ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: Dan Wood on January 06, 2011, 07:01:35 PM
-
This off-season gave us many expiring contracts on what most would consider star players. Said players never made it to free agency because they were dealt to teams that could afford them. Since our goal is to emulate MLB as much as possible, this is something that just never happens, or hardly ever happens. I feel, as well as several others, that this should be no longer allowed. What has been proposed is 5 days to resign your players, or ship them off to FA. The 5 days gives you time to move some payroll in order to keep these players if you so choose to do. This makes this league a lot more realistic, and spread the talent around a little better.
As GMs in this league we need to plan for the future. I'm sure Tamp Bay would have loved to deal Carl Crawford after the season ended, but the fact of the matter is they no longer owned his rights. They had their window to deal him, and they were well aware that they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of resigning him. In the end, a large market team ended up signing him, and Tampa Bay got draft picks (see losing the RFA rule). Once the WS is over, we have 5 days to resign our players, or cut them loose to test the waters. I do realize this favors the bigger market teams, but that is also the challenge of MLB, as well as this league. We all know what we signed on for.
Please discuss further.
-
I am in favor of this change - the current rules are unrealistic, and we always aspire to mirror MLB's rules.
-
I am all for amending this rule, the closer we can make it to how these processes work in MLB the more fun this league will become.
-
I am all for amending this rule, the closer we can make it to how these processes work in MLB the more fun this league will become.
Do we have a five day period or none at all? Do we give extra room for small market GMs?
-
First off, players with expired contracts should not be allowed to be traded.
The problem with having 5 days to resign guys, is you dont know where they are going to be in real life. A major thing in fantasy sports. That is a negative if we put a small time period on it. With that said I really want to be like real life.
So I think 5 days from the end of our World Series all unsigned FA's should become Free Agent. So you have 5 days to sign them.
-
I do realize this favors the bigger market teams, but that is also the challenge of MLB, as well as this league. We all know what we signed on for.
Just an idea, but maybe to counter the benefit of this for big market teams would be to allow prospect extensions to small market teams only?
-
Just an idea, but maybe to counter the benefit of this for big market teams would be to allow prospect extensions to small market teams only?
Possibly a good idea......Here is why I would be against it.....trading Posey who is signed for 4m is easy every team can afford him. if Posey would have been at 8 mill or so who can afford not some teams. that is a down side...just a thought
-
Possibly a good idea......Here is why I would be against it.....trading Posey who is signed for 4m is easy every team can afford him. if Posey would have been at 8 mill or so who can afford not some teams. that is a down side...just a thought
A good point, but I'm not saying that big market teams can't trade for a player who received a prospect extension, just that they wouldn't be able to create one themselves. I think I'm on the same page as what you're saying?
-
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.
-
First off, players with expired contracts should not be allowed to be traded.
The problem with having 5 days to resign guys, is you dont know where they are going to be in real life. A major thing in fantasy sports. That is a negative if we put a small time period on it. With that said I really want to be like real life.
So I think 5 days from the end of our World Series all unsigned FA's should become Free Agent. So you have 5 days to sign them.
I agree with you on the uncertainty, but I may think the impact is less significant (you should pay for the skills first, the role second). I do think disallowing sign-and-trades all together is a reasonable solution - we don't need to change the extension deadline if we don't allow sign-and-trades at all.
-
Ben, I fully agree with your last two posts
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You lost Callaspo because he was an RFA, and his original team matched. Something else we are in discussion of getting rid of.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm going to agree that the both 'sign-and-trade' or 'trade-and-sign' not be allowed during the off-season and the 5-day period after the season also not be allowed. My example, and I'll pick on Mr. Yergey and his Brewers, as he had the most star studded lineup this last season:
If Ben was required to sign his 6 stars (Werth, Pujols, Fielder, Gallardo, Lee, Wigginton) before he traded them, and was allowed a 5 day window to re-signe them after the season to do so, this could be skirted, though not easily. He could just sign them, one at a time, then trade them individually right after they were signed. Keep in mind the 5 day window wouldn't have necessarily meant Ben had to sign all of his stars at once, but he could have simply signed them just before he traded them. The other team was going to be re-signing said players regardless.
It doesn't really matter if we aren't allowed to trade expiring contracts if we are still allowed to trade those players on expiring contracts that are re-signed within the 5 day window. As my example provides, Ben would have been able to move all of his stars anyway, whether he was forced to re-sign them before he traded them or not.
I would recommend that expiring contracts are only allowed to be traded before the July trade deadline in season. After that, they must either be re-signed by their current team, or let go.
-
I agree with Jake. But I do believe that giving a team 5 days, or more, to move other players already under contract, in order to create cap, should also be considered. For instance, if Ben (sorry to use you again Ben) was to trade Haren, in order to sign Werth, I think moves like that should be allowed. My reasoning for the 5 day plus window, is because in order to make a deal, some teams are still minding their football teams, and may not be active, or tending to their baseball teams. As I have argued before, this is a hobby, GMs in real life are at arms reach at any time because they get paid very well to be there.
-
I agree with Jake. But I do believe that giving a team 5 days, or more, to move other players already under contract, in order to create cap, should also be considered. For instance, if Ben (sorry to use you again Ben) was to trade Haren, in order to sign Werth, I think moves like that should be allowed. My reasoning for the 5 day plus window, is because in order to make a deal, some teams are still minding their football teams, and may not be active, or tending to their baseball teams. As I have argued before, this is a hobby, GMs in real life are at arms reach at any time because they get paid very well to be there.
I'd have no problem with trading players during the off-season, as long as no players involved are under expired contracts. As long has Haren's contract didn't expire the same year as Werth's, that would be permissible in my opinion.
If we did allow the 5 days to re-sign after the season, instituting the 60 day policy on newly signed players would prevent teams from signing a player and then immediately trading him away for other purposes. In theory, the season is officially over, so these men do not have contracts...thus, they would be new signs.
-
My one stipulation is that players that are re-signed should be treated as OFAs, and cannot be traded until 6/1
-
My one stipulation is that players that are re-signed should be treated as OFAs, and cannot be traded until 6/1
:iatp:
-
My one stipulation is that players that are re-signed should be treated as OFAs, and cannot be traded until 6/1
I disagree. By doing that you are now putting even more emphasis on Free Agency, Thus making over spending on terrible contracts a must if you want to improve your team now. Its gona feed into the problem we are trying to fix in so many leagues.
-
If we did allow the 5 days to re-sign after the season, instituting the 60 day policy on newly signed players would prevent teams from signing a player and then immediately trading him away for other purposes. In theory, the season is officially over, so these men do not have contracts...thus, they would be new signs.
This was our problem this year... these players could be traded whereas they should be treated as an early FA signing. Of course, a team could just trade such players two months later. With the advent of arbitration extensions and extensions (non-PE) that take place the year after the contract ends, I think there is less and less need to have any window at all immediately after the season. However, in real life, Adrian Gonzalez was not under contract and was traded to the Red Sox, so perhaps a window should be given only to small market teams? Like in real life, sign your player, trade them, or lose them to FA (unless you trade said player to a team that signs the player). The team that signs the player should not be allowed to trade that player for 60 days.
-
This was our problem this year... these players could be traded whereas they should be treated as an early FA signing. Of course, a team could just trade such players two months later. With the advent of arbitration extensions and extensions (non-PE) that take place the year after the contract ends, I think there is less and less need to have any window at all immediately after the season. However, in real life, Adrian Gonzalez was not under contract and was traded to the Red Sox, so perhaps a window should be given only to small market teams? Like in real life, sign your player, trade them, or lose them to FA (unless you trade said player to a team that signs the player). The team that signs the player should not be allowed to trade that player for 60 days.
60 days to wait for resigning a player whether in season or immediately following is a much better idea
-
I think all players should have a contract by the start of FA. Once resigned, they should be treated as OFAs. In the league rules, OFA's cannot be dealt until 6/1.
-
I think all players should have a contract by the start of FA. Once resigned, they should be treated as OFAs. In the league rules, OFA's cannot be dealt until 6/1.
If all players had a contract by FA then there would be no FA?
-
I meant if u plan on resigning them. Don't be so literal
-
I meant if u plan on resigning them. Don't be so literal
Got it... I am still unsure if we have resolved anything here. It may be best to go to a system that allows extensions (non-PE) to kick in the following season and then force all expiring contracts, at the end of the season, into the FA pool.
One thing we could always consider doing is add in a home-team discount of 10%. Many players take a little bit less to be with a franchise that they feel comfortable with... Cliff Lee being the marque example of MLB's FA this winter. Of course, the home-team discount would have went to Texas in that situation, but you get the point at how this could correlate to most players.
-
I think a 10% discount is fair. I think at this point we have lost the point of what it is we were arguing for. We are all in agreement to abolish sign and trades.
What we are of varying opinions are is how long people have to re-sign their own players. And whether or not to do in season re-signings, and whether or not they should take hold during the season, or the following. I also think we need to discuss what to do about PEs. Should they be allowed to take hold the following season as well, with the higher % of the value being paid. And if someone is in the last year of prospect eligibility, they cannot be signed to a PE the following year. Just some things we need to address.
I vote for...
- Yes to contracts to take hold the following season
- Yes to PEs, but at a more expensive rate
- No to PEs in the final year of prospect eligibilty
- Yes to the 10% home team discount
- Yes to up to 2 weeks to move cap around to re-sign your upcoming FAs
-
I vote for...
- Yes to contracts to take hold the following season
- ____ to PEs, I think they should be allowed mid-season and they kick in immediately at the current rate, or next year at next year's rate
- No to PEs in the final year of prospect eligibility <-- only if the extension was put forward to the next season
- Yes to the 10% home team discount
- No to up to 2 weeks to move cap around to re-sign your upcoming FAs
-
I vote for...
- Yes to contracts to take hold the following season - 1
- ____ to PEs, I think they should be allowed mid-season and they kick in immediately at the current rate, or next year at next year's rate - 2
- No to PEs in the final year of prospect eligibility <-- only if the extension was put forward to the next season - 3
- Yes to the 10% home team discount - 4
- No to up to 2 weeks to move cap around to re-sign your upcoming FAs - 5
You articulated my point a little better than I did...
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree - if you want the PE rate - it has to go against your budget that season
4. Agree
5. Disagree - especially if new GMs are taking over a team
-
You articulated my point a little better than I did...
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree - if you want the PE rate - it has to go against your budget that season
4. Agree
5. Disagree - especially if new GMs are taking over a team
I will vote yes to everything so we can get this done.....but i will vote no on one thing. I will settle for extensions kicking in the following year, but if I extend someone in august, whos to say that come dec or jan i might have a good offer and wana move him. in season extensions should be allowed to be traded before 6/1. I understand Dans point that since the salary isnt kicking in till next year that he basically a FA when you are resigning him in season, but seriously its gona put a nice big damper on the fun and flexibility of the off season. Guys do get extensions during the season and are traded in the offseason in the real MLB. That should be allowed.
-
I will vote yes to everything so we can get this done.....but i will vote no on one thing. I will settle for extensions kicking in the following year, but if I extend someone in august, whos to say that come dec or jan i might have a good offer and wana move him. in season extensions should be allowed to be traded before 6/1. I understand Dans point that since the salary isnt kicking in till next year that he basically a FA when you are resigning him in season, but seriously its gona put a nice big damper on the fun and flexibility of the off season. Guys do get extensions during the season and are traded in the offseason in the real MLB. That should be allowed.
:iatp:
-
I will vote yes to everything so we can get this done.....but i will vote no on one thing. I will settle for extensions kicking in the following year, but if I extend someone in august, whos to say that come dec or jan i might have a good offer and wana move him. in season extensions should be allowed to be traded before 6/1. I understand Dans point that since the salary isnt kicking in till next year that he basically a FA when you are resigning him in season, but seriously its gona put a nice big damper on the fun and flexibility of the off season. Guys do get extensions during the season and are traded in the offseason in the real MLB. That should be allowed.
Corey, here is where the monkey comes into play. Say the Brewers (Sorry again Ben just using your situation as an example) signed all his upcoming FAs to extensions that took hold in the 2011. We are given 24 hours to get our cap in order or face penalty. had he done this in the middle of the season, and had deals lined up for when the season ended, it is exactly like trading a guy that you don't have under contract. We have to be very specific about the ruling that we want to create in order to avoid as many loopholes as possible. I hate to seem like I am fighting you tooth and nail on this one, but it is just how I view it. I would be open to having it earlier, maybe after Type A and B bidding is done. I just think that a decent amount of time of the off-season has to pass before these guys can be dealt. I feel the main point of this rule is to help teams stay together, make players more appetizing/valuable if they are dealt on expiring contracts, and keep teams from accumulating an inordinate amount of talent that they cannot afford, but can turn into valuable pieces.
-
Corey, here is where the monkey comes into play. Say the Brewers (Sorry again Ben just using your situation as an example) signed all his upcoming FAs to extensions that took hold in the 2011. We are given 24 hours to get our cap in order or face penalty. had he done this in the middle of the season, and had deals lined up for when the season ended, it is exactly like trading a guy that you don't have under contract. We have to be very specific about the ruling that we want to create in order to avoid as many loopholes as possible. I hate to seem like I am fighting you tooth and nail on this one, but it is just how I view it. I would be open to having it earlier, maybe after Type A and B bidding is done. I just think that a decent amount of time of the off-season has to pass before these guys can be dealt. I feel the main point of this rule is to help teams stay together, make players more appetizing/valuable if they are dealt on expiring contracts, and keep teams from accumulating an inordinate amount of talent that they cannot afford, but can turn into valuable pieces.
I understand what your saying and agree, but I dont want to resign a guy and have to keep him for possibly 12 months. I took over the Yanks in July and the only player still on my roster is Jacob Turner. Everyone else is new. I dont want to be tied down. This is where the problem lies with not having the extensions kick in right away.
However in Bens case he would not have been able to sign all his guys, he didnt have the room.
All im saying is if I want to trade someone that I resigned and used my cap room to sign, I want to be able to trade him, without waiting quite possibly 10 or 11 months.
-
We can have a 2012 salary cap always being shown that adds our existing contracts plus extensions being given, to make sure you dont go over. Colb if this is too much work dont worry about it....
I will not vote yes to in season extensions taking hold next year if we cant trade them till the next june. That just sucks.
-
But you aren't using your cap until the following April, if you were to re-sign someone and wanted their contract to start immediately, taking from your cap that year, then I have no arguments against trading him.
-
Colb I think we have agreed on the parameters, I think it is time to put it to a league vote
-
How about if you sign a player in advance, it effectively gives him a no-trade clause until 6/1...if you want to sign and trade him, you would need to take on the contract the year that the contract is handed out.
-
How about if you sign a player in advance, it effectively gives him a no-trade clause until 6/1...if you want to sign and trade him, you would need to take on the contract the year that the contract is handed out.
Totally agree with this!!! Its a win win. I understand the point you were making and it was valid. And I agree if a team will pay immediately he should be given the chance to move him. I like that idea.
-
Totally agree with this!!! Its a win win. I understand the point you were making and it was valid. And I agree if a team will pay immediately he should be given the chance to move him. I like that idea.
:toast:
And I'm spent
-
I am bumping this based on recent PMs I have received about extensions. There was no rule change made because of this thread.
We started to vote but talks fizzled.
-
I wanted to clarify something I posted in the extensions thread, because it really belongs here. I said the following:
2. Extensions for non-prospects with expiring contracts MUST take place before the end of the year. That is consistent with real life. There used to be a re-sign period after the World Series but that has since since eliminated. I just don't see having your cake and eating it too so to speak in terms of having time AFTER the season to re-sign non-prospects, but maybe that's just me.
I meant that the intention to re-sign a non-prospect must occur prior to the end of his contract. I agree with Colby that the new salary starts the following season. I also agree with Dan that the res-signed player can not be traded before June 1st of the following year. I think that allows owners to make decisions for the future while not being unfairly hurt in the current season by the cap implications. The main point is to prevent owners from using expiring contracts down the stretch and then being able to trade them.
-
I think these issues need to be decided ASAP. We don't have too much time before the trade deadline, and they have lingered too long, imo. I would be in favor of an up and down vote by the RC on this and the extension issue.
-
I truly believe that these type of discussions can go on forever. We need a Vote, clear cut and decided once people vote.
-
I truly believe that these type of discussions can go on forever. We need a Vote, clear cut and decided once people vote.
:iatp: Let's start a new thread for an official RC vote.