Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2021 8:18:21 GMT -6
I think we need an improvement in the arbitration process. I like the idea if you draft a high quality rookie, you get to enjoy the benefits of drafting well. I do not like the idea of the rest of the league arbitrarily ( no pun intended ) decides what your draft pick's future value will be. A quick review indicates the average MLB payroll in 2021 was 104M, roughly the same as our salary cap. The monetary value of a MLB player's WAR # is subject to debate, but I think we would all agree it is worth more than 1M. So, why don't we just peg a rookie's arbitration number to his bWAR for the prior season. That way we have some objective floor yet we still give the team who drafted the talent some value for making the pick. Examples: Wander Franco posted a bWAR of 3.5 in 2021 so his A1 contract would be 3.5M.
Obviously, Franco is worth more than the 3.5 M but it sets an objective floor and still gives the team that drafted him a good profit on the transaction.
This proposal also has the advantage of eliminating the time consuming process of teams and the B1G league office having to make all of these calculations.
I look forward to all constructive comments.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Nov 18, 2021 9:50:53 GMT -6
I think an automated process would be streamlined.
When we've done this process in years past, we would typically never get enough responses or we'd have to double check certain GMs for gaming the system.
This would take all human element out of the equation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2021 14:39:35 GMT -6
Not sure how you can question a rule that was stated when the league began.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2021 17:48:38 GMT -6
just improving the means to the end...
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Nov 19, 2021 19:47:32 GMT -6
I don't mind automating it but I think it should still be a maximum range that we do now. Especially when teams were drafted with those ranges in mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2021 21:03:31 GMT -6
seems reasonable
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets on Nov 23, 2021 9:20:39 GMT -6
We can certainly put this up for vote. Does anyone else have additional feedback before we do so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 15:31:19 GMT -6
when we do vote, I accept Oakland's friendly amendment...
so the new proposed rule would read:
A1/A2/A3 salaries would be equal to the bWAR# of each player with the maximum value remaining at the 3M/5M/10M maximums..
with 1bWAR= 1M, etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Nov 23, 2021 15:49:25 GMT -6
I know we are trying to make it easier. I think a 1:1 of war to a million will make some guys undervalued in later A2 and A3 stages. A 4 war player making only 4 in A3 should probably be adjusted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Miami Marlins on Nov 23, 2021 15:57:17 GMT -6
I think my only issue is how it will undervalue some relievers and players coming off injury riddled years. A guy like Aaron Hicks for example or a pitcher that was out the previous year with TJ surgery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 16:36:14 GMT -6
You are both right but placing an original maximum value on all A1/A2/A3 contracts was intended to undervalue all those picks.
So we end up going into 30 variations of what a bWAR should be and the amendment dies a quick death. Perhaps a compromise would be to value a bWAR at 1M for A1, 2M for A2 and 3M for A3 with the max caps of 3M/5M/10M remaining in place...
so a 1 bWAR in A1 is 1M in A1, 2M in A2 and 3M in A3...
a 2 bWAR would be 2M in A1, 4M in A2 and 6M in A3,
a 4 bWAR would be 3M in A1, 5M in A2, and 10M in A3 since it hit the cap in each year, etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Nov 24, 2021 14:34:11 GMT -6
Not married to those values but something like that would be a good system. As for bWAR is there an actual list of a leaderboard of bWAR? I know with Fangraphs and fWAR you can just export a spreadsheet of values.
|
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets on Nov 28, 2021 14:38:18 GMT -6
I'm not seeing a list of players by bWAR either. Would there be an issue with utilizing the WAR listed on FanGraphs? I just want to make sure we have the proposal clarified before we put anything up for a vote. For the A1 stage, you could take the WAR x 1 = proposed $. For the A2 stage, you could take the WAR x 2 = proposed $. For the A3 stage, you could take the WAR x 3 = proposed $. While still keeping the minimum (no player can earn less than their salary for the previous B1G season) and maximum for each stage, is that the suggested alternative to the established process in the rulebook?
|
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Nov 28, 2021 14:46:59 GMT -6
Would propose 1.8 for A2 and 2.5 for A3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 18:46:43 GMT -6
ok.. looks like the final proposal would be we use fWAR to set the A1/A2/A3 values with A1=1*fWAR, A2=1.8fWAR and A3=2.5fWAR...
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Red Sox on Nov 29, 2021 9:33:15 GMT -6
Sounds about good for the final proposal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2021 16:22:59 GMT -6
obviously the arbitration caps of 3/5/10 would remain in place..
|
|
