-
For the record, I vote in favor of zero arb.
Roar from 34 on
August 25, 2020 1:32 AM
-
OK, I vote yes on regular salary increase and no arb. Thanks!
-
Yep, sorry. Meant "$1 slash $2", not "half $"
-
Yes, Cub, you have it right now - the proposal is standard salary increases but no arbitration.
St. CGT V on
August 22, 2020 1:27 PM
-
And yes, WAR-based salary increase would not be realistic to implement unless Ottoneu supports it as an option. It was just an idea.
-
Oh, I think I might have still misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is to have the usual salary increases ($2 for major leaguers, $1 for minor leaguers) and no arbitration, right? Somehow I saw “$1/2” in previous messages and I interpreted it as “half” of the normal salary increases. But then that confused me because that means $1 for major leaguers and ... $0.5 for minir leaguers?
-
Yes, all correct. WAR-based arbitration is an interesting idea, it would be a ton of work to implement player-by-player, and after we get a result from the current zero-arb proposal we could vote on other ones that have the apparent support of at least 3 or 4 owners.
-
It's an intriguing idea but probably a lot of work for Commish.
-
That was what I was implying
-
If $0 arbitration wins this vote, there'll not be anything to revisit in the offseason for this offseason. It'll be settled. That's the whole point of the vote. If $0 loses, I suppose we could discuss alternate arb methods after the season.
St. CGT V on
August 22, 2020 1:22 AM
-
Cub, your proposal is interesting sounding but maybe we revisit in offseason.
-
@Cub... correct, it’s Yes or No at this point on the proposal.
-
Actually I just have an idea regarding salary increase: each player’s salary goes up by their WAR in that year. So Trout’s salary can go up by $10 if he has an amazing year. And then we don’t need arbitration.
-
Can I clarify: are we just voting on YES/NO on the combination of 1/2 salary increase + no arb? Is it either this or regular salary increase AND regular arb? Thanks!
-
Voting yes to zero arb
-
Been thinking, especially as there is yet another C-19 situation. 2020 has been fun but too short, and very weird. Some consideration in our team building process for the circumstance feels right to me. I vote for $0 arbitration.
St. CGT V on
August 21, 2020 3:39 PM
-
Yes to zero arb.
-
my vote is YES to the no arbitration this season (auto $1/2 increases only)
-
Ok, seems like it is time to hold a vote. Election Day is this Tuesday, August 25, before midnight Pacific Time, but you can mail in your ballot to me via the messages system here! The proposal is to do no arbitration this season (auto $1/2 increases only). 8 votes required to pass. I will remind folks privately and then publicly who haven't voted by Monday and by Tuesday.
-
:D the people have spoken on that one!
-
Yep, it's the shittiest Ottoneu rule and every season I'm surprised it's still around. I have actively avoided leagues with that stipulation in place beforehand.
-
Yup, wholeheartedly agree as well
-
Agree w/ Saint!!!
-
And I now have a moment to explain why: other people having a choice over who is on your team is *not* fun.
St. CGT V on
August 20, 2020 5:18 PM
-
Absolutely no interest in vote off arbitration.
St. CGT V on
August 20, 2020 4:01 PM
-
Ok, I think we are going to vote on All or Nothing, but another option to consider is we could return to the original Arbitration rules, which were to "vote off" one player from each team to free agency. Read about it in the rules, VII.d.ii: https://ottoneu.fangraphs.com/rules#offseason
-
Just to throw in my two cents...I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way, but because of Neu's point and to hopefully reduce the work for our commish, I think the options for arb should be all or nothing. My vote would be to keep the status quo and carry on with arb as normal, but I'm not too bothered either way.
-
First place my mind went. And so...
St. CGT V on
August 20, 2020 1:21 AM
-
And good point @Neu, someone waiting til the last minute could determine "a dollar here bumps the price up, over here actually doesn't" and try to precisely hit those thresholds. In fact, I would have a tough time stopping myself from checking that.
-
My suggestion is to fit a logarithmic curve to the points (0,0) and (1,1) and use it for 37% of the season: ln(x+1) / ln(2) ~ 0.4545. But it sure sounds like there is a significant faction supporting 0 arbitration [which helpfully will be the easiest to implement], so I kinda feel like we should vote on that option. Rather impressed how many of y'all responded within the first 12 hours this was up!
-
"Yeah but I wasn't over!"
-
Mark it zero. It's a League Game Smokey
-
An excellent point well made. I second the all or nothing position of The Saint's post.
-
The only thing I'm clear about at this point is my being against any arb 'number' between 0 and 1. Arbitration doesn't fall equally on teams as it is; using a % will allow for gamesmenship I have no interest in having possible in our league. Let's either do arbitration or not do it. I'm on record as being against changes but I can live with 0.
St. CGT V on
August 19, 2020 9:14 PM
-
I like the idea of 37%, have the same percentage of arbitration this season as percentage of games played in the shortened season. This season is definitely wacky but it's not like we'd be going into arbitration with 0% of the normal season information to make long term plans--but instead, 37% of the info. But if I had to choose between 0% and 100%, I'd choose 0%.
Chili Dog MVP on
August 19, 2020 3:44 PM
-
guess I'll mix this up with a 50% - I still think arbitration should play a role. But if push comes to shove then I prefer 0% to 100%, as this season is too wacky to count too much in people's long term plans.
-
@Cub Your Enthusiasm - doesn't have to be 0% or 100%... choose what you deem is a fair % between those numbers if you would like to...
-
Hear-hear, Roar.
-
I’m ok with keeping the usual salary increase, and if I have choose between zero arb and normal arb amount, I vote for normal arb amount. It’s a close call for me though.
-
zero arb is fine with me
Roar from 34 on
August 19, 2020 2:55 PM
-
If an owner can't be bothered to vote on this within a certain time frame then is it fair to ask if that owner is inactive and should still be playing?
Roar from 34 on
August 19, 2020 2:55 PM
-
If an owner can't be bothered to vote on this within a certain time frame then is it fair to ask if that owner is inactive and should still be playing?
Roar from 34 on
August 19, 2020 2:54 PM
-
Ah that is a good question. If it were 7 out of 10 with two abstentions, is that enough? 7 of 8? 2 out of 3? Maybe a regression like non-votes count as 0.5 yes and 0.5 no (obviously I have no problem complicating things, haha).
-
0 (zero) as well...
-
0 (zero)
-
So I think that's a good first step: pulse check on "What fraction of the arb allocations would you want to change to?" Any factor between 0 and 1. A half or a third seems intuitively easier, but mind the rounding. Or let me know what else you're thinking would make sense.
-
sounds like a perfect plan Commish... only question I have is what do we do w/ an in-active member... do we make it mandatory to have 12 votes so we get the true result? (i don’t want to over complicate it the process but thought I’d bring this up) thanks.
-
What I think I've mostly heard so far in the comments is: don't touch the $1/$2 auto increases, but reduce the overall arbitration. The way we could do this is just allocate as normal, then multiply each player's total allocations by a constant factor and round off. Example: say we decided on 0.37 (60/162). Soto gets $8 total, that drops to $3. Bregman had $4, Story $3, Snell $2, all of their increases are now $1 (because of rounding). $1 increases become 0.
-
----------- Placeholder: Proposal Process Below -----------------
-
Ok, here is what I think we can do: (1) Determine the most popular proposed change, in terms of (a) automatic increases, and (b) arbitration allocations. (2) Put a specific proposal to a vote, requiring a 2/3 majority (8 votes) to pass. The process can be repeated if someone else wants to put up a proposal following the first one -- e.g. we vote to do no salary increases, it fails, then someone proposes voting on regular increases plus half arbitration. Sound good?
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages