Possible Rule Amendment - In season re-signings

[bravesfan4]

Its going to take away so much activity. This proposal changes alot what about this.....

-In season resignings the salary kicks in right away. He can be dealt after the season. If you have the cap to resign during then you can move them after.

-Resignings that occur after the season cant be moved until 6/1

[Dan Wood]

Its going to take away so much activity. This proposal changes alot what about this.....

-In season resignings the salary kicks in right away. He can be dealt after the season. If you have the cap to resign during then you can move them after.

-Resignings that occur after the season cant be moved until 6/1

Then this changes nothing. This is the way things are. All we are really doing is saying that anyone re-signed in the off-season cannot be dealt until 6/1. Which I agree with. But I think we should have the option to start a contract the following year. Year to year we all have money coming off the books. It is a way of planning ahead. And maybe taking advantage of timing. That is really the only advantage to it. It also gives people a chance to max out on expiring contracts if they are "going" for it in the current year without having to take on the contract of player they want to keep long term. All the one-year deals will expire, and they will still have their player that they re-signed during the season, hopefully at a lesser cost that the players final stat line dictates. They can still have the cost security that the players value will not increase next year (should the players value spike on Fantrax in the following months), which could cost them millions.

I don't think players should be traded for several reasons.

1. In real life - no one would sign a contract just to be traded. Defeats re-signing with a team.
2. Anyone signing in the off-season, should be treated the same, whether re-signee or OFA. Technically, if this rule were to pass, in essence the player is a re-signee(ORS) - regardless of when, it just happened he upped his contract during the season.
3. If letting someone resign then trade a player the following season, it is more or less a loop hole to the sign and trade in my eyes. This also goes back to #1, a player wouldn't do it, or allow it.
 - as we try to emulate MLB, we always try to consider the X-factor, the living breathing player reaction, this is also why the minimum contract was instituted.

[bravesfan4]

Then this changes nothing. This is the way things are. All we are really doing is saying that anyone re-signed in the off-season cannot be dealt until 6/1. Which I agree with. But I think we should have the option to start a contract the following year. Year to year we all have money coming off the books. It is a way of planning ahead. And maybe taking advantage of timing. That is really the only advantage to it. It also gives people a chance to max out on expiring contracts if they are "going" for it in the current year without having to take on the contract of player they want to keep long term. All the one-year deals will expire, and they will still have their player that they re-signed during the season, hopefully at a lesser cost that the players final stat line dictates. They can still have the cost security that the players value will not increase next year (should the players value spike on Fantrax in the following months), which could cost them millions.

I don't think players should be traded for several reasons.

1. In real life - no one would sign a contract just to be traded. Defeats re-signing with a team.
2. Anyone signing in the off-season, should be treated the same, whether re-signee or OFA. Technically, if this rule were to pass, in essence the player is a re-signee(ORS) - regardless of when, it just happened he upped his contract during the season.
3. If letting someone resign then trade a player the following season, it is more or less a loop hole to the sign and trade in my eyes. This also goes back to #1, a player wouldn't do it, or allow it.
 - as we try to emulate MLB, we always try to consider the X-factor, the living breathing player reaction, this is also why the minimum contract was instituted.

Our current problem was not re-signing guys in the season and then trading them. Ben's Brewers would not have been able to do that. No team would have been able to do that. The problem is trading unsigned guys after the season, which we are effectively fixing.

[Dan Wood]

I realize that Corey. But the argument I am trying to make for inseason re-signing of a player, and from my eyes the only advantage it has, is that you might get the player for a discount, than what his final fantrax numbers might be. The problem being, is that many teams, most teams, are maxed out in cap during the season - even the Yankees were last year, and so were the Phils.

The following is all hypothetical -
For instance, if I notice that Gordon Beckham(hypothetically also not a prospect) is back to his normal end of 2009 self. I think he will have a monster year, which will make his final value higher than his current value. Say after the first month he is the #10 rated MI, I think he will finish higher than that. But if I resign him while he is still the #10 ranked MI -say for 5 million, as opposed to higher - say for 8 million, then I save myself some money in the long run. Problem being I have 3 million to spend. If his new contract started in 2012, the that would be advantageous to me (because I could use my 3 million on an expiring contract) and any other GM who faced the same predicament. If the contract was to take hold in 2011, then I am giving up current success for future savings. This is exactly what is done in MLB.

[lp815]

The problem being, is that many teams, most teams, are maxed out in cap during the season

I do no understand how this is a problem...teams have had no trouble cutting payroll this off-season, so we know it is possible.  The reason they didn't cut payroll in-season is because they had winning teams, and weren't looking to trade away their playoff-ready teams.  The league shouldn't create rules to help teams with fiscal irresponsibility, I would say that is each GM's basic, primary job in the league.

In my opinion, a team always maxed out at their cap or very close to it isn't necessarily a good team.  Our rules dictate that teams should prepare for their draft picks and their bonuses, as well as any other incidents that might occur (prospect extensions, contract buyouts, etc.) in-season.  I feel we shouldn't help out teams that choose to nickel and dime they payroll.  I dunno, that's just how I'm seeing this playing out or attempting to correct.

Dan, you had posted earlier that the only plus you could see with this measure is possibly taking advantage of timing of players and their projections...I guess I'm not convinced this much work should be done for a game of chance.

[Colby]

Most teams, who are maxed out at the cap, clear it after the trade deadline when the cap hits go down.  This clears payroll for draft bonuses for the season's books.

[joeshmoe]

My stance has changed.  I am for realism as my first priority for further league decisions.

[MillerTime]

I do no understand how this is a problem...teams have had no trouble cutting payroll this off-season, so we know it is possible.  The reason they didn't cut payroll in-season is because they had winning teams, and weren't looking to trade away their playoff-ready teams.  The league shouldn't create rules to help teams with fiscal irresponsibility, I would say that is each GM's basic, primary job in the league.

In my opinion, a team always maxed out at their cap or very close to it isn't necessarily a good team.  Our rules dictate that teams should prepare for their draft picks and their bonuses, as well as any other incidents that might occur (prospect extensions, contract buyouts, etc.) in-season.  I feel we shouldn't help out teams that choose to nickel and dime they payroll.  I dunno, that's just how I'm seeing this playing out or attempting to correct.

Dan, you had posted earlier that the only plus you could see with this measure is possibly taking advantage of timing of players and their projections...I guess I'm not convinced this much work should be done for a game of chance.

Jake, this is well said.  I am fine with getting closer to the reality of things in the MLB, but I am also fine with the current system.

Some times I feel as if we will never get there, always tweaking, shifting the rules, or culture of the league.  Continually moving the bar is not good for GMs.  Every move made by GMs in the past would not necessarily be made under the new rules.  How can a GM establish a strategy or be comfortable with trades, signings, etc if the bar (rules) continue to move?

At some point, we are all going to have leave good enough alone.   

[bravesfan4]

Jake, this is well said.  I am fine with getting closer to the reality of things in the MLB, but I am also fine with the current system.

Some times I feel as if we will never get there, always tweaking, shifting the rules, or culture of the league.  Continually moving the bar is not good for GMs.  Every move made by GMs in the past would not necessarily be made under the new rules.  How can a GM establish a strategy or be comfortable with trades, signings, etc if the bar (rules) continue to move?

At some point, we are all going to have leave good enough alone.   

Very well said by both.

[Colby]

I agree with Rob.  If others are upset about it then take it up by starting a new league.  However, I think we could be in line for one last round of tweaks.