|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 12:27:57 GMT -6
Step 3.
1. Change will take affect next off-season and will affect current contracts with RFA protection. 2. A RFA means that the owner will be able to match the winning bid @ 90% of the price. As well as have the ability to extend out the contract out (up to 4 years if possible)
Now lets vote on how many RFAs each teams should get to designate per season. These would not have to be used, a team could always chose to designate less.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2018 13:21:37 GMT -6
I was under the impression there would be no auction for those that were RFA tagged as the point was to eliminate these auctions? Any player tagged would be signed at the determined salary.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 13:36:41 GMT -6
That's never been my understanding of it but I could always be wrong. I don't know how you would accurately determine a players league specific salary if it is predetermined and there is 40+ players that need that to be determined. If you're eliminating the auction then they really aren't restricted free agents are they? It becomes more of an option tag does it not...
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2018 13:45:43 GMT -6
That was why we were initially using the term "franchise tag". There would be no more RFA auctions. Either you signed a guy to a 4 year extension at the determined salary (the top 5 at the position or some other valuation method that I was talking about earlier) or you don't sign him and he is then an unrestricted free agent and up for auction.
I just don't see how its really any different if we still have 64 (or even 48) RFA auctions each year.
Some of us may have been talking about different things so it could just be me as well.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 13:54:35 GMT -6
My take away from the original discussion is there are too many RFAs and looking to the future it looks to only get worse. So we wanted to be able to put a specific limit to the max number of rfas that we could see per year. The RFA isn't necessarily the issue, it is the amount and that we are trendy toward every useful, desirable player being a RFA thus leading to basically no turn over every and a very boring FA season. The thinking being eliminating automatic RFA protections and limiting a the number a team can protect will create more turnover and more active auctions.
I don't see where 4 rfas per team per year will change anything, I think that leaves us in the same situation we're in now. But maybe if a team has to actively manage his tags he will be less inclined to tag guys just for the hell of it.
I don't know... Like I said I could have totally misunderstood the original discussion but that was my take away from.
Fellas...
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 14:01:53 GMT -6
Also I don't see how having the option to buyout whoever you wanted without them ever hitting the market is any different than what actually happens now except you as the owner would probably end up paying more to keep the player than you would under the current system with the deflated prices. Currently the RFAs don't change hands much if at all, with franchise tagging players there would be no turnover whatsoever, the league would just have less yearly input on what that players actual value is. So in my opinion that would just make the problem worse.
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2018 14:10:27 GMT -6
The difference is we wouldn't have to go through all these RFA auctions where the players are almost always resigned. And being a dynasty league, I would think low turnover is kind of the goal. Plus, if we used some kind of average to determine their values (which the league would have input on as it would be affected by UFA auctions also) So you would have to be more careful as to which ones you used it on. As it stands now, someone can already be screwed over by another owner making a really high but only 1 year bid.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 14:37:49 GMT -6
I just don't see where that addresses some of the fundamental issues everyone was concerned with. Basically you would be all but eliminating any chance of any useable talent EVER changing hands, granted it happens on a very limited basis currently but it does happen and that chance is still there. Not only eliminating the competition for these players, that would severely limit the leagues ability to dictate yearly what players pricing should be. As buyout prices would be based on past pricing and not current preceived worth. I understand that concept for the rookie buyout as you are buyout 1 lower dollar value year and are potentially being rewarded for drafting said player as well as investing in them long-term.
It appears we differ fundamentally on this so I need some other guys to chip in here. I thought I was steering us in the desired direction but maybe I'm way off here, if I please let me know
|
|
|
Post by Colorado Rockies GM(John) on Feb 17, 2018 14:49:52 GMT -6
I don't necessarily think that first part is true at all. We have star players being traded all the time here. The changing of hands would come even more so from trades, not just signings. You cant afford to keep everybody so youd have to trade some of them (if you wanted to be competitive at least).
As Mets and Yankees both suggested (and correct me if I misunderstood you guys) is a way to lock up your core 9-12 guys without having to go through the RFA auctions. That would still leave well over half your roster for turnover.
I don't know, maybe I misread the initial conversation. If keeping the RFA auctions is the way everyone wants to go that's fine with me also. Although I would like to see the one year really high bid problem addressed at least. Perhaps in a maximum amount you would have to pay for our own RFA? Even if its $45-50 or something. Its not like youd be getting a huge bargain at the price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 14:51:41 GMT -6
I agree with Indians.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 15:04:38 GMT -6
I think low turnover on top guys or excellent value guys is part of the goal. That is why we have things like the rookie buyouts and would still have a limited number of players to designate as a RFA each year (to increase your chance of retaining them). But you can not completely eliminate turnover or at least the chance of turnover. If you never give teams the opportunity to openly spend money to try to acquire certain players they will start to lose interest to some degree. I have witnessed it personally in a few leagues and these auctions were all done in person in one evening, talk about boring, now this league could be different. There needs to be a healthy balance of the ability to retain players with the opportunity of turnover to keep everyone engaged.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 15:12:11 GMT -6
I currently have this poll locked while we sort thru the muck.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2018 15:32:15 GMT -6
Okay guys, Steinbrenner (Yanks) has been blowing up my phone and I think I see a way to have a healthy marriage of the two ideas. If you guys are on board with it.
Instead of the sole direction that I thought we've been working towards (a specific number of RFAs to designate each year). What if we limit it to 2 RFAs to designate each year that still go to auction plus have 1 max contract (2 yr minimum) that you can hand out to a non rookie contract player? It would be based on the same values as the rookie buyouts, this would give you an additional avenue to extend top end talent that is not on a rookie contract.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2018 16:35:16 GMT -6
Is that 1 max contract per year?
I'd be okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Feb 17, 2018 17:00:28 GMT -6
That last idea is the best I have heard so far.
I am in a time crunch at the moment but I will say that my original idea was more of what Indians has been saying. The way I got to 9-12 core players is by designating 3 RFAs each year, which would be your core. Again, I believe that no one should have to designate who they are keeping until that auction is done so that there is fair bidding on that player (as in our current RFA auctions, we either go way high as to buyout the player or we don't bid high enough since we don't think we have a chance to get the player, which keeps contracts too low at times). So, for example, if I had 6 players that were FAs next offseason, I would know that I can only keep 3 of them and can watch the auction to decide who I want to keep. But that decision could be tough if I like four of my guys but my fourth guy comes to auction first and I need to decide whether to keep him at the end without knowing what my other contracts might look like. As I am writing this, I am sure it is very confusing and will explain and answer any questions when I have time later. Sorry for the quick idea vomit.
With all that being said, I am on board for the one max contract idea.
|
|