ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 07:42:34 PM
-
As several members of this league have been discussing recently here http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=14237.0, (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=14237.0,) the possibility of abolishing RFAs. What this rule would entail, more or less, is just making all Free Agents, either A or B, and getting rid of the right to match. This would be more similar to how MLB works. RFA, is more of an NFL thing. The time is now for you GMs to voice your opinion on said matter.
-
Either A, B, or nothing is what Dan meant! :taco:
-
As several members of this league have been discussing recently here http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=14237.0, (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=14237.0,) the possibility of abolishing RFAs. What this rule would entail, more or less, is just making all Free Agents, either A or B, and getting rid of the right to match. This would be more similar to how MLB works. RFA, is more of an NFL thing. The time is now for you GMs to voice your opinion on said matter.
In MLB, when a player is offered arbitration does the team have the right to match any competing offers?
-
I believe either player goes to arbitration or they don't. They are under team control regardless. Either a player works out a contract that satisfies both parties or they go to arbitration, and that settles what the team owes them. That is why they always talk about the raise through arbitration...
-
I believe either player goes to arbitration or they don't. They are under team control regardless. Either a player works out a contract that satisfies both parties or they go to arbitration, and that settles what the team owes them. That is why they always talk about the raise through arbitration...
For players with 6 and fewer years of experience, yes. But draft pick compensation comes from when a team offers a player arbitration and they leave...
-
I believe either player goes to arbitration or they don't. They are under team control regardless. Either a player works out a contract that satisfies both parties or they go to arbitration, and that settles what the team owes them. That is why they always talk about the raise through arbitration...
Arbitration = market value = our extension annual salaries
-
For players with 6 and fewer years of experience, yes. But draft pick compensation comes from when a team offers a player arbitration and they leave...
Ben is correct. If a player offered arbitration leaves then the team gets the draft pick compensation. I agree with the change as long we keep draft pick compensation.
In theory either you resign your players immediately or offer them arbitration......which would be like rfa (currently) except you cannot match an offer. you either win him in a bid style or receive compensation (if there a type a or b)
-
But that's my question - if in MLB they can match, then we should be able to also... we need to check this out.
-
But that's my question - if in MLB they can match, then we should be able to also... we need to check this out.
mlb cannot match
-
This subject hasn't been tended to in a while, but I would still like to get everyone's opinion on it. I think we have a very good case to discuss here that happened recently with Paul Konerko. The Phils didn't have the money to match the Yanks bid on him. Found out his cost, dumped some salary on Arizona, then re-signed him, after he knew what his contract would be. And Papps, I am not making an example of you, just using the situation as an example, so please do not get offended. Manny Ramirez is another example. My point is why even bid on an RFA? Is this something that we want to continue doing going forward? I think the best bet is to do away with RFA, expand the numbers for DP compensation, and go with that from next season on. I would like to hear more dialogue in regards to this. If we can come up with a simple way to do arb, I am all for it. But we do have the prospect extension in place, are currently arguing for following year contracts, etc. I think all of these topics lead into one another.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think so.
-
Would you still have to bid on your player to receive compensation?
-
Negative, they are designated A or B from the jump off. Bidding is not needed with the new rule.
-
I believe where we stand with this as follows:
-The RFA 'tag' will not be an option that teams can choose for their players with expiring contracts from now on. All of their expiring contracts that are not retained will be either a Type A, Type B, or unrated free agent. Essentially, all players not re-signed will automatically be tagged as RFA's.
-A team that previously owned a player will not have the option to 'match' the winning bid of another team. They will either receive a compensation pick (if a Type A or Type B) or lose the player entirely if they were not the winning bid. Said team will still be allowed to bid on a player to win them to their team though.
-A team that previously owned a player is not required to make at least one bid in order to acquire compensation (if a Type A or Type B player). The only instance said team can/should bid is they want to re-sign the player to their own team.
Please correct any mistakes I may have made. I believe we have heard from a few gentlemen that support the measure (Dan, Colby, Corey, myself), but some more supporting votes, especially from the more experienced members (Roy, Ben, Mike, Jeff, Rick, Rob, Aubrey, the Chris's) should probably get this passed if the majority agrees.
-
I am on board with the proposed changes. It took me a couple of times going through the thread and re-reading our rule book to fully grasp what was going on lol...I think what is being proposed not only more closely mimmicks MLB, but in the process will make things a bit more simple for GM's to navigate the off season. Great effort and ideas gentlemen!
-
I believe where we stand with this as follows:
-The RFA 'tag' will not be an option that teams can choose for their players with expiring contracts from now on. All of their expiring contracts that are not retained will be either a Type A, Type B, or unrated free agent. Essentially, all players not re-signed will automatically be tagged as RFA's.
-A team that previously owned a player will not have the option to 'match' the winning bid of another team. They will either receive a compensation pick (if a Type A or Type B) or lose the player entirely if they were not the winning bid. Said team will still be allowed to bid on a player to win them to their team though.
-A team that previously owned a player is not required to make at least one bid in order to acquire compensation (if a Type A or Type B player). The only instance said team can/should bid is they want to re-sign the player to their own team.
Please correct any mistakes I may have made. I believe we have heard from a few gentlemen that support the measure (Dan, Colby, Corey, myself), but some more supporting votes, especially from the more experienced members (Roy, Ben, Mike, Jeff, Rick, Rob, Aubrey, the Chris's) should probably get this passed if the majority agrees.
:iatp:
-
Jake,
I believe you meant to say the following:
Essentially, all players not re-signed will automatically be tagged as FA's (not RFA's since they will no longer exist).
If that is correct, I am on board.
-
Jake,
I believe you meant to say the following:
Essentially, all players not re-signed will automatically be tagged as FA's (not RFA's since they will no longer exist).
If that is correct, I am on board.
Yeah, that is correct. I wanted to stress the fact that these players will still have compensation options like RFA's, just got my words mixed up.
-
I just wanted to bump this thread as it appears to be the only rule change that has been approved.