Keeper League Strategy - Salary Cap Changes Things?

[alleyoops]

Interesting articles on keeper leagues. While I understand and agree with the points made and recommended strategies for non-cap leagues, I think they need to be adjusted somewhat if the keeper league has a salary cap (either active lineup or entire roster). IMO, the cap introduces an additional level of complexity in managing your roster, whether it be dumping or going for the current season.

For owners going for it this year, it is not as simple as adding as much value as you can. You have to look at the value you're getting compared to the salary (against the cap) that it is costing. It's likely preferable to target a guy who will produce $22 in value at a $20 salary, rather than one who will produce $30 in value at a $40 salary. The goals (IMO, and generally speaking) should be the following:

1. Field as much value as you can, within the cap. (e.g. if you have $350 in value in a $300 cap league, you have an edge on someone who has $320 in value in that league, both being at or near the cap)

2. Get to the cap limit as early in the season as possible. (e.g. if you have $350 in value in a $300 cap league, and your opposition carries close to $260 in value for some period, you have an edge on them)

3. Build redundancy/depth into your roster. This is hard to do if you have a full-roster cap, but if you have an active lineup cap, it's worth having some guys on your bench who provide value, even though you can't fit them in your lineup without losing value elsewhere.

For owners who are dumpiing, the cap influences your possible trading partners. They should be cognizant of the above, and will target players who may not be keepers, but also are not overpriced. The cap also forces the dumping team to spread his players around to multiple other teams (usually). The goal should be the same, though - get the best keepers you can any way that you can, not holding any players who you don't intend to keep.

The other place the cap comes into play, especially in NL or AL only leagues, is in free agent pickups. The league-changers, newly-found closers, and minor league stud callups may still go for large bids, but their "worth" is less, since the bids tend to make them overpriced relative to the value they'll produce. For this reason, they're less useful to contending teams, meaning they have less trade value if landed by a dumping team. In practice, the effect may be that these guys are somewhat less "pivotal" in cap leagues.

I believe cap leagues are pretty common. All 4 leagues in which I play use a cap. Surprisingly, I haven't seen a lot in terms of discussions of how the cap influences team management. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, though.

[Todd Zola]

I was actually asked to discuss this by a couple of SI.com readers, where the piece is also posted.

FWIW, I don't completely agree with #1 and #2. The implication is higher salary equals greater talent, which is not always the case. Sometimes, yes. But not always.

Getting to the cap quickest means you have to trade to get there -- it is completely league dependent, but you may be trading your best keepers for higher priced players, improving your team, but handcuffing you later as you are already at the cap and also weakening your keepers for the really top available this-year talent.

I prefer to treat it much like I do FAAB in redraft leagues -- I let my team situation dictate what is happening. If I plan on competing and am falling behind the pack, I will push the issue and deal early to catch up and hope I make the right deals. I prefer to hang around near the top and then deal later when I know exactly what I need and what is available. The downside is I could possibly have distanced myself from the pack, but the instances I have seen this with a cap are few and far between. More often than not, the early trader has an injury or two and lost the ability to compensate, while others are maneuvering within the cap and eventually pass that team. Again, completely league contextual.

In the XFL (industry keeper/dynasty league), we use a $325 cap for the active roster. We supplement our original auction in 2 ways -- 17 man reserve roster pre-season in which everyone has a $1 salary and a monthly in season free agent draft where everyone has a $10 salary. So when you get close to the cap and lose a $1 player, sometimes using a $10 free agent puts you over the cap -- it makes for an interesting dynamic for the competing teams.

[alleyoops]

I don't see that #1 (or #2) implies that higher salary = higher value. If you can get a guy whose salary is $20 but whose value is $30, that's the idea - not the reverse. In fact, I believe #1 implies that in most cases salary does not equal value, and suggests that you load up on value where it's in excess of salary.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, #2 is pretty obvious to me. Having more value than your competition for a longer period of time *should* be better for you than not having that extra value. Your point that you take on injury risk sooner is valid, but IMO is less important that the value/time advantage. The point that you'll have a better idea of your needs later is also valid, since rosters change pretty radically during dump season. But in most cases, you know pretty early on which categories are strengths for you, and which are weaknesses. In fact, you generally have a pretty decent idea of that right after the draft.

You don't necessarily have to trade to get to the cap quickly - you can add free agents. Of course it depends on the specifics of your league. If the free agent salaries are greater than their value, you would be hurting the goal in #1 by buying them, though, so you have to weigh the gain in roster value against the loss in cap room.

I'm wondering what percentage of leagues use an in-season cap, and what the range in caps across leagues is. Might be a good topic for a poll. My leagues are as follows:

11 team mixed - $310 cap on active lineup (all free agents get $5 salary)
14 team mixed - $300 cap on active lineup (all free agents get $5 salary)
12 team mixed - $320 cap on entire roster (free agents get FAAB bid amount as salary, 5 player bench, 2 DL spots)
12 team NL only - $310 cap on active lineup (free agents get FAAB bid amount as salary)

[Todd Zola]

Sorry, misread what you were saying. I originally thought you were saying if your cap is $350, then deal early to get to that $350 cap. Talking pure salary, not value.

As to your points as stated, isn't the goal always to have more "value", regardless if it is keeper with or without a cap, or redraft? Maybe I am missing something which I very well might be. I don't see how this is specific to salary cap leagues is all.

[alleyoops]

That's true, but how you get value - i.e. the value that you target - might be different in a cap league. In a non-cap league, you just want value, regardless of salary. If you can get Pujols but his salary is $80, you go after him, since that $80 salary has no impact on you. In a cap league, you probably don't want him (or at least would prefer another player whose salary is close to or less than the value that he's likely to produce).

[Todd Zola]

Ah, excellent point, "efficient value".

[Todd Zola]

To take this a step further...

If I was a fantasy analyst and I was writing about this "original" idea , my advice would be to find teams that have a player with a reasonable BUT EXPIRING contract. Maybe it was a farm guy that was extended as far as he could and must be thrown back next spring. Even if he is AT VALUE and not a bargain with respect to his salary, it will be more efficient to take up $40 worth of salary cap space with 2 $20 players earning $20 each (upgrading a low single digit player, or filling in for an injury, etc.) than talking a $40 guy that earns $30. In keeper leagues, with inflation, there will be many $25-$30 guys going for $35-$40 etc.

[alleyoops]

I agree, those are good targets. The guys whose contracts are not expiring, and have a good value to salary ratio, are potential keepers, so it is difficult to land them in dealing with dumping teams (unless you find someone who has a guy like this and doesn't realize it).

In my cap leagues all players have salaries bumped by $5 each season, if kept. So other potential targets in trades with dumping teams are players whose salaries are "at value" or slightly below. That is, players who are probably not going to be kept, but who will produce value this year close to their salary.

Another challenge in cap leagues - the guys who the dumping owner wants from your team are the ones who are producing at a rate significantly higher than their salary (duh). When you deal a guy like that, you're hurting your value to salary ratio big time. As an example, I have Werth at $9 in a 12-team mixed league. If I deal him to a dumping team, I'm going to need an awful lot of value back to make it worth doing. More likely, I'll hang on to Werth and try to deal a "lesser" keeper - easier said than done.

[Todd Zola]

As an aside, a cap is my personal favorite way of tempering dumping if you are not one to favor a free market dynamic.

Though I believe rules should be KISS -- I like the idea of a moving cap, one that goes up gradually. It might be more difficult to monitor, but it also serves to limit early dumping.

I am seriously finding the older I get, the less I favor the anything goes scenario, and I am finding that to be pretty consistent not only throughout the industry, but also amongst gamers I talk with. Interesting.

[alleyoops]

I agree wholeheartedly. A cap isn't perfect, but it is much simpler than many of the other dump-limiting methods, and does "work", if set low enough to matter, in that it forces dumping teams to deal with multiple contending teams. I also enjoy the changes in strategy that a cap introduces - increasing the complexity.

On an even more "aside", I sure wish MLB had a cap, for the same reasons that I like it in roto. Of course, Red Sox and Yankee fans aren't going to like that idea.