|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 18, 2012 13:57:14 GMT -5
Alright guys, here is your chance to help. I'm going to be posting as many suggestions that I can think of, and I hope that you'll do the same. Please discuss both the positives and negatives of the proposed changes. Please keep in mind that it is never tolerable to belittle or bully people. There are no such things as bad ideas, just ideas that may not work well with what we are trying to do.
|
|
|
Post by slickrick on Aug 18, 2012 14:44:59 GMT -5
Hey, I'm the Nationals Owner, slickrick the Cubs owner for those coming over from the other "league" (if you want to call it that...). Glad to be part of the league and exciting to get things rolling. My main suggestion regards contracts; i would advocate for a consistent "averaged" per year salary salary for the duration of the contract as opposed to a dynamic amount each year.
For example, Jon Niese. His contract right now is: 13:$3M, 14:$5M, 15:$7M, 16:$9M, 17:$10M club option ($0.5M buyout), 18:$11M club option ($0.5M buyout)
This adds up to a total of 45M over 6 years. If you were to average this his contract would look like: Jon Niese 7.5 2018
I think averaging the total salary makes the contract situation less convoluted and makes book keeping and roster generally cleaner and more organized.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 18, 2012 14:48:59 GMT -5
Hey, I'm the Nationals Owner, slickrick the Cubs owner for those coming over from the other "league" (if you want to call it that...). Glad to be part of the league and exciting to get things rolling. My main suggestion regards contracts; i would advocate for a consistent "averaged" per year salary salary for the duration of the contract as opposed to a dynamic amount each year. For example, Jon Niese. His contract right now is: 13:$3M, 14:$5M, 15:$7M, 16:$9M, 17:$10M club option ($0.5M buyout), 18:$11M club option ($0.5M buyout) This adds up to a total of 45M over 6 years. If you were to average this his contract would look like: Jon Niese 7.5 2018 I think averaging the total salary makes the contract situation less convoluted and makes book keeping and roster generally cleaner and more organized. I personally like this idea. I know that book keeping is one of the most difficult things to keep up with in these leagues, and the easier we make it, the easier it is to keep up with it. Eventually these players will become free agents, and we won't have the option of including 1.0 buy outs. It may be easier to just go ahead and start that process right now.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 18, 2012 15:02:27 GMT -5
I think that I would like to see the format for offense as C 1B 2B SS 3B OF OF OF DH I know it's not that much of a difference, but for some reason I like it better. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 18, 2012 16:06:48 GMT -5
I believe that trades should be posted for 24 hours to give every owner an opportunity to vote on it. It should take a simple majority to either approve or veto a trade. If an owner votes to veto a trade they must also include a reason for the veto. When posting a trade, you should have to include all relevant information, such as name salary, and position, along with an explanation for why you are making the trade.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago White Soxs on Aug 18, 2012 20:36:03 GMT -5
I would suggest having a set number of votes approve or veto a trade. Only reason I say that is because you are not going to get 26 votes on each trade for a number of any reasons like being out of town. And if you do get 26 votes, how are you going to break a tie? Just my opinion though.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 18, 2012 21:05:40 GMT -5
I would suggest having a set number of votes approve or veto a trade. Only reason I say that is because you are not going to get 26 votes on each trade for a number of any reasons like being out of town. And if you do get 26 votes, how are you going to break a tie? Just my opinion though. I was thinking that after the 24 or 48 hour period we would just see what the tally was, whether it was 5 votes, 11 votes, whatever. We could also have an election for a 5 man trade committee, and 3 yes votes would put a trade through. Often times that also helps establish the more proactive members. My only reservations with that, is sometimes trades end up sitting on the boards for almost a week when it's slow.
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins on Aug 19, 2012 11:44:39 GMT -5
I think we should be able to include cash in trades. For example if I wanted to trade Joe Mauer, it might be difficult due to his $23M annual salary, but if I could include say, $8M a year, and have that count against my cap it could make a trade like that more feasible.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets (Chris M.) on Aug 19, 2012 12:26:08 GMT -5
I am ok with trading cash
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs on Aug 19, 2012 12:57:55 GMT -5
I think we should be able to include cash in trades. For example if I wanted to trade Joe Mauer, it might be difficult due to his $23M annual salary, but if I could include say, $8M a year, and have that count against my cap it could make a trade like that more feasible. This is a good idea, but where does the cash come from? Does it come from the cap? Would it,be listed with your roster?
|
|
|
Post by Minnesota Twins on Aug 19, 2012 15:09:55 GMT -5
Yes, the cash would come from your cap. Some of the salary would be paid by the person trading the player away, and the rest by the person receiving the player. You could include this amount at the bottom of your roster above the other salary cap information.
|
|
|
Post by slickrick on Aug 20, 2012 11:21:54 GMT -5
There really should be an arbitration scale for 1st-5th year players. For example; It doesn't make sense that Jayson Nix has the same value as Giancarlo Stanton. Just a little something based on average/hr/rbi/sb/r would be simple and efficient.
Or at least for 3rd/4th/5th year players
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays on Sept 26, 2012 20:07:04 GMT -5
Well here is my two cents. I think we need to add a rule that increases caps for some teams like in the MLB. I like the idea of if your fantasy team has a player that wins an import award such as Cy Young or ROY the team should get a salary bonus.
For example if Mike Trout wins ROY the Angles get a 3 or 4 million cap bonus or whatever we decide to agree upon. Also if our fantasy team wins "x" amount of games we get a bonus, aswell if we make the postseason.
I think we should take a vote because this could deffinatly change the look of the 2013 season and make the '12-'13 FA more interesting. This is just what I think.....thanks.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets (Chris M.) on Sept 27, 2012 7:55:20 GMT -5
Well here is my two cents. I think we need to add a rule that increases caps for some teams like in the MLB. I like the idea of if your fantasy team has a player that wins an import award such as Cy Young or ROY the team should get a salary bonus. For example if Mike Trout wins ROY the Angles get a 3 or 4 million cap bonus or whatever we decide to agree upon. Also if our fantasy team wins "x" amount of games we get a bonus, aswell if we make the postseason. I think we should take a vote because this could deffinatly change the look of the 2013 season and make the '12-'13 FA more interesting. This is just what I think.....thanks. I really like this what does everyone think about this
|
|