|
Post by sjrand on Apr 5, 2007 13:05:28 GMT -5
I just want to know if the devil is in the details, or if people just don't like the overall concept.
Vote and comment.
Ask questions.
Make suggestions.
The more you say, the closer we can come to getting a system that people would enjoy having.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Apr 5, 2007 15:08:51 GMT -5
I'm amazed to see that "so many" people can actually vote before anything gets discussed. When this subject was brought to my attention, I didn't even remember what it was all about. I had to read all of Rand's posts (of today) and I still couldn't figure out what exactly was on-team free agency again. So I went back and read the full two pages of discussion we had when this subject first came up. This left me with many questions, the first one of them being: could I have voted yes or no on this without checking everything out again? First of all, why are we asked to vote on this if Rand said (in another post): I would like to know more about this before I decide to vote on something like this. Would there be compensation? Would it affect only walk-year players? And if not, how do we counter the abuse that could come up if we allow this to more than only the walking players? Would there be a deadline after which this on-team FA would be declared halted? I like having some time off during FA period. It allows me to take more time at studying my team, my options, etc. It's also a great time for trade discussions and I like the fact that even if it takes 5 days or more, I am not losing any time as there are no sim periods during which the player I wish to acquire is not playing for my team. Wait, wait: I thought this OTFA thing was optional; at least, that's what Brad had been telled: Both, and more. It's a much-needed break after the assault of 3 sims a week occuring right after trade deadline. It's a time where many people take the time to write about their teams. It's the time we're not only waiting for the FA to end, but we're also drafting players, making trades, watching our prospects, considering what our team will look like next season depending on which players we will get signed or not. It might even be that time of the year where some of us actually remember we have a girlfriend or a wife. ;D Discuss, discuss, discuss! Then we vote. Or at least, I will!
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Apr 5, 2007 18:37:21 GMT -5
I still like the idea. I will vote yes, at least tentatively, until we have a final draft on the rule. The one change I would like to see is a shoter time frame to be awarded a player using this system. Having to wait until the end of the season to know whether you are re-signing a particular player is no great change from just letting him go in the regular FA pool.
|
|
|
Post by reds on Apr 5, 2007 18:46:59 GMT -5
I voted against this. I don't like the idea of having essentially two free agent pools (one during the season, one after the season). One of the biggest factors in a free agent's value is how good the other FAs at his position are. During in-season free agency, we would have no idea which players the other owners are going to re-sign (and which ones will become FAs).
Take Samuel Amado as an example. If everyone else re-signs their shortstops and Amado is the only decent one out there, he would be a valuable commodity this offseason. But if the market is flooded with shortstops, his value is lots less. Shortstop may not be the best position for this example since they are always pretty valuable - think about RPs instead if you like. The value of a free agent reliever is heavily dependent on the amount of other good RPs who are free agents.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Apr 5, 2007 18:55:32 GMT -5
The Reds point is excellent. The position of the player used in the examples hardly matters.
If we have on-team FA, and a certain player becomes available and I realize I could use him on the bench next year or even as a starter to plug a hole, I can start bidding on him. Imagine I "win" him. Then, not too long after, an even better player becomes available. What do I do? I get in the race again? Or do I trade the rights of the player I signed first to another team so I can concentrate on this new and better player?
The idea isn't all bad. But there are some details like this that are making me think twice about it. If it's not going to dramatically improve everything, then why bother and make things even more complicated?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 5, 2007 21:20:50 GMT -5
I think the point of this poll was to vote whether it was worth discussing again or not.
That is why you can vote without discussing.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 6, 2007 11:46:34 GMT -5
I think the point of this poll was to vote whether it was worth discussing again or not. That's right. But I want comments and discussion because they would help all of us get an idea of how and why this should, or should not, be implemented. I voted against this. I don't like the idea of having essentially two free agent pools (one during the season, one after the season). We always have this. Owners can release players at any time, and FA bidding doesn't get closed until the playoffs. The difference is that we have fewer owners paying attention to FAs in-season now because they don't notice who's getting released, or expect that good players will be released. This happens with maybe a dozen players every season, and some of them would be very good additions to teams if the right owners were awake. That's part of the point, a lot of owners are not awake at this time of year. They know they're going to lose, so they take a nap and wait for someone to wake them in time for the draft. For them, the league is down from May 1 until the rookie draft starts. Owners of losing teams tend to lose interest early, that's just human nature. If we have on-team FA, and a certain player becomes available and I realize I could use him on the bench next year or even as a starter to plug a hole, I can start bidding on him. Imagine I "win" him. Then, not too long after, an even better player becomes available. What do I do? What do you do if you trade a ton for a good right fielder, then find out a different team will give up a much better right fielder for less than you just paid? Every move we make means taking a chance. Sometimes it works in our favor, and sometimes it doesn't. Would there be compensation? How much compensation do you get now for releasing players at the end of the season? What would you expect to get? What would you be willing to pay? I like having some time off during FA period. It allows me to take more time at studying my team, my options, etc. Specifically to you, Terry: How is this period "time off" for you when you're right here on the boards with me several times each day checking dozens of posts to see that bids are legal and that the right teams get the player's they've won? For everyone: How do you evaluate your team when you don't know which players the other teams are going to end up winning? Or which ones you'll get? From the end of the WS, until FA bidding is done, nobody knows which impact players are going to land on which teams. I would like to know more about this before I decide to vote on something like this. The first time, I posted the concept and a way that it might work. Some people hated the entire concept. Some people didn't like certain details. People cast their votes based on their own assumptions of how it was going to work in it's final form. This time I only want people to vote on the concept, and if that passes we'll work out the details. Every comment that everyone makes here helps to let us all know what those details might become.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Apr 6, 2007 13:54:22 GMT -5
I think that's a false good idea... Why make it complicated when we can do it sample and clear?
In the first post sent by Rand about the OTFA, the pro for that system was: ''Pro: Teams have the chance of getting those 18M/7 players a lot cheaper if they don't mind risking losing them''. When we let walk a player or release him and later we try to resign him cheaper as a FA( like Rand did with a couples of his players recently), that's the simple way to resign a player cheaper if we dont mind to losing him, isn't?
|
|
|
Post by reds on Apr 6, 2007 17:50:15 GMT -5
We always have this. Owners can release players at any time, and FA bidding doesn't get closed until the playoffs. The difference is that we have fewer owners paying attention to FAs in-season now because they don't notice who's getting released, or expect that good players will be released. Completely disagree. There is a huge incentive now against letting someone go during the season to be bid on: he won't be on your team the rest of the year. If on-season free agency was started, the amount of quality players involved in it would be many many times the amount of players who get released during the middle of the season now.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Apr 6, 2007 21:46:56 GMT -5
I agree with you Matt
|
|
|
Post by Halos on Apr 6, 2007 22:25:18 GMT -5
I don't really see the need for this. If the owner wants to do something similar to this, he can do exactly what Rand did and release him. It won't cost much because the majority of players would be on rookie contracts and set for a huge payday. I realize by releasing the player you lose their service for the rest of the year (or until you re-sign them), but if the player is so important to the team in the first place the owner should find a way to get him signed.
I just really don't see the need to add this option when similar options are already available. And I think there will be people that can't figure out what is happening and get confused.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Apr 7, 2007 6:58:51 GMT -5
I like some aspects of this idea, If there was a form of compensation for losing a player some teams would be more willing to try it. Say a 3rd rd pick or cash ? This way you get something for your FA or you can sign him for less. ??
|
|
|
Post by staryfurysk on Apr 8, 2007 10:46:47 GMT -5
until it gets somewhat refined, i can't really tell whether i'm for or against.
compensation doesn't really solve the issue that some people have.
I would like a minimum contract on in season FA and attempted resignings, because it's easier to get a few through the cracks there as opposed to the offseason, when everybody is looking at the FA's.
In the offseason, it should be fair game for everyone on each player there.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 8, 2007 12:50:33 GMT -5
Why do I even need to say this again? In-season release and sign only happens because close to half the owners of losing teams hardly visit the message boards, or look at the files, once their team's fate has become obvious. It's even worse when we have articles, or other types of threads, which get a lot of replies and make the FA bids scroll off of the 10 most recent posts board search, as has been going on here for some days now. Is anyone going to try telling me that, although they are certainly are not stars, no other team could have used P Score, CF Mathews, or 3B Foy? Yet I signed all three with no opposition. The only reason that the Amado bidding lasted long enough for Houston to get him, only one out of a few teams that really needed a starting SS, is because I purposely waited 21 - 23 hours before overbidding Detroit. If I'd bid normally, or either Johnnyboy or I had bid 2 or 2.5 million right away, he'd have been signed and sitting on an already strong team's bench long before Tom even knew he was available. If this doesn't pass, then there's a different change I'm going to make. I'm going to make it mandatory for all in-season releases to be both posted here and emailed to the entire league. The teams that need these players the most have owners who aren't even seeing that they're available, and that needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Apr 8, 2007 14:57:11 GMT -5
Geez Rand, in your first post your asking everyone to ask questions, make suggestions etc and now your threatening to make changes because your not liking the outcome of the poll. Why even have a poll? Like they say don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer."The more you say, the closer we can come to getting a system that people would enjoy having", sure doesn't seem like it! Sounds more like vote Yes or there will be a new system automatically implemented.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 8, 2007 15:08:38 GMT -5
Geez Rand, in your first post your asking everyone to ask questions, make suggestions etc and now your threatening to make changes because your not liking the outcome of the poll. Why even have a poll? Like they say don't ask a question if you don't want to hear the answer."The more you say, the closer we can come to getting a system that people would enjoy having", sure doesn't seem like it! Sounds more like vote Yes or there will be a new system automatically implemented. That wasn't a threat. But we do need to have some kind of system letting the owners whose attention understandably wanders during the regular season know who's available to them. League emails for releases isn't even in the same ballpark as on team free agency, it's a completely different thing. But you're right about one thing; I'm obviously very burned out. That's not new, it's been going on for at least the last few seasons, and it sometimes gets me to phrase things a lot more strongly than I ever intended to.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Apr 8, 2007 16:40:06 GMT -5
If this doesn't pass, then there's a different change I'm going to make. I'm going to make it mandatory for all in-season releases to be both posted here and emailed to the entire league. The teams that need these players the most have owners who aren't even seeing that they're available, and that needs to change. Surely, that wasn't a threat. And it's actually a pretty good idea. We should make it mandatory for all to post stuff like this. I don't know the actual proportions of posted and non-posted releases, but in other games I play, I get a league email whenever there's any in-season action such as this. You can even make it mandatory for the team who's making the release(s) to send the league email by themselves, and much like those who sometimes forget to C.C. the commish come draft time, those who wouldn't do it could be subject to penalties and such. As a league owner, I'd be willing to take my responsabilities and notify everyone that I'm about to set free one or some of my players. Having some of us post releases and some others do it in a more subtle way does prepare the table for this kind of inequity. Therefore, forcing everyone to both post and email to the entire league would clearly help in this current impass.
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Apr 8, 2007 17:28:23 GMT -5
But we do need to have some kind of system letting the owners whose attention understandably wanders during the regular season know who's available to them. Why? If somebody is not paying attention and misses out on a player whom he could have used, it's his own fault. It takes all of ten seconds to look at the free agent list to see if there's anybody new each time a new file comes out.
|
|
|
Post by sjrand on Apr 13, 2007 10:05:01 GMT -5
Proposal goes down by 10-7.
Loic of Baltimore, Josh of San Francisco, and Tom B. of Philadelphia chose not to register a vote.
Poll locked.
|
|