Arbitration Scale Changes for 2020 - Proposal

[Tigers GM (Max)]

Hi all-

I'd like to see some slight changes to the arbitration scale for next season. This is for a few reasons. Primarily, it is because the max arb contract for batters is $18M while for starters and relievers it is $12M. This seems strange to begin with, as they should at least be closer. Secondly, which the changing environment leading to lower batting average, higher ERA, and more strikeouts, the scale could use a refresh on some of the thresholds. This should not have any kind of massive effect, but it will go a good way towards normalizing some of our salaries. Here are the proposed changes; please sound off in the comments!

Wins thresholds would be:
0-11 W --> $0.00M
12-13 W --> $0.75M
14-15 W --> $1.50M
16-17 W --> $2.25M
18+ W --> $3.00M

Saves thresholds would be:
0-14 SV --> $0.00M
15-24 SV --> $0.75M
25-34 SV --> $1.50M
35-44 SV --> $2.25M
45+ SV --> $3.00M

Holds thresholds would be:
0-16 HD --> $0.00M
17-19 HD --> $0.75M
20-24 HD --> $1.50M
25-29 HD --> $2.25M
30+ HD --> $3.00M

ERA (SP) thresholds would be:
3.75+ ERA --> $0.00M
3.25-3.74 ERA --> $0.75M
2.75-3.24 ERA --> $1.50M
2.00-2.74 ERA --> $2.25M
0.00-1.99 ERA --> $3.00M

Stolen Base thresholds would be:
0-19 SB --> $0.00M
20-29 SB --> $0.75M
30-34 SB --> $1.50M
35-44 SB --> $2.25M
45+ SB --> $3.00M

WHIP (RP) thresholds would be:
1.21+ WHIP --> $0.00M
1.10-1.19 WHIP --> $0.75M
1.00-1.09 WHIP -- $1.50M
0.80-0.99 WHIP --> $2.25M
0.00-0.79 WHIP --> $3.00M

K/9 would be a new category for RP, with thresholds of:
0.00-9.99 K/9 --> $0.00M
10.00-10.99 K/9 --> $0.75M
11.00-12.49 K/9 --> $1.50M
12.50-13.49 K/9 --> $2.25M
13.50+ K/9 --> $3.00M

Quality Starts would be a new category for SP, with thresholds of:
0-13 QS --> $0.00M
14-15 QS --> $0.75M
16-17 QS --> $1.50M
18-20 QS --> $2.25M
21+ QS --> $3.00M

I built out a new arbitration calculator that uses these principles. Feel free to mess around with it and provide feedback on the salaries/changes. Would they be too high, too low, etc? Like I said, I want to see some changes made in the vein of what I have proposed here but I'm not married to any specifics.

[Mariners GM (Beamer)]

I think to be fair, any changes to a system or rule should have an effective date at least one year out. Potential changes made for the immediate year coming up can punish GMs and an extra year should be allowed so GMs can have time to alter their team's composition.

[Tigers GM (Max)]

Jul 23, 2019 13:28:15 GMT -6 Mariners GM (Beamer) said:

I think to be fair, any changes to a system or rule should have an effective date at least one year out. Potential changes made for the immediate year coming up can punish GMs and an extra year should be allowed so GMs can have time to alter their team's composition.

I posted this now with the hopes it is for 2020, but if the general consensus is to do this for 2021 then that's totally fine by me

[Mariners GM (Beamer)]

Definitely a fan of having it for 2021. Prep. Time is mega important for all GMs/teams.

[Deleted]

I can't comment on the quality of the change, as I've yet to experience how the arbitration system works and can't forecast how those changes might affect my team or others. I will agree that leaving it until 2021 would be "fair", as I know I've been penalized by impromptu league changes with limited heads up in the past in other leagues.

[Rangers GM (Phil)]

Im going to post on this over the weekend. I want to take a time to look at it before I comment. Ashamed to admit, I've never really much paid attention to how the ARB salaries have been calculated in the past.

[Deleted]

I'm same way, I'd like a little more time to explore and punch in figures on different players around the league to see how it works.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2019 13:28:15 GMT -6 Mariners GM (Beamer) said:

I think to be fair, any changes to a system or rule should have an effective date at least one year out. Potential changes made for the immediate year coming up can punish GMs and an extra year should be allowed so GMs can have time to alter their team's composition.

+1

[Reds GM (Steve)]

Jul 29, 2019 13:15:00 GMT -6 @mrselke37 said:

Jul 23, 2019 13:28:15 GMT -6 Mariners GM (Beamer) said:

I think to be fair, any changes to a system or rule should have an effective date at least one year out. Potential changes made for the immediate year coming up can punish GMs and an extra year should be allowed so GMs can have time to alter their team's composition.

+1

+2
Agree there should be some change due to the disparity but time to adjust is important for all.

[Deleted]

Also, is there a way you can add the current rules into the existing post? Just for us newer people to be able to compare apples to apples to see what is changing?