Offseason Kickoff

[Red Sox GM (Ty)]

Gentlemen,

Thanks to all for another successful season, and congratulations to our champion Kansas City Royals! I will process distributions to those with winnings this weekend, so if you are due money, keep an eye on your Fantrax account, and please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions. I know we started a headcount earlier to determine if any additional replacement GMs are required for next season, so if you haven’t made your intentions public yet, please do so now. Hopefully we don’t require any more replacements, but if we do, it would be ideal to begin that search process earlier than later.

It’s my plan to be around to participate in our offseason activities and discussion in a meaningful way. I recognize that my absence this year has made life more difficult than it should have been, and I appreciate everyone’s patience and understanding. Anyway, now is the time of year where we discuss potential changes to our rules and policies. I want to get an earlier start this offseason because I know there are a handful of items for attention that I want to give everyone as much time as possible to weigh in on. If you want to propose changes or start a discussion that falls outside of what I outline here, please feel free to post and persuade.

1. The multi-faceted issue of teams over the cap/roster limit on Proboards, my inability to process bids in a timely manner and penalties/policies regarding not rostering players won in FA requires a workable solution for
next year. I have some thoughts that I will spell out in greater detail a little later, but feel free to share yours in the interim.

a. Should players won in FA but not rostered be offered to the next highest bidder?
b. What penalty, if any, should be incurred for not rostering a player won in FA?
c. Should we move the bid deadline to provide me a more realistic chance of processing more consistently and on time?

2. Additionally, it seems that our tiebreaker language needs to be clarified to eliminate confusion moving forward- this shouldn’t be a big issue, but it’s an important one that everyone needs to understand.

3. In what’s become a perennial discussion that doesn’t progress to the point of rule changes, I’ve been encouraged to bring up playoff expansion again. It’s my hope to come to an amendment that allows more teams to
participate in the playoffs without significantly shortening/degrading the regular season and providing a tangible advantage to teams that perform the best during the regular season.

4. There has been some discussion of adding the ability for teams to trade cash. Prior to the creation and upkeep of the master spreadsheet that Tyler and Scott so generously and ably maintain for us, I’d rejected this
idea out of hand. Now that we have a tool that could track that relatively seamlessly, I’m more inclined to consider it. Contingent upon Scott and Tyler’s (or potentially another volunteer) consent, let’s discuss
reasonable policies/limitations that could spur additional trade activity while preventing future captastrophes.


a. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single trade/to a single team?
b. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single year?
c. Limitations on trading future cash?


I hope all is well with you and your families, and I look forward to spirited discussion in the coming months and the happy chaos of our offseason activities picking up early next year.

ELO

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

If you think moving the deadline to 5pm on Friday would be helpful to your process then that is a no brainer for me. You do that EVERY week, we should adjust to make it as easy as possible for you.

Outside the box thinking on trading cash: If you want to trade cash for any future year, you have to pay the league fee in advance. Not that you have to pay more, just that if you abandon your team after completely ruining the future then the next owner can rebuild for free without paying league fees.

I would think there needs to be limits to the amount you can trade away as well, but I'll leave that to someone smarter to figure out. But I do think we are capable of tracking this with the sheet in a relatively easy way.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Agreed on the FA deadline. If 5pm makes it easier than I think do it.

Other thoughts

1a - Yes, up to 3rd highest bidder. Posted till midnight Wed (highest bidder), Thurs & Fri (Highest or 2nd highest bidder can claim) Sat and Sun (Highest, 2nd highest or 3rd highest bidder can claim)
4 - Yes trade cap space. For purposes of tracking only current season money can be traded with no limit. Money is recorded as a player dropped on the spreadsheet.

[Twins GM (Mike)]

a. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single trade/to a single team?
10% of cap
b. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single year?
10% of cap.
c. Limitations on trading future cash? I think we shouldn't be allowed to trade into the future.
I don't think we should be allowed to trade for future cash. 

4d. What is potentially overlooked is if there is a traded player with money split/eaten by original team and that player is dropped. Where does the cap hit come from? Are we taking the entire salary as the penalty if dropped or just what is owed by the current team. If money is being retained, does it count against original team player count.

[Red Sox GM (Ty)]

Oct 25, 2023 5:10:36 GMT -5 Twins GM (Mike) said:

4d. What is potentially overlooked is if there is a traded player with money split/eaten by original team and that player is dropped. Where does the cap hit come from? Are we taking the entire salary as the penalty if dropped or just what is owed by the current team. If money is being retained, does it count against original team player count.

I envision the trading of cash as independent of any player acquired along with it. If I trade you Player X 24: $12M and $5M in 24, your cap limit would increase by $5M in 24, my cap limit would decrease by $5M in 24 and you can do with Player X as you see fit. Dropping him would cause you to incur a $6M dead cap hit in 24 as he would in any other scenario.

[Cubs GM (Scott B)]

I suggest starting small. Can only trade 10M a season. No team team can acquire more than an extra 15-20M a season.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

"1a - Yes, up to 3rd highest bidder. Posted till midnight Wed (highest bidder), Thurs & Fri (Highest or 2nd highest bidder can claim) Sat and Sun (Highest, 2nd highest or 3rd highest bidder can claim)"

This would mean that players cannot be posted in back to back weeks right?

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Oct 25, 2023 8:35:48 GMT -5 Red Sox GM (Ty) said:

Oct 25, 2023 5:10:36 GMT -5 Twins GM (Mike) said:

4d. What is potentially overlooked is if there is a traded player with money split/eaten by original team and that player is dropped. Where does the cap hit come from? Are we taking the entire salary as the penalty if dropped or just what is owed by the current team. If money is being retained, does it count against original team player count.

I envision the trading of cash as independent of any player acquired along with it. If I trade you Player X 24: $12M and $5M in 24, your cap limit would increase by $5M in 24, my cap limit would decrease by $5M in 24 and you can do with Player X as you see fit. Dropping him would cause you to incur a $6M dead cap hit in 24 as he would in any other scenario.

To clarify. Trading Salary is NOT attached to any player traded. Hypothetically, I could trade my 4th round pick to the Padres for $10 Million in cap space. I would NOT be required to send or receive any players in return.

Am i wrong on this?

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

I believe that is the potential pitch, yes.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Oct 25, 2023 10:41:39 GMT -5 D Backs GM (Tyler) said:

"1a - Yes, up to 3rd highest bidder. Posted till midnight Wed (highest bidder), Thurs & Fri (Highest or 2nd highest bidder can claim) Sat and Sun (Highest, 2nd highest or 3rd highest bidder can claim)"

This would mean that players cannot be posted in back to back weeks right?

Correct.  

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Oct 24, 2023 14:23:05 GMT -5 D Backs GM (Tyler) said:

If you think moving the deadline to 5pm on Friday would be helpful to your process then that is a no brainer for me. You do that EVERY week, we should adjust to make it as easy as possible for you.

Outside the box thinking on trading cash: If you want to trade cash for any future year, you have to pay the league fee in advance. Not that you have to pay more, just that if you abandon your team after completely ruining the future then the next owner can rebuild for free without paying league fees.

I would think there needs to be limits to the amount you can trade away as well, but I'll leave that to someone smarter to figure out. But I do think we are capable of tracking this with the sheet in a relatively easy way.

Pertaining to D Back's comment on trading Salary, and specifically, his concern that traded salary limits are decided by someone smarter than him. I agree with D Back. I'll get with the other 28 owners.

[Twins GM (Mike)]

I'm in disagreement with just trading for cap space in general. I thought the proposed rule change was in regards to retaining salary. I'm not a fan of outright "purchasing" cap space.

I think depending on the the limit, this could have negative effects. I think since we already have $$ differences along with tags that reflect the amount of cap space you have. I think teams with extra tags and can just purchase $$ outright can lead to disadvantages.

[Dodgers GM (matty)]

Hey guys, I've been rarely on here to write, but have been paying attention to the chats. I'm hoping to get a 2024 way too early rankings out a little earlier this year so make sure to look out for all that! For the league noise, I have my thoughts on the things brought up -

1. a. Players not rostered after an agreed amount of time should be offered to the next highest bidder.
1. b. No penalty. It acts as a forfeit of bid and therefor bid did not exist, which gives next highest bidder the chance to roster.
1. c. Adjust the FA bidding time/days to meet the bid processor's schedule ALWAYS. We love you, Ty!

3. I think the Mets and whoever was on an older post had a great idea on how to add more teams to the playoffs. Let's roll with one of them for the 2024 season.

4. Although I think we are all diligent and intelligent men, I think this trade money idea can go south very fast. There are too many what ifs that could happen with present money and future money. On paper it seems simple, but let's be real based on our trade conversations... none of us are simple creatures. I think trading is already a headache to discuss and negotiate, adding the movement of cash can be enticing, but could lead to being a nuisance. Think of the frustrating possibilities where a deal could be a make or break based on the team's willingness to trade X amount of cap space. With this statement I'm hoping to avoid a message from the Mets offering a 5th for my $10M in cap space.
4. a. If passed, make it a percentage rather than set amount. This way we can have a "buying power" system where some teams can trade for more cap space than others. I think setting a trade cap would be needed, so it gives the teams with lower cap space the ability to trade for more space than the teams with a higher cap. Example, trade cap set at 200M, Team A has 160M and Team B has 140M in cap space. Team A can trade 20% (32M) of cap space while Team B can trade 15% (21M) of cap space. Team A can trade for 72M in cap space, while Team B can trade for 81M in cap space. Both teams at the end of the season can reach 200M in their cap space after trades, but Team B was able to take on 9M more in cap space than what Team A could have traded for.
4. b. No trade can ever allow a team to go over the established salary cap.
4. c. No trade can ever allow a team to go over the established salary cap.

[White Sox GM (alligatorchris)]

I hope KC gets a UTI. Like a bad one. 🙃

[Rangers GM (jfleming)]

I was in a similar league, smaller teams, but long term league, that allowed the trading of 10% of money 1 year. That's all it lasted. The biggest unforeseen issue is how to even out trades. Every person in the league will value money differently, and there will be a contender who trades an extra $5 mil for a good player to help them in playoff run, and people will lose there mind over it. And then another person will give 5 mil away for a 18 year old Low A guy just to move the money for something. It becomes very difficult to maintain the trade balance. But that's just my opinion. I'd love to trade an extra 4 mil in a down year for an extra pick. But I think it gets real tricky.

Other things:

1. a. Players not rostered after an agreed amount of time should be offered to the next highest bidder.
1. b. No penalty. It acts as a forfeit of bid and therefor bid did not exist, which gives next highest bidder the chance to roster.
1. c. Adjust the FA bidding time/days to meet the bid processor's schedule ALWAYS. We love you, Ty!

I copied this from Dodgers. I agree on all of it. I've always thought if I finished 2nd, and he doesn't roster, why do I have to rebid, and that guy can rebid on same guy! Hell, I think I've done that before even. Lol. But I like this adjustment.

I am a fan of expanding playoffs I think. I think it's tricky. Maybe 1 additional week for "Wild card Round"? With 2 bye's per league, just like MLB.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Oct 25, 2023 16:18:19 GMT -5 Twins GM (Mike) said:

I'm in disagreement with just trading for cap space in general. I thought the proposed rule change was in regards to retaining salary. I'm not a fan of outright "purchasing" cap space.

I think depending on the the limit, this could have negative effects. I think since we already have $$ differences along with tags that reflect the amount of cap space you have. I think teams with extra tags and can just purchase $$ outright can lead to disadvantages.

This is a good point, we should prob flatten the cap if we want to do this eventually otherwise it is an advantage for the big market teams.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

"1. b. No penalty. It acts as a forfeit of bid and therefor bid did not exist, which gives next highest bidder the chance to roster."

Really don't like this tbh. So if I overbid and win then have buyers remorse I can just decide not to pick him up? That is definitely a no from my vote. If you win it and then just decide you don't want him, there needs to be some kind of penalty.

--------

With the over the cap "issues" this year. We could make anyone placing a bid that would put them over the cap include a corresponding roster move to get them back under (or else the bid is invalid). Same with trades. If you get over the cap/limit on a trade you have to post the drops as part of the trade.

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Hey gentlemen

This is like the 4TH time I've posted expanding the playoffs. With the change in actual Major League schedule, it should be easy. I cut and pasted my original proposal from 2017 & 2019 & 2022

Minor changes from past posts. There is interest in adding another playoff team. Let's see if we can fine tune and come to some agreement.

I am for adding 1 team only.

My thought:

1) End the regular season on a Saturday, 1 day early.

2) Have a 3 day playoff between the 4th and 5th place teams. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. The Major Leagues do a 3 game playoff.

3) Next round, Division Championship, make that a 7 day playoff. Wednesday-Tuesday. The Major Leagues do a 5 game playoff. Our League stays the same.

4) Next round, League Championship, would be a 7 day playoff. Wednesday-Tuesday. The Major Leagues do best of 7. Our League stays the same.

5) That would leave 12 days for the World Series. You're only losing 2 days of stats, but not a bad compromise to add a playoff team.

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Oct 25, 2023 20:28:24 GMT -5 White Sox GM (alligatorchris) said:

I hope KC gets a UTI. Like a bad one. 🙃

UTI. That's it?

Wouldn't a dose of the clap be more deserved?

[White Sox GM (alligatorchris)]

Possibly not deserved but that would be more likely. I’m sure his dirty black pecker is roaming the village as we speak.

[Mets GM (barnstormers)]

Quoted from above.

1. a. Players not rostered after an agreed amount of time should be offered to the next highest bidder.
1. b. No penalty. It acts as a forfeit of bid and therefor bid did not exist, which gives next highest bidder the chance to roster.


This would render the priority list mute.

Fuck, I'll just overbid every Free Agent. Maybe pick up the players I win depending on my needs. Players I don't win, I could wait and see if I have the 2nd highest bid before I pick up the players I won.

Might want to consider a penalty if you don't pick up a winning bid.

Quoted from above.

With the over the cap "issues" this year. We could make anyone placing a bid that would put them over the cap include a corresponding roster move to get them back under (or else the bid is invalid). Same with trades. If you get over the cap/limit on a trade you have to post the drops as part of the trade.

You wouldn't know how much over the cap/limit you might be until the bids are posted. That would be a tough sell.

[Guardians GM (Ron)]

I agree to moving the time to 5:00pm on Friday.

I am in a couple of leagues that allow the trading of cap. There have been no real issues that I know of. I agree with the following:


a. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single trade/to a single team? $5M
b. Limitations on amount that can be traded in a single year? Maybe 10%?
c. Limitations on trading future cash? No. I have seen it done to cover a players contract in a specific trade but it was only $500k. Unfortunately someone will try to take advantage of it. The concern that an owner leaves and the team is left as severely crippled is real.

[Nationals GM (corkzilla)]

Most of my points are going to sound contrarian so let me first explain me here my mindset is around most things. I abide by KISS, Keep It Stupid Simple. Some of this stuff runs the risk of A: making it unbearable to commish and B: too difficult for new GMs to want to join or stick it out after Year 1.

1a: I like the idea of giving the next highest bidder the option of owning the player at the price he was won at.

1b: There has to be a penalty for not rostering a player you win. It was always that you had to treat it like a drop, pay half the salary. That’s a good penalty.

1b/a: Doing both of these would keep teams from purposefully overbidding and sorting through a bunch of underbidding that will end up being a bunch of tiebreaker time management. Just seems like an unnecessary headache for the bid master.

1c: Move it to wherever works best for you. Everyone can adjust.

2: Easy one to figure out. I think it was right this year so if wording needs changed so that’s the understood tiebreaker, there it is.

3: I don’t understand the need to expand playoffs in here. I understand MLB has but we do a lot of things they don’t do and a fantasy league is inherently different. Some things just can’t be the same. In this instance, the major factor is that MLB teams get to put their bests pitchers in their WC matchups. Without trying to g

4: I don’t like the idea of trading cash at all. It’s just extra work. There are plenty of ways for teams to utilize the cap space they have or don’t have.

Anyways, this is a good league. Just think these big changes are too much.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

At the very least, Ty needs to be referred to as "The Bid Master"

[Tigers (Dingo)]

I'll put in my annual soapbox for increasing the minimum salary for any player drafted or signed after 1/1/25 (anybody drafted or signed before then can grandfather and play out their current contract). 720k is now the real-life minimum and this league still uses the 400k minimum from 2010 although we use real updated salaries for franchise players and the salary cap automatically goes up every few years.

I don't think we necessarily have to go to 720k but I'd like to see it at 500-600. If we enact it for 2025 then everybody has an opportunity to price it into their decisions for that season.

[Cubs GM (Scott B)]

Nov 5, 2023 9:35:00 GMT -5 Nationals GM (corkzilla) said:

Most of my points are going to sound contrarian so let me first explain me here my mindset is around most things. I abide by KISS, Keep It Stupid Simple. Some of this stuff runs the risk of A: making it unbearable to commish and B: too difficult for new GMs to want to join or stick it out after Year 1.

1a: I like the idea of giving the next highest bidder the option of owning the player at the price he was won at.

1b: There has to be a penalty for not rostering a player you win. It was always that you had to treat it like a drop, pay half the salary. That’s a good penalty.

1b/a: Doing both of these would keep teams from purposefully overbidding and sorting through a bunch of underbidding that will end up being a bunch of tiebreaker time management. Just seems like an unnecessary headache for the bid master.

1c: Move it to wherever works best for you. Everyone can adjust.

2: Easy one to figure out. I think it was right this year so if wording needs changed so that’s the understood tiebreaker, there it is.

3: I don’t understand the need to expand playoffs in here. I understand MLB has but we do a lot of things they don’t do and a fantasy league is inherently different. Some things just can’t be the same. In this instance, the major factor is that MLB teams get to put their bests pitchers in their WC matchups. Without trying to g

4: I don’t like the idea of trading cash at all. It’s just extra work. There are plenty of ways for teams to utilize the cap space they have or don’t have.

Anyways, this is a good league. Just think these big changes are too much.

I kind of lean this way. Not broken, don't fix. Sure move fa timing to make like easier. If expanding playoffs I say same number if teams but maybe make each round 2 weeks rather than 1.
I'm only ok with $ trade if it's small. 2-5m per team per year.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

"If expanding playoffs I say same number if teams but maybe make each round 2 weeks rather than 1."

I dont think this accomplishes what people want. It isn't unfair results, its too few teams in the post season. Maybe I'm wrong tho idk. I'm opposed to making me do stats all the time for 6 weeks instead of 4 without extra teams getting in on the fun.

[Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11)]

Thinking about $ a bit more just a couple thoughts. I'm not really in favor of trading with another individual for just cap space. I am in favor of having a team eat a portion of a players contract to facilitate a trade like I have indicated before. If the league wanted to go towards the ability to acquire more cap space I think a soft cap would be most fair. When a trade is posted and someone is going over the cap in regards to players or money a corresponding drop must be posted with it to make sure you are under both limits. However if someone wanted to go up to $5M over the cap they can indicate that in the trade posting and it would cost that owner going over a 2nd round pick. If an owner wanted to go over the cap from $5M up to $10M over it would cost them a 1st round pick. That would at least standardize the cost of cap space. Only doable during current season.

I'm also fine with adding to the playoffs and in reality am fine with ending the regular season a week earlier to do it. I'm a bit hesitant on shorter weeks (3-5 days) just because if someone has a top tier pitcher and their rotation spot isn't up during that abbreviated match that's a big disadvantage to that team. Also a lot of teams are off on Mondays and Thursdays so MLB scheduling could play a factor in abbreviated matches.

[White Sox GM (alligatorchris)]

I’m in a lot of these leagues and I wish they all would follow this structure and set of rules.
Typically I use this league as the model when we discuss other ideas or changes in those other leagues.
Not that I don’t think anything can improve but I like things the way they are. I do agree with the 1 point about teams being penalized for not rostering players. But I think that pretty much is a 1 week and he’s no longer yours penalty anyway.

[D Backs GM (Tyler)]

Nov 6, 2023 10:09:38 GMT -5 Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) said:

...When a trade is posted and someone is going over the cap in regards to players or money a corresponding drop must be posted with it to make sure you are under both limits. However if someone wanted to go up to $5M over the cap they can indicate that in the trade posting and it would cost that owner going over a 2nd round pick. If an owner wanted to go over the cap from $5M up to $10M over it would cost them a 1st round pick. That would at least standardize the cost of cap space. Only doable during current season.

This would be an interesting twist. idk if I'm on board for the headache of tracking it but it is an interesting proposal.