ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: ldsjayhawk on January 05, 2023, 02:09:18 PM
-
Our free agency pool has diminished over the last few years. More players are being signed to extensions causing this decrease. I believe free agency is an important part of building a team and the pool needs to reflect that. As a result, I am proposing we retire the 70% extension rule in this league. A player could not be signed to an extension for less than the previous season's salary. I believe many of the players in this category would then find their way to free agency, thereby making a more robust free agent pool.
-
I'd be interested to see how many of these extensions actually take place each year. I think that they are likely few and far between and almost all apply to aging veterans that are still way overpaid, even if they extension is given. While it may add a few aging vets to the free agent pool, I would venture to guess it may result in bad overpriced contracts being given out, for players that end up retired and being dead money on rosters.
-
When I have a few minutes, I'll take a look and post those from this past extension period.
-
Don't worry about it, I just did some quick looking and many more already than I thought.
I do still think they're mostly aging stars, but it would make for more difficult decisions. Maybe some sort of qualifier based on age? 38 or older you can resign at 70% but younger than that and you can't?
-
Maybe there is a better way to do it in general too. I am certainly open to that. The reason I looked at this rule is that players who were taking a salary decrease will almost certainly do that after going through free agency.
-
This is the worst rule in FGM and will not be missed if it is discarded. It is rarely used and then only in desperation.
-
I wont miss if rule is gone
-
Agree
-
I like the concept but feel like there needs to be some sort of age-based exception like Ryan mentioned above, where the 70% exception only applies for guys above age x, where x is like 33 or something. Otherwise it's hard to keep aging vets.
-
Like this idea, but needs to be flushed out more. Doesn't have to be very confusing, but age/performance should definitely play a factor.
-
It occurred to me that there should be further discussion on this proposed change.
- Should players with extension values lower than their current salary be eligible for an extension at their current salary or should they not be eligible for an extension?
- Should their be an exception for older players to be able to be extended for a lower value?
- Should a more comprehensive discussion about extensions be had?
I am tabling a vote on this rule until we can get further discussion.
My personal opinion is that we let the market set the values for these players as it would in MLB and there shouldn't be an exception for older players.
-
Not in favor of changing the rule.
-
I really think that if a player is up for an extension he should be paid at least what he was the year before or not able to be extended I would make the rule if someone wanted to extend a player and he was willing to pay him what he made the year before he should be able to extend the player though.