DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion

[leecemark]

--Sorry to lose you Mike. If there is an opening in future seasons or we expand down the road you'd be welcome back.
--That does eliminate a tough decision for me though. We have 3 interested parties and did have only 2 spots. Now all three can have a team. Dudecar assures me he has resolved the issues which caused him to drop out of DMIII. Since he was a good owner in DMII I'm prepared to give him another shot. Dodger and Honus Wagner Rules, you also have teams if you are still interested after seeing some of the details of the league. Please confirm your participation ASAP (or let me know if you've decided against).
--JW, I'd be agreeable to some alteration of the scheduled raises and free agent eligibility. Perhaps something along the lines of Nails idea for a premium for award winners or league leaders. If the best players are going to jump in price I'd like some salary control at the bottom of the roster though. I was thinking maybe we could retain anybody who didn't appear on the major league roster during the season without having to bump their salary. The 100 million has to cover 40 players in this scenario, rather than 30 in DMIII. It will get eaten up by inflation quicker than you might think.
--I wouldn't want to shorten the FA window to 3 years, because alot of players might only have a cup of coffee their first season or two. The six years to free agency wouldn't be quailfying years like MLB, but 6 seasons from their draft year (starting with 1962), even if they don't play a game for your team that season. Maybe we could have "arbitration" after the third year where we jump salaries up to retain them though.

[538280]

Looks like only Tiger and Yankee Stadiums are gone, right?

I took Crosley Field. It is also gone.

[leecemark]

Leecemark Knights - Tiger Stadium
538280 Reds - Crosley Field
JW Skipjacks - Memorial Stadium
Mac195 ??? - Yankee Stadium
Dudecar00 Gamblers - Wrigley Field (LA)

[leecemark]

--A little follow up to the issue of escalating raises. Simple inflation will raise the cost of your team 10 million dollars a year if you just kept the same 40 guys. That would put all of us over the cap by 1963. Of course, it won't be that simple since we will all be losing a free agent and we will be non-tendering other guys to make room for the next seasons new player draft and free agent bidding (not to mention guys will just retire or cease to have any value). Still your first round pick in this year's draft will cost you 13 million a year in 1965 by the original plan. Adding in bonuses could make that 15-16 million for some players.
--I like the idea of performance escalators for the less expensive guys entering the league starting in 1962, but am less than enthusiastic about doing it for 1961 draftees (or maybe it could only apply to players drafted after the 5th or 10th round). Either way, I'd like to control our minor league costs by freezing the salaries of anyone who spends the entire season in the minors. To accompany that, we might not allow a player with 3 years service time (in our league) to be sent down without going through waivers.

[J W]

We'll figure something out in regards to that. I think that parity will eventually catch up with people simply through the subsequent draft classes (which we can do normal-style, not ladder style). In fact, I may decide to develop my squad for the first couple years rather than get the Mantles of the world and eat a losing season or two. In short I would call it unfair to strip the best pitcher off our inaugural champion after 1961. For those of us willing to stick through this, we have to think of things over a 5-10 year stretch rather than year 1.
-------
Since we're counting from year drafted, there's absolutely no problem with the 6-year contract for me. I think arbitration after 3 years would be a good idea.
-------
I also approve the raise scale you submitted after your math on the subject... fact is, a lot of the players you'd raise $250 k on would cost even more $$$ if they hit the FA market a particular year. This is going to be real fun with the cap. Nails' suggestion for awards bonuses is excellent and should provide enough roadblock for us without making things crazy--and think about this--most awards go to players on winning teams right? So, there's the penalty for fielding a winning team in year 1961, a slight one and not the loss of their best player.

[J W]

One other thing: are we allowed to pick fictional team names this time around?

If so, I'd like to be the JW Skipjacks, after a defunct Baltimore hockey team.

[leecemark]

--You can pick any name you'd like for your team. I have been the Tigers in the first three leagues, but didn't want to use them with a start from scratch team this time. Didn't want even a subconsious pull toward picking Tigers ahead of their true value.
--JW, are you suggesting we don't have any free agency out of the 1961 guys, except those who are no longer worth their cost to their teams? I think circulating some of that talent will make for a more interesting game in the next few seasons. One alterative idea to the positional assignment of FA is to assign multi-year contracts to some of our players with those players being FAs when the deal is up. I think having some quality free agents on the market beginning with year 2 needs to happen somehow.

[mac195]

Well, it should be a competitive league. I shudder to think how good Chris' teams are going to be, considering that he is only 13 (14 now??) and already seems to understand the stats as well as anyone here.

[538280]

Well, it should be a competitive league. I shudder to think how good Chris' teams are going to be, considering that he is only 13 (14 now??) and already seems to understand the stats as well as anyone here.

Thanks for the compliments. I just hope I can do well.

I don't turn 14 for three months, by the way.

[The Dude]

I'll name my team the Gamblers, and we'll play in Wrigley Field (LA).

[leecemark]

--Here is a proposed raise escalator schedule based on performance;
--For position players leading the league in BA, HR. RBI or RC would trigger a 500K (each) performance boost. That would give a maximum raise, for a Triple Crown winner, of 2.25 million in any one year (with the standard 250K included). The 2nd and 3rd place finishers in these categories would get 250K performance boosts.
--For pitchers the categories would be Wins, IP, ERA, K's and saves. That gives 4 categories for SP, same as position players, with one (normally) for relief pitchers. The dollar figures would be the same.
--I think basing this on league leadership will be better than awards, because there is no room for manipulating the raises. Frankly, if winning the MVP was going to drive up one of my players salary I'd be inclined not to vote for him. That star player on a division rival would be much more deserving .
--To balance the salary pressure caused by this, any player who does not see action on the big league roster in a season would not be due a raise. We might also want to allow owners to extend multi-year contracts to some players. My initial idea would be to allow each owner to give a 2, 3,4 and 5 year deal to one player each from their initial draftees. That would lock them in at their draft price for those years. The trade off would be that they would be eligible for free agency when that deal was up.
--We might also want to consider allowing each of us to lock up a player after his fifth year. Maybe one per team in a given year gets a 3-5 year deal at 1 million over their scheduled pay. That would limit the risk of huge raises for your biggest stars. For players acquired beginning in 1962 it would also delay your risk of losing them to free agency.

[J W]

I think I have a plan for free agency at least for the first few years:

Draft Salary Breakdown
Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million
Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K
---------------
Total: $81 mil

With the raise and escalator scales set, we can play with (guaranteed) contracts just by giving those contracts:
- a length
- a salary for year 1

Any raises or performance escalators would be guaranteed along with the base salary for as long as the contract is good. Any increase in pay would be cumulative. Let's do an example:

Mickey Bitzko is drafted in Round 4 and is signed to a 4 yr deal.

YR 1 - 8.0 mil

He does very well in year 1, leading the league in HR and 3rd in RBI. Adding his pay increases up (base $250 k + $500 k + $250 k) we get

YR 2 - 9.0 mil

He doesn't have a good 1962, but his old escalators are cumulative, so

YR 3 - 9.25 mil

In 1963 he finishes second in HR. Therefore we tack on $250 k + $250 k...

YR 4 - 9.75 mil

By the end of the deal, Bitzko will make:

YR 1 - 8.0 mil
YR 2 - 9.0 mil
YR 3 - 9.25 mil
YR 4 - 9.75 mil
----------------
TOT - 4 yr, $36 mil

Now, as for the contracts, here is my proposal (I know this is getting complicated, but it is a keeper league we're trying with a salary cap... and I think it's fun anyways)

Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K

None of these guys will be making over $1 mil in 1962. These can turn into 6-yr deals. I've changed my mind on arbitration... the system's complicated as is and we don't need it. Most of these guys won't be superstars, or would become one late in the contract.

Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million

My initial idea would be to allow each owner to give a 2, 3, 4 and 5 year deal to one player each from their initial draftees.

We might also want to consider allowing each of us to lock up a player after his fifth year. Maybe one per team in a given year gets a 3-5 year deal at 1 million over their scheduled pay.

Since we're maxing out at 6 yr deals (which is fine), I would give the teams two contracts each at 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 yrs. I would also reduce the keeper rule to during/after the 4th year of a contract. Any contracts 3 years or less would not get this benefit and the player would hit the FA market.

By this rule, five players per team (60 total) would hit the FA market at the end of each year, for the first 3 years (1961-63), minus retirements. This plus the draft, and any cuts made at the bottom of the roster. For 1964-66, up to five players per team would hit the market, but probably less.

Same as Mark, feel free to pick apart or add to this idea.

[leecemark]

--I've been playing around with increasingly more complicated ideas myself, but think maybe the way to go is actually a simple one. Several owners have indicated they are planning to draft for the long term, which is definately something to be encouraged. Carl Yastzremski and Bob Gibson have been brought up as possible first rourd picks, which is definately a long term plan, with neither an elite player in 1961.
--The problem with that is the payoff in that long term plan is going to be prohibitively expensive. In our 10th year, 1970, Yaz and Gibby are arguably the best hitter and pitcher in baseball. However, they would be drawing a salary of 14.5 million even if no performance boosts come into play. They would more likely to be making 16-17 miillion and crippling their teams chances of building a competitive squad (the highest paid FA in DM got 12.5 million). You shouldn't be payig way over market value to keep the guy you have built your team around.
--My solution is to allow teams to keep their number one pick at 12 million as long as they want. To keep simple inflation from pricing players out of reach I also suggest that nobody should set a new salary season via scheduled raises, but only through free agency. For example, if your second round pick won the Triple Crown (and presumably also RC) he would be due a 2.25 million dolllar raise. That would be capped at 2m so that his salary would not exceed that of the highest paid player from the previous year. You could still pay free agents whatever you want/can afford and the highest paid FA could raise the bar for potential salaries the next year. The raise scale would be the same as previously posted, except for the ceiling.
--I also suggest that big ticket FA deals all be multi-year. For example, anybody signed for 8m+ would be required to be signed to a 3 year deal, max 4 years. 5m+ would be 2-4 and less than 5 could be one year with a max of 3. I'm still in favor of my original idea of having one free agent per team for the first 6 years (plus non-tendered players), based on positional standings, but will bend to the will of the majority. I don't think it actually penalizes the team with the best record unduly. In fact with 4 HoF in their prime and the AL MVP all being RFers, there is a good chance the team with the worst record will actually lose a better player than the team with the best.

[leecemark]

--Not much activity from some of our owners. I'm not worried about our returnees, but the lack of activity from our new owners is worrisome. No confirmation has been received from HWR or Dodger. As of Friday I'll have to consider alternatives. One possible replacement is already on the waiting list. I'd like to begin the draft a week or so after I get the 1961 software and post the defensive ratings and we can't do that without active owners. I'd also like to see everybody get their roster shell up on that thread ASAP.

[mac195]

post the defensive ratings

..........

Wow. This is all getting pretty complicated. I hope a fairly simple system for salaries and free agency can be worked out. Not sure if raising salary for performance is that good an idea. If a player of mine was competing for any of those titles, I'd be tempted to sit him out just enough so he wouldn't win which would be pretty contrary to the spirit of the game.

If this was a progressive league with current players it would make more sense. But this is historical, so we already know about how well these guys will play when we draft them. Boosting pay for winning league titles seems like it would be kind of artificial and unecessary, and add more randomness. Can somebody explain to me how this would enhance strategy or realism?

[leecemark]

--For the 1961 guys who are already getting paid according to quality I'd be fine with skipping the performance boosts (they weren't in my original plan anyway). I do think it has merit for the guys drafted in subsequent years at low dollars. That said, I could live without it there too if most people don't want it. There is alot to be said for simplicity.
--How is this for a stripped down model;
1) 1961 players paid for first year based on original draft scale
--first picks are locked in at 12m as long as they stay with original team
--everybody else gets a 250K raise each season they appear for the major league team (no raise if full season spent in minors)
--One player per team though 1966 gains free agency by the positional assignment.
--Any player you don't want to pay their scheduled pay would also granted free agency
2) Players picked in subsequent years (in inverse order of finish) would get the 250K plus performance boosts (or not) and would be granted free agency following the 6th season after they are drafted.

[J W]

Well, here's what we can agree on:

A) 12 teams, 3 divisions
B) The cap set at $100 mil
C) The 1961 draft and pay scale totaling $81 mil
D) Multi-year contracts allowed (2-6 yrs)
E) Base raises of $250k/year for MLBers
F) Subsequent drafts in reverse order of finish

I'd like to get the OK from several other owners besides Mark and myself on these topics so we can have our basic model to work from.
------------------------------------

I don't want to make things too complicated but at the same time, I think a little more structure should be thrown in:

- If we lock in our 1st round picks @ $12 mil, then I say we make these players LIFERS. In other words, you can't trade them--they're making 12 mil/year for you until their retirement. We can designate these players as such to make it clear to the rest. That's one way to build a team around a player . Also, it forces a decision--1st rounder on a complete career or not?

uy, too late... I'll elaborate more tomorrow. But to the other owners: are we ok with the basic model?

[leecemark]

--I'd be okay with making them untradable to lock them in at 12 million. I'd like to be able to release/non-tender them short of retirement though. I wouldn't want to be paying a modest hitting DH (especially if we don't have a DH*) 12% of my payroll for several years at the end if I draft Hank Aaron. I would probably want out of Yaz's deal at that price after 1970 - and he still had a long ways to go. I might try and resign a past their prime guy who had been a key part of my team at a more reasonable salary after releasing him into the FA pool, but I'm not sentimental enough to want to hang on to a shadow of a star at superstar prices.
--I don't think we have agreement on multi-year contracts either. I see the initial draft guys as being yours as long as you want them, excepting the one FA per year until the class of 62 is our first 6th year class. We haevn't exactly come up with any kind of multi year arrangement for anybody from subsequent drafts.
--I do agree with A, B, C , E and F.
*There will be no DH to start the league. I think we can vote the concept up or down in 1973 when we get there.

[mac195]

I see two important issues:

* How to assimilate free agents coming into the league from 1962 on, either rookies or players that are released?

* How to give a boost to weaker teams so that the league remains competitive?

A free agent draft would benefit the weaker teams by giving them first pick of available players, but it wouldn't generate a realistic salary for those players. I'd prefer to bid on all free agents. Auctions are a lot of fun, and players would get their true market value. Owners would have to put a lot of thought into deciding who to keep, and who to release in order to build up funds for a free agent bidding war.

But how to boost weaker teams? Why not increase player salaries based on team performance? The team finishing with the best record could have their payroll increased by $400,000 per player, the 2nd best team by 350,000, the 3rd by $300,000 and so on down to the the worst team which would see no increase. The increase would apply only to players already making $500,000 or more. That would raise the #1 team's payroll by $10 million in '62. Lower finishing teams would get a substantial relative boost, but all teams would have a shot at getting any new player that comes into the league.

[leecemark]

--Players who get released will be free agents under the original plan. The only players scheduled to be drafted after 1961 would be players debuting in the next season(s). I've looked at the class of 1962 and only see 4 notable players; Willie Stargell, Tony Oliva, Jim Bouton and Bob Veale. Stargell actually doesn't emerge as a great player until later and the team that signs him as a free agent following his 6th season will get his best work. Oliva and Veale will give best value to their original owners and Bouton has all of his value early. I don't see a problem with rookies/young players being low paid. That is how it really works.
--I see there being 4 phases of player acquistion from 1962 forward;
1) Trades could be made anytime from the new season startup to the deadline (100 games or July 31 if I can avoid the excessive offdays in the schedule).
2) The new player draft, in inverse order of finish.
3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team. Alot of players in the secondary auction will be worn out and not likley to play a major role. However, there will be some good talent availble as we get further into the project and have to make tough salary cap decisions .
--A guy who was worth 8 million to you in 1961 might not be worth 8.5 in 1963 when the money gets tighter - even though he is still a very good player. There will also be tough choices to make on guys with major injuries or bad years mid-career. If you're hard up against the cap and looking to compete then a player who misses a year (or most of one) with injury or posts a 5.00 era might not be affordable for you even if he bounces back to be a star for several years after. A rebuilding (or one less competitive to start with) team with some cap room and paitence could pick that player up at a relative bargain.

[leecemark]

--Here's an alternative idea for those who don't like the plan of free agents assigned by position. How about the team with the best record has their 2nd round pick file, the next the 3rd pick, on down to the team with the worst record having their 10th pick file?

[mac195]

3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team.

That sounds good. I didn't realize you were already planning to have these auctions.

[mac195]

--Here's an alternative idea for those who don't like the plan of free agents assigned by position. How about the team with the best record has their 2nd round pick file, the next the 3rd pick, on down to the team with the worst record having their 10th pick file?

That would work for '62, but how would it work after that?

[leecemark]

--After the first year it could be 2nd-10th highest paid player instead of draft pick. That could add some additional realistic issues. If you sign a FA more more than 12m, your no longer highest paid player/first draft choice may become disgruntled and would be eligble to be lost to free agency. If free agent signees are on multi-year deals (which I endorse) and one of them was your selected player, he could demand a trade instead of being a free agent. You'd have to deal him or have a holdout.

[J W]

Looks like it's Mark, Mac, and me for the most part. No prob. So as far as I'm concerned we've locked in the following:

X) 12 teams, 3 divisions
X) The cap set at $100 mil
X) The 1961 draft and pay scale totaling $81 mil
X) Trade deadline (100 G/ July 31)
X) Tenders - base raises of $250k/year for MLBers
X) Subsequent drafts in reverse order of finish

We may need to keep a running list of this while we work it all out. I'm keeping it roughly in chronological order.
-------------------------------------------------

Now for the new points:

--I see there being 4 phases of player acquistion from 1962 forward;
1) Trades could be made anytime from the new season startup to the deadline (100 games or July 31 if I can avoid the excessive offdays in the schedule).
2) The new player draft, in inverse order of finish.
3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team. Alot of players in the secondary auction will be worn out and not likley to play a major role. However, there will be some good talent availble as we get further into the project and have to make tough salary cap decisions .

- (1) should just go up on the list. In fact I just added it. Mac if you floor me with a dissenting vote I'll take it off.

- (2) already up there.

- (3,4) I like the idea of drafting FAs in 1961 and auctioning them thereafter. I agree with the order as well (tenders, then rookie draft, then FA auctions). As for splitting the auction: I'm fine with it if it means the premium auction doesn't take long. Say 1 hour, with last second bids and everything like last time. One bid per post. This is because there's only 12 names to keep track of.
The second auction I'd like to do differently but I'm not sure how. I'd just like to give everyone a chance so one team doesn't hog all the good cheapies.