DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion [Archive]

leecemark

11-12-2005, 04:17 PM

--Please note that these were the original rules for the league start up.. They remain here only for historical perspective. For current rules please refer to the separate Rules Thread.

1. There will be 12 teams, in a 3 division league.

2. 9 of the teams (3 per division) will be run by active owners and 3 (1 per division) will be a computer run team designed to keep active owners out of the cellar and normalize the stats (it was very hard to excell in our early leagues due to the heavy concentration of talent). The 3 100 game losers from 1961, the Phillies, A's and Senators, would fill this role for the fitst few seasons .

3. The 9 owned teams would be stocked from a draft of the remaining 15 teams. Every player who appeared in 1961, excepting those who ended the season with one of the dorrmats, is eligible for the draft. Any player who debuted prior to 1961, but did not play in that season (but reappeared later) is also eligible. There is a minimum playing time rule though. Players with less than 50 PA or BF will be eligible only as replacements for a player at their position who goes on the DL. Players with less than 100 will be eligible as injury replacements and also as September call ups. This will apply to each season going forward.

4. There would be a 100 million dollar salary cap for the duration of the project. For 1961 salaries would be assigned by draft position, as follows;
Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million
Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K
Total: 81 million

5. Raises would be 250K for all players who appear for the major league team. There will be a special exemption for each team first pick, who will receive the same 12 million dollar salary as long as they remainwith their original club. Players who spend the entire season in the minors (zero PA or BF) will not be due a raise.

6. Once the draft is complete, each owner would pick their 25 man active roster and submit lineups, depth chart, rotation, bullpen roles and managerial profile. Most days during the season a full series will be played. Game results and injuries are reported after each series. Normally those results are accompanied by either team pitching reports, team batting reports, league batting leaders or league pitching leaders.

7. Free Agency would commence with the 1962 season when each team would have one player file, based on the standings. The team with the best record would lose their highest paid player, excluding the protected first ever draft pick, the next best team would lose their 2nd best, etc. Any player not offered a 250K raise would also be eligible for free agency. This system would be in place for the first 6 years. After that, players would be eligible for free agency 6 season after their draft year (i.e. the rookie class of 62 would be the FA class of 68).
7a. Beginning with the 1964 draft players will start their 6 year clock after; a) the first year they appear for the big league club or b) the first year they got 100 AB, 50 Ip or appeared in 20 games in real life.
7.b. Players drafted from the rookie pool will get an "arbitration bump" after their third season (3rd qualifying season for players drafted 1964 and later). They will recieve a one time doubling of their previous years salary.

8. Players debuting in 1962 (and each subsequent year) would be drafted in inverse order of the standings. The first 3 players drafted would be 1 million dollars, the next 3 750K, the next 3 500K and anyone drafted after the first round would be signed at the 250K minimum wage.

9. Players signed as free agents are eligible for multi-year contracts. Those signed for 8 million or more must be given 3-5 year deals (owner option). 5-7.75 mil players would get 2-4 years and player less than 5 million 1-3 years. These players would be free agents again at the end of these deals.
9a. If a player in the midst of a multi-year deal is a teams forced free agent they would be considered to have demanded a trade rather than become a free agent. They would be a holdout and ineligible to play until a deal was made. If a deal is not made prior to the start of the free agent auctions that player will be place on waivers and teams will have an opportunity to assume the contract in inverse order of the previous seasons record. If no team wishes to assume the contract then the player will be retained by their original team.

10. The doormats will serve through the 1963 season. They will be replaced by expansion teams in 1964. There will be an expansion draft with each original team protecting 25 of their 40 players. The remaining players from the 1961 doormats wil also be released into the expansion pool. Each expansion owner will be required to draft a minimum of 5 players from the doormat rosters, with salaries of 10M for the first, 4 for the 2nd, 3 for the 3rd, 2 for 4th and 1 for the 5th doormat player they draft. Any additional doormat players drafted will be valued at 500K. Any undrafted doormat players will be added to the secondary free agent market.
10.a Each expansion team will draft 30 total players from the pool (with each existing team losing a maximum of 9 players - keeping them at at least 30 as well). The remaining players will be acquired via the rookie draft, free agent market and/or trades. The expansion owners will be limited to an 81M budget in 1964, 90M in 1965 and will join the rest of the league at 100M from 1966 forward. Exapansion owners will have the option of designating their first rookie pick in either 1964 or 1965 as a franchise player at a lifetime 12M contract.
10.b. Owners will have the following options based on the order they are granted expansion teams; a) first pick in the rookie draft (third in the expansion), b) first in expansion (third in rookie) or c) first pick of which division they will be in (and 2nd pick in both drafts).

11. At the conclusion of each season there will be a three week dormant period. No player movement will be allowed during this time. After 3 weeks an offseason thread will start. Everyone will need to submit their list of non-tendered players within a week of the startup. Anyone not listed or owners not getting a list in will be assumed to receive the standard raise if eligible. If there is a decision to be made on the forced free agent that must also be done in the first week (or the Commisioner will make the decision). Trades may also be made/posted at any time after this thread is up.
--The second phase of the offseason will be the rookie draft (between 1963-4 the expansion draft would be next). That will be followed by the premium/forced free agent auction and finally the secondary/non-tender free agent auction. Lastly teams under 40 men can sign any minimum wage free agents undrafted/signed. At no time during the process may a team exceed their 100 million dollar budget. At the conclusion of the process every team must have 40 players under contract. Teams unable to come up with 40 players will have 250K in salary assigned to each vacant roster spot.

12. An owner gets one free stadium move over the life of their franchise. Moves may also be made with a change of ownership or if your stadium went inactive in real life.

mac195

11-12-2005, 04:32 PM

So players taken from '62 on would all become free agents after 6 years. Would players chosen from '61 be safe (unless they are taken due to a team's place in the standings)?

leecemark

11-12-2005, 05:34 PM

--Yeh, I wouldn't want half of a team's roster turning over in one season. The 1961 guys belong to the team that drafts them until they don't want them anymore (excepting the one player per year FA filing system).

mac195

11-12-2005, 06:28 PM

The team that finishes with the best record will lose their #1 starter. If that means #1 in the rotation then owners could protect their best pitcher by putting him at #2. Probably we should specify that the top team will lose the first pitcher it selected in the draft, regardless of where he is used in the rotation or even if he is a bulpen pitcher.

leecemark

11-12-2005, 07:12 PM

--The #1 starter will be the best starter in terms of league performance. I think it will be fairly obvious in most cases, or if two guys are close enough that it isn't than either will do. Unless someone is so confident of having the best record from the outset that they hold back their best pitcher I don't think this is a problem we need to worry about. If someone does end up with that good of a team than the other owners should hang their heads in shame anyway.

mac195

11-12-2005, 09:07 PM

We'll need to choose stadiums. I assume we'll have a choice of all the parks that were used in '61 which aren't being used by the doormats. Why don't we draft for home parks first and then start the player draft in reverse order. If you could post the DM park ratings it would be helpful.

leecemark

11-12-2005, 09:45 PM

--DM doesn't have any kind of park ranking score. You should expect each park to play similar to how it did in 1961. Yes, you can pick any 1961 park other than those being used by the doormats. You can take that team name as well, if you wish. Or you can make up your own name, since there will be no real team identity (unless you plan to draft a bunch of players from a favorite team).
--The choice of park shouldn't be enough of an advantage to make reversing the order of selection for the player draft a fair trade off. Once we have all nine owners lined up, I'll draw names from a hat for the draft order. I'll take Tiger Stadium, as I have in the previous seasons. Unlike the previous seasons, however, I won't be the Tigers. My team will be the Leecemark Knights.

mac195

11-13-2005, 12:59 AM

The choice of park shouldn't be enough of an advantage to make reversing the order of selection for the player draft a fair trade off.
What I'm saying is, after you draw the names out of the hat for the draft, have a preliminary round to choose parks, with the number 9 owner picking first. The priviledge of having first preference for park would be some small compensation for the people who are chosen to pick low in the draft order, and miss out on the chance to get guys like Mays and Aaron. Under the plan as you have stated, there is no compensation at all. Choosing the right park matters, I think. It is one element of the strategy involved in making a team.

mac195

11-13-2005, 01:47 AM

On the other hand, if most people are OK with just choosing parks first come first serve, that's fine with me. I choose Yankee Stadium.

leecemark

11-13-2005, 08:22 AM

--I'm not sure what draft position I'd like best myself. I think getting the 9th and 10th best player might be a better deal in this pool than 1st and 17th. I'm not sure I'd want to be on either end though, since waiting 16 picks between ops to claim two is nerve wracking and makes each choice a little tougher. You know your 2nd choice isn't going to be availble when the draft swings back like it might if you were in the middle somewhere. The other thing is some of the best players in 1961 are going to fall off quickly and some of the best players of the 60s weren't that good yet in 1961. How to balance between winning this season and preparing for the future will be a complicating factor. Should be interesting.

538280

11-13-2005, 09:46 AM

Mark,

Does the park we select determine which league we're going to be in? Like Mac chose Yankee Stadium, so does that mean he's in the AL?

Anyway, I think I'm going to choose Crosley Field and call my team the Cincinnati Reds just because I can't think of a better name.

tonjes

11-13-2005, 10:33 AM

...just checking in. i'll let you know if i have any questions.

leecemark

11-13-2005, 01:15 PM

--This is going to be a one league set up, so your park won't factor into that. You'll want to pick a park that suits the style you like and draft to fit your park. There is no particilar advantage or disadvantage to one park over another for the playerless teams we are starting out with though.

leecemark

11-14-2005, 06:42 AM

--I have received enough inquiries that we will have our two openings filled in the next 24 hours. HWR, hopefully I've given you enough info for you to decide if you want in or not. If you could let me know today your spot is assured. For those who have expressed interest via PM, I'll make a decision tonight or tomorrow morning. If you have any additional questions, please ask them now.

leecemark

11-14-2005, 06:54 AM

--Every player who appeared in a game in 1961 will be eligible for the draft. Players who debuted before 1961, but who did not play this season for whatever reason, will also be eligible. Subsequent years will feature only players who made their first appearance in the new season.
--The function which causes players to lose effectiveness as they go past 110% of real life usage doesn't seem to work well for draft leagues. Therefore, there will be some minimum playing time requirements built into this league. Players with less than 100 PA or BF in 1961 (or subsequent seasons) will be eligible for the 25 man roster ONLY in the event of a player at their position going on the DL or as a September call up. Players with less than 50 will be eligible only to cover a DL situation. The 110% decline rate will still be turned on, so if you hope to get everyday play out of a guy who had 200 PA or 50 IP you may well collapse down the strech.

mac195

11-14-2005, 07:11 AM

Players with less than 100 PA or BF in 1961 (or subsequent seasons) will be eligible for the 25 man roster ONLY in the event of a player at their position going on the DL or as a September call up. Players with less than 50 will be eligible only to cover a DL situation.

Oh well, there goes my low PA ringer strategy. It's a good idea though... will make the league more realistic.

mac195

11-14-2005, 07:29 AM

leecemark

11-14-2005, 07:36 AM

--Its a long wait to Yaz being great. I don't think that would be viable in the first round or even 2nd for me. Mantle is the best player in the game in 1961 (unless his defensive rating is really bad) and a great player for several more years, if injury prone. I would take The Mick in the first round, but probably not with the first pick.

mac195

11-14-2005, 07:52 AM

It would be pretty easy to build a winner around Mantle '61. But there are several guys I'd certainly take ahead of him based on post '61 value... not sure if there are 9 such players.

538280

11-14-2005, 01:58 PM

Mac mentioned Yaz, Bob Gibson is another one who really started in 1961 and will have almost all of his value after. He was a very solid pitcher in '61, and is great the next year. I'd say Gibson is a certain first rounder for me.

J W

11-14-2005, 06:31 PM

Looks like only Tiger and Yankee Stadiums are gone, right?

I don't care, I'll go homer once more. Give me:

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/memori02.jpg

J W

11-14-2005, 06:58 PM

--These are my initial proposal for getting this league underway. Suggestions for improvements on the format are welcome.

1. There will be 12 teams, in a 3 division league.
2. 9 of the teams (3 per division) will be run by active owners and 3 (1 per division) will be a computer run team designed to keep active owners out of the cellar and normalize the stats (it was very hard to excell in our early leagues due to the heavy concentration of talent). The 3 100 game losers from 1961, the Phillies, A's and Senators, would fill this role for the fitst few seasons .
3. The 9 owned teams would be stocked from a draft of the remaining 15 teams.

Sounds great, a copy from DMIII. There were 18 teams in 1961 so cutting down to 12 gives us more powerful teams without going overboard. I would however like to leave the option open for expansion, if more owners become interested.

4. There would be a 100 million dollar salary cap for the duration of the project. For 1961 salaries would be assigned by draft position, as follows;
Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million
Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K
Total: 81 million

I like it. Gives us wiggle room to start with... much like any team just starting out. Meanwhile certain players are making the bulk of the $$$. Teams will invariably get in cap trouble later (provided we dont collude ;) ).

5. Free Agency would commence with the 1962 season when each team would have one player file, based a the standings (team with best record would lose their #1 SP, next their C and so on). Any player not offered a 250K raise would also be eligible for free agency. This system would be in place for the first 6 years. After that, players would be eligible for free agency after their 6th season (i.e. the rookie class of 62 would be the FA class of 68).

Don't really agree with the first part (until actual FA begins), mainly because of the draft (see #6). What makes more sense to me, and simulates real life a bit more, is that the top teams would have to raise their salaries more. Or perhaps just the top players would demand huge deals. The second part I agree with for the most part--more later.

If there was a way we could simulate the increase in pay these players would want based on stats and wins (win shares?), we could work with this. I'll post thoughts later on the subject.

This will likely be the toughest part of all this but I think it'll be ironed out.

6. Players debuting in 1962 (and each subsequent year) would be drafted in inverse order of the standings. The first 3 players drafted would be 1 million dollars, the next 3 750K, the next 3 500K and anyone drafted after the first round would be signed at the 250K minimum wage.

We're doing this off of their first major league season, right? OK--I agree completely except I'd rather do 3-year contracts and start our first true FA period in 65... even though it goes against history a bit.

7. Once the draft is complete, each owner would pick their 25 man active roster and submit lineups, depth chart, ration, bullpen roles and managerial profile. Most days during the season a full series will be played. Game results and injuries are reported after each series. Normally those results are accompanied by either team pitching reports, team batting reports, league batting leaders or league pitching leaders.

...keeping up the quality reports. That's why you rule at this Mark.:D

Nails

11-14-2005, 07:22 PM

Don't really agree with the first part (until actual FA begins), mainly because of the draft (see #6). What makes more sense to me, and simulates real life a bit more, is that the top teams would have to raise their salaries more. Or perhaps just the top players would demand huge deals. The second part I agree with for the most part--more later.

What about factoring awards into the salaries? An extra $100k for each All-Star selection and GG and an extra $250k for each MVP and CY in addition to the initial $250k raise?

tonjes

11-14-2005, 07:28 PM

hey guys, i hate to have to do this. i am very excited about the potential of this league, but my work schedule is getting to be too much of a grind. we're just getting into the guts of the hockey season, and i still have over five months to go. i'm afraid that i am not going to have enough time to be able to contribute to this league in the same way that i did in DMIII. i'm afraid i'll turn into another chancellor, dudecar, or wasp. that's not fair to you guys, and more importantly, i wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this thing. so with regret, i'm pulling myself out of the league. good luck to everyone. thanks again mark for organizing all of this. it was a lot of fun. PM me if you have any openings in future seasons. if work has settled down, i'll definitely be interested in rejoining.

leecemark

11-14-2005, 11:04 PM

--Sorry to lose you Mike. If there is an opening in future seasons or we expand down the road you'd be welcome back.
--That does eliminate a tough decision for me though. We have 3 interested parties and did have only 2 spots. Now all three can have a team. Dudecar assures me he has resolved the issues which caused him to drop out of DMIII. Since he was a good owner in DMII I'm prepared to give him another shot. Dodger and Honus Wagner Rules, you also have teams if you are still interested after seeing some of the details of the league. Please confirm your participation ASAP (or let me know if you've decided against).
--JW, I'd be agreeable to some alteration of the scheduled raises and free agent eligibility. Perhaps something along the lines of Nails idea for a premium for award winners or league leaders. If the best players are going to jump in price I'd like some salary control at the bottom of the roster though. I was thinking maybe we could retain anybody who didn't appear on the major league roster during the season without having to bump their salary. The 100 million has to cover 40 players in this scenario, rather than 30 in DMIII. It will get eaten up by inflation quicker than you might think.
--I wouldn't want to shorten the FA window to 3 years, because alot of players might only have a cup of coffee their first season or two. The six years to free agency wouldn't be quailfying years like MLB, but 6 seasons from their draft year (starting with 1962), even if they don't play a game for your team that season. Maybe we could have "arbitration" after the third year where we jump salaries up to retain them though.

538280

11-15-2005, 05:06 AM

Looks like only Tiger and Yankee Stadiums are gone, right?

I took Crosley Field. It is also gone.

leecemark

11-15-2005, 06:27 AM

Leecemark Knights - Tiger Stadium
538280 Reds - Crosley Field
JW Skipjacks - Memorial Stadium
Mac195 ??? - Yankee Stadium
Dudecar00 Gamblers - Wrigley Field (LA)

leecemark

11-15-2005, 06:43 AM

--A little follow up to the issue of escalating raises. Simple inflation will raise the cost of your team 10 million dollars a year if you just kept the same 40 guys. That would put all of us over the cap by 1963. Of course, it won't be that simple since we will all be losing a free agent and we will be non-tendering other guys to make room for the next seasons new player draft and free agent bidding (not to mention guys will just retire or cease to have any value). Still your first round pick in this year's draft will cost you 13 million a year in 1965 by the original plan. Adding in bonuses could make that 15-16 million for some players.
--I like the idea of performance escalators for the less expensive guys entering the league starting in 1962, but am less than enthusiastic about doing it for 1961 draftees (or maybe it could only apply to players drafted after the 5th or 10th round). Either way, I'd like to control our minor league costs by freezing the salaries of anyone who spends the entire season in the minors. To accompany that, we might not allow a player with 3 years service time (in our league) to be sent down without going through waivers.

J W

11-15-2005, 05:20 PM

We'll figure something out in regards to that. I think that parity will eventually catch up with people simply through the subsequent draft classes (which we can do normal-style, not ladder style). In fact, I may decide to develop my squad for the first couple years rather than get the Mantles of the world and eat a losing season or two. In short I would call it unfair to strip the best pitcher off our inaugural champion after 1961. For those of us willing to stick through this, we have to think of things over a 5-10 year stretch rather than year 1.
-------
Since we're counting from year drafted, there's absolutely no problem with the 6-year contract for me. I think arbitration after 3 years would be a good idea.
-------
I also approve the raise scale you submitted after your math on the subject... fact is, a lot of the players you'd raise $250 k on would cost even more $$$ if they hit the FA market a particular year. This is going to be real fun with the cap. Nails' suggestion for awards bonuses is excellent and should provide enough roadblock for us without making things crazy--and think about this--most awards go to players on winning teams right? So, there's the penalty for fielding a winning team in year 1961, a slight one and not the loss of their best player.

J W

11-15-2005, 05:23 PM

One other thing: are we allowed to pick fictional team names this time around?

If so, I'd like to be the JW Skipjacks, after a defunct Baltimore hockey team.

leecemark

11-15-2005, 06:42 PM

--You can pick any name you'd like for your team. I have been the Tigers in the first three leagues, but didn't want to use them with a start from scratch team this time. Didn't want even a subconsious pull toward picking Tigers ahead of their true value.
--JW, are you suggesting we don't have any free agency out of the 1961 guys, except those who are no longer worth their cost to their teams? I think circulating some of that talent will make for a more interesting game in the next few seasons. One alterative idea to the positional assignment of FA is to assign multi-year contracts to some of our players with those players being FAs when the deal is up. I think having some quality free agents on the market beginning with year 2 needs to happen somehow.

mac195

11-15-2005, 06:50 PM

538280

11-15-2005, 07:14 PM

Well, it should be a competitive league. I shudder to think how good Chris' teams are going to be, considering that he is only 13 :eek: (14 now??) and already seems to understand the stats as well as anyone here.

Thanks for the compliments. I just hope I can do well.

I don't turn 14 for three months, by the way.

The Dude

11-15-2005, 09:21 PM

I'll name my team the Gamblers, and we'll play in Wrigley Field (LA).

leecemark

11-16-2005, 07:19 AM

--Here is a proposed raise escalator schedule based on performance;
--For position players leading the league in BA, HR. RBI or RC would trigger a 500K (each) performance boost. That would give a maximum raise, for a Triple Crown winner, of 2.25 million in any one year (with the standard 250K included). The 2nd and 3rd place finishers in these categories would get 250K performance boosts.
--For pitchers the categories would be Wins, IP, ERA, K's and saves. That gives 4 categories for SP, same as position players, with one (normally) for relief pitchers. The dollar figures would be the same.
--I think basing this on league leadership will be better than awards, because there is no room for manipulating the raises. Frankly, if winning the MVP was going to drive up one of my players salary I'd be inclined not to vote for him. That star player on a division rival would be much more deserving:laugh .
--To balance the salary pressure caused by this, any player who does not see action on the big league roster in a season would not be due a raise. We might also want to allow owners to extend multi-year contracts to some players. My initial idea would be to allow each owner to give a 2, 3,4 and 5 year deal to one player each from their initial draftees. That would lock them in at their draft price for those years. The trade off would be that they would be eligible for free agency when that deal was up.
--We might also want to consider allowing each of us to lock up a player after his fifth year. Maybe one per team in a given year gets a 3-5 year deal at 1 million over their scheduled pay. That would limit the risk of huge raises for your biggest stars. For players acquired beginning in 1962 it would also delay your risk of losing them to free agency.

J W

11-16-2005, 04:01 PM

I think I have a plan for free agency at least for the first few years:

Draft Salary Breakdown
Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million
Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K
---------------
Total: $81 mil

With the raise and escalator scales set, we can play with (guaranteed) contracts just by giving those contracts:
- a length
- a salary for year 1

Any raises or performance escalators would be guaranteed along with the base salary for as long as the contract is good. Any increase in pay would be cumulative. Let's do an example:

Mickey Bitzko is drafted in Round 4 and is signed to a 4 yr deal.

YR 1 - 8.0 mil

He does very well in year 1, leading the league in HR and 3rd in RBI. Adding his pay increases up (base $250 k + $500 k + $250 k) we get

YR 2 - 9.0 mil

He doesn't have a good 1962, but his old escalators are cumulative, so

YR 3 - 9.25 mil

In 1963 he finishes second in HR. Therefore we tack on $250 k + $250 k...

YR 4 - 9.75 mil

By the end of the deal, Bitzko will make:

YR 1 - 8.0 mil
YR 2 - 9.0 mil
YR 3 - 9.25 mil
YR 4 - 9.75 mil
----------------
TOT - 4 yr, $36 mil

Now, as for the contracts, here is my proposal (I know this is getting complicated, but it is a keeper league we're trying with a salary cap... and I think it's fun anyways)

Rounds 16-20: 750K
Rounds 21-25: 500K
Rounds 26-40: 250K

None of these guys will be making over $1 mil in 1962. These can turn into 6-yr deals. I've changed my mind on arbitration... the system's complicated as is and we don't need it. Most of these guys won't be superstars, or would become one late in the contract.

Rounds 1-10: 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 and 2 miillion
Rounds 11-15: 1 million

My initial idea would be to allow each owner to give a 2, 3, 4 and 5 year deal to one player each from their initial draftees.

We might also want to consider allowing each of us to lock up a player after his fifth year. Maybe one per team in a given year gets a 3-5 year deal at 1 million over their scheduled pay.

Since we're maxing out at 6 yr deals (which is fine), I would give the teams two contracts each at 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 yrs. I would also reduce the keeper rule to during/after the 4th year of a contract. Any contracts 3 years or less would not get this benefit and the player would hit the FA market.

By this rule, five players per team (60 total) would hit the FA market at the end of each year, for the first 3 years (1961-63), minus retirements. This plus the draft, and any cuts made at the bottom of the roster. For 1964-66, up to five players per team would hit the market, but probably less.

Same as Mark, feel free to pick apart or add to this idea.

leecemark

11-16-2005, 07:33 PM

--I've been playing around with increasingly more complicated ideas myself, but think maybe the way to go is actually a simple one. Several owners have indicated they are planning to draft for the long term, which is definately something to be encouraged. Carl Yastzremski and Bob Gibson have been brought up as possible first rourd picks, which is definately a long term plan, with neither an elite player in 1961.
--The problem with that is the payoff in that long term plan is going to be prohibitively expensive. In our 10th year, 1970, Yaz and Gibby are arguably the best hitter and pitcher in baseball. However, they would be drawing a salary of 14.5 million even if no performance boosts come into play. They would more likely to be making 16-17 miillion and crippling their teams chances of building a competitive squad (the highest paid FA in DM got 12.5 million). You shouldn't be payig way over market value to keep the guy you have built your team around.
--My solution is to allow teams to keep their number one pick at 12 million as long as they want. To keep simple inflation from pricing players out of reach I also suggest that nobody should set a new salary season via scheduled raises, but only through free agency. For example, if your second round pick won the Triple Crown (and presumably also RC) he would be due a 2.25 million dolllar raise. That would be capped at 2m so that his salary would not exceed that of the highest paid player from the previous year. You could still pay free agents whatever you want/can afford and the highest paid FA could raise the bar for potential salaries the next year. The raise scale would be the same as previously posted, except for the ceiling.
--I also suggest that big ticket FA deals all be multi-year. For example, anybody signed for 8m+ would be required to be signed to a 3 year deal, max 4 years. 5m+ would be 2-4 and less than 5 could be one year with a max of 3. I'm still in favor of my original idea of having one free agent per team for the first 6 years (plus non-tendered players), based on positional standings, but will bend to the will of the majority. I don't think it actually penalizes the team with the best record unduly. In fact with 4 HoF in their prime and the AL MVP all being RFers, there is a good chance the team with the worst record will actually lose a better player than the team with the best.

leecemark

11-16-2005, 08:14 PM

--Not much activity from some of our owners. I'm not worried about our returnees, but the lack of activity from our new owners is worrisome. No confirmation has been received from HWR or Dodger. As of Friday I'll have to consider alternatives. One possible replacement is already on the waiting list. I'd like to begin the draft a week or so after I get the 1961 software and post the defensive ratings and we can't do that without active owners. I'd also like to see everybody get their roster shell up on that thread ASAP.

mac195

11-16-2005, 08:44 PM

post the defensive ratings
..........:clapping

Wow. This is all getting pretty complicated. I hope a fairly simple system for salaries and free agency can be worked out. Not sure if raising salary for performance is that good an idea. If a player of mine was competing for any of those titles, I'd be tempted to sit him out just enough so he wouldn't win which would be pretty contrary to the spirit of the game.

If this was a progressive league with current players it would make more sense. But this is historical, so we already know about how well these guys will play when we draft them. Boosting pay for winning league titles seems like it would be kind of artificial and unecessary, and add more randomness. Can somebody explain to me how this would enhance strategy or realism?

leecemark

11-16-2005, 08:57 PM

--For the 1961 guys who are already getting paid according to quality I'd be fine with skipping the performance boosts (they weren't in my original plan anyway). I do think it has merit for the guys drafted in subsequent years at low dollars. That said, I could live without it there too if most people don't want it. There is alot to be said for simplicity.
--How is this for a stripped down model;
1) 1961 players paid for first year based on original draft scale
--first picks are locked in at 12m as long as they stay with original team
--everybody else gets a 250K raise each season they appear for the major league team (no raise if full season spent in minors)
--One player per team though 1966 gains free agency by the positional assignment.
--Any player you don't want to pay their scheduled pay would also granted free agency
2) Players picked in subsequent years (in inverse order of finish) would get the 250K plus performance boosts (or not) and would be granted free agency following the 6th season after they are drafted.

J W

11-16-2005, 09:47 PM

Well, here's what we can agree on:

A) 12 teams, 3 divisions
B) The cap set at $100 mil
C) The 1961 draft and pay scale totaling $81 mil
D) Multi-year contracts allowed (2-6 yrs)
E) Base raises of $250k/year for MLBers
F) Subsequent drafts in reverse order of finish

I'd like to get the OK from several other owners besides Mark and myself on these topics so we can have our basic model to work from.
------------------------------------

I don't want to make things too complicated but at the same time, I think a little more structure should be thrown in:

- If we lock in our 1st round picks @ $12 mil, then I say we make these players LIFERS. In other words, you can't trade them--they're making 12 mil/year for you until their retirement. We can designate these players as such to make it clear to the rest. That's one way to build a team around a player ;) . Also, it forces a decision--1st rounder on a complete career or not?

uy, too late... I'll elaborate more tomorrow. But to the other owners: are we ok with the basic model?

leecemark

11-16-2005, 10:00 PM

--I'd be okay with making them untradable to lock them in at 12 million. I'd like to be able to release/non-tender them short of retirement though. I wouldn't want to be paying a modest hitting DH (especially if we don't have a DH*) 12% of my payroll for several years at the end if I draft Hank Aaron. I would probably want out of Yaz's deal at that price after 1970 - and he still had a long ways to go. I might try and resign a past their prime guy who had been a key part of my team at a more reasonable salary after releasing him into the FA pool, but I'm not sentimental enough to want to hang on to a shadow of a star at superstar prices.
--I don't think we have agreement on multi-year contracts either. I see the initial draft guys as being yours as long as you want them, excepting the one FA per year until the class of 62 is our first 6th year class. We haevn't exactly come up with any kind of multi year arrangement for anybody from subsequent drafts.
--I do agree with A, B, C , E and F.
*There will be no DH to start the league. I think we can vote the concept up or down in 1973 when we get there.

mac195

11-17-2005, 04:08 AM

I see two important issues:

* How to assimilate free agents coming into the league from 1962 on, either rookies or players that are released?

* How to give a boost to weaker teams so that the league remains competitive?

A free agent draft would benefit the weaker teams by giving them first pick of available players, but it wouldn't generate a realistic salary for those players. I'd prefer to bid on all free agents. Auctions are a lot of fun, and players would get their true market value. Owners would have to put a lot of thought into deciding who to keep, and who to release in order to build up funds for a free agent bidding war.

But how to boost weaker teams? Why not increase player salaries based on team performance? The team finishing with the best record could have their payroll increased by $400,000 per player, the 2nd best team by 350,000, the 3rd by $300,000 and so on down to the the worst team which would see no increase. The increase would apply only to players already making $500,000 or more. That would raise the #1 team's payroll by $10 million in '62. Lower finishing teams would get a substantial relative boost, but all teams would have a shot at getting any new player that comes into the league.

leecemark

11-17-2005, 06:11 AM

--Players who get released will be free agents under the original plan. The only players scheduled to be drafted after 1961 would be players debuting in the next season(s). I've looked at the class of 1962 and only see 4 notable players; Willie Stargell, Tony Oliva, Jim Bouton and Bob Veale. Stargell actually doesn't emerge as a great player until later and the team that signs him as a free agent following his 6th season will get his best work. Oliva and Veale will give best value to their original owners and Bouton has all of his value early. I don't see a problem with rookies/young players being low paid. That is how it really works.
--I see there being 4 phases of player acquistion from 1962 forward;
1) Trades could be made anytime from the new season startup to the deadline (100 games or July 31 if I can avoid the excessive offdays in the schedule).
2) The new player draft, in inverse order of finish.
3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team. Alot of players in the secondary auction will be worn out and not likley to play a major role. However, there will be some good talent availble as we get further into the project and have to make tough salary cap decisions .
--A guy who was worth 8 million to you in 1961 might not be worth 8.5 in 1963 when the money gets tighter - even though he is still a very good player. There will also be tough choices to make on guys with major injuries or bad years mid-career. If you're hard up against the cap and looking to compete then a player who misses a year (or most of one) with injury or posts a 5.00 era might not be affordable for you even if he bounces back to be a star for several years after. A rebuilding (or one less competitive to start with) team with some cap room and paitence could pick that player up at a relative bargain.

leecemark

11-17-2005, 06:21 AM

--Here's an alternative idea for those who don't like the plan of free agents assigned by position. How about the team with the best record has their 2nd round pick file, the next the 3rd pick, on down to the team with the worst record having their 10th pick file?

mac195

11-17-2005, 06:21 AM

3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team.

That sounds good. I didn't realize you were already planning to have these auctions.

mac195

11-17-2005, 06:26 AM

leecemark

11-17-2005, 11:20 AM

--After the first year it could be 2nd-10th highest paid player instead of draft pick. That could add some additional realistic issues. If you sign a FA more more than 12m, your no longer highest paid player/first draft choice may become disgruntled and would be eligble to be lost to free agency. If free agent signees are on multi-year deals (which I endorse) and one of them was your selected player, he could demand a trade instead of being a free agent. You'd have to deal him or have a holdout.

J W

11-17-2005, 03:47 PM

Looks like it's Mark, Mac, and me for the most part. No prob. So as far as I'm concerned we've locked in the following:

X) 12 teams, 3 divisions
X) The cap set at $100 mil
X) The 1961 draft and pay scale totaling $81 mil
X) Trade deadline (100 G/ July 31)
X) Tenders - base raises of $250k/year for MLBers
X) Subsequent drafts in reverse order of finish

We may need to keep a running list of this while we work it all out. I'm keeping it roughly in chronological order.
-------------------------------------------------

Now for the new points:

--I see there being 4 phases of player acquistion from 1962 forward;
1) Trades could be made anytime from the new season startup to the deadline (100 games or July 31 if I can avoid the excessive offdays in the schedule).
2) The new player draft, in inverse order of finish.
3) The premium free agent auction, which would be the one player per team through 1967 and the 6 year class thereafter.
4) The secondary free agent auction, which would be players non-tendered by their original team. Alot of players in the secondary auction will be worn out and not likley to play a major role. However, there will be some good talent availble as we get further into the project and have to make tough salary cap decisions .

- (1) should just go up on the list. In fact I just added it. Mac if you floor me with a dissenting vote I'll take it off.

- (2) already up there.

- (3,4) I like the idea of drafting FAs in 1961 and auctioning them thereafter. I agree with the order as well (tenders, then rookie draft, then FA auctions). As for splitting the auction: I'm fine with it if it means the premium auction doesn't take long. Say 1 hour, with last second bids and everything like last time. One bid per post. This is because there's only 12 names to keep track of.
The second auction I'd like to do differently but I'm not sure how. I'd just like to give everyone a chance so one team doesn't hog all the good cheapies.

leecemark

11-17-2005, 04:45 PM

--Actually in the premium FA auction there would only be 9 names to keep track off, since the doormats would be stagnent. For the secondary auction maybe we could do it by division, so nobody gets shafted if they miss one phase. Or maybe we want to do both auctions together with the split being by division instead of class. I'd like to have at least a tenative agreement on the process for acquiring players in subsequent years, but if all the details are quite clear it wouldn't need to stand in the way of getting 1961 underway. We'll probably end up tinkering with the rules in the 61-62 offseason anyway. We will need to have salary increase rules hammered out though, since that will affect draft strategy.

mac195

11-17-2005, 06:55 PM

We will need to have salary increase rules hammered out though, since that will affect draft strategy
$250,000 per player per year is fine. Let's get the draft started!

leecemark

11-17-2005, 07:01 PM

--Neither of our two new owners (or what I thought were new owners) have been active since their original inquiries. I'm not sure we have all 9 teams in good hands yet. Dodger and Honus Wagner Rules have until tomorrow to confirm their commitment. If not, I have one owner ready to step in, but would need to find one more. Beyond that, I want to get the defensive ratings posted (still haven't received the program yet) so everybody can make informed selections.

leecemark

11-17-2005, 07:09 PM

--Dodger has decided against running a team. EdgartoHoF, previously an owner in DM I and II, will be taking on a team.

Edgartohof

11-17-2005, 07:31 PM

Just wanting to let you know that I'm here

Edgartohof

11-17-2005, 07:54 PM

I'll take County Stadium

Nails

11-17-2005, 09:19 PM

I'll be Nails' Quakers, playing in C. Mack Stadium.

catcher24

11-18-2005, 02:11 PM

Sorry, guys, didn't see the new thread until today:eek: . Would have made some input into the salary suggestions otherwise. That is the one beauty of OOTP - the players automatically demand a specific salary for a given number of years based on past performance. Too bad DM doesn't have that capability, because it really makes it interesting trying to deal with your players.

Anyway, with DM, I'm not sure I agree with the auto $250K raise for all ML'ers. Some of the scrubs wouldn't really be worth the raise. Of course, you could always release them, but if you had a guy who was a decent defensive replacement but didn't hit a lick, it might be worth keeping him ifyou didn't need to give him the raise. I also tend to believe that once free agency starts to kick in, the bidding for free agents will tend to keep everyone near the cap. I lean more towards having the contracts, with the amount of the contract remaining the same for the duration of the contract. I would also like to see a way to buy a guy's contract out, so if you had a poorly performing regular you could buy him out in late July and try to pick up a Fa for the stretch run (George Steinbrenner, anyone?).

Again, sorry I didn't see the thread until today. I would have liked to propose some of these ideas before you guys gto so far along, but I still hope you will consider them.

leecemark

11-18-2005, 02:31 PM

--Free agency really shouldn't create any cap issues for some years down the road if there are no built in raises. Every team will have one player declare which, with no raises, would drop salaries from 2-10 million. In most cases that money would be reinvested in a replacement FA, generated little real change in payroll.
--Your utility guys are likely to be starting out under a million and few guys are really good in that role for more than the few years it would take to price them out of budget. As for the starters, making them more expensive is what will make it interesting. When a team gets squeezed it will fuel the secondary FA market.

538280

11-18-2005, 03:30 PM

I've come up with a better and more creative team name. I'm going to name my team the Cannons.

Also, I agree with Mac about the raises in salary for leading the league in a category. That's not a very good idea. It would prompt me (and I'm sure others as well) to sit a star player on the bench towards the end of the year so he doesn't lead the league in anything.

It does most certainly take away from the spirit of the game. Leading the league in something is supposed to be a positive thing, and by increasing salaries for that you're actually making it a negative thing.

leecemark

11-18-2005, 04:23 PM

--I got the 1961 CD in today's mail. Defensive ratings for all posiitons (for players with at least 100 PA) will be up this weekend. The defense scale is Excellent (EX), Very Good (VG), Average (AV), Fair (FR) and Poor (PR). It is based strictly on the numbers, with no reputation bonus (Roberto Clemente is AV in 1961, although VG for his career profile in the All Time Greats program). It will vary from season to season. The first grade is for range. Outfielders and catchers will also have a throwing rating on the same scale (example: Clemente AV/EX). Error rate is based on fieldign percentage, is on a numerical scale rather than a grade. This scale varies by positon and isn't as easily accessed as the range/arm numbers. If you want to see who is sure handed or error prone, you'll have to look up fielding percentages elsewhere. These defensive ratings are the only scouting reports that I'll providing.
--We still need one owner to get the draft underway. I'd like to kick it off a week from today and will draft a second team myself (for computer management) if we don't have someone ready to go. I'd like to get the first few rounds completed the first night, so if Friday isn't good for anyone please let me know. After the first few rounds I don't mind if the draft slows down some. I propose a 12 hour window for each owner to pick (hopefully far less for most) at which time the next guy would go and the owner skipped would just have to backfill when they log back in. That window is only for people who aren't online though. If you log into BBF when you're on the clock and leave without picking we would also go onto the next owner's turn. As with everthing else, suggestions to improve the draft process are welcome.

mac195

11-18-2005, 05:53 PM

I'm happy that player salaries will be determined by the market, and not predetermined by the game software based on some formula. I think that adds an element of skill, and makes the game more fun.

catcher24

11-18-2005, 06:15 PM

Mac - Actually, it does take the market into serious consideration. It compares his performance to others at the postion in the league and uses that info to assign the salary. Also, once the player becomes a FA, he becomes available to every other team and the bidding is on. I'm in my fourth year of a solo league, and have had to dump some of my players to the FA market in order to keep others - and many have come back to haunt me!

Anyway, I agree with JW that I would like to see contracts of some sort. Perhaps 5 each of 2,3,4,5,6 year contracts? That would be 25 total, and would cover all the active ML players. You decide who is worth signing for 6 years. Once the contract is up, the player becomes a FA. Minor leaguers wouldn't be affected until they are promoted. Perhaps they could automatically be assigned a 5 year contract upon promotion. That would be long enough for the original drafting team to get some worth from the player before he became eligible for free agency. Suggestions?

catcher24

11-18-2005, 06:16 PM

The 12 hour window seems more than reasonable. Seems like an owner should be able to log in sometime during that long a period quick enough to post their choice.

leecemark

11-18-2005, 06:48 PM

--I've got 2 issues with locking players up to contracts rather than letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team. First of all, if we lock all our MLB roster up to 2-6 year contracts there will be no free agents on the market for our 2nd season. I don't think running basically the same teams out for the 1962 season will be that interesting.
--Second is actually the opposite end of the spectrum. I'd like to be able to plan for the future when building my original team. There should be some benefit to drafting a young player who will be a star for you down the road and a trade off between choicing that type of player and one who is going to give you a couple big years and then we finished. The contract system would lead to complete turnover in 6 years.

mac195

11-18-2005, 08:25 PM

Mac - Actually, it does take the market into serious consideration. It compares his performance to others at the postion in the league and uses that info to assign the salary.

By market value, I mean whatever someone is willing to pay. So if someone really, really likes Rocky Colavito, for whatever reason, and is willing to pay $12 million a year for him, then that is his market price. Others who are smart enough not to pay so much for him gain a relative advantage. If prices are determined by merit, then that aspect of strategy is lost.

Like Mark said, I think

letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team...

... would be more fun than assigning long term contracts. I'd like to have the freedom to dump a player at any time, or keep him until the end of his career if I choose. Automatic yearly salary increases would force a certain number of players to be given up to free agency, but owners would be able to make a strategic decision on who to give up and when. Actually, I don't think any other mechanism to force free agents onto the market is necessary.

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-18-2005, 09:23 PM

If there's any open spots...
I'll be the Blalack Dollar Signs, playing in Fenway Park

leecemark

11-18-2005, 09:45 PM

--Welcome Charles. That fills our ownership roster. A few things to iron out on the rules, but we should be able to begin drafting next Friday unless that proves to be a bad time for some owners.
--The division alignments
West
Mac's Hard Cider (Mac195) - Yankee Stadium
538280 Cannons - Crosley Field
Edgar's Raptors (EdgartoHallofFame) - County Stadium
Kansas City Athletics (computer managed doormat)

Central
Leecemark Knights - Tiger Stadium
Dudecar00 Gamblers - Wrigley Field (LA)
Blalack Dollar Signs (charlesblalack@yahoo.com)- Fenway Park
Philadelphia Phillies (CM doormats)

East
JW Skipjacks - Memorial Stadium
Lew's Legends (Catcher24) - Forbes Field
Nails Quakers - Connie Mack Stadium
Washington Senators (CM doormats)

leecemark

11-18-2005, 10:07 PM

1) Will we use performance boosters or just the 250K raise for MLB players?
2) Will we allow your first pick to be locked in at 12m for as long as you want him?
3) Wlll we allow players to be signed for x number of years or go with the one FA per team for the first 6 years and draft class thereafter?
4) If we are going with the one forced FA per team will it be by defensive position or by payroll positon.
--I'd like every owner to cast their vote on the above issues by Monday if possible. If I have overlooked or misstated any of the open issues please feel free to open further discussion on them this weekend. I would really like to have everything firmed up by Monday. I'll draw for draft position
once the rules questions are settled (some votes, especially #2, could be influenced by draft positon).

leecemark

11-18-2005, 10:16 PM

1) No performance boosters. 250K per year for any player who appears for the MLB squad and none for minor leaguers.
2) Yes to locking in your first pick. The only exception would be if that player loses his spot as your highest paid player and becomes liable to the 1 FA rule during the first 6 seasons (if that is approved).
3) No contracts for 1961 draftees. One FA per team (thru 1967) to be designated with the others yours as long as you want to keep paying them.
4) One free agent per team to be assigned by payroll slot. Best record loses (or at least as file for free agency) their 2nd highest paid player, next best their 3rd and so on down to the worst record losing their 10th highest paid.

leecemark

11-18-2005, 10:36 PM

Elston Howard EX/VG
Johnny Blanchard FR/FR
Dick Brown AV/EX
Gus Triandos VG/VG
Sherm Lollar FR/AV
Cam Carreon EX/FR
Johnny Romano AV/AV
Jim Pagliani FR/VG
Russ Nixon FR/FR
Earl Batttey VG/VG
Hal Naragon AV/PR
Earl Averill AV/FR
Del Rice AV/FR
Eddie Sadowski EX/FR
Jerry Zimmerman AV/EX
Johnny Edwards AV/VG
Johnny Roseboro VG/EX
Norm Sherry VG/FR
Ed Baily VG/VG
Joe Torre AV/VG
Carl Sawatski FR/FR
Hal Smith (stL) VG/EX
Hal Smith (pitt) AV/FR
Smokey Burgess AV/FR
Dick Bertell AV/AV
Sam Taylor AV/FR
Mike Roarke AV/EX

mac195

11-19-2005, 01:12 AM

catcher24

11-19-2005, 06:26 AM

Posted by Mark:
--I've got 2 issues with locking players up to contracts rather than letting owners make decisons on when their cost/value balance no longer fits the team. First of all, if we lock all our MLB roster up to 2-6 year contracts there will be no free agents on the market for our 2nd season. I don't think running basically the same teams out for the 1962 season will be that interesting.
--Second is actually the opposite end of the spectrum. I'd like to be able to plan for the future when building my original team. There should be some benefit to drafting a young player who will be a star for you down the road and a trade off between choicing that type of player and one who is going to give you a couple big years and then we finished. The contract system would lead to complete turnover in 6 years.

Now I'm a little confused. Isn't the currently proposed rule that anyone on the roster is going to become a free agent after six years, or did that get dropped? Or did I misunderstand that? In that scenario, ALL players have a six year contract, then become free game after the six are up. Under my proposal, free agents will come onto the market at intervals, as contracts expire. If you want to lock up the young stud, give him a six year contract. Also, to eliminate the problem of the same teams for 1962, only allow a certain number of players to be under contract, or have 7 or 8 one year contracts. Anyway, I'll not belabor the point, as it appears most are opposed to this anyway. One last comment, though - beginning in the mid-70's, not having contracts will in no way reflect reality. Before Messersmith/McNally, a team COULD keep a player as long as he wants; after that, no way - he had a contract or after five years he filed for free agency. Perhaps that is something that should be addressed as we approach that era (1975?).

Posted by Mac:
By market value, I mean whatever someone is willing to pay. So if someone really, really likes Rocky Colavito, for whatever reason, and is willing to pay $12 million a year for him, then that is his market price. Others who are smart enough not to pay so much for him gain a relative advantage. If prices are determined by merit, then that aspect of strategy is lost.

Same thing it OOTP, Mac. When a player becomes a FA, EVERY team can enter any amount they wish to offer him. And the AI is clever enough to play one team against the other, so the bidding on some players gets crazy. Again, not belaboring the point because we are using DM; just wanted to clarify that OOTP has the same capability, but IMHO a better financial engine.

catcher24

11-19-2005, 06:28 AM

Mark - Will there be any way to access any of the players from the computer doormat teams? There are a couple of players I'm quite interested in. If not, I'll forget about them, but one in particular would be fairly high on my draft list (with the baseball acumen possessed by the members of this league, I'm sure anyone who peruses the doormats' rosters will know who I'm looking at).

catcher24

11-19-2005, 06:35 AM

My vote on the issues requested:
1. I would prefer the 250K per season increase. In reality, a current player might have a performance clause built into their contract, but in the early 60's this was pretty unusual. If you won the triple crown, you got your negotiated raise per your contract.
2. Agree with this.
3. I think you know where I'm at on this - contracts for X number of years (hey, call me Don Quixote).
4. I vote against one forced FA per team, but if that rule applies, I would go by salary. I think that is more fair. If you went by position, the 9th place team could lose their highest paid player, without freeing up equivalent dollars to sign a comparable replacement. If you go by salary, the ninth place team will lose their ninth highest paid player - bad enough, but at least the dollars will be available for a comparable replacement player.

J W

11-19-2005, 07:19 AM

This is OK with me. And I can draft on Friday (US Time), although I will be busy from 6:00-7:00, and 9:00-11:00PM PST. Otherwise, any time after 3:00PM PST is fine.

I am going to have to work on Friday, so I'm out until around 6 pm EST. I can attempt to be online by that time as it correlates to 3 pm PST. I can't guarantee anything late night, so 6-9 EST is best for me, but if need be I can make myself free for the rest.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 07:23 AM

--Lew, beginning with 1962 draftees players would be free agents after 6 seasons. That does not apply to 1961 draftees. Those players are yours as long as you want/can afford them, unless we go with forced free agency in the early seasons. That is really the whole point of the one forced per team from thsi class. With everybody starting 19 million under the cap there will be no hard decisons to make on players the first couple off seasons without an artificial push inserted.
--I am not entirely opposed to contracts. I endorse them for any free agents signed, just not drafted players. The contract year proposal for FAs was; 8m+ players 3-5 years (owner choice), 5m-7.75 2-4 years, less than 5m 1-3. So you would have a player or several per season signed to multi-year deals (with locked in salaries) begining in 1962.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 07:29 AM

--How does 7 EST (4 PST) sound to everyone. I'd be happy if we could just get 3 rounds in to kick this off (although more would be great) and then keep going at the more leisurely pace through the weekend and following week. I think Edgar and I are the only PST owners and I'll be off early that afternoon.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 07:37 AM

Moose Skowron AV
Norm Cash VG
Jim Gentile VG
Roy Sievers FR
JC Martin AV, 3B VG
Vic Power EX, 2B VG
Pete Runnells FR, 2/3B FR
Vic Wertz AV
Harmon Killebrew FR, 3B FR, LF-PR
Steve Bilko AV
Ted Kluzewski FR
Gordy Coleman VG
Nork Larker FR
Ron Fairly FR, OF FR
Willie McCovey AV
Orlando Cepeda FR, L/RF FR
Joe Adcock VG
Dick Stuart PR
Ed Bouchee AV
Andre Rodgers FR, SS AV
Don Mincher AV

mac195

11-19-2005, 07:42 AM

7pm EST Friday is fine for me. I'll be on my second Saturday morning cup of coffee by then.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 07:55 AM

Bobby Richardson VG
Jake Wood AV
Jerry Adair AV, SS/3B FR
Marv Breeding VG
Nellie Fox AV
Johnny Temple FR
Mike de la Hoz FR, SS AV, 3B FR
Chuck Schilling EX
Billy Martin AV, SS FR
Rocky Bridges AV, SS AV, 3B PR
Ken Aspromionte VG
Bob Aspromonte AV
Eli Chacon FR, L/RF PR
Charlie Neal AV
Joey Amalfimilio AV, 3B FR
Chuck Hiller FR
Frank Bolling VG
Julain Javier AV
Red Schoendienst FR
Bill Mazeroski EX
Don Zimmer AV, 3B FR
Don Blasingame AS
Jerry Kindall AV, SS AV

J W

11-19-2005, 08:56 AM

My votes:

1) Contracts or not, I vote "yea" on $250k raises each year. Contracts would increase in salary each year as they are apt to do--and if we don't use contracts (essentially, everyone is signed to a one-year deal) this works great. In lieu of everyone else's opinion on what they would do, I'll drop my idea of performance-based escalators and we'll take it off the board.

2) "yea" on locking the 1st rounder at $12 mil, with two stipulations:

- No multi-year contracts
- These are "Lifers". They CANNOT be traded OR released via the Premium Free Agent (PFA) rule. When PFAs come up we remove the "Lifer" from the equation, and go #s 1-9 in salary.

To provide a way to get out of a big mess down the line I like mac's idea of a buyout clause. But the buyout of a "Lifer" should hurt in the short run.

3) I am changing my mind; I vote "nay" on multi-year contracts. What ultimately did it for me was that we would have an inefficient bidding system:

Player X receives two bids
- $10 mil w/ 3 yrs ($10, $10.25, $10.5 mil)
- $9 mil w/ 5 yrs ($9, $9.25, $9.5, $9.75, $10 mil)

Which one does he take? And, how would we keep track of each other during our shortened bidding process? Too complicated, won't be fun. In order to keep the flow during our auctions (which I think are great), we should simply go with the pay increases and right-of-first-refusal.

4) Absolutely not by defensive position. "yea" on payroll. The only problem is that I don't think the teams have enough flexibility regarding the PFA. I prefer it this way, giving everyone more flexibility:

a) Lifers (LFAs?) are locked out as well as anyone making $1 mil or less
b) Teams choose one keeper for next season
c) Staring with the last place owned team, a vote is taken on who leaves for FA by that player's team and those with worse records. Ties go to the higher team. Lets start hypothetically:

- From Team (A): (A) chooses Darrell
- From Team (B): (A) votes Mark and (B) votes Stan. Stan goes to FA.
- From Team (C): (A) votes John, (B) votes John and (C) votes Bill. John goes to FA.

...and so on until team (I) or whomever after expansion loses their player. Teams could vote for their entire list at once to speed things up... either via post or PM I guess. We could theoretically keep doing this past 1966 if we want.

J W

11-19-2005, 09:14 AM

One last comment, though - beginning in the mid-70's, not having contracts will in no way reflect reality. Before Messersmith/McNally, a team COULD keep a player as long as he wants; after that, no way - he had a contract or after five years he filed for free agency. Perhaps that is something that should be addressed as we approach that era (1975?).

That's a thought. But hey, who said this had to be so close to realism? Anyways if we can think of a way to straighten out the bidding process I'm all fine with contracts.

J W

11-19-2005, 09:16 AM

Mark - Will there be any way to access any of the players from the computer doormat teams?

I vote a big fat NO on that one, simply because our doormats are going to change from year to year.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 09:26 AM

J W

11-19-2005, 09:31 AM

West
Mac's Hard Cider (Mac195) - Yankee Stadium
538280 Cannons - Crosley Field
Edgar's Raptors (EdgartoHallofFame) - County Stadium
Kansas City Athletics (computer managed doormat)

Central
Leecemark Knights - Tiger Stadium
Dudecar00 Gamblers - Wrigley Field (LA)
Blalack Dollar Signs (charlesblalack@yahoo.com)- Fenway Park
Philadelphia Phillies (CM doormats)

East
JW Skipjacks - Memorial Stadium
Lew's Legends (Catcher24) - Forbes Field
Nails Quakers - Connie Mack Stadium
Washington Senators (CM doormats)

This is all out of whack... Yankee Stadium in the west? Forbes Field in the east?

Geographically it would be more like:

"Great Lakes" - County, Tiger, Wrigley
"Appalachian" - Crosley, Forbes, Memorial
"Coastal" - C-Mack, Fenway, Yankee

Is that better? Or do we bother with geography at all? I don't remember a jet-lag problem in Diamond Mind.

*EDIT* If we do go this way, we can create a completely new division if we expand and call it "Pacific"! We could offer Candlestick Park, Dodger Stadium, McAfee Coliseum (1966), Jack Murphy Stadium (1967)... and perhaps Municipal Stadium or the Astrodome (1965) if necessary.

J W

11-19-2005, 09:32 AM

--Actually the doormats won't change, or at least not on an an annual basis. Ideally we would want to have those players age and change just like the owned teams. The problem is, if we switch to the worst teams of 1962 many of their players would be on owned teams rosters already. I can't think of any remedy to that, other than keeping the 1961 doormats constant for a few seasons. I don't see any good way to allow their players to move either. They are already terrible and stripping them of their few good players makes them worse than I'd like to see.

But what happens when these teams get good?

And what about the problem that we have two teams playing in Connie Mack Stadium? I didn't have a problem with that assuming we'd use the worst teams each year.

*EDIT* Well we can solve the second problem by using Washington, KC, and the LA Angels. We can live with a 70-win team. Philadelphia gets better in a hurry anyways.

Also, I don't have a problem stripping them of their best players if it means keeping them down... but as to how and who would enter the FA market I dunno yet.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 09:38 AM

--JW, I'm not sure I like being locked into the first pick for life. I could live with it, but while I'd like to see owners have the option of building around a younger Hall of famer, I think you should be able to go for shorter term gratification if you want. Circumstances will also change over time and you may end up in a rebuilding mode a few years from now. I'd like to be able to move my star for younger players if that happens. I'd say the penalty for moving that player is just losing your one locked in player. Naturally, the inflation protection wouldn't follow that player if he was traded.
--I don't know that we need to complicate the forced FA process either (I have to admit I don't completely understand your idea, so maybe you could sell me with more detail). With my proposal, the team with the best record is going to see their 2nd pick/10 million dollar player file and the team with the worst record their 10th pick/2 million dollar player. That subtraction by payroll method would be in effect through 1967, costing each team 6 of their top 10 picks (or equivalent FA signings). You would still be able to hold your core somewhat together and guys you draft for the future, likely being less than 10th rounders, wouldn't be lost before you got to enjoy the fruits of your long term approach.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 09:52 AM

--We could alter divisions if there is discontent with my proposal. BTW the Wrigley in use is the LA version. I'll move the Phillies out of Connie Mack to accomodate the Quakers.
--The 61 doormats won't get good, becasue they will be the 61 version as long as they are in use. The actual Phillies, A's and Senators made trades that would take guys off owned rosters. We are also going to want to be able to use guys who came up with those teams.
--Also, those who have been in previous seasons will remember that traded players had only their stats from one team in use. That won't be the case in this league. All players will have their combined totals for 1961 used. For players who spent part of the year on a doormat they will be to the DM if that was their last stop in 1961 and be available for the draft if they were traded away from the DM.

J W

11-19-2005, 10:16 AM

--JW, I'm not sure I like being locked into the first pick for life. I could live with it, but while I'd like to see owners have the option of building around a younger Hall of famer, I think you should be able to go for shorter term gratification if you want. Circumstances will also change over time and you may end up in a rebuilding mode a few years from now. I'd like to be able to move my star for younger players if that happens. I'd say the penalty for moving that player is just losing your one locked in player. Naturally, the inflation protection wouldn't follow that player if he was traded.

There should be some kind of out I agree--that's why for this player I like mac's idea of a buyout... say, $10 mil? That's $2 mil cleared under the cap for next year and everything cleared thereafter.

Otherwise, I'd eliminate the $12 mil rule and if someone wants to pay that much for a developmental player, so be it.

J W

11-19-2005, 10:38 AM

--I don't know that we need to complicate the forced FA process either (I have to admit I don't completely understand your idea, so maybe you could sell me with more detail). With my proposal, the team with the best record is going to see their 2nd pick/10 million dollar player file and the team with the worst record their 10th pick/2 million dollar player. That subtraction by payroll method would be in effect through 1967, costing each team 6 of their top 10 picks (or equivalent FA signings). You would still be able to hold your core somewhat together and guys you draft for the future, likely being less than 10th rounders, wouldn't be lost before you got to enjoy the fruits of your long term approach.

Sorry about that... you know, I'll just go with the salary vote. Boom, "yea" on salary.

leecemark

11-19-2005, 10:44 AM

--We'll its not just a developmental player that is at issue here. You're already paying a premium for your first pick. It will take 8 years years for inflation to bring your 2nd pick up to the payroll level of your first and most of those guys won't stick with their original team long enough to make it. My primary concern is having to release a Frank Robinson or Hank Aaron in 1970 because their 14.5 million dollar price tag is above market value. A small hometown discount for a player whose been with you since day one is not out of line with realistic simulation. I might even want to keep them into the mid-70s when they are really just bit players, if they have been an important part of my (hoped for) success over the years. The highest paid FA in DM III got 12.5 million. I assume at some point a few players may get more in this league, but with built-in inflation the great players of 61 will get priced over market before they are done.

J W

11-19-2005, 10:51 AM

J W

11-19-2005, 10:53 AM

In regards to the $12 mil rule... my vote (which is only one vote) stands:

a) yes, if a buyout is the only option for release, or
b) no

I'll rest here so some others can voice their opinions. Which rules do we have a consensus on now?

leecemark

11-19-2005, 10:56 AM

Tony Kubek VG
Chico Fernandez FR, 3B FR
Ron Hansen EX, 2B VG
Louis Aparicio VG
Woody Held FR
Don Buddin FR
Pumpsie Green FR, 2B FR
Ziolo Versalles VG
Joe Koppe AV, 2B PR
Eddie Kasko AV, @B PR, 3B Fr
Leo cardenas AV
Maury Wills VG
Jose Pagan AV, L/RF PR
Ed Broussard FR, 3B PR
Roy McMillan EX
Felix Mantilla FR, 3B AV, 2b FR, OF PR
Alex Grammas VG, 2b AV, 3B FR
Bob Lillis FR, 2B VG
Dick Groat AV
Ernie Banks AV , 1B AV, LF PR
Dick McAuliffe FR, 3B FR

J W

11-19-2005, 11:06 AM

I forgot one more thing: do we have a randomizer for draft order?

leecemark

11-19-2005, 11:09 AM

Clete Boyer EX, SS FR
Billy Gardner AV, 2B Fr
Steve Boros FR
Brooks Robisnon EX
Al Smith FR, L/RF FR, CF PR
Andy carey FR
Bubba Phillips AV
Frank Malzone AV
Bill Tuttle AV, OF VG, 2b PR
Ted Lepio FR, 2B AV, SS PR
Eddie Yost FR
Gene Leek VG, SS_AV, LF FR
Gene Freese AV
Junior Gilliam AV, 2B AV
Daryl Spencer AV, SS FR
Jim Davenport EX
Eddie Mathews AV
Ken Boyer EX
Don Hoak FR
Ron Santo VG
Rene Bertinia AV

Edgartohof

11-19-2005, 12:45 PM

538280

11-19-2005, 01:21 PM

leecemark

11-19-2005, 01:52 PM

--A couple notes before moving to the OF defensive ratings. A CF can move to the corners with little or no penalty, evenif they didn't play there in the real season. A RF can also move to LF with little penalty. A LF moving to RF would be penalized slightly more, but it won't ruin your defense. Any corner OF will be punished severely by a move to CF if they aren't rated there.
--This is generally true of other moves to unrated positions. Players moving down the defensive spectrum will retian most of their value. For example a SS movign to 3B will be penalized roughly one grade. A 3B moviing to SS would drop more like 2. Anybody moving to catcher is a problem. Catcher is the one position where you HAVE to schedule days off, so a good backup is a big plus and a third catcher you can use in event of injury is a must.
--One issue with player ratings is guys who have proven they can play a positon in the past and will do so again in the future. Just because his manager in a given season didn't use Harmon Killebrew at 3B or Frank Robinson at 1B in a given season doesn't mean you shouldn't able to. I won't add positons for anybody in 1961, but in the future if you have a guy in that posiiton I will rate him at one grade below his previous season at the missing position for you (which would give you a PR 3B in Killebrew's case, but the option is there anyway).

Nails

11-19-2005, 02:35 PM

leecemark

11-19-2005, 03:00 PM

Yogi Berra FR/VG, C A/a
Hector Lopez Av/AV
Rocky Colavito AV/EX, RF-A
Charlie Maxwell AV/FR, RF_A
Whitey Herzog FR/FR, RF-F
Dick Williams FR/FR, 1B FR, 3/2B PR
Dave Philly PR/PR
Minnie MInoso FR/VG
Tito Francona AV/AV, 1b-Fr
Bob Neiman FR/FR
Yaz FR/EX
Leon wagner FR/FR
Lee Thomas av/av, 1b-fr
George Thomas FR/FR, 3B/CF-FR
Wally Post AV/AV, RF-A
Jerry Lynch PR/PR
Tommy Davis FR/FR, 3B/CF-FR
Frank Howard PR/FR, 1B FR
Harvey Kuenn FR/FR, 3B PR
Matty Alou AV/FR, CF FR
Frank Thomas AV/FR, 1b FR
Stan Musial FR/FR
Joe Cunningham FR/PR, CF PR 1B FR
Bob Skinner PR/AV
Joe Christopher AV/FR
Al Spangler AV/AV, CF FR
Billy Williams FR/FR

leecemark

11-19-2005, 03:05 PM

Mickey Mantle VG/VG
Bill Bruton EX?AV
Russ Synder AV/AV
Jim Landis VG/VG
Jimmie Peirsall VG/VG
Don Dillard FR/FR, RF AV
Gary Geiger VG/EX
Lenny Green AV/VG
Albie Pearson AV/VG, RF-VG
Vada Pinson EX/EX
Willie Davis AV/VG
Duke Snider FR/VG, RF-AV
Willie Mays EX/EX
Mack Jones FR/AV
Curt Flood AV/VG
Don Taussig FR/VG, RF AV
Bill Virdon AV/VG
Richie Ashburn FR/FR
Al Heist FR/VG

leecemark

11-19-2005, 03:13 PM

Roger maris AV/EX, CF AV
Al Kaline VG/VG, CF VG
Jackie Brandt AV/VG, CF AV
Floyd Robinson AV/AV
Willie Kirland AV/VG
Jackie Jensen AV/VG
Jim Lemon AV/AV, CF-AV
Ken HUnt AV/AV, CF -AV
Frank Robinson VG/AV, CF aV
Gus Bell FR/FR
Felipe Alou AV/AV, CF FR
Hank Aaron VG/VG, CF VG
Charlie James FR?FR, CF FR
Roberto Clemente AV/EX, CF AV
Earl Robinson AV VG, CF FR
George Altman AV/VG, CF FR
Chuck essegan FR/AV, CF FR
Bubba Morton FR/FR
Lee Maye FR/FR
Bob Allison AV/VG

The Dude

11-19-2005, 08:06 PM

I don't know if I'll be able to draft friday, 'cause I usually have to work fridays. I'll try and get off of work if I do though.

mac195

11-20-2005, 12:44 AM

Mark, what is the ruling on players who spent part of the season with a doormat? Does eligibility depend on where they finished the year, or which team they played the most games with?

leecemark

11-20-2005, 07:05 AM

--If a players last team of 1961 was a doormat they belong to them. If they were traded away from a doormat they are eligible for the draft.

catcher24

11-20-2005, 03:35 PM

Posted by Mark:
I am not entirely opposed to contracts. I endorse them for any free agents signed, just not drafted players. The contract year proposal for FAs was; 8m+ players 3-5 years (owner choice), 5m-7.75 2-4 years, less than 5m 1-3. So you would have a player or several per season signed to multi-year deals (with locked in salaries) begining in 1962.

I like this rule. It works for me,and I would like to see us use it..

I am in favor of the one 12K "cornerstone" player, with no penalty when he is released. You simply lose your one lifetime, no raise player.

7PM Friday will work for me.

catcher24

11-20-2005, 03:40 PM

After some private discussion with Mark, I have decided to run a concurrent league with the Out of The Park simulation. None of you will need to do anything. I will simply do a manual draft of the players, assigning them to the appropriate teams. I have registered with Geocities for some free web space (with ads, of course), and once I've figured it out will be uploading standings, stats, etc. Because of the games design, I will be simming one week at a time (different from the way Mark does it with DM). Once I have simmed a week, I will leave the boxscores up for all games that week on the site for two or three days. That way, if you wish, you can go in and look at the boxscores for all of your team's games. The scores include substitution notes and DP's made, as well as a player of the game, attendance, weather, etc. I will try this so that everyone interested can get a feel for what OOTP can provide, and a comparison can be made. Any questions, feel free to PM me, or post here.

catcher24

11-20-2005, 04:29 PM

Regarding the doormat teams, does DM have the capability of adding them AFTER the initial draft? Or perhaps all of their players could be released to the draft (along with all the other teams), and then three teams could be formed AFTER the draft of active managers, filling them in with the original players minus any taken in the draft (looking at the rosters, I can see that wouldn't be very many). Not sure what DM's capabilities are, so don't know how much leeway there is with what can be done. If this is possible, it could then be done each year with the three worst teams.

leecemark

11-20-2005, 06:11 PM

--It would be possible to do that for 1961. I'm actually going to have to release all players before the draft and rebuild the doormats later anyway. It would be unweildy going forward though. Looking over those rosters I see some usefull players, but nobody who is going to be severely missed if they are available for the draft. The easiest thing for me is going to be using the 1961 teams as is for a few years. If the project proves successfull the first expansion will probably be an expansion draft to replace the doormats with live owners.

mac195

11-20-2005, 07:18 PM

--If a players last team of 1961 was a doormat they belong to them. If they were traded away from a doormat they are eligible for the draft.

Would their 1961 performace be based on the full season, or just the portion played with the team they finish the season on?

leecemark

11-20-2005, 07:23 PM

--Full season for all players. The last league we were using a greatest teams program and the only data available was time played on those particular teams. With seasonal disks there is team specific data, but also a full season record for players. The later will be used for all players.

leecemark

11-20-2005, 07:39 PM

--There seems to be a strong consenus on not using performance based raises and limiting it to 250K for all players who appear for the MLB squad (no raise for anyone who spends the full season in the minors). We have also agreed that your first pick in the draft will be yours at 12 million dollars as long as he remains on your ballclub (without restrictions on trading or releasing that player). We have further agreed that each team will have one player file for free agency following each of the first six seasons. The last point open to discussion was how that player will be determined. Doing it by standings/payroll was the unamimous decision.
--I think we still have some issues to hash out for followon seasons, but that can wait awhile. I'd like to get on to the fun stuff now. Draft info to follow.

leecemark

11-20-2005, 07:52 PM

1) Cannons
2) Knights
3) Hard Cider
4) Gamblers
5) Raptors
6) Legends
7) Quakers
8) Dollar Signs
9) Skip Jacks
--the order will be reversed with each round, giving JW's Skipjacks the 9th and 10th pick. We've got the official draft time set for Friday at 7 EST. I'd like everyone to either be on-line or give a draft list to myself or another owner for a couple hours worth of picks. That doesn't have to be very first picks though.
--Chris, if you know who you want with the first pick you can go anytime. The 12 hour clock won't apply until the official start time. For the hours of 7-9 on Friday, however, the clock will be 5 minutes per picks so please be ready. If you aren't on line and haven't provided a list to your choosen proxy then your turn will be skipped and you'll have to do makeup picks after 9 EST that night (12 hour clock will start at that time).
--I'll get a draft thread up immediately after this post.

J W

11-20-2005, 08:40 PM

OK, I've been outvoted. We'll get the draft out of the way and figure out the other stuff later. And my reward was the last pick :laugh . I'm pretty much assured a developmental squad. Will the pitchers be listed, btw?

I only have one request regarding the draft: NO TRADING YET PLEASE! Thanks.

mac195

11-20-2005, 09:04 PM

Forgive me if this has already been answered, but will we be allowing trades of draft picks, now or in future rookie drafts?

leecemark

11-20-2005, 09:09 PM

--The issue hasn't been addressed. In MLB baseball, however, trading draft picks is prohibited. We are trying for a realistic experience here, so the default would be no. If you want it allowed and can get 5 of nine owners to agree then okay. Probably easier to just make the selection on behalf of your prospective trade partner and trade the actual players rather than the pick.

mac195

11-20-2005, 09:11 PM

And my reward was the last pick
I don't know if that is such a bad thing. There are more than 10 great players available, without a whole lot a difference between them after the first 4 or so. You'll have the advantage of choosing two together who can compliment each other. I'd almost be willing to trade places with you... almost. ;)

leecemark

11-20-2005, 09:18 PM

--Like Mac I probably wouldn't trade spots with you (Mays, Aaron and Robinson stand out for me as long lived stars), but I'd rather have the twin pick spot at the end than one in the middle. Of course, in the middle you never have to wait quite as long between picks. Theres something good (and bad) to be said about any slot.

leecemark

11-21-2005, 06:08 AM

--JW, there will not be a list of pitcher, nor were the defensive ratings intended to be a comprehensive list of available position players. I tried to identify all the player who had over 100 PA in 1961 and therefore would be usefull to teams this season. There are many players who had bit parts in 1961 and who will be valuable in subsequent seasons not included. I didn't include defensive ratings for them, because they will vary from year to year. A guy who looked great (or terrible) in a small sample size can be just as misleading defensively as offensively.
--Since pitcher defense isn't going to make any difference in my own draft list (that is ALWAYS small sample size), I assumed that would be true for everyone. Sorry if that assumption was incorrect.
--If anyone here doesn't have a Baseball Encyclopedia or other good reference to build a 1961 draft list from, the team rosters (and all player stats) are easily referenced at baseball-reference.com. If you haven't already started working on a draft list, you've got some homework to do between now and Friday.

J W

11-21-2005, 04:28 PM

Sorry, didn't mean to come across that way about my draft spot... just going by my history I do better picking early, so that was more to myself even though I typed it :p.

I want to request something new concerning the draft. I think our top salaries should be forced to play in some fashion (not sure about the details). Reason being, it would be fairly easy to purposely tank a season in order to ensure a good draft pick.

We're playing the part of both owner and manager... and I would think in real life if a manager was busted in such a fashion he'd be suspended/banned from the league.

J W

11-21-2005, 04:46 PM

Here's what I have:

X) 12 teams, 3 divisions
X) The cap set at $100 mil
X) The 1961 draft and pay scale totaling $81 mil
X) Trade deadline (100 G/ July 31)
X) Tenders - base raises of $250k/year for MLBers
X) First round draft pick locked at $12 mil - no tender needed
X) Right of first refusal for '61 players
X) '61-'66: Free agency loss by wins vs. salary
X) Subsequent drafts in reverse order of finish

...that should take us to our first auction before the '62 season.

The 1961 draft is a unique event, but for the sake of subsequent seasons I think it may be best to post a rules thread for this stuff, as well as debate over the rules. Can you find time for this Mark or would you like one of us to take care of it?
-------------------------------------------------

I'm only unsure of one thing, which doesn't apply for now: Is our $12 mil player subject to in-voluntary FA loss due to salary or not? I would prefer not. Otherwise there really isn't anything special about our first rounder.

catcher24

11-21-2005, 06:32 PM

Sixth draft spot...Well, that pretty much eliminates me from getting any of my top choices (already mentioned by Mark). But that still leaves some pretty good players.

catcher24

11-21-2005, 06:35 PM

BTW, not league related, but am I the only one who is getting an extremely slow response time at the Fever? Pages are loading very slowly, and when I link into it, seems to take forever for the page(s) to load. This seems to be the only site where I am having that problem. Just wondering if anyone else is having the same problem.

leecemark

11-21-2005, 07:24 PM

--JW, this thread can continue to serve as the rules discussion thread. I'll start a 1961 season thread (and a separate schedule thread*) when we're ready to get going. I'll amend the rules in post 2 as we settle on them. I think the first pick/perpetual 12million $ man will be protected from involuntary free agency as long as he remains your highest paid player. The forced free agents are the 2nd thru 10th highest paid. So if you sign a free agent for more than 12m in the 6 years of forced free agency you would be putting that player at risk. The alternative would be to make the forced FA the first thru ninth highest paid, excluding your original pick. I'd be okay with either plan.
*I tried to generate a schedule and get ahead of the game on posting that, but the program rejected scheduling the playerless rosters.

catcher24

11-22-2005, 04:58 PM

Posted by Mark:
The alternative would be to make the forced FA the first thru ninth highest paid, excluding your original pick.

This is an excellent alternative. I don't know how the others feel about it, but I think being able to hang onto your first pick for as long as you want, even if another player or players eventually pass him in pay, is a nice option to have. Your idea would make sure that happens.

catcher24

11-22-2005, 05:12 PM

Mark - Any decision yet on how the doormats will be handled, ie: will any of their players be available in the draft? My thought was to make all of their players eligible for the draft, then fill them in after the nine human teams are all done. They would still get some pretty decent players, and probably be as competetive (or more so) than just locking in their original players. That way, if anyone else is ever interested in joining, the team they inherit might not be quite so bad. A decision would need to be made on how to handle them in the '62 draft and free agents, but there is time for that discussion later. Just a thought.

mac195

11-22-2005, 05:30 PM

My thought was to make all of their players eligible for the draft, then fill them in after the nine human teams are all done. They would still get some pretty decent players, and probably be as competetive (or more so) than just locking in their original players.

We are drafting 40 rounds. It's hard to imagine any decent players going unselected. The doormats would be truely horrible if every player they have is worse than even the minor leaguers on the main squads. I think it would probably be better if the doormats are at least somewhat competitive. If they aren't, then teams will want to resuffle their lineups for almost every series with a doormat to avoid using up PAs and IPs of good players unnecessarily, and that would make for a lot more work running the league. Of course you could fill in the doormats with players from some other era, but that would detract from the realism.

J W

11-22-2005, 05:47 PM

I'll officially cast my vote for excluding the first rounder from the PFM lists, joining C24. I still like the idea of penalizing the team at least a little bit for trading or releasing their franchise guy... like a $5 mil cap hit or something. But the first part is more important to me.

Re: doormats -- I'm under the impression now, that these three teams (1961 Phillies, Royals, Senators) will remain their 1961 versions indeterminately... and that if we expand, we will do so by adding three teams at once (either to the existing divisions or by making a fourth). Players belonging to these doormats would not be eligible for us. I can certainly live with this.

I'm intrigued by C24's suggestion however. I think by tightening the doormats up top-to-bottom, at the expense of their best players, we'll still have awful teams (they'll essentially get draft picks 361-480) but they won't be complete ghosts. I'm with him on this. It may be too late for it though if the draft has started.

*EDIT* looks like mac is against it and believes they would be worse. I wish I could say for sure either way; guess we have to crunch some #s. Perhaps we could incorporate these teams in our own draft? Ooo... that would be awesome... say, at the end of Rounds 10 and 20, each doormat gets three players picked by owners from another division! May be too crazy but I love it.

Re: multi-year contracts -- according to what is written so far, I assume that our bidding process will be thus:

a) FA goes to highest bidder
b) winning bidder determines length of contract based on bid

If that's the case, we've solved our auction problem. Thumbs up!

leecemark

11-22-2005, 07:12 PM

--JW, you are correct in that I intend for the doormats to be the 1961 versions of those teams for at least several seasons. Building teams after we draft 360 players out the league would lead to teams that might lose 150 games. As for expansion, I thought is the first expansion would elimiante the doormats. If we ever have three good new owners lined up they could have whatever players were left from 1961 (in their current year version whatever that may be) and draft form the current owners unwanted players. They would be defacto doormats in their first season, but could build competitive teams within a year or two. We don't really need to settle that issue now though. I'd be surprised if we need to expand for the next couple "years". History says we will be looking for a replacement owner or two each season rather than expanding to a new group.

J W

11-23-2005, 03:51 PM

Entirely fine with keeping the doormats as is. We've started the draft anyways.

:gt

catcher24

11-23-2005, 05:09 PM

Posted by JW:
Perhaps we could incorporate these teams in our own draft? Ooo... that would be awesome... say, at the end of Rounds 10 and 20, each doormat gets three players picked by owners from another division! May be too crazy but I love it.

Actually, JW, I was going to propose such an idea, but wasn't exactly sure how to go about it. I like your idea a great deal. Perhaps they should get one pick each after round five, two at ten, three at fifteen, four at twenty - and then one pick every round. I imagine there will be serious opposition to this, but I like the idea. Although this way they wouldn't take the cream, they would be competitive, and in future years they could be included in the rookie draft.

leecemark

11-23-2005, 07:27 PM

--I like the idea of drafting our doormats along the lines of JW/Lew's plan. That would solve the problem of the doormats not aging and evolving along with the other teams. It is a bit of a technical problem though. The draft program is going to require me to pick a player for each team in the league in turn. Using the currently assigned doormats, as is, I can just pluck somebody off their roster as their pick as it comes up. Deferring their pick until later and doing multiple picks would complicate the process quite a bit.

J W

11-23-2005, 08:30 PM

Well, the biggest problem with doing it that way in my book is that we've already started... but skimming through the three teams, I don't see anybody being drafted for a short while at least.

If we draft for the doormats, I suggest we do so three picks at a time so everyone can get their shot in at the same time. I'd also do them after even #ed rounds so none of us gain advantage (yes this would help me the most).

How's this, 6 picks after every 10 rounds. We can go right through our ladder as each of us would pick 1 player for the two doormats in other divisions... and pick up right where we leave off at round 11/21/31.

The doormats end up with 18 players to our 40. Then we can fill the rest after the draft.

Here's the kicker--we don't necessarily need to progress these teams. We can, or we can keep them right where they are year-after-year (assuming Mark was going to do so anyway).

Is this ok? We could field decent doormats this way if 1961 is all we have to worry about... but they'll still finish last. And it's merely a blip on our schedule.

leecemark

11-23-2005, 08:53 PM

--As I said, drafting the doormats rather than using intact teams creates a technical problem for me. I wouldn't mind some extra work if the gain for the league as a whole was worth it, but making the players off these 3 teams available doesn't seem to be a big plus. I'm afraid this idea isn't going to fly. We can discuss rules for 1962 and forward, but unless some unforseen issue comes up I think the rules for 1961 are going to have to remain as is.

catcher24

11-24-2005, 04:35 AM

Quick note, and couple of questions this morning, before I go to work.

Mark, I understand your technical problem. I am going to have the same one filling in the rosters for the OOTP version. I'm simply going to draft one of the current players onto each doormat roster when their turn comes up in the draft. You could do the same thing, with some restrictions on who can be selected, to avoid the doormats getting the cream, which of course we are trying to avoid. Perhaps something along the lines of, no player who had over 100 career WS could be picked in the first 15 rounds, then anyone is fair game over the remaining draft. Of course, the easiest (and at this juncture, probably the route to take) is leave them alone for 1961, then permit them to participate in the new player draft for the succeeding years, or let them sign some free agents no one else picks up.

Anyway, two rules clarifications:
1. When does the FA clock start ticking on players drafted and placed in the minors? Does the six years start counting right away, or only after they appear on a ML roster? I think I saw the answer somewhere, but can't find it right away.
2. If I take a player in, say, round 12 for 750K and then place him in the minors, does his salary increase every year? According to the rules, it wouldn't.

leecemark

11-24-2005, 04:56 AM

--For 1961 the teams are going to have to remain as is. No 1961 Phillies, Senators or A's are draft eligible. We can discuss their future season construction later, but C24's idea seems workable.
--Players drafted in 1961 won't be subject to the 6 year clock. If you manage to hang on to them through the 6 years of forced free agency they would never be eliigible to "file". They would be on your roster until their cost outweighs their value to you or they retire. Players drafed 1962 forward have their 6 years tracked from draft year. All players drafted in 1962 will be on the free agent market in 1968, even if they only have a couple years of MLB service time.
--Players who spend the ENTIRE season in the minors will not be due the 250K raise. A single plate appearance or batter faced will require a salary hike though. That will create some hard choices about who to call up to fill a short term need, and September call ups.
--The Basic Rules in post number 2 of this thread have been updated as we've agreed to changes or additions to the original ones.

catcher24

11-24-2005, 02:01 PM

Posted by Mark:
No 1961 Phillies, Senators or A's

That's really too bad:( , because as I look at the Phils' roster, I can begin to appreciate why three short years later they challenged for the pennant and would in fact have won it if not for the greatest season ending swoon ever. I hope we can tap into some of that talent next year; the problem is figuring out how to work it. And thanks for clarifying those two questions for me!:waving

leecemark

11-24-2005, 02:41 PM

--Lew, I only see two players on that team who went on to be more than solid players. Johnny Callison was a very good OF for most of the 60s, although not quite an elite one. Same for pitcher Chris Short. There are some others who could help a team and possibly start, but nobody who is going to be a difference maker. The As and Senators have even less in the way of upside (although Norm Seiburn is the best 1961 player in any of the 3 teams).
--The best pitcher on that 64 Phillies club, Jim Bunning, came via trade and is unlikely to suit up for the Phillies in our league (but is draft eligible). The best player, Richie Allen, hadn't reached the majors in 1961 and will be draft eligible when he arrives in a couple years.
--P.S. Its your pick whenever you're ready.

catcher24

11-25-2005, 08:14 AM

Posted by Mark:
--P.S. Its your pick whenever you're ready

HUH??!! :eek: What have I missed now? I thought the draft was occurring tonight (Friday) at 7PM! I must have screwed up somewhere. Is there a draft thread that I missed? I don't check each section every day. Darn!

538280

11-25-2005, 08:28 AM

HUH??!! :eek: What have I missed now? I thought the draft was occurring tonight (Friday) at 7PM! I must have screwed up somewhere. Is there a draft thread that I missed? I don't check each section every day. Darn!

Mark said he wants everyone here so we can go through the first few rounds tonight, but he also said that I could make the first pick whenever I wanted. I made the first pick a few days ago, and the draft is already underway.

catcher24

11-25-2005, 11:17 AM

OK, thanks, Chris. I did figure it out and made my first pick. The lightening rounds tonight will be nerve wracking, though!:atthepc :eek:

J W

11-25-2005, 03:23 PM

I'm checking in for tonight. (HERE!)

It might be a good idea for everyone else who's here by now to post as such. BTW Blalack, take your time, my head needs to stop spinning before I draft. :crazy

mac195

11-25-2005, 03:49 PM

Am I drafting against a bunch of foggy-headed holiday drunks today? Excellent. :D

mac195

11-25-2005, 03:59 PM

Hmmmmmmm.......... I see a potential problem here. The FanHome clock is about 15 minutes behind real time. I have an appointment at 9:00 EST (real time) so I'll have to be out of here at at about 8:40 FanHome time... can resume at 9:50 if others are here.

Nails

11-25-2005, 04:01 PM

I'm in and I'm on codeine. I also get to start working at 8 (which shouldn't be too much of a problem).

leecemark

11-25-2005, 04:09 PM

--What is Fan Home? I've got about 3:20. We can get underway as soon as Charles checks in (or 4:05 if he isn't here by then). The current rotation is Charles, JW for 2 (present), back to Charles, Nails (present), Lew (not here yet, but I'm sure he will be on time, Edgar (??), Dudecar (who sent me a list), Mac (present), Me (present) and Chris for 2 (I expect he will be here too). I have someplace to be at 6:30 PST, so the scheduled 2 hours is all I can do. I will check back in later this evening though.

catcher24

11-25-2005, 04:25 PM

OK, here I am checking in. Haven't been this nervous for a while. :crazy It's a lot different drafting players you're going to live with for several years rather than for one season! Any major mistakes here could haunt a team for three or four years, at least.

J W

11-25-2005, 04:27 PM

merf.

That's it! I'm drafting Ty Cobb. :crazy

catcher24

11-25-2005, 04:29 PM

Nice pick JW!! Think I'll go with the Babe in the second round if he lasts that long; otherwise, Gehrig it will be.:D

mac195

11-25-2005, 04:29 PM

FanHome is the baseball board I used to post on years ago. Guess I need another cup of coffee...

leecemark

11-25-2005, 04:30 PM

--I guess Fan Home must be another name for BBF? I see the post time here is about 15 minutes behind real time. We'll give Charles till 4 BBF time to make his pick before moving ahead.

catcher24

11-25-2005, 04:33 PM

Ummm, would 4 BBF time be 7 for those of us back east?:p

leecemark

11-25-2005, 04:40 PM

--Or Saturday mornign for those really Far East.

J W

11-25-2005, 04:45 PM

Actually, should we make the official start 11:45 BBF time? I figure going by the site would keep it most easily tracked (like we did with the auctions).

leecemark

11-25-2005, 04:48 PM

--1145? It was set for 7 EST. The Dollar Signs should be on the clock now by real time, but we'll give Charles until the top of the hour by BBF time .

catcher24

11-25-2005, 04:49 PM

Sounds OK to me. I'm anxious to get going.

J W

11-25-2005, 04:50 PM

Okee dokee. Just so we don't create another doormat in case Blalock is out for the evening, we should come up with some sort of proxy system.

I like some of these fake owner names btw :p

leecemark

11-25-2005, 04:53 PM

--WCF, of DM I and II, is on standby if an owner fails to show. If Charles doesn't have his pick in the next 10 minutes he should be ready to step in. Edgar is still missing in action too. If Charles shows and Edgar hasn't checked in by the time in back to the Raptars we have Plan B ready for that spot.

catcher24

11-25-2005, 04:56 PM

Time Check!!

J W

11-25-2005, 05:00 PM

I've got two certain outfielders and I have no idea who to pick between the two. :hp Anyways, that's not the real toughie.

leecemark

11-25-2005, 05:00 PM

--Two minutes to Charles deadline or a change in ownership. Lighting round begins then wither way. Five minute max per pick.

leecemark

11-25-2005, 05:14 PM

--WCF, let me know what name and park you want to use. No hurry.

Windy City Fan

11-25-2005, 05:16 PM

Which parks are taken?

leecemark

11-25-2005, 05:28 PM

--The list and the division you are assigned to (you're replacing the Dollar Signs) are in post 1 of this thread.

J W

11-26-2005, 11:13 AM

Our first article:
----------------------------
Skipjacks Stepping Into the Majors
Ray "Scoops" McRae

After years of dominating the small pond, the Skipjacks are ready to try a bigger body of water.

At 7pm last night, Owner T. D. Dum and his team officially declared themselves part of the new BBF leagues. The Leagues annouced their full alignment, with 12 teams in their inaugural season, divided evenly. The Skipjacks will be placed in the William Hulbert Division alongside two other teams who dominated their respective leagues, the Nails Quakers and Lew Legends.

Mr. Dum was delighted upon the news that his team was granted a spot in this recontruction project. "After all that's happened in the past couple years, the entire baseball community was afraid we may have lost our sport. Thanks to Mr. Leece it looks like we won't miss much more than a beat... and everyone here is delighted to be part of this league."

After the sudden dissolvement of the Major Leagues surrounding their latest much-talked-about opium scandal and bankruptcy, Mark Leece, owner of one of the nation's most prominent minor-league franchises, declared his intentions to take reigns of the situation. Amidst rumors of backrooom deals allowing his cronies to participate, he power-played the cash-stripped Majors, taking only three small market teams (Phillies, Royals, Senators) and forcing the rest of the teams out of business. He proceeded to grab stadium and merchandising rights in breathtaking manner. Rumor also has it that he and his cronies are in the process of distributing the entirety of Major League talent between them as I write.

This kind of secrecy from the public is giving the Skipjacks' fan base mixed feelings about the whole thing. Says local baseball afficionado Arnold "Bubba" Jameson of Reisterstown:

"I don't know (about whether to keep being a fan)... I mean, you know (how the Majors dissolved amidst contraversy) and stuff (hasn't been conducive to rooting for the new teams either)."

Mr. Dum isn't phased. "We've put in a request for Memorial Stadium so we can stay in the area, and we intend to do a better job. We are a model organization, a clean organization, and we are here to put a better product on the field for the fans. Sure it may take a couple years to gain their trust, but I am confident we will."

Whether this proves true or not, the Skipjacks are moving up in the world and everyone is enjoying it at the moment.

"Man this is just unbelievable, I'm thrilled", says outspoken manager Willie "Codfish" Spatz. "How can you not get pumped up coaching Mic... uh, the caliber of players we'll be getting?"

General Manager Phillip "Beanie" Bills is more cautiously optimistic. "This is a seminal moment in the history of our sport, and it is up to us to make it last. Hopefully we can establish a system that will carry major-league baseball into the next century."

Ultimately, no matter how their feelings are manifested, Sparrow's Point ironworker Mickey M. Bitzko sums everything up best: "Hey, like a (blank) it can't be beat!"

For full division alignment information, see page 1.

leecemark

11-26-2005, 11:26 AM

From the Gotham Daily
--Turmoil continues in the start up of the new league. The initial player draft was slightly delayed as the owner of the newly founded Dollar Signs failed to come up with the cash to build a team. Former DM owner Windy City Fan stepped up and brought the Thunder into the league, allowing the draft to go forward.
--Edgar's Raptors also failed to show and surrogates made his 2nd-5th picks for him. Edgar's owner has a shakey track record in the minor league history of the DM League and faces a short deadline to put his house in order or lose his franchise. Another former DM league owner, ElHalo, has offered to assume the reins if Edgar can't get the job done. Elhalo guided his team to the championship in DM I and a playoff berth in DM II before slipping last season and temporarily stepping away from the game. he would be assuming the team in time to make the team's 6th pick.
--The Thunder don't as yet have a stadium lined up, but are confident that wont be a problem. The Raptor may well move under new ownership as well. Getting a project of this size off the ground never seems to go smoothly, but I'm confident that the new DM League will be the future of professional baseball.

catcher24

11-26-2005, 11:36 AM

allowing his cronies to participate

I love being a cronie!!:waving :laugh

Nice work, guys. Didn't know we had so many unpublished authors in this league!

leecemark

11-26-2005, 04:56 PM

--Okay Elhalo has a team, drafting in the Raptors spot. EH, you will need to give me a team name and pick a stadium. Current draft lineup is JW, WCF, Nails, C24 and then Elhalo.

catcher24

11-26-2005, 05:13 PM

Welcome back, ElHalo! You were always an excellent adversary. Good luck and enjoy!

mac195

11-26-2005, 11:37 PM

Mark and I were discussing what might happen with the forced free agent situation if a team had two players with equal salaries. For example if, after a trade, I have two players making $8 million, tied for the 4th highest salary, and I finish with the third or 4th best record, I would need to give up one of those players to free agency. My idea is that owners would have the right to choose which of the two players to give up. What do others think?

Windy City Fan

11-26-2005, 11:38 PM

I would agree, the owner can choose.

leecemark

11-26-2005, 11:52 PM

--I'll go along with that, although it wasn't my original position. I would like to propose a twist though. The guy you want to keep gets a larger than scale (250K) raise. It could be as little as 500K or as much as 1m depending on what you guys think.

leecemark

11-27-2005, 12:06 AM

--I'd like to make another proposal too. The rules currently state that if your forced free agent is on a multi-year contract he would be a hold out until you trade him. I got to thinking that you might have a player who was so expensive that nobody else could or would want to afford him. Or maybe nobody else just thinks he is worth what you're paying him. You could end up paying a guy not to play all season (or even several years). I'd like to have that holdout end a month into the season and allow the player back into your lineup if you haven't traded him. Of course, you could just refuse to trade him also f you were willing to play without him for a month rather than make a deal.

Nails

11-27-2005, 12:18 AM

mac195

11-27-2005, 12:46 AM

-- The guy you want to keep gets a larger than scale (250K) raise. It could be as little as 500K...
That sounds reasonable.

leecemark

11-27-2005, 04:45 AM

--Nails most guys will be on year to year deals, so if you don't want them anymore you just don't offer them a contract. The only guys on multi-year contracts will be those you sign as free agents. Since you already know what their projected performance is going to be every year, hopefully you won't get yourself into a deal where buying out was neccessary.

catcher24

11-27-2005, 05:55 AM

Two things. First, as for choosing the forced free agent if two players have the same salary, I agree with the owner being able to pick. It seems that if both are receiving a fairly high salary already (at least 2M), just losing one should be penalty enough. I don't agree that the one you keep should get more of a raise. As usual, I will go along with the majority, just expressing my own opinion.
As for a "holdout" situation, I think THIS is where the owner should be given the option of increasing the guys salary. As I recall, this is the situation where a player signed as a free agent to a multi-year contract becomes the forced free agent. I would like to propose that the owner be given the option of offering a raise (renegotiated contract), perhaps equivalent to 20% of the current contract or 1M (whatever everyone agrees on), and resign the player to a new contract, or to let him become a free agent. I don't like the option of simply losing the guy for a month due to bad luck (which is what it boils down to in this situation). Thoughts?

leecemark

11-27-2005, 06:31 AM

--Well losing the guy for free agency is just bad luck too. I just don't see making a guy in the middle of a multi-year deal a free agent as very realistic. Hold outs do happen and so do players forcing a trade. If the scenario is a guy whose contract is already too big to move, then increasing it to keep him isn't going to be a very good option.
-- One alternative to having the player sit for a month would be putting him on waivers if you can't trade him. Teams would have the opportunity to claim him and his contract (in inverse order of the previous years standings). If nobody did then he would have to report back to his original team for the season. Kind of like the situation with Manny in the 2003-4 offseason.

J W

11-27-2005, 08:28 AM

- I agree with Lew on the salary/FA situation... an extra 250k doesn't really do anything for me and I like the flexibility in such an event anyways.

- Mark's idea with the waivers process is my favorite so far in regards to contract dispute. I also like the idea of buyouts but when it was brought up before it didn't get much support.

leecemark

11-27-2005, 08:38 AM

--Okay, I'll forget about the extra money and agree to just letting the owner pick if two players are tied for the forced FA salary spot. That leaves only the process for dealing with contract players in this situation to be worked out. Any objections to the waiver process if you can't/don't want to deal your disgruntled multi-year player?

catcher24

11-27-2005, 09:48 AM

No, actually that's a fine compromise. If he's your free agent, you lose him anyway (assuming someone offers him a contract), so putting him on waivers and offering him to all other takers is a good idea. If no one wants him, he sees the error of his ways (not to mention he might be getting penalized loss of salary) and decides to play for the original team. I like it and think it will work fine.

catcher24

11-27-2005, 09:58 AM

In preparing to run the mirror OOTP league, I ran through several season simulations to tweak the settings. I finally got settings that gave me the following results, and I think these will work fine, as they are very close to real life (in parentheses). Note that these totals are for the two leagues combined. Batting Average .256 (.258); HR 2740 (2730); Runs 13193 (12942); 2B 3960 (3975); 3B 746 (754); BB 9893 (9897); Strikeouts 15442 (14952); SB 1047 (1046); ERA - NL 4.12 (4.03), AL 4.07 (4.02).
The only one I'm not real happy with is strikeouts, but everything else was so close that I didn't want to try and tweak them. Of course, depending on your managing style, some of these (stolen bases in particular) could vary quite a bit. The sims were run with computer managers for all teams and with injuries turned on; also home field advantage was turned off.

BTW, I came to the realization that the OOTP schedule and the DM schedule will not be the same, since the OOTP schedule is generated by the program, and with the different setup I imagine DM's is, too. So what Mark posts for DM won't correlate directly to OOTP. I am in the process of getting a website up that will be accessible to all to check stats, standings, etc. Not sure until I get the files uploaded exactly what will be available. Stay tuned.

leecemark

11-27-2005, 06:26 PM

--Anybody who isn't updating their roster post as they draft players, please do so. That is going to be the best way to keep track of who has been drafted, which will get complicated the further along we get. I'm loading the picks into the program as we make them, but that isn't available to anybody else.
--WCF and EH please get your stadium selections in ASAP. You should be drafting for your park and not selecting your park later to fit your team. The teams you took over were going to be at Fenway and County (Milwakeee), respectively.

mac195

11-27-2005, 08:52 PM

leecemark

11-27-2005, 09:00 PM

--That was my meaning. If your forced FA is on a multi-year deal and thius not eligible for free agency he would be considered to have demanded a trade. If you can make an acceptable deal, then done deal. If you can't then he would go on waivers and teams, from bottom up, would have the opportunity to assume the contract. If nobody wants the contract then you keep the player. We'd have to run the waiver process, should it ever even come up (it obviously won't after this season since no one will be on a multi-year deal), prior to the free agent auction so teams know what they will have to spend.

Windy City Fan

11-27-2005, 09:24 PM

I'll take Wrigley Field, the Chicago version.

catcher24

11-28-2005, 04:17 AM

Mark - Another suggestion for the forced free agency clause (sorry, these things keep coming up in my head). How about giving the owner the option of allowing the designated player, OR ANY PLAYER WITH A HIGHER SALARY NOT ON A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT, be the designated free agent. For the winner, that would be his #1 player OR his lifetime, 12M man. For the 9th place finisher, it would be any of 10 players (the franchise player or any of the top 9 salaries). This would give the owner the option to choose their own poison. This rule would, of course, only affect the first 6 off seasons. What do you think?

leecemark

11-28-2005, 07:14 AM

--The only problem I see with that is some players with very short windows as top players have been choosen early. Using my own team as an example, I've got Jim Gentile at 7m who is great in 61, but just a pretty good 1B after that. I wouldn't mind at all if I lost him after one year and nobdy would be that excited at the chance to get him, depressing the market.
-- Still this would have been okay with me if we'd done it from the start, but it would have altered my (and probably others) draft strategy and some of my picks would have been different. I'd have gone with somebody great in 61 (probably Norm Cash) at #2 who would have been an acceptable loss to protect everydbody else.
--The only way I could support this idea now is if we get to rearrange the salaries of guys already picked. A change that big would need overwhelming support.

catcher24

11-28-2005, 01:11 PM

Yeah, I see the problems that could create. Maybe change the rule commencing next year, or if everyone agreed, juggle salaries this year (players 2 through 10 only, since #1 is the franchise player, and anything after 10 is not affected). Wish I had thought of it sooner.Easier for me to live with, since I haven't picked anybody based on a single year (yet).

J W

11-28-2005, 03:42 PM

Having that rule would've changed my draft strategy at least a little. I'd rather not do it, for continuity's sake if anything.

leecemark

11-29-2005, 10:28 PM

--Jumping ahead a little, what kind of off season timeline would everyone like to see? How long of a break between the end of the championship series and the commencement of activity for the next season? What order should the player acquistion phases take? I suggest this;
1) a month with no scheduled activty (trades allowed during this time?)
2) teams submit non-tender lists and choose who is FA for payroll ties
3) rookie draft
4) premium free agent auction (forced free agents)
5) secondary free agent auction (non-tendered players)
6) period to make trades and whatever roster adjustments might be needed to get to 40 players.
--Good, not so good,? Aternative suggestions.....

J W

11-29-2005, 11:38 PM

Everything looks ok to me... only debate is whether or not to allow trading for the first month. I'd say no, tentatively. I'd rather give a little extra time between steps 2 and 3 though if teams want to trade before the rookie draft.

catcher24

11-30-2005, 04:21 AM

I think it depends on whether or not you are going to allow trading for draft picks. If so, you'll have to put your current #1 between #2 and #3 instead - free agents file, then trades (so if any draft pick positions or picks are included they will be done before the Rookie draft), then rookie draft, then 4,5,6 in order.

If there will be no trading for draft pick positions, then your order would be fine, although again you might want to have the rookie draft first, so they could be included in trades if desired BEFORE the free agent draft. Somebody might fill a hole they have via trade for a rookie they draft and not need the free agent.

leecemark

11-30-2005, 06:42 AM

--The trading of actual picks is prohibited. It has to be a sign and trade deal. The rookie draft would actually be the first step of player acquistion with the tradiing period basically kicking off at the same time (unless we decide to allow trades duriing the standown, which I would prefer not to).

Windy City Fan

11-30-2005, 12:02 PM

The order looks good, though I'd prefer there to be trades allowed during the first phase. Also, perhaps we could shorten the first phase a bit? A month is a long time.

Also, I think the trading of draft picks should be allowed. We can all use the "player to be named later" trick to get around it, so why not just allow draft picks to be traded to make it simple?

leecemark

11-30-2005, 01:15 PM

---I really don't have a problem with it. The subject just didn't come until after the draft got underway and it was easier to say just trade the player after the pick instead of debating the issue. I know there is at least one othe rdeal of this nature in progress now. If a majority post saying trading picks is okay then fine.

catcher24

11-30-2005, 01:54 PM

Posted by Windy City Fan:
Also, I think the trading of draft picks should be allowed. We can all use the "player to be named later" trick to get around it, so why not just allow draft picks to be traded to make it simple?

I agree. I think it would make it easier all around. I think we have to decide if there can be "two for one" trades (I trade Ron Santo; I get your next year's second and third picks). Obviously, the team getting two would have to either have a roster spot by having dropped a player, or would need to drop one to get under the 40 man limit, but I don't really see a problem with it. I was going to post this previously, but had to leave in a hurry so didn't get time. It's six of one, half dozen of the other, so let's just use picks to keep it easy.

Also, Mark, this might be a good time to bring up the draft order for the rookies next year. I know it will run from ninth to first, but will it then continue as a straight draft (ninth to first again), or be serpentine like the original player draft is? I think it should be a straight draft, as that would provide the poorer teams with better choices (first, tenth, nineteenth). The serpentine draft would provide first, nineteenth and twentieth. Anyone else have thoughts about this? We will certainly want to resolve it well before the season ends, and now would be as good a time as any, IMO.

Windy City Fan

11-30-2005, 02:05 PM

Two for ones should be perfectly allowable. You just have to dip into the free agent pool to fill your roster/cut a player or two.

I had assumed the rookie draft would be just like the bigs, 1-9 and repeat.

J W

11-30-2005, 05:04 PM

Rookie draft is straight-up like the bigs.

Picks not being tradable is a technicality I guess. Mark mentioned the majors can't trade actual picks--just the rights to players. If we agree to open trading of picks I'll go ahead and post the Mantle deal--otherwise I'll wait. Either way there'll be an article :atthepc .

leecemark

11-30-2005, 07:03 PM

--Really the only advantage to trading players after they are picked is only the two owners involved need to keep track. If we trade picks it could get confusing for the people before/after the traded pick. The 20th pick I will be making for EH might be a week away. I'm okay with it either way though.

mac195

11-30-2005, 10:07 PM

Mark, what about pitching rotations? A lot of these guys are suited to work every 4th day. Will that be an option? Is it possible to set up a 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b type rotation in DM?

leecemark

11-30-2005, 10:21 PM

--I'll program for a 4 man rotation if anybody wants one, but the program is not flexible in that. You can have a 4 man or a 5 man with or without skip, but there is no way to schedule 1 or 2 guys for a heavier workload and the others for normal rest. If you try to use even a 300 IP guy on 4 days you'll likely have some starts where he runs out of gas in the early going due to overuse.
--Pitcher fatigue is based on a 5 day pitch monitor (previous 4 games plus game in progress), so with the 5 man your SP is always starting out with a full tank. If he has not had 5 days off he starts the game with his pitch count from the previous start already contributing to his fatigue factor. Even a horse who may not be programed to tire until 150 pitches is going to have a problem with that (i.e. if he threw 120 pitches in his last start he will start to tire at the 30 pitch mark). If somebody wants to give it a shot, I won't insist on a 5 man like the past leagues. However, I'll be using five and would recommend that to anybody who wanted my advise.

mac195

11-30-2005, 10:38 PM

So there isn't much advantage in having a 300 IP starter over a guy with 240 IPs. Either can go all season in a 5-man without exceeding 110%.

catcher24

12-01-2005, 04:17 AM

I'm a little surprised by that. I know that SOM easily permits a four man rotation in the sixties and seventies, when that was the norm. The cards actually include a asterisk for anyone who can go every fourth day - which is about 50% of the starters back then. Since the seasons are purchased on a yearly basis (as I understand it), seems like the game would take the rotations of the era into consideration. Of course, maybe that is why there are many days off during the season - to make a four man rotation work.

leecemark

12-01-2005, 06:32 AM

--I've never actually tried a 4 man rotation, nor purchased a full season from the era when they were common. All my previous purchases have beeen greatest team packages from mixed eras, recent seasons where the 5 man was the norm, and the All Time Greatest Players (which was also era nuetral). As I said, if anyone wants to experiment with that I am happy to program your team that way. It might be a good option for an owner who was building for the future, rather than this season, and wants to squeeze the most out of his top 4 (or just see what will happen for future reference).
-- If you want to try it for an individual pitcher though you'd need to stay on top of your rotation and reset to get him back to the front more often. It can't be preset .
-- Actually, there is an option that might work if someone wants to try it. Your can set your rotation for "time" rather than skip or strict. The program will try and duplicate the actual number of starts each pitcher made during the season. That is really designed for teams that are kept intact and not draft teams though. I expect most of us are going to have more cumlative starts in our rotation than there will be games to go around. We are in for the long haul though and if someone wants to experiment with that, again, I'll be happy to set you up that way. The downside is it will be impossible to predict who will start a given game if you like to keep track.

catcher24

12-01-2005, 02:51 PM

I've got a couple of horses with a lot of innings so far. I will most likely try the four man rotation and see what happens. What the heck, the draft is the most fun part for me anyway, since I don't have the game and can't monkey with my lineups/rotation like I can in OOTP.

OOTP also has the capability now to set your lineup for seven days in advance; unfortunately, I doubt it will work online unless an owner has the game. I am just now getting the teams/ballparks entered into the game, and hope to have something online in a week or so.

But plan on me at least trying the four man rotation, Mark.

J W

12-03-2005, 04:06 PM

Mantle Out as Fast as he Rode In
Ray "Scoops" McRae
---------------------------

It's quite a visual inside the workings of the Baseball Fever League.

Within the confines of their secret lair, it is now evident that the rumors of a giant draft are true. Adhering to a rigid system similar to the MLB Annual Selection of Players, twelve dens filled with hyenas are in the process of picking the bones of the old Major Leagues clean. Sometimes in the center of their den... often to the side amongst themselves... a new group suited, cigar-smoking entrepeneurs joke, puff, and carry on conversation about the post-Batista sugar market.

Yes, our American Pastime is back.

Warren Spahn, Eddie Mathews and Willie Mays all have new homes, and for a moment--just a few days--it appeared that we would have Spavinaw's own Mickey Mantle roosting in Memorial Stadium. But then he was gone.

Yes, traded, back to Yankee Stadium for two unproven pitchers named Dean Chance and Joe Horlen. The greatest player of our time, in his prime, for those two and two more draft picks in next year's Players Selection.

"It's always difficult giving up someone like that," says Skipjacks GM Phillip "Beanie" Bill. "But we are very happy with what we received and we feel both teams benefited from this."

But how exactly do the Skipjacks benefit from this? Who are the fans going to follow?

"We'll have some fine players this year... but we are expecting this league to flourish, and if so we must build a franchise, not just a team. We want to be contenders for a long time."

Fine players are--well--fine, but Mantle should be able to carry a team by himself for a long time. If that happens to be recouped, the bigger concern may be that without a true star, the team will not be supplied with enough of its revenue--the fans--to last long enough to become annual contenders.

It is all speculation, however, until we find out who will make the lineup this year. And the crowds at Memorial Stadium have a great reputation, willing the Colts to back-to-back championships and welcoming the old Saint Louis Browns to Baltimore despite a run of bad seasons. Mr. Bill is as steady as he was managing a minor-league team: "We ask our fans to be patient, and we'll give them a good product."

So, what does the subject of all this future talk have to say?

"I'm happy that I'm in such demand, and I'd do my best for whoever I play for," says Mantle, "but truly feel like Yankee Stadium is where I belong. I wish the Skipjacks luck. And tell That Guy I said hey."

leecemark

12-03-2005, 04:15 PM

--We briefly discussed "arbitration" for rookie classes draft in 1962 forward, but never really got into specifics. I'd like to propose a very simple way to handle it. At the end of their 3rd year these players will have their salaries doubled instead of receiving the standard 250K bump. So for a player drafted in spots 1-3 with a million dollar initial salary they would jump up to 3million, assuming they had played all 3 years in the majors. Less is they had spent any full seasons in the minors. A player drafted in the second round or later who spent all 3 years in the minors but only be bumped up to 500K from his original 250K minimum. This would be a one time adjustment. Yeah, nay or alternative suggestions?

catcher24

12-03-2005, 07:31 PM

Mark - I would be curious to know how often a player's salary is doubled at arbitration. Perhaps raising their salary at the end of the third year by an amount equal to one-half of the signing cost (ie, 500,000 for 1M players; 375K for 750K players; and 250K for 500K players) would work. This would of course be in addition to the annual 250K major league raise. If any of the three seasons was spent entirely in the minors, then they get one-fourth of the original signing cost.

leecemark

12-03-2005, 07:46 PM

--Lew, that would be an acceptable alternative. I agree that few players actually double their salaries at arbitration. However, many do get 2-3 big raises via arbitration which end up having a larger effect than a one time doubling would. Whatever direction we go with this I'd like to a) keep it simple and b) avoid making the rookie draftees too cheap when they become stars.

catcher24

12-04-2005, 07:55 AM

Yes, but remember, they all become free agents anyway at the end of six years. The good ones will shoot up to market value then, once the bidding begins. I'm OK with either way.

BTW, speaking of free agency, have you considered allowing a "hometown discount"? I was thinking that if the team the player was on is willing to match the highest bid, less 10% or even 5%, the player would agree to stay there. What do you think?

catcher24

12-04-2005, 09:28 AM

I have the website for the mirror OOTP league started. If anyone wishes to check it out, go here (http://www.geocities.com/lougehrig24/). This is a very basic, barebones site, due to limited space I have for the free webspace from geocities. This barely touches the surface of what this program can do with a full webiste. The hotlinks to each individual team won't work. However, I plan on getting at least one (most likely mine) up to full speed so that you can all get an idea of what you could EACH access if this was a full site. Please check it out, and of course once the league starts the stats will get updated as I update the files. You will note that the records page has existing records AS OF 1961, which is why Musial leads the all-time lists in both average and homeruns.

J W

12-04-2005, 01:14 PM

Web site looks great... is there a thread we should post to it or just post the link at the top of this one?

My team is barely over the doormats in OOTP salary :D . "Skipjacks" is one word, BTW.

My vote would be to double (or even triple) salaries rather than deal with .125 mil increments, and to do it during the offseason after X number of active games have been played.

Even if we don't use arbitration however, I'd be allright. Arbitration in the majors is a trickier process and we'd have problems matching it.

The Dude

12-04-2005, 01:26 PM

Website is great.

There's got to be some service we can get to have enough space for a full space.

catcher24

12-04-2005, 05:42 PM

Dudecar - Actually, I could get sufficient space to run the entire thing for 5 to 7 dollars a month. I would gladly pay it if I thought the site would be used regularly. I got the free geocities site just to see what was possible. Actually, only a fraction of what the game has to offer will be available. I actually was unable to upload the main website file (index.html) generated by the game to geocities website because the free section doesn't use FTP protocol - you have to use their Pagebuilder, which is proprietary. If I had an FTP site, the game automatically uploads everything. What you see on my site is what I was able to cobble together. If enough owners are interested, I could see about getting more webspace. I'm not looking for funding, just an indication of interest so that if I had to sign up for 12 months I wouldn't be blowing $50 or so.

If anyone clicked onto the career leaderboard, sorry. None of the stats appear, and I can't figure out the problem. The screen that appears is NOT the one produced by OOTP. I think Geocities' Pagebuilder ap is "redesigning" the page in the upload process, and I haven't figured out a way around it.

JW - Yes, the salary page indicates what each owner would be paying using the salaries assigned by the game. I haven't gone in yet to see if I can modify the salaries/contracts, or if you have to take what the game gives you. Interesting that Mark is on top. I rather expected you to be on the bottom. The game default for someone who is still basically a minor leaguer is about 200,000, I think. Several of your players fit that category. If I could upload everything, you could click on the player name, which would bring up their history, contract, and much other info about the player.

J W

12-04-2005, 06:48 PM

I'm actually more interested in finding out what salaries OOTP would give these players. It makes for a nice reference... or monday morning quarterback :D .

The updates on geocities should be enough for us... any extra reporting you can fit on the site can go right here. No need to pay extra IMO.

mac195

12-04-2005, 06:53 PM

It will be very interesting to see how the OOTP results compare to DM. Thanks for setting that up, Lew.

538280

12-04-2005, 07:28 PM

Lew,

Why am I rated 12th in the power rankings? :laugh :laugh

Really, though, that doesn't mean anything yet, right?

catcher24

12-05-2005, 04:30 AM

Chris - No, nothing yet. In glancing over it, looks like the teams are simply listed alphabetically, with your numbers for some reason coming in last. Once the season starts, the Power Rankings are based on wins/losses, pretty much. I think the program also takes hitting and pitching into account somewhat.

538280

12-09-2005, 08:12 PM

Lew,

What's up with this:

http://www.geocities.com/lougehrig24/ltrans.html

No such trade was ever made.

catcher24

12-10-2005, 06:39 AM

Chris - Good question. I opened the program and checked the rosters I have loaded so far, and the players mentioned in the trade are still on the correct rosters. Maybe the game is trying to tell you something? Don't worry, I'll make sure rosters are all correct before any games are simmed.

This is a learning process for me as I go along. I imagine there will be some glitches, but I don't know how the game generated a totally inaccurate headline! The best I'm hoping for is to be able to post the standings, leaders and power rankings. Actually, with all of the trades that have been going on, I think I'm going to have to get creative to get each player to the right team, or more likely, simply reset the league and do a total redraft once our picks are all made.

J W

12-10-2005, 09:30 AM

That's probably the best way to do it--redraft after we're done. Don't know how much more time that would take though. :o

catcher24

12-10-2005, 09:39 AM

Not too much, actually. I had stayed current through the tenth round, but when all the trading started I decided to hold off. That was about 10 or 15 minutes worth, so it shouldn't be a problem.

catcher24

12-12-2005, 06:32 PM

Mark - I have a suggestion for a rule change for rookie picks in future drafts (yeah, I know, it's rather self serving at this point, wish I had thought of it earlier - but I don't get any extras until round 2 next year!). In looking at this year's rookies, and then looking ahead a year, it becomes apparent that many, many of the new players have a "cup of coffee" their first year or two. With this year's group it doesn't matter - they get stuck in the minors until they really start producing, and then the owner gets their "Prime" years, for the most part, and can keep them as long as he wants. Not so with future years. My suggested change is this: Don't start counting a player's six years towards free agency until: (1) the first year he ACTUALLY had 100 AB's or 50 IP's (this is the second or third year for a lot of them) OR (2) the owner promotes the player to his major league roster. Whichever comes first. That way (as an example), whoever drafts Tony Oliva won't use up two seasons out of six for years with 9 and 7 AB, but will get six fairly complete seasons from him. Another example, for a guy like Bob Veale, 62 wouldn't count against him (45.7 IP) UNLESS the owner promoted him and used him, but 63 would (77.7 IP) start the clock ticking.

I think it makes sense. These guys - or most of them - still have plenty of good/great seasons left after their first six "regular" seasons anyway. I would like to keep the early 50AB/25IP "cup of coffee" seasons from counting towards losing them to free agency.

What does everyone think?

J W

12-12-2005, 06:53 PM

I'd vote for that if:

a) that player sees no major league action during their "cup of coffee" years

b) arbitration is made stricter

What is the major league protocol when a player is drafted?

J W

12-12-2005, 06:57 PM

...speaking of future drafts, I'd like to know how many rounds we should do (each year). It looks from 1962 like we should go 6, 7, or 8 deep.

mac195

12-12-2005, 07:07 PM

Hmmm... not sure we need to do anything to help Lew and JW dominate the post-1963 era any more than they are already going to. ;)

leecemark

12-12-2005, 11:05 PM

--Changing the rule on when picks from 1962 on reach free agency would have had a definate impact on my draft strategy and willingness to trade draft picks away. I am strongly opposed to any change in that for 1962-63. Any proposed changes would have to take effect with the 64 draft.
--As for how many rounds to run the rookie draft, I'd say until we run out of players or interest in the remaining players. I doubt I'm going to want to make roster space for the 6-7th round players (50-60 rookies deep), but maybe and I wouldn't want to deprive anybody who did want them of the opportunity.

catcher24

12-13-2005, 05:12 PM

Mark - I can agree to starting in 1964, and that would eliminate any current advantage JW and I would gain by doing so. That would certainly be more fair to you other seven managers, and that is the way it should be. I just notice in looking at career records that there seems to be a distinct pattern among the good to great players: 1 or 2 years with little playing time; three or four years of good to very good seasons; then four or five years (after they're gone from the drafting team under our present rule) of very good to great seasons. It doesn't always work out that way, but seems to more often than not. By starting in 64 or 65, every manager knows the situation. Anyway, it is just a suggestion to try and give a drafting team a little more production out of their players before they leave via free agency.

JW, my suggestion was that the six seasons to free agency would begin to accrue: (1) When they (in real life) have a season with 100+ AB or 50+ IP (or whatever numbers are agreed upon), or (2) SPEND ANY TIME AT ALL ON THE 25 MAN TEAM ROSTER. Even if they are called up due to injury or whatever, and get 10 AB or IP, the six seasons start accrueing with the one they first appear on the team roster.

Food for thought.

leecemark

12-13-2005, 07:22 PM

-Lew's idea makes good sense to me.

catcher24

12-14-2005, 04:32 AM

Quick note - I also think the 6 year free agency clock should begin running if they are placed on the expanded 40 man roster in September AND APPEAR IN ANY GAMES.

leecemark

12-14-2005, 06:49 AM

--I agree. Beginning in 1964 the six year clock should begin with the first year they appear for your team or the first year they reached minimum playing thresholds in real life. Lew's suggestion of 100 AB or 50 IP works for me, although I would also suggest a 20 game threshold to cover relief pitchers and players who were used extensively as PH, defensive replacements, etc.
--I also propose 1964 as the season where we break up the doormats of 1961 and replace them with expansion teams. My thought is after the 1963 season we each protect 25 players and each expansion team would select 30 players. That would result in each of us losing 10 players, leveling all the teams at 30. In addition to the rookie draft that year we could also release everybody from the 61 doormats into the free agent pool to get the rosters back up to 40. We might also skip the forced free agency process for that season due to the 3 teams being broken up and other roster turmoil.

catcher24

12-14-2005, 01:34 PM

I did think about relief pitchers, Mark (hadn't thought about PH/defensive replacements) but hadn't come up with the solution yet. I think yours is fine. Appearing in 20 games (in real life) sounds like a reasonable amount.

I agree with eliminating the doormats in 1964 if we can find replacement managers. However, I think we should still do the forced free agents, as this would release at least 9 extremely good players to the expansion teams. You know the existing teams will protect their best players, and having the forced FA would get at least a few of the top players into the pool for the expansion teams.

leecemark

12-14-2005, 01:42 PM

--I would prefer to add 3 new owners when we need to replace the doormat teams, but it could work without active ownership if needed. We could just have an owner from an opposite divison select the players for each of the expansion/doormat teams. Either way I don't want to run with the 1961 doormats for too many seasons. Also, I know there was interest in some of the players on those teams and this would get them in the mix.
--If we have active owners for those teams then we probably should retain the forced free agency to give them a shot at a better team. Perhaps we could even let them draft and sign those players to get their team jump started if they wish (say a million dollar bump over their current salary?). If they are going to be computer managed then we'd want to keep them doormats though.

catcher24

12-14-2005, 02:10 PM

I like the idea of giving the forced FA to the expansion teams for 1M or whatever amount bump over their previous year's salary (if the expansion managers so desired). But I would like to see the three teams attempt to become competitive, even if they have to be computer managed after a human makes the picks. I've been beaten by a computer before, and I could do it again, I'm sure!:p

J W

12-14-2005, 07:45 PM

Re: new rookie rule beginning in '64 -- ok, if we expand. That way we'd wind up with a change after '63, and a change after '66.

Re: expansion -- I'm game. If this thing succeeds, I don't think we'll need doormats by then. Who knows how big this thing could get? Since DM is done year-by-year, we could have this league in 1975 with complete turnover; a new commissioner and 20 new owners! We could even get the BBF-BBA brass in on it... promotions... Google hits... certain people take notice... :laugh

Re: expansion draft -- It's hard for me to be objective here, because I've specifically constructed my team to win the title in 1964 and remain strong thereafter. Expansion following '63 could severely hamper my chances at '64. It therefore goes without saying that I vote for protecting 25 players. Not having a chance to retain my PFA? Worried.

Nonetheless we wouldn't be able to get the expansion teams going without a core of players. My next post will address that.

leecemark

12-14-2005, 07:53 PM

--Protecting 25 players will still leave plenty for 3 expansion teams to pick from. It also shouldn't be an issue with the teams that drafted for the future. By 1964 all the future guys from this draft should be ready to contribute to the 25 man roster. Most of the unprotected players will likely be guys near the end or at least players relegated to backup duty.

J W

12-14-2005, 08:15 PM

'64 Expansion:

A) I think it fair that each team should be allowed a LFA like us, for $12 mil. I think we should all agree to these well ahead of time. One idea could be to pluck players from the upcoming drafts and make them available, one for each expansion team, first come first serve. We'd need great players who'd last a long time, but may not necessarily kick in at the start. There are only three players that fit this bill perfectly:

Willie Stargell ('62)
Joe Morgan ('63)
Pete Rose ('63)

the alternate would be Dick Allen ('63) who is good through 1974... but I think he should be drafted regularly instead.

This also gives the owner an interesting choice: Stargell hits for more power but Rose gets on base more. Morgan plays that critical position of 2B, but takes longer to warm up while Stargell and Rose start clicking off consecutive years of production.

B) It makes sense to give up the premium FA. I'll take a hit but it's better for the league. Pretty much everyone else takes a hit from my LFA suggestion. I would suggest the expansion teams draft 3 rounds in ladder format, continuing off their LFA selections, and that substantial salaries would be assigned the players. Here's the model I propose in effect:

Rd 1: LFA round -- Team A, Team B, Team C -- $12 mil
Rd 2: Team C, Team B, Team A -- $9 mil
Rd 3: Team A, Team B, Team C -- $6 mil
Rd 4: Team C, Team B, Team A -- $3 mil
-------------------------------------------
TOTAL: $30 mil

C) The teams then continue the expansion draft from the pool of unprotected players... I don't know what those salaries would be but I assume they'd start at $1 mil or less. And then all those players the teams could keep for as long as they want, and they'd lose their PFAs for three years, and would be incorporated into the system.

Thoughts?