DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion

[catcher24]

Posted by Mark:
I'd also like a yes/no vote on the arbitration suggestion of doubling salaries of rookie draftees after three years beginning with the class of 62. For 62-63 draftees that would be 3 years from draft year and from 64 forward 3 years from the first qualifying year.

For some reason, this really didn't register correctly in my brain the first time I read it. This sounds exactly like what I would want, actually. I still think doubling the salary might be a bit much. How about a 50% increase?

[J W]

So far my LFA idea is behind 4-3, which is fine--would like the last two votes in on that subject however, since we're close on it. What my ideas would do is use up some of our expansion teams' cap space.

If we don't do that, then my vote is to release the PFAs into the free market and let the expansion team owners claim them if they want to shell some of their plentiful $$$ out. They should not get those players at any discount. In fact I would personally enjoy being able to retain my PFA that season and would selfishly vote yes on that if the vote were handed out as is. This keeps in line with what Mark said about having our expansion owners commit long-term.

Since we haven't done any trading of 1964 draft picks, it opens the possibility of giving the expansion teams a break by offering them bonus draft choices that year. I would vote yes on that.

So here's our list of proposals concerning expansion at the moment:

- Protecting 25 players: Y 7-0
- Stargell/Morgan/Rose: N 3-4
- Extra draft picks: ?
- PFAs free market: ?
- PFAs retained: ?

My votes would be YES on expansion draft picks and PFAs retained for 1964.

[leecemark]

--I think the issue with the PFAs is do we allow the expansion teams to buy them at a pre-set premium or just to bid on them like everybody else. I would be agreeable to allowing them an extra pick(s) in the 64 draft or even several drafts, although those picks would have to be after the first round t get my support.

[J W]

For some reason, this really didn't register correctly in my brain the first time I read it. This sounds exactly like what I would want, actually. I still think doubling the salary might be a bit much. How about a 50% increase?

Just so I have this right, these would be the rookie contract #s using our current method:

$1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 3.0 - 3.25 - 3.5
$.5 - .75 - 1.0 - 2.0 - 2.25 - 2.5
$.25 - .5 - .75 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2.0

And the #s using a 50% increase after year three instead of 100%:

$1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 2.25 - 2.5 - 2.75
$.5 - .75 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2.0
$.25 - .5 - .75 - 1.125 - 1.375 - 1.625

I don't like those figures in bold. Our accounting would become too tedious for my tastes, and since our minimum deal is $.25 mil, I may end up with $.125 mil of cap space and nothing to do with it. So as it is, I vote for doubling.

[J W]

--I think the issue with the PFAs is do we allow the expansion teams to buy them at a pre-set premium or just to bid on them like everybody else. I would be agreeable to allowing them an extra pick(s) in the 64 draft or even several drafts, although those picks would have to be after the first round t get my support.

OK, then my vote would be to send the PFAs to the free market.

And, the extra picks I assume would come at the end of Rd 1, Rd 2, etc., however many we agree on. The expansion teams would be picking 1-3 anyway in 1964 with no record to rely on. Maybe we could figure out that order first come, first serve.

[leecemark]

--Whether the expansion teams would be picking first or last in the rookie draft that year has yet to be determined. Their order in the rookie draft would, I assume, be reversed from their order in picking in the expansion draft.

[catcher24]

OK, backing up a bit to last page of posts: JW proposes that any expansion team be permitted a lifetime player, same as we got. At least three managers propose plucking the best players from the rookie drafts of 62 and 63 to give to expansion teams (OPPOSED ).

How about a compromise of the two that won't damage any current managers (ie JW and I) who have traded for draft picks in 62 and 63?
My proposal: let the expansion teams pick the first three rookies in 64 and 65. If they choose, they can make either of these picks their lifetime player at the 12M salary level. This way, they get: (1) top three players in two draft years that have had no trades made upon them. Any manager trading for a draft pick in 64/65 knows in advance there will be three teams picking ahead, regardless of what he trades for (unless he trades with one of the expansion managers) and (2) the capability to make a great player their lifetime player.

BTW, looking at rookies for 64/65, expansion managers would be picking from:
Phil Niekro; Tony Perez; Luis Tiant; Steve Carlton; Catfish Hunter; Fergie Jenkins; Jim Palmer. Only one good stick in the bunch, but you could sure pick up a great pitcher. If you wanted to add 1966 to the mix, you add:Nolan Ryan and Don Sutton.

[leecemark]

--I like that proposal Lew. They get the lifetime player exemption same as we do and it cuts into their cap room right away. Less players to choose from, but all of them from the outset of their careers. They do have to pay for the privelege though. 12 million a year locked in is still alot more than 1 million with raises. Works good from multiple angles.

[leecemark]

--I'll have the April schedule up this morning. I did some tinkering with the schedule program and think it will be better than the previous ones.
--I selected no off days to avoid the random 3-4 day dead periods that were a problem in past schedules. Then I went back and edited in off days for every Monday.
--I also went with a schedule in which all games are both divisable by 3 and have an even number for both intra/inter-division games so that all series should be 3 games. To do that I had to go with a 168 game schedule with 24 vs division foes and 12 vs the other divisions.

[J W]

BTW, looking at rookies for 64/65, expansion managers would be picking from:
Phil Niekro; Tony Perez; Luis Tiant; Steve Carlton; Catfish Hunter; Fergie Jenkins; Jim Palmer. Only one good stick in the bunch, but you could sure pick up a great pitcher. If you wanted to add 1966 to the mix, you add:Nolan Ryan and Don Sutton.

OK--they certainly don't remind me of Stargell, Morgan and Rose, but we've got a good enough list here where three of these guys can turn into LFAs. I'd actually wait a year and pick mine from the 1965 crop (Carlton-Jenkins-Palmer) if I were running an expansion team. I vote for Lew's proposal.

[J W]

--I'll have the April schedule up this morning. I did some tinkering with the schedule program and think it will be better than the previous ones.
--I selected no off days to avoid the random 3-4 day dead periods that were a problem in past schedules. Then I went back and edited in off days for every Monday.
--I also went with a schedule in which all games are both divisable by 3 and have an even number for both intra/inter-division games so that all series should be 3 games. To do that I had to go with a 168 game schedule with 24 vs division foes and 12 vs the other divisions.

That works just fine; thanx Mark. I don't think the extra AB/IP are going to hurt too many players with our contraction of teams going on.

[The Dude]

Mark, I'd like to change my team name to "The Dude's Gamblers".

[catcher24]

Posted by JW:
OK--they certainly don't remind me of Stargell, Morgan and Rose

Actually, JW, I would definitely take Carlton and Palmer over Rose. It would be a tougher choice with Stargell and Morgan, who I feel were much better offensive forces than Rose. But with either of those guys, you've got a decent to great pitcher for nearly 20 years.

[J W]

I'd probably go with the stick first, but that's my taste. None of those three pitchers in '65 are chopped liver and I'd be happy to pay the $$$ to nail down a starter for that long.

[leecemark]

--With the author of the reserve players now on board with Lew's compromise proposal, I move we adopt that. JW's change of heart now has a majority against the 62-63 set asides anyway.
--JW, could you sticky the Schedule Thread? That one will be edited frequently, but have few new posts and will sink fast if not stickied. The draft thread could be unstickied if we are taking up too much space at the top of the forum. It is getting enough posts to keep from dropping anyway.

[leecemark]

--There doesn't seem to be any real consensus developing on arbitration. I'd like to offer up a compromise between the two current proposals. Instead of doubling the salary of rookie draftees after their third year (or third qualifying year for draftees from 64 forward) I suggest we make their raise 500K per season instead of 250K. That keeps them from being too cheap, but doesn't make them too expensive either (although doubling was a worst case scenario 3M for the first 3 guys drafted by their 4th season). It does at least make you think twice about hanging on to all your draftees.
--Once they have hit the free agent market they would be under contracts which lock them in for set amounts/years until their contract expires and they hit the market again. The quality players are still going to be a good value for their drafting team for the 6 years.

[catcher24]

That seems like a reasonable alternative. For those players drafted beyond the first round (250K), their third year salary would be only 750K, so the 500K bump in the fourth year would be close to a doubling anyway. Even those first three picked (1M apiece per Rule #8), would be making 1.5M after three years, so the bump of 500K gong t year four would be a 33% increase. Seems reasonable.

[J W]

I think what Mark is proposing is this:

$1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.5 - 3.0 - 3.5
$.5 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.5 - 3.0
$.25 - .75 - 1.25 - 1.75 - 2.25 - 2.75

...I'm not keen on this either, I'm afraid. I'm opposite of Lew in that I think the Round 2+ draftees should be easier to keep than the draft studs. This plan would result in a lot of premature dumps and I think the draft should be more important than that.

I haven't thought we needed rookie arbitration for a while now. Let's do increases of $.25, .5, and .75 mil instead of $.5 across the board:

$1.0 - 1.75 - 2.5 - 3.25 - 4.0 - 4.75
$.5 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.5 - 3.0
$.25 - .5 - .75 - 1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5

I think that's my favorite yet. Players who draft early (i.e. Lew and myself for the upcoming years) deal with the $$ from the top pick but also get choice selection from the 1/4 mil players, who we'd theoretically be able to retain for six years with little effort.

[leecemark]

--Arbitration actually wouldn't kick in until after the 3rd year so the $ are much less. The first year scale is 1M for the first 3 picks, 750K for the next 3 and 500K for the remaining first rounders. Everybody picked after the first round would start at minimum wage. This part is already established in the initial rules.
-- All these players will receive the standard 250K raise if they appear for the big league team the previous year. So the top 3 are looking at a 1.5M salary in year 3, assuming they make the majors in year one. With the doubling plan that would have jumped to 3M in year 4, but then gone back to 250K the next two years. With the 500K proposal that would go only to 2M the 4th year, but then 2.5 and 3M in years 5-6. Less, of course, for players starting out lower on the scale or who don't make the majors right away.

[catcher24]

JW - OK, if you are correct (and I think you are, I misunderstood what Mark was proposing), I would compromise on 500K per year for the top 6 (signed for 1M - three of them, and 750K - three of them), and then 250K for the rest.

[catcher24]

OK, so I did understand what Mark was proposing. I still like his proposal best.

[J W]

oh ok... so this is what you mean:

(1-3) $1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 2.0 - 2.25 - 2.5
(4-6) $.75 - 1.0 - 1.25 - 1.75 - 2.0 - 2.25
(7-9) $.5 - .75 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2.0
(10+) $.25 - .5 - .75 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 1.75

Lew had it right then. I'd rather weight it somehow; maybe after year three we can add the salary from year one:

(1-3) $1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 2.5 - 2.75 - 3.0
(4-6) $.75 - 1.0 - 1.25 - 2.0 - 2.25 - 2.5
(7-9) $.5 - .75 - 1.0 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2.0
(10+) $.25 - .5 - .75 - 1.0 - 1.25 - 1.5

That I'll vote for... the salaries are separated by $.25 mil at the start and $.5 mil at the end. It's also kept simple enough and start/end salaries are easy to figure ($.25-1 at the start, $1.5-3.0 at the end).

How's that, is it agreeable? If not I'll relent and go with the other plan.

Another point--it may be good to copy and paste whichever plan we go with Mark, in the main post(s) so owners can refer to it.

[leecemark]

--Actually, while my original proposal was a one time doubling, my alternative proposal called for a 500K bump in each of years 4, 5 and 6. I would be agreeable to a one time bump at 3 years based on each players original salary (or that bump in each of the 2nd three years) as per your proposal though. The only drawback to that is the players picked after the first round would stay super cheap the whole time.

[catcher24]

It seems like we pretty much agree on principle, it's the numbers that are differing. Perhaps it would be best to go back and amend the original Rule #8, so that ALL players taken in the first round each year cost 1M (not just the top 3), round 2 players cost 750K, and round 3+ players cost 500K. Then, in year three, round one players start getting bumped 750K per year, round two players 500K, and every other player the normal 250K.

1M, 1.25M, 1.5M, 2.5M, 3.5M, 4.5M
750K, 1M, 1.25M, 2M, 2.75M, 3.5M
500K, 750K, 1M, 1.25M, 1.5M, 1.75M
The spread between the top players and the regulars is now getting pretty decent, so the best players are becoming more expensive to keep.

[leecemark]

--I don't know that I'm going to want a 2nd round pick at 750K most years and I'm pretty sure I won't want a 3rd rounder at 500K. It shouldn't be a hard choice as to if you even want to make your picks. Within a few years many of us are going to have cap issues and starting minor leaguers out at more than minimum salary doesn't appeal to me. Lets stick to discussing the arbitration bumps.