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: rcankosy on June 23, 2010, 09:44:53 AM
-
Guys,
I was thinking about some of the big names whose contracts will expire after the 2010 season like Lincecum, Pujols, Fielder, and Hamilton. Unless I'm missing something, we have MAXIMUM lengths for contracts that are extended in the off-season, but we don't seem to have MINIMUM lengths. For example, the way the rules currently read, Pujols could be re-signed indefinitely to a series of 1 year contracts. That doesn't seem realistic, because the last big name free agent I can remember that signed multiple 1 year contracts was Roger Clemens, and he was constantly coming in and out of retirement. IF I haven't missed something in the current rules, I would propose something like the following in terms of MINIMUM contract lengths for free agents whose contracts expire in 2010:
20m+ 5 years
16-20 4 years
11-15 3 years
5-10 2 years
Roy
-
Guys,
I was thinking about some of the big names whose contracts will expire after the 2010 season like Lincecum, Pujols, Fielder, and Hamilton. Unless I'm missing something, we can MAXIMUM lengths for their contracts if their are extended in the off-season, but we don't seem to have MINIMUM lengths. For example, the way the rules currently read, Pujols could be re-signed indefinitely to a series of 1 year contracts. That doesn't seem realistic, because the last big name free agent I can remember that signed multiple 1 year contracts was Roger Clemens, and he was old. IF I haven't missed something in the current rules, I would propose something like the following in terms of MINIMUM contract lengths:
20m+ 5 years
16-20 4 years
11-15 3 years
5-10 2 years
Roy
I disagree with the premise of your argument. There are no CBA rules in the MLB, that I'm aware of, which require a minimum of years for a deal. It is most reasonable that the guys who get the big money get big deals, but thats supply and demand. However, if as a GM I give a guy a crazy deal for one year that should be my decision. I don't know but I can't see a minimum for years on a contract, it just limits the game in an unrealistic way.
-
We don't have true free agency, because we are allowed to extend our players whose contracts expire without them ever reaching the open market. Therefore, the law of supply and demand does not apply.
-
I can see where Roy is coming from on this one. Like most of the rules so far, we will have to adjust them a little to make them relevant in the fantasy world. Pujols doesn't simply sign a 1-yr deal. I believe Roy's chart isn't bad at all.
~MTK
-
I can see your point of view, opinion changed.
-
I thought about this before for the same reason. Contract extensions could be abused for the big names. Having a minimum and a maximum number of years per annual salary in contract extensions would be worthwhile. I support Roy's proposal for this upcoming off-season if others agree.
-
Well I agree, but my opinion doesn't hold a lot of weight lol
~MTK
-
Seems like a solid idea, but I want to clarify something:
Say I land a guy for $5m in free agency, but I only want him for one year. I know I could get him for 2 @ 2.5m, but say I'm making a playoff push and I have the cash to spend for a one and done. Cannot I do a 1 year, $5m contract then?
A way to skirt this could be to only allow minimums during the off-season, but that still doesn't stop a guy from resigning Pujols year-to-year, correct?
I know this won't happen often (signing a player for $5m+ for only 1 year), but it can very well come around often enough to warrant attention.
-
Seems like a solid idea, but I want to clarify something:
Say I land a guy for $5m in free agency, but I only want him for one year. I know I could get him for 2 @ 2.5m, but say I'm making a playoff push and I have the cash to spend for a one and done. Cannot I do a 1 year, $5m contract then?
A way to skirt this could be to only allow minimums during the off-season, but that still doesn't stop a guy from resigning Pujols year-to-year, correct?
I know this won't happen often (signing a player for $5m+ for only 1 year), but it can very well come around often enough to warrant attention.
Jake,
My understanding of this is that this is meant for re-signing/extending contracts of players so that they do not test the FA waters. Since you would be the winning bid in Free Agency, I don't think the same rules would apply.
~MTK
-
Jake,
My understanding of this is that this is meant for re-signing/extending contracts of players so that they do not test the FA waters. Since you would be the winning bid in Free Agency, I don't think the same rules would apply.
~MTK
Ah, gotcha Aubrey. Then that makes my clarificatiion moot. Seems like a good idea as is then.
-
Ah, gotcha Aubrey. Then that makes my clarificatiion moot. Seems like a good idea as is then.
The subject title threw you off. I changed it to reflect that the minimum length is only there for extensions.
-
Guys,
I was thinking about some of the big names whose contracts will expire after the 2010 season like Lincecum, Pujols, Fielder, and Hamilton. Unless I'm missing something, we have MAXIMUM lengths for contracts that are extended in the off-season, but we don't seem to have MINIMUM lengths. For example, the way the rules currently read, Pujols could be re-signed indefinitely to a series of 1 year contracts. That doesn't seem realistic, because the last big name free agent I can remember that signed multiple 1 year contracts was Roger Clemens, and he was constantly coming in and out of retirement. IF I haven't missed something in the current rules, I would propose something like the following in terms of MINIMUM contract lengths for free agents whose contracts expire in 2010:
20m+ 5 years
16-20 4 years
11-15 3 years
5-10 2 years
Roy
I agree with you on the premise, numbers seem okay at first glance.
I thought about this before for the same reason. Contract extensions could be abused for the big names. Having a minimum and a maximum number of years per annual salary in contract extensions would be worthwhile. I support Roy's proposal for this upcoming off-season if others agree.
I'm not sure I agree on implementing this for next season - I for one was certainly considering extending some of my big names on shorter contracts, so is it fair to change those rules now? Maybe it is, but I think when this rule is implemented should be part of the discussion.
-
Well my opinion on the matter of when to implement the rule is this: In previous rules we have decided to "grandfather" them in because they are what I call "in-season rules" or rules that would have an immediate effect on this season. However this is more of an "off-season" rule so I feel as if half a season is plenty of time to read through and understand this rule. In previous rules, there has been a "gray area" as far as players go such as the FA rule that was recently passed which made a case for players to "grandfathered" in. However I believe their isn't a gray area in this rule. I say that this rule should be implemented at the beginning of this upcoming off-season which would allow GMs to sign players to extensions in-season before this rule went into effect. Case in point, Ryan Howard didn't sign a 1-yr deal this yr, in fact like Roy said; no superstar has signed a 1-yr deal in recent memory except for Roger Clemens who kinda pulled a Bret Farve and fell under special circumstances.
~MTK
-
I would like to add that in today's game, offering a 1-yr deal to a franchise player would be interpreted as a slap in the face and would more than likely anger the player and make them more likely to look at other offers and/or raise their asking price...
~MTK
-
It may be fair to put this rule in place starting next season (i.e. when OFA starts in January).
-
It may be fair to put this rule in place starting next season (i.e. when OFA starts in January).
Well I'm on Roy's side and believe that would just allow more time to abuse the system. If this is not in effect, when I go to resign Martin Prado this offseason, then he will more than likely be signed to a 1yr deal and I'll take my chances next yr.
~MTK
-
Well I'm on Roy's side and believe that would just allow more time to abuse the system. If this is not in effect, when I go to resign Martin Prado this offseason, then he will more than likely be signed to a 1yr deal and I'll take my chances next yr.
~MTK
Well that's kind of the idea - I was already planning on re-signing some of my top players to 1-year deals, and have had that in mind for some time now. If we are not allowed to re-sign a player after our 2010 contracts have ended (aka cap space freed up) on a 1-year deal, then this may have significantly changed my plans (I don't have the cap space to do it until after then, so I can't just decide to do it today instead).
I agree that the current rules should be amended, and I will not ask for an exception just for my team... but I do realize that putting this rule into affect this off-season will negatively affect my plans and so I raise the point in case it will also affect other teams. If we do chose to implement this for the 2010 off-season, it will not be grandfathered in as other potentially impacting rules have been.
-
Well that's kind of the idea - I was already planning on re-signing some of my top players to 1-year deals, and have had that in mind for some time now. If we are not allowed to re-sign a player after our 2010 contracts have ended (aka cap space freed up) on a 1-year deal, then this may have significantly changed my plans (I don't have the cap space to do it until after then, so I can't just decide to do it today instead).
I agree that the current rules should be amended, and I will not ask for an exception just for my team... but I do realize that putting this rule into affect this off-season will negatively affect my plans and so I raise the point in case it will also affect other teams. If we do chose to implement this for the 2010 off-season, it will not be grandfathered in as other potentially impacting rules have been.
It is also worth noting that this is not a new realization of a 'loop-hole', as the rule was used in this way during the 2009 off-season. For example, I re-signed Ethier to a 1-year deal: $14.5m (2010), now on the White Sox.
-
Guys,
Since the 2010 free agent class appears to be rich with talent, I would NOT be in favor of delaying the implementation of this rule. Also, we should try to make a decison on this prior to the trade deadline to allow owners the opportunity to move players that they do not plan on re-signing.
-
I do love your guys agreement, but he does have a excellent argueement. Ben probably had this in mind for some time now. I think this rule should be passed, but I feel Ben's pain! I agree to pass this rule.
-
Guys,
Since the 2010 free agent class appears to be rich with talent, I would NOT be in favor of delaying the implementation of this rule. Also, we should try to make a decison on this prior to the trade deadline to allow owners the opportunity to move players that they do not plan on re-signing.
If we delay the rule, affected players are resigned to 1-year deals, and then next season this is no longer allowed - it is not like this free agent class will slip through the cracks permanently, they will be exposed to the new rule as soon as it is in place, regardless of when it is put into place.
-
If we delay the rule, affected players are resigned to 1-year deals, and then next season this is no longer allowed - it is not like this free agent class will slip through the cracks permanently, they will be exposed to the new rule as soon as it is in place, regardless of when it is put into place.
If I really am the only affected team then so-be-it, put the rule in place. If others are also going to be negatively affected if we don't grandfather this in (as we have with other rules), then maybe we should discuss a compromise (ex: each team can use this on 1 or 2 players max, etc.)
-
It seems as if we need some others to weigh in on this since it's a fairly large issue. I would be open to compromising on prospect contracts that are expriring like Hamilton and Lincecum, because they were not eligible for the new rule on extending prospects (their contracts expired this year). However, I would not like to make an exception for vets like Pujols.
-
Yeah, I can see someone getting shafted either way. I think this may be an issue where you can't please everyone. I will be ok with it either way b/c if this rule is delayed, then I will benefit. However I feel as if the right thing to do is to put into effect this off-season.
~MTK
-
Yeah, I can see someone getting shafted either way. I think this may be an issue where you can't please everyone. I will be ok with it either way b/c if this rule is delayed, then I will benefit. However I feel as if the right thing to do is to put into effect this off-season.
~MTK
We could always put a rule like this in place at the trade deadline. It gives teams some time to see if they want to give out the short extensions or not.
-
Yeh that is a good idea Colby. I think the fact of the matter is that there isn't one time that is convenient for everyone. The best thing to do is to, go ahead and set the rule in place sooner rather than later and just let everyone adjust and get used to it. I will be hit just as hard as anyone else since I have Prado and Dunn.
~MTK
-
Yeh that is a good idea Colby. I think the fact of the matter is that there isn't one time that is convenient for everyone. The best thing to do is to, go ahead and set the rule in place sooner rather than later and just let everyone adjust and get used to it. I will be hit just as hard as anyone else since I have Prado and Dunn.
~MTK
The issue here is that's the opposite thinking of all other rules we have passed - we have purposefully put them out far enough such that they will not impact anyone's immediate plans.
I really want to hear more on the argument for why this rule should not be grandfathered in (meaning we complete the phase of this season that it will affect before it is put into place)... Roy's argument is that allowing owners to do this again this off-season will let big names be re-signed for 1-year, but I'm still not sure I understand why that is an emergency, or why this wasn't an issue when used last year.
-
The issue here is that's the opposite thinking of all other rules we have passed - we have purposefully put them out far enough such that they will not impact anyone's immediate plans.
I really want to hear more on the argument for why this rule should not be grandfathered in (meaning we complete the phase of this season that it will affect before it is put into place)... Roy's argument is that allowing owners to do this again this off-season will let big names be re-signed for 1-year, but I'm still not sure I understand why that is an emergency, or why this wasn't an issue when used last year.
Ben makes a point stating that implementing a rule immediately after it has been approved hasn't been typical protocol with the league. However, we HAVE still approved a couple rules that were effective right after approval (the 60 day hold on players, the latest being, keeping bonuses with original teams, etc.). While this ruling probably affects Ben's team moreso than others, it will probably affect every mid market to large market team, as well as a couple small market ones.
I feel that this is a very important rule to have, as the argument that top players signing 1 year contracts constantly is very unrealistic. With that said, I would recommend a compromise of some sort, as some(many?) teams might have planned this strategy, and this would change their format dramatically. I'd recommend that the 1 year rule be allowed until the trade deadline this season. If a team plans on making an extension, then they should do it now, with 2008 stats included.
By allowing the extensions to actually be made (instead of immediately illegal), this gives those teams with those plans for 1 year deals to do them, at the cost of using 2008 stats (which might increase values to some players) AND having to make the extension prior to the end of the season.
To me, this might be a decent compromise...I fully support this rule, but we have no idea how many teams were wanting to use this strategy for next year.
-
The issue is that many of the cases where teams are looking to re-sign big-name players will not be able to do so until the season ends, and the 2010 expiring contracts and bonus money is removed from the cap (as we move on to 2011). That is my biggest issue with putting this in before the start of the 2010 off-season.
-
Ben makes a point stating that implementing a rule immediately after it has been approved hasn't been typical protocol with the league. However, we HAVE still approved a couple rules that were effective right after approval (the 60 day hold on players, the latest being, keeping bonuses with original teams, etc.). While this ruling probably affects Ben's team moreso than others, it will probably affect every mid market to large market team, as well as a couple small market ones.
I feel that this is a very important rule to have, as the argument that top players signing 1 year contracts constantly is very unrealistic. With that said, I would recommend a compromise of some sort, as some(many?) teams might have planned this strategy, and this would change their format dramatically. I'd recommend that the 1 year rule be allowed until the trade deadline this season. If a team plans on making an extension, then they should do it now, with 2008 stats included.
By allowing the extensions to actually be made (instead of immediately illegal), this gives those teams with those plans for 1 year deals to do them, at the cost of using 2008 stats (which might increase values to some players) AND having to make the extension prior to the end of the season.
To me, this might be a decent compromise...I fully support this rule, but we have no idea how many teams were wanting to use this strategy for next year.
Well said, Jake. I think I will be one of the harder hit teams since I have Dunn and Prado. However, I see the reason for this rule and believe it is necessary.
~MTK
-
I like the rule, good job Roy. I have Lind and Hamilton coming up for big paydays so it isn't like I am unaffected by it if it is grandfathered in. Would it be worth considering home town discounts for the resigning teams? Say a players value is 20 mil on Fantrax. Would a player give his home town team a 10% discount in order to stay there? I guess in real life it depends on the player, or the agent, but I think that is something we should consider. I also think this rule should go into effect as soon as it is passed, if it is passed. But then again, I am not on the RC, just voicing my opinion.
I agree that is we have a max, we should have a minimum, it adds to the strategy of building our teams. I also feel Ben's pain here because I would have never traded for Lind if I had to give him more than a year, given that 2009 was his coming out party. I guess 2010 was his going back in party. Moral of the story is that every team will have to deal with upcoming large contracts, so this will effect everyone.
-
I agree that is we have a max, we should have a minimum, it adds to the strategy of building our teams. I also feel Ben's pain here because I would have never traded for Lind if I had to give him more than a year, given that 2009 was his coming out party. I guess 2010 was his going back in party. Moral of the story is that every team will have to deal with upcoming large contracts, so this will effect everyone.
But why do we need to feel the pain? I'm still looking for an answer...
- Note Ben, I hit the wrong button, hence this post reads modified -
-
But why do we need to feel the pain? I'm still looking for an answer...
- Note Ben, I hit the wrong button, hence this post reads modified -
Because we emulate MLB in every other way, or at least the best we can. This rule proposal makes a tremendous amount of sense. I think the reason to have a minimum, is the same reason we have a maximum. If I were a real life GM and I offered Hamilton a 1 year deal, he would take his cleats and spike me in Mr. Bojangles for insulting him. Most mid level players wouldn't except a one year deal unless they were at the end of their career. And since this league is still in its fledgling stages some rules are created on the run, as we have seen before, especially if they add to the league for the better, as I feel this one does. If real life GMs could string guys along year to year, they would be doing the happy dance all the time.
-
But why do we need to feel the pain? I'm still looking for an answer...
I feel this rule should be implemented because it is a very unrealistic premise. Signing top players to one year deals just doesn't happen in the MLB. The same that we are not allowed to sign a player for 10 years, it just does not happen in the majors (except A. Rodriguez, but that can be related to Clemens' or Pedro's 1 year deals).
-
To clarify - I completely agree with the rule. My questions is why do we need to put it in place immediately, when this is against our track record unless it puts the league in jeopardy - is that really the case here?
-
For the record, I will note vote against this being put in place if that's what everyone else things is best - I just still haven't heard the argument for why this is an emergency.
-
To clarify - I completely agree with the rule. My questions is why do we need to put it in place immediately, when this is against our track record unless it puts the league in jeopardy - is that really the case here?
What is the justification for putting this rule into place before the 2010 off-season, when this is against our policies for rolling out rules.
Ah, gotcha...I feel that it should implemented in a timely manner because the rules as is could be very beneficial to a team with many of these players, to the point where it gives a distinct advantage. Even for one year, we shouldn't allow teams to have a sizeable advantage. Teams with many of these players will be unbelievably flexible for the 2011 season, since all of their names will only be (possibly) signed to 1 year deals.
Theoretically, the new Yankees GM could come in, extend Vlad, D. Lee, and Mariano to one year deals, and have no issues in 2012 by signing them the year before. To me, those three names really shouldn't come with a simple one year deal. Even though Vlad signed a one year deal this year in real life, there's an option for 2011, and since we don't have options, it could be seen as a multi year deal. Mariano may be headed for retirement, but these are things that we can't predict, all we have are statistical facts.
Point being, if something like my idea were to come into play, a big market team could come into the 2011 season with many all stars signed to one year deals, then have absolutely nothing on the books for them in 2012. In theory, a one and done team, which isn't, in my opinion, in the best interest of the league.
Having zero liablility for these players just doesn't seem like a good idea.
-
I'm going to concede on this one, it does not sound like anyone else thinks it is a good idea to delay putting this rule into place. With that said, I vote YES on the rule, and will defer to the rest of the RC on when it is put into place (if that's either immediately or as soon as the season ends, then so be it).
:iatp:
-
Ben makes a point stating that implementing a rule immediately after it has been approved hasn't been typical protocol with the league. However, we HAVE still approved a couple rules that were effective right after approval (the 60 day hold on players, the latest being, keeping bonuses with original teams, etc.). While this ruling probably affects Ben's team moreso than others, it will probably affect every mid market to large market team, as well as a couple small market ones.
I feel that this is a very important rule to have, as the argument that top players signing 1 year contracts constantly is very unrealistic. With that said, I would recommend a compromise of some sort, as some(many?) teams might have planned this strategy, and this would change their format dramatically. I'd recommend that the 1 year rule be allowed until the trade deadline this season. If a team plans on making an extension, then they should do it now, with 2008 stats included.
By allowing the extensions to actually be made (instead of immediately illegal), this gives those teams with those plans for 1 year deals to do them, at the cost of using 2008 stats (which might increase values to some players) AND having to make the extension prior to the end of the season.
To me, this might be a decent compromise...I fully support this rule, but we have no idea how many teams were wanting to use this strategy for next year.
I have the same thoughts as Jake here. I havent chimed in much, but have read every single posting. I do see a need in this rule, but I dont know when to start this rule. This rule will make it more realistic. But what would be the guidelines for this rule and etc.?
-
I have the same thoughts as Jake here. I havent chimed in much, but have read every single posting. I do see a need in this rule, but I dont know when to start this rule. This rule will make it more realistic. But what would be the guidelines for this rule and etc.?
The guidelines are simple... a minimum contract length is put in for extensions (not free agent contracts):
20m+ 5 years
16-20 4 years
11-15 3 years
5-10 2 years
I would say, to be fair, it should go in at the trade deadline. This gives GMs some time to consider their options under the original rules for contract extensions.
:iatp: BTW
-
I will support Colby's proposition of implementing it at the trade deadline. While extending players this early isn't on a lot of team's strategies, this gives them at least SOME time to make moves if they so choose to be able to extend these players, rather than not giving them the option to do so whatsoever (as this could have been on many teams' agendas prior to the ruling).
-
I will support Colby's proposition of implementing it at the trade deadline. While extending players this early isn't on a lot of team's strategies, this gives them at least SOME time to make moves if they so choose to be able to extend these players, rather than not giving them the option to do so whatsoever (as this could have been on many teams' agendas prior to the ruling).
I 2nd it.....
-
:iatp:
-
It appears that we have everyone on board with the final proposal that Roy initiated.
:judge:
Excellent work gentlemen.
-
It appears that we have everyone on board with the final proposal that Roy initiated.
:judge:
Excellent work gentlemen.
When will this be posted?