ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Canada8999 on December 29, 2010, 01:13:25 PM
-
Colby please correct me if I'm wrong, but the current RFA system is in place to help small market teams. At the time, we also considered an arbitration system, but did not have the necessary infrastructure in place (yet). We've since modified the salary cap structure to allow teams to have some control over their budgets through strong/poor performance, and now have a robust contract valuation system and draft-pick compensation rules - would anyone be in favor of revisiting salary arbitration?
-
I have never heard the talks in the first place, however I am intrigued.
~MTK
-
- Teams could offer their pending free-agents arbitration, where they must offer X% of the player's extension price.
- The players then are listed with non-tendered free-agents for standard bidding, and awarded to the highest bidder.
- If the highest bid is not the original team, then draft pick compensation kicks in (depending on Type A / Type B, etc.).
- The tendering team may also get the chance to match (is this what they do in MLB?), and retain the player (similar to our current RFA rules).
- If retained, the player is signed to a one-year deal
- Teams would have a specific time window after the season to declare their tenders
Some notes:
In MLB, there is no limit to the number of players that can be tendered, but teams risk the salary implications of all players accepting (no teams outbidding).
Poor performing / small market teams will typically be on the receiving end of compensation picks, as they won't be the highest bidders and will have their picks protected - is this enough?
Retained players are then subject to the standard 60-day window before they can be traded.
We could potentially extend this to replace our current prospect extension rules (where players with less than 6 years experience are retained via arbitration without any free-agency bidding), but I would suggest tabling that for now.
-
Poor performing / small market teams will typically be on the receiving end of compensation picks, as they won't be the highest bidders and will have their picks protected - is this enough?
To clarify my "is this enough?":
In MLB this is enough because they don't care about fairness ... it's a business and if you make bad decisions your team sucks - too bad. However, we have a lot of ownership turnover and want to ensure that owners are not able to destroy a team for many years into the future, then leave a team that most new owners will also abandon after frustration sets in.
Personally I think this is enough, as small market teams will be able to load up on picks and the trade market is very liquid such that new owners can make a positive impact. Colby/Jake might be better able to speak to the struggles of a small market team...
-
To clarify my "is this enough?":
In MLB this is enough because they don't care about fairness ... it's a business and if you make bad decisions your team sucks - too bad. However, we have a lot of ownership turnover and want to ensure that owners are not able to destroy a team for many years into the future, then leave a team that most new owners will also abandon after frustration sets in.
Personally I think this is enough, as small market teams will be able to load up on picks and the trade market is very liquid such that new owners can make a positive impact. Colby/Jake might be better able to speak to the struggles of a small market team...
As I see it now, it seems to not put the smaller market teams at any more of a disadvantage than what they are at now...I guess my question is are we wanting to discuss arbitration because the league is unhappy with the current format, or that the league should want to adhere to real MLB rules?
-
Personally, I would like to see arbitration just because I think it would be a cool addition. I'm bringing it up now because others are unhappy with the current sign-and-trade rules (and a few mentions of the RFA rules), and thought it was certainly in the same realm if not a possible solution.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to have arbitration even if it does not go by that name. We allow the extension of expiring prospect contracts at far less than market value for up to 5 years. Isn't that what arbitration really is?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we see to have arbitrationeven if it does not go by that name. We allow the extension of expiring prospect
contracts at far less than market value. Isn't that what arbitration really is?
It's similar - the current prospect extension rules are meant to mimic contracts like Longoria's, where teams/players avoid/buyout arbitration years. They're long-term, rather than year to year. More importantly, in MLB arbitration avoids to non-prospects as well.
-
Here is a summary of MLB's rules I found, can't claim it's accurate but it seems to be
How Baseball Arbitration Works
MLB Rules Governing the Eligibility and Process of Arbitration
Feb 23, 2008 James Lincoln Ray
If you are a baseball fan, then you have probably heard a lot about the recent arbitration hearings between players and their clubs that have taken place during the 2007-08 offseason, the most notable of which involved Ryan Howard, the Philadelphia Phillies, and $10 million. What you may not know, however, are the rules governing arbitration.
That’s the fault of the jokers on ESPN and Fox Sports, who will tell you tons of crap that you don't care about, but don’t bother to explain the very basic rules and regulations governing the game's economy. Idiots. But, don't worry, because this little article will explain everything you need to know about Major League Baseball arbitration. Here goes.
What Players Are Eligible for Arbitration?
A player and club who cannot agree on a contract may agree to salary arbitration, provided that the player has enough service time in the majors. The following players are eligible for arbitration:
(1) Players with at least 3 but less than 6 years of service in Major League Baseball;
(2) The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. These are known as “Super 2” players. To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. Historically, the cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days in years past.
(3) Players who have filed for free agency may also go through the arbitration process if their former team makes an offer of arbitration and the player accepts.
The Club's Arbitration Offer Requirements
(1) A club must offer contracts to players under its control by no later than December 12;
(2) If a player has filed for free agency, his former club must offer him arbitration by December 1. If the player accepts by December 7, the player is placed back on the team's roster, and the two sides may continue to negotiate or go to an arbitration hearing. If the free agent player declines the arbitration offer, the sides may continue to negotiate.
(3) The club's salary offer to a player under its control may not be less than 80% of the player's total compensation from the prior year, and may not be less than 70% of his compensation from 2 years earlier. These rules, however, do not apply to free agents who are offered arbitration.
The Arbitration Procedure and the Arbitration Hearing
Arbitration works as follows: In January, the player and the club each submit a salary figure to a three-person panel of professional arbitrators. hearings are conducted between the 1st and 20th day of February.
At the hearing, each party has one hour to present its case to the panel, and then has an additional 30 minutes for rebuttal. The player must attend the hearing, but is usually represented by his agent. A club executive or attorney usually represents the team.
The arbitration is a “high-low” proceeding, during which each side presents its case for why the player should be awarded the requested salary in the upcoming season. In deciding to award the higher or lower salary, the panel may consider the following criteria:
(1) the player’s contribution to the club in terms of performance and leadership;
(2) the club’s record and its attendance;
(3) any and all of the player’s “special accomplishments,” including All-Star game appearances, awards won, and postseason performance;
(4) the salaries of comparable players in the player’s service-time class and, for players with less than five years of service, the class one year ahead of him.
The parties may not refer to team finances, previous offers made during negotiations, comments from the press or salaries in other sports or occupations.
The panel, without opinion, awards the player a one-year, non-guaranteed contract at one salary or the other. If the player is cut within 16 days before the season begins, he is entitled only to 30 days’ termination pay. If the player is cut during spring training but after the 16th day before the season begins, he is entitled only to 45 days’ termination pay.
That's it. That's baseball arbitration. Not that hard, right?
Copyright James Lincoln Ray. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-baseball-arbitration-works-a45599 (http://www.suite101.com/content/how-baseball-arbitration-works-a45599)
-
Our current three year clock for prospect contracts for the league minimum is a direct reflection of the first three years of arbitration eligibility, where players get pretty much nothing.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to have arbitration even if it does not go by that name. We allow the extension of expiring prospect contracts at far less than market value for up to 5 years. Isn't that what arbitration really is?
I agree with Roy. We already have a simple replacement of an arbitration system with prospect contracts and prospect extensions.
-
Our current three year clock for prospect contracts for the league minimum is a direct reflection of the first three years of arbitration eligibility, where players get pretty much nothing.
Correct.
I think we just need to fine tune the rules on expiring contracts and the sign-and-trade window.
-
I agree with Roy. We already have a simple replacement of an arbitration system with prospect contracts and prospect extensions.
We have the first three years of arbitration mimicked, and rules for extensions that cover a small number of cases where teams buyout the arbitration years (maybe 5-10 players in MLB?). We don't have the year-to-year arbitration for years 4-6 that is the norm for MLB players. We have RFA's to replace years 4+, but it is very different from MLB rules.
I agree that we have a working system, and cleaning up the sign-and-trade rules will help. However, if the current MO is to mimic MLB then why keep patching our system instead of adopting the real one?
-
Full blown arbitration is intriguing, but I'm not sure it's workable or necessary in this league. For one thing, it would contradict rules we already have in place such as minimum years for free agents since players only get 1 year contracts in arbitration regardless of amount. Personally, I think we did a great job with prospect contracts, prospect extentions, and free agency in general. I brought up the sign and trade issue becasue I thought it was a flaw in a good rule. It was never my intent to suggest we create an entirely new system of generating contracts.
-
I think the best thing to do is just get rid of trading guys who are no longer under contract. Either resign them, or take the pick. I think the prospect extension does the job of what arbitration does, with the discount going to the owners if they choose to resign their prospects at said rates. The only other thing to suggest is making prospect contracts 4, instead of 3 years. But even I am not too enamored with that idea. I think it best to keep it as simple as possible. Two weeks, to clear cap space if you plan on resigning said player, or let him go off to FA, with an RFA tag. However I do think if we get rid of the RFA tags, we could just value FAs based on type A or B status, and reward the teams losing FAs accordingly.
-
Here is an idea... go with Dan's suggestion of eliminating RFAs, using he type A and B system for all FA, amd having a short period for resigning. We could give longer periods for small market teams and shorter periods fo big market teams. Years 4 to 6 of arbirtration are already naturally replaced by prospec extensions. We could always add a special 1-year arbirtration contract a market value for those years.
-
Here is an idea... go with Dan's suggestion of eliminating RFAs, using he type A and B system for all FA, amd having a short period for resigning. We could give longer periods for small market teams and shorter periods fo big market teams. Years 4 to 6 of arbirtration are already naturally replaced by prospec extensions. We could always add a special 1-year arbirtration contract a market value for those years.
:toast:
-
Here is an idea... go with Dan's suggestion of eliminating RFAs, using he type A and B system for all FA, amd having a short period for resigning. We could give longer periods for small market teams and shorter periods fo big market teams. Years 4 to 6 of arbirtration are already naturally replaced by prospec extensions. We could always add a special 1-year arbirtration contract a market value for those years.
Do we want to vote on this? Ben, Jake, and Roy - what are your thoughts?
-
Do we want to vote on this? Ben, Jake, and Roy - what are your thoughts?
Can you be more specific on the time periods for small market and big market teams? Also, what would be the divider between the two (cap amount)? 100m?
-
Can you be more specific on the time periods for small market and big market teams? Also, what would be the divider between the two (cap amount)? 100m?
Right now, teams have about three months to trade expiring contracts. I agree that is a bit excessive, but the availability to do this is good for a fantasy league. We have six tiers... why not do the following.
Tier #1 (the Yankee tier) = 0 weeks
Tier #2 = 1 week
Tier #3 = 2 weeks
Tier #4 = 3 weeks
Tier #5 = 4 weeks
Tier #6 = 5 weeks
We could also employ an arbitration extension that signifies the player is in year 4 (year after Prospect Contract ends), year 5, or year 6. These can be 1-3 year deals using the current contract extension market values. They basically take the term restrictions and throw them out the window.
-
Are we taking away trading the contracts if resigned? I would think resigning then dealing a player would have to fall under the same time period as signing and dealing a Free Agent.
-
Right now, teams have about three months to trade expiring contracts. I agree that is a bit excessive, but the availability to do this is good for a fantasy league. We have six tiers... why not do the following.
Tier #1 (the Yankee tier) = 0 weeks
Tier #2 = 1 week
Tier #3 = 2 weeks
Tier #4 = 3 weeks
Tier #5 = 4 weeks
Tier #6 = 5 weeks
We could also employ an arbitration extension that signifies the player is in year 4 (year after Prospect Contract ends), year 5, or year 6. These can be 1-3 year deals using the current contract extension market values. They basically take the term restrictions and throw them out the window.
Possibly group the Yankees with tier 2, combine tier 4 with tier 3, and group tier 6 with tier 5, to make things simpler? 5 weeks is still a long time....something like this?:
Tier 1 & 2 - 1 week
Tiers 3 & 4 - 2 weeks
Tiers 5 & 6 - 3 weeks
-
Are we taking away trading the contracts if resigned? I would think resigning then dealing a player would have to fall under the same time period as signing and dealing a Free Agent.
That sounds reasonable... that a player who signs an extension after the season can't be dealt for, oh say, 60 days. :thumbsup:
-
That sounds reasonable... that a player who signs an extension after the season can't be dealt for, oh say, 60 days. :thumbsup:
Yup, I'd agree with that also. :koolaid:
-
Is this a realistic change?
-
Is this a realistic change?
This is a change to compromise between the fun of an aggressive trade-market after the season in this league with the reality of baseball and the few sign and trades that do exist.
-
I agree with getting rid of the RFAs.
However, I would like to see teams lose all rights to expiring contracts after the season. I agree with Ben that the smart teams would probably trade their expiring contracts no matter how short the window. Therefore, the majority of quality free agents will never be available on the open market. I realize that as a small market team I will probably never be able to sign one of those free agents. I believe though that the big market teams will big high for those players, and that will leave more bargain free agents for the small market teams like myself. The current system also rewards the big market teams by allowing them to extend contracts for potential free agents like Lee and Fielder at lower than market value.
-
I agree with getting rid of the RFAs.
However, I would like to see teams lose all rights to expiring contracts after the season. I agree with Ben that the smart teams would probably trade their expiring contracts no matter how short the window. Therefore, the majority of quality free agents will never be available on the open market. I realize that as a small market team I will probably never be able to sign one of those free agents. I believe though that the big market teams will big high for those players, and that will leave more bargain free agents for the small market teams like myself. The current systrem Also, rewards the big market teams by allowing them to extension contracts for potential free agents like Lee and Fielder at relatively lower than market value.
Well, let's go with a system in which players automatically become FA. We could allow a tiered system for small market teams to extend a number of players w/expiring contracts.
-
Does that mean that the only option available for small market teams is to either re-sign or lose the player with the expiring
contract? Are we completely eliminating the sign and trade option for all teams regardless of market size?
-
Seems that way
-
Does that mean that the only option available for small market teams is to either re-sign or lose the player with the expiring
contract? Are we completely eliminating the sign and trade option for all teams regardless of market size?
No, I was suggesting, on a tiered basis, that teams be allowed X sign-and-trades / extensions for expiring contracts.
-
I vote we just dump it in total... Use to tiers to judge how long a team has to resign said player. Giving them a chance to move salary.
-
Personally the tier system seems to be patching an unrealistic rule with a less realistic rule. I vote we abolish the sign and trade completely. EDIT: we can keep a 5 day negotiating window, if that's what MLB really has.
Small market teams still have more RFA's, and can tag their big name free agents and trade them (where the receiving team is forced to resign them). Or would we need to change that also?
-
I think we are heading towards changing that as well.
-
Fair enough. Well, they will still be able to tag them and hope the pressures of Type A compensation lets them keep the player at a discount to full market value, or rack up draft picks.
Not having any grace period between when the 2010 books end and players are released will force teams to plan longer term, rather than season to season, as you'll need cap room in-season to extend your big names before risking them hitting the market (either FA or RFA). However, in MLB you can extend a players contract without having the higher salary hit the current season's books - something we can't do.
-
However, in MLB you can extend a players contract without having the higher salary hit the current season's books - something we can't do.
I think Ben is on to something here...This has been a very progressive post. I think we may need to break it up into several parts.
1. Sign and Trade - Yay or Nay
2. RFA - keep or remove, making players strictly Type A or B from the jump off (plus I think this system needs a little reworking, but more on that later. - Also keep in mind, this may change after the next MLB CBA, so we are going to have to be fluid on this.
3. Resigning a player, and having the salary hit the following year. If we can do this, I think this is a fantastic idea. :win:
-
I think Ben is on to something here...This has been a very progressive post. I think we may need to break it up into several parts.
1. Sign and Trade - Yay or Nay
2. RFA - keep or remove, making players strictly Type A or B from the jump off (plus I think this system needs a little reworking, but more on that later. - Also keep in mind, this may change after the next MLB CBA, so we are going to have to be fluid on this.
3. Resigning a player, and having the salary hit the following year. If we can do this, I think this is a fantastic idea. :win:
Dan, could you please create these separate threads as polls? Hanls!
-
Maybe I'm missing something. Under the current rules, when does re-signing a player cause a cap hit in the current year? The only case I am aware of is the 1 year patch rule we put in place to re-sign players to shorter terms than stated in our rules for minimum contract extensions.
-
When you resign a player. His salary can only stay the same, or escalate, as per the rules, unless his contract has run out. If you resign someone during the season, it is obvious he is still under contract. Say said player was making 0.5 mil, buthis new contract would call for 5.0 mil (just making up a scenario), then you would take the 5.0 mil hit for resigning him. That is because his current annually salary has now changed from .5 mil to 5 mil. As I said, I think it is a great idea that Ben had, that we can do something along the lines of sign a player to a contract that would start the following year, for however many years the contract calls for.
The only place I don't like this is with prospect extensions. I think all prospect contracts should be effective immediately.
-
Dan, if prospect extensions aren't included, this would be a huge setback for small market teams, who are likely to use prospect extensions more often.
I can only see this part of the rule change benefiting large market teams.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.