+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: In addition to rocky's suggestion (/showthread.php?tid=25367)
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - rockybull - 05-24-2014
(05-24-2014, 05:19 PM)AndyP Wrote: Except what Cdawg said wasn't "extremely incorrect" and you strawmanned his position. His point was that virtually none of the Type A players were signed for only one year. The argument is that adding a second year would force team's hands, but most players are already getting 2 or more year offers. In fact, only 1 out of 16 have had that happen.
Your argument is that it would've taken a bit more cash each time or wouldn't have beaten those offers out, but the years are not the problem. As others are pointing out, most teams wouldn't have flinched at a bit more cash. In all likelihood all of those offers would've been beaten out because they are only mildly different than what would've been required.
You're arguing a counterfactual as if it's truth. Cdawgs point is actual truth - more than one year wasn't stopping anyone in the vast majority of cases.
i think the bigger issue is, would the same teams have offered Type A if it was 2/16? we don't know, i'm sure some would have, but i gotta believe not all would have, but again this is just speculating. Even if just a few of them that were offered Type A back then wouldn't have been offered Type A with the new system, that's a win IMO. You can't stop it all (in cases like the giants) but you should be able to stop a good bit. There just isn't much risk in a 1 year offer, especially for just decent pitchers.
We can speculate all day long about if these teams would have ponied up for the extra dough and/or extra year to have signed them or not, we don't have a damn clue either way, we're just speculating, which proves nothing. Only way to find out is to implement it and see how it goes going forward. I don't have a problem at all if it's not implemented, i think it would help the league, but honestly leaving it like it is helps me more, so whatever. I just hope that it either changes now or stays like this, cause it would suck to see this go on for another 4-8 mogul seasons where others take full advantage of this, then when i finally want to take advantage of it, then the league changes it to 2/16 or whatever, that would be very bittersweet, but whatever the league thinks is best.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - AndyP - 05-24-2014
I'm not opposed to changing it necessarily, I was just pointing out a faulty argument.
As finances tighten and stabilize it may not be necessary either. I'd probably lean towards changing it to 2/16M myself, but I hate ass-backwards arguments.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mattynokes - 05-24-2014
I guess I'm confused. Cdawg said "since this system has gone into effect, no Type A player has been signed to less than a 2 year 16M deal."
To which appears as if he's saying that anyone who has been signed as a Type A has gotten 16M/2 value (or 14M/2 when Type A was 14M/1). I went back and changed the "Would've Needed" value for 14M/2 where appropriate as it should have been.
Regardless of all of this. The main point for this is on the releasing team to make it more of a risk. It's not just "adding a second year", it's doubling the amount owed if the player returns. It won't affect the players who are truly worth Type A and will push the borderline guys to Type B.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - AndyP - 05-24-2014
Right but you cut off the full context:
Quote: no Type A player has been signed to less than a 2 year 16M deal. most initial offers on those borderline cats is for 2 years anyway(as it's a waste to give them just the 1 year.)
I'm of the opinion that this isn't going to make a huge difference, but it might get rid of the most egregious examples we can all think of. It's worth it for that alone.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - Cdawg - 05-24-2014
I had a very compelling argument posted when this whole thing went down, but IDK where it went.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mike - 05-25-2014
IMO there is really only question that you need to see answered. Are the vast majority of type A's getting signed to 2 or more year deals? If yes, (which I'm almost 100% certain they are) then telling a releasing team they now have to risk an extra year is literally going to mean nothing to them. If the evidence shows that they are getting signed to a 2 year deal already then logically thinking I don't see how it changes anyone's decision making. If I'm the releasing team I'm effectively not risking anything more and if I'm the signing team I was already going to sign him to 2 years anyway so who cares if that's now mandatory.
I don't like seeing borderline guys get comp A either, but making the years go from 1 to 2 simply logically doesn't change the situation.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mattynokes - 06-03-2014
As we approach the trade deadline, we really need to come to a decision on this.
Some people are twisting the idea behind this. It's not that Type A's are getting two year offers, so making fallback 16M/2 won't change anything. In fact it's doubling the risk. Those teams potentially being stuck with a guy for two years will change things. The current risk is just 16M for essentially an early 2nd as opposed to a 32M risk.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mike - 06-03-2014
I fail to see how the risk is changed. If all guys are getting 2 year deals anyway THERE IS NO ADDED RISK. It's the same result. Changing it to 2 years simply does nothing. Now if you wanna move it to 3 or 4 you might have an argument. The evidence is right in front of you. If everyone gets a 2 year deal anyway then why would it somehow be more risky to let a guy go knowing he now has to get a 2 year deal?
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - AndyP - 06-03-2014
We'll try 2/16 for next year in addition to tightening finances slightly again and see where we're at.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mattynokes - 06-03-2014
(06-03-2014, 04:18 PM)mike Wrote: I fail to see how the risk is changed. If all guys are getting 2 year deals anyway THERE IS NO ADDED RISK. It's the same result. Changing it to 2 years simply does nothing. Now if you wanna move it to 3 or 4 you might have an argument. The evidence is right in front of you. If everyone gets a 2 year deal anyway then why would it somehow be more risky to let a guy go knowing he now has to get a 2 year deal?
Again, it's potentially being stuck with a guy for two years that will move some of the borderline guys down to Type B. Being stuck with an expensive guy that you may not need for two years as opposed to one year is a big deal. With a one year fallback, you can just throw him right back in to FA the following year and try for comp again.
Really it's as simple as 32 > 16. Right now people are thinking, "If I'm wrong and no one bids, I'm only stuck with him for one year. Then I can just release him to FA outright, try my luck with the lesser Type B, or if he has a great year maybe people would buy on him as a Type A now."
At two years it's, "If I'm wrong and no one bids, I'm stuck with him for two years. I can't just wipe my hands clean after a year. I can't just drop him down to Type B. Now I'm hoping he holds up and is still productive, so that I can maybe get Type B two years down the road."