|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Jan 24, 2021 11:29:49 GMT -8
Oh and also really like Wood's concept and prefer it to QOs.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 24, 2021 12:04:17 GMT -8
I agree on the retained salaries being way too high. I’m not sure how soon we could implement a change to this though since some teams are way above our previous limit.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 24, 2021 12:12:47 GMT -8
Yeah that's probably the change I regret the most. I think we could scale it back to $25 MM limit over the next couple of years pretty easily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 15:21:39 GMT -8
I am 1 of the current users of the entire 50 million and I agree its too high. Since ive taken over my team ive eaten 60 million in retained salary on just 1 guy the previous owner traded. If the limit were lower, deals like that would be considered more harshly again. All my retained money is off the books after 2021 though. I think phasing it back down 10 million per year until we are at 25-30 million or whatever is deemed most fair and fun. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays (Mark) on Jan 25, 2021 7:47:33 GMT -8
I like the ideas in general. If we go the Franchise Tag route, I would caution that 2 per year might be too much. Imagine a manager handing out 2 4-year franchise extensions per year, he could end up with 8 players on franchise tags. That will serve to keep the strong teams strong, and reduce the opportunity for weaker teams to improve.
I would suggest a maximum of 2-4 active franchise tags at a time. So if you extend a shorter contract with one of your tags, that tag becomes available to you at the end of the contract.
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Jan 25, 2021 10:53:16 GMT -8
I dont think Rays suggestions are helpful to trying to limit dump-type trades. If contracts can be extended further it makes owners more likely to hold onto premium players longer.
As I said before I think we should consider Woods' suggestion re how to determine extended player's salaries and the years contract can be extended for 3-5 years. I know this would create more work for someone, but it would be equitable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2021 11:27:08 GMT -8
The league that system comes from employs a maximum of 4 of those re-signs on the roster, with a one year no trade clause built into the first year, as well as you're limited to 2 re-signs a year. You can always set the parameters of the limits within the constitution to prevent that type of stockpiling. Personally I think 2 and 4 is a bit much myself and think 1 and 2 is a nice balance to keep healthy FA and still have some cohesion options to build your roster. Also you have to consider that league is hardlocked at 100m cap and has 28 teams so those numbers would have to be adjusted anyway to properly reflect the market here. There's no reason you should only be paying 14M a year for Trout in this league, ever unless he's 50. I assume Curtis makes runs the code for the equations we already use, I don't know how easy it is to scrape fantrax scores into excel though, otherwise the equation would be automatically processed in the cell with a manual input like we use for the FA calculator.
The other major hurdle to clear would be in the case of how to deal with Player options, as that league has no options. Would you treat a declined Player Option as an expired contract, or just an treat him as an automatic free agent wanting to test the market so you lose your chance at re-signing if the player declines his option. Logistically any tag system implemented would not work as a 1 for 1 fix and would have be adjusted and tweaked in order to work for this league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2021 3:25:18 GMT -8
So, had a bit of a weird night ended up doing an extremely amateur version of a manual input table, conceivably that could be used any member to determine re-sign values of contracts. Raised the Max contract of Position players to 20M, 18M for starters and 14 for Relievers I think, dropped the 25 percent old age discount, just because by that point I was a little mathed out. Again I'm not trying to push for any system I was just bored and did a little mock up that has to be refined and simplified even further if need be because there was a concern about difficulty of managing the process clerically. Basically input the Fantrax scores of the last 3 years, select the position, and then take the final re-sign value and determine how many years you'd like that contract to be.
I have a copy in case the red squares get edited.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 29, 2021 8:33:11 GMT -8
Here's a draft of how QO, Franchise Tags, Retained Salary, and a proposed MiLFA lottery might look. Personally I think QOs are a little much, and we might be happy with Franchise Tags alone as a way to retain our stud players. The MiLFA lottery is mainly for discussion, I know it hasn't been as overwhelmingly positive as the other proposals but I love the consolation bracket idea so wanted to see how it might shake out.
Qualifying Offers and Franchise Tags During the offseason as part of the typical offseason transactions window (typically closing December 31st) each team may elect to extend a Qualifying Offer or place a Franchise Tag on any owned players with expiring contracts, e.g. impending free agents. A player with an accepted team or player option does not qualify as he is not a pending free agent, but a player with a rejected team or player option does qualify.
A Qualifying Offer is a one-year $25 MM contract, both 50 bid points per the Free Agent calculator, that can be offered to any number of players subject to the offering team’s salary cap restrictions. The player is available to be posted in offseason free agency as normal and is acknowledged as having being extended a QO. If the final bidding does not exceed 50 bid points, the player is awarded to the team who extended the QO. If final bidding does exceed 50 bid points, the player is awarded to the highest bidder as typical, and the team extending the QO is awarded a Compensation Round AMAT pick (occurring after the 1st round and prior to the 2nd). Compensation Round picks are seeded according to the prior year’s winning percentage.
Instead of a QO, teams may extend Franchise Tags, conditional upon a maximum of 4 franchise-tagged players on a roster at any time. The annual contract value of a Franchise Tag contract will be determined by the last 3 seasons of earned auction values as determined by the same Rotowire.com earned value calculator as used in the JBL’s arbitration process. This tool converts the fantasy category contributions of each player into relative fantasy value, adjusted for the JBL’s total monetary supply. These values will be uploaded to the league spreadsheet in early November by the Commissioner for the league to view and consider in the franchise tag process. After the annual contract value is determined, the owner may specify a 1-5 year contract duration, with no options allowed.
An expiring Franchise Tag may be re-applied upon tag expiration.
Offseason Trading Window Restrictions In order to prevent QO and Franchise Tag candidates from being traded after the regular season, offseason trading will be closed until January 1st each season.
Retained Salary Obligation Reduction: Following the 2021 season, the Retained Salary Obligation will be reduced from $50 MM maximum to $35 MM maximum. Following the 2022 season, it will be further reduced to $25 MM.
MiLFA Draft Lottery Starting in the 2022 season, the MiLFA draft order will be in part determined by lottery process. The 8 teams finishing outside the playoffs (regular season seeds 9-16) will be seeded into a consolation bracket, with seeding by winning percentage in the same manner as the traditional playoff bracket. Matchups will mirror the traditional playoff bracket with head to head weekly matchups, and the final round composed of two weeks. Lottery entries will be assigned as following for the consolation bracket participants: Round 1 loser: 2 Round 2 loser: 4 Round 3 (final) loser: 6 Bracket winner: 8 24th place finish: 8 23rd place finish: 8 22nd place finish: 6 21st place finish: 6 20th place finish: 4 19th place finish: 4 18th place finish: 2 17th place finish: 2 These entries will determine probability for early-round seeding in the same manner as the NBA draft lottery, with lottery drawing to be held through a website like DraftPickLottery.com. Playoff teams do not participate in the lottery and are instead seeded in the inverse of their regular season winning percentage for draft slots 17-24.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 29, 2021 9:46:32 GMT -8
I like all the changes. Just a couple of questions.
1. Can a qualifying officer be given to the same player in multiple years?
2. Can a team have only 4 franchise players of his own doing or 4 total? Ex: If I have Seager, Yelich, Darvish and Buehler all on franchise tags of my own, can I still trade for Mike Trout, who is on a franchise tag from Toronto?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 12:22:22 GMT -8
I like all the changes. Just a couple of questions. 1. Can a qualifying officer be given to the same player in multiple years? 2. Can a team have only 4 franchise players of his own doing or 4 total? Ex: If I have Seager, Yelich, Darvish and Buehler all on franchise tags of my own, can I still trade for Mike Trout, who is on a franchise tag from Toronto? Looks like 4 total on any roster at a time.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 29, 2021 12:33:15 GMT -8
I like all the changes. Just a couple of questions. 1. Can a qualifying officer be given to the same player in multiple years? 2. Can a team have only 4 franchise players of his own doing or 4 total? Ex: If I have Seager, Yelich, Darvish and Buehler all on franchise tags of my own, can I still trade for Mike Trout, who is on a franchise tag from Toronto? Looks like 4 total on any roster at a time. If that’s true, it’s going to make star players nearly impossible to trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2021 12:49:22 GMT -8
I absolutely love these proposals. All of them. Cant decide whether i like the QO or franchise option better. Could we do both? If we did both I would suggest dropping the franchise guys to 2 or 3 maximum. Good work Curtis and others that helped.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 29, 2021 14:47:23 GMT -8
I did some math on the QO option and I think it’s going to be way too easy to get the extra draft pick and almost impossible to keep a player with the QO option. A player would only have to be offered $8,000,000 for 5 years to beat the QO.
It would be to easy to offer a QO to an average player, like Julio Urias, who I would never pay $25 mil a year for, but be confident I would get a compensation pick, because there is no doubt someone would give him $8 mil for 5 years.
I think we may need to tweak that somehow or we are going to have about 50 picks each year in the compensation round.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 29, 2021 16:01:20 GMT -8
I did some math on the QO option and I think it’s going to be way too easy to get the extra draft pick and almost impossible to keep a player with the QO option. A player would only have to be offered $8,000,000 for 5 years to beat the QO. It would be to easy to offer a QO to an average player, like Julio Urias, who I would never pay $25 mil a year for, but be confident I would get a compensation pick, because there is no doubt someone would give him $8 mil for 5 years. I think we may need to tweak that somehow or we are going to have about 50 picks each year in the compensation round. Thanks for doing the math on this. One thing I've struggled with is capturing the "opportunity cost" of JBL contracts in the bid calculator. This proposal obviously needs some work...
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 30, 2021 11:07:06 GMT -8
Update: I am happy with Franchise Tag values as calculated here, giving a 10% discount to the market value: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SCGIU2nc-Hg0ecLcCTiK76-A2Zex8D9vY_SxPNipvbk/edit#gid=1743279028Ignore the lower values on young players like Tatis, since players with less than 3 complete seasons would be very rarely up for extension due to contract expiration. For hurt players like Carlos Carrasco, the single season would determine the AAV as reflected in the formulas. Outstanding questions on Franchise Tags: - How to make this mechanism something only applied to star players, as intended? Limit to X per season, X on roster at any time, limit Tags to players with 3-year value > X? - Similar to the real life Dodgers' acquisition and extension of Mookie Betts and the Mets' acquisition and potential extension of Lindor, we could restrict Franchise Tags to players who were on the JBL's roster for the entire season. This way, trade deadline acquisitions couldn't be offered Franchise Tags, giving the playoff longshots/underdogs more incentive to retain these stars. Outstanding questions on Qualifying Offers: - How to make this mechanism something applied to the tier of players below franchise tags, without something applied to every expiring contract? - I had stated earlier that QOs could be extended multiple times back to back. I rescind that after comparing it to the real MLB - a one-time event. I'd have to figure out a way to track this in the spreadsheets so that the information doesn't get lost during trades. I'm envisioning adding a new column to the 40-man to indicate Franchise Tag or QO status. - Instead of a QO being "beat" by an equivalent bid point total of 40 (my original 50 was incorrect), allowing Jon's scenario of a longer-duration and lower AAV contract to beat a QO, what about AAV being the only determining factor? This way, a $20 MM QO would be input as the "starting bid" like in Free Agency, and ensuing offers would use this offer at 40 bid points as the Current Bid Points input field. We'd allow equivalent AAV at higher contract length to qualify as a better offer - so $20 MM 2 year contract would become the winning bid over the original QO.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 30, 2021 15:43:36 GMT -8
I think that change on what it takes to beat a QO makes a lot more sense. Sounds like it would work good.
I’m still not clear if a team is allowed to have 4 franchise players of its own doing at a time or only 4 total. By saying we can only have 4 total, I think we would be cutting down too much on trading. It would take 96 of the best players in the league out of the trading pool unless they were traded for another star. I think this would eliminate the possibility to ever rebuild.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 30, 2021 17:38:31 GMT -8
Agreed on the implications of trading. I don't like either restriction proposed - either X per year or X total on roster.
Would it be game-breaking to allow unlimited franchise tags (perhaps without the 10% discount)? Unlimited for players who have averaged above say $15 MM earned value for the last 3 years (top 120 players per the sheet I built earlier)? A $20 MM limit would correspond to the top 56 players, more selective
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Jan 31, 2021 6:19:15 GMT -8
Limiting to high salary players only would take away a lot of flexibility from the owners. I think it’s important to also have the option available to low salary players to extract good value.
I suggest we continue with a limit of 4 per team, but allow for trading. If a franchise player is traded, then he no longer counts as a franchise player.
I also think we should set an exact amount of years for the franchise contracts. With it open, I’m not sure why anyone would opt for a 5 year contract when they could just continue to sign 1 year contacts ever year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2021 7:30:36 GMT -8
The Four Franchise tags only allowed (regardless of if you actually signed them) on a roster works. It adds another layer of depth to negotiations (especially if the tag is wasted on a bad position (like RP or OF), sometimes you want them sometimes you don't. It works especially well when limited per year.
The biggest thing from my perspective is that there needs to be a 1-year NTC to prevent sign and trades. You want to tag him, you're committed to them for a year. Also, whenever you would make the decision, they'd have to be literally treated as FA until signed, so you can't trade a re-sign candidate. I don't know if limiting trades in the off season would be all that necessary. Ideally it could be done with the Off season roster moves where we decide options and the like. Franchises can be offered and Qualifying offers would be declared basically allowing everyone to strategize around who will be available in FA.
I think unlimited tags per year and on your roster would be gamebreaking. Was in a league a few years ago that you could literally just resign your team every year as long as it wasn't Player/Mutual option that was declined. What it led to was people over inflating the FA market with one year deals at exorbitant prices. Win the bid and then next year you get a real contract on them. The discount is nice, but I don't think necessary it's to ensure a fair market deal. We know how crazy some of the FA bidding can get where fair market doesn't mean much.
As for how many per year, I don't know what's a "good number" 2 does impact FA, but with the Qualifying Offers it would open that up. Maybe you're allowed two total between QO, or FT. If you want to use 2 on the FT, or both on QOs.
It seems logical to have some sort of draft pick compensation, you don't want to artificially inflate the draft so the idea would if the value exceeds a threshold you lose your first pick after the 1st round to the team that declined to match then first pick after the second threshold, and so forth. (I guess you could technically have one where you lose your first pick. Whether or not you want to move those around to the correct rounds at the end of the order I don't know, I don't like mucking too much with the draft order either. Basically when you make the qualifying offer you have to have the cap space, but during the bidding process it's more like RFA, and you can choose to match or not based on the salary/compensation.
The biggest issue is the bulk trading of picks, If someone trades everything after their 1st to game the system, or they do it just generally, how do you compensate then. I guess in that case you can add pick at the end of a round or w/e.
It might be a little wobbly, but hopefully not completely foggy-lookin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2021 0:14:31 GMT -8
Guys, I really like the ideas that you discussed in the past few days I agree with Jon that the QO process needs to be somehow adjusted. I also see a problem in the numbers for the best pitchers compared to the best hitters: G Cole had 47 mil in 2019, Bieber 48.9 mil in 2020 and a top player like J Soto had a top value of 35 mil.in 2020 similar with the one of Lamet 35.9 ...
|
|
|
Post by Tampa Bay Rays (Mark) on Mar 5, 2021 6:33:28 GMT -8
I've had a couple weeks now to get familiar with the league. Recognizing that I'm still new and not aware of the history, I'd still like to raise my concern about this discussion.
I think the franchise tag idea has the potential to gut free agency and stratify the league. There are 780 major league players at any given time; of those, about 311 of them are 27 or under, so they are probably arb or pre-arb and locked into a JBL team. If we add 4 franchise tags per team, that takes another 96 players out of the potential free agent pool. So free agency would be limited to players ranked 400 or later.
If the stronger teams get to keep their 4 best players for another 5-year contract (after the 6 years of arb and pre-arb control), there will be less opportunity for teams to rebuild and contend. To me, one of the marks of a well-constructed league is the opportunity for every team to contend within a reasonable time frame.
Is "tanking" really a problem? I think it is coming up this year because of timing - so many contracts from the league's startup are expiring in 2021 that it is creating a one-time bubble of expiring contracts. Teams looking realistically at their rosters and making a choice to get stronger for 2022 is part of every dynasty league, and in this league mirrors real-world MLB decision making.
Maybe limiting the number of 5-year contracts a team can offer would avoid the free agent bubble in the future.
I'm loving this league so far, thanks for allowing me to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Brewers (Mike) on Mar 5, 2021 20:53:15 GMT -8
I've held off chiming in because this is my first dynasty league and I only have a few years of experience here to draw from. Many others have more dynasty and JBL experience, and a lot of great thoughts. Kudos to Mark, who I think hit several points accurately, and others for their input.
I am opposed to making drastic changes. I love this league and the way all facets of it work. Big changes were made last year (retained salary and MiLB roster size) that are going to affect that. Plans are already in place to step back one of those changes, which seems pertinent.
I don't think tanking is a concern, as long as we are able to maintain reasonable owner turnover. Teams go through cycles and sometimes it makes sense to sell valuable pieces off to speed up a rebuild process. There are plenty of owners here that recognize the difference and can stop an owner from throwing a team's future away.
As Mark said, this is an odd set of years for the league because of it's initial creation and when player's contracts are expiring. FA costs have been crazy this year and last, but it seems like that will even out over time. I also think changing the playoff cap bonus to a 5 year rolling figure helps alleviate some of the 'rich getting richer' concern.
I've seen concerns mentioned previously, but I think you stage in tags and QO and do it on a per year, not per team basis. Maybe one tag and one QO per year per team. If we find out later on that teams can accumulate tagged/QO'd players in an unfair manner, we handle it at that point. I like the idea of being able to keep control of a player that came up through my system, but also enjoy the thought of the tough decision of who to tag/QO this year, with an eye on next year, etc. That process makes it more interesting for me.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Mar 6, 2021 10:26:29 GMT -8
So I will be completely honest. I way behind in this thread, so I started reading it then realized I wouldn't have the time....so I tried to speed read it. Got to Curtis spreadsheet about the tags and was absolutely lost. So I went back when I could carve out enough time and read everything, every word. I'm still sort of lost here. This is probably because of the following. But before I say it, I want to say that I don't mean to offend anyone. In fact....after reading every word of this thread, I am soooooo impressed with how passionate, serious and detailed everyone has been about this topic. I mean seriously....wow. But I think I am a little bit lost here because there are very very imaginative ideas being raise....to solve simple problems....that I feel, simply require.... simple solutions. So I'll weigh in a bit here.....maybe how I should of early on. First of....I am a tanker. If anyone wants to start accusing people of tanking, I have no problem with people pointing the finger at me. I have purposely tanked. But here is the thing.....I have had to. And let me be clear....I HATED DOING IT!. But being competitive in sports requires knowing the rules, and getting as close to the rules and bending the rules.... WITHOUT BREAKING THE RULES. So....that being said....I absolutely! Want to have rules implemented to avoid tanking. Because the only reason I, midway through the last 2 seasons, after assessing the situation decided to tank...was because other teams are going to do it, and having high morals don't give me better draft picks and don't help me be competitive. (Maybe you can tell now I have played sports at competitive levels) I think a simple solution to the tanking problems are the minimum scoring requirements. AB's and IP's for example. With reasonable penalties such as loosing draft picks. Now, reasonable need is key, each violation should be assessed before penalties are handed out. Because...you know...things happen. The injury bug can bite hard and often, or real life teams can make sudden decisions we here in JBL didn't anticipate. But for example (and I will pick on myself) last year Luke Voit was popping off.. but I had him sit in the bench and instead put someone I can't even remember in. I should NOT of been aloud to do this. But, it wasn't against the rules and after realizing I had a snowballs chance in hell of making the playoffs...I decided it was time to compete for the next best thing, good draft picks. I hope next year I....in some way...will not be aloud to tank. (I also hope some of my young guys I have rebuilt with will get chances so I will be aloud to compete) Now on to the.... re-signin players discussion. I would absolutely love to have a little edge in being able to re-sign players already under my control. It would totally make teams think twice about giving rentals away for nothing and would....then also fight against the "Top heavy" problem some are rightly bringing up. Buy I think I see a simpler solution. But again! Being honest....maybe I just ne the "For idiots" version of what is being purposeed with the QOs and the FTs. Because to me it seem all....a little complicated. My solution for this problem would be almost to bring in what the NBA has with their "super max" contracts (in a sence). Call it a "Home Team Discount" to the tune of....off the top of my head 10%. It would almost allow the home team to simply match the leading FA bid, instead of having to beat it. And it means that come trade deadline, I have a bit of a more incentive to either hold on to a player, or ask for more. Because I can re-sign him at a discount. Things I don't like: (no offense) I don't like the idea of removing salary cap in creases. Because.... bragging rights aren't enough of an award. In real life, athletes sometimes pick franchises because of the winning dynasty factor. So yes, increases allow winning teams to become more competitive than they were...but I think that's all part of it. And I agree with an earlier comment (sorry I forgot from who) the increases are not the reason for the top heavy problem. I liked the point about how the worst case of it allowed a team to bring in a 12m player...or something like that. That being said, I accept the need for increases to expire. I don't like the idea of doing away with salary retention.....although by all means do not increase it. I think salary retention is a commodity that is a valuable tool. It should be used more wisely than in some cases I am seeing.... But it's a useful and valuable tool. I don't like the idea of a lottery....full stop. No offense, I hate the idea of it in other real life sports as well. I understand how it could curb tanking. But I feel some other avenues should be explored first. And even then, I like what the MLB has done in real life to create an equal opportunity environment in the International free agent market. I would sooner explore mimicking that path first. One last word: Here are my ideologies when it comes to this fantasy league. First and foremost I love having things as close to real life as possible. I was disappointed to see the rule 5 draft go and to see the Mutual option in FA disappear. The reason I joined this league bwas because it was so close to the real deal. Not like my stupid yahoo sports fantasy days. I also like when things are simple and not drastically changed. Because in this league, I like to plan long term. Just like real-life franchises do. So like real-life GM's, I get antsy when I hear rumors of drastic changes. Because I have been setting my team up...long term...in a certain way. But after all that I will conclude with this. I love the work, seriousness and detail of this discussion. Just cause I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't totally respect where you are comming from or the effort you are putting in. #STOPTHETANKING
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on Mar 14, 2021 21:51:50 GMT -8
Like Matt, I'm behind on this thread. I also tried to skim it.
So, I'll simply share my thoughts/beliefs without speaking to specific proposals.
I'm also anti-tanking. And while I don't purposefully tank, if I'm out, I'm not diligent - which is still a form of tanking in contrast to actively competing. In general, I'm not a fan of widening the playoff pool, however, in this league, I do believe 10-12 playoff teams would help.
Why are we top-heavy? First, I think those teams are more diligent and committed, and so they should be rewarded accordingly. So I'm opposed to actions that would lessen the benefit to winning teams.
Lastly, I think it's fine to examine this issue now but don't think it's the right time to decide on actions. This league setup is built for long-term play. When I took over my team, I felt I had a chance to compete so that was my direction the first couple years. I realized I wasn't going to seriously compete, and decided on a rebuild. I'm a couple years into my rebuild now and still not ready to compete long-term - however, (and I'm obviously biased) I do believe I'm well positioned to compete soon with some high-end talent coming up soon and a few guys already up.
I have tons of cap space for a reason. I'm not going to over-invest in guys now when, first, I'm not sure I'm ready to compete, and second, FAs are going for what I consider far above market value. This cap space - with more to come - will serve me well in next offseason's free agency. This was my plan.
I explain my situation for the purpose of illustrating my point about it possibly being a little early to overreact to current trends. I full expect to be near the top-end in 2023.
Now, if we're looking for ways to make it easier to build quicker to help attract and retain quality owners, then OK - that's a different story and would possibly require different incentives.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Aug 4, 2021 13:03:09 GMT -8
Where do we stand on all of these thoughts and proposals? It would be nice going into the trade deadline if we knew for sure what rule changes we may be dealing with in 2022.
|
|
|
Post by Milwaukee Brewers (Mike) on Feb 8, 2022 16:43:42 GMT -8
Since there hasn't been any real discussion on this in nearly a year and Jon rec'd no response in August when he checked on the status, is it safe to assume these ideas are being tabled for now?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Feb 8, 2022 19:10:52 GMT -8
Since there hasn't been any real discussion on this in nearly a year and Jon rec'd no response in August when he checked on the status, is it safe to assume these ideas are being tabled for now? Correct - no changes
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Apr 4, 2022 7:54:12 GMT -8
Since there hasn't been any real discussion on this in nearly a year and Jon rec'd no response in August when he checked on the status, is it safe to assume these ideas are being tabled for now? Correct - no changes As we all buckle up for another season, I figured I would ask the question that some may be wondering as they also make plans for the next season of action..... Is there a time line for any of the changes discussed in this thread? i.e. Anti-tanking measures, Salary cap and retention changes, franchise tag or Qualifying offers, ext. ? Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit of an update specifically on the franchise tags or Qualifying offers, since a mid season change on this (or any change that would effect players with contacts expiring 2022) would carry the most impact on decisions teams make going into the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by New York Yankees (Josh) on Apr 4, 2022 10:59:46 GMT -8
I'm definitely for getting something worked out on a franchise tag/extension system. It would make people not dump last year remaining guys as often for prospects and such and allow for more future building as well as the ability to maintain consistency possibly of contending.
|
|