Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 0:00:04 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 0:00:04 GMT -5
Just curious what everyone’s thoughts on this would be......
As I’m looking into the future of the league, when most of the ‘elite’ players hit FA here in 4 years- how hard is it going to be to keep a solid corner stone, franchise player on your team.
I wouldn’t think it would be too late to implement some kind of ‘franchise player’ where each team is able to keep a guy who’s contract has expired for a discount...or something similar. Maybe something like the NBA’s ‘Bird Rights’ where we allow the team who owned a player who’s contract expired the ability to go 7 years on a max contract (or 4 on a sunset contract) instead of 6. This gives everyone the capability to keep a core group of players together. MLB used the QO, but not sure how we could implement it.
This is just a thought. I may be the minority in this, but figured it was worth bringing up!
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 7:48:26 GMT -5
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Nov 22, 2017 7:48:26 GMT -5
Interesting idea Jared.. the "bird rights" idea where you could sign a player to a 7yr deal would be adventagoues to the team with the bird rights as you'd be able to spread the total annual value of the contract into an extra year. I really like that idea by the way.
I was actually contemplating how we could implement something similar to the qualifying offer last night.. didn't really come up with much, one thing I did think about was compensating teams from losing big time free agents.. we'd use the end of season rankings, and if you lose a top 25 free agent you would be rewarded with a pick in between rounds 1 and 2, if you lose a top 50 free agent you would get a pick between rounds 2 and 3.. and so on. I do think there should be some sort of compensation for losing a big time free agent like there is in MLB.
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 7:59:29 GMT -5
Post by TigersGM (Stuart) on Nov 22, 2017 7:59:29 GMT -5
I like where this is headed...I think having one 7 year contract per team is probably a pretty good idea and also the qo system for compensating losing a top free agent. My question @rockies...Would you lose a draft pick if you sign one of these guys?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 8:00:04 GMT -5
How do you determine who is a top 25 or top 50 FA?
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 8:05:33 GMT -5
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Nov 22, 2017 8:05:33 GMT -5
How do you determine who is a top 25 or top 50 FA? End of season rankings. If you lose a player that's in the top 25, or top 50 you'd get a pick in between rounds 1 and 2.. doesn't have to be exactly that, but fantrax rates all players with a score end of year per our leagues scoring system
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 8:12:12 GMT -5
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Nov 22, 2017 8:12:12 GMT -5
I like where this is headed...I think having one 7 year contract per team is probably a pretty good idea and also the qo system for compensating losing a top free agent. My question @rockies...Would you lose a draft pick if you sign one of these guys? Havent really thought about that, but I do like the idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 8:24:24 GMT -5
I like the overall idea of compensation for losing FA, but I'm not sure I think there is a big enough reason to add it (if that makes sense). It sucks losing your players to FA, but it's affecting everyone the same (not like it's unfair). I don't follow the NBA at all so I'm not sure what the 7 year thing is yall are referring to, but that sounds interesting... How does that work?
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 8:33:51 GMT -5
Post by RaysGM (Paul) on Nov 22, 2017 8:33:51 GMT -5
I want to make sure I'm understanding this, since I don't follow the NBA at all. A team would be able to extend one player's contact an additional year (to 7 years), is this correct? Can this be done once per year, or if it's done the team has to wait until that player's contract has expired? For example, BOS decides to extend Machado's contract to 7-years in 2018. Can he also extend Odor's contract in 2019, or he would be unable to extend another contract until Machado's contract has expired? As a team who doesn't have any big-name players, this could make it more difficult to acquire players whose contracts have expired thus helping teams who have the "elite" players to keep being in the playoffs, IMO. Or am I not understanding this.
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 8:36:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Nov 22, 2017 8:36:09 GMT -5
In other league we did restricted arbitration (1 per team per season, only if you want to) where players chosen to go through that R Arb would be auctioned for 48 hrs and at end previous owner gets to decide whether or not to match that offer. Can be restricted to 1 yr auction in this case.
However, as Ryan said, it may be better - much better actually - and much less cumbersome in an already admin intense league to allow players to go into FA pool. At max, when you draft someone you get up to 13 years of control. To me, that's plenty. If owners want more control through prime years they simply need to resist promoting them from minors too early.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 8:55:25 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 8:55:25 GMT -5
I don’t follow NBA as much as I use to. But, the Bird Rights give the team who’s losing a player to FA the capability to offer 1 more year on a contract than any other team. Their contract lengths are capped at 4, unless you have a players Bird Rights and you can offer a 5 year contract. So, example, a team is losing a key player to free agency- while he’s available to every team to sign a 4 year contract, the team he ended the season on is able to offer a 5 year contract.
This isn’t about having more control over a player than it is thinkin the overall landscape of the league is going to drastically change in 4 years. Since this will be my second year, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the players becoming FA in 4 years (Bryant, Machado, Harper, Trout, etc.) aren’t becoming FA because they were promoted too soon, but because they were part of the initial draft process the first year the league started.
Looking back at last year FA and how this year is going to go, $6M for those elite players is going to be cheap after 4 years. It’s not as hard now to build a team and stay under the salary cap, but I’m imagining it being a lot more difficult then to try and keep a key piece of a team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 9:28:29 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 9:28:29 GMT -5
I don’t follow NBA as much as I use to. But, the Bird Rights give the team who’s losing a player to FA the capability to offer 1 more year on a contract than any other team. Their contract lengths are capped at 4, unless you have a players Bird Rights and you can offer a 5 year contract. So, example, a team is losing a key player to free agency- while he’s available to every team to sign a 4 year contract, the team he ended the season on is able to offer a 5 year contract. This isn’t about having more control over a player than it is thinkin the overall landscape of the league is going to drastically change in 4 years. Since this will be my second year, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but the players becoming FA in 4 years (Bryant, Machado, Harper, Trout, etc.) aren’t becoming FA because they were promoted too soon, but because they were part of the initial draft process the first year the league started. Looking back at last year FA and how this year is going to go, $6M for those elite players is going to be cheap after 4 years. It’s not as hard now to build a team and stay under the salary cap, but I’m imagining it being a lot more difficult then to try and keep a key piece of a team. I agree that the salaries for those stars are definitely 'cheap' compared to what average to below avg MLB free agents have gone for in our league. However, this impacts everyone in our league equally (at least very close to equally). Will it be different to have guys like Altuve, Harper, Trout, Machado, Goldy, etc. all hitting FA in the same off-season? For sure - but everyone in our league has known those guys would hit FA after the 2021 season. If teams don't plan with that in mind (e.g. that spend a ton on other less notable FA's before that off-season), then unfortunately that's on them. Things will definitely get tougher when all those big names hit FA, but that's what makes it fun! Another reason that it's so important to build through the rookie draft/farm system (like real life).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 9:53:32 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 9:53:32 GMT -5
Yeah....I think my point is getting lost. I understand everyone will be going through the same thing. My main purpose of the idea was to give someone who’s owned a cornerstone player to be able to have some sort of advantage to keep him. Just like players are able to negotiate extensions before their contract is up and they hit FA.
|
|
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 10:20:04 GMT -5
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Nov 22, 2017 10:20:04 GMT -5
Opposed...after 4 years, the preset/predetermined value of a great many players, established during league creation, will finally be set at actual market value. Which means staggering price increases across the board on a great many players.
Owners already have the ability- thru a 6 year minors deal with no forced promotion from the minors- and then minors plus 6 years of absolute control to hold onto a player for 13 years... in a great many cases, the player contract is far below, to colossally below his actual value( Bryce Harper isn't collecting a salary above $10 million his first 6 years as he currently pulls in MLB).
Owners get to keep their cornerstone players for dirt cheap, for a very long time. That is how the system is set up. After all that time, at that crushed price point- time to let your birds fly away into the open market. It emphasizes a need for constant flow of talent from the minors to add dirt cheap talent. Which is why we have a 5 round draft, with 40 minors roster spots.
There was a process where an owner could put a player to market, have the right of first refusal on the contract, and get a discount on his contract and a 2 year extension. It was limited to 1 player a season, and set at a percent of his open market value during the players 3 arb years( 40, 60, 80%) .. That was fairly interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Idea
Nov 22, 2017 10:34:21 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 10:34:21 GMT -5
Yeah....I think my point is getting lost. I understand everyone will be going through the same thing. My main purpose of the idea was to give someone who’s owned a cornerstone player to be able to have some sort of advantage to keep him. Just like players are able to negotiate extensions before their contract is up and they hit FA. As Dodgers said in the message above, I already think owners have had a massive advantage by owning these stars for just $6m/year (for up to 6 years). When you consider that prospects can be held for up to 13 years, that's an insanely long time. With the way this league is structured, I don't want really want to add a rule where stars are kept out of free agency for even longer. I am open to the idea of giving teams the option of a first right of refusal for a contract (maybe once per year?), but even that I'm pretty against because I already think teams can control players for plenty long enough. One of my favorite things about this league is having to make tough decisions due to the nature of the contracts. For example, do you wait to promote a top prospect who is already raking in the majors if his contributions in the present year wouldn't help you much (e.g. your team isn't yet competitive) so that you can get an extra year or 2 of control later on during your competitive window?? While adding these proposed rules wouldn't totally eliminate those types of decisions, they would impact them.
|
|