|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 14, 2011 11:19:50 GMT -5
The annual salary increase has came up as a topic to discuss this year.
The current rule is:
$1-$10 players receive a $5 raise $11-$20 players receive a $4 raise $21+ receive a $3 raise.
There for a $1 player will follow this salary pattern over his career:
1st Year $1 2nd Year $6 3rd Year $11 4th Year $15 5th Year $19 6th Year $ 23 7th Year $ 26 and + $3 each subsequent year.
This pattern would only affect minor leaguers and players won for auction at $1. Most payers auctioned off go significantly higher. Please post your thoughts on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by harashil on Jan 14, 2011 14:56:13 GMT -5
In another league I am in, player's salaries are calculated as such: - Minors called up are $1. The year following they are $3. Every year after that, they cost $5 more. 2010...called up $1 2011...$3 2012...$8 2013...$13 etc.
- Players picked up during the year or drafted, cost $5 extra each year kept. 2010...bid was $6 to pick player up 2011...$11 2012...$16 etc.
Adding $5 per year would make it easier for everyone to calculate. Also, holding players too long would be expensive. Chances are players would be placed more often in the draft and prevent hording a player for too long.
|
|
|
Post by eulogy7 on Jan 15, 2011 13:53:59 GMT -5
I sort of agree with harashil to the point where the increase should not be so great from year 1 to year 2. I would suggest: $1-$5 year players get a just a $2 or $3 raise while $5-$10 players still get the $5 raise $11-$20 players receive still get a $4 raise $21+ still receive a $3 raise.
Something along those lines, where there isn't a max increase for the cheapest players followed by decreasing raises. Rather, it builds up so that players in their "prime" get the largest raises and then tapers off. This mimics the MLB where 1st,2nd,3rd year players are very affordable until they generally get their big raise. (Arbitration doesn't start until years 3-6).
The average salary in our league is $10 ($260/26 roster spots). Players just starting their 3rd full year will be making over this salary ($11) under our current system. I really do not think that this is realistic.
We can also look into not having players over a certain salary get raises. Perhaps $30 or $35. These contracts represent the "max" contracts for our league and should be just that, a maximum. In the MLB, once a player signs a huge max deal, their next deal isn't likely to raise.
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 15, 2011 23:10:19 GMT -5
If you change this rule in the name of allowing an owner to "hoard" players too long, then you should eliminate the "Franchise Tag" exemption in the league as well. This exemption is severely altering the auction and player values themselves.
Now I can see making some adjustments to the salary increase structure but not across the board changes. the $1-$10 players should not change at all, perhaps salaries should continue increase $5 a year up until $20-$25 though. But again if your going to have this discussion you should really reconsider the Franchise Tag!
|
|
|
Post by bigdawg94 on Jan 16, 2011 10:31:13 GMT -5
I agree with 25, if we are talking about the prices of certain players each year increasing, I feel that if we do really want to keep them 5, 6 or 7 years and that price increases that much, the player should get better too or you let him go. The franchise tag allows us to keep a very high priced player with no money which to me takes that guessing whether they will live up to the franchise tag or not. If we then are able to lower the prices of the other players it takes the managing out of the game because then you can just keep a guy because he is cheap and also have a so to speak franchise guy that is not doing really well and neither one is going to hurt you. Just my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 16, 2011 16:22:35 GMT -5
I do not feel strongly one way or the other on this topic. Because of the Franchise Tag (FT) - which I like and the low cost of minor leaguers - It allows many all-star caliber players to be auctioned off at very high prices $35+. Because you can only FT one player many all-star players are thrown back into the pool each year.
By limiting the keepers to $100 total we do have some restrictions already in place. An owner can choose to take a few established players say (4 - $25) or a larger number of young, break out potential players.
I do believe the $5 increase after a minor league call-up's 1st year causes the owner to make a decision if the player had not performed up to their potential - Do I keep a young $6 player who may sit the bench, be sent to the minors, or may break out?
I would not mind making some minor changes bu do not think we should overhaul the system.
Maybe: $1-$5 players receive a $4 raise $6-$20 players receive a $5 raise $21 - $30 receive a $4 raise $31 + $3 raise
This would knock a $1 off the lowest price players then increase $1 on all players $11 and over.
|
|
|
Post by fresht19 on Jan 17, 2011 12:56:24 GMT -5
i think we stay as is... it makes sense the way it was constructed, it makes for some difficult decisions....
tony
|
|
|
Post by elrodogg on Jan 19, 2011 18:29:13 GMT -5
I like it as it is, and not just because I built my team around selling off guys last year to build a team for this year. It encourages deep research and rewards finding minor leaguers/callups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2011 13:08:38 GMT -5
I'm of the opinion it's pretty much OK as is--but if I was asked how I would like to do it myself, I would go with a standard increase down the line--like:
1st time kept after initial purchase: 3$ increase
2nd time kept: 4$ increase
3rd time kept: 5$ increase
4th & subsequent times kept: 10$ increase per
This was it's not as drastic off the bat, but eventually all players(not FT)will be cycled back into the auction.......
|
|
|
Post by 25alive on Jan 23, 2011 15:10:04 GMT -5
I have to say this is interesting and I think I like it! Would certainly diminish the initial concern of players being hoarded. I'm of the opinion it's pretty much OK as is--but if I was asked how I would like to do it myself, I would go with a standard increase down the line--like: 1st time kept after initial purchase: 3$ increase 2nd time kept: 4$ increase 3rd time kept: 5$ increase 4th & subsequent times kept: 10$ increase per This was it's not as drastic off the bat, but eventually all players(not FT)will be cycled back into the auction.......
|
|
|
Post by Hoyas1 on Jan 23, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
May be interesting, but, who is going to go back through and see what players are going to be kept for the 1st time, 2nd time, 3rd time etc? Seems like there could be a good bit of work figuring out how many times a player had been kept. I have to say this is interesting and I think I like it! Would certainly diminish the initial concern of players being hoarded. I'm of the opinion it's pretty much OK as is--but if I was asked how I would like to do it myself, I would go with a standard increase down the line--like: 1st time kept after initial purchase: 3$ increase 2nd time kept: 4$ increase 3rd time kept: 5$ increase 4th & subsequent times kept: 10$ increase per This was it's not as drastic off the bat, but eventually all players(not FT)will be cycled back into the auction.......
|
|