|
Post by sjrand on Jan 1, 2007 15:53:41 GMT -5
An owner emailed me asking that I post a poll for him on this topic, the topic being allowing teams the option of forcing a rookie's contract to expire before the usual 6 years. Other owners have talked about similar things, so here goes.
Choice 1 is just no, don't allow the option
Choice 2 is yes, allow it to be done with no restriction or payments
Choice 3 is to allow it, but to charge the team a fee, call it a signing bonus if you like. The fee I'm thinking of is 5M per player. If it's something we want to allow at all, I think that paying for it is appropriate to what the team will gain, and the fee will limit the number of players an owner decides to do this with.
Choice 4 is to allow it with no fee, but with a limited number of players per season. I'm thinking 2.
If there's no clear winner, but choices 2, 3, and 4 (allowing it) get more total votes than choice 1 (not allowing it), then it'll be allowed and we'll vote again on the three variations.
Note: I'm not going to change the default rookie contract from 6 years.
Note 2: Owners can always post their own polls anytime they want. This particular owner just wanted me to do it for him.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 1, 2007 23:44:03 GMT -5
The only other option is to lower certain rookies contracts to expire when they hit their peak to force them to get signed and played
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 2, 2007 10:47:42 GMT -5
The only other option is to lower certain rookies contracts to expire when they hit their peak to force them to get signed and played
Note: I'm not going to change the default rookie contract from 6 years.
|
|
|
Post by zlebk72 on Jan 2, 2007 12:12:17 GMT -5
I'm a dummy...can someone explain what this means? It going right over my head.....
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 2, 2007 22:33:00 GMT -5
What is the downside to this? Why not?
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 3, 2007 0:01:50 GMT -5
I would have like to have had this rule in affect a few seasons ago and I would have bought Juan M. rookie contract down, signed him to a big league contract and bring him up to play when he hit his peak
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 3, 2007 11:26:30 GMT -5
What is the downside to this? Why not? What are you asking about?
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 3, 2007 11:35:02 GMT -5
What is the downside to this? Why not? What are you asking about? If this is going to be a voluntary thing like the contract price reduction why can't we have a contract length reduction if we are going to pay for it. I don't understand why an owner would vote no. What is the downside??
|
|
|
Post by statfreak on Jan 3, 2007 12:17:06 GMT -5
great idea, if a GM wants to pay more early to get a bit more out of his players then by all means go ahead. I agree with KC on this, you'd also have less teams keeping good players in the minors due to outragous contract demands
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 3, 2007 21:32:11 GMT -5
What I'm asking is why would we not want this rule!? I don't see any downside to seeing this implemented, only positive things.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 4, 2007 0:54:06 GMT -5
i dont see much point in the rule to be honest. If i understand, its allowing us to pay rookies 5 years for 2mil before the hit 40 hr's in the majors and ask 10-15mil a year.
the way i understand it at least is that this would be another way of getting around the peak thing. please redirectly if im running into a wall, i hate breaking my nose.
|
|
|
Post by American Royal on Jan 4, 2007 2:09:31 GMT -5
i dont see much point in the rule to be honest. If i understand, its allowing us to pay rookies 5 years for 2mil before the hit 40 hr's in the majors and ask 10-15mil a year. the way i understand it at least is that this would be another way of getting around the peak thing. please redirectly if im running into a wall, i hate breaking my nose. Right now for Instance lets look at Tom Seaver. He is 22 years old and peaks from 24-36 and has a 6 year rookie contract. With this rule if you want to you could reduce his rookie contract by 4 years (or more) and pay him the big league contract when he hits his peak at 24 instead of 28. This should reduce his asking price when all he has is minor league experience instead of multiple years of major league experience. This would totally be a voluntary thing and would not change rookie contract lengths unless the owner decides too. Kinda like the salary buydown option.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 4, 2007 4:10:54 GMT -5
Why not set a different contract lenght depending on the round the player was drafted?
1st round DP has shorter contract 2nd round DP has longer contract 3rd round DP can be even longer or same as 2nd
Otherwise, I don't like the fact that it could be voluntary or that teams could pay for this.
Let's keep in mind that the salary buydown option wasn't put up to stop some owners's akward moves. Putting up such a rule as we are discussing now seems to come in handy to avoid some more farming out. I like going against the farming out; I'm just not sure about the ways that have been discussed so far.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 4, 2007 9:28:08 GMT -5
Because Rand has stated twice "Note: I'm not going to change the default rookie contract from 6 years.".
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 4, 2007 9:30:53 GMT -5
i dont see much point in the rule to be honest. If i understand, its allowing us to pay rookies 5 years for 2mil before the hit 40 hr's in the majors and ask 10-15mil a year. the way i understand it at least is that this would be another way of getting around the peak thing. please redirectly if im running into a wall, i hate breaking my nose. Would you rather see the guy sit in the minors until there 6 year contract expires, meanwhile the team is taking in top draft picks?
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 4, 2007 11:07:56 GMT -5
What I'm asking is why would we not want this rule!? I don't see any downside to seeing this implemented, only positive things. That's just the democratic process in action. You're American, you should be used to it by now.
|
|
|
Post by king on Jan 4, 2007 13:13:54 GMT -5
The downside is that you are manipulating contracts based on peaks which is very unrealistic. The best way to run a league would obviously to have it completely stats based where the players could only see performance and scouting reports and no actual "predicted" and "peak" stats. Since we have these, we have to deal with it. It is a trade off between either manipulation to get your players in the league faster which is win/win manipulation or taking the sacrifice of keeping your guys in the minors longer for that lower contract which is win/lose. Which you could also throw in the draft pick argument as well. I don't think it is clear cut.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 4, 2007 15:40:23 GMT -5
The downside is that you are manipulating contracts based on peaks which is very unrealistic. Not quite right. The proposal doesn't say anything about peak, just when the team is ready to bring the player up. It was other owners who made comments about the idea that brought up peak. I'd think it's even less realistic if a team didn't at least try to get a rookie to sign long term to relatively low dollars if they believe the player is HoF material and, in a few more years, could be demanding 20M to stay with them. The only real downside has nothing to do with reality, which is good since players didn't get to make demands even in 1966: if teams could do this, they'd get their top stars for 8M to 12M less per season, allowing them to sign other players they'd otherwise have had to trade or drop on the free agent market.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 4, 2007 22:43:31 GMT -5
I have no problem with majority rules, just wanted to know the reasoning. Don't assume I'm American!
|
|
|
Post by king on Jan 5, 2007 0:16:18 GMT -5
Not quite right. The proposal doesn't say anything about peak, just when the team is ready to bring the player up. It was other owners who made comments about the idea that brought up peak. The only real downside has nothing to do with reality. I know the proposal doesn't say anything about peak, but they were discussing peak because they would use that information to better their team with this rule. It obviously has no downside as far as benefitting your team, but it is the realism that concerns me and always will in rule changes.
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Jan 5, 2007 0:19:07 GMT -5
the only reason this is in discussion is that the rules surrounding players is they dont get to negotiate a contract until they make the bigs. so by default if you pick a player who peaks after 6 years then your going to make off like a bandit after one year of playing time when its time to negotiate.
If you want a better rule you'd put it at LEAST 2 full seasons (1 season = 130 ab's according to baseball) before a player negotates, making this more unrealistic isnt the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by statfreak on Jan 5, 2007 11:24:02 GMT -5
wow realism? hmm... aren't we playing a SIM baseball game, realism? hmm... Carlton Wiley was a Cy Young winner and one of the top pitchers in the league while Roberto Clemente is a bench player? Yeh nice argument guys... and paying someone 20M per season when they've had less than 3 seasons of major league playing time is realism enough for me! Even in today's MLB no player gets 20M per season after only 3 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Jan 6, 2007 12:23:21 GMT -5
Idea killed with 11 no votes.
|
|