system
5) Should we switch the Playoff Eligible roster to use the entire 40 man as of September 1 like MLB does?
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 6, 2017 20:16:23 GMT -5
There is no PBL or OOTP franchise player tag. In the NFL it allows teams to block one player on the roster from going into free agency. For a salary he gets the average of the top 5 paid players at his position. I think the suggestion was made on the Forums here as a possible way to figure allow a small market team an opportunity to retain a real stud player at a lower cost. Like maybe allow each team to ignore the requirement of waiting until arbitration had been completed twice before signing a long term deal for one player. Then not let them ignore that requirement again until that contract had run it's coarse. Something along those lines. Maybe make it more complicated based on market size or revenue? Honestly I had a note saved that it was brought up for the PBLRC to review but I did not mark down who brought up the possibility. I don't remember who it was. Feel free to pop on and share thoughts on it. That was my suggestion My proposal is that a team with total payroll in the bottom half of the league be allowed to sign one player to a long term contract to buy out arbitration and free agency years. They would not be able to exercise that option again until that player reaches the 6 year service mark. That restriction would hold even if they trade the player, so no one could abuse the rule by signing a player- then trading him because his value is higher then signing another player long term. It wouldn't be all that difficult to track. So anyway that's it. I think it's safe to say that probably every effort is being made by OOTP to specifically prevent the AI from negotiating those kinds of contracts because they can be most gamey. And what player would ever (in real life) agree to be "that guy!" And being allowed to trade them too? That kind of flies in the face of the intent does it not?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 6, 2017 21:26:42 GMT -5
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away? No. The game already takes away your next highest pick if you traded away your 1st. You don't want to loose a player then sign him or trade him for value, simple as that. Before I say anything let me get my disclaimer out. This is a perfect legal and legitimate strategy. I am not calling anyone out for cheating or gaming the system. However, the team that does this is double dipping and gaining value over the rest of the teams. If you have traded away your first round pick you have received value for that pick. When it comes to signing a comp eligible FA you are now looking at giving up your second round pick (or even third or fourth if you traded multiple picks away) to get him. Losing a first round pick is going to make the guy unaffordable in the view of many GMs which greatly reduces the competition for his services and allows him to be signed with a lower salary that he would have commanded if his market included all teams equally. At that point you are sacrificing the much less valued later pick to be included in the reduced market and you have already received value for the early picks. As my friend Ervin used to say, this is not my hill to die on. But I think it is a competitive balance issue worthy of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Mar 6, 2017 21:56:04 GMT -5
If a team trades his 1st then signs a comp player I say he loses his next highest pick of that year AND his 1st the following season. That'll stop it.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 6, 2017 23:43:15 GMT -5
1) Extensions. Has the game evolved to the point that we can lift restrictions and just let the game handle them? Are the rules in place appropriate and comprehensive?
I think are current restrictions aren't that oppressive and working pretty well.
2) A recommendation was made to consider a "Franchise Player" possibility.
Well, as a guy who would like to sign Duane Hansen cheap for the next 20 years, I like the idea. But since we have no real guidelines for what this would look like, I'm gonna suggest we wait until there's a detailed description of how it would work.
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away?
Yes. Although I still have a bee in my bonnet about people who sign comp players after the tag has been dropped. So what do I know.
4) We will revisit the "Ratings By League level" setting now that we understand it better.
As long as we don't institute it until the season starts. That way we make our trades and set up for the season with ratings we understand.
5) Should we switch the Playoff Eligible roster to use the entire 40 man as of September 1 like MLB does?
I don't see why not.
Side Question: Are we going to officially codify the rule that says that all trades must include the Boston Red Sox?
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Mar 7, 2017 8:43:49 GMT -5
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away? No. The game already takes away your next highest pick if you traded away your 1st. You don't want to loose a player then sign him or trade him for value, simple as that. Before I say anything let me get my disclaimer out. This is a perfect legal and legitimate strategy. I am not calling anyone out for cheating or gaming the system. However, the team that does this is double dipping and gaining value over the rest of the teams. If you have traded away your first round pick you have received value for that pick. When it comes to signing a comp eligible FA you are now looking at giving up your second round pick (or even third or fourth if you traded multiple picks away) to get him. Losing a first round pick is going to make the guy unaffordable in the view of many GMs which greatly reduces the competition for his services and allows him to be signed with a lower salary that he would have commanded if his market included all teams equally. At that point you are sacrificing the much less valued later pick to be included in the reduced market and you have already received value for the early picks. As my friend Ervin used to say, this is not my hill to die on. But I think it is a competitive balance issue worthy of discussion. Lets look at this from the player's prospective (where the hell is Zevin when you need him). The Comp tag is a total farce and if the league is looking to penalize additional picks for a signing a comp tagged player it will drive down salaries for comp players even further. It would essentially diminish the value of FA to players and salaries received which would likely result in a players strike. As of right now when a player is comped and they sign with another team the team that lost the player is compensated with a 1st round pick regardless if the signing team has a 1st or not so there is no harm to the original team. Again if you really want to get value out of player that you know you wont be able to sign then make sure to capitalize on trading him early. Look at Cleveland for instance (sorry to point you out guys) they are looking to move Alfredo Pantoja now (year 4) since they know they wont be able to sign him long term. So they are trying to maximize their value form him now which is the smart way of managing high costs players. Also lets be honest the comp tags are WAY overused, there are a lot of marginal players that are offered comp status knowing that the player will not except it. I personally would much rather see comp tag prices raised to say 20M, then the original teams would use them MUCH more sparingly because there is a chance that the player may accept it. Lastly I disagree that this is a competitive balance issue as it is set up now. All teams can take advantage of this setup if they plan accordingly. If I'm a small/mid market team I can plan ahead trade my valuable 1st round pick for good ML ready talent and then sign some comp FAs a reduced prices. My 2 cents for what its worth.
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 7, 2017 10:48:37 GMT -5
Post by Dustin Ackley on Mar 7, 2017 10:48:37 GMT -5
1) Extensions. Has the game evolved to the point that we can lift restrictions and just let the game handle them? Are the rules in place appropriate and comprehensive?
Just set a time on when players can be signed to multi-year extension.. ie after 5 years of Major league service time.
2) A recommendation was made to consider a "Franchise Player" possibility.
How would this actually work? An average of the highest 5 paid players at the position?
3) Should we do anything to legislate signing comp eligible free agents after first round picks have been traded away?
Will be difficult to police, I would be in favor of scrapping compensation and just giving all of the teams that lost a comp player a sandwich round pick, forfeited if they resign their own player.
4) We will revisit the "Ratings By League level" setting now that we understand it better.
God no...
5) Should we switch the Playoff Eligible roster to use the entire 40 man as of September 1 like MLB does?
Yes.
Please post here or send me a private message if there is anything I have forgotten or if there is something you would like to bring to the committee.
1) BRING BACK DUSTIN ACKLEY!
2) GET RID OF STARS! 20-80 OVERALL AND POTENTIAL SCALE!
|
|
|
PBLRC
Mar 7, 2017 12:30:53 GMT -5
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 7, 2017 12:30:53 GMT -5
1) Extensions. Has the game evolved to the point that we can lift restrictions and just let the game handle them? Are the rules in place appropriate and comprehensive? Just set a time on when players can be signed to multi-year extension.. ie after 5 years of Major league service time. Big fan of this Anthony!
|
|