|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Feb 21, 2014 9:21:49 GMT -6
So far the majority of people are voting to do a draft so it's time to figure out how we want to handle contracts.
Option 1 is the easiest, just use real life contracts.
Option 2 is found below:
1st Round Picks 1-6 19,000,000 Picks 7-12 18,000,000 Picks 13-18 17,000,000 Picks 19-24 16,000,000 Picks 25-30 15,000,000
2nd Round Picks 1-10 $14,000,000 Picks 11-20 $13,000,000 Picks 21-30 $12,000,000
3rd Round: $11,000,000 4th Round: $9,000,000 5th Round: $7,000,000 6th Round: $5,000,000 7th Round: $4,500,000 8th Round: $4,000,000 9th Round: $3,500,000 10th Round: $3,000,000 11th Round: $2,500,000 12th Round: $2,000,000 13th Round: $1,500,000 14th Round: $1,000,000 15th Round: $900,000 16th Round: $800,000 17th Round: $700,000 18th Round: $600,000 19th-25th Round: $500k
Pay scale can be tweaked some but it gives you a good idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 9:43:06 GMT -6
I didn't even notice, but the salaries still pretty much even out. Pick 1.1 and 2.30 pay their first two picks 31M, and pick 1.30 and 2.1 pay 29M. A 2M premium to get the top talent in the draft is something I think is reasonable.
I think that using real life contracts places too much value at the top of the draft. You can not only take the top talent, but you can pay him the minimum salary. It gives big advantages in free agency or anything else related to the salary cap, and it's just because you won the lottery. You can still get good talent at the bottom of the round, but you're forced to sacrifice either talent or salary flexibility. At the top you're not forced to sacrifice either one.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 21, 2014 9:44:05 GMT -6
Cots would be tough due to the vast amount of players currently on one year minimum / arbitration contracts, unless these players would default to a rookie contract. However, this makes Mike Trout a 500k player, so I don't see how that could work.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 21, 2014 9:45:01 GMT -6
It also makes some players, like Robinson Cano, almost undraftable due to their crazy contracts
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Feb 21, 2014 9:48:20 GMT -6
Agreed with that. My biggest concern with the pay scale is how I prevent everyone from loading up on 5 year deals like they did in your football league because makes free agency non-existent for a few years. Working on system to beat that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2014 9:54:49 GMT -6
Why not say that you have to give 5 total contracts of each length for your 25 man roster? That way there's a FA pool at the end of each year as well.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Feb 21, 2014 9:57:31 GMT -6
Not a bad idea Ring.
Also another idea thrown at me instead of the pay scale based off where we drafted guys was do it based off of player rankings. Like MLB.com has 853 players ranked. We could set up a pay scaled based on those rankings instead of where we drafted guys too. Just another idea.
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 21, 2014 9:57:54 GMT -6
Maybe come up with a total number of years your 25 players drafted can have combined. For example, total contract length for all 25 players combined is limited to 63 (average of 2.5 years per player. 25 x 2.5 = 63 rounded up). Therefore, every 5 year contract will have to be offset by a 1 year, or a couple 2 years. Just an idea.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog) on Feb 21, 2014 9:58:00 GMT -6
One idea is to limit how many 5 year contracts a team can issue on players they select in the initial draft only, same with 4 year and 3 year and even 2 year contracts if you want.
Example a team is limited to contracts at particular lengths for the initial draft as follows
5 year contracts limited to 3 players 4 year contracts limited to 4 players 3 year contracts limited to 5 players 2 year contracts limited to 6 players 1 year contracts for the remaining 7 players
Just an idea
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 21, 2014 9:58:34 GMT -6
I like rings idea too
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals on Feb 21, 2014 9:59:23 GMT -6
And whiteys lol. We can come up w something. Don't think it's a problem
|
|
|
Post by Miami Marlins (John) on Feb 21, 2014 9:59:39 GMT -6
Why not say that you have to give 5 total contracts of each length for your 25 man roster? That way there's a FA pool at the end of each year as well. I agree with this idea, or maybe you could set it up as 3-5 year, 4-4 year, 5-3 year contracts, etc., to help the first year FA class not be so weak.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Braves (whiteyherzog) on Feb 21, 2014 10:00:37 GMT -6
Personally don't like salaries based on rankings because it's so subjective and why should a team have to pay their 4th round pick so much higher than everyone else because that player happened to fall in our draft
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Sox (Commish) on Feb 21, 2014 10:01:17 GMT -6
Looks like we have a good group of owners who have some good ideas, which always helps. Thanks guys.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins (tbraves13) on Feb 21, 2014 10:22:48 GMT -6
Been talking to commish and giving him my ideas....only reason I like the ranking idea the best is because using the pay scale based on draft position hurts drafting younger unproven guys with upside...don't want to spend 10M on a guy who isn't a star...I told him that doing a ranking based off 5-7 sites would give a good idea of what a player should be worth...it wouldn't be based off one site
Also like the idea of limiting contracts...max out 5 years at 5 player max out 4 years at 5 players and have a minimum of 7 1 year deals...but I think you boys have hit that nail on the head already
|
|