|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 20, 2024 8:49:26 GMT -6
Pretty simple here, with the increased reluctance to bid on RFAs leading to the further suppression salaries for RFAs. I propose that it is time to due away with the 10% RFA price discount that the rights holder benefits from. Going forward RFA rights would just give you the right to match and ability to extend years.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 20, 2024 20:44:51 GMT -6
Does that even solve the problem?
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 21, 2024 6:29:28 GMT -6
I think its a step in the right direction.
Do you have a solution or even a suggestion?
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 21, 2024 7:44:14 GMT -6
Well really it’s about “why did we put rfa in place”?
To benefit good drafting etc.
It’s benefiting good drafting, so have we changed our idealogy on rewarding good drafting/signing?
Maybe don’t make people declare rfa use until the auction ends?
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Mar 21, 2024 9:23:47 GMT -6
We added the RFA because people were treating this more like a seasonal or keeper league rather than a dynasty. The RFA addition was to make sure teams were able to keep players longer. We need to keep some things in place to prevent turnover
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 21, 2024 11:35:15 GMT -6
Rfa/extensions is like our attempt arbitration.
Maybe we do all rfa first?
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 21, 2024 12:59:40 GMT -6
Well actually doing a RFA auction first was going to be my next proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Padres GM (Zach) on Mar 21, 2024 19:02:31 GMT -6
I personally like the idea of more turnover. Allow teams to be able to build through Free Agency more because now it seems like it sides too much in favor of being able to retain guys.
I’ve had other leagues that use the RFA the way Mike proposed, but the Franchise tag is only a 1 year deal. This would deepen the FA pool and get people to spend more sine 1 year deals have to go back into FA.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 21, 2024 20:07:37 GMT -6
Being this is a dynasty league, personally I'm never going to be in favor of anything that rewards or promotes more one year contracts. However, I do feel we need to have a certain amount of turnover to keep it interesting and give teams a chance of making some changes. That is why we put a limit to the amount of players that can be RFA'd but reinstituted that a player had to receive a 2yr contract to be RFA eligible. I think the purpose and enjoyment of a dynasty league is to build a team and farm system that you are able to have sustained success with for a period of time. And I don't necessarily think that building that should be a one or two year task. And I'd think that if there was a lack of available talent that it would drive the price of RFAs up since by nature they should be some of the most desirable players available. Which is what I was hoping for this year. Yet we continued to see a decrease in activity and overall price of the RFAs. That is why I proposed we do away with the discount.
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals GM (Darren) on Mar 21, 2024 20:56:13 GMT -6
was the reluctance because of the 10% discount?
I personally am of the belief the reluctance was towards pitching. We have more closer volatility than ever before and more tommy John’s knocking pitchers out for 1year+
maybe something like trading a Rfa out for a injured pitcher 1 year salary exclusion
It was my first free agency so everything was new
|
|
|
Post by Padres GM (Zach) on Mar 22, 2024 9:20:47 GMT -6
I agree about your ideas behind wanting to build a team over the course of time and not wanting to encourage the 1 year deal.
I personally don’t think making franchise tags a 1 year deal will encourage any more 1 year deals. I believe it will actually make the RFA more valuable along with removing the discount. This will drive turnover and drive up a more realistic market for free agents. It will further drive up the need to draft and get cheaper talent since we can’t rely on having a combo of guys for years on end. A little more turnover will actually further show how good people are at drafting and being an actual GM of their teams
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 22, 2024 11:40:56 GMT -6
I personally like the idea of more turnover. Allow teams to be able to build through Free Agency more because now it seems like it sides too much in favor of being able to retain guys. I’ve had other leagues that use the RFA the way Mike proposed, but the Franchise tag is only a 1 year deal. This would deepen the FA pool and get people to spend more sine 1 year deals have to go back into FA. Who is this guy!!!! Off with this head!
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Blue Jays GM(Len) on Mar 24, 2024 7:46:25 GMT -6
No
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 24, 2024 8:04:39 GMT -6
So use the poll at the top of the thread. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Mar 24, 2024 8:55:16 GMT -6
I am open to retooling the RFA setup. I’m intrigued by some of the different ideas raised, but am not sure about just doing away with the discount and then voting on next steps.
|
|