|
|
Post by Jamie (Cleveland GM) on Feb 20, 2017 20:36:52 GMT -6
I would like to see them in the FYPD - if someone wants to take a chance on one I think it is fair game - Most teams dont get to keep their teams #1 pick someone usually grabs them in FYPD - so I dont see why international players should be protected - and so for the owners that research that stuff they can take one - I realize we are talking about 16 year olds but high schoolers at 18 are still very young and they are drafted in FYPD
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants on Feb 20, 2017 21:35:00 GMT -6
They're not all 16...if there was no Cuba/Japan/ and Korean leagues I'd agree, but especially with the change to the CBA, a lot more players will qualify as bonus pool players that will be much older and seasoned.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Feb 20, 2017 23:01:32 GMT -6
Ya I don't really see this going anywhere some want a FA Type Bidding, some want them in FYPD, some don't want any changes at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie (Cleveland GM) on Feb 21, 2017 8:42:47 GMT -6
I do agree they are not all 16 - but the team with the first pick - probably needs the most help unless they traded it - i see this a way that the teams that struggle have a chance to get better quicker if the players are in FYPD - I am in another league that they bid on the IFA players that are unproven and the salaries are driven way to high - I just like the idea FYPD so the bad teams have a chance to get better faster - which would make it a deeper league league -
|
|
|
|
Post by morf1980 (Rays GM) on Feb 21, 2017 8:53:06 GMT -6
That's why I thought it might be fun to bid using a points system over 5 years. Sort of like real life. Teams can spend a ton on one guy or a little on more guys. They can spend a ton one year and then none for a few years or they can spend evenly each year. Then no team would get stuck with a bad contract, but it's still FA.
I think adding them into the draft will actually hurt the weaker teams because they may be enticed to make a riskier draft choice on an IFA guy that won't pan out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Feb 21, 2017 18:34:59 GMT -6
At this point people are just talking in circles so unless anyone new wants to add anything I think we can just leave this for now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2017 19:54:42 GMT -6
My thoughts on IFA's are how if a team gets them in real-life but the team here doesn't, it could greatly weaken (at times) the team here. An extreme example is Jose Abreu. Signed with the White Sox but became a free agent here. My thought is that because the White Sox (real-llfe) are pretty well set at 1B for a long time, they probably won't invest as much in that position in the near future. By invest, I mean money-wise or high draft pick wise. Which means the White Sox here not only doesn't get Abreu but doesn't really have as good 1B options coming up through his system as other teams may.
I owned a Reds team once when they signed Chapman. He became the closer which destroyed any chance of the Reds developing one in-house. Just afraid that coupled with our first 3 draft choices maybe being lost each year, that if we were to lose our top IFA's also, we could greatly weaken a team.
True though that teams here would draft and pick others back, but that takes a lot of time and research. Its always hard to say which teams can keep up with that at any given time. I know the TAB teams can get tremendously stressed for time. (re-signs, FYPD, DD, trades, waivers, free agency, schedules, finding new GM's, finding newer GM's to replace the new GM's who left after a week, etc - lol).
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Jerry) on Feb 22, 2017 6:04:29 GMT -6
I say leave it as it is, we do breakout players like the Gurriel brothers and such now. As long as we go by the age or contract the IFA signs we should be okay.
I am in a couple of leagues where you have to do a FA bid to get IFA players and so far no player has earned his league salary.
|
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM on Feb 22, 2017 14:17:22 GMT -6
If we don't want to research 16 year olds that have no professional experience, maybe we could wait until the IFA's turn 18 and include them in the FYPD. One additional provision with this that could allow the team to benefit from their IFA signing is that they can trade any IFA they wish, and trading them would make them exempt from the draft. How do others feel about this idea and the potential provision with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Feb 22, 2017 14:23:23 GMT -6
If we don't want to research 16 year olds that have no professional experience, maybe we could wait until the IFA's turn 18 and include them in the FYPD. One additional provision with this that could allow the team to benefit from their IFA signing is that they can trade any IFA they wish, and trading them would make them exempt from the draft. How do others feel about this idea and the potential provision with it? I am definatley not okay with withholding a guys ownership rights for 2-yrs. And definitely not okay with owning a guy then having them be part of any draft. This just gets more and more complicated for something that i do not feel is broken. |
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Jon) on Feb 22, 2017 15:05:32 GMT -6
I just think its odd that the international players are the only type of player that no other team has a chance at. Every other type of player is open to the rest the league at some point or another. My personal proposal would be to just add the previous years IFA's to the FYPD. If not taken, they belong to the team same as FYPD guys.
This shouldn't create any additional work for TAB, owners can just draft one from the previous international signing period if they want, and we'll double check its a valid pick/player.
As for research, if its one time like that, owners can research IFA or FYPD guys as much as they like, or just go off size of the signing bonus, round they were drafted in, or top spec/ifa lists. Lots of ways to not do research and just go off of how the pros rank them. So that's an non-issue IMO.
But creating signing pools and such would create lots of extra work I think, so I'm not sure that's a great idea from a management perspective. It's hard enough getting everyone to keep rosters and salaries up to date sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevew (MARLINS GM) on Feb 22, 2017 15:20:35 GMT -6
White Sox has the simplest solution that would work if people wanted a change. Seems the most fair and least labor intensive for the TAB.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Feb 22, 2017 15:20:56 GMT -6
I don't think we will ever agree on this its 1/3 this way (FA) 1/3 this way (Draft) 1/3 this way (No Changes) not going to create a rule based off that kind of thing.
And yes i realize LOTS have not said anything I was referencing those that had.
|
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (Jon) on Feb 22, 2017 15:43:44 GMT -6
I don't think we will ever agree on this its 1/3 this way (FA) 1/3 this way (Draft) 1/3 this way (No Changes) not going to create a rule based off that kind of thing. And yes i realize LOTS have not said anything I was referencing those that had. That's what this discussion is for. To see if there is any consensus. Obviously we'd go through normal process if anything went forward or any rule changes proposed or whatever. But if enough think that some change needs to be made then we should probably discuss options and consider them. Even if they're different proposals it seems that there is some interest in finding a better way to handle IFA's. I really don't understand why you keep trying to shut down the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Feb 22, 2017 15:46:14 GMT -6
You right Jon you got me that is clearly what I am trying to do you got me. (((SARCASM this is the internet afterall))
|
|
