ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: chrisetc21 on February 09, 2014, 01:19:35 AM
-
I think these are a problem, especially the way they're given to players over 30 years old to increase the bid yet keep the yearly salary low. I'm thinking players over age 30 should be limited to 3 year deals. Thoughts?
-
Nah, there are good contracts and bad contracts. Let the free market dictate. That is how real baseball works.
-
Nah, there are good contracts and bad contracts. Let the free market dictate. That is how real baseball works.
When you give a 34 year old a 5 year deal there's a reason why you're doing that and it's not because you think he'll be playing at age 39. I really think it's a potentially big problem.
-
I can get behind this. However, we should limit it to where if the player is 35 or older, than he can only be signed to a 3 year deal. If he's 34, than it's a 4 year deal. If he's 33 or younger, than it can be 5 years.
-
Nah, there are good contracts and bad contracts. Let the free market dictate. That is how real baseball works.
I agree. Tell Randy Choate and David Ortiz your done and you never should of had a 5yr contract at 34. If an owner wants to keep a player on the books for 5yrs thats their problem. Owners do crazy things to win all the time. We all have budgets and try to fit players into those budgets to compete and win. We are going to allow someone to pay $33M for Matt Cain or Anibal Sanchez $20M or resign Hunter Pence for over $17M yet not give out a 5yr deal for someone else??? Why not just allow eveyone to make only $5M tops and whoever is the first person to claim them gets them. We all have different ideas on how to build a winner. Let them do it. Let's not turn this into some type of kid game where we all win not matter if we go 0-162. You play to win... well hopefully anyway.
-
I am against limiting the years on an older player. Let the market dictate.
-
You play to win... well hopefully anyway.
lol...
-
Not necessary, imo. If we are that worried about the longterm health of the league, we would restrict more than just the contract length. I would prefer to let the market dictate the contracts and let buyouts for new GMs make-up for the irresponsibility of the previous GMs.
-
I'm not really interested in investing my time running a league where the market dictates everything because I think that's a really horrible idea that will end poorly. So you all should find someone else to run the league who embraces that and then you'll have the league you want. Let me know who that's going to be and I'll transfer powers to that person.
-
A max contract for older players makes sense.... Let's be honest, we're in a league where something like 80% of the teams have turned over in the past year. So, some rules should probably be put in place so that franchises aren't hamstrung for years to come because of the very poor decisions made by an owner who was in place for three months before bailing out. However, look at the recent bidding for Derek Jeter. He received seven bids from five different owners and not a single one was for more than one year. So, yes, I do think we need a rule in place, but it's not like this is completely out of control at the moment.
I am not in favor of limiting all contracts for players who are 30+ years. Jacoby Ellsbury is 30 and he just signed a 7-year deal with the Yankees. I'm sure there are numerous other examples, that's just the one that jumped out to me. Also, Nicole's example of David Ortiz and Randy Choate isn't very accurate either because both players have been on short-term deals once they reached their mid-30's.
I am very much in favor of Reid's suggestion that determine's the max contract length by the player's age. I think that's the plan that makes the most sense, but is also one that we are all most likely to agree on.
-
30 seems too limiting (Pujols was 31 and got a ten year deal), but there should be a limit. I like the idea of lowering the limit as age gets older. I think 33 for 5, 34 for 4, etc. It may also be too complicated, but maybe there should also be an exception. If an older player signs a longer deal in real life than would be allowed, I think that length should be allowed. (i.e. 36 year old Beltran signing a 3 year deal).
That being said, I think there needs to be a limit. Someone going for a championship should not be able to sign Jeter to a 5 year contract just to have him for one year. Mariano Rivera should not be signed to a 2 year deal when he has announced his retirement at the end of the season (which happened last year, and then the owner left before this season).
-
I think the biggest thing we are concerned about here is new owners getting screwed over by the previous owner of their team. I wouldn't argue that restricting Free Agency is the best way to address this issue though. Sometimes GMs make calculated sacrifices to win a championship. I don't think it would be a travesty to sign someone you know is only going to play for one more year to a two year contract if you think it's going to put you over the edge. That's a calculated sacrifice, just like trading future draft picks. If the GM is going to stick around and live with their decision, I have no issue with letting them make "unwise" signings if they think it's best for their team.
I think the best way prevent new owners from inheriting terrible contracts is to put in place a buyout system for new owners. If you're a new owner, you can cut any contract with any one of these characteristics for free:
33+ years old with 4+ years left on his contract
34+ years old with 3+ years left on his contract
38+ years old with 2+ years left on his contract
All retired players
All players playing in other leagues
$25M/year or more (at any contract length)
You guys can decide what the best specifications would be regarding years and contract lengths. I think this would be the best way to deal with this potential issue without restricting the creative options of our current GMs.
-
I think it's position dependent if your offering a 39 year old catcher or pitcher a 5 yr deal its risky, but a 1b is less risky it's a very gray area to put limits I think we should let the market dictate
-
im fine either way, but maybe a simple solution would b to make all contracts honored through thier duration. i.e. if jeter had gotten a 3yr deal from someone and retired after one year, owner still has to pay for all three years on their cap instead of the contract ending at his retirement. just a thought, but like i said, i understand both sides and would b fine either way.
-
I can definitely understand the reason behind age limits on 5 year contracts & I think we should institute an age limit on 5 year contracts isn't that why we only allow 5 year bids I mean of course everyone likes to sign players as cheap as possible,but if we end up with 1 team full of retired players will ruin the competitiveness of the league I vote yes on the age tag(stipulation IMO Good idea commish :winner: :judge:
-
I agree on Lindner on this one.
Some kind of buyout system could work.
-
I feel all retired players should be released and their contracts voided. Why should we have to continue paying if the MLB teams don't do this? Ryan Dempster isn't getting paid this year by the Red Sox, for example.
-
I feel all retired players should be released and their contracts voided. Why should we have to continue paying if the MLB teams don't do this? Ryan Dempster isn't getting paid this year by the Red Sox, for example.
An example of why that idea doesn't work across the board.... Hiroki Kuroda or Tim Hudson. These guys have two years left, max. Kuroda was signed to a 4-year deal in free agency, I believe. Knowing he'll retire shortly, but spreading his contract across 4-5 years? That would be gaming the system.