1901 Off Season Thread

**scubadan** · 02-13-2012, 04:52 AM

My last post prompted another question about the RFA bid process. First I will assume any player with RFA status is worthy of a hefty contract. Because I have a limited salary cap, I can't bid on all of the RFA's. In fact, in reality I can probably only bid on one or two. The same will be true of all owners. I don't know how many RFA's we might have in a season, but if there are more than a half dozen or so, you run the risk of a RFA not getting a bid. That lucky owner will get to sign his star player to a minimum contract and that just doesn't seem right.

If I understand this correctly, I would like to see a modification to the process. All owners would submit blind bids as in the rules but would not be limited on the number of bids they can place. The first player "signed" under the RFA process would be the player with the highest bid received. Then the next highest bid is revealed but if it belongs to a team that previously signed a RFA, the owner would have a chance to withdraw his bid and the next highest bid would be in place.

I think this clarification of the process would assure a couple of things. First, I think all RFA's would receive competitive bids and no RFA would get signed for a minimum contract. Second, owners could manage their payroll rather than ending up with more than 1 RFA that they can't afford. It strikes a balance between the two extremes.

**Erik Bedard** · 02-13-2012, 06:45 AM

The other Dan's suggestion is excellent and I'm in favor of it, as it eliminates a major problem with the RFA system (i.e. winding up with more players than you can afford). It shouldn't come into play too often, but it's necessary to have it for sure.

**leecemark** · 02-13-2012, 07:00 AM

--I think a couple rules could help avoid Dan's concerns from ever being a problem. One, there would be multiple rounds of bidding and you would only be stuck with the player you bid highest on. If you land plan a and b (and perhaps c and d) at a position, you keep the one you made your highest bid on and the other(s) go on to the next round (or not if you like them both at the price). Two, if a RFA does not receive a bid then the original owner has the option of resigning him at the previous years salary (not minium wage). If that is more than you are willing to pay then they go back to the next round for another try at it. If they still get no bids then you can resign them at half the previous years salary. If thats still too much then they would become unrestricted FA in round 3, but any tie in sealed high bid would still keep them home.

**Wade8813** · 02-13-2012, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by buppers

You are right about randomness but I would like to point out that all 12 teams can name a franchise player.
A quick check shows 41 batters who played in 1901 had 2000+ PA's and an OPS+ > 100, 22 pitchers with 2000+ BF's and ERA+ > 100. Those numbers only include PA's and BF's from 1901 forward. Also, only include players who played after 1907 - when the Franchise tag would go into effect. That totals 63 players minimum that could easily qualify as above average players who could reasonably be Franchise players. That means less than 20% of these players would be franchise players. And if you are not happy with your 1st round pick you could wait for a future draft to name a franchise player.

Having 2000 PA and OPS+ over 100 is nowhere close to being the minimum to be considered for the Franchise tag. When you're restricted to one Franchise player per decade (plus you have to pay them 10-15 mil per season), you have to be getting All-Star level performance at the least - probably HoF level.

Originally Posted by scubadan

I guess if we are going to keep the FP rule, I would think it should apply to the 1901 draftees as well as future draftees. Sure, someone else lucked into Honus Wagner in this draft but in the future someone else will luck into Johnson or Cobb. If the FP rule won't apply to 1901 draftees, it might as well not be there in future years either. One might argue that the 1st round pick this year was unlucky compared to the owner who has Johnson or Cobb fall in his lap. We've already heard one owner state that contract lengths and restrictions might change who the top ranked players are in this draft and that just doesn't seem right. The best players should be the first ones drafted. I think we've created a situation similar to the old MLB first year player draft where the best players (over their career) may not be drafted early due to contract concerns.

You're right - sticking a franchise tag on a player from 1901 means that they get players from before 1901, but those players still aren't as good as some future season's players.

The players we draft are supposed to be best within the first X years of the career. That IS right. If this were modern players, someone wouldn't first pick Jose Bautista knowing they'd have to sit on multiple mediocre years. You have to take them based on how good they'll be out of the gate.

That being said, I think the FP rule might be a little too sweet. I think 15M per year might be more fair. If you assume a premier player to be worth something around 20M per year, this would be a 25% discount from market value compared the 40% discount that 12M respresents. Another owner mentioned tanking a season in the CKL to get a shot at a FP. I could see this happening in years when superstars are rookies and I don't think any rule should create such an advantage as to tank a season to get it.

The only way to make it so you don't want to tank a season is to make it so all teams are equally likely to get the first pick - which makes it too luck based.

Even if we had no Franchise Players and no RFAs, being able to have Ty Cobb for the first 7 seasons of his career is very strong incentive to tank a season that's already unwinnable.

Originally Posted by scubadan

My last post prompted another question about the RFA bid process. First I will assume any player with RFA status is worthy of a hefty contract. Because I have a limited salary cap, I can't bid on all of the RFA's. In fact, in reality I can probably only bid on one or two. The same will be true of all owners. I don't know how many RFA's we might have in a season, but if there are more than a half dozen or so, you run the risk of a RFA not getting a bid. That lucky owner will get to sign his star player to a minimum contract and that just doesn't seem right.

All Free Agents who aren't Franchise become RFAs (with the exception of the 1901 players)

**Erik Bedard** · 02-13-2012, 07:34 AM

I thought it was just players who hadn't been traded.

**Wade8813** · 02-13-2012, 07:40 AM

Maybe you're right. The way it's worded (in the version of the rules I copied, which is old) was a bit unclear.

**catcher24** · 02-13-2012, 08:27 AM

Dan (Erik) is correct. The RFA rule applies only to players who the team signed as a rookie and are still with the team. It basically replaces the CKL Hometown Discount rule.

Dan (Scuba) makes an excellent argument for allowing a 1901 player to be designated as a Franchise Player. If I can't designate Honus Wagner, who already has four seasons (including one of his best) gone, then why should someone in 1905 be able to tag Cobb, or someone in 1907 be able to tag Walter Johnson? As mentioned in my previous post as well, chances are the guys in this formation draft who get Wagner, Lajoie and Mathewson are going to field decent teams for several years, so won't even be in the running to get Cobb or Johnson. Raising the FP tag to a higher salary would likely have the same effect it has had in the CKL - almost total elimination of the FP, because there aren't that many players who are worth that much. But of course those guys who luck into Cobb, Speaker, Johnson and later on Ruth, Hornsby and Gehrig will be happy to do so. And remember that even tanking a season is no guarantee, since it is still based on a lottery of the bottom four teams.

All that being said, it is Rich's league, and if he insists that the 1901 draft class is not eligible to be FP, then so be it. Maybe we could vote on that as well. I believe I also mentioned earlier that with the RFA rule, I could certainly live without the FP rule, but some tweaking might be good to that as well.

**scubadan** · 02-13-2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by catcher24

All that being said, it is Rich's league, and if he insists that the 1901 draft class is not eligible to be FP, then so be it. Maybe we could vote on that as well. I believe I also mentioned earlier that with the RFA rule, I could certainly live without the FP rule, but some tweaking might be good to that as well.

I guess we can vote on it by voting to eliminate the FP rule.

**rmadachik** · 02-13-2012, 09:03 AM

we could do the RFA auction in rounds .... I can put all the players who are eligible for RFA into a hat and draw 10 names at a time. every owner has the option to bid on any of the ten players, and at the end of the day the players are either signed by the highest bidder or are retained. the next day we do 10 more and so on till they are all signe. that way we can better manage our rosters during this process.

**catcher24** · 02-13-2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by rmadachik

we could do the RFA auction in rounds .... I can put all the players who are eligible for RFA into a hat and draw 10 names at a time. every owner has the option to bid on any of the ten players, and at the end of the day the players are either signed by the highest bidder or are retained. the next day we do 10 more and so on till they are all signe. that way we can better manage our rosters during this process.

That sounds like a very good compromise. The number could be changed, maybe to 5 or 6 per round, but the idea is an excellent one.

**rmadachik** · 02-13-2012, 09:40 AM

sounds good to me. It sems like the issue of 1901 drafted players is becoming a sticking point for some. I am kinda hoping the franchise player rule gets shot down to make some of that debate go away. One thing that has always concerned me is the ability to tank a season in order to get a chance at a franchise player and that sentiment is understandable.

**rmadachik** · 02-13-2012, 09:43 AM

At the beginning of the RFA auction I will post a schedule of which players will be bid on each day. That will also help owners manage their resources better. It kinda is similar to how Scott Carter did the original draft for PAP2 for those who were around for that.

**rmadachik** · 02-13-2012, 03:31 PM

How's this one?
pioneers.jpg

**rmadachik** · 02-13-2012, 03:51 PM

here's the sharkstigershark.jpg

**catcher24** · 02-13-2012, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by rmadachik

At the beginning of the RFA auction I will post a schedule of which players will be bid on each day. That will also help owners manage their resources better. It kinda is similar to how Scott Carter did the original draft for PAP2 for those who were around for that.

I don't know about everyone else, but this sounds like a good adjustment to the RFA rule and I think it will work well.

**jaybird_1981** · 02-13-2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by rmadachik

How's this one?
pioneers.jpg

Yeah that looks nice! Thanks!

**rmadachik** · 02-14-2012, 11:00 PM

I had drawn for league placement but forgot to post it.

American League
Bums
Express
Inmates
Pioneers
Rams
Tigers

National League
Angels
Barons
Dragons
Kumquats
Sharks
Spiders

And I now see that the American League holds the first 4 picks of the draft.