Let us know what you would like to see in 2014

[Deleted]

Thank you sir

[Astros GM: Trey]

As the league's biggest abuser of there not being a rule, I fully support something being put in place. I thought I'd take a stab at possible solutions. Other than that idea Chris and I agreed on for 1CO allowed per year guaranteed with a max of 2:

I based this on the PP system: 1st CO year +50% from AAS, 2nd CO year + 100% of AAS, 3rd CO year + 200% of AAS and 4th +400% AAS

In the case of a 1yr .5M minimum contract, the contract would be 13: .5M guaranteed, CO years: 14: .75, 15: 1.0M, 16: 1.5M, 17: 2.5M

For a larger contract of maybe 4M AAS over 2 years: 13: 4M, 14: 4M, 15: 6M CO, 16: 8M CO, 17: 12M

It would deter ridiculously low contracts and encourage movement toward FA in the case of medium to higher contracts. The medium contract is similar to how MLB clubs are structuring young up and comer's contracts like Anthony Rizzo who just got an extension:
13:$0.75M, 14:$1.25M, 15:$5M, 16:$5M, 17:$7M, 18:$7M, 19:$11M, 20:$14.5M club option, 21:$14.5M club option

Just a thought. Might be too complicated to get full buy-in from all members but maybe you guys can build off of it.

[Deleted]

Those are still option years and no penalty for cutting the player if they aren't worth the amount for 4th or 5th year. I still think 2 options should be the max

[Astros GM: Trey]

I don't disagree. I edited my note after you wrote that to escalate faster. To go along with you though, typically you only see one or two CO years in MLB contracts. If we go with a max of 2, +50% first CO, +100% 2nd, maybe.

[Deleted]

Yea that sounds right to me. I've never seen more than 2 options. Usually 1 club option and 1 player option. Obviously we can't have a player option but nevertheless, just have 2 options max

[ryanjames5]

I think the club options added to free agent contracts should have buyouts. It doesn't have to be big but should be there.

[Astros GM: Trey]

What if PP years (PP4 and PP5) are like arbitration years. You can take the 2.5M PP4, 5M PP5 or accept their real contract at that time (before tags are due each year)

Thoughts?

[Astros GM: Trey]

Very important item for discussion is the divisions. Let's make the divisions more equal.

We shouldn't be bound by AL vs. NL or any actual MLB divisions since our teams aren't bound by region or even near the actual teams. The real life divisions aren't relevant. My division had four great teams (COL #2, STL #9, MIL #1 and SFG #10). Four of the top 10 teams are in one division and this happened the year before too. And then 3 of the other top ten are in one division. So 7/10 are in NL West and AL East. This doesn't end up being fair since the playoffs are based on division and then wildcars for NL vs AL. The point is let's make the divisions more equal.

We can use the 2013 combined standings (or combined 2012 and 2013 standings) to make new divisions. Take the combined standings and make every 4th team in a division. ]]

Just one way of doing this would be:
1, 5, 9, 13, 17 in a division
2, 6, 10, 14, 18
3, 6, 11, 15, 19
4, 7, 12, 16, 20

And then that would carry on for 3-4 years. At whatever given time, it would re-order in the same fashion.

[Atlanta GM (Smiley)]

Trey sorry I don't like either one I like the the divisions setup now. If you want to get better spend money no need to move teams every couple of years. And the pp idea not bad but we control most players for 6 years which is reasonable.

[Astros GM: Trey]

Get better spend money? That assumes we have all dedicated owners. Its as much about evening out the active and good owners as evening out talent.

Divisions changed last year too if you recall. Cubs changed to NYY and we dropped 4 teams which shook things up.

But the schedule was random and didn't account for divisions at all last year so how do divisions make sense at all? I would even be happy to have no divisions (all in one) rather than arbitrary, meaningless ones.

[Astros GM: Trey]

Re: divisions.. I doubt a complete shakeup will happen but as I'm switching my team to an AL team name, maybe something will happen

[Rangers GM (Phil)]

I would like to see the off-season RFA bidding go back to blind bids. That's the way it was when I joined a few years ago but for some reason was open for 2014. The bids get jacked up too much when it's not blind.

P.S.
No thread for 2015 changes yet so posted it here.

[Red Sox GM (Richie)]

Phil the reason we changed it from blind bidding was because going thru the blind bidswas rridiculous. Some teams sent in books for bids. It was way to confusing. I liked the blind bidding myself as you made a strong growth enough offer to win player instead of these crazy bidding wars. It took me about 5 hours to figure out the bids. The only way we could go back to blind bidding is if we had 10 or so guts up for bids at one time. I will create a new thread for ideas for next season right now the biggest problem we have is keeping 20 active owners. Right now we have the 4 vacant teams and two owners have informed me they will not be returning. So I would like to hear ideas about keeping owners active and returning ng I was hoping making this a money league it would silver the issue but it didn't work

[Rangers GM (Phil)]

No problem. Didn't realize the work behind it. Definitely keeping owners should be a priority.