1441
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Blake DeWitt
« on: January 15, 2010, 01:09:56 AM »
Jays offer 1 million
January 15, 2010, 12:09:56 AM
January 15, 2010, 12:09:56 AM
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. 1441
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Blake DeWitt« on: January 15, 2010, 01:09:56 AM »
Jays offer 1 million
January 15, 2010, 12:09:56 AM 1442
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Adam Heether« on: January 15, 2010, 01:09:13 AM »
Jays offer a prospect contract
January 15, 2010, 12:09:13 AM 1443
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Casey Kotchman« on: January 15, 2010, 01:07:04 AM »
The Jays offer 2 million
January 15, 2010, 12:07:04 AM 1444
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Rusty Ryal« on: January 15, 2010, 01:06:12 AM »
The Jays offer a prospect contract
January 15, 2010, 12:06:12 AM 1445
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Brian Dopirak« on: January 15, 2010, 01:05:27 AM »
The Jays offer a prospect contract
January 15, 2010, 12:05:27 AM 1446
Franchise GM: Completed Transactions / Re: D'Backs and Blue Jays trade« on: January 13, 2010, 10:54:59 PM »
I agree to this. Halladay was going to become very expensive after this season, so I thought I'd capitalize on his value sooner rather than later.
Scherzer is a personal favorite and the perfect cheap replacement I needed. Uggla should help me fill the gaping hole in my MI and Bloomquist and Ojeda give my lineup some much needed depth. Now the Jays are finally ready for the start of FA. Luckily, Roy can't veto this trade lol. He's not very fond of west coast teams. 1447
Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits / Re: FA bidding« on: January 12, 2010, 06:51:40 PM »
Ok I understand, could I propose a small add-on to this rule? Any contract of a higher length has to be worth more than 50 percent the per annum value of the shorter contract. This will not influence a jump on years from 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4 or 4 to 5. But it will limit the damage when increasing 3 or 4 years length at once.
Example x team proposes a 2 year at 20mil per year. y team proposes a 5 year at 8.5 mil per year. The first bid would prevail over the second one even when total dollar value of the second is slightly over the first offer. y team would have to bid at least a 4 year 10.5 mil to get the best bargain. I know this only takes us a tad closer to reality and I would prefer to set the bar a bit higher maybe 70 percent instead of 50 percent, but for simplicity's sake 50 should do the trick. 1448
Franchise GM: Invalid Transactions / Re: Old Trading Blocks« on: January 12, 2010, 06:19:32 PM »
Hey again. You need a frontline arm so I guess I'll offer Halladay. But I may have a deal in place for him already so it's just like testing the waters. See if you are interested.
1449
Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits / Re: Contract Extentions w/ a player that has a contract« on: January 12, 2010, 06:02:51 PM »
This extentions also require that the ranking be looked up, right?
1450
Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits / Re: FA bidding« on: January 12, 2010, 12:48:21 PM »
I have to say I don't like the total dollars reasoning. This way short term offers are almost impossible to pass and it becomes a bit unrealistic. A player will always go for a 1 year 21 million offer over a 5 year offer at 4.5mil per year. It's 4 years more of work and only 1.5 mil more guaranteed. Total dollars only makes sense when offers are of a similar value, but sometimes someone is willing to overpay big in the present to avoid burdening the team in the future.
I would prefer to keep it as it is than to do this change, but what would be even better is the valuation scale. Maybe 90% against 130% was too steep when going up and down but 90% against 120% should fix that. |
|