CFCL Contracts

[Copperfields]

We've always used the contract structure from the original Rotisserie League Constitution. We've tweaked it over the years with things like X, M, and S contracts, but it's still been that basic letter-indicator contract status, working up the alphabet to B.

There's a lot of tradition behind that system, but it's got it's issues too:

1) It's not all that intuitive -- there's always a thought process that goes into "What exactly does this E contract mean?"

2) The progression from D-C-F-E-B for example, doesn't always make a lot of sense. That too, requires a thought process to interpret.

3) Especially this time of year, it can be unclear what the contracts reflect. If a guy is on a roster now as a D, does that reflect his 2007 contract or 2008?

4) This one really just applies to me, but I've got to update the contracts for every keeper each year - moving from D to C, C to B, E to B, etc. It's twice the work now, because Sportsline doesn't have an auto-conversion feature that TQS did, so I've got to update them at the stat service as well as on the Excel rosters. Not only is this work for me, but since it's a manual process, can lead to errors.

In a recent thread at the RotoJunkie forums, poster TopChuckie recommended a different contract structure -- why not just use the expiration year of the contract? So in examples from my roster, salaries and contract would look like this:

• Ken Griffey .13(09)
• Jeremy Hermida .10(08)
• Mark Texiera .42(09*)
• Bill Bray .02(10)
• Brett Myers .06(08^)

The * would indicate a guaranteed contract (for a free agent signed for more than .25) and ^ would indicate a guaranteed, non-renewable contract (for long-term contract players).

The benefits of this are hopefully obvious -- the contract status would indicate the expiration year of the contract, no interpretation is necessary. Plus, no updating is necessary -- once the contract status is set when the player is acquired, it gets left as-is unless he's signed long-term or something.

We can play around with the exact format for the status -- .06(08) vs .06-08 vs .06-8 vs 6/08, whatever -- and we'd need to figure out how X, M, and S contracts would work, but what do you think of it as a concept?

[Demreb]

Three thoughts go through my head.

1) Dear god, another change.
2) Like anything, we'd get used to it after awhile.
3) If it means less work for the Secretary (and less potential input error) it's gotta be a good thing.

When I first read David's post, the numbers seemed confusing. But after re-reading the explaination and logic and then looking at the numerical setup again, it seems pretty cool and simple.

Plus looking at his Bill Bray example, it feels like he would have him forever. I mean, c'mon, until 2010? That's YEARS away! Before this modification he only had him on a D contract (actually a W which will convert to a D on Draft Day - how could anyone not think that our contract letters aren't simple and intuitive?)

Agreed, we'd have to figure out the X-M-S contracts, but we're smart people. . . . or we can hire smart people to help us.

[MGrage]

My first thought is why give up letters altogether? While it might confuse the greybeards, the newbies can adapt quickly. Following Dave's lead, here are my examples from my team :



A - not eligible for X, non - renewable
B - not eligible for X, renewable
C - eligible for X, renewable
D - renewable for at least 2 more years only
E - not eligible for X, renewable and subject to penalties for waiving

A - covers players signed to a long term deal or not, this would cover S contracts as well
B - covers players claimed in Winter Waivers/In Season or at the Draft
C - covers minor leaguers who come up through your system
D - covers minor leaguers signed to an X contract
E - covers players signed for more than .25 during the season



Xavier Nady .02B ---> .02(07A) - not eligible for X , non - renewable
Chris Duffy .05C ---> .05(08B) - not eligible for X , renewable
Lastings Milledge .02C ---> .02(08C) - eligible for X , renewable
Tim Hudson .09D ---> .09(09B) - not eligible for X , renewable
Justin Upton .02D ---> .02(09C) - eligible for X , renewable


Switching to Matt Bentel's roster :

Brad Hawpe .15E ---> .15(08A) - not eligible for X , non - renewable
Josh Willingham .12F ---> .12(09A) - not eligible for X , non - renewable
Garret Atkins .23G ---> .23(10A) - not eligible for X , non - renewable


Back to my roster :
Colby Rasmus .02M ---> .02(25C) - make the year way off in the future, then convert it into the year the player is activate much like changing it to a D from an M
Mark Texteira .42D* ---> .42(09E)
Orlando Hernandez .02W ---> .02(10B) - not eligible for X , renewable
Ian Snell .04X ---> .04(08D) - renewable for at least 2 years only

The last contract is an S but that's easy. You have to release him at the end of the season so it'll just have the current season's year. I think Geovanny Soto was claimed by the Ruffins in September for 9 cents. If that was the case, this would be the conversion :

Geovanny Soto .09S ---> .09(07A) - not eligible for X , non - renewable

One last thing we have to worry about are the Hometown Discounts. Maybe you can use an # or an @ or a D if you're not a - scared of letters. Well, what do you think? Mahalo

Matt

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

I like it for no other reason than it simplifies the information display. It also avoids those counterintuitive leaps like G-->F-->E-->B . Whatever we use for special contract indicators is relatively arbitrary so whether it is symbols like David suggests or letters as Matt describes, I've got no preference. Well, I do, but not enough to put an argument behind it.

[redhots]

Two things come to mind at first:

1. So with the year instead of a letter you wouldn't have to update EVERY player's contract status which would be a time saver for the secretary.....a definite plus.

2. Does CBS support this type of contract structure?

I'm all for simplifying the contract status. I know I'm not the newest person in the league anymore but I still have to look at the constitution everytime I'm looking at different contract letters. If we made the change I would just have to look at it to decipher the various symbols.

[stones]

In what seems to me to be very hard to comprehend, I am now one of the more senior members (And, I didn't mean my age, you smarta$$e$!!!) of the league. With only four owners having been around longer and two others of equal tenure; I am somewhat embarrassed to admit I still don't understand our contract designations.

I ALWAYS have to go back to the constitution to figure out if I can extend someone an extra year, whether I have them for one, two or more years.

So I am totally open for any change to make it easier. Both David and Matt recommended excellent changes. And I could live with either or a combination of both.

I like the idea of losing the D, C, B and replacing that with the year i.e. .02/09 or something.

[Copperfields]

nickpicts said:

whether it is symbols like David suggests or letters as Matt describes, I've got no preference. Well, I do, but not enough to put an argument behind it.

Argument or not, I'd like to hear your preference, Nick. I've got a preference as well, but am interested in getting other opinions - whether they're backed by persuassive reasoning or just a statement of preference.

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

I'd use symbols just because it provides the cleanest break from the existing contract designators.

If I were King of the CFCL, I'd do things like the following...

For ease of use, I'd say that no symbol be reserved for the most common case: a player signed during the draft. for example, I draft McBibble for .13 this year, his salary/contract is: .13 09

If I play out his option year he becomes .13 10!
If I sign him to a two year LTC he becomes .23 12!

I pick someone out of the FA pool in Sepetember, his contract is .14 08!

I pick someone out of the FA pool for .25+, his contract is .25 .09*
If I keep him the following season, his contract changes to .25 09

An M contract would be .02 ??-
An Xtra-year eligible called up this coming season would become .02 09?
During the Xtra-year his contract becomes .04 10$
After that he is either released or gets a ! contract.

No designator = signed through that season with options the following winter
! = will be released at the end of that season, no options
* = must be held through the next season, designation drops after draft day
- = minor league contract (could just as easily be ?? for year and no designator symbol)
? = Xtra-year eligible contract
$ = playing Xtra-year. Sign to ! or release at the end of this season.

[Demreb]

In the CFCL we have:

Co-Commissioner For Life
League Secretary
The Executive Committee
possessor of The Ruffin Priveledge

But Nick makes an excellent point, we have no King.

Based on his contribution above, I would say he's the front running candidate (keep in mind, Nick, so was Howard Dean until he let out his war cry).

I like Nick's suggestions. It incorporates the year of the contract, plus some easy identifiers for our special cases.

I love all the suggestions you guys have put together. I think I would lean toward what Nick has put out there.

Now on a more important note - I was VERY disappointed that our three new owners let a new tradition in the CFCL die so quickly. Not one of them picked up De Aza during the dispersement draft. You guys could have earned major brownie points had you selected De Aza (he was a running joke at the draft when the Splinters picked him up for .12 and provided me with much fodder in the Monroe Doctrine throughout the year).

Not worry, Nick has taken y'all off the hook. He has volunteered to acquire McBibble for .13. So after the Professor uses his Priveledge to start the draft, the second player drafted will be McBibble, going directly to the Picts for .13.

[MGrage]

Two quick things about Nick's post. I'm going to price enforce McBibble to at least 36 cents. Secondly, why not just make the players drafted this year a 10? It would save a step and you'd still have to add an ! whether or not McBibble is signed to a LTC or not. Thirdly, (OK, I lied) I think September players need a different designation because they don't have Hometown Discount Privileges. I was going to say something about it in a followup, but never got around to it. I don't like adding another category though. While I like Nick's ideas, I'd rather keep the familiar letters rather than symbols. It just looks too much like w00t speak for my tastes. Mahalo

Matt

PS. Hail to the King Baby

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

mgrage said:

Two quick things about Nick's post. I'm going to price enforce McBibble to at least 36 cents.

That's it. I'm going to hunt down and kick the bejeesus out of that yellow bellied dog that leaked my sleeper list before draft day. McBibble is mine, you hear me? He's even got a Scottish last name==automatic Pict!

mgrage said:

Secondly, why not just make the players drafted this year a 10? It would save a step and you'd still have to add an ! whether or not McBibble is signed to a LTC or not.

Valid point. Still, this was if I was king and if I were it wouldn't be any kind of mamby-pamby constitutional monarchy. No siree! We're talking Louis XIV Sun King style government. L'etat c'est moi!

I left it as .13 09<blank> because the decision of whether to LTC the guy or not occurs in 09. He could be a 10! or a 12! and we won't know until McBibble and I go through some hard-fought contract negotiations. More likely than not, though, is that if he's any good I'll be trading him to one of the Davids or Rich for some magic beans and pixie dust.

One could just as easily make it 10<blank> and add the ! if he's not extended by draft day of that season. It's self-evidently more efficient but doesn't represent the process 1:1. It's a trade-off that wouldn't burn my hide whichever way it was decided.

mgrage said:

Thirdly, (OK, I lied) I think September players need a different designation because they don't have Hometown Discount Privileges.

I'd fudge and say we would all know that because there's only 30 days we'd need to remember someone was a September FA acquisition but I've decided that I'm as much a boundary-tester as our recently departed Teddy so, again, if we wanted to represent this special case then pick some other arbitrary symbol... how about ‡

mgrage said:

It just looks too much like w00t speak for my tastes.

That's 733t not w00t, you n00b.

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

demreb said:

In the CFCL we have:

Co-Commissioner For Life
League Secretary
The Executive Committee
possessor of The Ruffin Priveledge

But Nick makes an excellent point, we have no King.

/me: Places his right arm across his heart and begins humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic

That's true. We have no king.
We have no king and we are a stronger league for it.
Many good men, our Forefathers, died to ensure there is no king.

Good men like Bob Monroe and Eric Lamb, wiley codgers who gave no quarter.
Good men like Paul Zeledon who could confound even the most rigid logician.

That they have gone before us in blazing glory gives us pause.
It is times like this that we pause and consider the full ramifications of elevating one man,
albeit a solitary, honorable man,
to that most dangerous position.

We shall have no king!

The CFCL, she bows to no king.
She shall be free as the lake breeze blowing out to right
Through the EC she shall be renewed every year just as the ivy on those storied brick walls.
Like the drunken roar of a midsummer night's game, let us proclaim our freedom
from the box seats,
from the general reserved seating,
from the bleachers:

¡Long Live the CFCL!

¡Viva la revolution!

HUZZAH!

/exunt

[stones]

Psssst...Nick, Matt and to a lesser extent Rich, cool it with the nerd-speak for goodness sake! We have new guys I would rather you not scare off until after the season this time. Geesh!


Hey Michael² and Tim, rest assured we all aren't this nerdy! In fact some of us actually have no idea what Nick is ever talking about and are mostly afraid to ask.

[Nick's Picts (archived)]

Psssst....Steve....

...stop poking me...

Hey.

I said stop poking me.

If you don't leave me alone, I'm telling on you.

Stay off my side of the car!

RRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccchhhhhhhh! Steve won't stay on his side of the car. He keeps poking me. Do something! GOSH!

[Copperfields]

Don't make me stop this car!!! So help me....