ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Transactions => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions => Topic started by: Colby on March 09, 2010, 12:06:09 PM
-
Brewers: $4.5M
(also, he pitched 49 innings last year, and is thus not eligible for a prospect contract).
Yes he is still eligible. The 3-year clock started ticking in 2009 when he accrued 40 IP, so the winning bid could end up being in the form of a bonus on top of a P-2012 contract.
-
Yes he is still eligible. The 3-year clock started ticking in 2009 when he accrued 40 IP, so the winning bid could end up being in the form of a bonus on top of a P-2012 contract.
I don't think we're allowing players to be signed to a prospect contract that's already started... either they are on a P-n/a, or a regular contract. There have surely been many cases where a player with less than 2 years experience have been signed during this off-season, and I don't think they were allowed on prospect contracts.
Prospect Contracts
A player can be signed to a prospect contract as long as they have pitched less than 40 IP or played in less than 50 games in their career.
-
I don't think we're allowing players to be signed to a prospect contract that's already started... either they are on a P-n/a, or a regular contract. There have surely been many cases where a player with less than 2 years experience have been signed during this off-season, and I don't think they were allowed on prospect contracts.
I think the legislation needs to be written in a different manner. However, it has always been handled like this for plenty of situations. A player is to be considered under a prospect contract if they were given a one. The eligibility for a prospect contract then relies on being within the prospect window.
-
A player can be given a prospect contract if they meet the defined playing time criteria. Once on a prospect contract and the playing time threshold is surpassed, their clock starts and their prospect contract begins to count down (3 years). I do not see why we would allow signing FA's who are over the PT limit to abbreviated prospect contracts - it defeats the purpose of a prospect contract (allowing a player to develop in the minors at minimum cost to the owner, the guy is already in MLB). In which cases have we allowed this? I was not aware that we were...
We had discussed that if a prospect eligible player is signed to a regular contract (to spread out the bonus, although I'm not personally a fan of this option as it seems to add complexity), and it expires while the player has still not exceeded the playing time threshold, they could possibly be extended on a prospect contract - however I don't think we reached a consensus on this either (and it didn't officially make it's way to the RC).
-
Putting in my two cents, I would not consider Bard a prospect, because he paased the innings limits. Also, for me the purpose of signing a player to a prospect contract is to gain cost control over the three years after passing the thresholds of games played or innings pitched mentioned earlier. Since Bard is already "on the clock" and being actively bid on in FA, it's a bit of a moot point. Cost containment is already out the window. The real question is what the owner stands to gain or lose either way. The way I see it, it's a matter of being able to get out of a 500K salary if he's considered a prospect, since the owner can't get out of the bonus.
-
I have to agree with Ben here. If someone has already passed the threshold of 40IP then he can't be given a prospect contract. Because then we can give prospect contracts to anyone and say they started theirs X amount of years ago and will work it off over the next few years. Since Bard already exhausted his eligibility while not on a roster, it makes him non prospect eligible in my eyes. If he was on a roster and then traded that is a different story, because his prospect clock began ticking while on a roster. Again this is just my opinion, but I think we can all agree that Bard is no longer a prospect, and is a full time MLBer.
-
I could see either way, but I want consistency. For example, I added Brandon Moss to the Yankees under a prospect contract through 2010. According to Ben, I shouldn't have done that and should have put him on a 1-year $500k deal. The difference between the deals is that Moss could now be dropped for free.
Now that I am thinking about it though, if we want to be more in tune with MLB, then a player released under a prospect contract that has started its clock would have to be given a MLB contract in the next deal.
-
For example, I added Brandon Moss to the Yankees under a prospect contract through 2010. According to Ben, I shouldn't have done that and should have put him on a 1-year $500k deal.
Yes, that is my interpretation.
Now that I am thinking about it though, if we want to be more in tune with MLB, then a player released under a prospect contract that has started its clock would have to be given a MLB contract in the next deal.
Again, this is in agreement with my interpretation.
I agree on the need for consistency, and we also need fairness. I'd suggest we make a decision on how this should be treated moving forward, and then if we decide to follow my interpretation then decide how to deal with existing contracts treated the other way separately (maybe we leave them as is?)
-
1) Leave existing prospect contracts the way they are
2) I'll update the wording in the rules to clearly say that to be eligible for a new prospect contract, the clock must not have started.
-
1) Leave existing prospect contracts the way they are
2) I'll update the wording in the rules to clearly say that to be eligible for a new prospect contract, the clock must not have started.
:iatp:
-
Can you split the non-Bard bidding out and move it to the RC for the rest of the members to discuss / vote?
-
Can you split the non-Bard bidding out and move it to the RC for the rest of the members to discuss / vote?
Consider it done my friend.
-
I'll confirm.
-
This was merely a confirmation of the rules. The legislation has been reviewed properly. :thumbsup: