|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Feb 23, 2018 22:15:48 GMT -5
As we have discussed previously ( link), there is an opportunity to better the bidding process on RFA's after seeing it put in place for a while now. Rather than force the original owner of an RFA to match whatever length the winning offer was, I believe it will be most simple and easy to make all RFA offers (both the QO and any bids during free agency) the same length. We had quite a few really good suggestions, but I believe this will be the easiest to follow and enforce while also being an effective solution. Under this proposal, all QO's and bids on Restricted Free Agents will be 3 years in length, with the same value each year of the offer. If approved this will go in to force beginning with the 2018 MLB RFA period. |
|
|
|
Post by Clayhounds Dawgs on Feb 23, 2018 23:17:19 GMT -5
I agree with "easiest to follow and enforce while also being an effective solution"
|
|
|
|
Post by Las Vegas Strips on Feb 24, 2018 17:20:19 GMT -5
This seems a fair solution. My only concern is shouldn’t an owner be able to make a “longer offer” for their own guy....kinda like a Larry Bird Rule. If they opt to match and retain their player for 3 yrs, they can also add a 1 or 2 year extension at the cost of a draft pick or something. I just think an owner who retains their own player should be able to go longer than 3 yrs....
Just a thought...I’m also fine going with the currently proposed deal...
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Sting on Feb 25, 2018 0:09:35 GMT -5
This seems a fair solution. My only concern is shouldn’t an owner be able to make a “longer offer” for their own guy....kinda like a Larry Bird Rule. If they opt to match and retain their player for 3 yrs, they can also add a 1 or 2 year extension at the cost of a draft pick or something. I just think an owner who retains their own player should be able to go longer than 3 yrs.... Just a thought...I’m also fine going with the currently proposed deal... We talked about something along these lines in the Discussion thread for this idea, but I opted against doing something like this for the formal proposal for a couple of reasons. First, as we get further in to the league almost all RFA eligible players will be coming from our prospect drafts rather than free agency. With a 5 year rookie contract structure (or 4 in the case of NFL), adding a 3 year RFA already gives 8 years of team control over these players, which is an extraordinarily long time. I actually considered making all RFA's 2 years rather than 3 for this reason, but I think that 3 year mark puts it right on the border of being worth a good draft pick. Second, adding some sort of "extension cost", whether that be an increases contract cost or draft pick or whatever, would just add to the complexity when making decisions, and giving the owner extra leverage when they've likely already had control of the player for an extended period. Putting all owners on a level playing ground seems more fair for all, and also makes the processing easier on me. As I said, it is something that I considered at great length before making the formal proposal but I just felt that a simpler approach would work best in this case considering how complex our RFA system is already. |
|
|
|
Post by Las Vegas Strips on Feb 25, 2018 7:57:28 GMT -5
That makes sense. As I said, I ok with the current proposal as well.
|
|
