-
I thought the keeper deadline was Jan. 31?
-
also, we need at least 7 yes votes on any proposal to change the rule.
Pavin Meadows on
December 3, 2018 5:45 PM
-
please try to vote by Sunday, 12/9. we need to get everything finalized before keeper deadline on 12/31.
Pavin Meadows on
December 3, 2018 5:42 PM
-
here's a link to the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9Q58Q75
Pavin Meadows on
December 3, 2018 5:41 PM
-
hi everyone--i've created a survey monkey to try to capture everyone's proposals. please let me know if i've left anything out, or mischaractized any proposal. we're limited to 10 questions for a free account, so it may take a second round of voting to refine the proposed rule changes.
Pavin Meadows on
December 3, 2018 5:41 PM
-
So I guess my proposal on that would be we award a $15 coupon to all teams that have fulfilled the game and innings requirements, where the minimums are 1450 IP and what I just said about games played.
-
If we're going to base the coupon system on game limits, we'll need to be pretty specific. I know a number of owners last year didn't do much with the catcher position, and given the lack of offense at that position, I think it's a valid strategy. So we might want to establish something like if you have at least 1750 games at the non-catching positions (which would be about 98 percent), you've met the threshold for our purposes.
-
Makes sense to me too.
-
Works for me!
-
I think what makes the most sense is to first vote on an overall framework, and then we can discuss refinements to it afterwards. If necessary, we could have a second vote on the refinements. Does that sound ok to everyone?
Pavin Meadows on
December 1, 2018 7:52 PM
-
I agree that a simpler system would be best, and also that any multi-season carryover would be unwieldy.
Pavin Meadows on
December 1, 2018 3:59 PM
-
i am also in favor of G/IP vs. points as tiers. we could have a 1-10 scale for games and a 1-10 scale for IP. that allows teams that field a major league roster to still ship out talent for prospects (but dis-incentivizes putting 20 minor leaguers on your roster)
-
I would vote for a simpler proposal of losing 1 coupon dollar for every 5 loan dollars in. that way if you take on large loans (>50) you lose substantial money, but it won't as strongly punish trades in which 10-20 loan dollars are exchanged
-
so that is: you lose 5% of your coupon for every dollar above $25? so anyone over $45 gets no coupon? just want to be clear. that is better, but still tough. i'd argue allowing loans leads to league balance because non-competing teams can get value contracts in exchange for players they wouldn't keep
-
I think simplicity would be best, especially in a league where owners change from year to year. Simple tiers, simple multipliers. I'm fine with lowering the upper limit on how many arb dollars owners can gain
The Lōgunate on
December 1, 2018 12:13 PM
-
I think it has to be fairly draconian to keep the top teams from benefiting more than the bottom teams. And I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing if people have to get a little creative with salary matching in the rental player trades. But you could also give a grace level before the penalties start kicking in. I'll amend the proposal to no tax for the first $25 in incoming loans, 5% per incoming dollar above that, and 2% in a future season once you hit 100% for the upcoming season.
-
am i reading right that you say a $20 loan in means you get no coupon? just for the sake of debate, that seems draconian and will limit the ability of teams that are out of the running to ship out their pieces. no one will take on loans
-
I propose that we keep the current coupon values up to the $20 for 17250+ points, do away with the higher tiers, and change the tax so that each net incoming loan dollar imposes a 5% tax, with every net upcoming loan dollar over $20 imposing a 2% coupon tax the following year. I think that should speak to concerns 4 and 6, without making rebuilds too difficult or having the cliff problems of a hard cutoff.
-
wildman--i think we're on the same page--our messages must have crossed in the internet ether.
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:42 PM
-
excellent--thanks, WAR!
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:42 PM
-
I will make specific proposals for altering the coupon system along the lines I suggested a couple nights ago later tonight (which should cover 4 and 6 on the list).
-
last season i think everyone voted and both measures passed by a wide-margin, so it wasn't an issue.
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:27 PM
-
but if only five people vote (I made that number up), is that really an accurate representation of the league? I think we should require 7 votes to pass
The Lōgunate on
November 30, 2018 3:27 PM
-
let me clarify--a majority of all team members, so 7 votes to pass anything.
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:26 PM
-
i just assumed it'd be a majority vote on all proposals.
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:26 PM
-
We need some frameworks on the vote. Majority of votes cast or majority of league members? Two-thirds for ratification? Three quarters?
The Lōgunate on
November 30, 2018 3:23 PM
-
5) teams must cut to under the salary cap one week before the keeper deadline; 6) increase the incoming loan penalty for arbitration coupons [can refine if passes]. Did I miss anything? I'll create a survey monkey once we nail these down, and try to have our vote completed in the next week or so.
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:05 PM
-
Here's what I have so far: 1) owners may reacquire previously cut players during the regular season, but only at the previous or greater salary; 2) eliminate the coupon system; 3) keep the coupon system and modify it to add a tax for not achieving certain games played and IP thresholds [we can refine this if it passes]; 4) keep the coupon system, but change the payouts to not reward the teams at the top as much [specific proposals would help here]; (cont)
Pavin Meadows on
November 30, 2018 3:03 PM
-
I'll get this going. I propose we remove the coupon system we used last year.
-
I’m with Wildman, but we can certainly include that as a proposal to vote on. For anyone proposing new or modified rules, we need concrete proposals that can be put to a vote.
Pavin Meadows on
November 29, 2018 9:26 PM
-
I don't like that last proposal at all. It's not the owner's fault that the other teams hit him hard in arbitration. The keeper deadline is the keeper deadline; we don't need any extra deadlines so teams can "see what's out there". We can do the math ourselves.
The Lōgunate on
November 29, 2018 7:43 PM
-
I'm also not a big fan of being over the salary cap. What I'd like to see is every team must be under the $400 cap about a week before the actually keeper date, thus forcing teams that are over the cap to make some decisions before actually keeper day. This would give the other teams a better look at what will be available to them before making their selections. Or is this already a rule?
-
I'm not all that high on the coupon system, quite frankly, and would just as soon abolish it. Sure, it's nice to keep Jose Ramirez around, but this system just allows people to keep their best assets. And, as mentioned, the good teams get more coupon money because of points. I like the idea of basing it on your Innings Pitched and Games Played benchmarks. For example, you get $xx if you meet the benchmarks. If you only had 85% of pitching/hitting benchmarks, you'd only get 85% of the coupon.
-
I guess I've yet to comprehend the broader implications of loans. Of all the deals I made last year, only three involved loans (two going out, one going in). It seems like a necessity to move high-salaried players, and aren't contending teams supposed to be in win-now mode? Anyway, while I'm happy with my Bregman discount, I'd support modifications to the coupon system. I believe that maintaining a good roster should be more challenging than rebuilding a poor roster.
-
But I like the general sentiment—maybe lower the threshold some for the coupon penalties.
Pavin Meadows on
November 28, 2018 8:21 PM
-
The concern I have with that approach is that, once a team has a few incoming loans, there’s no disincentive to completely blow it up with tons of additional loans. And the extreme disincentive to take on initial incoming loans could make it harder for teams to have a legitimate rebuild.
Pavin Meadows on
November 28, 2018 8:19 PM
-
The concern I have with that approach is that, once a team has a few incoming loans, there’s no disincentive to completely blow it up with tons of additional loans. And the extreme disincentive to take on initial incoming loans could make it harder for teams to have a legitimate rebuild.
Pavin Meadows on
November 28, 2018 8:19 PM
-
I wasn’t here for the adoption of the rule, but I had assumed that the purpose was to counter what’s always seemed to me to be one of Ottoneu’s bigger problems—that there’s no limit to the amount over the cap a team can go to “win now.” It seems to do that both by giving teams near the bottom an incentive not to trade useful players, even if they weren’t going to be worth keeping in the offseason, and also by directly “punishing” acquiring a lot of cap space.
-
If that’s the goal, I would be in favor of changes that went further than the current system, e.g., award 100% of the coupons to anyone without net incoming loans, and 0% to anyone with any net incoming loans (or more than $10, or similar). That should avoid a rich get richer scenario, unless there are routinely teams strong enough to win without taking on cap space. Of course, feel free to ignore if I’ve gotten the purpose wrong or am just retreading suggestions previously rejected.
-
Actually games played and IP.
Pavin Meadows on
November 28, 2018 3:17 PM
-
I like the idea of pegging the coupons to PA and IP benchmarks.
Pavin Meadows on
November 28, 2018 3:15 PM
-
Really if the idea was to reward teams for managing their rosters, the coupon system would be based solely on hitting your game and innings limits. But it's based on points, and because it's based on points, it rewards the most talented rosters while making it tougher for those with less talent to approach contention. I gave up this ghost at the end of the season because the majority seems to want this, but I still believe this stipulation runs counter to the spirit of competition.
-
I propose we cut all Coupon Dollar values by 50% and eliminate the resulting fractional tiers. One rationale for this proposal is in the preceding comment.
-
One thing that makes Ottoneu leagues competitive is arbitration. Underpriced top talents are forced toward higher prices. While the coupon system implemented last year was interesting, it will inevitably allow the top 2 or 3 teams to hang onto top talent longer thru application of large coupon amounts. I propose a change to the coupon system to make the league more competitive. Following...
-
let me be more definitive. please make any additional proposals by this Friday, Nov. 30. We can then take a week to debate and vote on them. currently the only proposal is to modify the rule prohibiting re-auctioning a player you previously cut to say that you can re-acquire those players, but only at the same or greater salary than when you cut them. e.g., if i cut a guy at $31 and he goes down to a minimum bid of $16 after a month, i would need to bid $31 or more if i wanted to re-acquire him.
Pavin Meadows on
November 26, 2018 10:48 AM
-
does anyone else have any rules proposals? we should get these squared away before the keep/cut deadline so people know what the playing field is like.
Pavin Meadows on
November 26, 2018 9:59 AM
-
The WAR of 18.12's trade block has been updated!
-
Spreadsheet is just based on Steamer, which apparently likes Buehler.
Pavin Meadows on
November 24, 2018 1:55 PM
-
bitchin' camargo's trade block has been updated!
Pavin Meadows on
November 23, 2018 1:50 PM
-
Dichromatic Ayes's trade block has been updated!
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages