Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2016 8:10:26 GMT -5
What about every time you announce an extension, you set up a poll with the option to "challenge". You need a certain amount of challenges for it to get sent to Zevin. And the criteria for challenging is not a "team friendly contract", but a "ridiculous" contract like this
|
|
|
Post by Chip_PhilliesGM on Feb 2, 2016 10:18:29 GMT -5
Was perusing the major transactions on reports and saw that the Yankees signed Stu Lane to an 8 year extension, but he's only been through 1 arbitration hearing and I think 2 are required, right?
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 10:31:17 GMT -5
Yes 2 are required.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 2, 2016 14:23:26 GMT -5
A poll sounds reasonable to me. Just want to make sure we officially codify how the process should work, what the challange threshold is, etc.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 15:42:07 GMT -5
A poll sounds reasonable to me. Just want to make sure we officially codify how the process should work, what the challange threshold is, etc. Yah, it seems like this is a good thing to figure out sooner then later as I and I'm sure many others want to make extensions. Also too, somebody mentioned a player got extended without having enough arb years. Also, as far as the team options go. What is the rule commish? Is it how it is stated in the RULES (GOVERNANCE) or is it just 25 percent for team option buyouts no matter how many years?
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 2, 2016 15:56:38 GMT -5
My head is spinning on this thread. The majority of the group seemed to be in favor of benching Zevin because the process was too cumbersome, and now I am hearing suggestions for how to proceed that are MORE cumbersome than Zevin. Why would we do that?
The original plan, I thought--- was to create a list of common sense restrictions for contract extensions, publishing that list of restrictions, then having one person monitor all extensions to ensure they are in compliance with the restrictions. That's an easy path that allows GM's to be SELF-SUFFICIENT, and I thought that was where this was heading.
Instead, we are talking about a period of time for owners to vote against an extension, or a panel of guys to look at the extensions, or Zevin popping in with a PM whenever a contract seems TOO team friendly, or... a whatever else.
I'll adapt to whatever. I'm just saying. Easier is better.
1. Compile Restrictions List 2. Publish Restrictions List 3. One Person Validates Adherence to the Restrictions List
Simple. Easy. Yes, we can only do so much with black and white restrictions lists... but that has to be better than taking a process that was too cumbersome and changing it into something even bigger and more convoluted.
Again, I'm on board with whatever you all decide, but... (sigh).
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 15:59:57 GMT -5
My head is spinning on this thread. The majority of the group seemed to be in favor of benching Zevin because the process was too cumbersome, and now I am hearing suggestions for how to proceed that are MORE cumbersome than Zevin. Why would we do that? The original plan, I thought--- was to create a list of common sense restrictions for contract extensions, publishing that list of restrictions, then having one person monitor all extensions to ensure they are in compliance with the restrictions. That's an easy path that allows GM's to be SELF-SUFFICIENT, and I thought that was where this was heading. Instead, we are talking about a period of time for owners to vote against an extension, or a panel of guys to look at the extensions, or Zevin popping in with a PM whenever a contract seems TOO team friendly, or... a whatever else. I'll adapt to whatever. I'm just saying. Easier is better. 1. Compile Restrictions List 2. Publish Restrictions List 3. One Person Validates Adherence to the Restrictions List Simple. Easy. Yes, we can only do so much with black and white restrictions lists... but that has to be better than taking a process that was too cumbersome and changing it into something even bigger and more convoluted. Again, I'm on board with whatever you all decide, but... (sigh). Yah, I think whatever is easiest too. I'm still in favor of doing it in game, but...We just don't have any restrictions and we obviously need them. I agree the voting process could take just as long and be problem as far as having to wait. We just need restrictions or guidelines so that we can all follow them to a point.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 2, 2016 16:04:39 GMT -5
If we were so inclined, we could shift our focus to suggesting ideas for said restrictions, and then Derek could pull from that list of suggestions, and provide the group a decision on which suggestions he is going to go with. We could open a new thread specifically for that purpose. Maybe... just maybe... if we all came up with logical ideas on how to annunciate clear, efficient restrictions... we might find that such a list is more useful at accomplishing our goals than we thought.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Feb 2, 2016 17:06:52 GMT -5
I'm not actually against the John Evans contract per se. The fact that I had a player under one valuation system and traded him and he was signed to a better deal under a different valuation system is surely a little frustrating, but that doesn't actually mean that the current system is unfair. To be reasonable, we totally knew that the reasonably expensive Zevin contracts were being replaced with the commonly team-friendly in-game contracts.
If the Evans deal is throwing us in a tizzy, we should take a long and hard look at whether the convenience of in-game contracts beats Zevin's much more realistic contracts.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 17:31:58 GMT -5
I think if we just follow the game and how it works as is then there is no problem. If there is going to be some extensions put in question, what could be some guidelines to help follow.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 2, 2016 17:35:39 GMT -5
Maybe... just maybe... if we all came up with logical ideas on how to annunciate clear, efficient restrictions... we might find that such a list is more useful at accomplishing our goals than we thought. But here's my essential question, that I haven't heard an answer to. There are common sense restriction that are easy to enact. Buyouts being limited. A maximum to contract length. No extensions before 2 arbitration hearings. And because they were easy to enact, they're already part of the league rules. If we agree (despite John Healy being a really good sport about it) that this contract is unfairly low for the quality of player, then we would have to make restrictions that raise contract costs. But how do we go about this? One simple idea might be no 4 star players sign contracts under 10 million a year. That is a simple restriction that fixes the issue. However, it ignores a lot of important facets. Player age. Player health. Past performance and recent WAR. Free agent contracts for similar players. I bet that each of use can think of a contract for a 4 star player that is over-valued at 10 million per year, with the extenuating circumstances the game allows. So what's next? We could try to make a series of rules that take those things into account. I'd imagine that in the end they would have to be a lot more intricate than we'd like. And in the end you know what we'd have? An algorithm for determining a realistic player value. But we already have that. It's called Zevin. We would be reinventing the wheel, and what we'd end up doing is transferring the work from 2 people to the entire league. If that's the argument being made, then fine. It's a reasonable idea to make the way Zevin crunches numbers known to all the Gms and trust us to follow those guidelines accordingly. But if the way those numbers were crunched were a series of straightforward linear rules, I'd imagine the Commish would have just listed them that way to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Feb 2, 2016 17:52:35 GMT -5
Maybe... just maybe... if we all came up with logical ideas on how to annunciate clear, efficient restrictions... we might find that such a list is more useful at accomplishing our goals than we thought. But here's my essential question, that I haven't heard an answer to. There are common sense restriction that are easy to enact. Buyouts being limited. A maximum to contract length. No extensions before 2 arbitration hearings. And because they were easy to enact, they're already part of the league rules. If we agree (despite John Healy being a really good sport about it) that this contract is unfairly low for the quality of player, then we would have to make restrictions that raise contract costs. But how do we go about this? One simple idea might be no 4 star players sign contracts under 10 million a year. That is a simple restriction that fixes the issue. However, it ignores a lot of important facets. Player age. Player health. Past performance and recent WAR. Free agent contracts for similar players. I bet that each of use can think of a contract for a 4 star player that is over-valued at 10 million per year, with the extenuating circumstances the game allows. So what's next? We could try to make a series of rules that take those things into account. I'd imagine that in the end they would have to be a lot more intricate than we'd like. And in the end you know what we'd have? An algorithm for determining a realistic player value. But we already have that. It's called Zevin. We would be reinventing the wheel, and what we'd end up doing is transferring the work from 2 people to the entire league. If that's the argument being made, then fine. It's a reasonable idea to make the way Zevin crunches numbers known to all the Gms and trust us to follow those guidelines accordingly. But if the way those numbers were crunched were a series of straightforward linear rules, I'd imagine the Commish would have just listed them that way to begin with. So.... I feel ya. No matter HOW we set up restrictions, it will NOT be Zevin. It just won't. I get it. I think Oakland said it best above... we're just going to have to decide, ultimately, who we want to be? We can be Zevin--- and deal with the ongoing headache of waiting game-months to get extensions handled. OR, we can be more IN-GAME and deal with the headache of extremely team friendly contracts. If I have to choose one over the other--- I'd rather keep it simple. Contracts may be friendly, but they are friendly for ALL teams. It's fair.
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 19:03:59 GMT -5
How about limit extensions to players under 30 to 5 years?
Plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 2, 2016 20:08:24 GMT -5
The AI is not Zevin. That's evident. We asked to run without Zevin. That likely means we have to live with the consequences (and some sweetheart deals). To put up a poll to see if a deal if fair to all the other 31 GM's is........well........cumbersome at best. I don't see that as a viable option. Will contracts in some cases swing the other way now. Yep! Wish I reconsidered Porter now! And will SHANE benefit BIG TIME from this. Yep! We all know that players love to sign great deals with winners and shun losers outright in some cases. And not just Shane...but he did raise this, and he's correct. You can easily put some rules into place, in fact some are, like the 2 ARB years (which YOU will have to research honour before negotiating). Also the option buyouts on TO's. And min/maxs on incentives, etc. But it's tough to put financial calculations into place - Heck, that's like 32 self-policing Zevins!!! Eeek! Seems the options are:
1) Immediately return to ZEVIN and make it work as best we can - AND re-evaluate any contracts signed in the interim. That was quick! 2) Suck it up and live with some stinky numbers in extensionsOr we could think of more radical, simple, GAME-READY ideas (some may not like)... I'm just saying, not championing: a) Contract length limits - can be toggled in-game b) No extensions - can be toggled in-game Or VERY, VERY, VERY simple (and easily double-checked) math, like: * Each year of any extension offered to a player MUST be at least DOUBLE their current salaryAssuming they have been through TWO arb periods, then the game has calculated their rough "worth". Doubling that, regardless of their potential, as a starting point seems fair to me? Regardless of what they ask for in-game! A merely good player making $3.5m would start at $7m for an extension (each subsequent year that OR MORE)... A superstar making $9m would start at $18m for an extension... Otherwise, let them walk and try to sign them in FA bidding against all others. PLUS you could quite easily check their extension amount signed against the current salary. Easy peasy!!! One additional line in the current rules...
|
|
|
Post by AstrosGM_Shane on Feb 2, 2016 20:10:48 GMT -5
Here's a simple idea.
Players under 30 years old with contracts that have an AAV under 10 million can only be signed for 3 years.
Under 30 years old and over 10 million can go up to 5 years or less.
Over 30 is fair game.
|
|