Competitive Balance

[professor]

Saw a post in a league forum from James about competitive balance within his league.

I thought I would give some of my suggestions to help balance the game.


1) Make the rookie contract of 1 point good for 4-5 years of major league experience. Have the contract length start with the 1st major league game.

2) Eliminate the ability to resign your own free agents. If you let him go into free agency, take that a sign he would not play for you at any price.

3) No sending of players with significant major league experience to AAA. Force the team to payout the contract or keep at the major league level.

4) Create a DL for injured players (avoid sending to AAA)

[takaplan]

Good suggestions.

The only one I disagree with is #2. For instance, the Royals are going to let Paul Byrd become a free agent after this year, but they will most likely sign him out of free agency.

[Craigrrs]

I definitely agree with the first point. In the MLB I think you have to have 6 years of major league experience to become a free agent. So when they start in the majors it should be 1 point til each reachs the 6 years of experience. This would prevent people from having to hold a guy down in AAA until his contract is up so they can be resigned cheaper, when the guy is like 26! This would also help small market teams because it seems that by the time the player develops enough to be brought up to the majors, he only has about 3 years left on his contract or even less. When the contract is up the small market teams struggle to resign them and they barely get any use out of the player. If it was 6 years at 1 point it would let the small market teams at least get some use out of them.


Craig

[phreaque]

I agree with all but #2 as well.

I do believe that if the Royals were to re-sign Paul Byrd (on BBMO) that the engine should be tweaked so that they can re-sign him for less money than he would take if the offer was coming from a big market teams like the Yanks.

Example: He would sign at both of these offers...

KC 3 years 23 points.

NYY 3 years 63 points.

You can call it a "homefield" advantage. Players from small market teams taking less money to stay with the small market team. I am only for this if there is a way to do it for small market teams, MIN, MON, etc. and NOT for big market teams, NYA, CLE, BOS, etc. Those big market teams dont' need the help that a smaller market team would need.

[takaplan]

Phreaque,
Good point. You're right; I would like to see a hometown discount. However, I think it is sort of already in the game in one situation.

For instace, in October, say you can resign Paul Byrd for 30 pts for 5 years. If you decide to let him go, on November 1, he probably is asking for significantly more than what he asked from you; maybe like 50 pts for 5 years. After a few months, if no one signs him, he will keep lowering his demands until it goes lower than what he would have resigned for. But, it still is sort of a hometown discount since you could sign him significantly cheaper on Oct. 15 than on November 1, when he was fielding offers from other teams.

Then again, I think it has to work for large markets too. There are some players who just really want to play in the big markets, like New York. On the other hand, there are some who hate the spotlight in a big market...so I would hope it could accomodate both types of players.

[Craigrrs]

I don't think it would be very realistic if it worked that way for all free agents though. Players aren't going to sign for less just because it is a small market team. Isn't the goal to be as close to MLB as possible?

Maybe they should put strikes in the game! haha

Craig

[takaplan]

You're right. I think what I'm suggesting would be hard to achieve; I mean that some players do not feel comfortable in the spotlight in New York, etc.

It definitely shouldn't be for all players- that wouldn't make sense.

Overall, it would be awesome if the game took into account other variables when a player is choosing a team to sign with. Instead of going with the highest offer, he might want to choose his hometown team, or the team who drafted him. Or maybe he doesn't want to be in the spotlight in a big market like the Yankees. On the other hand, maybe he wants to play in front of the big crowds and tough media in New York. But I would think this would be incredibly difficult to program into the game.

[Deke]

Before I found BBMO I played a game Im sure many have heard of called Season Ticket Baseball (or Out of the Park). They had a player trait I liked very much. Loyalty. I think by implementing this trait into the players of this game, youd solve a lot of the problems discussed above. For example, if your KC and you bring a young stud through your system and he has say A+ in loyalty or a 'very loyal' label he might sign with KC at 23pts for 3 yrs (example). But for other clubs it might be 50pts for the same contract. Now if the same guy had a C in loyalty that extension might cost a lot more. And if he had an F (like a Scott Rolen with the Phils), he might not even want to re-sign with the team. This would make player evaluation a much more difficult task, but easier on teams as well. Small market teams may not want to keep low loyalty guys and deal them. At the same time, they may find a high loyalty guy whod play for them at a great price their whole career. I think this would be very realistic to real life baseball and a good move to make.

[Craigrrs]

Wow, great post Deke. I agree with you 100% there.

[takaplan]

Great point- I've forwarded this thread to Clay & James, so hopefully we can see if this can be incorporated into the game in the future.

[Deke]

Thanks Craig, it seems you and I are on the same page most of the time and really want the same things for the game. I really hope something like that could get worked in. Thanks Tom for forwarding it on.

[ramsfan125]

You said that a guy like Scott Rolen might have an F loyalty ranking. Like in real life, he might find more happiness and love St. Louis (which I hope he does). Would his loyalty rank go up if he really started to like St. Louis, or a different city? Or would he refuse to sign for any team unless the money came his way?

[Deke]

I personally think a guy like Scott Rolen only cares about himself. He'll love St. Louis as long as hes getting what he wants and the team is winning. Theres and old saying, "You cant teach an old dog new tricks." And I think thats true. If he did it to Philly (who he once wanted to spend his career with) then he could do it to St. Louis someday. There may be slight exceptions to the rule, but on a whole I think thats the way most people are. In the game it would be difficult for them to adjust a loyalty ranking like that Im sure, so I think a guy like Rolen should be an F and stay that way. Though the solution to your question may be this.... if an F loyalty player is making a good contract in a large city that is winning he'll remain happy. But come contract extension time, if his team is losing, he'll still want what all those types want, money (see Scott Rolen). An A loyalty player (like Cal Ripken for example) would stay with Baltimore regardless.

[ramsfan125]

I guess my question was answered. I think the reason Rolen didn't want to play in Philly is because he didn't want to, not because of money. He was offered way more than he was worth, and he could only dream of that from any team besides maybe the Yankees.

[Deke]

You may be right my friend. I guess only time will tell. We'll see after this year. :)

[ramsfan125]

I SURE HOPE I'M RIGHT! GO CARDS!

[dturkenk]

I can understand not wanting to play for the Phils. Aside from the occasional good trade (stocker for abreu, mabry for giambi) Ed Wade hasn't managed to put together any sort of quality team (last year's success was smoke, mirrors and some **** surprising bullpen performances). Of course ownership is more to blame - crying small market in the largest city with only one team is unconscionable (well in a baseball perspective anyway)

I sympathize with Rolen not wanting to stay with a team (up until it was too late) that showed absolutely no desire to make any sort of investment in winning. Ironically while Rolen leaving hurts the team from a talent perspective, it did manage to save the Phils from that over-the-top contract and allow them to resign Abreu and Lieberthal (still not sold on the wisdom of signing him through 2006 though)

[Deke]

Just a little thing I happened to notice in this week's Baseball Weekly. They had an article about Rolen returning to Philly with the Cards. Evidently, Rolen was offered 14 million per season to stay with the Phils. Tony Larussa was quoted saying that guys on his team want to take less money to stay with a franchise that treats its players well. They pay well but not exorbitantly. For example, Jim Edmonds is only making around 7.5 mil per year with the Cards. Larussa goes on to say, "The question is, is Scott happy with our philosophy? (taking less to stay in St. Louis) Because its going to be hard to pay him more than Jim Edmonds." That says a lot. If Rolen does re-sign with the Cards for around 7 or 8 million for example, then he really isnt about money. We'll see this offseason. But my guess is he wont re-sign and he'll find the highest offer elsewhere.

[ramsfan125]

I think Rolen will resign, because St. Louis has a good track record at making guys happy.

[wase]

its hard to label the mabry for giambi deal as a good deal since oakland soley wanted to unload payroll on that trade so it would free up some room to sign the many draft picks they got this year. its like a trade here in BMO, where u might dump a good player with a high salary to get someoen not as good but a smaller contract. for some reason, the phils were willing to increase their payroll to get giambi when they didnt have a chance in **** to even be contenders this season or the seasons to come.

[dturkenk]

I know that's what Gammons said about the deal, but it doesn't make sense from an economic perspective. If you want to free up salary, why do you get a player in return who's making $600,000 this season, rather than a minor leaguer who's probably being paid around $50,000? In retrospect this deal has turned out a lot better for the A's then most people (myself included) would have thought, but in the long run I'd still rather have Jeremy Giambi than John Mabry.

And as to the Phillies chances, I think if they can repair their bullpen next season, they have a shot especially if the Braves pitching staff is in a state of flux (potentially losing both Glavine and Maddux to FA).