Possible Rule Amendment - RFAs

[lp815]

Under the new guidelines Dan proposes, keep in mind a team that formerly owned a player can simply attempt to sign him just like the other teams decide to.  Granted, they would not receive the compensation if won by themselves, but they might be able to acquire that player at a cheaper deal.

This does happen in the MLB, as this happened to Edwin Encarnacion this season.  The Jays non-tendered him, he was picked up by the A's, the A's let him go, and Encarnacion signed back on with the Jays at a much cheaper salary than what he would have made in arbitration.

So I don't think a member should question this rule because a GM couldn't match the final offer.  They have just as much shot to win them anyway without matching.

[Colby]

I am in favor of removing the RFA match and simply changing the FA schedule to start with Type A FA, then Type B FA, and then other players on a positional basis.

[bravesfan4]

I am in favor of removing the RFA match and simply changing the FA schedule to start with Type A FA, then Type B FA, and then other players on a positional basis.

agreed

[lp815]

I am in favor of removing the RFA match and simply changing the FA schedule to start with Type A FA, then Type B FA, and then other players on a positional basis.

Unless there are further valid arguments to the point, I'll confirm also.

[Dan Wood]

I agree. I just want to bring up that we might want to think about rethinking the qualifications of being a type A and B FA. Just looking at who made the cut, I think some of those guys should have had picks attached to them. Maybe making it a combination of two years of stats, maybe using the mean of those two years. Since we use two years for handing out contracts. Just something to think about going forward.

[Colby]

I agree. I just want to bring up that we might want to think about rethinking the qualifications of being a type A and B FA. Just looking at who made the cut, I think some of those guys should have had picks attached to them. Maybe making it a combination of two years of stats, maybe using the mean of those two years. Since we use two years for handing out contracts. Just something to think about going forward.

Well, in MLB, Type A/B players are based solely on the most recent season, not the previous two... it isn't really tied to market value 100%.

[Dan Wood]

But in this league we do base their value on the previous two seasons, that affects a team from resigning them. I think if it affects their resigning value it should be taken into consideration when designating their FA value.

[Colby]

But in this league we do base their value on the previous two seasons, that affects a team from resigning them. I think if it affects their resigning value it should be taken into consideration when designating their FA value.

I see your point, but market value and FA type aren't one-to-one.  MLB classifies Type A/B FA based on the most recent season, so that is what we should be doing as well.

The guideline of making this league as realistic as possible, while keeping somethings simple for the purposes of a fantasy league, is pretty much the constitution of the league.  Not too many other leagues have this type of rule that covers all rules.  The rule speaks for itself here in regards to classifying FA.

I think we are all in agreement about the abolishing of RFAs, right?  Getting rid of the RFA rule would clean up the rule book as there may be no need for tiers (salary cap, RFAs, and revenue sharing were all tied to this originally) and the FA/contracts postings could be simpler.

[Dan Wood]

I think so.

[Canada8999]

Would you still have to bid on your player to receive compensation?