 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Check This Out! » Salary League Survey Results
paulcaraccio
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XKCGFCN
Before today's purchase of the available CHL team, there were exactly 50 unique owners in salary leagues. (Several owners are in 2-4 of them)
There are 25 responses. 23 of these are from current salary owners, and the other 2 have previously played salary, and horned in somehow, ha. The data includes the opinions of 9 CHL owners; 7 AML owners; 8 BZL owners; and 8 KBL owners, so roughly half of each league is represented. Here are the results. Some of the questions have been simplified here, but remain intact on the survey screen. I have not credited comments; let me know if I should and I will edit.
Q1: What is your Sim Dynasty screen name?
Everyone got this right!
Q2: Ignoring other factors, today's OS 29 Sim player considers a 5-year $25 million contract to be equal to a 1-year $4 million contract. Do you think this is the best way for the players to behave?
18 No. (72%)
5 Yes. (20%) - 2 of these appear to be false Yes's.
2 I don't care. (8%)
-- there has to be a tipping point where a 1-year deal would be more preferable, like Ervin Santana signed this season. but in general, longer term deals should be more preferred.
-- It depends. 1 year contracts are fine but the problem is when someone with high leadership gets an absurd 1 year deal in the hopes the owner can sign him to a cheap multi-year deal next season. Those are the annoying 1 year deals.
-- I agree with you that players should prefer the longer contracts, but I don't want it to hinder player movement.
-- However, if a player's previous season line (HR, R, RBI, SB, BA, etc.) was 10% or more lower than career totals - due to injury, etc. - he may prefer a 1-year deal to "prove" his worth, as happens in real life.
-- it seems crazy that someone would take less money for less years as described by this deal
-- Like most surveys the question is tainted towards one result.... the question completely ignores other factors critical to the decision making process of a MLB player and completely ignores the other side of the equation from the owners point of view......we can't duplicate only the parts of reality that we like if we want a fair and balanced game
Q3: If one offer pays you $5M/yr for 2 years into declines, how much should a 1-year be to make you consider it equal? (5 respondents skipped these 3 questions)
1 answer for 5M, 1 for 9M, 1 for 10M. The rest are clustered around 7M (5 picked 6M, 7 picked 7M, 5 picked 8M)
-- since I can't get hurt the only risk in taking the shorter deal is that the market might not give me the same contract next year. i'd need a premium to take that risk. 50% seems about fair, although it's not a listed option.
-- something like multiply by 1.2 rounded up. You can have two separate multipliers. One for if the contract doesn't include declining years and another if it does.
-- Let's keep it simple. Double the dollar value proposed to take the 1-year deal.
Q4: If one offer pays $12M/yr only up until OS34, how much should an equal 1-year be?
3 for 12M
2 for 13M
4 for 14M
8 for 15M
2 for 16M
1 for 18M
Q5: If one offer pays you $8M/yr through OS 31, allowing you another chance to hit the market in your prime, how much should an equal 1-year be?
3 for 8M
5 for 9M
7 for 10M
2 for 11M
2 for 12M
1 for 14M
I chose the contract figures so randomly to try to dissuade patterned responses. This didn't turn out well. I've written a new survey question that will accomplish the goal of these questions much better. I'll share that later, but people might be surveyed out already. But based on these responses, we'd be looking at something like a 1.5 multiplier for 8-year deals, maybe a 1.2 for 6-year deals, and about a 1.2 for 3-year deals. I don't think anybody really wants the contract that takes you right up to decline to have a positive multiplier.
Q6: Do you think there should be a hometown bonus for players with less than B- leadership ratings?
13/25: No, it's ideal the way it is.
8/25: Yes, even D- leaders should get a small bump.
3/25: Yes, but only down to C-.
1/25: No, only A- and above should get any boost.
-- I don't necessarily have any problems with this right now. Not sure it is ideal though!
-- My desire to overhaul the leadership bonus would be to tie it to service time with the club so teams can't sign a player with high leadership to a really high 1 year deal to try to use the bonus the next year
-- as opposed to hometown bonus I think you should be able to negotiate in season with player. If offered stellar deal on whatever algorithm like highest paid in league at position he'd stay with team.
Q7: The "Match" provision
14 pro, 11 con. (Nobody picked "I don't care")
-- free market is free market. I don't like the idea of not letting the market dictate.
-- I think this would add a new element to the game that would be exciting.
-- I have no interest in in restricting player movement.....nor do I have an interest in adding elements of the NBA or NFL.....just to achieve that goal.....
-- I could have some interest in some sort of match feature but draft pick compensation is a non starter for me
-- I would support any hometown deals. I would give the option of a counter offer or to be able to send compensation.
-- Great idea and realistic
Q8: The early-extension "Franchise Tag" idea
10 pro, 12 con. 3 indifferent.
-- one franchise tag per team
-- hate this idea. it goes against the entire concept.
-- only if it's automated
-- It would hinder player movement.
-- Blows salary caps out of the water.
-- One of the huge advantages of a salary league format is that teams cannot win by "tanking" because they constantly lose premier talent once it hits free agency.
--Makes me nervous - I think how this plays out is too unpredictable and the downside too great.
Q9: Variable Decline Age (This question was poorly worded. It reads as if the declines would be blind, I meant you'd have no forewarning, but you'd see it in the Improvements)
12 like it in some form (6 only/mainly for salary, 6 for all league types)
8 don't like it at all.
5 didn't care about this.
Here are some comments from the end of the survey:
-- There should be field where and owner can designate "Do not sign more that (Number) (Position)." This way, we dont have to worry about ending up with 3 backup catchers when we only want 1.
-- I think it might ruin my particular way of winning but I think that the minimum contract should be larger than .5 million...maybe 1 million maybe 1.5 million. The current setup significantly de-values prospects/pre free agent players. I also think that prospects rated under B+ should be paid much less. The current pay level for B+ and above is fine, however, in MLB a 20 year old in AA is making about $15,000 a year...in SD he makes 3/4 of a million.
-- I will stick with salary FOREVER because it is the *only* SimD format where you could, with enough savvy and creativity, create a team that can compete for the playoffs EVERY SEASON.
-- If a non guaranteed player is cut and clears waivers the salary should reset to $0.5M. This would add talent by enticing teams to add borderline players who might otherwise be left to rot because they are too expensive.
-- I would just like to have an option to offer my own player a contract on day 1, where no one else can bid on him. Then that player could "evaluate" the contract. If its not in the average top 3 salaries at his position, then it goes to bid. This would require homework and studying on the owner's part, but it would be fun and more realistic to how FA works in MLB. If a teams wants to hold onto a player, they always offer them before they go to the open market
-- I really would like to do away with the 1 year deal being high value concept and see the players prefer long term deals.
-- We have a very fine game.....I will support any change that does not restrict player movement.....if an owner needs to hang on to their players as a central part of enjoyment.....then play in another format.....what bothers me the most is that we continually bend for this sort of thing.....and these guys end up bailing on the rest of league who are left holding the bag..... it honestly gets real old!
-- I plan on being here for a while and hope to buy a team in the other 6 gpd salary league. I would like for the "match" feature to be implemented over any of the other changes brought up.
Salary League Survey Results
March 19, 2014 at 08:54PM View BBCode
This survey has been conducted in the 4 Salary Leagues over the past couple days, anyone may still go in and complete it if they wish to:https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XKCGFCN
Before today's purchase of the available CHL team, there were exactly 50 unique owners in salary leagues. (Several owners are in 2-4 of them)
There are 25 responses. 23 of these are from current salary owners, and the other 2 have previously played salary, and horned in somehow, ha. The data includes the opinions of 9 CHL owners; 7 AML owners; 8 BZL owners; and 8 KBL owners, so roughly half of each league is represented. Here are the results. Some of the questions have been simplified here, but remain intact on the survey screen. I have not credited comments; let me know if I should and I will edit.
Q1: What is your Sim Dynasty screen name?
Everyone got this right!
Q2: Ignoring other factors, today's OS 29 Sim player considers a 5-year $25 million contract to be equal to a 1-year $4 million contract. Do you think this is the best way for the players to behave?
18 No. (72%)
5 Yes. (20%) - 2 of these appear to be false Yes's.
2 I don't care. (8%)
-- there has to be a tipping point where a 1-year deal would be more preferable, like Ervin Santana signed this season. but in general, longer term deals should be more preferred.
-- It depends. 1 year contracts are fine but the problem is when someone with high leadership gets an absurd 1 year deal in the hopes the owner can sign him to a cheap multi-year deal next season. Those are the annoying 1 year deals.
-- I agree with you that players should prefer the longer contracts, but I don't want it to hinder player movement.
-- However, if a player's previous season line (HR, R, RBI, SB, BA, etc.) was 10% or more lower than career totals - due to injury, etc. - he may prefer a 1-year deal to "prove" his worth, as happens in real life.
-- it seems crazy that someone would take less money for less years as described by this deal
-- Like most surveys the question is tainted towards one result.... the question completely ignores other factors critical to the decision making process of a MLB player and completely ignores the other side of the equation from the owners point of view......we can't duplicate only the parts of reality that we like if we want a fair and balanced game
Q3: If one offer pays you $5M/yr for 2 years into declines, how much should a 1-year be to make you consider it equal? (5 respondents skipped these 3 questions)
1 answer for 5M, 1 for 9M, 1 for 10M. The rest are clustered around 7M (5 picked 6M, 7 picked 7M, 5 picked 8M)
-- since I can't get hurt the only risk in taking the shorter deal is that the market might not give me the same contract next year. i'd need a premium to take that risk. 50% seems about fair, although it's not a listed option.
-- something like multiply by 1.2 rounded up. You can have two separate multipliers. One for if the contract doesn't include declining years and another if it does.
-- Let's keep it simple. Double the dollar value proposed to take the 1-year deal.
Q4: If one offer pays $12M/yr only up until OS34, how much should an equal 1-year be?
3 for 12M
2 for 13M
4 for 14M
8 for 15M
2 for 16M
1 for 18M
Q5: If one offer pays you $8M/yr through OS 31, allowing you another chance to hit the market in your prime, how much should an equal 1-year be?
3 for 8M
5 for 9M
7 for 10M
2 for 11M
2 for 12M
1 for 14M
I chose the contract figures so randomly to try to dissuade patterned responses. This didn't turn out well. I've written a new survey question that will accomplish the goal of these questions much better. I'll share that later, but people might be surveyed out already. But based on these responses, we'd be looking at something like a 1.5 multiplier for 8-year deals, maybe a 1.2 for 6-year deals, and about a 1.2 for 3-year deals. I don't think anybody really wants the contract that takes you right up to decline to have a positive multiplier.
Q6: Do you think there should be a hometown bonus for players with less than B- leadership ratings?
13/25: No, it's ideal the way it is.
8/25: Yes, even D- leaders should get a small bump.
3/25: Yes, but only down to C-.
1/25: No, only A- and above should get any boost.
-- I don't necessarily have any problems with this right now. Not sure it is ideal though!
-- My desire to overhaul the leadership bonus would be to tie it to service time with the club so teams can't sign a player with high leadership to a really high 1 year deal to try to use the bonus the next year
-- as opposed to hometown bonus I think you should be able to negotiate in season with player. If offered stellar deal on whatever algorithm like highest paid in league at position he'd stay with team.
Q7: The "Match" provision
14 pro, 11 con. (Nobody picked "I don't care")
-- free market is free market. I don't like the idea of not letting the market dictate.
-- I think this would add a new element to the game that would be exciting.
-- I have no interest in in restricting player movement.....nor do I have an interest in adding elements of the NBA or NFL.....just to achieve that goal.....
-- I could have some interest in some sort of match feature but draft pick compensation is a non starter for me
-- I would support any hometown deals. I would give the option of a counter offer or to be able to send compensation.
-- Great idea and realistic
Q8: The early-extension "Franchise Tag" idea
10 pro, 12 con. 3 indifferent.
-- one franchise tag per team
-- hate this idea. it goes against the entire concept.
-- only if it's automated
-- It would hinder player movement.
-- Blows salary caps out of the water.
-- One of the huge advantages of a salary league format is that teams cannot win by "tanking" because they constantly lose premier talent once it hits free agency.
--Makes me nervous - I think how this plays out is too unpredictable and the downside too great.
Q9: Variable Decline Age (This question was poorly worded. It reads as if the declines would be blind, I meant you'd have no forewarning, but you'd see it in the Improvements)
12 like it in some form (6 only/mainly for salary, 6 for all league types)
8 don't like it at all.
5 didn't care about this.
Here are some comments from the end of the survey:
-- There should be field where and owner can designate "Do not sign more that (Number) (Position)." This way, we dont have to worry about ending up with 3 backup catchers when we only want 1.
-- I think it might ruin my particular way of winning but I think that the minimum contract should be larger than .5 million...maybe 1 million maybe 1.5 million. The current setup significantly de-values prospects/pre free agent players. I also think that prospects rated under B+ should be paid much less. The current pay level for B+ and above is fine, however, in MLB a 20 year old in AA is making about $15,000 a year...in SD he makes 3/4 of a million.
-- I will stick with salary FOREVER because it is the *only* SimD format where you could, with enough savvy and creativity, create a team that can compete for the playoffs EVERY SEASON.
-- If a non guaranteed player is cut and clears waivers the salary should reset to $0.5M. This would add talent by enticing teams to add borderline players who might otherwise be left to rot because they are too expensive.
-- I would just like to have an option to offer my own player a contract on day 1, where no one else can bid on him. Then that player could "evaluate" the contract. If its not in the average top 3 salaries at his position, then it goes to bid. This would require homework and studying on the owner's part, but it would be fun and more realistic to how FA works in MLB. If a teams wants to hold onto a player, they always offer them before they go to the open market
-- I really would like to do away with the 1 year deal being high value concept and see the players prefer long term deals.
-- We have a very fine game.....I will support any change that does not restrict player movement.....if an owner needs to hang on to their players as a central part of enjoyment.....then play in another format.....what bothers me the most is that we continually bend for this sort of thing.....and these guys end up bailing on the rest of league who are left holding the bag..... it honestly gets real old!
-- I plan on being here for a while and hope to buy a team in the other 6 gpd salary league. I would like for the "match" feature to be implemented over any of the other changes brought up.
ballmark
March 19, 2014 at 09:36PM View BBCode
Q2: It seems to me that perhaps the easiest thing to do/code is remove the 1-year bonus for the first three days of free agency, and re-institute it on day four ... which would emulate real life more closely...?
paulcaraccio
This might not be that easy to code though, it's not actually a bonus on 1-year deals, it's not something they could just take out or put back in. It's just a different multiplier that happens to be higher. I could see it being difficult to program it to change figures on different days.
March 19, 2014 at 10:42PM View BBCode
that's pretty interesting. i had an idea where instead of a random 25% signing on Day 1, it should be the highest 25% of offers (by adjusted annual salary). That might work well in conjunction with this idea.This might not be that easy to code though, it's not actually a bonus on 1-year deals, it's not something they could just take out or put back in. It's just a different multiplier that happens to be higher. I could see it being difficult to program it to change figures on different days.
dangallo
- I will stick with salary FOREVER because it is the *only* SimD format where you could, with enough savvy and creativity, create a team that can compete for the playoffs EVERY SEASON.
- Amen
-- If a non guaranteed player is cut and clears waivers the salary should reset to $0.5M. This would add talent by enticing teams to add borderline players who might otherwise be left to rot because they are too expensive.
- this idea is rock solid - I see no downside and only upside.
-- It depends. 1 year contracts are fine but the problem is when someone with high leadership gets an absurd 1 year deal in the hopes the owner can sign him to a cheap multi-year deal next season. Those are the annoying 1 year deals.
- I loathe this sort of "leadership bonus purchasing" I actually am disappointed many times when my player pops a high leadership bonus because I fear that I have LESS of a chance to sign him because of this phenomenon.
-- There should be field where and owner can designate "Do not sign more that (Number) (Position)." This way, we dont have to worry about ending up with 3 backup catchers when we only want 1.
- I think I would rarely use it but it makes too much sense to not be included in a perfect world.
March 20, 2014 at 12:46AM View BBCode
The highlights for me:- I will stick with salary FOREVER because it is the *only* SimD format where you could, with enough savvy and creativity, create a team that can compete for the playoffs EVERY SEASON.
- Amen
-- If a non guaranteed player is cut and clears waivers the salary should reset to $0.5M. This would add talent by enticing teams to add borderline players who might otherwise be left to rot because they are too expensive.
- this idea is rock solid - I see no downside and only upside.
-- It depends. 1 year contracts are fine but the problem is when someone with high leadership gets an absurd 1 year deal in the hopes the owner can sign him to a cheap multi-year deal next season. Those are the annoying 1 year deals.
- I loathe this sort of "leadership bonus purchasing" I actually am disappointed many times when my player pops a high leadership bonus because I fear that I have LESS of a chance to sign him because of this phenomenon.
-- There should be field where and owner can designate "Do not sign more that (Number) (Position)." This way, we dont have to worry about ending up with 3 backup catchers when we only want 1.
- I think I would rarely use it but it makes too much sense to not be included in a perfect world.
paulcaraccio
March 20, 2014 at 06:42AM View BBCode
gotta agree on the leadership thing. What kind of "leader" would be so loyal to a team just because they fattened his wallet for 1 year
dirtdevil
it happens all the time, really. how many times do players get traded to the cardinals and decide to stay long-term? there is an issue for sure, but i've always thought the best solution was to give the leadership bonus to the last team for which a guy played and any other team for which he's played 3 or more seasons.
March 20, 2014 at 01:36PM View BBCode
Originally posted by paulcaraccio
gotta agree on the leadership thing. What kind of "leader" would be so loyal to a team just because they fattened his wallet for 1 year
it happens all the time, really. how many times do players get traded to the cardinals and decide to stay long-term? there is an issue for sure, but i've always thought the best solution was to give the leadership bonus to the last team for which a guy played and any other team for which he's played 3 or more seasons.
Admin
But like I said, I'd love to learn more about what people want to see for when we do have time to put in the hours.
Thanks,
Tyson
March 20, 2014 at 06:12PM View BBCode
Quick comment on this. I'm very interested to see what people think we should do, but I can't make any promises that we will actually make changes in the near term. The proposed changes could create a lot of work, and we don't really have any time budgeted for Salary leagues in the near future.But like I said, I'd love to learn more about what people want to see for when we do have time to put in the hours.
Thanks,
Tyson
paulcaraccio
Tyson, none of us are expecting anything from the second half of the survey to even be seriously considered any time soon. The only real target of this movement is the 1-year bump. Do you think it might be relatively painless just to edit the Length of Contract Adjustment figures in the FA formula?
I think something like this would be better; there would be some objection, but I'm fairly confident that a majority would support.
For each season beyond 1 offered in a contract, the length adjustment will rise .05. So, a 2 year deal is 1.05, 3 year deals are 1.1, etc, with two exceptions:
Any contract that ends at a player's OS 33 season would have a 0.95
Any contract that ends at a player's OS 34 season would have a 0.90
[Edited on 3-21-2014 by paulcaraccio]
March 21, 2014 at 07:30AM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
dirt i agree with you when a trade is involved, i meant when a FA signs a 1-year deal just for the money...and then takes a lower-paying long-term deal the next season because of Leadership. That's a great idea, to be able to give the bonus to multiple teams, I hadn't seen that mentioned before.
Tyson, none of us are expecting anything from the second half of the survey to even be seriously considered any time soon. The only real target of this movement is the 1-year bump. Do you think it might be relatively painless just to edit the Length of Contract Adjustment figures in the FA formula?
I think something like this would be better; there would be some objection, but I'm fairly confident that a majority would support.
For each season beyond 1 offered in a contract, the length adjustment will rise .05. So, a 2 year deal is 1.05, 3 year deals are 1.1, etc, with two exceptions:
Any contract that ends at a player's OS 33 season would have a 0.95
Any contract that ends at a player's OS 34 season would have a 0.90
[Edited on 3-21-2014 by paulcaraccio]
Mongrel
Maybe the prestige should also have a strong weight on the leadership bonus. If a guy signs a one-year deal, team wins 120 games, and wins the WS, he's much more likely to want to stick with the team than if he wins 70 games.
March 22, 2014 at 02:43AM View BBCode
It seems the high 1 yr deal is an exploit of the leadership bonus. Perhaps there should be a weight on past salary on accepting new contracts. So if a guy signs a one year deal for $6M when he's 29, he (and his agent) will not even consider a 4 year $18M offer.Maybe the prestige should also have a strong weight on the leadership bonus. If a guy signs a one-year deal, team wins 120 games, and wins the WS, he's much more likely to want to stick with the team than if he wins 70 games.
Pages: 1