|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 21, 2018 11:09:16 GMT -5
There are two rule changes which we want to propose, the first of which is almost certainly going to be implemented.
1. A flattening of salary cap tiers. We currently have five tiers, we are going to go to 3 tiers. The first tier, which only includes the Yankees, will be merged into the second tier, the Yankees will have a $151M salary cap, with two tags to use each year. The fifth tier will merge with the fourth tier, they will have a $121M salary cap and they will lose 2 tags, leaving them with 4 tags a year. This will take place following the 2019 regular season, to ensure everyone has time to plan accordingly. The league office is unanimous in two things, we agree this is a good idea, and we agree there will never been another consolidation of tiers.
2. This concept is a little more pliable at the moment. I want to introduce a restructure tag, each team would get one such tag, in addition to whatever tags they already have. It would allow you to restructure any contract on your team, however you cannot trade a restructure tag, like you can a franchise/restricted tag (this portion is up in the air, trading might be something we implement). The following are proposals regarding this concept: - heightened contract requirements regarding backloading/frontloading - only allowing contracts to be restructured to be evenly spread over remaining years - when can the tag be used end of season, as with flex tags, or anytime - is this something that is good for the entire league - how do we police these new policies
As always we welcome everyone's opinion, unless you're wrong, and reserve the right to ignore any individual or all of your opinions, if we feel like it.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Mar 21, 2018 11:19:57 GMT -5
My proposal for the restructure tag is this.
Before: Arizona has 4 flex tags total. You can use any as RFA or FFA.
After: Arizona has 4 flex tags total. You can use any as FFA or RFA "restructure tag". "restructure tag" makes the tagged player's contract evenly spread instead of what it was before.
___________
- This means every team has a restructure tag and it is optional (if you were smart and dont need to restructure, then you get a little reward with the ability to use the tags elsewhere) - This means that we still only worry about tags once per year and it helps curb the shortsighted restructure of "I need to win right now I'm backloading this", which IMO we should try to avoid. - This is also easier to keep track of since it fits in with our current tag stuff.
___________
I could go either way on the "restructure however you want" vs the "restructure tags change contracts even spread only". I think the "even spread only" tag is a very good idea to lower the number of untradable contracts but it removes some of the creativity. However, recently some league members have not been huge fans of creative financing. I think ultimately, I lean towards the "even spread tag"
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Mar 21, 2018 12:29:51 GMT -5
I would rather see the ability to restructure any contract, including RLC with the following stips:
1 - You can only increase the salary in the current (upcoming) season. You still have to keep the same number of years and total value and you still have to be within the established boundaries for FA contracts.
2 - If you restructure a RLC with a club option, you automatically lose the club option and have to pay out that year.
Not in favor of limiting the number of restructures available in this plan, restructuring every contract is only going to hurt you in the current year, it's not going to hurt the league in the long run.
I think you would want the period for this to be prior to RFA but I suppose it could be any time before the start of the season.
The salary cap tiers rule, I don't feel strongly either way.
If we go to the restructure "tag" rule then I would add a stip that you can use the tag to add one year to any current contract at the original AAS.
I will again bring up the possibility of raising the max minimum contract starting at some determined point in the future.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Mar 21, 2018 12:33:05 GMT -5
I will again bring up the possibility of raising the max contract starting at some determined point in the future. There is no max contract? Also, another MAJOR concern I have is how complex any of these new rules are. Our league already has a ton of rules and they are not always super simple. I think if we are serious about this is must be kept simple.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Mar 21, 2018 12:47:39 GMT -5
I meant minimum contract, lol. I fixed it above, but the higher the cap goes the more irrelevant the 400k number is. Also MLB continually ups its minimum contract so it maps less to RLC.
I, for one enjoy the complexity as the main differentiator from a traditional fantasy league, but I understand why that is a concern. I also think my restructure plan is simpler than the tag plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2018 12:59:12 GMT -5
I'd like to see something like restructuring a contract during a trade. As long as total dollars add up and within our guidelines.....just a thought. Might beef up the trading.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Mar 21, 2018 13:12:45 GMT -5
Only if you don't allow the player to then immediately be traded back to the original team, lol.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Mar 21, 2018 13:13:05 GMT -5
I am definitely against being able to restructure more than one contract per year... That would be very very easy to abuse.
Also, there SHOULD be bad contracts sometimes. There should be consequences for owners that hand out dumb contracts.
I know we all want trades and stuff but I think trading is fine at its current activity level. In the last year (since last year at this date) we have had exactly 200 trades. Thats .54 per day or about 1 every other day. That is very very active. I don't think we need to make rules to make more trading.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Mar 21, 2018 13:19:13 GMT -5
Not a fan of the restructure tag idea. A contract is a contract; it’ll just muddy the waters. I think that front loading should be looked at anyways; I think it’s been a bigger bane on competitiveness than backloading could be.
I am a fan of getting more money of course.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (Larry) on Mar 21, 2018 13:42:31 GMT -5
I'm also not a fan of the restructuring of any contract. A contract is a contract; Helps those who gave out bad contracts. IMO
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Mar 21, 2018 13:52:02 GMT -5
I also am on board with no restructure tag... my proposal earlier was IF we are going to do it, this is how... but I'm in favor of not having one at all too.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 21, 2018 15:10:51 GMT -5
I also am on board with no restructure tag... my proposal earlier was IF we are going to do it, this is how... but I'm in favor of not having one at all too. thats not what you said last night, you sandbagging son of a bitch
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 21, 2018 15:34:12 GMT -5
No chance of allowing more than one restructure tag per team per year.
While I'm generally in favor of punishing people for shitty contracts, I'm in favor of as many good contracts as possible in this league. Having dead cap means you can't be competitive. If you make a dumb decision, you need to pay the price, but that price is usually payig half the contract, or dumping it on someone with cap spce and sending significant assets to do so. That's a big price to pay. I don't look at this as a tool to relieve bad contracts, I see it as a tool to trade contracts to teams with different cap situations.
I have $8M in cap space this year, but nearly 100M next year. I can't take a front loaded contract, but I sure as hell can take a backloaded one, or maybe one spread evenly. A frontloaded contract may have worked for someone in April, but due to unforeseen circumstances not work in June.
This is my idea, so I'm obviously in favor of it, but there's definitely enough reasons that I'm hesitant about implementing it. That said, I think it would be helpful. Unlike Tyler, I don't care if the rules are complicated, it's called natural selection and it's worked for a couple billion years.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Mar 21, 2018 15:57:44 GMT -5
I'm in favor of less rules or more easily understood rules. I dont think its a bad idea, I also dont think its a necessary one.
|
|