|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Oct 25, 2012 15:16:47 GMT -6
First, I just want to say that I am not going to be upset either way, I think both sides have a decent argument.
After the introduction of the rookie extensions last year, I had been under the impression that you would not have RFA rights for your rookie contracts otherwise. (Otherwise, I may have held onto Bourn and Scherzer.) I voted 'no' because of the same reasons Indians presented. I'm just a little worried about the competitive balance if guys could basically keep re-signing their young stars at a discount forever. It's true that in real baseball, that kind of thing happens, but in real baseball, you don't have the turnover that we do in fantasy. Even though I think we're stabilizing now, if one team gets stuck in a rut and it's really tough to get out of, I worry about people leaving and teams essentially dying.
Should managers be rewarded for drafting good prospects that develop into stars? Absolutely, they should. And for franchise players like Trout and Harper, I think that's why we introduced the rookie extension. I don't know that guys should be entitled to discounts on every #3 SP that comes along though.
Finally, denying RFA rights on rookie contracts doesn't mean you need to pay exorbitant amounts to extend those guys. Rather, you'll have just as good a chance at the player as anyone else, you'll just have to pay that 10-15% more. I also think this helps promote an emphasis on continuing to develop young talent.
So those are my thoughts...but it sounds like a lot of guys were operating under the assumption that they would have RFA's on their rookie contracts. And if the majority of the league thought that, I don't really think there's anyway we can take them away (at least not this year).
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Oct 25, 2012 16:18:00 GMT -6
Yeah either way my feelings won't be hurt, whatever the majority decides I can live with. I just don't think a team should have RFA rights on a guy forever and continue to get them at discounted prices. I don't believe that the hometown discount really exists in pro sports anymore.
I agree with Nats that there has to be some kind of comprimise that we could agree on. Personally I think that if you extend a rookie by buying him out that he should be a FA after that extension is over.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Oct 25, 2012 16:29:33 GMT -6
and for the record I was under the impression that rfa's did not have rfa rights this offseason. That's the reason I traded Jay Bruce away.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Oct 25, 2012 17:01:27 GMT -6
Well I will throw this idea out there once again maybe we can discuss. Again I am like Sox where I don't really mind either way what we decide but how about a max of say 3-4 guys on Max contracts? So it eliminates some stacking. But you can't revoke it.
So for example if you have let's say Arod, Carpenter, and Upton on max contracts even if Arod has one year left and the others have their full 4 you can't sign a new max guy. Just an idea. Kinda like football and basketball do with max contracts and franchise players
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Oct 25, 2012 17:14:23 GMT -6
Is our system really broke? If anything I think we need To raise rookie deals again and end them around 10.0 in the last year.
I think it's worked well for 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Oct 25, 2012 17:16:13 GMT -6
If people weren't morons and realized the value of a say Clayton kershaw or now mike trout types we would have a lot more balance. Again a lot of this comes from turn over and not removing bad gms when they go into hiding pre-quitting. Ie phillies.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Oct 25, 2012 17:26:41 GMT -6
Cards please read your post before posting, they have gotten worse and worse to the point where I have no clue what you are trying to say above.
Yanks-I'm intriged but not sold. I think we would need to discuss more specifics. So are you saying that instead of having rfa right on rookies and/or the rookie buyout program we would just be able to extend 3 or 4 of them at the most to max deals? And only be able to have the 3 or 4 max contracts on your roster at a time? What would entail a "max contract"?
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Oct 25, 2012 18:43:34 GMT -6
Again, I wasnt referring to the Harpers and Trouts, those guys are going to cost a lot under either method in any case. It was the decent-to-good but not superstar guys I was thinking of. Guys who would normally go for between 10-30M.
I know Im not the only one who puts a hell of a lot of research into prospects. After having them for 3-4 years in the minors, then 4 years on their rookie contract, you would have invested 7-8 years on these guys in some cases. Then when they finally hit their prime.......you have the same advantage as a GM that doesnt know Wil Myers from Mike Myers. I guess I feel there should be SOME benefit to drafting/trading/investing for possibly that long. I dont think the RFA rights are all that much of an advantage at 10-15%, but at least its something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2012 19:08:28 GMT -6
Again, I wasnt referring to the Harpers and Trouts, those guys are going to cost a lot under either method in any case. It was the decent-to-good but not superstar guys I was thinking of. Guys who would normally go for between 10-30M. I know Im not the only one who puts a hell of a lot of research into prospects. After having them for 3-4 years in the minors, then 4 years on their rookie contract, you would have invested 7-8 years on these guys in some cases. Then when they finally hit their prime.......you have the same advantage as a GM that doesnt know Wil Myers from Mike Myers. I guess I feel there should be SOME benefit to drafting/trading/investing for possibly that long. I dont think the RFA rights are all that much of an advantage at 10-15%, but at least its something. 100% agreed! I feel pretty much the same! You couldn't have said it any better! Like with Rasmus and Snider! Why can't I benefit by picking them up and resigning them to max years at maybe 6M or 10M maybe I get lucky and they Perform and they are underpaid! That's why I signed Seager and Dirks and even Cespedes etc I took a Gamble cause he could've been Bust too nowadays anything can happen! And to Built a Dynasty and they aren't that good now but my intentions are to use their RFA and extend them to another 4 years if they are worth it! And that is why I took Snider and Rasmus so that I could Use their RFa beyond 2013 but You can't force me to give Big contracts NOW for both snider and Rasmus so why do I need to Risk losing them for cheaper? It's all about the $$$$ too now
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Oct 25, 2012 21:26:16 GMT -6
I agree with Rockies and Cubs here too. But we all know Iwish we could keep everyone we pick out early LOL. The prospect work we put in this league separates it from every other league which is great and yes if we have "home grown" guys it'd be good to keep them for as long as possible, rewarding foresight.
Indians - yeah like the NBA in a way (not the lakers lol ) basically you can have your rookies for 4 years but we make a max contract or max RFA rights time on say 4 guys. They become your cornerstone. Invest in bad one (say Arod this year) and it hurts your franchise for years. They have unlimited contracts really but gotta be weary of how long and how you give them like any other real team would. The Yanks are feeling the effects now. This is such a preliminary idea just thought we could bounce ideas about that.
|
|