|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 5, 2019 18:47:07 GMT -5
Hey guys, UPDATED
This is long overdue, but we need to change the current Franchise Tag/Comp Pick system for this league. We've got a great thing going, but this is a glaring issue with our current contract structure. I'd propose the following system (Now simplified with the purpose of only fixing the Franchise Tag first): Teams would get 1 extension every off-season.
Extensions would be calculated as follows:
for hitters... points scored x $30k ($5m minimum contract)
for pitchers... points scored x $40k ($5m minimum contract)
See here for how this change would affect the contract values of all players I expect could be considered for a franchise tag this off-season. I'm still working on adding more players to it. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1haub5v-A63EGn88AnKBTDZijXo7oYEQoIh3Fye3Frnk/edit#gid=0----------- Examples: Current System: J.D. Martinez - 639 points - #41 ranking - $30.0m contract - Compensation A Pick Scooter Gennett - 61.5 points - #247 ranking - $7.0m contract - Compensation C Pick Clayton Kershaw - 485.6 points - #48 ranking - $30.0m contract - Compensation A Pick Sonny Gray - 453.7 points - #Not ranked - $5.0m contract - No Compensation pick New System: J.D. Martinez - 639 points - $19.2m contract Scooter Gennett - 61.5 points - $5.0m contract Clayton Kershaw - 485.6 points - $19.4m contract Sonny Gray - 453.7 points x $50k = $18.2m contract ----------- I'm open to ideas for thresholds in the case of injuries. Open to other ideas for restriction tags/comp picks. Wanted to focus on the franchise tag first after feedback. Let me know your thoughts. Let's fix this problem during the month of October and be done with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 5, 2019 21:09:11 GMT -5
IDK, I kind of like compensation picks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Oct 5, 2019 21:22:47 GMT -5
IDK, I kind of like compensation picks. so you see no ‘problem’ then? |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 5, 2019 21:25:26 GMT -5
I think we should review how this would affect every potential player, not just four examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 5, 2019 22:19:45 GMT -5
I think we should review how this would affect every potential player, not just four examples. Go for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Oct 5, 2019 23:39:26 GMT -5
Not opposed to some sort of change. I'd love to get rid of RFA and move to two extensions, and I'd love for them to be for up to 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 6, 2019 1:05:34 GMT -5
This isn’t my proposal, I feel your pitch would come off a lot stronger if a little more legwork was put in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Nik) on Oct 6, 2019 17:02:58 GMT -5
Why don’t we implement unlimited extensions but have a multiplier for each extension above the one we’ve already suggested? Just as an example - So if I extend two players it’s an extra cap hit of $5MM and three players it’s $10MM. The numbers are just as an example. Would still incentivize free agency this way but would also give GMs flexibility to extend more than one player if they have two players that are FA eligible in the same year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (Zach) on Oct 7, 2019 6:07:11 GMT -5
Guys on ARB years as ‘restricted FA’ meaning others could bid on them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (Zach) on Oct 7, 2019 6:08:02 GMT -5
Oh, you mean after ARB years. Read that wrong first time, got it.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Oct 7, 2019 10:38:55 GMT -5
I like the idea of changing Franchise tags but I think what's proposed here needs a lot more research/ironing out. Personally I think it should take in account the 3 previous seasons production. Regardless I'm in agreement that our league should no longer use someone's subjective dynasty rankings as the deciding factor on franchise tag values.
On to the comp pick discussion.
Positives of getting rid of the comp picks:
Theoretically the better teams have the better players and this will cut down on good teams getting extra picks thru comp picks.
Negatives:
It will automatically reduce the trade value of any player on an expiring deal. Thus hurting rebuilding teams who have good players on expiring deals. A prime example of this would be my trade of Strasburg at the trade deadline. Without comp picks there's no way Max would've traded what he did to get Stras. So I would've had the option of trading him for less or not trade him and either tag him or lose him in FA without any compensation.
This league already functions very well in terms of parity. It seems that certain teams (HOU, SF, COL, MIL, LAA) have been top teams for years but it wasn't that long ago that COL & SF were rebuilding. MIL missed the playoffs last year and HOU missed it this year. The White Sox won the WS last year, BOS this year, and the Pirates made the playoffs this year. I think some of these suggestions to drastically change this league because of a perceived imbalance in the league is an overreaction. We should be tweaking rules that are outdated but keeping the core structure of what is working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 7, 2019 10:59:29 GMT -5
Negatives: It will automatically reduce the trade value of any player on an expiring deal. Thus hurting rebuilding teams who have good players on expiring deals. A prime example of this would be my trade of Strasburg at the trade deadline. Without comp picks there's no way Max would've traded what he did to get Stras. So I would've had the option of trading him for less or not trade him and either tag him or lose him in FA without any compensation. The MLB already has a solution to this that we could copy. A potential solution to this is that players traded after the season starts (or after a certain date mid-season) will not be eligible for compensation for their new team. This would keep the trade value up for the retaining team. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 7, 2019 12:08:53 GMT -5
We’ve been “discussing” this for like 4 years. So I wanted to put something out there. This isn’t really about parity, which I think is fine. I just think the tagging system is extremely flawed with the list we use. If the only thing we change is how the value of the franchise tag is determined, that will be enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Oct 7, 2019 13:07:49 GMT -5
We’ve been “discussing” this for like 4 years. So I wanted to put something out there. This isn’t really about parity, which I think is fine. I just think the tagging system is extremely flawed with the list we use. If the only thing we change is how the value of the franchise tag is determined, that will be enough for me. I fully agree with this statement |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 7, 2019 15:44:02 GMT -5
I liked Kyle's idea for weighting the last three seasons, however, I think if we want to eliminate the variation from injury, we can average the two highest scoring seasons from the previous 3 seasons, omitting the lowest scoring season of the three. I edited Alex's google doc with these formulas after importing points totals from 2017-2019. I think Giancarlo Stanton provides the best test case, and you can see that his weighted tag only counts his 2017-2018 points totals and his weighted tag becomes $20.90. Proposed 'Weighted' Franchise Tags using 2019 Free AgentsI altered the weights a bit as I think the pitcher weight was pretty high. Hitting Points x $0.030 Pitching Points x $0.035  Pros:1) Injury/suspension proof (barring injuries spanning multiple seasons) 2) Doesn't rely on single-season data 3) Doesn't rely on subjective dynasty ranking 4) Now that we have 2017-2019 Stats, we can easily just add recent season stat totals. 5) Anyone can calculate/project the tag values ahead of season end with the formula Cons:1) Relievers would probably never get tagged 2) Equally weights 3 seasons ago with 1 season ago (this could also be altered to weigh recent seasons more heavily) 3) Aging players or recently ineffective players will still be very expensive (see Chris Archer) 4) The top end of franchise tags is drastically changed. I think only allowing tag rights to players completing arbitration is a good trade-off here. 5) Catchers and relievers would probably never receive a compensation pick. 5) Shohei Ohtani - what do we do about players with pitching AND hitting points? Convo for another time perhaps. I'm not sure the cons are that big of a deal, because players unwanted at their tag levels just become free agents anyway. Additional Proposal for Compensation Picks:- I propose that we don't allow compensation picks for players traded after May 1st of the current season. We can create an additional column in the doc for "Compensation Eligible", either being "Yes" or "No" that can be toggled to "No" after a midseason trade. This would not affect the tagging rules. - Create new compensation thresholds based on weighted tag values: - COMP A: Tag Value > $20.0M (Hitters > 666.5 weighted points, Pitchers > 571.4 weighted points)
- COMP B: Tag Value > $18.0M (Hitters > 600 weighted points, Pitchers > 514.3 weighted points)
- COMP C: Tag Value > $16.0M (Hitters > 533 weighted points, Pitchers > 457.1 weighted points)
Here is all the players eligible for compensation picks: 8 COMP A eligible vs. 21 with current system 5 COMP B eligible vs. 14 with current system 14 COMP C eligible vs. 8 with current system  |
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Oct 7, 2019 16:11:03 GMT -5
So I really like how this looks. Stanton is a great example of using a 3 season weighted system. I also like the idea of taking out the lowest season total. My next question is do we think the potential contract figures look high enough? We could tweak the dollar per point calculation. I'm not sold on Will's suggestion of only allowing tag rights for players coming off arbitration. Ohtani is an interesting one but I think it's an easy answer which is his contract is tied to both hitting and pitching points since that's what he brings to a team. I don't think a more recent season should be weighted anymore than the previous 2 especially since we're averaging out the top two season scores. I like the comp pick tied with the franchise values idea and I'll state one more idea in terms of Alex's earlier post on doing away with comp picks. We could always tie comp picks with r-tags. That way you'll limit each team to having a max of 2 comp picks a year and wouldn't need to do any special spreadsheet tagging or anything like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 7, 2019 16:29:47 GMT -5
Okay, to keep track of all the potential changes being discussed here we have:
1) New Franchise Tag Valuation
2) Who can be offered franchise tags or restricted tags
3) How to re-value compensation picks (or have none)
4) Who gets compensations picks and when (post-arbitration only, restricted tags only, etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 7, 2019 18:30:34 GMT -5
Based on early feedback on the GroupMe who thinks Gerrit Cole's franchise tag value should be in the $30-40 range, I created another sheet on the doc for Scaled Tag Values. My compensation value proposals are still in there, but we can treat compensation as a separate decision item. Will's New Extension System ProposalBased on the weighted point totals discussed earlier, there would be different multiplier thresholds so that not every player has a a minimum $20M franchise tag - an issue we ran into a few years ago. The Top threshold is meant to contain the Top 10-15 hitters and Top 10-15 Pitchers over the last 3 seasons. The Mid threshold is meant to contain the Top 20-30 hitters and Top 20-30 Pitchers over the last 3 seasons. Everyone else goes into the bottom threshold.  This creates a semi-exponential curve which is somewhat closer to what we have now. One last item is to create a franchise tag minimum, similar to what we have now.    |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Oct 7, 2019 18:56:58 GMT -5
Under your new government, what will Matt Moore cost me ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 7, 2019 19:00:09 GMT -5
Under your new government, what will Matt Moore cost me ? $7.40 |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Oct 7, 2019 19:02:33 GMT -5
I vote to re-elect Trump
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 8, 2019 15:44:01 GMT -5
So good to go here? Should we start figuring out how to do comp and R-tags?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Oct 8, 2019 16:16:15 GMT -5
So good to go here? Should we start figuring out how to do comp and R-tags? on 10 votes? Don’t we usually wait til we get more input  |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 9, 2019 10:34:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Royals GM (Bill) on Oct 14, 2019 17:03:44 GMT -5
Just curious...in Stanton’s case, why is his 2019 performance essentially disregarded?
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 14, 2019 17:17:25 GMT -5
Just curious...in Stanton’s case, why is his 2019 performance essentially disregarded? The new system Alex developed entirely undervalues players who missed the majority of 2019, though his franchise tag value should still be near the top of the list when comparing to the old system of using Dynasty Rankings. If we want to remove the reliance on a subjective and outdated ranking list while still approximating it in value, this proposal instead tries to gauge his value by looking at his total points over a larger body of work rather than just the single most recent season. To do this, the proposed system looks at the best two seasons out of the last three seasons and calculates the value based on those point totals. For Stanton, that means his value is calculated by his 2017 and 2018 seasons while discarding his 2019 where he only accrued ~60 points. |
|
|
|
Post by Royals GM (Bill) on Oct 15, 2019 2:27:19 GMT -5
I like this the new proposed system much better than using a single subjective list ... especially one from Cockroft who is pretty out of touch in my opinion. I do think that it is a mistake to ignore/minimize a season like Stanton’s 2019, as any time a player misses an entire season with injury, it definitely points to a higher probability of future injury and that would logically impact his future value negatively. I don’t think the proposed methodology factors this in sufficiently.
All that said, still a much better way to value franchise tags.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Oct 15, 2019 6:33:03 GMT -5
It does take into account the injury prone somewhat, if someone is injury prone, they will have more than one season of injuries and therefore naturally drive down the price due to not scoring as much in their top seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 15, 2019 17:54:03 GMT -5
I like this the new proposed system much better than using a single subjective list ... especially one from Cockroft who is pretty out of touch in my opinion. I do think that it is a mistake to ignore/minimize a season like Stanton’s 2019, as any time a player misses an entire season with injury, it definitely points to a higher probability of future injury and that would logically impact his future value negatively. I don’t think the proposed methodology factors this in sufficiently. All that said, still a much better way to value franchise tags. I think Stephen pretty much summed this up. There's no good way to predict injuries in the future quantitatively but we are using the last three season's point totals to do this. One season of injuries - basically ignored. If there are 2+ seasons affected by past injury in the last 3, it will show up. |
|
