Salary System

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:20 am

The recent competitive balance discussion has made me start to think that the only way we can avoid having prolonged periods of competitive imbalance would be to somehow implement a salary system. I had previously been hesitant about this b/c it seemed like there was no fair way to implement it that would keep everyone happy, but the more I think about it, the more it seems necessary to take the IBC to the next level.

I also think that now that we have this awesome OOPSS system, we should make every attempt to take the IBC further. Without wanting to drop a chunk of work on Shawn (and not knowing exactly how the back end of the OOPSS systems works), it does seem like the system could take a lot of the work out of tracking salaries and payrolls, and make a complex salary system easier to administer.

Anyway, I know this hasn't officially been opened up for discussion, but it was on my mind, so I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts and get a discussion going.

1. This would obviously need to be gradually imposed, b/c it wouldn't be fair to GMs who've worked hard to assemble high quality contending teams to force them to break their club up overnight (no matter how much those of us who have been tormented by the IBC Yanks might enjoy watching them be dismantled). Whether this would be done over 2 or 3, or even 4 years would probably have to be determined once we put a framework in place and were able to assess each team's salary situation under whatever proposed system we come up with.

2. The salary rules we've been using in LWNN (a salary league JP founded whose current and former members include a lot of IBC GMs) might be a good starting point for us. Those rules have been developed over a couple of years to the point where I think it's a pretty successful structure for a salary league. It includes a salary cap, and basically 3 types of contracts - one each for minor league FA signings, major league FA signings, and players signed through the FA bidding process.

3. Since starting from scratch is probably not an option, our toughest problems would be to figure out the following:

a) What's the salary cap? What's the cap for each year as we phase in the new rules?
b) How do we calculate starting salaries (before there has been a full-fledged FA bidding period)?

I think we probably would need to address b) before a) in order to put in place a system that gives higher payroll teams a fair opportunity to reduce their payroll over the period of more than one season.

A few ideas to chew on:

- all players (other than those on a minor league/ arbitration pay scale) would have contracts of the actual length of their current MLB contracts.
- we could round up or down their current average annual salary to determine the numbers
- we could also use a more performance-based system and somehow calculate initial annual salaries based on VORP or some other statistical measure (maybe even use BP's "MORP" - Marginal Value Over Replacement Player - which is conveniently already in salary terms)
- when a players contract expires in real MLB, he would become an IBC FA, and would enter the pool of players to be bid on in the offseason
- maybe during the transition process (the first year or two) we could give GMs the option to keep a player at their new salary rather than force them to enter the FA pool

Anyway, I think that if we had some kind of salary system in place that allows new GMs to turn their teams around more quickly we might have less turnover. Also, there would certainly be a lot more offseason action and we could introduce some kind of salary cap incentives to discourage teams from tanking, and encourage activity even when a team has fallen out of the playoff race.

Not sure how the other GMs here who are also in LWNN feel, but I do think that the system we have in place in that league is really really good, and if we do decide to go to a salary system it would make an easy starting point from which we could tweak the rules to suit this league.

Very interested to hear what other people think about how realistic this is, and whether other GMs share my concerns about competitive balance.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:05 am

Ah this argument again...seems to come up every September or so.

While your basic points that it would be (relatively) easy to implement in OOPSS, enhance competitive balance, offseason activity, etc. I still just don't think implementing this league-wide is going to be feasible. A quick headcount would probably be somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 in favor of, but I think that in order to make such a major change would require near 100% (if not 100%) agreement on whether or not to switch (which I don't think will ever be possible) and then the endless bickering that is inevitable when hashing out details.

Some thoughts if we were to go to this...
1. I don't think we should start enforcing the salary cap for at least 1 full season after the rules went into affect, giving GMs more than enough time to plan for the cap and also not have it severely affect moves they made this year for next year, etc.
2. I believe salary data comes in every season disk, I'd be interested in using something like a 3 year average to start, so that the affects of players who went into free agency recently will be somewhat downplayed.
3. I think we should use a franchise tag or something to that affect so that JP could keep a guy like Lincecum for basically as long as he desires without having to outbid whoever has the most money the year he becomes a free agent.
4. The amount of details to hash out would likely take an entire offseason, though with the ExCo now, perhaps process would be something like ExCo takes the topic (say current minor leaguers becoming major leaguers), discusses, comes up with only 2 or 3 of the best options and then comes to the league as a whole for a vote.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:08 pm

No salary cap. If I wanted to be in a salary league, I'd join one

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:54 pm

Indeed. That's what the PAC, LWNN and numerous other leagues are there for.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:10 am

I agree with Aaron & Jake!

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 2:03 am

Totally agree Aaron, Jake and Jagger.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 am

count me in as another opposed to implimenting salary.. don't have the time nor desire to put forth that effort. there are plenty of other ways to address competitive balance w/o restructuring the foundation of this league.

open up trading - free market

perhaps institute some kind of comp. round to the first year player draft for bottom 1/3 of teams

a hybrid rule V/first year draft.. similar to keeper fantasy league. you protect 30 of your 40 man.. rest go into same draft pool as upcoming 07s would... and we have a larger draft filling out the 40 man roster and remaining draft slots.. could even be seperate from first year player draft...potentail bonus is adds interest/activity to dreaded offseasons.

these are off the top of my head... & I'm not the brightest bulb on the xmas tree so I'm sure if balance is this big an issue than if given serious thought by some chaps smarter than myself then we can fix it w/o major work...

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:23 am

Guess I overestimated interest in a salary system. I thought there had been a pretty lively discussion from both sides in the past, but I seem to be the only one who likes the idea at this point.

Are people interested in anything like what Nate proposed in terms of smaller measures to give new GMs and struggling teams a better shot at turning it around? How about having some kind of a Rule V draft as part of the draft roster to 40-man cutdown process? We could allow GMs to protect enough minor leaguers that they would not have to expose their top prospects, but a lower-tier team might be able to improve itself by nabbing one or two players from the end of a contender's prospect roster.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:05 am

Orioles wrote:How about having some kind of a Rule V draft as part of the draft roster to 40-man cutdown process? We could allow GMs to protect enough minor leaguers that they would not have to expose their top prospects, but a lower-tier team might be able to improve itself by nabbing one or two players from the end of a contender's prospect roster.

I'd be a bit skeptical that any of the lower tier teams could really improve themselves much at all by pilfering the lower end of contender's draft/prospect roster. The lower couple spots on everyone's draft/prospect roster is typically in flux throughout the year with players being dropped and created all the time.

I wouldn't be completely opposed to a salary system. I have been pretty opposed to one in the past because of the complexity of trying to track amounts, however with the OOPSS system Shawn has created, I'd imagine he could put something in place that would track salary for each team, just like we currently track roster spots.

The hard part would be assigning salary values to each player. Do you go straight by what that player's salary is in the MLB? Do you try and come up with a three year average? I think something like implimenting a $100 million salary cap would be possible in this league and could add to competitive balance, but there are alot of specifics that would need to be worked out.

Essentially, each player would have a $$ salary value and at no time could someone's roster be over $100 million. If you were the system wouldn't let you acquire players until you were back below the salary cap. It could be something that could be implemented over a one or two year cycle, thus allowing the current teams with All Star rosters, time to convert some of those players into lower salary prospects.

Anyways, I could see it being a doable concept now with the OOPSS and it would be pretty simple for us (maybe not for Shawn) to implement, but it is still more of a luke warm concept I'd noodle on rather than something I'm all Gung Ho for right now.

Just my 3 cents.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:33 pm

I like the idea of a salary system a lot, but it's an uphill battle that I simply don't want to fight (at least not now).

I do like the Rule V draft idea though. it's no more pilfering another team's system than it is in MLB.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:43 pm

The last two posts were way too long so I didn't read them. We talked about a salary structure and agreed that it was just not for this league - as was stated, if you want a salary league, we have many people in the league happy to direct you to one.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:51 pm

RedSox wrote: I do like the Rule V draft idea though. it's no more pilfering another team's system than it is in MLB.

Call it what you want, pilfering / Rule 5, whatever, I just don't think it does much, if anything, to really address competitive balance.

Most of the players that would be available in a Rule 5 draft in the IBC are of the quality, that any GM with any free time could go through the minors right now and find equivalent talents available that they could just sign as free agents. Unless of course you what to have a Rule 5 draft where teams can only protect their top 25 players.....but then I think you'll find a whole lot more resistance to the concept.

In the end, while definately more controversial, a simple salary system would do 10x more for competitive balance than a Rule 5 draft would, IMO.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:02 pm

Mariners wrote:
RedSox wrote: I do like the Rule V draft idea though. it's no more pilfering another team's system than it is in MLB.

Call it what you want, pilfering / Rule 5, whatever, I just don't think it does much, if anything, to really address competitive balance.

Maybe. Maybe not. I'm going to start another thread on the topic.

I agree, a salary system would do far more to effect competitive balance than anything else, but it would take an enormous amount of support from the ExCo (which isn't there, I've tried) and from the league as a whole (which also isn't there).

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:51 pm

Personally - I LOVE the idea of a 25 man Rule IV - with the allowance of adding 5 more protections for each round - but that's probably complicated...

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:33 pm

I thought adding the rule V & first year in the same pool would also add another elemnt entirely. teams would be choosing from a larger pool overall. do they choose an 07 or a guy from the ruleV pool. teams could go in a lot of different directions adding a bit of uncertainty/unpredictability to how things will play out.

protecting 30 of 40 means 300 players added.. idk about the every squad.. but this would make players from top teams like NYY, BOS, CIN, STL, etc etc "available" & I'm sure I would have to put some guys I feel are valuable out on a limb.. guys that could increase overall value for lower level franchises.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:01 pm

For my own reasons, I hate the idea of a Rule V draft. I spend money on BA and BP subscriptions every year. I have no desire to even give away my 50th player if I did the research and found him via an article on one of the sites and basically paid for the prospect. Is it possible that said player may never be worth anything? Sure. But there are plenty of top 100 prospects that popup throughout the year and BA/BP help me find those.

I see no reason to reward other people for my effort. I never used to have a farm system. Now pretty much every prospect I have I like for one reason or another. I'm not willing to let another GM's apathy interfere with that.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:53 am

With all your knowledge and research, you might be able to find someone else's 50th player more valuable than your own.

And with a higher pick in the draft, that trade off might be worth it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:23 am

My pick isn't going to be that high. And this should be the only year where its in the top 12 or so.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:48 am

change is never easy.

I only threw thr ruleV idea out because I'm even MORE opposed to a salary league.. what's the lesser of two evils? I know how I feel.

silver lining to ruleV is its a draft. I love me some draftin...

& if yer really lamenting the loss of yer 50th guy, then you have problems. this is comin from a guy who has valued prospects sine the leagues inception.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:05 pm

guess I have problems then

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:20 pm

Astros wrote:guess I have problems then

We already knew that.