|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 5, 2018 19:51:56 GMT -6
agreed.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Mar 6, 2018 13:47:50 GMT -6
I agree with this as well. The sooner, the better.
As I have been thinking about this, here is my feeling for the new RFA setup and designation time. I think we can have a system where we can trade the RFA tag like Reds suggested. I don't think my idea for post auction claiming will work in any feasible way that is not just completely crazy so I am good with throwing that idea out. I do think so that we do not lose the draft trades of RFA rights, though, that all FAs are RFAs for their current team from the end of the season until the Sunday before the Super Bowl. That would be when a team would need to trim down to two. This way someone who has three or more players that could be decent RFAs (e.g. Reds this year) could trade those rights to teams without decent RFA candidates. It keeps some of the value for teams having multiple good players coming up to auction simultaneously and is really like a DFA deal in real life, where another team is willing to give up something rather than take a chance in the open market. Thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 6, 2018 20:40:08 GMT -6
I still think we need to vote specifically on whether we actually want to give non Rfa players the franchise tag. This was an Rfa change process - not all contracts adjustment.
I know I’m not the only want who thought this tag was for to be for Rfa Eligible players.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Mar 6, 2018 20:49:16 GMT -6
I feel like we discussed the idea of guys like Beltre and Cruz not being passed around each offseason, and the new policy could let those guys be recipients of a RFA tag.
There's still incentive to sign longer contracts - there's more risk, but also more reward. If you just sign a guy 1 year at a time, you never do better than a 10% discount on their market value. If someone would have tagged Jose Ramirez after 2016 (which would have been reasonable), and gotten that 10% discount -- that would now be a much better discount considering his current value.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 6, 2018 21:53:49 GMT -6
There are NO rfa players until you tag them as such after the season. Which is sounding like it will happen after the franchise tag deadline had passed.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Mar 7, 2018 10:09:23 GMT -6
OK, so that means we are discussing trading only the RFA rights, where a team could potentially have three players they keep instead of two and not being able to trade players who have come off contract years to teams that may only have one player that they would be interested in RFAing, correct?
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 7, 2018 11:18:19 GMT -6
I was replying to Cards post.
Mets, what you are talking about, making the RFA a tradable commodity, I think we do one or the other. So...
We treat the RFA tags like a draft pick and the tag itself is tradeable. So we would then hold onto all of our FAs until the tag deadline. At which point we would tag our RFAs and the rest would be dropped from your roster. This would allow teams to load up on RFA tags and possible have more than 2 at auction and teams that traded away their tags would have 1 or none.
OR
We hold onto out FAs until the tag deadline and up until that point the FAs are the tradeable commodity. At or before the deadline we then tag 2 RFAs if we choose to and the rest of the FA players get dropped into the FA pool.
Or a third option... we just set the designation deadline earlier. Everyone tags the 2 players on their roster that they want to RFA, the rest of FA players are dropped into the FA pool. Which players will be RFA'd will be set but we'll then have time to trade those players.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Mar 7, 2018 14:16:58 GMT -6
I think a question we need to ask is why are we making these moves. Is it because we want to see more action during auctions or more player movement among teams? If it is player movement, then I think option #2 makes more sense since we would be trading players. Option #1 would cause teams to simply retain more players by trading for more rights and we still wouldn't see as many stars either come to FA or change teams. At least, those are my thoughts. But I can be convinced either way. Or even jump on board with option #3.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Mar 7, 2018 15:41:13 GMT -6
I don't have a steadfast opinion overall but to Mets points the purpose of any and all dynasty teams needs to be as little player movement from team to team as possible. I am all for ANY change that allows a more pure dynasty format where your players are your players, for good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Mar 7, 2018 16:25:47 GMT -6
From an admin standpoint I would favor option 3 from my suggestions as that is the least amount of work and would be the easiest to keep track of. But you guys vote so you essential make the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds (Mike) on Mar 7, 2018 16:38:54 GMT -6
I could get behind option #3 if we had deadlines that were (roughly) like this?
January 1: start the draft, tag your RFA's Monday after the Super Bowl: start auctions (so about a month to trade RFA rights)
I wouldn't want the tagging deadline to be much earlier than that, as a lot of December trades/free agency signings might influence RFA choices. That date holds up better looking at past years than it does for this season though...but obviously we have to set a limit at some point.
Otherwise, I'd be game for option #2 though I know that's more work. That lets us go right to early February before assigning tags. It'd also be pretty funny whenever someone trades for someone's free agent rights and then doesn't end up giving them a RFA tag (though I guess we've had RFA rights traded where the recipient ultimately didn't sign the player.)
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 8, 2018 18:26:46 GMT -6
I still hate that we are giving club control for a player they owned one year. This was not the point of us changing the RFA system. It is quite the ear mark. I think we should not be rewarding managers by giving them long term control when the auctions did not reflect that.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 11, 2018 7:40:19 GMT -6
I feel the tag will encourage guys not to commit to their star like trout or Kershaw and give all the benefit to the owner.
The guys getting passed around every year will not get the RFA tags and Nelson Cruz types will continue to get passed around.
Until we get a discount for long term deals we will still have the one year contracts for older and not kershaw/trout types.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays GM(Jordan) on Mar 11, 2018 8:52:20 GMT -6
I feel the tag will encourage guys not to commit to their star like trout or Kershaw and give all the benefit to the owner. The guys getting passed around every year will not get the RFA tags and Nelson Cruz types will continue to get passed around. Until we get a discount for long term deals we will still have the one year contracts for older and not kershaw/trout types. This is Fantasy Dynasty where a player doesnt choose what contract or which teams he wants to go. We have to outbit eachother , (dont get Real life contracts mixed in to this), thats is why older guys will never get long contracts and change team yearly
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Mar 11, 2018 9:11:03 GMT -6
Yes but we don't encourage anyone to sign players of any age that are top 100 to a long term deal which would actually be a dynasty format. I thought the Cruz beltre cargo - add in jose ramirez now - will never get a long term deal like a real team would have to provide
|
|