-
But as far as the loan tax, I realize it's there to keep owners from totally circumventing the cap, but I'm not sure that circumventing the cap is a bad thing? I mean regardless, the penalty comes in the offseason, once you've collecting a bunch of high-priced players and have to dump some into the auction. Why not let contending teams just go for it during the season. Quite possibly I'm missing something, but it seems like the tax almost hinders competition.
-
Yeah, the Commish will have some interesting roster decisions, but he's starting with, I dunno, five or six top 30 players? He can keep 10-12 guys and still have $100+ in cap space though. I don't really like the deal for MRM -- but I'm probably just mad that I missed his post about shopping Scherzer. I do believe had he reached out to more teams (not necessarily me), he could have gotten more for him.
-
OK, that makes more sense as a complaint, seems like a misunderstanding. I think my point holds: he is going to make room for Scherzer because he is cutting a third of his contract value. Aside from Kershaw and some of his bullpen there aren't a ton of obvious cuts, so this might put some value back in the auction. The whole point of these leagues is that these things come out in the wash.
-
the point is to encourage people to compete: to fill out their rosters, to not hoard minor leaguers, and be active. if enough people do that, it should push the top teams to take out loans and be hit with the coupon tax.
Pavin Meadows on
December 15, 2018 8:28 AM
-
Oh I could see that trade working out for MRM. If Wheeler is as good as he was last year, it might be worth it just from that. Near as I can tell at this point, Marte is shaping up to be a utility player, and Lowe has no clear path to ABs in 2019. But I was truly, specifically commenting on the loan tax. I've never really understood the loan rules, and if the defending champ can get and make room for Scherzer this easily, I honestly would like to know what hell is the point of it.
-
*I
-
(To say nothing of the fact that i like the trade for me, so...)
-
I specifically posted that I was shopping Scherzer because, among the countless other criticisms of every trade I’ve made in this league, I’ve taken crap in the past for not discussing a guy with every single other owner in the league. Don’t like this trade? It was the best offer with the whole league on notice that Scherzer was available, and I wasn’t keeping Scherzer, so it was this or cut him.
-
Based on surplus calc, i’m getting the short end of the stick. And the solution to trades you don’t like is to get out and make your own trades.
Pavin Meadows on
December 14, 2018 6:39 PM
-
"Camargo" still has to pay for all those guys (spoiler: he can't)
-
Scherzer is sticker at $50+, there's barely surplus value there
-
If a deal like this can go through, I'm not sure what the point is of having loan penalties.
-
ok--if anyone wants to consider a different arb coupon system, please speak out no later than this sunday, 12/16. otherwise we'll go with the one i've set out below.
Pavin Meadows on
December 12, 2018 11:19 AM
-
anyone interested in nelson cruz?
Pavin Meadows on
December 11, 2018 10:57 PM
-
yeah, same as last yr: $50-$74 = 50%; $75-$99 = 75%; $100+ = 100%
Pavin Meadows on
December 11, 2018 2:31 PM
-
I'm good with $16 as the cap and those thresholds. We're sticking with $50/$100 for loan penalties?
-
Wow, the abolishment of the coupon system got way more votes than I expected. I figured I was the only one unhappy enough to kill it.
-
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-RPDDCXWDV/?manage=true
Pavin Meadows on
December 11, 2018 12:37 PM
-
I mean... the details of the results like vote breakdowns.
-
Where do we see the results of the survey(s)?
-
I also voted to abolish the coupon system, but this proposal looks good given that there weren't enough votes to ditch it.
-
I too would have been fine with the coupon system being abolished. But I'll support the proposal pending further discussion/ideas.
-
While not a big fan of the coupon system, I do like what you have laid out both in terms of what the max coupon can be (based on GP/IP) and how the loan penalties are applied. I would support this.
-
i'm just throwing this out there as a proposal--happy to consider other possibilities within the general framework we agreed to during the last round of voting (viz., coupons based on volume metrics, penalties stay the same, max coupon amt reduced from $24, etc.).
Pavin Meadows on
December 10, 2018 12:25 PM
-
the penalties are set out here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bJ6GGjkw-1jNnzTNCeECL99NtbAKOIerIY0vRZ-FpNk/edit#gid=0
Pavin Meadows on
December 10, 2018 11:21 AM
-
actually, before just starting another poll, it would probably help to debate it a bit. i was thinking along the following lines: $4 for 1,750 games played total (145.8 games / position); another $4 for 1,850 games (154.2 games played / position); $4 for 1,400 IP; and another $4 for 1475 IP. the max coupon would be $16, before the loan penalties based on incoming loan amounts. does that sound good? do ppl have other ideas?
Pavin Meadows on
December 10, 2018 11:18 AM
-
So—the coupon system stays, the penalties are the same, but we need to figure out the new coupon amounts and games played and innings pitched benchmarks. I’ll circulate a new survey shortly. Thanks for voting.
Pavin Meadows on
December 8, 2018 1:31 PM
-
Decreasing the coupon amounts passed. The other measures failed.
Pavin Meadows on
December 8, 2018 1:29 PM
-
Changing the arb coupon system to games played and innings pitched passed.
Pavin Meadows on
December 8, 2018 1:27 PM
-
The votes are in! The proposal to require teams to cut below the cap one week before the deadline failed. The proposal to end the web coupon system failed. The proposal to allow teams to re-acquire previously cut players, but at or above previously salary passed.
Pavin Meadows on
December 8, 2018 1:27 PM
-
Just waiting on one final person to vote.
Pavin Meadows on
December 8, 2018 10:33 AM
-
reposting the link because it got buried: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9Q58Q75
-
Dichromatic, I see your point because a couple of the questions have overlap. I just tried to answer each question independently and I think we'll get the right (preliminary) result out.
-
just waiting on two more owners to vote before we have the final results. it literally only takes a minute!
Pavin Meadows on
December 6, 2018 12:20 PM
-
I've been talking to a few folks, but figured it was worth throwing it out there on the board: I'm interested in moving Scherzer for 2-3 smaller (but good) roster pieces... let me know if you think you've got something.
-
but maybe i wasn't clear before. we're just voting on a basic framework during this round. we can vote for further refinements, if necessary, through additional voting.
Pavin Meadows on
December 5, 2018 1:19 PM
-
average response time for the entire survey is 1 minute. eliminating those other questions would save everyone approximately 40 seconds.
Pavin Meadows on
December 5, 2018 12:46 PM
-
i don't see what difference it makes. i'm trying to minimize the number of iterations we have to do this.
Pavin Meadows on
December 5, 2018 12:38 PM
-
Can we vote on the "scrap the coupon system" proposal and then vote on other proposals later? Does survey monkey allow that? Or, do we, as voters, get just one shot at voting all the proposals at the same time?
-
I guess the total number of hitting games is 1944. But yeah, within 100 seems to be an appropriate number to account for the catching position.
-
yeah, i agree Chuck--i like Profar's suggestion of the 1820 total games (or so) threshold, and leaving it up to the individual owners on how to get there.
Pavin Meadows on
December 4, 2018 7:53 PM
-
Dont think we should set rules on how teams manage ther team if i don;t want to roster 2 catchers that should be my choice as long as teams keep a active up to date roster and meet there innings or at bats or games played it should be there choice how they manage there team i only ha 1 catcher last year and i met my team requirments. Thanks Chuck
4 Baggers on
December 4, 2018 6:33 PM
-
I like the proposal of basing it on total games played, with a bit of cushion added.
Pavin Meadows on
December 4, 2018 3:32 PM
-
All that said our first vote should probably be whether to keep the coupon system. If the league chooses to continue with it, then we can consider the proposed changes.
-
To simplify it we could just stipulate that if you're within 100 of the max games -- so 1820 of 1920 total games -- you fulfill the requirement. But if we require people to reach the max games, you're basically mandating that everyone carry at least two MLB catchers. As I said, I wouldn't want this to change, even slightly, how any owner chooses to manage his roster. Over a long season shite happens, so I think it's important to leave some wiggle room. We just want owners who are active.
-
The rationale is if we just say you need 98-99 percent of the 1920-game limit, teams that don't choose to fill out their catching spots won't make it. Again, about four rosters in the league were well short of the limit last year. We could basically require rosters to carry at least two MLB catchers to fulfill the game limits, but the intent with this stipulation is to provide incentive for people to manage their rosters, not to restrict how people actually manage their rosters.
-
I'm not sure what the rationale would be for excluding catcher. If anything, it's a lot easier to hit the benchmark for catchers, with the extra slot.
Pavin Meadows on
December 4, 2018 10:29 AM
-
But last year was a bad example, because rationale changes when the league is out of hand by July
-
I'm fine with not including catchers, but I feel compelled to point out that Michael Brantley and a replacement level catcher was equal to Mike Trout last year -- so "no catcher" is hardly viable
-
oops, you're right. thanks for the correction. obviously we're not as pressed for time on these proposals then.
Pavin Meadows on
December 4, 2018 9:14 AM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages