ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Dan Wood on April 01, 2010, 06:27:45 PM
-
Just wanted to put this in front of the RC. Since many young players are signing contracts before they are arbitration eligible. I think we should try and do a similar thing in this league. My idea, and it needs work, would be to allow the extending of prospects based on service time and not based on Fantrax. Allow me to explain. In my proposal a GM could pay his young players based on how many years left they have of prospect eligibility. It would be based on how many years they have exhausted. Since this will not go into effect this year, I will players from this year as hypothetical examples. All contracts given to these players would have to be for the maximum five years. As it would stand now, going into the 2010 season, anyone with their prospect eligibility expiring at the end of 2010 would not be able to be extended, it would have to be done a year before their prospect status expires. Now the numbers would need a little work but here goes.
p - n/a - 5 years, 5 mil
p - 2012 - 5 years, 6 mil
p- 2011 - 5 years 7 mil
The contracts and the numbers would not be debatable. They would have to be a set number. It would be a gamble on the GMs part to extend said player, but it could be a worthwhile gamble. I think with the upcoming payroll fluctuations from year to year, it may be best to come up with a system of signing our own players long term. Again, like I said the numbers above good change, but I think this is a good place to start. Otherwise we will always be paying our best players, even if they came from our own system top dollar. With the way that real life GMs operate, I don't feel that paying our prospects top dollar when the time comes, isn't the best representation. The floor is now open.
-
5, 6, and 7 may be too high... and GMs should still be given the option to sign prospects at market value. Look at Longoria's real life contract... 6 years at $3m/year (on average). That would almost correlate to 5 years at $4m/year. or 4 years at $4.5m/year. You are basically calling for the idea of signing such prospect-eligible players to contracts less than market value as long as the terms are longer.
-
That is correct. I am all up for moving the limit to 4, but that doesn't really do anything since prospect contracts end after 3 years. Most contracts for young players are in the 5 year range. Like I said this is just an idea, and would like to hear other opinions on it. Ways to improve it, different ways to do the numbers. Different ideas on the numbers. But I think paying someone like Justin Upton (if the D'Backs still had him) 15 mil a year, which is what he will prolly end up costing once Fantrax values are considered, takes some of the point of producing your own players away. I just think putting in a system, whether it be my idea, or someone else's should be put in place, or at least considered. Adam Lind came out of prospect status and instantly made 15.5 mil. That really doesn't ever happen, or in this day and age, happens very rarely. Joe Mauer went through 1 long term contract before cashing in. So did Sabathia, and Cliff Lee will soon be there.
-
That is correct. I am all up for moving the limit to 4, but that doesn't really do anything since prospect contracts end after 3 years. Most contracts for young players are in the 5 year range. Like I said this is just an idea, and would like to hear other opinions on it. Ways to improve it, different ways to do the numbers. Different ideas on the numbers. But I think paying someone like Justin Upton (if the D'Backs still had him) 15 mil a year, which is what he will prolly end up costing once Fantrax values are considered, takes some of the point of producing your own players away. I just think putting in a system, whether it be my idea, or someone else's should be put in place, or at least considered. Adam Lind came out of prospect status and instantly made 15.5 mil. That really doesn't ever happen, or in this day and age, happens very rarely. Joe Mauer went through 1 long term contract before cashing in. So did Sabathia, and Cliff Lee will soon be there.
This is such a key point that we need to address. Huge salaries for these uber-prospects don't happen in baseball. The top prospects usually receive longer term contracts at prices of $3m-$8m/year. What we could do is apply a reduction factor to contract extension values for players who are under prospect contracts. The reduction would come with a cap of $Xm/year, maybe X = 8?
-
You'd might want to go a bit shorter than that, Colb. I'd recommend maximum of $5m. Longoria from a prior post is a prime example. Tremendous prospect, but is only getting $3m per year. I'd say it really doesn't get better than him, but $5m might be a good max.
-
A maximum of $5m may do well. There would have to be a minimum salary that would warrant these special contracts as well.
-
I would probably not recommend the base ($0.5m), as these prospects are supposed to be put higher than normal specs. $1m possibly?
-
I think the minimum should be 5 mil, and base the next level of payment on service time.
-
I think the minimum should be 5 mil, and base the next level of payment on service time.
That doesn't explain Longoria's deal... which would convert to 5 years at $3.5m/year in this league.
-
Cause Longoria's deal was an outlier. Even at the time it was viewed upon as weird. But he had also never played a game, or played like 4 or something. Plus his deal could end up being worth 44 mil, with options, which is something we don't do.
"Longoria gets $500,000 this year, $550,000 in 2009, $950,000 in 2010 and $2 million in 2011, a salary that would increase to $2.5 million if he is eligible for salary arbitration that year. He receives $4.5 million in 2012 and $6 million in 2013.
Tampa Bay has a $7.5 million option for 2014 with a $3 million buyout, with the buyout price increasing to $4 million if Longoria was eligible for arbitration in 2011.
By November 2014, the Rays must decide whether to exercise an option calling for salaries of $11 million in 2015 and $11.5 million in 2016. His 2016 salary can rise to $14 million, depending on his finish in MVP voting."
-
That adds some more money into the deal... I'm with you Dan.
-
Adam Lind just signed a deal that wasn't $15.5m/year... more proof to our pudding.
-
Here is my suggestion for prospect extensions...
Prospect Extension
Any player who is currently under a prospect contract may be signed to a regular contract extension, but they may also be signed to a prospect extension. Such an extension must be a 5-year deal where the annual salary is 50% of their market value, but no more than $8.5m and no less than $4m.
-
Here is my suggestion for prospect extensions...
Prospect Extension
Any player who is currently under a prospect contract may be signed to a regular contract extension, but they may also be signed to a prospect extension. Such an extension must be a 5-year deal where the annual salary is 50% of their market value, but no more than $8.5m and no less than $4m.
We could always add to this by putting a dependency on the year of the prospect contract. For the 2010 season, the following percentages would be used per prospect status.
2010 - 60%
2011 - 50%
2012 - 40%
2013, n/a - 30%
This is more in line with what Dan originally brought up.
-
I like it. I think it should go into effect next year if it get passed.
-
I like it. I think it should go into effect next year if it get passed.
I'll agree with this, and continue to suggest we do this as much as possible for new rules...
-
I'll agree with this, and continue to suggest we do this as much as possible for new rules...
Two votes so far... once this is passed, I will put the final ruling along with the salary cap structure into a new post under League Rules called "Effective in 2011".
-
If I may say something here, the only reason the Longoria deal was so low is because it was agreed upon before he proved himself in the majors. I don't think there's a need to cap maximum amount of dollars, that should be determined by the players production. Using the percentages of their real market value the cap will be self-imposed depending on which year they are giving the contract.
What I'm thinking here is that under the proposed set of rules it's very advantageous to hold on to all quality prospects (like Lincecum, Lind or Upton) until his contract year and then offer the 5 year 8.5m extension. This guarantees that the player will spend more years with the team at a very cheap price. The earlier a prospect is extended, the riskier it is. The gain should be bigger as well. By capping at 8.5m it is the same in virtue of percentages to shell out the bucks for Lincecum after one great season than after two or three.
-
Great point Daniel... you like the percentages, but not the maximums, correct?
-
I believe I'll side with Daniel on this...
-
:bump:
-
So what is the current proposal?
-
Prospect Extension
Any player who is currently under a prospect contract may be signed to a regular contract extension, but they may also be signed to a prospect extension. Such an extension must be a 5-year deal where the annual salary is X% of their market value.
For the 20XX season, the following percentages would be used per prospect status.
20XX - 60%
20XX+1 - 50%
20XX+2 - 40%
20XX+3, n/a - 30%
This is more in line with what Dan originally brought up.
-
Prospect Extension
Any player who is currently under a prospect contract may be signed to a regular contract extension, but they may also be signed to a prospect extension. Such an extension must be a 5-year deal where the annual salary is X% of their market value.
For the 20XX season, the following percentages would be used per prospect status.
20XX - 60%
20XX+1 - 50%
20XX+2 - 40%
20XX+3, n/a - 30%
This is more in line with what Dan originally brought up.
So if a star prospect comes up (ex: Heyward or Strasburg) and they're playing at a really high level at MLB, but not for long enough that their clock starts yet (still 20XX+3), and not for long enough that their market value is that high (lets say they were a late season call-up). I can extend them to a 5-year deal at 30% of their current value, which would likely be the minimum?
That would seem to really increase the value of blue-chip prospects and high draft picks - is that what we want to do?
-
So if a star prospect comes up (ex: Heyward or Strasburg) and they're playing at a really high level at MLB, but not for long enough that their clock starts yet (still 20XX+3), and not for long enough that their market value is that high (lets say they were a late season call-up). I can extend them to a 5-year deal at 30% of their current value, which would likely be the minimum?
That would seem to really increase the value of blue-chip prospects and high draft picks - is that what we want to do?
I forgot about Dan's minimum proposal. These contracts are only legit if such salary is something like $4m/year.
-
You would need a minimum or else I would sign prospects to cheap deals!
-
Evan Longoria is a prime example of this... (in real life that is)
~MTK
-
I'd probably go a bit lower, in roughly the $2m to $3m range as the minimum.
-
I'd probably go a bit lower, in roughly the $2m to $3m range as the minimum.
Well, these contracts are supposed to be special. Longoria is the only one with such a low annual salary. Anyone ready to vote on this? FYI, this would be effective 2010-2011 off-season.
-
I forgot about Dan's minimum proposal. These contracts are only legit if such salary is something like $4m/year.
I'll approve of the current proposal, as long as the minimum is "something like $4m/year." :koolaid:
-
I'll approve given that this does not go into effect until next season
-
I'll approve given that this does not go into effect until next season
$4m minimum and not until next season -- Check, Check
Anyone else want to vote?
-
ill approve.... love the idea!
One more thing, I was looking at some rosters, do you think we should start updating the Prospects that have there minimums in? I know its a lot of work, but I could take my division and another. What you guys think? I have updated mine, but in my depth chart but others havent!
-
ill approve.... love the idea!
One more thing, I was looking at some rosters, do you think we should start updating the Prospects that have there minimums in? I know its a lot of work, but I could take my division and another. What you guys think? I have updated mine, but in my depth chart but others havent!
It looks like this one is in the books. I will announce it this week.
Regarding the prospects.... I know we look at them annually, but if you see anyone who has started their contract then just announce them in the transactions forum.