DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion

[leecemark]

--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.

[mac195]

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!

[leecemark]

--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.

[leecemark]

--Dodger has decided against running a team. EdgartoHoF, previously an owner in DM I and II, will be taking on a team.

[Edgartohof]

Just wanting to let you know that I'm here

[Edgartohof]

I'll take County Stadium

[Nails]

I'll be Nails' Quakers, playing in C. Mack Stadium.

[catcher24]

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.

[leecemark]

--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.

[538280]

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.

[leecemark]

--I got the 1961 CD in today's mail. Defensive ratings for all posiitons (for players with at least 100 PA) will be up this weekend. The defense scale is Excellent (EX), Very Good (VG), Average (AV), Fair (FR) and Poor (PR). It is based strictly on the numbers, with no reputation bonus (Roberto Clemente is AV in 1961, although VG for his career profile in the All Time Greats program). It will vary from season to season. The first grade is for range. Outfielders and catchers will also have a throwing rating on the same scale (example: Clemente AV/EX). Error rate is based on fieldign percentage, is on a numerical scale rather than a grade. This scale varies by positon and isn't as easily accessed as the range/arm numbers. If you want to see who is sure handed or error prone, you'll have to look up fielding percentages elsewhere. These defensive ratings are the only scouting reports that I'll providing.
--We still need one owner to get the draft underway. I'd like to kick it off a week from today and will draft a second team myself (for computer management) if we don't have someone ready to go. I'd like to get the first few rounds completed the first night, so if Friday isn't good for anyone please let me know. After the first few rounds I don't mind if the draft slows down some. I propose a 12 hour window for each owner to pick (hopefully far less for most) at which time the next guy would go and the owner skipped would just have to backfill when they log back in. That window is only for people who aren't online though. If you log into BBF when you're on the clock and leave without picking we would also go onto the next owner's turn. As with everthing else, suggestions to improve the draft process are welcome.

[mac195]

I'm happy that player salaries will be determined by the market, and not predetermined by the game software based on some formula. I think that adds an element of skill, and makes the game more fun.

[catcher24]

Mac - Actually, it does take the market into serious consideration. It compares his performance to others at the postion in the league and uses that info to assign the salary. Also, once the player becomes a FA, he becomes available to every other team and the bidding is on. I'm in my fourth year of a solo league, and have had to dump some of my players to the FA market in order to keep others - and many have come back to haunt me!

Anyway, I agree with JW that I would like to see contracts of some sort. Perhaps 5 each of 2,3,4,5,6 year contracts? That would be 25 total, and would cover all the active ML players. You decide who is worth signing for 6 years. Once the contract is up, the player becomes a FA. Minor leaguers wouldn't be affected until they are promoted. Perhaps they could automatically be assigned a 5 year contract upon promotion. That would be long enough for the original drafting team to get some worth from the player before he became eligible for free agency. Suggestions?

[catcher24]

The 12 hour window seems more than reasonable. Seems like an owner should be able to log in sometime during that long a period quick enough to post their choice.

[leecemark]

--I've got 2 issues with locking players up to contracts rather than letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team. First of all, if we lock all our MLB roster up to 2-6 year contracts there will be no free agents on the market for our 2nd season. I don't think running basically the same teams out for the 1962 season will be that interesting.
--Second is actually the opposite end of the spectrum. I'd like to be able to plan for the future when building my original team. There should be some benefit to drafting a young player who will be a star for you down the road and a trade off between choicing that type of player and one who is going to give you a couple big years and then we finished. The contract system would lead to complete turnover in 6 years.

[mac195]

Mac - Actually, it does take the market into serious consideration. It compares his performance to others at the postion in the league and uses that info to assign the salary.

By market value, I mean whatever someone is willing to pay. So if someone really, really likes Rocky Colavito, for whatever reason, and is willing to pay $12 million a year for him, then that is his market price. Others who are smart enough not to pay so much for him gain a relative advantage. If prices are determined by merit, then that aspect of strategy is lost.


Like Mark said, I think

letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team...

... would be more fun than assigning long term contracts. I'd like to have the freedom to dump a player at any time, or keep him until the end of his career if I choose. Automatic yearly salary increases would force a certain number of players to be given up to free agency, but owners would be able to make a strategic decision on who to give up and when. Actually, I don't think any other mechanism to force free agents onto the market is necessary.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

If there's any open spots...
I'll be the Blalack Dollar Signs, playing in Fenway Park

[leecemark]

--Welcome Charles. That fills our ownership roster. A few things to iron out on the rules, but we should be able to begin drafting next Friday unless that proves to be a bad time for some owners.
--The division alignments
West
Mac's Hard Cider (Mac195) - Yankee Stadium
538280 Cannons - Crosley Field
Edgar's Raptors (EdgartoHallofFame) - County Stadium
Kansas City Athletics (computer managed doormat)

Central
Leecemark Knights - Tiger Stadium
Dudecar00 Gamblers - Wrigley Field (LA)
Blalack Dollar Signs (charlesblalack@yahoo.com)- Fenway Park
Philadelphia Phillies (CM doormats)

East
JW Skipjacks - Memorial Stadium
Lew's Legends (Catcher24) - Forbes Field
Nails Quakers - Connie Mack Stadium
Washington Senators (CM doormats)

[leecemark]

1) Will we use performance boosters or just the 250K raise for MLB players?
2) Will we allow your first pick to be locked in at 12m for as long as you want him?
3) Wlll we allow players to be signed for x number of years or go with the one FA per team for the first 6 years and draft class thereafter?
4) If we are going with the one forced FA per team will it be by defensive position or by payroll positon.
--I'd like every owner to cast their vote on the above issues by Monday if possible. If I have overlooked or misstated any of the open issues please feel free to open further discussion on them this weekend. I would really like to have everything firmed up by Monday. I'll draw for draft position
once the rules questions are settled (some votes, especially #2, could be influenced by draft positon).

[leecemark]

1) No performance boosters. 250K per year for any player who appears for the MLB squad and none for minor leaguers.
2) Yes to locking in your first pick. The only exception would be if that player loses his spot as your highest paid player and becomes liable to the 1 FA rule during the first 6 seasons (if that is approved).
3) No contracts for 1961 draftees. One FA per team (thru 1967) to be designated with the others yours as long as you want to keep paying them.
4) One free agent per team to be assigned by payroll slot. Best record loses (or at least as file for free agency) their 2nd highest paid player, next best their 3rd and so on down to the worst record losing their 10th highest paid.

[leecemark]

Elston Howard EX/VG
Johnny Blanchard FR/FR
Dick Brown AV/EX
Gus Triandos VG/VG
Sherm Lollar FR/AV
Cam Carreon EX/FR
Johnny Romano AV/AV
Jim Pagliani FR/VG
Russ Nixon FR/FR
Earl Batttey VG/VG
Hal Naragon AV/PR
Earl Averill AV/FR
Del Rice AV/FR
Eddie Sadowski EX/FR
Jerry Zimmerman AV/EX
Johnny Edwards AV/VG
Johnny Roseboro VG/EX
Norm Sherry VG/FR
Ed Baily VG/VG
Joe Torre AV/VG
Carl Sawatski FR/FR
Hal Smith (stL) VG/EX
Hal Smith (pitt) AV/FR
Smokey Burgess AV/FR
Dick Bertell AV/AV
Sam Taylor AV/FR
Mike Roarke AV/EX

[mac195]

1) No performance boosters. 250K per year for any player who appears for the MLB squad and none for minor leaguers.
2) Yes to locking in your first pick. The only exception would be if that player loses his spot as your highest paid player and becomes liable to the 1 FA rule during the first 6 seasons (if that is approved).
3) No contracts for 1961 draftees. One FA per team (thru 1967) to be designated with the others yours as long as you want to keep paying them.
4) One free agent per team to be assigned by payroll slot. Best record loses (or at least as file for free agency) their 2nd highest paid player, next best their 3rd and so on down to the worst record losing their 10th highest paid.

This is OK with me. And I can draft on Friday (US Time), although I will be busy from 6:00-7:00, and 9:00-11:00PM PST. Otherwise, any time after 3:00PM PST is fine.

[catcher24]

Posted by Mark:
--I've got 2 issues with locking players up to contracts rather than letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team. First of all, if we lock all our MLB roster up to 2-6 year contracts there will be no free agents on the market for our 2nd season. I don't think running basically the same teams out for the 1962 season will be that interesting.
--Second is actually the opposite end of the spectrum. I'd like to be able to plan for the future when building my original team. There should be some benefit to drafting a young player who will be a star for you down the road and a trade off between choicing that type of player and one who is going to give you a couple big years and then we finished. The contract system would lead to complete turnover in 6 years.

Now I'm a little confused. Isn't the currently proposed rule that anyone on the roster is going to become a free agent after six years, or did that get dropped? Or did I misunderstand that? In that scenario, ALL players have a six year contract, then become free game after the six are up. Under my proposal, free agents will come onto the market at intervals, as contracts expire. If you want to lock up the young stud, give him a six year contract. Also, to eliminate the problem of the same teams for 1962, only allow a certain number of players to be under contract, or have 7 or 8 one year contracts. Anyway, I'll not belabor the point, as it appears most are opposed to this anyway. One last comment, though - beginning in the mid-70's, not having contracts will in no way reflect reality. Before Messersmith/McNally, a team COULD keep a player as long as he wants; after that, no way - he had a contract or after five years he filed for free agency. Perhaps that is something that should be addressed as we approach that era (1975?).

Posted by Mac:
By market value, I mean whatever someone is willing to pay. So if someone really, really likes Rocky Colavito, for whatever reason, and is willing to pay $12 million a year for him, then that is his market price. Others who are smart enough not to pay so much for him gain a relative advantage. If prices are determined by merit, then that aspect of strategy is lost.

Same thing it OOTP, Mac. When a player becomes a FA, EVERY team can enter any amount they wish to offer him. And the AI is clever enough to play one team against the other, so the bidding on some players gets crazy. Again, not belaboring the point because we are using DM; just wanted to clarify that OOTP has the same capability, but IMHO a better financial engine.

[catcher24]

Mark - Will there be any way to access any of the players from the computer doormat teams? There are a couple of players I'm quite interested in. If not, I'll forget about them, but one in particular would be fairly high on my draft list (with the baseball acumen possessed by the members of this league, I'm sure anyone who peruses the doormats' rosters will know who I'm looking at).

[catcher24]

My vote on the issues requested:
1. I would prefer the 250K per season increase. In reality, a current player might have a performance clause built into their contract, but in the early 60's this was pretty unusual. If you won the triple crown, you got your negotiated raise per your contract.
2. Agree with this.
3. I think you know where I'm at on this - contracts for X number of years (hey, call me Don Quixote).
4. I vote against one forced FA per team, but if that rule applies, I would go by salary. I think that is more fair. If you went by position, the 9th place team could lose their highest paid player, without freeing up equivalent dollars to sign a comparable replacement. If you go by salary, the ninth place team will lose their ninth highest paid player - bad enough, but at least the dollars will be available for a comparable replacement player.