|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 7, 2020 11:47:47 GMT -5
The proposal here is to waive the restriction from offering a player a multi year extension until after they complete four years of major league service. Defining the exact parameters of which teams would receive that waiver is still TBD.
I will hold my opinions on this one for the time being. I'll just say that I have some small concerns but I am willing to listen.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 8, 2020 14:52:28 GMT -5
It would be hard to restrict this to a segment of the league. I would envision a lot of "sign and trade" deals?
Assuming poorer teams are the intention of this proposal, why would they not leverage their newfound advantage? What that really would do in turn, would allow the much more fiscally powerful teams to acquire good talent, on sweetheart contracts, then in turn use their financial advantage to surround the good, cheap contracts with higher priced free agents. Unless this contemplates those players staying with that organization through the life of whatever sweetheart deal is signed, pretty sure this would backfire and just make the rich, richer if there was enough trade pressure. Unless you are
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 9:15:03 GMT -5
It would be hard to restrict this to a segment of the league. I would envision a lot of "sign and trade" deals? Assuming poorer teams are the intention of this proposal, why would they not leverage their newfound advantage? What that really would do in turn, would allow the much more fiscally powerful teams to acquire good talent, on sweetheart contracts, then in turn use their financial advantage to surround the good, cheap contracts with higher priced free agents. Unless this contemplates those players staying with that organization through the life of whatever sweetheart deal is signed, pretty sure this would backfire and just make the rich, richer if there was enough trade pressure. Unless you are I respectfully disagree. If a small market team had the advantage of signing an elite player to a more team friendly contract they would be more likely to retain that talent in their organization. And even if they did decide they needed to move them, the contract should provide more value and thus increase the return they could get for them. I made this point in another thread as well. The intention of this proposal is to add value for the small market teams. We cannot help if that value is used wisely or not.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 10:17:33 GMT -5
And I will not necessarily disagree with your counter point.
But my point remains that should they wish to, either by an offer that cannot seemingly be refused or possibly a bad decision on the part of the trading team, "have" teams will target these cheap/good contracts.
And yes, while that may help a skillful smaller budget/market team, that does not prevent my other point. Large/Astronomical budget/market teams can and will, with their superior resources, surround those sweet deals with top tier free agents because they can.
I am just making the point this would/could make the richer even richer and in that case and would run counter to why I thought we were even going down all these roads in the first place (to narrow the gap between the best and worst budgets/revenue?
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Mar 9, 2020 10:39:24 GMT -5
And I will not necessarily disagree with your counter point. But my point remains that should they wish to, either by an offer that cannot seemingly be refused or possibly a bad decision on the part of the trading team, "have" teams will target these cheap/good contracts. And yes, while that may help a skillful smaller budget/market team, that does not prevent my other point. Large/Astronomical budget/market teams can and will, with their superior resources, surround those sweet deals with top tier free agents because they can. I am just making the point this would/could make the richer even richer and in that case and would run counter to why I thought we were even going down all these roads in the first place (to narrow the gap between the best and worst budgets/revenue? I can see your reasoning, but it kind of ignores the current situation. In our current system, if a small market team can't sign a team friendly deal, they either have two options: A) Let the player go to free agency where the large market teams will have the advantage. B) Trade the player to a large market team that can sign the player long term. In those scenarios, large market teams are the only winners, since no one else has the budget space to make those options feasible. If small market teams can sign team friendly deals, then we add two options: C) The small market team keeps their team friendly deal longer before going through options A) or B). D) The small market team trades the young player for their perceived value. Now, C) is pure profit to the small market team. If your budget means you can't keep yourself from losing a quality player, then delaying it as long as possible is optimal. But the fear of D) seems irrational. When young talent with affordable contracts are up for trade, EVERYONE is going to try to get that person, regardless of market size. If anything, the balance favors other smaller market teams which (in theory) have had more draft opportunity to raise a quality farm system to trade. Large market teams will WANT to stockpile those cheap contracts, of course, but why would they be more likely to get them? Really it seems like mid-market and small market teams with tighter budget restrictions would have more impetus to try to win those trades since they don't have free agency as a backup. I see no reason be scared of moving away from our current system where big market teams are the sole beneficiaries, for fear of a new system where they MIGHT benefit.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 11:49:09 GMT -5
Let me come at this a different way then.
From a player/agent perspective, why would they sign a presumably longish term, definitely undervalued, contract - giving up growth in arbitration years - with a bad team?
The current 4-year rule is to maximize player contract value, which the game (although getting better and better with every version) still struggles with. I am more a fan of that current, blanket, PBL rule than this proposal.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Mar 9, 2020 12:18:00 GMT -5
Let me come at this a different way then. From a player/agent perspective, why would they sign a presumably longish term, definitely undervalued, contract - giving up growth in arbitration years - with a bad team? The current 4-year rule is to maximize player contract value, which the game (although getting better and better with every version) still struggles with. I am more a fan of that current, blanket, PBL rule than this proposal. My understanding of it was that you were basically front-loading the value of the contract. Instead of a stud making 500k, 500k, 500k, 4M, 9M, 13M, 30M, 30M You sign him early to a seven-year, $10M a year deal. Up front it costs you more, but you can actually retain them far longer. The problem is, if you have a 5 WAR player and a $90M budget, you almost certainly won't be able to afford to extend them once they leave arbitration. Which means that, while you have the upside of the cheap years, you are guaranteed to lose them when they leave arbitration. If you extend them early you can lock them in at a deal that keeps them with you longer (and increases your leverage trading them so teams can't pull the "don't pretend that you can extend them" card). If the game tends to underrate how those deals should be priced (creating an exploitable inefficiency) I cannot really comment on that. To my mind the functioning appeal is exclusively limited to giving poor teams more financial maneuvering room by letting them front-load contracts for young players more effectively. I want to be clear - I don't particularly favor this proposal. Just throwing my two cents in.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Mar 9, 2020 13:53:23 GMT -5
Fair point.
For the sake of argument, just curious why this would only be confined to certain teams then? Why shouldn't all teams be able to do this?
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 9, 2020 17:33:29 GMT -5
Fair point. For the sake of argument, just curious why this would only be confined to certain teams then? Why shouldn't all teams be able to do this? I would think this is fairly obvious. Signing a player to a contract before the 4 years major league time has been proven to result in more team friendly deals. We are brain storming possible ways to give small markets advantages.....
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Mar 10, 2020 15:21:40 GMT -5
Dropping it to 3 years of service time would make a world of difference as that is typically the time you see these "team friendly" opportunities (once they are arb eligible).
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on May 12, 2020 17:02:37 GMT -5
I am going to close this proposal down. While it does have merit it is inconsistent and confusing. I do not want GMs to be in the situation of being ignorant of the rule and missing opportunities or feeling like they have to do research to remember what they are allowed to do. The current cut and dry 4 seasons rule is simple and easy to remember. Also, I do not want to take on the administration. I rely heavily on the Stats+ automation to govern contracts and this subtly cannot be configured in that engine.
|
|