ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Dan Wood on February 16, 2010, 01:32:01 PM
-
I wanted to propose an idea for when an RFA is tagged and then lost to another team. I think the team that loses the RFA should receive some sort of compensation. Something along a supplemental first round draft pick. This would be similar to losing a Type A free agent, or in football, losing an RFA. The stipulation is that you had to bid on the player when they are posted on the transactions board. Otherwise you would not be due any compensation. This would inhibit teams from random RFA tagging just to get the pick. The supplemental picks would be ordered in Fantrax value of player lost. For instance Matt Holliday would have more value than Russell Branyan. And whoever lost Holliday picks before whoever lost Branyan. I would like to know your thoughts on this matter. This would probably help smaller market teams recoup the loss of their RFAs.
-
:iatp: I like Dan's idea. It is sound, covers all points, and matches what MLB has. We would have to match the number of fantasy points with each of the 10 rounds of the draft. Something like 4000+ points is Supplemental-1st round (1-S) and then...
3000+ (2-S)
2500+ (3-S)
2000+ (4-S)
1500+ (5-S)
1000+ (6-S)
750+ (7-S)
500+ (8-S)
250+ (9-S)
0+ (10-S)
-
i do like the idea, but if a team that gets one of these RFA players dont have that draft pick? or if none?? what you think...
-
i do like the idea, but if a team that gets one of these RFA players dont have that draft pick? or if none?? what you think...
The team getting the RFA player would not be affected.
-
Colby
I think we may need to lower the scoring echelons a bit. Bay, Holliday, Choo, and Zobrist all scored well under 4,000 points and I thin we can agree that they should be considered Type A FAs. We would also have to consider a separate scoring system for pitchers, since they score drastically less. Case in point Nolasco was under 2,000 for the season. I think 2700 is a good place to start for 1-S, and drop it per 500 for each round. And after the 5th round does it matter anymore? So maybe like
2700 or higher - 1S
2000 - 2700 - 2S
1000 - 2000 - 3S
0-1000 - 4S
-
Colby
I think we may need to lower the scoring echelons a bit. Bay, Holliday, Choo, and Zobrist all scored well under 4,000 points and I thin we can agree that they should be considered Type A FAs. We would also have to consider a separate scoring system for pitchers, since they score drastically less. Case in point Nolasco was under 2,000 for the season. I think 2700 is a good place to start for 1-S, and drop it per 500 for each round. And after the 5th round does it matter anymore? So maybe like
2700 or higher - 1S
2000 - 2700 - 2S
1000 - 2000 - 3S
0-1000 - 4S
Looks good Dan. We don't need a supplemental round for each round of the draft anyways. I was just throwing out random numbers from my crappy memory like a wild cowboy anyways. The structure and idea is what was important.
-
I like it (pats self on back). Obviously I will leave it up to the RC to further suss it out. But it has my vote. And I think it might be worth implementing to the upcoming draft.
-
I haven't had a chance to carefully look at the numbers, but I'm definitely on board - I tried to have a similar rule incorporated last season but it never got off the ground.
-
:bump: this as we are voting on the RFA bidding season
-
I like it (pats self on back). Obviously I will leave it up to the RC to further suss it out. But it has my vote. And I think it might be worth implementing to the upcoming draft.
I'm in agreement with the concept, and the numbers look good for a first implementation. Alternatively, we could say if the player is within the top X at their position, you'd get Y for a pick, using the same scale as for contract extensions.
I'm not in favor of applying a new rule to this years RFA's / Draft. Owners would have likely made different decisions when applying their RFA tags, knowing they could receive compensations for some players and not others, rather than strictly focusing on players they'd want to retain.
-
This rule would apply to 2011 onward. Ben, I like the idea of basing it on the player's positional ranking.
-
Ben, I like the idea of basing it on the player's positional ranking.
For reference, he's what I found on the MLB compensation rules:
Free Agent Compensation
A club may receive draft-pick compensation if it loses a free agent if:
(1) the player signs with another club before December 2; or
(2) the club offered arbitration to the free agent but failed to re-sign him.
Free agent compensation is based on the free agent’s place in the Elias Sports Bureau’s ranking of all major league players by position based on their performance during the last two seasons. Players are ranked by league in one of five positional groups: 1) 1B/DH/OF, 2) 2B/SS/3B, 3) catchers, 4) starting pitchers or 5) relief pitchers. The statistical criteria vary by position, and are not made available to anyone outsideof Major League Baseball.
Type A players are those who rank statistically in the top 20 percent at their position. Compensation for a Type A player is the signing club’s first-round draft pick and a supplemental pick between the first and second rounds.
Type B players are those who rank between the top 21 and 40 percent. Compensation for a Type B player is a supplemental pick between the first and second rounds.
If a team loses a free agent who is statistically in the bottom 60% of all players at his position, the former team does not get any compensation.
Read more at Suite101: Baseball Free Agency Rules: MLB Player Eligibility and Draft Compensation Explained http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/baseball_free_agency_rules#ixzz0hAD6MWBL (http://baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/baseball_free_agency_rules#ixzz0hAD6MWBL)
-
do like, i believe this is how we should structure our rule!
-
I think we can work with this...
Type A players are those who rank statistically in the top 20 percent at their position. Compensation for a Type A player is the signing club’s first-round draft pick and a supplemental pick between the first and second rounds.
Type B players are those who rank between the top 21 and 40 percent. Compensation for a Type B player is a supplemental pick between the first and second rounds.
If a team loses a free agent who is statistically in the bottom 60% of all players at his position, the former team does not get any compensation.
60 MI
60 CI
90 OF
150 SP
180 RP
TYPE A (New team's 1st round pick + S-1 pick): Top 20% = Fantrax positional ranking of
Top 12 MI, CI
Top 15 OF
Top 30 SP
Top 36 RP
TYPE B (S-1 pick): Next 20% =
13th - 24th ranked MI, CI
16th - 30th ranked OF
31st - 60th ranked SP
37th - 72nd ranked RP
I think our new model for RFAs is going to be key for the small market teams as it is in real life.
-
another question what happens if the team doesnt have a 1st round pick avaiable?
-
another question what happens if the team doesnt have a 1st round pick avaiable?
Excellent point. Are 1st rounders un-tradeable in MLB?
-
Exceptions
If the signing club’s first-round draft pick falls in the upper half of the first round, that choice is protected and the signing club loses its second-round selection instead.
If a club signs multiple free agents within the same category, its earlier pick goes to the team that lost the higher-rated player.
-
Excellent point. Are 1st rounders un-tradeable in MLB?
No picks can be traded in MLB...
-
Yeah, you cannot trade picks in MLB. I think our system should be closer to that of the NFL, since we trade picks. Or award the picks before they can be traded. Hence (hypothetically if we did it this year) picks could be given for the 2011 draft. Or we could basically do it as Type A - S1 and S2, Type B S-2, and somehow concoct a type C. I also don't think we should go out of the top ten at a position when awarding first rounders. Plus in MLB I think picks 1-15(have to double check the numbers) in the first round are protected from being awarded to other teams when said team signs a Type A free agent. The Mets first rounder(7th overall) this year was protected when they signed Jason Bay. That also leads us to what happened with the Yankees last year when they signed Burnett, CC, and Teix. The ended up not giving up that many picks because they signed so many Type A FAs. The Jays got screwed on that one.
-
I guess you never see MLB teams trade draft picks. what if you say if you dont have a 1st rounder then you cant bid on class A Free Agents. That makes your 1st round pick that much more valuble!
-
With all of that said, we should disallow trading of draft picks for 2011 and beyond. We are trying to match MLB rules. Trading picks may be fun, but it isn't what real GMs do. This would free up the issue of the supplementary picks for RFAs.
-
i guess colby you are right we want to stay as close to mlb rules, so no trading draft picks. We also need to add this rule for RFA next season! Im aboard on this!
-
I agree that trading picks is against the concept of the league, replicating MLB as closely as we feasibly can. Disallowing the trading of picks might take away some of the fun, and might also cut down on some of the trading - it would be more realistic, and it would add more strategy to acquiring picks (Beane would trade for Type A free agents just to get the picks...).
At this point, I would support either decision for trading picks, but I think such a decision deserves its own thread / discussion, since I expect many owners enjoy being able to trade picks.
-
I'll agree with Ben, we should probably move the topic of trading picks to a new thread. I think I'd like to see how many in the league enjoy the concept. If we have 20+ guys liking the idea, I think we should still keep it implemented, even though it isn't exactly like MLB rules. From July to December of last year, I remember it working very well for everyone.
-
I also think in order to get compensation for losing an RFA you have to at least bid on him once. Kind of like offering arbitration.
-
Trading of picks and the RFA supplementary picks go hand-in-hand. As fun as trading picks is, it's place can belong in another league at MLFB. We are trying to replicate MLFB on a simplified scale. It is simple in that the rosters are smaller, contracts are flat, restrictions are placed on cash, no rule-5 draft, and the arbitration years are replaced with the prospect contract.
What do you say RC?
-
i think we end the trading of draft pick, so we can use this ruling. Or let people trade 1st and 2nd rounders but then they can not bid on certain players. I just belive that we should get this rule across, cause this adds more MLB into this league.
-
i think we end the trading of draft pick, so we can use this ruling. Or let people trade 1st and 2nd rounders but then they can not bid on certain players. I just belive that we should get this rule across, cause this adds more MLB into this league.
This would affect 2011, just an FYI to everyone.
-
understood..but this RFA rule needs to be set.
-
understood..but this RFA rule needs to be set.
Agreed... it just needs votes. It requires no trading of draft picks after 2010.
-
I think we can say teams that lose an RFA gain a pick in the supplemental round, but the signing team doesn't lose anything... then we don't need to worry about trading picks or not, and can handle that independently.
-
I think we can say teams that lose an RFA gain a pick in the supplemental round, but the signing team doesn't lose anything... then we don't need to worry about trading picks or not, and can handle that independently.
I'll agree with this.
-
That may be the best way to handle it, so that we can still trade picks.
-
I think we can say teams that lose an RFA gain a pick in the supplemental round, but the signing team doesn't lose anything... then we don't need to worry about trading picks or not, and can handle that independently.
When would the supplemental round be?
-
When would the supplemental round be?
Between the 1st and 2nd rounds
-
Between the 1st and 2nd rounds
For a Type A RFA that is lost. Type B would be later (2nd round?)
-
For a Type A RFA that is lost. Type B would be later (2nd round?)
We can do a second supplementary round.
-
can you guys explain what would happen when teams trade there picks.
-
can you guys explain what would happen when teams trade there picks.
I still think we should quit trading picks after the 2010 draft. If the MLB doesn't do it then we probably shouldn't. It adds some fun to trades, but we have 40-50 players to trade anyways plus some cash. Plus, this would make it a bit easier for administration to handle.
-
I still think we should quit trading picks after the 2010 draft. If the MLB doesn't do it then we probably shouldn't. It adds some fun to trades, but we have 40-50 players to trade anyways plus some cash. Plus, this would make it a bit easier for administration to handle.
I think you stop the drafting draft picks also.
-
I think you stop the drafting draft picks also.
Huh Chad?
-
sorry, stop the trading of draft picks.
-
I have to agree with you Colby. As much as I have done it, I think we should put an end to trading draft picks. However I would not be completely against keeping it around. I just think it gives us a more realistic approach to trading, especially since most of us will have full rosters at the start of this season, and even more so, after the draft.
-
I have to agree with you Colby. As much as I have done it, I think we should put an end to trading draft picks. However I would not be completely against keeping it around. I just think it gives us a more realistic approach to trading, especially since most of us will have full rosters at the start of this season, and even more so, after the draft.
That is the goal after all... what do you say Chad, Roy, M.J., Ben, and Jake?
-
I guess just to clarify...with the use of supplemental picks, would teams that are deep in the draft in order to rebuild (the Mets this year) still be able to do that to the degree that is going on? I like to have that strategy be available to teams that are really looking to rebuild for the future.
The Mets this year have 17 picks, four of them first rounders, and he has sacrificed quite a bit for it. Can we still count on that happening, should GM's decide to want to go that route? Or will this supplemental pick method curb that heavily?
-
I guess just to clarify...with the use of supplemental picks, would teams that are deep in the draft in order to rebuild (the Mets this year) still be able to do that to the degree that is going on? I like to have that strategy be available to teams that are really looking to rebuild for the future.
The Mets this year have 17 picks, four of them first rounders, and he has sacrificed quite a bit for it. Can we still count on that happening, should GM's decide to want to go that route? Or will this supplemental pick method curb that heavily?
We allow trading of RFA. Small market teams are granted more RFA tags. This helps the rebuilding as you can use an RFA tag on a high value FA and earn a supplemental pick on them if they don't sign with your team. Other than that, simply trading for prospects and putting bonus money toward top prospects (scouting) will help turn around a team in the future.
-
We allow trading of RFA. Small market teams are granted more RFA tags. This helps the rebuilding as you can use an RFA tag on a high value FA and earn a supplemental pick on them if they don't sign with your team. Other than that, simply trading for prospects and putting bonus money toward top prospects (scouting) will help turn around a team in the future.
Ok, I think I can be on board then. I just didn't want to not have that access to teams, being able to really load up on draft day if they chose to.
-
Three of us are on board for this... here is the final proposal for one of you to agree to (you could all agree as well)...
1) No more trading of draft picks (applies for 2011 draft onward)
2) Supplementary picks for loss of player due to RFA (must have placed bid on player though)
3) Picks are given as follows...
TYPE A (New team's 1st round pick + S-1 pick): Top 20% = Fantrax positional ranking of
Top 12 MI, CI
Top 15 OF
Top 30 SP
Top 36 RP
TYPE B (S-1 pick): Next 20% =
13th - 24th ranked MI, CI
16th - 30th ranked OF
31st - 60th ranked SP
37th - 72nd ranked RP
This correlates 100% with MLB rules on the free agent types and draft protocol.
-
im on board for this also, colby... how many RFA tags do smalll market teams get?
-
im on board for this also, colby... how many RFA tags do smalll market teams get?
It would follow with the tiers...
the 30th cap (lowest one) has 4 RFA
22 to 29 has 3 RFA
7 to 21 has 2 RFA
1 to 6 has 1 RFA
-
Are we going to have protected picks just like MLB?
-
Are we going to have protected picks just like MLB?
What and how are picks protected?
-
We allow trading of RFA. Small market teams are granted more RFA tags. This helps the rebuilding as you can use an RFA tag on a high value FA and earn a supplemental pick on them if they don't sign with your team. Other than that, simply trading for prospects and putting bonus money toward top prospects (scouting) will help turn around a team in the future.
To clarify, a player that has been tagged as an RFA can be traded, but they must be immediately extended by the receiving team. An actual RFA tag itself cannot be traded, and a player that was tagged and received in a trade cannot be then let walk away for picks.
Trading RFA
A player may be traded while tagged as RFA during the off-season period in which free agency has not begun. The player then must be signed to a contract extension by the new team.
-
What and how are picks protected?
Something like if you're in the top 15 of the draft and sign a Type A player you don't forfeit your high 1st rounder (I think instead you may give up your 2nd, but that might not be true).
-
It is the top 15 picks. I believe you get a supplemental and a second round pick. The Red Sox received a S-1 and the Mets 2nd pick for Jason Bay.
-
And if a team signs multiple Type A RFA's, I believe the picks are awarded based on the ranking of the players lost
- We'll need to not actually move picks until all RFA's have been finalized
- Need a way to determine which RFA's were ranked higher across positions
- What happens for the team that had the lesser ranked RFA? Do they get the signing team's 2nd round pick? An extra S1?
-
I am not very familiar with the rules, but I believe the team with the lesser RFA would get a supplemental pick, and then you start going into the later rounds. We should all take the case of the Yankees last year with 3 Type A's as how to handle this. I also think the best way to break up the players if multiple Type A's are signed is by points per game.
-
And if a team signs multiple Type A RFA's, I believe the picks are awarded based on the ranking of the players lost
- We'll need to not actually move picks until all RFA's have been finalized
- Need a way to determine which RFA's were ranked higher across positions
- What happens for the team that had the lesser ranked RFA? Do they get the signing team's 2nd round pick? An extra S1?
Comparing RFAs of two different positions could be done on a points per game basis as Dan suggested. I think a simple rule (we could always adjust this) is that say you have the Yankees who sign three big FA...
Teixeira
Sabathia
Burnett
That is the order of fantasy points per game in 2008 (off the top of my head). The Angels would receive the Yankees 1st rounder and an S-1 pick. The Brewers would receive the Yankees 2nd rounder and an S-1 pick. The Blue Jays would receive the Yankees 3rd rounder an an S-1 pick. Alternatively, we could say that the Brewers and Blue Jays would each receive two S-1 picks.
How do we then order the supplementary picks? How is it done in MLB? I don't think it goes by the normal order (reverse of standings). It appears to go by value. The above case would warrant the Brewers the highest S-1. We could order it like so...
Type A FA (in which 1st rounder was not available)
Type A FA
Type B FA
-
I'd be fine with total points, but Points per Game would weigh SP's too highly (play far fewer games):
In 2008:
Tex: 3827 PTS, 25PTS/GM
CC: 2654 PTS, 76 PTS/GM
AJ: 2270 PTS, 65 PTS/GM
Order for the Supplemental Round does go by ranking of the RFA's lost.
I'd say we give teams that don't get the signing team's 1st (either because the signed a higher ranked RFA, or the pick was protected because the signing team was in the top 15), then we give them an additional S1. We'll award the S1's based on RFA rankings, and then after those grant additional S1's again using RFA ranking where needed:
1-ATL (from NYY)
S1-ATL
S1-MIL
S1-TOR
S1-MIL
S1-TOR
My reasoning is if Toronto loses a Type A RFA, why should they only get a 3rd rounder just because their guy signed with NYY, but if he signed somewhere else they'd get a 1st (even before the supplemental)?
-
I'd be fine with total points, but Points per Game would weigh SP's too highly (play far fewer games):
In 2008:
Tex: 3827 PTS, 25PTS/GM
CC: 2654 PTS, 76 PTS/GM
AJ: 2270 PTS, 65 PTS/GM
Order for the Supplemental Round does go by ranking of the RFA's lost.
I'd say we give teams that don't get the signing team's 1st (either because the signed a higher ranked RFA, or the pick was protected because the signing team was in the top 15), then we give them an additional S1. We'll award the S1's based on RFA rankings, and then after those grant additional S1's again using RFA ranking where needed:
1-ATL (from NYY)
S1-ATL
S1-MIL
S1-TOR
S1-MIL
S1-TOR
My reasoning is if Toronto loses a Type A RFA, why should they only get a 3rd rounder just because their guy signed with NYY, but if he signed somewhere else they'd get a 1st (even before the supplemental)?
That proposal works for me Ben. The points per games does give the pitchers the edge (understatement), so we can do it by total points instead.
-
:bump: for voting
-
:iatp:
-
:iatp:
-
Roy, MJ, Jake?
-
I'll approve.
-
:judge:
1) Draft picks are not allowed to be traded for the 2011 draft onward.
2) RFAs are to be classified as Type A, B, or a regular RFA. Type A FA (as dictated by MLB is a player in the top 20% of their position). Type B FA are the next 20%.
Therefore, for Franchise GM, Type A FA are:
Top 12 MI, CI
Top 15 OF
Top 30 SP
Top 36 RP
Type B FA are:
13th - 24th ranked MI, CI
16th - 30th ranked OF
31st - 60th ranked SP
37th - 72nd ranked RP
3) As long as you bid on your own RFA during the RFA bidding period, then you are eligible to extra compensation if you lose the player.
4) If the player was a Type A FA, then you will receive the winning team's 1st round pick and gain a supplemental pick (After 1st round, before 2nd).
5) If the player was a Type B FA, then you will receive a supplemental pick.
6) Order of supplemental picks is based solely on fantasy points scored in the previous season of each RFA lost.
7) If one team wins bids on multiple Type A FA, then the player with the most points is the one that has a team receive the 1st rounder. The other teams will receive two supplemental picks.