|
|
Post by Rawhide GM (Jimmy-LM) on Oct 21, 2016 17:11:39 GMT -5
The TRP has had discussions and are making a couple announcements:
1) The TRP has decided to raise the salary cap to $125m. We will not raise the cap for another 3 years, as we look to keep contracts reigned in to reasonable amounts, and this will provide a small window to evaluate contracts after the next round of the CBA agreement is in place. It's small, but will be helpful and will bring us right up to the avg spending of current MLB teams.
2) The TRP has discussed for a long period of time, and we have come to the agreement that Prince Fielder's career ending injury is deemed under the tag "sudden and tragic", and therefore we will be reprieving the Pirates of the remainder of Fielder's contract.
3) The Biscuts will be a supplemental 1st and 2nd round pick as cost for the tragic loss of Jose Fernandez. It is hard to place a market value on Fernandez, but this will be better than nothing and will at least provide immediate assets for him to use towards his team.
There are no amendments to rules that are being made this offseason. Wish everyone a great offseason, and happy holidays as well!!
- Jimmy (LM)
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad) on Oct 21, 2016 18:43:35 GMT -5
Well done, all around.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (prev. Redbirds Amy) on Oct 21, 2016 19:07:44 GMT -5
I second that!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2016 19:30:44 GMT -5
Just curious how this comp thing works going forward.
I ask cause I owned Oscar Taveras in here in a similar situation and there was no comp. He was arguably worth more then than Jose would be right now (not that Oscar was better but he was a Bogaerts level talent and had 4 PP years left at the time vs 1 PP year left for Jose).
Fwiw, I'm fine with this decision, just trying to figure out the rule here as a player who was probably worth more was lost under similar circumstances in the past but with no comp.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2016 4:12:49 GMT -5
Our two cents:
There have always been guys who died, had a catastrophic injury or left for the priesthood and teams were not compensated. Why now? And why toss Fielder into that gray area of reimbursement? All that's happened to him is a career-ending injury. That happens all the time -- well, if not all the time, then certainly often.
Are we going to set up a "compensation rule" for all players who die, anywhere in a team's system or have career ending injuries?
This seems like an over-reaction. Stuff happens. Grant Desme joined the priesthood. Top prospects and players have horrendous boating and motorcycle accidents almost regularly. Compensation of two premium picks seems way over the top. We say send the team a PM with condolences and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Javelinas GM (Scott) on Oct 23, 2016 13:02:43 GMT -5
I would think the distinction between Taveras and Fernandez is that Taveras was still just a prospect, whereas Fernandez was an established ML star. I do understand though that from a pure organizational value perspective, Taveras was a hit.
As for Fielder, in real life teams would be off the hook for retirement, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winston-Salem Spirits (Brad) on Oct 23, 2016 13:33:22 GMT -5
He would. But I don't think he has officially retired nor does he plan to until he collects his money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Generals GM (Pete) on Oct 23, 2016 21:39:05 GMT -5
So my first impression about the compensation for Jose and Prince, was that was nice and good consideration. But after reading the comments and thinking about it some more, at the risk of sounding like a jerk, I don't think it is a good idea. The Oscar Taveras is a perfect example.
Why compensate for some and not others? All things being equal if you had both Jose Fernandez and Oscar T the day before they died, would you have traded Taveras, the top spec in the Cardinals organization for one more pp year of Jose Fernandez? Could probably argue it either way.
As for career ending injuries, there are probably others that would need to be considered, what about someone like David Wright, who is basically done? I can't think of recent ones right now, but Johan Santana, Bo Jackson, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior all come to mind. Would all those be compensated?
I think the problem is it looks like a subjective decision, a nice jesture, but not sure if it fair across the board and will be hard to defend not doing it for other cases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2016 22:18:36 GMT -5
That -- what Pete said.
It's not a good idea. Too much room for subjective decisions. There should be an absolute rule on what criteria fits the benefit and what does not. Injuries happen. People die. There are all sorts of reason that a valuable player can disappear from any team's roster.
Giving away draft picks for bad luck is not a good idea at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by PawSox (GazW) on Oct 24, 2016 3:37:20 GMT -5
Firstly, I think we came to the conclusion that it's already in the rules that "sudden and tragic" injuries can relieve an owner of the remainder of a contract. Fielder cant play anymore even though he wants to. Also, I think people are getting confused, he's not getting any picks for him.
Secondly, Jose Fernandez was one of the best players in baseball and was only likely to get better. The fact he was only under team control for 2017 means that he was worth at least 3 first round picks in 2018 after, what would most likely have been, another year of dominance. I'm in a few of these leagues and this is the third that has given a similar compensation package, one had the same and one had 2 first round picks.
In regards to Oscar Taveras, it's something that was taken in to consideration but it was felt that no one knew what Taveras was going to become. Everyone knows what Fernandez was and how good he was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rawhide GM (Jimmy-LM) on Oct 24, 2016 5:46:10 GMT -5
I think the problem is it looks like a subjective decision, a nice jesture, but not sure if it fair across the board and will be hard to defend not doing it for other cases. I don't think this is a question about what is fair and what is not. This was the league trying to asses the actual production and position of teams and make decisions for a healthy league. What Gaz said is pretty much hitting the nail on the head for our discussions. The compensation the Pirates are receiving is in the form of a contract relief, not actual picks. He had $55m in leftover cap last season, of which Fielder had his "official- unofficial" retirement after our no drop period. It was money that could have easily been used to buyout his contract anyways. The difference in Taveras vs Fernandez is the same difference in perceived vale and production. Everyone knows how good Fernandez is and was. No one knows how good or bad Taveras could have been. Top prospects fizzle all the time (if you've seen Jon Sickles review this last month, you've recognized that), and therefore it's hard to compensate something that hasn't quite happened yet. Both of these guys was discussed, but for the TRP it was obvious for one and for the other it wasn't even after lengthy discussions. This is not the first or only league to give compensation, and likewise this is not the first time compensation has been given. This is us trying to do right by the GMs that have lost concrete production for next year and beyond, and for the health of balance in the league. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 7:21:47 GMT -5
To me, in an initial draft, that Taveras would have gone before Jose a large portion of the time, simply because his control gave him more value. We dont know how good he would become for sure, but this was a top shelf propect, pretty much as good as any bat spec we've seen other than trout/harper (techinically taveras wasnt a spec anymore). Taveras was arguably in a situation like say bregman or urias now (tho Taveras was even a higher rated spec than either), he was clearly going to get playing time the next year. I'm sure whoever owns moncada, similar valuewise guy to Taveras in terms of overall projection, but unlike Taveras still a spec, would also feel a pretty big hit as moncada will project to get good time next year. And I expect moncada also would go ahead of Jose in a draft (if it was a combined draft). I get the point we dont know, but does that mean say an Addison Russell (knock on wood) would get no compensation. He's been decent in MLB but it'd be hard to justify giving comp for him but not Taveras under what's said above, because Russell's not a star yet, his star value is still mostly predicated on projection. It seems like the whole rationale begs for a lot bad answers if applied to other similar situations. Hopefully, these things occur so rarely that it becomes a non-issue, but we have had two now in 3 years so its not crazy to think there may be others.
I I get that Jose in a pure fan sense is a bigger loss. No doubt its bigger for baseball. But in a fantasy sense, it's not more lost value. I basically went in a quasi-rebuild mode in 2015 and losing taveras was a large part of the reason, so its not like there wasnt immediate impact in addition to the longterm hit. Taveras wasnt just some far away guy, he was going to be starting the next spring. Losing Taveras in a bigger picture sense is as big or bigger loss for a team longterm and also impactful right now. If you're looking at things like health/balance of the league, Taveras affects that just as much or more than Jose.
That said, I appreciate that you guys at least considered the precedent even if I think the decision here is problematic. I think we all hope the circumstances won't occur again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 8:31:59 GMT -5
I think it was noted before, but you're making a lot of assumptions about Taveras and prospects in general. contracts dont add certainty to a player, and thus value, which is the crux of the reason for compensation (certainty/risk). had paul goldschmidt died before reaching the pros, there would be no compensation, nor would there be any discussion to merit it, for the very same reasons taveras doesnt merit it, they're prospects, and nothing to rely on except hope.
when you choose to trade and rebuild with prospects, regardless of their milb status, you assume much more risk than choosing to trade for someone like fernandez, with a track record at the level that matters. the risk is a legitimate factor that means (to me) prospects shouldnt get any compensation in a similar situation. shouldnt really need to hedge that risk in the form of compensation should something bad happen to the prospect, regardless of the prospects perceived status. i believe its been proven that a prospect at the high end of certainty still warrants about a 25% chance to pan out at best.
i dont think fernandez should warrant compensation either, for what its worth, because life happens. but i can see it makes sense when in a 30 team league, the mlb talent is spread thin, so i have no issues with that. i feel like prospects are a completely different bucket that shouldn't be part of this discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 9:45:59 GMT -5
i get that view but it leaves a lot of problems. i used addison russell as an example because he's not really star yet, so what would you do then. he's only proven as a solid player but there are tons of solid players, does every mlb decent player get compensation. if its just stars, which it sounds like then guys like russell or rodon etc that still have some questions wouldnt qualify. it would even make for interesting questions for lots of guys that have done well in short stints, is a good prospect doing well his first year a star all of the sudden, when lots of guys struggle later. what about say puig when this league started, he was a top top pick, but realistically he wasnt a proven star yet, just a guy with lots of projection and nice first year. if we're looking at failure rate as issue, anyone that doesnt have 1000ABs or so is a pretty big risk. not just prospects. in any case as a rule, it makes for lots of weird calls.
and fwiw, taveras was not a prospect when he passed. he was up. yes, he didnt get regular playing time his rookie season, but thats because the cards were a good team, still for not getting regular playing time he made still made good progression/adjustments and got better the longer he stayed in. i remember he had a very solid final month of the year. in any case, he was set to be a regular in 2015 for a good team, certainly some risk, but he was a now guy too. i do get considering his value to be like prospect, because its still mostly projection, but it also means someone like addison russell's or carlos rodon's value has a large projection component too, are they half way to being stars or half way to underperforming projections. there's a very slippery slope in making those distinctions. maybe jose vs taveras seems like an easier way to make that distinction but as a general rule with the broad range of players in the entire playing pool, it would be problematic to make those distinctions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2016 10:10:16 GMT -5
MOSTLY though, its still about VALUE. Because this isnt a static league where you can't trade players. At the end of day, Taveras was worth as much or more in trade than Jose. So, even if Taveras wasn't great yet, and certainly there was risk, he had enough value that I could have easily turned him into someone like Jose in trade. So as a loss, its no less. Once you allow trades, if i've got a guy worth as much as Jose, its just like losing Jose, because I could have made that deal. (And we all know I'm not afraid of turning over my roster in trades!). For instance, if someone had say just traded someone like Jose for Taveras, and then Taveras passed, that manager would feel as big of hit as if they'd lost the equivalent of Jose, because thats what they traded away to get Taveras, but one loss gets compensated and not the other, seems odd.
I loved Oscar, so maybe I wouldnt have dealt him. But its also not a theoretical point here because I did chose to basically rebuild in 2015 because I felt I just didnt have enough to go up against gnats/pawsox, and losing Taveras was a bit of a tipping point for making that decision. Not the only reason, but if I had him either as player or trade asset (or keep him and trade others), I really might have felt like I had enough depth to go for in 2015. And honestly, it was close call for me to rebuild in 2015 and there is a good chance he was the difference, losing him definitely started the idea of rebuilding. Given that I was so close in 2014 (in the finals, lost on tiebreak), that's a pretty big thing for a finals team to tear down the following year.
Look, you guys have explained, so ok. Maybe it all worked out for me because perhaps being pushed to rebuild in 2015 was ultimately a good thing and that allowed me to win this year. But I had to respond about the difference between a proven guy and a projection guy. I understand that difference on the surface. But the problem is that value still trumps that because both guys are still assets and the projection guy can often have more value and be easily turned into the proven guy through trade. Since I could have dealt taveras for someone like Jose, I lost the equivalent.
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueSox GM(Matt P) on Oct 24, 2016 14:03:41 GMT -5
On the Fielder issue, he is literally being told by doctors they won't approve him to play, and that he would play otherwise, and the Rangers would have him, if they could get a doctor to sign off. Wright, Santana, Wood and Prior could at the time and now can play and all are authorized to play by their doctors, but cannot continue at the level required to be a major leaguer. Wright might be in too much pain to play, but doctors have never refused to allow him to play. By that definition, it is a "tragic career-threatening injury". I don't see it as compensation. I see it as a way to maintain the competitiveness of the league.
In real life, fwiw, he is being designated as permanent disabled, so that the insurance will kick in. The Tigers and the Rangers are picking up a portion of the contract, and the insurance company that underwrote the contract is picking up the remainder.
As for compensation for Jose, I view it as Commish's prerogative and will support him as such.
|
|
|
|
Post by Generals GM (Pete) on Oct 26, 2016 14:50:10 GMT -5
I honestly am fine with whatever is decided. BUT, I do, like I said, thinks both decisions are very subjective and because of that cause more problems with trying to keep it fair for all situations that come up, and hopefully they don't or are far between.
Injuries - since we can't have a doctor's note (who really knows what the doctors told David Wright?), maybe as was mentioned with Fielder, the indicator is real life insurance kicking in? There is no compensation, but relief from future salary years. I know at one point there was talk about the Yankees trying to get insurance to cover ARod's injuries (a whole other set of circumstances). Anyway, there should be clear criteria on when relief is granted. I would have to check the league rules on how retirement is handled, but maybe the same way??
Death - again, not to sound like a jerk but I don't think anything more than salary relief should be given. BUT if you want to give draft pick compensation then again, clear rules should be laid out maybe by the type of player. I really don't know what to pick that is not subjective but how about something like: According to last or current year Fantrax stats/rankings : top 50 player, top 100 player, all others with major league experience, minor leaguers. If you don't want to give anything at the lower levels, fine, just suggest something objective and putting in writing to avoid future grievances.
Again, I think having a clear set of criteria is best as opposed to "TPR discussed it and decided....." (no disrespect meant, you guys do a great job running the league, just trying to avoid future complaints)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2016 6:44:03 GMT -5
That.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 21:25:49 GMT -5
Again, I think having a clear set of criteria is best as opposed to "TPR discussed it and decided....." (no disrespect meant, you guys do a great job running the league, just trying to avoid future complaints) I think that's an impt point. Otherwise, it comes across as just a few guys opinions rather than trying to abide by an actual rule (in this case the rule was previous precedent). For stuff like this, the most important thing is consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by BlueSox GM(Matt P) on Oct 28, 2016 22:14:02 GMT -5
The Fielder thing is following a previously existing rule. As Jose Fernandez, I do agree with that and had said something in TRP about creating a rule of some type. But also believe that there is something as simple as Commissioner Prerogative. The Commissioner (especially here and Triple Play), have put in an exorbitant amount of time and energy in these leagues to try and make things run smoothly and fairly, and should be allowed some leeway to make some "adjustments" as they see fit, and we should support them as such, not tear them down for decisions that won't impact the league in a huge way.
|
|
