Author Topic: RFA Tags / Arbitration (Read 7866 times)

Dan Wood · « **Reply #40 on:** January 06, 2011, 01:50:43 PM »

The reason I don't like it for PEs is because PEs are time sensative. To say you are going to resign someone next year at their prospect extension discount, when they could have their prospect eligability end at the end of the season, yet the tema would still get the savings. I think prospect extension should only be done in the offseason. IMO. PEs were also put into place to help small market teams, yet only two people have taken advantage of the rule, and one is the richest team in the league.

Canada8999 · « **Reply #41 on:** January 06, 2011, 06:02:27 PM »

Quote from: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 01:50:43 PM

PEs were also put into place to help small market teams, yet only two people have taken advantage of the rule, and one is the richest team in the league.

I think we'll see a ramp up in this over time, but even if we don't I don't think it's a bad thing... there are only a handful of such examples in MLB anyway.

lp815 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 06, 2011, 09:08:53 PM »

Quote from: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 01:50:43 PM

PEs were also put into place to help small market teams, yet only two people have taken advantage of the rule, and one is the richest team in the league.

Maybe so, but great prospects are few and far between, so they will be rare, and I'll agree with Ben that more will be showing up as the years go on. I myself am considering prospect extensions on Davis, Richards, and Headley.
Plus, a third of the league didn't even post RFA tags on any of their players, but I don't believe we are using the lack of use as a reason for removing RFA's.

Dan Wood · « **Reply #43 on:** January 06, 2011, 09:29:21 PM »

I think PE's are a great thing, I was one of the people that pushed for it. What I was saying is that if we were to do extensions for players that take hold the following year, then if you are offering a PE that takes hold the following year, then you should receive the lesser percentage. Or the percentage that would take hold the year his extension starts. I personally think any prospect extension should be done during the off-season, but that is just me, I am not offering it up as a rule.

For instance if I said, Reds sign Gordon Beckham to a prospect extension. Under what we are discussing, i should have to pay 60% of his value, as opposed to 50% of his value, which would be the case if I signed him to an extension in 2011.

Canada8999 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2011, 10:10:42 PM »

Quote from: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 09:29:21 PM

I think PE's are a great thing, I was one of the people that pushed for it. What I was saying is that if we were to do extensions for players that take hold the following year, then if you are offering a PE that takes hold the following year, then you should receive the lesser percentage. Or the percentage that would take hold the year his extension starts. I personally think any prospect extension should be done during the off-season, but that is just me, I am not offering it up as a rule.

For instance if I said, Reds sign Gordon Beckham to a prospect extension. Under what we are discussing, i should have to pay 60% of his value, as opposed to 50% of his value, which would be the case if I signed him to an extension in 2011.

This is what I've proposed in the In-Season Extension thread... lets continue the discussion there.

Colby · « **Reply #45 on:** January 12, 2011, 01:19:57 PM »

I think an arbitration extension would be a good idea as well. It allows the team that has a player under a prospect extension to be signed to a deal at 1, 2, or 3 years. It could be signified as (A-2013) for example. The player has FA rights after the arbitration contract is over.