|
|
Post by Zack (Mariners GM) on Aug 7, 2014 22:05:55 GMT -5
Re: change #1 - I saw in the other thread someone suggested a middle ground on international free agents- in following years being able to offer 50% (or another percentage) of the original one year contract. So Abreu's first year at 48 million becomes an option at 24 million for each of the following 5 cost-controlled years. Is this an option? I really like this option, personally. I think it de-incentivizes paying extreme amounts for these players. Nobody's going to offer $48 million for an unknown commodity if the only reward for doing so is getting them on a still-absurd $24 million per year. But it still rewards teams for taking risks on these players, something non-contending teams will be more willing to do than contending teams, since contending teams have other needs and can't afford to blow budget on unproven players. I kind of like Sanders idea for rule change #3. Seems a little bit simpler. In the event of a tie (3 years/4M vs. 4 years/3M), would the player go to the team with the higher salary or more years? It's a lot simpler, but creates a number of problems, which I think Nick and Tucker hit on - unrealistic (if someone in any job has the choice of earning $40 million for one year of work or a dollar more over four years, they're going to choose the one year option) and too much weight for four year deals (as a GM you're spending the same amount of money, so in most cases you're going to want to get the most years for your buck - and lessen the cap hit in the process). I don't think that our current system of discounts is a problem, I think it's been working well for us and not as complicated once you see it in action. I just think there are a couple of minor tweaks that could make it even better. Well I'm convinced. I'm back on board with the percentage system for rule change 3. |
|
