Yesterday I got to thinking. What would a league be like if no trading was allowed? I posted the idea over in the classifides, but wanted to solicit some opinions over here too. Would a league like this work? Why or why not? Would it be fun? What other league rules would need to be in place? I would love to hear some opinions.

To me, theres nothing cooler then when two guys shake things up with a big blockbuster trade.  The idea, as a whole wouldnt suit me.

Yes, I agree the idea wouldn't appeal to the majority of players. . This is more of a philosophical question that I find an interesting talking point.

It would place a lot more emphasis on drafting and free agency.  Owners would be more willing to keep their own guys rather then risk trying to get someone in free agency.  It would also handicap a new owner taking over a bad team.

I dont think I would enjoy it either

As I pointed out in the other thread, you would have to limit the number of losses a team could post in a given period and (most likely) the amount of prospect payroll a team could accumulate, or it would turn into a tanker's paradise.

But you would need to put a great deal of thought into how those limits should be applied and enforced. Although I don't think I'd be interested in this sort of league, I do enjoy devising rules for games. So my first question would be: Would you want your minimum wins rule to exert pressure on owners to win now or win later? I'm not sure the answer is obvious for the long-term health of the league.

I posted some thoughts in the classified forum, but I think the biggest issue you'd have to deal with is bad contracts.  If someone signs a bunch of guys trying to be the Yankees, they may win the World Series then realize that they're stuck with big contracts on guys with declining skills.  So they bail and now you have to fill a team resembling the San Francisco Giants of a couple years ago where the average age of your ML roster is 35.

Assuming you put a max on the prospect budget (to avoid insane IFA bidding to go along with tiny player payroll budgets) and put in a min. win policy, you may also have to have a max contract policy.  I'm not sure what this does to the overall budget, but it will surely leave plenty of room for coaching, scouting, training, and medical.  Like I said in the other forum, I'd be interested to see how it works.  You'd just have to be willing to throw in the towel and allows trades if it turns out to be a train wreck.

The waiver wire would likely be a pretty interesting place in a world like this.

Instead of putting max contract limits, what if you put a 3 year limit on the length of free agent contracts?

Probably only apply to players in the league free agent pool, not your own players you are resigning. 

Posted by apollo7 on 7/30/2010 1:54:00 PM (view original):
Instead of putting max contract limits, what if you put a 3 year limit on the length of free agent contracts?

Probably only apply to players in the league free agent pool, not your own players you are resigning. 

This would be almost impossible to enforce. Rather than trying to legislate bad contracts out of existence, you need to somehow find a way to enhance their value. No idea how that could be done, but you've got to understand (and embrace!) the reality that barring trades will completely warp the talent market.

So, let's see. 

You want rules in place to encourage the goal of building through drafting and IFAs.  You would want to strike a balance between encouraging building from the bottom up but discouraging tanking.  I think I would say no IFA limit, but a very strict minimum loss requirement.  If you can cut payroll and still put up a 60 wins then more power to you and you deserve to the benefit of getting good IFAs...that's just good team management.   Keeping your payroll low and rebuilding for 2 or 3 season is a viable strategy, as long as its not taken to the extreme.  You would have to allow this strategy in a league like this.

Next you want to discourage ridiculous free agent signings to win a WS then walk away leaving a mess.  I think the best way to do it is a minimum contract length, but I see too many problems with that such as FAs that demand long term deals, plus the inordinate amount of time to police it, so forget that.   So I guess a relatively low per year max would be in order (say $10mm per year??), plus the requirement that if you sign someone to a 4 or 5 year deal you MUST give them either a team or mutual option.   

Comments?

It's been a while since I've been in the hunt for a big free agent.  Are there free agents that demand 5 year deals for $15,000,000 per year?  I know there is a max contract amount that you're allowed to offer, but I'm speaking of the original demand by the player.  The rule for a max per year contract would have to be at or above the max contract a big free agent would demand.  I imagine if you're in contact with WIS about the idea, you could ask them if there's a max contract demand for a free agent.

Limiting the amount per year would work, and I would suggest the max bonus be allowed (options seem difficult to enforce, and no-trade clauses seem, well, beside the point). But what would be the consequences to keep someone from going over? Just sayin'.

I think I'd suggest a single-season, 100-loss maximum. As in, you lose 100, and you lose your team. That should keep people honest, no?

I agree.  One season less with 100 losses or more and you are immediately gone.  Plus I would say that 2 consecuitve season of 90 losses or more and you are gone. 

In regards to max bonus, that is already enforced by the engine to some extent I believe as part of the offer compliance formula....

The consequences of someone going over would be expusion from the league, especially if it was a blantant f' you to the league.  If it was a single mistake it would take ALOT of explaining to keep from being expelled and a requirement to put the player on waivers.  Before doing a league like this I would make triple sure everyone agreed to comply to the rules, and I would also want a guarantee from WIS that we would have the option of expelling someone mid season for blatant rule violations.

You basically have to hope that everyone who signs up really wants to try to do this the right way and isn't just there to throw a monkey wrench in the works.

I don't tend to do a lot of trading (and do even less trading where I'm the one initiating discussions), so I certainly wouldn't mind a world that didn't allow trading

That said, a lot of the posts in this thread confuse me ... why would limiting but one relatively minor aspect of the game change things so radically that you would need a lot of rules?

Is the thought that tankers would have a built-in excuse of "I can't trade for the talent I need, so I have to wiat for a re-build"?? ... I just don't see it ... tankers are going to tank ... just because they can trade to win now doesn't mean they will ... and there are plenty of marginal FAs every year that go unsigned that would be availble to fill in the gaps for any team to be "competitive" at the MLB level

in fact, I think a world without trading would actually be more likely to avoid the "talent imbalance" that seems to happen in lots of worlds ... a trade involving a stud prospect for an aging veteran may be a win-win for both teams involved at the time of the trade, but trades like that can have long-lasting effects on the world's talent balance 

just my 2 cents