|
Post by jdnidle on Mar 10, 2016 8:34:24 GMT -5
I understand what Anthony is doing is in the best interest of the league, but sometimes, micro managing can be rough. I need to bring up our handbook before looking at any extensions to discussing options with players. On a side note, I agree with the changes. 1. Contract limited to 7 years---> No problem with this rule. 2. 1 year extension anytime ---> No problem with this rule. 3. Minimum three year service for an extension. ---> question below. I do have a few questions around the rules. As someone else asked, the 7 years, is that including the option years? I would think it would. The 7 year extension after 3 years of service ---> If I have a player that is say, 23 when he hits the majors, he has to play for 3 years with a ML contract before I can sign him to an extension? So this means he is now 26 years old when I am now allowed to sign him to an extension. I am then allowed to sign him up to 7 years, which means I can sign him through 33 years old. This seems pretty fair in my opinion. Am I not understanding something correctly?
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 8:41:14 GMT -5
I understand what Anthony is doing is in the best interest of the league, but sometimes, micro managing can be rough. I need to bring up our handbook before looking at any extensions to discussing options with players. On a side note, I agree with the changes. 1. Contract limited to 7 years---> No problem with this rule. 2. 1 year extension anytime ---> No problem with this rule. 3. Minimum three year service for an extension. ---> question below. I do have a few questions around the rules. As someone else asked, the 7 years, is that including the option years? I would think it would. The 7 year extension after 3 years of service ---> If I have a player that is say, 23 when he hits the majors, he has to play for 3 years with a ML contract before I can sign him to an extension? So this means he is now 26 years old when I am now allowed to sign him to an extension. I am then allowed to sign him up to 7 years, which means I can sign him through 33 years old. This seems pretty fair in my opinion. Am I not understanding something correctly? No that all looks correct. I have updated the rules page and its all in there under "contracts." I thought 3 years of service time was fair. I actually wanted 4, but let Thomas talk me down to 3. OOTP does a piss pour job of having players see their worth early in their careers. If you went up to Bryce Harper afrer his rookie year (a similar comparison other than age to Strickland) do you think he would have signed a 10 year, 60 million dollar deal? No way in hell. To be eligible player in SBL likely has gone through 1 year of arbitration or is up for arbitration and is eligible for an extension. The player still may not recognize his true value but at least it's a little closer then when he has 30 days of service time..
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 8:42:14 GMT -5
And yes. 7 years max. Either all 7 guaranteed or 6 with 1 option, 5 with 2 options bht remember that those option years cannot be higher than any other year of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 8:44:50 GMT -5
If I have a player that is say, 23 when he hits the majors, he has to play for 3 years with a ML contract before I can sign him to an extension? So this means he is now 26 years old when I am now allowed to sign him to an extension. I am then allowed to sign him up to 7 years, which means I can sign him through 33 years old. This seems pretty fair in my opinion. Am I not understanding something correctly? He needs to have 3 years of Major League Service Time. It should align with 3 years of minimum salary but there are instances where players have 4 years of min salary so it may not go hand in hand.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 8:48:15 GMT -5
Ill use Oaklands Connor Green as an example. summitbaseballleague.net/game/lgreports/players/player_39751.htmlHe was added to the 40 man roster. And then bounced between AAA and the Majors. Selected in the Rule V draft by Oakland. He ended up with 5 years of "500k" contracts because that's how long it took for him to reach being arbitration eligible.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 9:07:00 GMT -5
Make sure to look at "Major League Service" and not pro or 40 man service...
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 10, 2016 13:59:34 GMT -5
I hate that we are now micro managing the league with a whole bunch of restrictions. This league has never been more healthy than it is today, yet because a handful of people complain about one team getting a bunch of draft picks or a couple of first year players signing long extensions we have add unnecessary rules. The great thing about this game is that there is no one way to build a winning team. Teams like the Mets have done it through the draft, while teams like the Tigers have successfully leverage the trading of draft picks to build a winner. The theory we have to protect GMs from themselves is ridiculous . I also hate that I can't extend my first year player to buy out his arbitration years - which is a common strategy used by many successful MLB teams. These rules I believe will make the SBL much less fun and will drive members to less restrictive leagues. MLB teams frequently buy out arb years with one year deals which is what we're allowing. No modern MLB agent would let a player like Strickland sign a longterm contract like he has just to 'avoid arb.' You are still free to buy out the arb years, one at a time.
|
|
|
Post by marcus.dodgers on Mar 10, 2016 14:01:17 GMT -5
I hate that we are now micro managing the league with a whole bunch of restrictions. This league has never been more healthy than it is today, yet because a handful of people complain about one team getting a bunch of draft picks or a couple of first year players signing long extensions we have add unnecessary rules. The great thing about this game is that there is no one way to build a winning team. Teams like the Mets have done it through the draft, while teams like the Tigers have successfully leverage the trading of draft picks to build a winner. The theory we have to protect GMs from themselves is ridiculous . I also hate that I can't extend my first year player to buy out his arbitration years - which is a common strategy used by many successful MLB teams. These rules I believe will make the SBL much less fun and will drive members to less restrictive leagues. MLB teams frequently buy our arb years with one year deals which is what we're allowing. No modern MLB agent would let a player like Strickland sign a longterm contract like he has just to 'avoid arb.' You are still free to buy out the arb years, one at a time. That's actually a great point. I had wondered if you could do that and still retain the art the following year. Glad to know you will allow that. The game doesn't Do a great job of letting you it's possible.
|
|
|
Post by Phillies_GM_Fin on Mar 10, 2016 20:27:45 GMT -5
I don't mind the rules and will easily be able to abide by them.
The health of the league is more important than being able to sign great players to team-friendly deals.
I will also add, if we do not want to be micro-managed as a league, then each individual needs to look in the mirror to make sure they are adding to the health of the league, not trying to take short-cuts or take advantage of a weak AI. If we all were doing that, there would be no need for these rules. Remember that when you consider where we are, why we are.
I'll say it again. Let's make Anthony and Thomas' job easy, folks. Without them, we have one less OOTP league to play in.
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 10, 2016 20:32:27 GMT -5
I don't mind the rules and will easily be able to abide by them. The health of the league is more important than being able to sign great players to team-friendly deals. I will also add, if we do not want to be micro-managed as a league, then each individual needs to look in the mirror to make sure they are adding to the health of the league, not trying to take short-cuts or take advantage of a weak AI. If we all were doing that, there would be no need for these rules. Remember that when you consider where we are, why we are. ABSOLUTELY... 100%! Thank you Fin! Couldn't agree more with you!!!
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Mar 10, 2016 21:54:09 GMT -5
I don't mind the rules and will easily be able to abide by them. The health of the league is more important than being able to sign great players to team-friendly deals. I will also add, if we do not want to be micro-managed as a league, then each individual needs to look in the mirror to make sure they are adding to the health of the league, not trying to take short-cuts or take advantage of a weak AI. If we all were doing that, there would be no need for these rules. Remember that when you consider where we are, why we are. I'll say it again. Let's make Anthony and Thomas' job easy, folks. Without them, we have one less OOTP league to play in. All of the thumbs up.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers_GM_Sam on Mar 11, 2016 2:06:52 GMT -5
I'm just thankful I will no longer have the opportunity to shame myself. Hurrah for new rules!!!
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 11, 2016 8:19:22 GMT -5
I'm just thankful I will no longer have the opportunity to shame myself. Hurrah for new rules!!! I sense sarcasm here....
|
|
|
Post by Anthony_TwinsGM on Mar 11, 2016 8:44:20 GMT -5
These rules werent meant to single out one team or multiple teams but to simplify things in terms of the draft as well as create a potential fairer system for everyone. Removing of the draft picks was also meant to avoid a situation where teams were trading their picks for value then signing comp players. We may have had 1 instance of that but I cant recall.
It was difficult to police the rule I had put in place and it was just easier to remove it all completely. One team had found a loophole, where traded years 1 & 3 picks and as soon as year 2's draft was completed.. Traded the player as soon as he signed. Weve always allowes recently drafted players to be traded so as far as im concerned if you wanna work out a trade for a player using whomever you draft in round 1, by all means go for it. But the draft pick must be signed before a trade can happen, as there will be no player to be named laters.
A team with a 250+ million budget with a top 5 ranked minor league system. Could lock up all of his under 25 star players for 10 years and 300 million... Thats 30 million a year leaving 200+ left to spend on free agents. Overpaying them so no one else gets them. Hows that fair or good for the league in any possible way?
Im not singling out the Dodgers here, but that scenario would be the death of SBL imo...
|
|
|
Post by dodgersgm on Mar 11, 2016 16:43:15 GMT -5
Sorry my farm system is so good. But I traded all my draft picks! That's unpossible!
|
|