We've had a week to listen to proposals for how to deal with the coach/scout situation. I think it's time we put the matter to a vote.
We've had the following proposals:
Michael's proposal:
Release all coaches/scouts -- the fact of the matter is that the coaches/scouts that we got in the upgrade to 9 are completely different than the ones we had before. Therefore, we should, in essence, start over with them.
Nate's proposal:
Allow each team to release ONE scout/coach this year and next year. This will prevent the all-out chaos that could result from suddenly having a bunch of coaches flood the market.
My proposal:
Give team's the option of releasing any coaches they want during the 2013 season.
Please vote on one of these proposals in the comments section of this thread. Voting will be closed Tuesday evening.
Zev
Los Angeles votes to release all coaches, managers, scouts, and other assigned staff. Doing so will allow all of the teams to get staff they want, for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteI vote for Zev's proposal
ReplyDeletePoint of question, Mr. Chairman!
ReplyDeleteUnder the 'Zev Plan' do the teams which elect to release coaches get salary relief on those they release?
Isn't salary relief moot, since staff salaries are deducted at the end of the season?
ReplyDeleteOh, and if so, then the choices really are my plan (release them all!) or do nothing, since electing for Nate/Zev's plan is no different than the status quo, when we can release at will. My plan is to force all staff into the free market.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I think I need some clarification of Zev's proposal and Nate's proposal. How is are these proposals any different from the status quo? Are we currently prevented from releasing and hiring as many coaches as we want?
ReplyDeleteIs Nate suggesting that each team should be forced to release one coach each year, or is it optional? If optional, I don't see how that changes the status quo at all. I must be missing something.
Well, my position is that I think this is a ridiculous amount of work and hassle and debate over an issue where the actual effect on our teams is unknown and where everyone has been placed in, more or less, an equal situation. I mean, it's not like we won't be able to reshape our coaching staffs to fit our preferences over the next few years, as contracts expire and new people are hired.
ReplyDeleteI also am assuming that there is a financial consequence from releasing coaches before their contracts expire. I'd assume it's the same as releasing a player, that is, you have to pay the full cost of the remaining contract at the time of release. I also assume that this means that under either Nate's or Zev's proposals, each owner would be given cash to make up the value of the contracts they release.
If I'm right, then the difference between the options put forth by Nate and Zev have to do with how many coaches can be released with compensation and when.
I still prefer none of the above, as I think this is much ado about nothing. Let's just get on with the fun part of the game. I mean, do any of us play the game for the excitement of shaping our coaching staffs, which will now extend through each of our minor league teams? Coaches were enough of an annoyance when there were six positions per franchise. Now, there's something like 16 positions to fill.
But, given these three choices, I pick Zev's because at least it's dealt with in this offseason and we can start moving forward.
Having done some poking around in the manual (Research! Imagine that!) I find that Mack is correct.
ReplyDeleteAny release of non-player personnel incurs the immediate, total cost of the remainder of that contract. So if you have a coach with 5 years remaining at $1MM per year and you fire him you immediately eat $5MM in cost.
There is another cost to releasing non-player personnel in that, just as with player personnel...I'll quote from the manual:
"Firing a coach also has a very strong impact on how that person and other potential candidates perceive you."
In short, not only would any releases right now incur large scale salary hits, which we can relieve, but we would all, to some amount greater or smaller, incur significant anti-team feeling from all non-player personnel downstream.
Also, Michael pointed out that "Isn't salary relief moot, since staff salaries are deducted at the end of the season?"
This turns out not to be the case. I just experimented with a test league and staff salaries are now processed on a daily basis just as player personnel are. So a coach released now, prior to the beginning of the season, does impact spent money. It is no longer just a one-time event during the season.
In short, my instinct is to move forward without any changes and let things work themselves out. I offered the one per year thing out there as a compromise. But I am strongly opposed, given the data above, to the wholesale release of non-player personnel.
Given that 'do nothing' was not a votable choice of the three solutions out there I would favor Zev's, provided that the personnel costs incurred are offset immediately. There will, however, be little to be done about the impact on the attractiveness of working for a team that has released several coaches outside of their contract.
Very informative, Nate.
ReplyDeleteJust to add another fact to the analysis: In 9.0, we can offer extensions to coaching personnel. From the manual:
"Once you have the people you want in place, it makes sense to keep them there. If you are a general manager, you can extend the contracts of personnel. To offer an extension, go to the Team Personnel page. Right-click on the person you want to re-sign and then select Offer Extension."
This is a pretty significant difference from 6.5. I think it means that for those teams who "lucked" into good coaching staffs during the conversion, there is a possibility that they will be able to retain that staff beyond the current contract periods. I'm pretty sure this was not possible in 6.5.
Nate's and Matt's posts just solidify my argument. Let's get the staff we want now, and build on them!
ReplyDeleteI don't see how Nate's points bolster Michael's position at all. I certainly don't want my team's reputation damaged simply because someone else is unhappy with the hand they've been randomly dealt. Nor am I mollified by the fact that all of us will be seen as equally unattractive.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I have a good coaching staff or a bad one. I haven't looked at it comparitively. (I don't even know if that's allowed under version 9.0.) I do know I have a good scout, but big deal. Given the variance in 9.0, I can't trust his evaluations anyway. So, I'm not arguing to preserve an advantage. I'm arguing against what I see as a giant, unnecessary, and inherently unfair disruption. Vote "no" on the enforced coaching release. Vote for Zev's proposal.
This message has been approved by me and brought to you by the letter X and the number 13.
How in the hell is anything I've written at all presentable as supporting your argument, Michael? That's ludicrous bordering on delusional.
ReplyDeleteI have proven, on several occasions now, both that the economic disruption of your proposal and that your underlying assumptions are incorrect. There's no way in which that can be seen as supporting your position.
I don't mind if you argue your own side but making statements that my research and arguments support yours is foul play, my friend.
Mack's point makes my case even stronger:
I have no wish to take a reputation hit for someone else's tactical advantage.
Nor do I wish to see the economics of the coaching system of the league thrown into disarray to sooth one player.
Nor do I wish to extend this already long-winded offseason arguing this any further.
Okay, I give up. If my suggestion isn't getting support, then I'll accept whatever the rest of the league wants.
ReplyDeleteTime to go and scour the available staff section...
Aw, man! But I was working on page 87 of my dissertation concerning player vs coaching availability and win shares!
ReplyDeleteDang.
I'm going to abstain, simply because I won't have time to read all the arguments for and against the various options. Best of luck, democratic process!
ReplyDeleteI originally supported Michael's proposal, but on reflection, I don't think it's a good idea. I vote to leave things as is, with no changes. But since that isn't an option under the current ballot, I'll vote for Zev's proposal.
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify...
ReplyDelete... my proposal was meant to allow teams to get out of long term contracts with coaches that they were assigned to.
The difference between my proposal and the status quo is that any "unearned" income by the coaches would be refunded.
Of course, this only applies to coaches assigned to you by the upgrade. Any coaches that you sign yourself (as "free agents" or sign to contract extensions) you would be on the hook for.
This option only applies during the 2013 season. If you keep your coach until 2014 and then decide you want to drop him, then you're on the hook for any unearned salary.
My proposal has two advantages (IMHO):
1. It doesn't flood the market all at once with a thousand coaches.
2. It allows teams to "try" the coaches before deciding to dump them.
Zev
I still vote for Zev's option.
ReplyDeleteIs it opening day yet?
As I said, provided there is salary relief involved I see no reason to not go with Zev's proposal. All teams may drop as many coaches as they wish during the 2013 season and receive relief but after that you're out.
ReplyDeleteThe only downside to Zev's proposal, if I'm understanding this correctly, is the risk that releasing coaches will negatively impact the releasing team's reputation. There doesn't seem to be any way around this. Providing salary relief is helpful but does not address this problem. Still, it seems like the best option.
ReplyDelete