|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 7:13:48 GMT -5
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 27, 2014 7:13:48 GMT -5
Problem with releasing player with highest WAR is they are most likely under a multiyear contract and will get hit with a huge release fee which will bring them deeper into the red.
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 7:15:59 GMT -5
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 27, 2014 7:15:59 GMT -5
Is it safe to assume that teams over budget are trying to win? Would it be fair to suspend the player(s) with the highest WAR until team is under budget?
What about if your first round pick automatically becomes pushed back to the end of the first round?
Obviously these both leads to more questions but if we can get a general rule in place then we can iron on the details. Just need a starting point.
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 7:37:28 GMT -5
Post by NickP_Marlins GM on Apr 27, 2014 7:37:28 GMT -5
Its sad we penalize teams for trying to win more than teams trying to lose. Should we make each equal?
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 8:35:18 GMT -5
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 27, 2014 8:35:18 GMT -5
Well, we can't really look at releasing players... makes money situation worse. Suspending players is a possibility... but, meh. I still like SAM's idea that was endorsed by several GM's. I might offer one twist that makes sense I think. Rather than scaling the punishment based on the AMOUNT you are over budget, scale the draft pick penalties based on how LONG (in time) you are over budget. Something like:
Over budget less than 30 days - NO PENALTY
Over budget 30-59 days - Loss of 1st round draft pick
Over budget 60-89 days - Loss of 2nd round draft pick
Over budget 90 days - Removal from the league, draft picks restored for future GM.
The MAIN thing this accomplishes that Sam's plan does not... is it provides incentive to get back in the green. In Sam's plan, I'm over budget, you take my draft pick based on amount... but then there is no hurry to get back in the green. The pick is already taken, and so I can just stay over budget all year if I like. Heck, a savy coach could "Game" the system... I realize I am more competitive than I thought I was going to be, so I trade for a 20 million dollar stud that another team wants to dump for salary reasons, I use this player to help me win the World Series, I get penalized a first round draft pick.... I am maybe 18 million in the hole, but it was a one year deficit to carry deliberately at the price of one draft pick.
Again, I think Sam's plan is best, but it should be scaled based on TIME, not based on amount. Let's provide incentive to get OUT of red.
Tim / KC
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 8:44:44 GMT -5
Is it safe to assume that teams over budget are trying to win? Would it be fair to suspend the player(s) with the highest WAR until team is under budget? Good idea. But for the record while they would be in the red for the rest of the season, it would be wiped away at the end of the season. Again though suspension seems like a good idea to me. Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 10:31:03 GMT -5
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Apr 27, 2014 10:31:03 GMT -5
I agree with Tim in that the suspension should be based on time, however I don't think that being over budget for 90 days should result in removal from the league. Perhaps just suspension from participating in the playoffs?
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 10:47:13 GMT -5
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 27, 2014 10:47:13 GMT -5
Suspension from playoffs makes no sense... if they are not a playoff team, there is no penalty. Just increase the draft pick penalty or something. Every 30 days they lose another draft pick.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 10:57:57 GMT -5
Post by Luc_AZdbacks on Apr 27, 2014 10:57:57 GMT -5
Suspension from playoffs makes no sense... if they are not a playoff team, there is no penalty. Just increase the draft pick penalty or something. Every 30 days they lose another draft pick. Tim / KC Yeah I guess so, however if the team is over budget they could be just going over budget to make a push to the playoffs. After a certain point I think some further penalty to the owner should occur, just not removal from the league. Maybe auction off their highest paid player to the rest of the league? It would provide a use for cash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 11:46:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 11:46:51 GMT -5
Is it safe to assume that teams over budget are trying to win? Would it be fair to suspend the player(s) with the highest WAR until team is under budget? What about if your first round pick automatically becomes pushed back to the end of the first round? Obviously these both leads to more questions but if we can get a general rule in place then we can iron on the details. Just need a starting point. The problem with the first idea is that it doesn't hurt teams with bad records who couldn't care less about their records. Pushing draft picks to the end of the draft was my first thought about penalties but then teams with good records who are already drafting near the back of the draft don't care (and it really really hurts teams drafting in the top 5). As for penalties being based on number of days in the red, it's a good idea but unrealistic to think someone is going notice the first day any team is in debt and to count up the days that they stay in the red - it'd be a nightmare to monitor and enforce.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 11:51:52 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 11:51:52 GMT -5
I get Tim's point about GMs not being encouraged to get out of the red once they get penalized a draft pick - but lets face it if we had a GM sign a $20m player and not caring about the consequences that would probably not be the kind of GM we'd want in the league anyway.
I think we just need the most simple answer we can come up with - straight forward, fair across all teams and easy to enforce. A quick draft pick removal does that job IMO, and the embarrassment of being a GM who is penalized in this way should be enough to make sure it rarely happens!
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -5
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 27, 2014 11:57:02 GMT -5
I'm at work and got literally 2 seconds to respond but I'll get to everything in this post and the others but my question is, with everyone wanting to be so strict, who is volunteering to be the person to check these rules out and report them? Everyone is always quick to point out the rules and how they want them check, enforced, etc but nobody besides Rob has been willing to be that guy to go the extra mile.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 12:03:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2014 12:03:18 GMT -5
I'd help with this stuff as long as the rules make sense. Let me know if/ how/ when I can help commish (but Rob always seems on top of the contract stuff already).
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 12:05:36 GMT -5
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Apr 27, 2014 12:05:36 GMT -5
I already volunteered to be the COMP monitor next year, and make sure that people are warned timely not to sign Comp Fa's if they traded away their first rounder. And I'll watch FA closely to make sure that happens.
Like Sam says. I have no problem making sure the rules are followed.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Ackley on Apr 27, 2014 12:15:15 GMT -5
Why are you monitoring comp FA's when Derek already said we can deal our first round pick and sign a player?
So according to these rules if im over budget after a certain amount of daya im forced out of the league? A member who has been in the league for 17+ seasons and id be out just like that???
|
|
|
HELP
Apr 27, 2014 12:26:43 GMT -5
Post by Derek _ Red Sox on Apr 27, 2014 12:26:43 GMT -5
Its going to take a lot to get thrown out of the league. Especially guys who been around since the beginning who has shown they don't mean any harm.
|
|