|
Post by Commish on Nov 13, 2020 10:19:58 GMT -5
Since this came up this offseason, just making an official league vote since we didn't account for it in our initial rule. This would take effect next offseason.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM on Nov 13, 2020 10:40:15 GMT -5
I believe this was brought up as purposeful targeting. I want clarification. When do they need that space? In my opinion, then they should need to have the space at the end of FA since that's when they get the player.
So not on board with this as teams have been built around the rules, and now they are changing without a potential grace period. Not cool at all.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM on Nov 13, 2020 10:44:15 GMT -5
Plus I'll add that this favors large market teams... one more reason why it'll be tougher to keep sustainer success as a small market team. Let's level that out too while we're at it. IMO, teams should have the same stadium capacity.
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM on Nov 13, 2020 11:11:32 GMT -5
I think the entire compensation system is overly problematic.
#1) the OOTP 6.5 engine already organically restricts the FA pool due to overly friendly extension terms #2) whether a team intends to keep the player or not, the extension can be leveraged for trade value since there are no trade restrictions on extensions further diluting the FA pool #3) of the players that happen to reach FA (think 30+) almost everyone of any use is tied to A/B/C compensation meaning.... #4) you have to sacrifice picks for anything remotely useful and even if you're willing you can only sign two if you want to go "all-in" which brings us to #5) there is no financial accountability to offer compensation so if you are unable to afford an extension you can simply leverage points #4/5 above to likely get the player back anyway. It's a self defeating system that restricts competition and parity.
My solutions?
1) Contract extensions should return to having some sort of NTC conditions (this was why this existed to begin with). 2) Abolish Type C compensation - these guys should not be returning material value to losing clubs and not cost signing clubs anything. 3) You must have the financial capacity to offer compensation at the time of the withdraw closing.
I think the above would go a long way. You shouldn't see 80%+ of comp. players returning to their original clubs.
Furthermore, I'd love to see the removal of the restrictions of signing only two players. I realize though that gets tricky with available picks etc. You could always reward FA activity by encouraging competition by returning picks under the current system but alter the picks sacrificed. I always found the whole concept of sacrificing value to make your club better counter productive.
Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who has sacrificed picks as a clearly rebuilding club to improve the fringes and has also sold considerable talent for newly extended players simply because that's the only way to add any real value other than the draft.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM on Nov 13, 2020 11:14:49 GMT -5
I literally just unloaded my depth for Bonds. Now I will lose him for nothing. No team can offer Bonds arbitration making him untradable. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSoxGM on Nov 13, 2020 11:16:36 GMT -5
I'd have more sympathy if you weren't blatantly exploiting the system including suppressing service time by demoting qualified players to avoid FA (Sosa).
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM on Nov 13, 2020 11:17:17 GMT -5
Like I said, this was a targeted rule.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Nov 13, 2020 12:48:37 GMT -5
We can definitely discuss the issue and have a potential grace period because it obviously affects the Padres in the immediate future who was working under previous rules when dealing.
What if it were just as simple as compensatory picks are still on the table but if the player goes unsigned, the team just wouldn't be able to add him back because of the payroll concern?
So like in Harvey's case, if he had been signed the Pads would still have gotten the picks but since he went unsigned, he just becomes an unrestricted free agent? Just spit-balling.
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Nov 13, 2020 12:56:48 GMT -5
I can see White Sox points about the Type C guys and restrictions
|
|
|
Post by ExposGM on Nov 13, 2020 13:05:49 GMT -5
I have minimal knowledge of mlb (still), but I like the idea of actually using your (extensions) cash on arby deals. By that I mean if you don't have enough, you can't submit the arby deal.
|
|
|
Post by AsGM on Nov 13, 2020 15:08:37 GMT -5
I agree teams should have the cash available before offering Arby but we should consider the bank total in calculating whether or not a team can actually afford offering arbitration. I took back Cone at $24 mil but I can easily afford it as I have $50+ mil in the bank. What’s should be avoided is allowing arby FA’s to go back to teams in the red.
I’m also ok with getting rid of type C as well.
|
|
|
Post by BravesGM on Nov 13, 2020 15:21:10 GMT -5
Yea bank should matter in this equation... and SD can also trade for cash or move salary around to make it work still...
I traded Sosa cheaper than his value because he was an FA and I was worried about resigning... SD gammed the system to get a free year out of him... so any complaints he has are pretty meaningless to me... but just one person's opinion. (He also did that with Leiter too).
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Nov 13, 2020 15:49:05 GMT -5
Rule amendments are frequently targeted at curbing and correcting bad faith conduct. BlueJaysGM, you are intentionally exploiting loopholes in the game engine, as well as the compensation system (by dealing all your picks away ahead of time, which MLB doesn't allow for this very reason, but we do because it makes the league more fun) in order to gain an unfair advantage over the rest of us. So, this is obviously targeted at you, but justifiably so. I'm fine having a discussion about this and a grace period on implementation, but you don't have much standing to play the victim.
|
|
|
Post by CubsGM on Nov 13, 2020 21:27:49 GMT -5
I don’t have much to add to the conversation. I’m torn. I never like to penalize someone who studies the game and knows it well enough to use it to his advantage.
I’m more concerned with the lack of activity forcing a couple lopsided trades to the advantage of both the Padres and Mariners. (Clemens, Smoltz, Brown and Sosa)
With that said, this league is regular and very well run.
I definitely think the bank should be included and I’d even let a GM go into the red for one year only. In that year, he better initiate a rebuild and trade his stars even if they are arby eligible, or make his playoff run knowing he can’t afford to offer arbitration to a player and knowing he will lose that player.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Nov 14, 2020 11:12:40 GMT -5
I don’t have much to add to the conversation. I’m torn. I never like to penalize someone who studies the game and knows it well enough to use it to his advantage. I’m more concerned with the lack of activity forcing a couple lopsided trades to the advantage of both the Padres and Mariners. (Clemens, Smoltz, Brown and Sosa) While it's undeniable that it's a buyer's market, the league's integrity is hardly challenged by well-reasoned, non-collusive trades, even if you don't like how the market values certain types of players. And studying the game is one thing, but intentionally exploiting loopholes/bugs in a game made decades ago that doesn't have ongoing support to correct them is another. Going back and looking at some of those deals you mentioned, I don't think they're as lopsided as you may remember (despite what Cameron would have you believe ). In the Clemens deal, for example, Wakefield, Anderson, and Abreu certainly seem like pretty valuable assets right now and Clemens's obscene salary for most of his time in Seattle degrades his overall value. The Sosa deal was trash though, you got me there
|
|