Adding year to an RFA

[New York Yankees GM(Tommy)]

you actually are the only owner in the three others I spoke to that is against this LOL two of the other three said "adding years is obviously allowed".
Changing the rules mid-free agency is bad yes that's why we shouldn't change rules, and again there is no rule to say that we can't add years. You are proposing to add a rule stating we can't do something that is not a rule right now.

If you honestly believe that I would argue this over one extra year for a 36 year old shortstop you don't understand my commitment to the league's benefit. You don't think I can get Jeter next year for basically the same price? What is he gonna become a 30M player ?

If it makes you happy I will up the bid on Jeter for 2 years 18 M. I then accept his RFA rights on myself , and add the .25 M that it would take to do that. And after that is done I will still say that you adding a rule that simply does not exist mid-draft doesn't make sense.

This rule was obvious to most of us, it's the entire principal of RFA rights and the reason it was even set up last year.

[adamdunnsbigstick]

You fail at reading. I didn't say people disagreed with adding years. I said they didn't agree with your strategy of bidding on RFA's, since most of them are bidding multiple year deals on RFAs.

I'm sure most people think adding years when exercising RFA rights is acceptable.

The reason I think that is because I do too. You, again, fail at reading, if you think otherwise.

I have no problem with the policy; I have a problem with the timing of implementation.

The rules currently describe that you match the contract offered. Other conditions involve changing the rules; we should change them outside of the period they are being most actively exercised, barring a truly pressing need. There's nothing "obvious" about currently being able to add years; the evidence is that nobody has done it before. It's not obvious because there is NO current rule about altering years on contracts for RFAs. If it was so obvious, they would have included it in the rule when they rewrote it last year.

We're both suggesting offering the same rule changes. That's fine by me; again, it's timing that's an issue.

If you want to re-open bidding on Jeter, that's fine. I think it should be reopened to everyone if you do so. I don't think it's fair any other way. Giving you exclusive negotiating rights for Jeter is not an acceptable answer.

At this point, we should probably either set this aside for commissioner's decision or open it to a league vote. Either of those should clarify the matter.

[Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.)]

Feb 18, 2011 13:58:52 GMT -6 @adamdunnsbigstick said:

You fail at reading. I didn't say people disagreed with adding years. I said they didn't agree with your strategy of bidding on RFA's, since most of them are bidding multiple year deals on RFAs.

I'm sure most people think adding years when exercising RFA rights is acceptable.

The reason I think that is because I do too. You, again, fail at reading, if you think otherwise.

I have no problem with the policy; I have a problem with the timing of implementation.

The rules currently describe that you match the contract offered. Other conditions involve changing the rules; we should change them outside of the period they are being most actively exercised, barring a truly pressing need. There's nothing "obvious" about currently being able to add years; the evidence is that nobody has done it before. It's not obvious because there is NO current rule about altering years on contracts for RFAs. If it was so obvious, they would have included it in the rule when they rewrote it last year.

We're both suggesting offering the same rule changes. That's fine by me; again, it's timing that's an issue.

If you want to re-open bidding on Jeter, that's fine. I think it should be reopened to everyone if you do so. I don't think it's fair any other way. Giving you exclusive negotiating rights for Jeter is not an acceptable answer.

At this point, we should probably either set this aside for commissioner's decision or open it to a league vote. Either of those should clarify the matter.

Yes timing is the issue here. We are not going to go back an reauction guys, and since 1 of the commissioners is directly affected by this then a league vote is the impartial way to handle it.

[New York Yankees GM(Tommy)]

Again wow this is not a rule change! The rule says match. I did that and then added. And just because it has never been done doesn't mean it's not allowed. There is no rule saying years can not be added, and you absolutely just proved my point. Since 48 hours passed why would anyone bid on him after I re-bid? Answer is to just make me re-bid again, so RFA rights mean nothing if I would have to then get into a bidding war. Thank you for proving my point.

[adamdunnsbigstick]

A != B

Matching != matching and adding.

Just because there's no rule does not mean that whatever you say immediately applies. It means that a rule needs to be made that handles those circumstances. And just because it's most convenient to YOU NOW doesn't mean we should do it NOW. Frankly, no one of us is that important.

You're adding a rule. It's fine, the league will vote on it.

[New York Yankees GM(Tommy)]

So your argument is when we see a flaw we can't change it midway through the process because no precident has been set for it? Didn't we just reverese a trade I made after it cleared the time and was rightfully mine? Oh that's right we did, you gotta stay consistent guy. We extended that trade and then voted it yet there was no reason other than we had an owner leave. That like this has never been done before and according to your argument shouldn't be allowed until next year.
I even said I'd rebid myself but that wasn't good enough for you because you want to rebid and make me pay more, exactly the situation which will get real bad and makes RFA useless. I will wait to say I told you so.
Weather you agree with me or not take your pride away from this arguement and understand what your saying is that guys with RFA rights still need to be on the bidding of their player thus negating the whole point of rights. Even if it was a rule it makes no sense for anyone involved. The guys who wrote the rules are not the founding fathers and couldn't think of everything.

[Atlanta Braves GM(T.J.)]

The back and forth has been exhausted. If you would like to continue this discussion please just PM each other.

[adamdunnsbigstick]

You're arguing apples versus oranges. The situations aren't the same.

My statements are made in an attempt to make sure that this addition to the rules is applied fairly and efficiently. There aren't any "flaws" in the rules a they currently stand, just an omission.

As the rules currently stand, if you want to alter the contract of a player you have RFA control over, then I guess you do have to pay attention to bidding. The rules, as written, say that you just get to match the contract. I think we should fix the rules when it's least intrusive: next offseason.

If you want to continue to discuss it, feel free to PM.

[Colorado Rockies GM(John)]

Hey guys, Im with Braves on this one. I can see where you both have points and I personally think it was because the rules were not spelled out EXACT so they can be interpreted a few different ways. I used to message Tigers all the time because I thought the rules explanation left out a lot of things, but hey, we are not lawyers. We will get together to pound out some more concrete RFA rules which everyone can go over and comment or object or whatever. I remember when the RFA was first implemented it was done very quickly and without great explanation.

[Deleted]

Hope this get sorted out too!!!

[Cardinals GM(Jared)]

i would like to see this put into effect...what do we need to do here???