Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 548

Thread: 1901 - Present Keeper League Discussion

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    I plan on changing the playoffs to 7 games for both rounds

    The bottom 4 teams going to the lottery is also a change I am making but haven't written it in yet

    The franchise player rule is just a way to keep up to 2 players at below market value. I think with the RFA we will see some overbidding for players and I like the Idea of having a couple lifers available that won't break the bank.
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    If you've had a Franchise player on your team for the whole career so far (18 years?) you can choose to keep them for a decreasing amount of money (say 1 mil cheaper per year, to a minimum of 5 mil). But in order to receive this discount, you have to keep the player rostered until they retire.
    I've been reading some of these threads but haven't commented until now. But, it looks like I'll be in so I'm paying a bit more attention.

    I see there's been some discussion on franchise players, including Wade's idea (referenced here). I don't know much yet about how this game is played, but I do know quite a bit about player history. The idea of franchise players, as described by Wade, has some appeal to me, but I think we should be careful about this. Wade suggested 18 years as a dividing point, where salaries could start going down. The reality is that only a few players in ML history have had more than one season after their 18th which could be called "all star" quality, e.g. about 4.5 WAR, or perhaps 20 WS. When you get past a few obvious outliers like Ruth, Cobb, and a couple of others, almost no great players were putting up "all star" performances after their 18th season. And, as is known, the dropoff among even great players, varied widely. Some remained strong up through years 16 or 17, some started tailing off as soon as year 11 or 12!

    I guess what I'm trying to say is, the idea is interesting/appealing, but I at least wouldn't be very interested in being saddled with even a great player for 18 seasons unless his name was Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Mays, and 1 or 2 others.

    What do others think?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    9,298
    Blog Entries
    4
    I don't think Wade meant that it has to be 18, rather, he was using that as an example of a year when a player might say they want to start lowering a player's salary.

    I don't really like the idea because it seems needlessly complicated. Franchise players should be a simple way to keep a great player at below market value, not a means of exploiting the system or something that will become a burden. I'm also against them being traded because to me that defeats the notion of a "franchise player", but if everyone else is for it I don't really mind.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,292
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRon View Post
    I see there's been some discussion on franchise players, including Wade's idea (referenced here). I don't know much yet about how this game is played, but I do know quite a bit about player history. The idea of franchise players, as described by Wade, has some appeal to me, but I think we should be careful about this. Wade suggested 18 years as a dividing point, where salaries could start going down. The reality is that only a few players in ML history have had more than one season after their 18th which could be called "all star" quality, e.g. about 4.5 WAR, or perhaps 20 WS. When you get past a few obvious outliers like Ruth, Cobb, and a couple of others, almost no great players were putting up "all star" performances after their 18th season. And, as is known, the dropoff among even great players, varied widely. Some remained strong up through years 16 or 17, some started tailing off as soon as year 11 or 12!

    I guess what I'm trying to say is, the idea is interesting/appealing, but I at least wouldn't be very interested in being saddled with even a great player for 18 seasons unless his name was Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Mays, and 1 or 2 others.

    What do others think?
    You aren't saddled with anyone for 18 (or however many) seasons.

    For the first 18 seasons, the player would be under the current system. You could trade or drop the player at any time. Even after 18 years, you can continue to keep the player at the original rate. You're only stuck with the player IF you choose to use the reducing salary option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Bedard View Post
    I don't think Wade meant that it has to be 18, rather, he was using that as an example of a year when a player might say they want to start lowering a player's salary.

    I don't really like the idea because it seems needlessly complicated. Franchise players should be a simple way to keep a great player at below market value, not a means of exploiting the system or something that will become a burden. I'm also against them being traded because to me that defeats the notion of a "franchise player", but if everyone else is for it I don't really mind.
    Apparently people have trouble understanding the concept (which may just be me not explaining it properly), but I assure you, once you understand it it's incredibly easy to implement.

    I do agree the idea of trading them seems counter-intuitive. I think I would lean towards there being at least restrictions on being traded. It would be stupid if you named someone a franchise player then traded them two years later.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --I understand the concept just fine. I just think that 18 years before salaries start coming down means very few players would spend their career with a single franchise. It would have to start much earlier - meaning huge bargains on the outliers that remain stars deep into their 30s - to have much value in terms of hanging on to your long time stars. I think the restricted Free Agent option is a better option for allowing you to hang on to those players at something close to their true value.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Brooklyn, Michigan
    Posts
    1,350
    I've been silent so far regarding the franchise player on a single team through his career discussion but thought I'd weigh in. I actually don't have any problem with the rule as it is currently written. As an aging superstar with the franchise tag begins to fade, management can decide to if he's worth the franchise player's salary and either keep him or allow him to be a FA. If for sentimental reasons, I want to sign the former FP as a RFA, I can overpay market price and keep him or I can let him walk. I think this closely mimics what happens in real life. There are plenty of aging stars who think they're worth more than their career franchise are willing to pay them and they finish the last year or two of their career with a different team. The market, and to a degree the original team's sentimentality for the player, will determine what happens.
    Dan
    CKL - Maloy Boys
    P2PKL - Detroit Tigers

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Quote Originally Posted by rmadachik View Post
    I plan on changing the playoffs to 7 games for both rounds
    Good, glad to hear that.

    The bottom 4 teams going to the lottery is also a change I am making but haven't written it in yet
    Glad to hear that too.

    The franchise player rule is just a way to keep up to 2 players at below market value. I think with the RFA we will see some overbidding for players and I like the Idea of having a couple lifers available that won't break the bank.
    I'm definitely not opposed to it, as I was one of the original proponents of the Franchise Player rule. It was merely offering the alternative option.

    Let me say that I think you've done a great job whipping this together, and I hope it has the same success as the CKL has had.
    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Quote Originally Posted by scubadan View Post
    I've been silent so far regarding the franchise player on a single team through his career discussion but thought I'd weigh in. I actually don't have any problem with the rule as it is currently written. As an aging superstar with the franchise tag begins to fade, management can decide to if he's worth the franchise player's salary and either keep him or allow him to be a FA. If for sentimental reasons, I want to sign the former FP as a RFA, I can overpay market price and keep him or I can let him walk. I think this closely mimics what happens in real life. There are plenty of aging stars who think they're worth more than their career franchise are willing to pay them and they finish the last year or two of their career with a different team. The market, and to a degree the original team's sentimentality for the player, will determine what happens.
    Actually, under the RFA rule I don't think you would even be overpaying, or not very much. RFAs are likely to get bid to their true market value, or very close to it, and the present team only has to match the highest offer, not raise it, in order to keep the player. You might occasionally overpay slightly if you choose to keep the guy, but probably not by very darn much.

    I personally think the RFA rule was a real stroke of genius on Rich's part and is a great rule. As for Franchise Players, I also like Rich's idea of one batter and one pitcher, although if you're going to have more than one my absolute preference would be letting the owner choose both. This FP thing seems to be the last issue to be hammered out, and getting a lot of discussion on it is a good thing.
    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    Thanks guys. I think we are going to roll with the Franchise player rule as it is currently written. As things stand now we are at a firm 11 owners and on the fence with one more. I will be releasing a final file for the 1901 season once I get the team info, and I would like to draw for the redraft so we can start putting together our draft boards. I will work it so our offseason does not coincide with the CKL off season from this point on.
    Last edited by rmadachik; 02-08-2012 at 10:24 PM.
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago - The town that the World Series forgot
    Posts
    4,461
    If I may offer one belated suggestion to the franchise player debate, what about letting people have any number of "franchise players" but at an ever increasing cost? The first one would cost 10 or 12 million, whatever we decided on. The next one could cost 4 or 5 million more and the third another 4 or 5 million. So it could be something like this:
    1st Franchise player 10 million
    2nd Franchise player 15 million
    3rd Franchise player 20 million

    If you cut one, the remaining franchise players still have the same contract. So if you have 3 and you cut your 10 million man, the other two still have 15 and 20 million dollar contracts, but your next franchise player will only cost 10 million.
    "I will calmly wait for my induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame."
    - Sammy Sosa

    "Get a comfy chair, Sammy, cause its gonna be a long wait."
    - Craig Ashley (AKA Windy City Fan)

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Windy City Fan View Post
    If I may offer one belated suggestion to the franchise player debate, what about letting people have any number of "franchise players" but at an ever increasing cost? The first one would cost 10 or 12 million, whatever we decided on. The next one could cost 4 or 5 million more and the third another 4 or 5 million. So it could be something like this:
    1st Franchise player 10 million
    2nd Franchise player 15 million
    3rd Franchise player 20 million

    If you cut one, the remaining franchise players still have the same contract. So if you have 3 and you cut your 10 million man, the other two still have 15 and 20 million dollar contracts, but your next franchise player will only cost 10 million.
    Great suggestion Craig. I like this idea, although with the RFA rule Rich has implemented it might not be necessary.
    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Quote Originally Posted by rmadachik View Post
    Thanks guys. I think we are going to roll with the Franchise player rule as it is currently written. As things stand now we are at a firm 11 owners and on the fence with one more. I will be releasing a final file for the 1901 season once I get the team info, and I would like to draw for the redraft so we can start putting together our draft boards. I will work it so our offseason does not coincide with the CKL off season from this point on.
    Rich, I don't know if you've already answered this question somewhere and I missed it, but I presume this will be a snake style draft rather than a straight draft, correct? That is, whoever gets the #1 pick won't pick again until #24, while the poor schmuck who gets #12 will also get #13.

    I'm also presuming that once you set up the draft list, we will select ballparks in reverse order of the player draft. Is that correct?

    Thanks!
    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by catcher24 View Post
    Rich, I don't know if you've already answered this question somewhere and I missed it, but I presume this will be a snake style draft rather than a straight draft, correct? That is, whoever gets the #1 pick won't pick again until #24, while the poor schmuck who gets #12 will also get #13.

    I'm also presuming that once you set up the draft list, we will select ballparks in reverse order of the player draft. Is that correct?

    Thanks!
    both of those assumptions are absolutely correct
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,292
    I posted this before, but I think it was the wrong thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    Also, are we going to have some sort of waiver system? I'd be against that idea.

    I can't remember off the top of my head... are we going to allow trading for draft picks? I believe CKL does, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out in the rules.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    There is no waivers system. free agents can be signed at any time for a minimum 250k one year contract. Trading for draft picks will definately be allowed and encouraged.
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

  16. #136
    Just checked web site. Great work. BUT... please correct city name. It is ASYLUM with one "S". Not ASSylum. Thanks.
    Ed
    There are 10 kinds of people. Those who get binary and those who don't.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    Got it Ed ... all fixed
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Heck, I liked Rich's spelling better....
    You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

  19. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by catcher24 View Post
    Heck, I liked Rich's spelling better....
    Still listed as ASSylum on draft pages.
    There are 10 kinds of people. Those who get binary and those who don't.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,922
    Quote Originally Posted by buppers View Post
    Still listed as ASSylum on draft pages.
    I was an English major .... my mind is not made to spell asylum that way lol
    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

Page 7 of 28 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •