New CBA

[mattynokes]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/cb...raft-.html

That's a complete review of the new CBA. At some point we're bound to discuss this in full force, so why not sooner rather than later. And if your family is like mine, the long holiday weekend will create some instances where it's nice to escape them and relax, so this natural break might be a good time to get the ball rolling.

There's a lot in the new CBA. A lot that there's no way we can incorporate and others that can definitely be considered. MLBTR does a good job of separating the different pieces involved in the CBA, so I'll break it down in the same way. I'd encourage others to organized their posts in the same fashion so it's easier to follow.

I would definitely like to say overall that just because a change is being introduced in MLB, doesn't mean we need to change it as well or that it'd be the best option for us anyways.

Draft Pick Compensation

This is probably the easiest and most likely thing to get incorporated into the league. I like some parts, I think others we can put our own twist on, and some things that just need to be ignored.

1. I like that a player would have to remain on a team for the entire year. It stops teams, who have no business acquiring a veteran, from doing it just to get extra picks.

2. I'm not too much of a fan of the "125th player" thing. I think some average of the top salaries at the player's position would be best for an arbitration figure. I would recommend an average of the top 15 salaries at a player's position (top 30 for SPs and RPs). Theoretically this would make it an average of the top half salaries and each position.

3. I think giving up a first round pick is a reason why a lot of our current Type A players return to their original team. I would instead recommend using 3rd round picks as the price that a signing team gives up for signing a compensation player.

4. Here's a big thing that DJ and I discussed the other night. THE DRAFT. We're interested in getting the sandwich round (compensatory picks) involved. Here's likely the easiest way to do that.

1st, 3rd through 6th Rounds are drafted as normal.

2nd Round becomes the compensatory round. Teams who lose a player in FA who they've offered arbitration to, gets a sandwich round pick. The team losing the highest rated player goes first (total contract value as a tie-breaker). The undoubtedly will not fill the entire 2nd round, so remaining unused compensatory picks will be set to one team (the team of whom is running the draft) and following the extra picks the players be released and remain available to be drafted in later rounds.

7th Round - Any team not getting a compensatory pick will get one extra pick in a pen and paper style round. This is to make sure each team still gets six draft picks each season.

Under this we would need to keep Type A and B rankings. Type A players would equal 3rd round compensation as well as a sandwich round pick. Type B's would only get a sandwich round pick.

Post-Season

Under the Mogul 2011 we can't expand the playoffs. And while moving Houston the AL would help with competitive balance in our league, it would likely ruin the schedule. And personally, I would hate having interleague play all the time. It's much more fitting for playoff races to play teams in your division and league rather than extra games against the other league.

Draft Spending Limits

Does not happen in Mogul

Competitive Balance Lottery

I was about to say, no I don't like it. But I guess it could be a way to fill in the extra slot from the second round if we use if for compensatory picks. However, I don't like giving it to teams with the lowest revenues. I think for competitive balance purposes it'd be better to give the picks to teams with the worst record from last season.

Arbitration

Nothing we can do with this in Mogul

Drug Testing

Maybe in Scott's league this would have something, but totally useless here

Revenue Sharing

Meh, I really haven't seen anyone complain about the current system we have in place. Unless there's some good reason to change, I think we're fine as-is.

Others

The only thing that I think could be worth looking in to would be the minimum. I've always thought it's weird that the minumum is $520K. So, what about a simple change for the minimum to be dropped to an even $500K? Other than that nothing else affects us.

[Peter]

you have obviously put a lot of thought into this and i have always thrown around in my head the idea of having the 2nd round act as a sandwich round. saying this, I am sitting on the notion that unless we can find a way to fill the entire 2nd round as a sandwich round (ie actually allocating the top 30 FA's) then it is something to stay away from.

If the league was in favor of not being allowed to offer comp to a player that hasnt been on a team for a full season then i would be fine with that but, I think the giving up of picks truly regulates whether the player was actually worth giving up the pick and that team probably gave up plenty to get this player in the trade.

I am going to say that I am a proponent of just leaving it alone

[Cdawg]

possible to talk about DP comp. everything else just seems irrelevant.

1. Sounds fun
2. IDK
3.Would probably increase Type A FA, but I could see less T-A's going if they are affordable. or a continuation of what we see as basically, a 3rd round pick might not be worth it???(I don't draft well, but I'd rather have a 1st than a 3rd)
4.I like the idea of sandwich round if done correctly.

[mike]

Draft Pick Compensation

1. I like that a player would have to remain on a team for the entire year. It stops teams, who have no business acquiring a veteran, from doing it just to get extra picks.

A: I'd have to say no here. What if a team was in contention and decided to grab a guy who would be eligable? THey shouldn't be punished just because he wasn't with them the entire year. Also there is no gurantee that the player would even get signed in FA anyway.

2. I'm not too much of a fan of the "125th player" thing. I think some average of the top salaries at the player's position would be best for an arbitration figure. I would recommend an average of the top 15 salaries at a player's position (top 30 for SPs and RPs). Theoretically this would make it an average of the top half salaries and each position.

A: Interesting. I'd have to see what the actual values would come out to be though.

3. I think giving up a first round pick is a reason why a lot of our current Type A players return to their original team. I would instead recommend using 3rd round picks as the price that a signing team gives up for signing a compensation player.

A: If we did that then I think a lot of teams wouldn't bother releasing the player to being with.

4. Here's a big thing that DJ and I discussed the other night. THE DRAFT. We're interested in getting the sandwich round (compensatory picks) involved. Here's likely the easiest way to do that.

1st, 3rd through 6th Rounds are drafted as normal.

2nd Round becomes the compensatory round. Teams who lose a player in FA who they've offered arbitration to, gets a sandwich round pick. The team losing the highest rated player goes first (total contract value as a tie-breaker). The undoubtedly will not fill the entire 2nd round, so remaining unused compensatory picks will be set to one team (the team of whom is running the draft) and following the extra picks the players be released and remain available to be drafted in later rounds.

A: Just seems like a lot of extra confusion for not much gain. It's hard enough to follow who's drafted and who is up to draft. I couldnt imagine what it would be like if we implemented this.

7th Round - Any team not getting a compensatory pick will get one extra pick in a pen and paper style round. This is to make sure each team still gets six draft picks each season.

A: Answer to 6 negates any answer for this.

Competitive Balance Lottery

I was about to say, no I don't like it. But I guess it could be a way to fill in the extra slot from the second round if we use if for compensatory picks. However, I don't like giving it to teams with the lowest revenues. I think for competitive balance purposes it'd be better to give the picks to teams with the worst record from last season.

A: Even if we did the new idea for the draft the lowest revunue teams should still get it. Simply because you get a new york team or say boston who rebuilds and will still have a very high revunue. Now they get all that cash plus this bonus.

Others

The only thing that I think could be worth looking in to would be the minimum. I've always thought it's weird that the minumum is $520K. So, what about a simple change for the minimum to be dropped to an even $500K? Other than that nothing else affects us.

A: Meh, anyway where we have to spend more money is a good thing considering how much cash we ahve floating around in game and in the team banks.

I think we should contract a couple teams. We seem to have at least 2 openings and offseason latley.