Page 3 of 95 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1894

Thread: DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --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.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Balmer, Merlin
    Posts
    7,574
    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?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --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.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In case anyone was wondering.
    Posts
    2,938

    I'll toss a plan out there...

    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.
    Last edited by mac195; 11-17-2005 at 04:12 AM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --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?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In case anyone was wondering.
    Posts
    2,938
    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.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In case anyone was wondering.
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by 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?
    That would work for '62, but how would it work after that?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --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.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Balmer, Merlin
    Posts
    7,574
    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.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Actually in the premium FA auction there would only be 9 names to keep track off, since the doormats would be stagnent. For the secondary auction maybe we could do it by division, so nobody gets shafted if they miss one phase. Or maybe we want to do both auctions together with the split being by division instead of class. I'd like to have at least a tenative agreement on the process for acquiring players in subsequent years, but if all the details are quite clear it wouldn't need to stand in the way of getting 1961 underway. We'll probably end up tinkering with the rules in the 61-62 offseason anyway. We will need to have salary increase rules hammered out though, since that will affect draft strategy.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    In case anyone was wondering.
    Posts
    2,938
    We will need to have salary increase rules hammered out though, since that will affect draft strategy
    $250,000 per player per year is fine. Let's get the draft started!

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Neither of our two new owners (or what I thought were new owners) have been active since their original inquiries. I'm not sure we have all 9 teams in good hands yet. Dodger and Honus Wagner Rules have until tomorrow to confirm their commitment. If not, I have one owner ready to step in, but would need to find one more. Beyond that, I want to get the defensive ratings posted (still haven't received the program yet) so everybody can make informed selections.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Dodger has decided against running a team. EdgartoHoF, previously an owner in DM I and II, will be taking on a team.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,600
    Just wanting to let you know that I'm here

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,600

    Edgar's Raptors

    I'll take County Stadium

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    186
    I'll be Nails' Quakers, playing in C. Mack Stadium.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jamestown NY
    Posts
    9,433
    Sorry, guys, didn't see the new thread until today . Would have made some input into the salary suggestions otherwise. That is the one beauty of OOTP - the players automatically demand a specific salary for a given number of years based on past performance. Too bad DM doesn't have that capability, because it really makes it interesting trying to deal with your players.

    Anyway, with DM, I'm not sure I agree with the auto $250K raise for all ML'ers. Some of the scrubs wouldn't really be worth the raise. Of course, you could always release them, but if you had a guy who was a decent defensive replacement but didn't hit a lick, it might be worth keeping him ifyou didn't need to give him the raise. I also tend to believe that once free agency starts to kick in, the bidding for free agents will tend to keep everyone near the cap. I lean more towards having the contracts, with the amount of the contract remaining the same for the duration of the contract. I would also like to see a way to buy a guy's contract out, so if you had a poorly performing regular you could buy him out in late July and try to pick up a Fa for the stretch run (George Steinbrenner, anyone?).

    Again, sorry I didn't see the thread until today. I would have liked to propose some of these ideas before you guys gto so far along, but I still hope you will consider them.
    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. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    --Free agency really shouldn't create any cap issues for some years down the road if there are no built in raises. Every team will have one player declare which, with no raises, would drop salaries from 2-10 million. In most cases that money would be reinvested in a replacement FA, generated little real change in payroll.
    --Your utility guys are likely to be starting out under a million and few guys are really good in that role for more than the few years it would take to price them out of budget. As for the starters, making them more expensive is what will make it interesting. When a team gets squeezed it will fuel the secondary FA market.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Western Massachusetts
    Posts
    11,560
    I've come up with a better and more creative team name. I'm going to name my team the Cannons.

    Also, I agree with Mac about the raises in salary for leading the league in a category. That's not a very good idea. It would prompt me (and I'm sure others as well) to sit a star player on the bench towards the end of the year so he doesn't lead the league in anything.

    It does most certainly take away from the spirit of the game. Leading the league in something is supposed to be a positive thing, and by increasing salaries for that you're actually making it a negative thing.

Page 3 of 95 FirstFirst 123451353 ... 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
  •