|
Post by sjrand on Dec 9, 2006 13:51:33 GMT -5
This would allow owners to declare players currently on their rosters as free agents.
Usually it would be done for players that have contract demands just too high to consider.
If the owner does this, he has a chance to sign the player below the demand, but he takes the risk of losing him to another team if another team is willing to pay more than he is.
It would be 100% voluntary on the part of the controlling owner, but once he says the player is an on-team FA he can't change his mind for any reason, not even to trade the player.
If an owner loses an on-team FA, the winning team will give the losing team some form of compensation. We can decide what if anyone wants to give this a try.
Pro: Teams have the chance of getting those 18M/7 players a lot cheaper if they don't mind risking losing them.
Con: Even fewer players will make it into the normal free agent pool
Neutral: This is close to how it's really done in MLB. When a player hits his walk year, his agent will start shopping for offers from other teams. It could mean he gets a whole lot less than he wanted, or he could get a whole lot more.
I know this is a crazy idea, but is it too crazy to consider?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Dec 9, 2006 14:00:34 GMT -5
I like the idea, is it safe to assume that this would be done during the off season?
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 9, 2006 14:04:12 GMT -5
I like the idea, is it safe to assume that this would be done during the off season? If you mean the transfer of the player, yes only after the final game is played by both the winning and losing teams. Including playoffs.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Dec 9, 2006 19:05:05 GMT -5
What is the difference between the on-team free agency and regular free agency except that the on-team free agency is made a bit earlier during the year? Does that will be effective only in the walk year of the players? I'm not really sure that I understand ;D
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Dec 9, 2006 19:25:22 GMT -5
let me clarify a bit.
If you know how type a type b and type c free agents work, where you set an amount your willing to pay and if others decide to sign them you get compensation? In this case, there doesnt seem to be compensation, but you can offer a said amount of say 12mil/6 years on a 20mil/6yr pitcher, and if nobody offers more, then you get him for 12mil/6yr.
The only con is that you could free agent a guy and maybe get him lower than this or above this anyways.
While i voted to consider the idea at least, im not sure how much it would accomplish unless your suggesting compensation amounts based on salary offers. That would last approximately 3 day spans, and if nobody is willing to offer compensation, then the remaining 4 days of free agency would be normal bidding process. those who figure they can get good value on a player with a bid on him (say costs you 4mil/3yr on a very good player), then they would give up a 3rd round pick or something to get huim cheaper.
I think that is a ton of work in itself, and maybe a bit too crazy, which is why i assume rand didnt suggest it.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Dec 9, 2006 20:04:00 GMT -5
Maybe I don't understand completely, but why would any owner want to put his potential free agent on the market early. For instance, if I don't want to pay $14M to resign Al Downing, why would I let him go to FA now instead of just waiting until the normal period? Either way, I'd have to outbid everybody else to get him back.
I suppose the only way I might get him back cheaper is if the compensation is so steep that it scares away some teams.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 10, 2006 11:46:57 GMT -5
Compensation is still up in the air, but I've thought about ten to twenty percent of the per season contract offer from the winning bid.
It wouldn't exactly accomplish a whole lot, just give teams a chance to get somthing for the player, and move part of the free agent signing process to the regular season rather than having it all going on at one time during the off season.
In a typical season, most teams are out of competition by the middle of July. If we can keep the interest of those owners, we'll all be a little happier. I think.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 10, 2006 12:07:29 GMT -5
Does that will be effective only in the walk year of the players? This is a very good question. Right now, what I'm asking about would only be for walk year players, but I have been thinking about seeing if we want to allow players in certain categories to be "released from their contracts" and become eligible for being bid on by other teams. This is a tougher one to work out because the potential for abuse is huge. There are some players stuck on teams that don't need or want them, and they can't get moved because an owner has signed them to very long and very high contracts. If the contract is expensive enough, even waivers won't help move the player, and some of them are good enough to at least fill a bench spot for another team. It's a separate issue, but it's worth thinking about and discussing.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Dec 10, 2006 12:45:28 GMT -5
ok, im really confused. its sounds like a good rule, but there is some things I need clarified.
ill use Jim Landis as my example.. 6 mil 1 year.
if i put him on OTFA and someone decides to add him, would they get him for 6 mil for 1 year, or do i set a certain amount that i want to pay him say, 1 mil for 1 yr and then some one adds him would they get him for 1 mil 1 year?
if the first one, how much of a percent cheaper would he be if no one adds him?
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 10, 2006 13:01:04 GMT -5
ok, im really confused. its sounds like a good rule, but there is some things I need clarified. ill use Jim Landis as my example.. 6 mil 1 year. if i put him on OTFA and someone decides to add him, would they get him for 6 mil for 1 year, or do i set a certain amount that i want to pay him... No set amount. If you declared Landis as an OTFA, bidding would be the same as with any FA. So you'd probably post his status, then start a thread in the outfielders section with your bid of 300k x 5 years (or whatever). Or you could start with a high bid hoping to scare other owners away. The only real difference from current FA bidding is that there won't be a 24 hour limit; bidding would be ongoing to the end of the season.
|
|
|
Post by bostongm on Dec 10, 2006 14:37:12 GMT -5
ok i vote yes
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Dec 10, 2006 17:52:31 GMT -5
sounds like fun. I vote yes.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Dec 10, 2006 20:17:11 GMT -5
If there's no 24 hour limit, but bidding goes on until season end, then presumably there would have to be a cutoff (the trade deadline perhaps?) after which you couldn't declare anybody as an on-team FA. Otherwise, everybody would just wait until five minutes before the final sim, declare everybody as OTFAs and then bid $300K x 7 years and get them right back cheap.
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Dec 10, 2006 20:47:43 GMT -5
I'm not real fond of the idea, especially since other teams have until the end of the season to bid. I would rather just wait until regular free agency and risk it with the other teams only getting 24 hours to beat my offer.
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Dec 11, 2006 8:59:57 GMT -5
Is there a problem this is trying to fix? I hate adding rules just to add rules (and more confusion). I know this would be one more rule that I won't remember and would not use.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Dec 11, 2006 9:20:19 GMT -5
I agree!
|
|
|
Post by reds on Dec 11, 2006 12:14:00 GMT -5
I voted against this, as I'd like to see the offseason free agency become an important time. This rule would be moving away from that, and as others have said there's not really any problem that this is fixing.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 11, 2006 14:14:16 GMT -5
If there's no 24 hour limit, but bidding goes on until season end, then presumably there would have to be a cutoff (the trade deadline perhaps?) after which you couldn't declare anybody as an on-team FA. Otherwise, everybody would just wait until five minutes before the final sim, declare everybody as OTFAs and then bid $300K x 7 years and get them right back cheap. Very good point. I'm not real fond of the idea, especially since other teams have until the end of the season to bid. I would rather just wait until regular free agency and risk it with the other teams only getting 24 hours to beat my offer. This isn't something any owner would be forced to do, just allowed to do if he chooses. Is there a problem this is trying to fix? I hate adding rules just to add rules (and more confusion). I know this would be one more rule that I won't remember and would not use. Contests don't address any problems, but we have them anyway. One might even say the same thing about contract buy downs, since the team buying it down still pays the same total cash. Allowing free agent status to be settled in-season could eliminate having some teams bidding on multiple players at the same position in the two week FA feeding frenzy, could help owners to fill parts of their roster before we hit the off season, and might give people whose teams are eliminated by July 31 something to do while they're waiting for the season to end. It would be a risk, and that's part of the fun, but owners who know they want to keep a player, but piss themselves over the 18M/7 asking price, have an option to re-sign that player at a more reasonable price. Eventually we may do all free agency in-season since a dedicated FA period is a waste of time that could be used playing the game. Same with the rookie draft, but that's another issue. How many enjoy sitting idle for 24 hours waiting to find out if someone else is going to top your FA bid? Or being subjected to the gorilla bidding tactic of the other owner waiting 23.5 hours before topping your bid by 100k, just to piss you off? Or knowing that you don't want to bid on any FAs this season, but need to wait for everyone else to get it finished? Let's see a show of hands please. This would be an experiment to see how or if in-season free agency could work for us. If it doesn't work out, it goes into the trash bin. If it does work, we can consider dropping two weeks of off season down time from having a dedicated FA signing period. I voted against this, as I'd like to see the offseason free agency become an important time. Very interesting observation. Out of curiosity, what led you to conclude that it hasn't been an important time in the past?
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Dec 11, 2006 17:15:33 GMT -5
Contests - I usually don't participate...maybe just copy someone elses and change the numbers. Again, this is just a way for people who are more active to get an advantage. However, some of us actually spend significantly more time running a mogul league for others to enjoy....we get put at a disadvantage for not having excess time to devote here. In my experience, more active people are usually the more successful owners anyway....we don't need to give them more incentive and advantage. Contract buy-downs....don't know how to do that anyway. Sounded confusing, so I never bothered to look. It sounds like TMBL is heading towards one of those "you'd better check in every day or your going to miss something" type of leagues.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Dec 11, 2006 21:16:41 GMT -5
Rand: To answer your question, from talking to Brad about free agency I got the impression that very few impact players ever make it to that point. Most stars either get the money they need from their current team, or traded to another team that can afford them (a la Koufax). I remember this being the case in the previous Mogul league that I was in. Of course, take that with a grain of salt since I havent been through a free agency with this league.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Dec 11, 2006 22:34:41 GMT -5
while i wont disagree, i'd look at the signings currently near the bottom of the pitching free agent page.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Dec 12, 2006 17:58:00 GMT -5
Rand: To answer your question, from talking to Brad about free agency I got the impression that very few impact players ever make it to that point. You're right, or Brad is, or both. Contract buy-downs....don't know how to do that anyway. Sounded confusing, so I never bothered to look. Not really complicated, and not really essential, but helpful in two ways: Easier budget management and a slight attendance increase. For some teams, buying down will prevent teams from losing money to the points/salary cap. It sounds like TMBL is heading towards one of those "you'd better check in every day or your going to miss something" type of leagues. What are we doing that other leagues don't? We're late in adding some things, but what do we have, other than buy-downs, that you don't find in every other league? Or maybe the problem isn't that we're adding these things, but the reason why we're adding them? If so, speak up. Paul did about another topic, and he was right. If you have suggestions of your own, post them or email me. You might be surprised to know that I hate these extra rules and procedures a hell of a lot more than you hate seeing them added. I don't want waivers; it's intrusive to the vast majority of owners playing the game right, and forces teams to make moves that are not in the best interests of winning. I don't want a draft lottery; it'll be a pain in the ass to manage, and I already have more than enough pains in my ass. So why did we vote them in? Owner abuse. We allowed a tiny minority of owners to complicate all of our lives to try stopping the abuse. Back to topic: 16 owners voted, 4 abstained including me, and this idea goes down by 9 to 7.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 5, 2007 12:22:13 GMT -5
While I wasn't paying attention, this got voted up to a 9-9 tie, with me abstaining.
It's been 4 months, and two original voters in this poll are gone, replaced by two new owners. If I add my own yes vote now, it's 10-9 in favor, which I think warrants a re-poll for the idea.
I'm going to work on it a bit more, and also ask you all to add more comments about what you like or hate about this idea.
Stipulated: On-team free agency will lower the off season FA pool. I think that's a good thing because fewer FAs could mean a shorter FA period and less off season down time.
I believe we're all here to play sim baseball, not sit around while teams try to round out their bullpens and stock their bench with FA bargains. Of course I could be wrong; it happens all the time.
Am I wrong? Do we like having the 7+ day FA period delaying opening day every season? Enjoy having one big and confusing time period where everybody tries to figure out what players they can sign?
Is on-team free agency a horrible idea, even if it's 100% voluntary?
Would it be cruel and unusual punishment, draconian owner abuse, if all free agency was done on-team during the season?
Is a dedicated FA period good fun, or only something that we've gotten used to having?
Tell me what you think while I work on some details for a re-poll.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 5, 2007 12:53:09 GMT -5
I said: Do we like having the 7+ day FA period delaying opening day But now that I think about it, I schedule a 7 day evaluation period preceding FA bidding, plus around 7 days for the bidding, and 3-5 more days for owners to try out the new additions. That's more like two and a half weeks of down time for the sole purpose of off season free agency. I only allow myself a maximum of 3 days to get the file turned over with the drafted rookies added. And I allow 3, but usually get it done in 1. Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit schizophrenic?
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Apr 5, 2007 20:33:57 GMT -5
When there are actually some decent free agents to be had, the free agent bidding period is perhaps my favorite time of the whole season. And I don't mind the time off between seasons. It seems about the right length to me.
With that said, I am not strongly against the OTFA idea. I might not do it myself, but I might like having a shot at somebody else's players. I think I voted against it before, but this time, I think I'll wait to see if any further discussion is persuasive.
|
|