|
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Mar 8, 2016 15:15:39 GMT -6
Not sure where to put this, so figured this was as good a spot as any. I think the proposed trade the Giants/Padres made with D Wright and Max S stirred a lot up and I think the discussion comes down to the resigns. Not sure I have a proposal or even want anything to change, just figured I would open the conversation.
I like the resign process and limiting a team to 4 active because it makes this league different and unique. But I think it is going to start (if it hasnt already) really screwing up values of both resigns and free agents. Figure there are 30 teams here (I think) so that essentially makes 120 active resigns available maximum, when guys decline (like D Wright, BJ Upton,...) I think it really messes things up. Assuming someone mentioned becomes virtually untradeable, it may force teams to release expiring contracts into FA because their resigns are all taken. Or make trades that give away guys that they know they can't resign (Longoria)
I get that a resign can be eventually waived, but my understanding is the year you waive them, you take the salary hit, plus they continue to occupy one of the four resign slots for that year. Maybe this is something that is changed in the rules, freeing up the resign slot earlier? Just a thought.
I won't even go into the free agency inflation rate. It makes sense for some teams to bid real high to fill an open slot or two, esp if you have used your resigns wisely. The problem comes up is when you have owners leave and replacement owners are left w a mess.
Anyway, not really sure where I am going, just thinking out loud. I will leave it to the smart people to figure it all out.
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM on Mar 9, 2016 17:10:09 GMT -6
Another league I'm in offers new owners a free drop. This is in the case if the previous owner left a catastrophe behind him, the new owner can get rid of an albatross contract. I feel this could be a good idea to implement herr
Regarding FA inflation, I know this league gives out longer rookie contracts, along with shorter maximum years in FA, which will result in more inflation than in other leagues. However, as teams get filled out and the amount of open salary decreases, FA inflation should subside
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Jon) on Mar 9, 2016 20:48:06 GMT -6
I like that free drop idea. That might be something to consider for the future.
FA inflation was mostly crazy this year since there were a number of open teams filled at once so lots of cap space. It should die down next year or get back to normal i think. It hasn't been much of a problem in the past. With consistent ownership, it's pretty manageable to get some low cost guys since rookie contracts are so long, and then fill in the gaps with expensive FA's around them. I don't see an issue with that really.
The re-sign buyouts are same as other buyouts (you pay a portion of their salary for the remainder of their contract). But you also are stuck with the re-sign tag for the duration of the contract too. I think the system is ok as-is since buying out a re-sign frees cap to look at FA if needed. And if you have expiring contracts you aren't going to be able to re-sign, trade them. Like I just had to do with JD and Sale. I'm ok with the system as-is, it sort of encourages activity and keeps things fresh. It's a constant balance of future and present, trading assets when you need to, etc. I think we ran into trouble this year because of having an unusual number of open teams. Like Giants for example, if they were managed last year, an owner would've been able to do something to free up a spot and keep Bumgarner. But with no manager he hit FA. There's usually moves to be made, but it takes an active manager to work them out. Whether its giving up other value to get an owner to take on a bum contract, or whatever, but even now there's a number of teams with 2-4 re-sign slots open and would probably be willing to take on one bad re-sign if there's enough value in it for them. That's my view of it anyway.
Just like real life, giving a bad contract to the wrong player could mean a big challenge. So have to use those re-signs wisely and plan ahead to have slots open when your key guys expire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 22:29:29 GMT -6
Agreed its hard to really judge anything based on just this year. Since the year began, we've added 8 new owners here. (You could even say 10 teams as the Reds and Twins arrived after free agency last year). That was a tremendous amount of open cap space that came into play. That coupled with an already weak free agent class drove prices through the roof. Plus the re-sign situations of some teams was very bad. Maybe all of that somewhat answers the reason we had 8-10 open teams in the first place. They were messes or certainly neglected.
I think all the TAB is trying to do here is just trying to look at each team's individual situation and trying to help them get their team in the best shape possible as we never want the 10 open teams again. Trust me it can be very hard at times voting on a trade where you not only check out the players involved but also look at a team's roster to see when their other contracts expire and then check out their re-sign situation. A deal that could make sense for one team may not work at all for another. That's no fault of either team involved in the deal but just the hand they were given to play.
Kudos to the Padres GM also. While his team is not one of the 10 newest GM's, he's the 11th newest here. And like some of the others here, his team had a horrible won/loss record before he got them. One could even add the Phillies to the horrible list as they had a 2013 - 75-161-28 .337 won/loss record the year before I got them. Hopefully after the growing pains of this year, the league will be way more balanced and do great moving forward. I believe someone might have even said that the fact so many teams are responding with comments recently is a good sign for the league's future.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Mar 10, 2016 15:41:38 GMT -6
I am also in another league (probably the same one) that offers new owners two free drops within the first few weeks or so. Might be good to consider. I am not complaining about the free agency prices, I just hate to see those owners move on and new ones left with contracts that are 3x as much as better players kept as resigns. Like I said, it all adds to the uniqueness of the league, which is good.
|
|
|
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Mar 10, 2016 16:42:42 GMT -6
One thing I have seen in a past league is some sort of Qualifying Offer Tag on an expiring rookie contract. Teams are allowed to "extend" 1 ending rookie contract per year sort of as a resign (And the cost was set by a group that voted such as the TAB in this league). The team could then either decline or accept. But then that wouldn't count towards your limit of 4 resigns. It provided an extra incentive for teams to build their farm systems. But we may already have this built in with the 4 resigns rule. It would just be a way for teams to keep their homegrown talent even if they have used up their 4 resigns.
And maybe we could change the rule and allow 1 Qualifying Offer resign per season on ending rookie deals and these players would then be untradeable for the length of the extension. This would allow teams to keep homegrown talent. Make it like a 2 year extension. So if a team raised a guy through their system they would get him for 5 years at the rookie pay and 2 more years at the extension pay IF they wanted to lock him in for those 2 years and not be able to trade him. So if a team had available resigns they could do a straight 4 year resign and the player could be able to be traded after just 1 year OR if they are in a bind they can sign an ending rookie deal guy to the special 2 year offer. As an example the Giants team would have been able to keep Bumgarner on a special 2 year contract and be unable to trade him, but it would have kept him off the open market. They can't just extend him and trade him though just to prevent him from entering FA, but they could delay that pain for an extra 2 seasons. The players would just be marked on the Contracts pages with a (QO) behind their contract which means they cannot be traded and will be a free agent when their contract expires unless the team is able to free upa resign by then.
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Mar 10, 2016 18:21:43 GMT -6
I don't think teams should get more than the 4 re-signs allowed already we have to keep FA relavant any extra person kept hurts that IMO.
|
|
|
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Mar 10, 2016 19:24:26 GMT -6
Understand. The other league didn't have resigns I don't think. Just you could resign one expiring rookie contract per year. So any veteran automatically hit the market and couldn't be extended. But there was also no limit on resigns per team. You could just use one per year. And they couldn't be traded for two years.
But having four resigns could basically be the same thing if a team wanted it to be.
I wasn't recommending any change, just stating something I had seen that pertained. I'm too new to have noticed anything that needs changed yet lol.
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM on Mar 10, 2016 19:54:51 GMT -6
This qualifying offer notion seems pretty complicated haha. While it sounds interesting, I feel it may be too complex to implement into our league
Rangers, are you in Franchise Baseball League? Because that's the league I'm referring to
|
|