Moneyball Baseball League Chat

Sorry, I dont see it that way. This completely changes the value of guys like Bryant, Syndergaard, Correa, Baez who have already been drafted. That rule change is completely bogus six rounds into an Inaugural draft when important franchise building decisions have already been made in reliance on rules clearly stated. I will wait for Phil to respond before deciding what to do.

I dont have a single 5 year player rostered but several agitating for the change do. Great ones too. So if we implement this change do they get to keep those 5 year players, or are all 5 year players thrown back into the pool so that everyone has an opportunity to draft them with this rule change in place, with forced re-picks of non-5year players occurring until the draft can restart?

Sorry, I dont see it that way. This completely changes the value of guys like Bryant, Syndergaard, Baez who have already been drafted. That rule change is completely bogus six rounds into an Inaugural draft when important franchise building decisions have already been made in reliance on rules clearly stated. I will wait for Phil to respond before deciding what to do.

This is getting out of control. I did not clearly write the rules for extending players after the draft. I simply let the contract normal rules govern the post draft contract situations. I did not anticipate it causing the "5th year player" problem. If we could fix that problem for the draft, then all would be good. At this point, we have 3 choices:

1. Accept the changes and move on;

2. Reject the changes and move on;

3. Accept the changes and redraft.

Thoughts?

I'm really sorry for this mess up, I do believe that if we can find a resolution the result will be a great new way to manage a SOM keeper league.

I'd like to hear from everyone through public communications on this board before we continue the draft. If we don't reach a solution I believe the league will fail before it gets off the ground.

Phil

I'm only fine with number 2. Or if people insist on the rule change, a forced removal of all 5 year players currently rostered with sequential re-picks of non-5 year players to fill those gaps (without undoing any other picks to accommodate) until we return to the current draft position. The latter may be untenable, but I'm game. I'm not ok with 1 and 3.

The other 3 rules changes besides the 5 year rule are fine with me because they don't impact how people have drafted so far.

By making them the same as 3-4 year players this year only it makes it possible to extend them. Previously there was no way to do that. I have figured out the top 50% at most positions to be about $7 mil so it's still expensive to do so. The problem is that once this gets going (say 3-4 years down the road) no one would let a guy get to that dreadful 5 year mark, but in this inaugural year you can't avoid it.

also, we have already had a change in the middle of the draft as initially Phil said that 3-4 year guys could be extended for top 50% OR their current SOM salary whichever is higher....and then clarified that NO, it was just top 50%. Which is why I avoided the 3-4 year guys (including my personal favorite Ketel Marte).

I'm also ok with clarifying the rules and starting this entire thing over as I would have drafted differently given those 2 rules interpretations.

It's not clarifying the rules it's changing them, and doing so in a way that totally helps you with Bryant and Baez on your team.

I'm not down with that, nor am I down with leveraging this demand for a rules change into a proposed do-over after I've spent this amount of time prepping under the rules and revealing much of my strategy. You drafted those two guys under the existing rules, you should be stuck with the value that provides. We can happily vote to "fix" the 5 year player rule next year if that's desired, when we all are equally impacted.

So if it's easier and the consensus is to change the 5 year rule to accommodate Paul's desires, then I invite Phil to find a replacement owner to take over my team mid draft at this point and bid you adieu. I much appreciate Phil's efforts to get this going, and have no hard feelings towards anyone. This is just not fair at this point. Sorry, but it isn't.

this is not the only thing that has been changed...see my comments on the 3-4 year players. First it was said they could be extended at top50% or their SOM salary whichever is higher, then it was just top50%. This changed how I would have drafted, but oh well we kept going. So now a slight change in how 5 year guys has been made. One that allows them to basically be extended for about $7+ million instead of $9+ million....and you got mad. It is the right thing to do as in future years you'll never let a guy get to the 5th year (and free agency will set our salary structure) but this initial group of 5-year guys has no extension. You even mentioned the idea of throwing back all 5 year guys and making them available to all (with you up to pick) and making owners re-pick players to replace them. So replace a 3rd or 4th rd pick with what is available now while you pick them since its your turn. a bit petty there.

and changing it in the future makes no sense as it is only pertinent to this first 5 year group because of the way the inaugural salaries work. after that no one will get to the point of having a 5 year guy as you will either lock him up earlier or let him go.

Dude I’m not going to engage in name calling with you. You want the rule change, and it looks like you’ll get it. Good luck

after thinking about this we cant have owners going forward some happy, some not...we are only 1 week into this so starting over is not a big thing but it does get us to the point where all players are available from the start and all players can be resigned.im ok with moving forward with the rules as they stand ...... but the only fair way to do this is start over and make 1 more rule change.The rules are what they are now and the ONLY time they can and will be changed is after the season is over and in any other future seasons.

Paul,

changing it in the future makes no sense as it is only pertinent to this first 5 year group because of the way the inaugural salaries work. after that no one will get to the point of having a 5 year guy as you will either lock him up earlier or let him go.

and I brought this up back in round 4 with the thought we would correct it then. redraft if needed. I'm fine with starting over...looks like a lot of down time at home ahead do to the social distancing/quarantine.