Possible Rule Amendment - Sign and Trade

[Dan Wood]

Ben, I fully agree with your last two posts

[guak2005]

How about if a team chooses to extend the player and then trades him away? I am certain this is allowed in MLB, even though it is a very rare event. Of course that in order for this to be possible, the team would have to necessarily have enough cap room to do the signing before trading the player away.

[Dan Wood]

IN this league, we are proposing that it would be the same as signing a free agent. June 1st if signed in the off-season, 60 days if signed during the season. Most teams don't resign a player just to trade him, they just let him go if they don't want him, or trade him before his contract expires. Also some players have no-trade clauses, and others fall under the 10-5 rule. So in real life it is probable, but not likely.

[joeshmoe]

My personal stance on it is we don't need all these clauses for small market teams.  Small market teams choose the challenge of playing the moneyball game, and thats how it is in real life.

We have a salary cap structure that rewards teams for good performance, and any slip by large market teams will cause a drop in their cap that could force them into undesired moves.

We have a draft pick compensation for free agents where if large market teams sign a small market's FA they cough up their draft picks (I think needs to be enhanced per Dan's suggestions for all free agents, not just RFA's). Poor performing teams have their picks protected, and can go after the big names if they have room. We have the EDR to let these picks develop free of cost (both salary and roster).  A few years with the top picks, some extra 1st rounders and sup. round picks vs. having no 1st rounder / sup. rounders could go a long way.

Over time, the draft pick compensation combined with our EDR should give poor performing teams a chance to build a great farm system.  As they start winning, their cap room grow - if they're using the prospect extension clauses, they'll have a low-cost powerhouse and the extra cap room is gravy.

Also take a look at the FA pool this year - it's not like there are a ton of big names for the large market teams to gobble up.  I don't expect to see anything much better in the future either, as these guys will be extended or traded to teams that can extend them (even with the new rules, teams will adjust).

Rome wasn't built in a day, and I don't think we should try to change that.  It will take multiple years to turn around a poor performing / small market team, and I don't think this is a bad thing.

Not true, see Alberto Callaspo this year.  I went after him the hardest of all and still lost out.  Explain

I'm all for realism in the game, but the system in Fran GM rewards GM's for jumping ship rather than for sticking with a small club.  Only reason I stayed in SD was for the challenge.  But if I was interested in winning I should have taken another job.  Sign and trade offers an option for a team to get off the bottom.  See the issues being discussed in Agents vs GMs in regards to variable salary cap. 

This league is headed in this direction>>>If you want to win you need to be a big club and sign the big bats.  Pitching is handicapped, defense is eliminated, its about bats and $.  Big teams will remain big and small clubs will remain small.

[Dan Wood]

You lost Callaspo because he was an RFA, and his original team matched. Something else we are in discussion of getting rid of.

[joeshmoe]

You lost Callaspo because he was an RFA, and his original team matched. Something else we are in discussion of getting rid of.

As long as Big Market teams have cash to slosh around on players, I can only overpay to get talent.  My point is that the system Ben was referring to doesn't seem to work in all instances.  I cannot comment on how many it has or hasn't but just it was an incorrect statement. 

[Canada8999]

Not true, see Alberto Callaspo this year.  I went after him the hardest of all and still lost out.  Explain

This would have been flipped if the large market team bid on your RFA, and you could have kept him... it has nothing to do with market share, other than small market teams have more RFA's to use than large market teams.  I don't really see your point.

[rcankosy]

It looks to me like we completely veered off the original topic here that was whether or not to allow sign and trades.  I am strongly AGAINST allowing them in their current form.  To Corey's point, I would not be opposed to allowing teams to trade their newly signed players AFTER they have cleared the cap room for the upcoming season.  Yes, it's unrealisic, but I don't see a downside to it. 

Also, I don't think we need the 5 day wait to announce extentions, because unlike real life, there are no negotiations here.  The extension values are already set at that point. 

[Dan Wood]

I think we are talking about cause and effect here. In the Padres case, he inherited a team that had previously had a bad/ inactive GM, who signed Russell Branyan and Mike Cameron to above market deals. When Chris took over he did what he could to be competitive and get rid of exorbitant salaries, dealing Cameron, Peavy, Bell, Agon, etc. and set himself up for a future where he could spend his money on worthwhile expenditures.  - Trust me I am getting to a point, using the Pads as an example -. I think as we look at the available FAs on the board, and the amount of money they are receiving does not correlate with their talent. Now if their was more Grade A talent available, yes the big money teams would chase them, but the little money teams could make lesser signing with less competition. Now this is pure speculation, but if teams had spent their money on someone else, then maybe the bidding on Callaspo would not have reached the levels that it did.  If we get away from RFAing players, then Houston wouldn't have been able just to wait around, and may have never even bid. Again just speculating.

Which leads to sign and trade. Sometimes guys aren't worth giving the money to (see Adam Lind), but I wanted to keep him, that was my choice to give him that contract. As GMs we all have choices. The larger market teams, yes to have more choices, but the Cubs, Angels, Mets, were/are in no better shape just because they have money to spend. In real life a guy like Derek Lee will receive a contract of 1 year - 8 mil. Here he is already up to 26 mil. I think that just goes to the lack of talent available in FA. Pettitte received 7.5 mil, he may never play again. We give teams the 5 days to try and clear cap, not to resign said player, because like you said Roy, it is really just a formality. But if a team really wants to keep a player, then they can make deals to make room. I predict that next off-season, teams will be trying to shed some of the contracts given out during this FA.

I realize that teams want to be competitive every year, but handing out bad contracts does not make you championship caliber, and it makes you less able to sign your foundation players (if you have them) in the future. Plus small market teams like the Rangers, Pirates, and A's have very good rosters, have some cap to play with, and will be competitive for years to come. So my vote still stands that we do away with sign and trades because it is better for the league as a whole. But I can understand wanting to extend the deadline for re-signing players, so teams can tool around with their rosters and clear cap.

[Colby]

Dan has great points... the elimination of sign and trade could help small market teams by opening up FA.  The talks of an arbitration contract would help the issues of losing young talent.  Lastly, having the payroll kick in the following year allows small market teams to have extra payroll in the current yearfor expiring contracts and one year signings.