So, I've been thinking about this for a while. In another league I'm in with Richard and that Matt was once in, there's a player who has had ARod, Johan Santana and Pujols as keepers since Day 1 of their productive careers. He also used to have Alfonso Soriano when he was a 2B but was able to replace him with David Wright. This is all well and good and people should be rewarded for coming upon talent in its infancy, and I think our league has moved even more in that direction in a way I agree with. My only problem is the ability to translate one good, though usually fairly lucky, decision into keeping an elite talent out of the player pool for others to bid on for pretty much a player's entire productive career. Given our YPIA provision and minor league provision, together with only $3 inflation once the inflation rules apply, you could easily pick up the next Pujols in his age 21 season and keep him for under market value rate until he's well past 30 years old. My proposition to somewhat alleviate the effects of this, and in general to drive some of the best players back into the auction process, is to replace our flat $3 inflation rate with a 20% inflation rate, with fractions rounded up to the next dollar. For example, let's say you had a player in your minor league system (under our new rule which seems to be going into effect by acclimation of those who have commented and the silence of those who have not commented being read as tacit approval). This is how his pricing would look on a year by year basis.
Y1 - $0 (because he was just activated)
Y2 - $5 (under new minor leaguer keeper rule)
Y3 - $15
Y4 - $15 (under YPIA, assuming player was 25 or under on opening day of Y3)
Y5 - $18
Y6 - $22 (20% of 18 is 3.6, rounded up to $4)
Y7 - $27 (20% of 22 is 4.4, rounded up to $5)
Y8 - $33 (you get the drill)
Thus, even if your minor league player was promoted at the tender age of 21, you'd have him clearly under market value (assuming he's an All-Star caliber guy) until he hits his prime, and if he's a superstar, you really have him under his value until he's pushing 30 years old. This change would further promote the idea that it's better to have keepers that you yourself "developed" through your minor league system, perceptive bidding or off free agency in season as a guy you had to pay real money for in the auction (like Bonderman with me, who if he had turned into a Cy Young guy like I hoped, I still would have had inflate to $32 on me mighty fast as I purchased him at $27). I am interested to hear what others have to say about this as an idea on a fundamental level as well as in the particulars of my 20% inflation rate and the idea of rounding up fractions in all cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I just wanted to note that it would make it difference under this regime whether you inflate before or after certain adjustments to the value of the player. I assume you are inflating after adjustments are made.
In that vein, the devaluation rules are linked to inflation cost in many ways. Would you want to change that as well?
I would say apply the inflation rules after applying any other adjustments (deflating value for having picked a guy up off waivers or free agency for instance). I would also say that devaulation stay at its current levels for the sake of simplicity and because devaluation is unlikely to come into play very often anyway.
I am considering keeping a player who the FA devaluation rule would apply to. My understanding is that the intent of the devaluation rule is to cancel out inflation for the next year as a sort of reward for picking up a discarded player. If this is the case, it would argue in favor of making these rules use the same formula. Otherwise, the $3 break becomes even more arbitrary, if that is possible. Anyone else?
Post a Comment