RFA Tags / Arbitration

[Colby]

Does that mean that the only option available for small market teams is to either re-sign or lose the player with the expiring
contract?  Are we completely eliminating the sign and trade option for all teams regardless of market size?

No, I was suggesting, on a tiered basis, that teams be allowed X sign-and-trades / extensions for expiring contracts.

[Dan Wood]

I vote we just dump it in total... Use to tiers to judge how long a team has to resign said player. Giving them a chance to move salary.

[Canada8999]

Personally the tier system seems to be patching an unrealistic rule with a less realistic rule.  I vote we abolish the sign and trade completely.  EDIT: we can keep a 5 day negotiating window, if that's what MLB really has.

Small market teams still have more RFA's, and can tag their big name free agents and trade them (where the receiving team is forced to resign them).  Or would we need to change that also?

[Dan Wood]

I think we are heading towards changing that as well.

[Canada8999]

Fair enough.  Well, they will still be able to tag them and hope the pressures of Type A compensation lets them keep the player at a discount to full market value, or rack up draft picks.

Not having any grace period between when the 2010 books end and players are released will force teams to plan longer term, rather than season to season, as you'll need cap room in-season to extend your big names before risking them hitting the market (either FA or RFA).  However, in MLB you can extend a players contract without having the higher salary hit the current season's books - something we can't do.

[Dan Wood]

However, in MLB you can extend a players contract without having the higher salary hit the current season's books - something we can't do.

I think Ben is on to something here...This has been a very progressive post. I think we may need to break it up into several parts.

1. Sign and Trade - Yay or Nay
2. RFA - keep or remove, making players strictly Type A or B from the jump off (plus I think this system needs a little reworking, but more on that later. - Also keep in mind, this may change after the next MLB CBA, so we are going to have to be fluid on this.
3. Resigning a player, and having the salary hit the following year. If we can do this, I think this is a fantastic idea. 

[Colby]

I think Ben is on to something here...This has been a very progressive post. I think we may need to break it up into several parts.

1. Sign and Trade - Yay or Nay
2. RFA - keep or remove, making players strictly Type A or B from the jump off (plus I think this system needs a little reworking, but more on that later. - Also keep in mind, this may change after the next MLB CBA, so we are going to have to be fluid on this.
3. Resigning a player, and having the salary hit the following year. If we can do this, I think this is a fantastic idea. 

Dan, could you please create these separate threads as polls?  Hanls!

[rcankosy]

Maybe I'm missing something.  Under the current rules, when does re-signing a player cause a cap hit in the current year?  The only case I am aware of is the 1 year patch rule we put in place to re-sign players to shorter terms than stated in our rules for minimum contract extensions.

[Dan Wood]

When you resign a player. His salary can only stay the same, or escalate, as per the rules, unless his contract has run out. If you resign someone during the season, it is obvious he is still under contract. Say said player was making 0.5 mil, buthis new contract would call for 5.0 mil (just making up a scenario), then you would take the 5.0 mil hit for resigning him. That is because his current annually salary has now changed from .5 mil to 5 mil. As I said, I think it is a great idea that Ben had, that we can do something along the lines of sign a player to a contract that would start the following year, for however many years the contract calls for.

The only place I don't like this is with prospect extensions. I think all prospect contracts should be effective immediately.

[lp815]

Dan, if prospect extensions aren't included, this would be a huge setback for small market teams, who are likely to use prospect extensions more often.

I can only see this part of the rule change benefiting large market teams.