1901 - Present Keeper League Discussion

[rmadachik]

I plan on changing the playoffs to 7 games for both rounds

The bottom 4 teams going to the lottery is also a change I am making but haven't written it in yet

The franchise player rule is just a way to keep up to 2 players at below market value. I think with the RFA we will see some overbidding for players and I like the Idea of having a couple lifers available that won't break the bank.

[BigRon]

If you've had a Franchise player on your team for the whole career so far (18 years?) you can choose to keep them for a decreasing amount of money (say 1 mil cheaper per year, to a minimum of 5 mil). But in order to receive this discount, you have to keep the player rostered until they retire.

I've been reading some of these threads but haven't commented until now. But, it looks like I'll be in so I'm paying a bit more attention.

I see there's been some discussion on franchise players, including Wade's idea (referenced here). I don't know much yet about how this game is played, but I do know quite a bit about player history. The idea of franchise players, as described by Wade, has some appeal to me, but I think we should be careful about this. Wade suggested 18 years as a dividing point, where salaries could start going down. The reality is that only a few players in ML history have had more than one season after their 18th which could be called "all star" quality, e.g. about 4.5 WAR, or perhaps 20 WS. When you get past a few obvious outliers like Ruth, Cobb, and a couple of others, almost no great players were putting up "all star" performances after their 18th season. And, as is known, the dropoff among even great players, varied widely. Some remained strong up through years 16 or 17, some started tailing off as soon as year 11 or 12!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the idea is interesting/appealing, but I at least wouldn't be very interested in being saddled with even a great player for 18 seasons unless his name was Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Mays, and 1 or 2 others.

What do others think?

[Erik Bedard]

I don't think Wade meant that it has to be 18, rather, he was using that as an example of a year when a player might say they want to start lowering a player's salary.

I don't really like the idea because it seems needlessly complicated. Franchise players should be a simple way to keep a great player at below market value, not a means of exploiting the system or something that will become a burden. I'm also against them being traded because to me that defeats the notion of a "franchise player", but if everyone else is for it I don't really mind.

[Wade8813]

I see there's been some discussion on franchise players, including Wade's idea (referenced here). I don't know much yet about how this game is played, but I do know quite a bit about player history. The idea of franchise players, as described by Wade, has some appeal to me, but I think we should be careful about this. Wade suggested 18 years as a dividing point, where salaries could start going down. The reality is that only a few players in ML history have had more than one season after their 18th which could be called "all star" quality, e.g. about 4.5 WAR, or perhaps 20 WS. When you get past a few obvious outliers like Ruth, Cobb, and a couple of others, almost no great players were putting up "all star" performances after their 18th season. And, as is known, the dropoff among even great players, varied widely. Some remained strong up through years 16 or 17, some started tailing off as soon as year 11 or 12!

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the idea is interesting/appealing, but I at least wouldn't be very interested in being saddled with even a great player for 18 seasons unless his name was Ruth, Cobb, Aaron, Mays, and 1 or 2 others.

What do others think?

You aren't saddled with anyone for 18 (or however many) seasons.

For the first 18 seasons, the player would be under the current system. You could trade or drop the player at any time. Even after 18 years, you can continue to keep the player at the original rate. You're only stuck with the player IF you choose to use the reducing salary option.

I don't think Wade meant that it has to be 18, rather, he was using that as an example of a year when a player might say they want to start lowering a player's salary.

I don't really like the idea because it seems needlessly complicated. Franchise players should be a simple way to keep a great player at below market value, not a means of exploiting the system or something that will become a burden. I'm also against them being traded because to me that defeats the notion of a "franchise player", but if everyone else is for it I don't really mind.

Apparently people have trouble understanding the concept (which may just be me not explaining it properly), but I assure you, once you understand it it's incredibly easy to implement.

I do agree the idea of trading them seems counter-intuitive. I think I would lean towards there being at least restrictions on being traded. It would be stupid if you named someone a franchise player then traded them two years later.

[leecemark]

--I understand the concept just fine. I just think that 18 years before salaries start coming down means very few players would spend their career with a single franchise. It would have to start much earlier - meaning huge bargains on the outliers that remain stars deep into their 30s - to have much value in terms of hanging on to your long time stars. I think the restricted Free Agent option is a better option for allowing you to hang on to those players at something close to their true value.

[scubadan]

I've been silent so far regarding the franchise player on a single team through his career discussion but thought I'd weigh in. I actually don't have any problem with the rule as it is currently written. As an aging superstar with the franchise tag begins to fade, management can decide to if he's worth the franchise player's salary and either keep him or allow him to be a FA. If for sentimental reasons, I want to sign the former FP as a RFA, I can overpay market price and keep him or I can let him walk. I think this closely mimics what happens in real life. There are plenty of aging stars who think they're worth more than their career franchise are willing to pay them and they finish the last year or two of their career with a different team. The market, and to a degree the original team's sentimentality for the player, will determine what happens.

[catcher24]

I plan on changing the playoffs to 7 games for both rounds

Good, glad to hear that.

The bottom 4 teams going to the lottery is also a change I am making but haven't written it in yet

Glad to hear that too.

The franchise player rule is just a way to keep up to 2 players at below market value. I think with the RFA we will see some overbidding for players and I like the Idea of having a couple lifers available that won't break the bank.

I'm definitely not opposed to it, as I was one of the original proponents of the Franchise Player rule. It was merely offering the alternative option.

Let me say that I think you've done a great job whipping this together, and I hope it has the same success as the CKL has had.

[catcher24]

I've been silent so far regarding the franchise player on a single team through his career discussion but thought I'd weigh in. I actually don't have any problem with the rule as it is currently written. As an aging superstar with the franchise tag begins to fade, management can decide to if he's worth the franchise player's salary and either keep him or allow him to be a FA. If for sentimental reasons, I want to sign the former FP as a RFA, I can overpay market price and keep him or I can let him walk. I think this closely mimics what happens in real life. There are plenty of aging stars who think they're worth more than their career franchise are willing to pay them and they finish the last year or two of their career with a different team. The market, and to a degree the original team's sentimentality for the player, will determine what happens.

Actually, under the RFA rule I don't think you would even be overpaying, or not very much. RFAs are likely to get bid to their true market value, or very close to it, and the present team only has to match the highest offer, not raise it, in order to keep the player. You might occasionally overpay slightly if you choose to keep the guy, but probably not by very darn much.

I personally think the RFA rule was a real stroke of genius on Rich's part and is a great rule. As for Franchise Players, I also like Rich's idea of one batter and one pitcher, although if you're going to have more than one my absolute preference would be letting the owner choose both. This FP thing seems to be the last issue to be hammered out, and getting a lot of discussion on it is a good thing.

[rmadachik]

Thanks guys. I think we are going to roll with the Franchise player rule as it is currently written. As things stand now we are at a firm 11 owners and on the fence with one more. I will be releasing a final file for the 1901 season once I get the team info, and I would like to draw for the redraft so we can start putting together our draft boards. I will work it so our offseason does not coincide with the CKL off season from this point on.

[Windy City Fan]

If I may offer one belated suggestion to the franchise player debate, what about letting people have any number of "franchise players" but at an ever increasing cost? The first one would cost 10 or 12 million, whatever we decided on. The next one could cost 4 or 5 million more and the third another 4 or 5 million. So it could be something like this:
1st Franchise player 10 million
2nd Franchise player 15 million
3rd Franchise player 20 million

If you cut one, the remaining franchise players still have the same contract. So if you have 3 and you cut your 10 million man, the other two still have 15 and 20 million dollar contracts, but your next franchise player will only cost 10 million.

[catcher24]

If I may offer one belated suggestion to the franchise player debate, what about letting people have any number of "franchise players" but at an ever increasing cost? The first one would cost 10 or 12 million, whatever we decided on. The next one could cost 4 or 5 million more and the third another 4 or 5 million. So it could be something like this:
1st Franchise player 10 million
2nd Franchise player 15 million
3rd Franchise player 20 million

If you cut one, the remaining franchise players still have the same contract. So if you have 3 and you cut your 10 million man, the other two still have 15 and 20 million dollar contracts, but your next franchise player will only cost 10 million.

Great suggestion Craig. I like this idea, although with the RFA rule Rich has implemented it might not be necessary.

[catcher24]

Thanks guys. I think we are going to roll with the Franchise player rule as it is currently written. As things stand now we are at a firm 11 owners and on the fence with one more. I will be releasing a final file for the 1901 season once I get the team info, and I would like to draw for the redraft so we can start putting together our draft boards. I will work it so our offseason does not coincide with the CKL off season from this point on.

Rich, I don't know if you've already answered this question somewhere and I missed it, but I presume this will be a snake style draft rather than a straight draft, correct? That is, whoever gets the #1 pick won't pick again until #24, while the poor schmuck who gets #12 will also get #13.

I'm also presuming that once you set up the draft list, we will select ballparks in reverse order of the player draft. Is that correct?

Thanks!

[rmadachik]

Rich, I don't know if you've already answered this question somewhere and I missed it, but I presume this will be a snake style draft rather than a straight draft, correct? That is, whoever gets the #1 pick won't pick again until #24, while the poor schmuck who gets #12 will also get #13.

I'm also presuming that once you set up the draft list, we will select ballparks in reverse order of the player draft. Is that correct?

Thanks!

both of those assumptions are absolutely correct

[Wade8813]

I posted this before, but I think it was the wrong thread

Also, are we going to have some sort of waiver system? I'd be against that idea.

I can't remember off the top of my head... are we going to allow trading for draft picks? I believe CKL does, but I don't remember seeing it spelled out in the rules.

[rmadachik]

There is no waivers system. free agents can be signed at any time for a minimum 250k one year contract. Trading for draft picks will definately be allowed and encouraged. :o