tcochran wrote:See draft of proposed new model rule set at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1655081356Key elements include:
- 24 to 28 players active in game engine
- With salary cap of $130 mil
- And salary floor of $100 mil
- 35 players on full roster, including prospects
- Draft any player (MLB/MiLB, college, foreign) to full roster
- Prior to FA draft, drop 7 to 10 from full roster
- 2-round supplemental draft between seasons
Please review and comment here.
Thanks!
Terry
I'm open to trying a change. But, I think my remarks and unscientific research with asymmetrical trades and you pointing out the last 15 out of 18 championships being won by the two teams with 90% of the trades I found is representative of ... something significant?
Whether or not it's a problem, whether or not it can be fixed, whether the changes being suggested are "the fix" are good questions - I can't answer by myself.
In the course of doing my job, I provide evaluations, cite sources, incorporate collaboration, 3rd party experts, industry best practices, and examples of what others have done in preparation for the plan and resource investment. This is all part of the justification.
An element of the justification is how the plan and investment address the problem and objective. It is a specific and formal traceability. "This does that which fixes thus and so providing XYZ outcome."
In looking at the highlights of the changes....
A
- 24 to 28 players active in game engine
- With salary cap of $130 mil
- And salary floor of $100 mil
For A, the $ cap stops $150M - $160M teams and that correlates to the overstocking of rosters with excess high value talent and maybe the asymmetrical trades.
B
- 35 players on full roster, including prospects
- Draft any player (MLB/MiLB, college, foreign) to full roster
- Prior to FA draft, drop 7 to 10 from full roster
- 2-round supplemental draft between seasons
B is less obvious to me. Every team will have fewer players which reduces roster overstocking. But the extra players being dropped from rosters will be the secondary prospects (prospects and younger veterans who haven't panned out yet or maybe had injuries) AND the least valuable, excess bench and platoon substitutes / back end bullpen.
Teams will keep their highest value talent if they can stay under the $130M cap.
There's a good case for A and it makes sense. I don't understand how B helps.
The big concern (assuming any of this is a concern; maybe it really isn't) is the winning JF and Lakeview achieve. They certainly deserve to win, they have the best teams. They make the most effort to build the best teams. Notably with careful analysis of current real life performance in planning their "next year's teams" and frequent trades. A small # of their trades (10%?) involve star players and #1 draft picks as noted. When they are making the most trades, even 10% of them being asymmetrical stands out from the rest of the managers who make fewer trades.
Trying to police trades is something I can't fathom for SWKL. I know how MLB tries to police trades and they actually do ok. But, they have an office and staff dedicated to just that. There are other things MLB doesn't police so well historically like steroids and collusion. SWKL isn't MLB and we don't have dedicated staff in an office.