What the Free Agent Class Might Have Looked Like

[Dan Wood]

Do we take it to a vote now?

[Canada8999]

If it's not going into effect until next offseason, no hurry to vote right?  Any arguments against shortening the period?  Any arguments for a different time window, or perhaps an alternative approach?

[bravesfan4]

We have plenty of time to debate this. I agree with shortening the time frame. You can still trade players you signed or players that were on your roster. But giving teams 2months to make moves for expiring contract players is too long. With this structure i feel that hardly any players will ever hit the free agent market thus leaving teams to over pay for mediocre talent. I do not think that is in the best interest of the league

[rcankosy]

I tend to favor bringing this issue to a vote while it is fresh in our minds.  In the past, issues such as revenue sharing and prospect contracts died a slow and painful death.  With that said, I suggest the following options:

1.  Do nothing and leave the rules as is.
2.  Let the contracts expire at the end of the year and do NOT allow them to be traded after the season.
3.  Shorten the period allowing trades to 2 weeks.
4.  Shorten the period allowing trades to 1 month.

[Needle Juice]

I could agree with either #2 or #3, but I am not sure we need a rule for this. 

If a manager chooses to hang on to an expiring contract to compete longer, they know the value of the player will be decreased at the end of the season due to negotiating position they have put themselves in.  Other managers know this as well. 

[Canada8999]

Personally I'm on the fence about this one, since this does not seem to match what we see in MLB (has anyone seen a sign-and-trade, let alone many with star players?).  That said, it looks like sign-and-trades could be considered legal in MLB, but players would not want to waive the inherent no-trade clause except in the case of being a Type A free-agent: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090218&content_id=3843216&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[Canada8999]

I tend to favor bringing this issue to a vote while it is fresh in our minds.  In the past, issues such as revenue sharing and prospect contracts died a slow and painful death.

That's a fair point.

With that said, I suggest the following options:

1.  Do nothing and leave the rules as is.
2.  Let the contracts expire at the end of the year and do NOT allow them to be traded after the season.
3.  Shorten the period allowing trades to 2 weeks.
4.  Shorten the period allowing trades to 1 month.

I don't think #4 would have a significant enough impact.

[Dan Wood]

I could see doing 2 or 3. My argument for 3 is that the relative newness of the league to most GMs. We have had a decent amount of turnover. The fluctuating payroll structure, which came into effect this year. I think as we move forward it is something that we should gradually get rid of (the time period) to further emulate MLB.

I would also further argue that it might make sense to get rid of RFAs as well. But, I don't want to overload the topics board at the moment. But it seems like the benefit of having RFAs now is to get the draft pick. A guy who is RFA'd could still go for more than said GM is willing to go. I understand the reason for having RFAs, but I think since we have the draft pick cpmpensation in place, it might make the RFAing a moot point.

[rcankosy]

I think it might be helpful to see MLB rules related to FA, so I am posting it below.

Major League Baseball free agents will be able to negotiate with all clubs when the clock strikes midnight five days after the end of
the World Series, Major League Baseball and the Players Association announced on Thursday.

The adjusted rule, negotiated by labor officials, representing MLB and the union, gives players 10 more days of open negotiations
in 2010 and '11 than they've had in the past. Up until this year, the originating club had a 15-day exclusive period to negotiate
with its player.

[Canada8999]

I would also further argue that it might make sense to get rid of RFAs as well. But, I don't want to overload the topics board at the moment. But it seems like the benefit of having RFAs now is to get the draft pick. A guy who is RFA'd could still go for more than said GM is willing to go. I understand the reason for having RFAs, but I think since we have the draft pick cpmpensation in place, it might make the RFAing a moot point.

Before we settled on the current RFA system, I pushed for an Arbitration system.  At the time we didn't have a good foundation for valuing players, but the current contract rules would certainly do the trick.  The only problem is the RFA tags are meant to help smaller markets more than large markets, and arbitration doesn't necessarily accomplish that.