|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 16, 2020 10:16:18 GMT -6
Now that we have been using the new system for a few seasons I'm curious what everyone thinks.
I think there are still some tweaks we should make.
1. If you bid on your own RFA you loose your discount % rights. (Looking at you Cards)
2. When we revised the system we went to all expiring contracts were eligible for RFA. I think we should revise it so that it has to be at least an expiring 2 year contract. So 1 year contracts are no longer eligible. I would have to create a series of new contracts with a rfa eligible designation but it could be done.
Thouhgt?...
|
|
|
RFA rights
Feb 16, 2020 10:28:24 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by New York Yankees GM(Tommy) on Feb 16, 2020 10:28:24 GMT -6
I mentioned these in the past so I agree on both but would say to gain full RFA rights we need to make it 3 year deals.
This one year stuff should not be rewarded and never should have. It takes away from the dynasty feel. All rules should help the long term concept of the league. Great ideas for the future!
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM(Jared) on Feb 16, 2020 10:32:55 GMT -6
I mentioned these in the past so I agree on both but would say to gain full RFA rights we need to make it 3 year deals. This one year stuff should not be rewarded and never should have. It takes away from the dynasty feel. All rules should help the long term concept of the league. Great ideas for the future! I agree with you all on the. This whole thread is because of how I've chosen to play in the sandbox I have been given. I still think there should be an incentive to give longer term deals.
|
|
|
Post by New York Mets GM(Randy) on Feb 16, 2020 22:04:37 GMT -6
1.) I do like if you bid on your own guy, you lose your rights. Since bidding for the number of years is a way to get an owner to consider releasing those rights. I do applaud Cards for thinking of it, but it's now time to remove the option.
2.) I'm not so against the one year guys that get RFA'd. Each team only has two per year so if someone wants to use it on the same guy year after year, then so be it. It may also be a strategic signing for a team that looks ahead and does not feel they have two legit RFAs for the next offseason. It's not like they get an extra advantage or get an extra RFA because of having a one year guy. I think this actually adds some dynasty feel as older guys (like Cruz for me) may actually play on the same team for the end of their careers rather than bounce from team to team because no one wants to give a longer deal. I guess I just don't see what the negative aspect to this is in the long run. But I really could go either way on this.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays GM(Jordan) on Feb 17, 2020 9:26:14 GMT -6
100% agree with Mets. My team has only Lugo as Fa for 2020. So you are gonna force me to trade with other GMs so i can tag a couple guys while i cud sign. No way in hell , i rather sign Anderson or Confortos on 1 year deal so i can tag. By going to 2 year , My question is why did we change it in the first place!!!!! What we need is rights proteccion . In a way that if u want to sign someone elses RFA's u lose a pick simple. This stop assholes from overpaying and raises the value of RFA's.. that way i wud not mind letting an overpaid Baez go to Jarred last year in exchange for his highest pick.. Simple solution !!!! And #1 shud be in effect already if i bid on my own RFA i shud not get the 10% . But if we had the RFA protecction rule this wont have to be a problem . Im 100% sure ppl wont overpay for a RFA and risk lose a 1st
And we rank guys in 2 tiers based on performance so RFA stars can nab u a 2nd and RFA superstars get u a 1st .
And this will help that we can get guys on longer deals cheaper than whats happening now IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM(Landon) on Feb 17, 2020 9:58:24 GMT -6
I understand the issue with people wanting to keep some guys on one year deals but retain their rights, so make the Franchise Buyout like the franchise tag in the NFL. You get one of those each year, it's automatically a one year deal and you can only tag the player with the franchise buyout two seasons in a row.
I like the protection idea but you can't protect every RFA or it would kill half the bidding process. So I would suggest each team can protect one of their two RFAs, the other would work the same way it has been.
And with the protection there would need to be a minimum salary based on the position of the player. That way if the protection scares off most bidders you don't see a one of the top players at a position on a contract paying 15 per year.
How protections are decided could be something along the lines of, and I'm just throwing out numbers here, a 3rd round protection minimum contract would be 20, second round 30, first round 40. There would need to be some tweaks to that or no one will ever tag a relief pitcher or only use the lowest protection. The reason I suggest some kind of minimum salary is if we change how teams bid we have to change how the team with the rights makes decisions as well to offset that change.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2020 10:01:54 GMT -6
100% agree with Mets. My team has only Lugo as Fa for 2020. So you are gonna force me to trade with other GMs so i can tag a couple guys while i cud sign. No way in hell , i rather sign Anderson or Confortos on 1 year deal so i can tag. By going to 2 year , My question is why did we change it in the first place!!!!! What we need is rights proteccion . In a way that if u want to sign someone elses RFA's u lose a pick simple. This stop assholes from overpaying and raises the value of RFA's.. that way i wud not mind letting an overpaid Baez go to Jarred last year in exchange for his highest pick.. Simple solution !!!! And #1 shud be in effect already if i bid on my own RFA i shud not get the 10% . But if we had the RFA protecction rule this wont have to be a problem . Im 100% sure ppl wont overpay for a RFA and risk lose a 1st And we rank guys in 2 tiers based on performance so RFA stars can nab u a 2nd and RFA superstars get u a 1st . And this will help that we can get guys on longer deals cheaper than whats happening now IMHO. I can appreciate the thought put into this but it'll never happen. Besides the fact that I don't have time to manage a system like that, the value of picks varies too much depending on time of year.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays GM(Jordan) on Feb 17, 2020 10:03:55 GMT -6
Yes Landon the higher the bid the Higher the loss of a pick would be a great way. Also this is only for stars and superstars based on performance. Example This year Marte ,Springer , Yates etc all had super years and shud all be protected
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays GM(Jordan) on Feb 17, 2020 10:07:41 GMT -6
Ez we dont allow picks to be traded until after the Offseason bidding. Well than dont change something after a year, leave it atleast a 3 to 4 years than start to change it , and not at the start of the season . We had November and December to talk about this, not now that everyones strategy is in place and the season is about to start.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM(Mike) on Feb 17, 2020 11:01:35 GMT -6
This is the second year it's been in place. Just think it could use a few minor tweaks, not a major overhaul. Nothing would change for this year. It's hard to have a convo on here in Nov and Dec when no one is logging. And not that I want to get into it, but I've been a little busy with real life shit.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays GM(Jordan) on Feb 17, 2020 11:12:54 GMT -6
This is the second year it's been in place. Just think it could use a few minor tweaks, not a major overhaul. Nothing would change for this year. It's hard to have a convo on here in Nov and Dec when no one is logging. And not that I want to get into it, but I've been a little busy with real life shit. Well i understand that ur right its better to talk now about changes , and if we do agree to something it needs to come into effect the following year.
|
|