Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 1, 2016 16:50:29 GMT -5
Alright folks, let's bargain, collectively.
Just thought I'd post a discussion thread to address some of the recent collective bargaining changes. This is an informal discussion for potential rule changes for our league that we might need in order to reflect the changes made in the recent CBA.
We'll discuss one thing at a time, as needed, to determine if a rule change is necessary. Let's start with items directly related to the new CBA, then if necessary we can address items not directly connected to the CBA but related to collective bargaining in a more general sense.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 1, 2016 17:00:37 GMT -5
First off, let's talk about qualifying offers. There continue to be complaints about our compensation round, given that it was still 34 picks long this past year (though down from 53 picks the previous year). Under our current rules, the threshold for free agents to earn their teams a comp pick is increasing from $12 million to $15 million this winter, which should continue to help address this problem. However...
MLB's new CBA makes significant changes to the qualifying offer system, with teams no longer giving up first round picks when signing free agents, and comp round picks being offered at different levels depending on total contract value. The changes are as follows:
Teams now give up either their third best pick (best, not round), their second best pick, or their second AND fifth best picks, depending on whether they are revenue sharing recipients (3rd), contributors (2nd and 5th), or neither (2nd). Of course, in our league, picks are never given up, but it's still worth noting that MLB has made a change in order to decrease free agent compensation.
Teams also receive compensation picks. Teams that lose a player who signs for over $50 million total gain a pick after the first round. Teams that offer QOs but whose player signs for under $50 million receive a pick after competitive balance B (after round 2, I think?)
Do we want to echo this change by implementing a similar QO rule?
Specifically, we could give a pick after round 1 for all players who sign for over $50 million total contract value (before discounts), with highest total value first.
Any player who signs for over $15 million raw annual value before discounts (the current threshold) but less than $50 million would earn a comp pick between rounds 2 and 3, with highest raw annual value first, ties broken by number of years.
Any such change would go into effect next year at the earliest.
Last Edit: Dec 1, 2016 17:04:21 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 1, 2016 17:44:19 GMT -5
I am actually a big fan of that idea. It gives real value to players that earn bigger contracts. Specifically 3 and 4 year deals, not 1 and 2 year deals. My comp pick the other year for Nick Swisher, while nice, should never have happened.
I wish we also had a way to implement a QO system for our own FA. Use something along the lines of a minimum of say 15M which is our comp pick qualifier. But then have levels of salary based off where they finished in the prior seasons yahoo rankings. 15M, 18M, 20M etc. It would be a 1 year deal for X. If the said player does not clear that salary in FA, example if it's 15M and the best offer is for 12M, the team that issued the QO could sign him for 1 year and 15M or let the other team sign him for the 12M. Since he didn't clear 15M no comp is required. If the player goes for 18M then the team gets a comp pick Basically right of first refusal only if he doesn't clear what was offered. Cause in reality no player would take 15M if he was offered 18M somewhere else. This could be limited to ONE player per offseason and they can't be tagged twice by the same team. Just potentially delays FA for a season but at a high cost.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 1, 2016 17:48:32 GMT -5
It doesn't really effect guys that would blow by the number. But could help guys that would sign for 15-22M stay for one extra year. It would be dumb to QO Mike Trout even if his number was 25M cause he will blow past it. But a guy like say Mike Leake the other year, if his number was 18M and I thought well I have the space maybe I'll QO him. If he ended up under 18M I could keep him if he ended up over I wouldn't of paid it anyway I'll take the comp.
Just a thought. In my head it was simple but typed out it can be confusing. I'd like feedback if possible.
It doesn't really effect guys that would blow by the number. But could help guys that would sign for 15-22M stay for one extra year. It would be dumb to QO Mike Trout even if his number was 25M cause he will blow past it. But a guy like say Mike Leake the other year, if his number was 18M and I thought well I have the space maybe I'll QO him. If he ended up under 18M I could keep him if he ended up over I wouldn't of paid it anyway I'll take the comp.
Just a thought. In my head it was simple but typed out it can be confusing. I'd like feedback if possible.
I really like it, in theory. I really wish we could do something like this. Unfortunately, doing hard caps, I don't think it's possible - If you offer Mike Leake your QO, and Leake doesn't end up being opened on free agency for a few weeks, you've handicapped yourself because you're afraid to bid on free agents because what if you get stuck with Leake and end up over cap?
It doesn't really effect guys that would blow by the number. But could help guys that would sign for 15-22M stay for one extra year. It would be dumb to QO Mike Trout even if his number was 25M cause he will blow past it. But a guy like say Mike Leake the other year, if his number was 18M and I thought well I have the space maybe I'll QO him. If he ended up under 18M I could keep him if he ended up over I wouldn't of paid it anyway I'll take the comp.
Just a thought. In my head it was simple but typed out it can be confusing. I'd like feedback if possible.
I really like it, in theory. I really wish we could do something like this. Unfortunately, doing hard caps, I don't think it's possible - If you offer Mike Leake your QO, and Leake doesn't end up being opened on free agency for a few weeks, you've handicapped yourself because you're afraid to bid on free agents because what if you get stuck with Leake and end up over cap?
There's an easy enough solution to that: Start Free Agency by opening the players who were tendered qualifying offers and the offer should serve as the opening bid.
There's an easy enough solution to that: Start Free Agency by opening the players who were tendered qualifying offers and the offer should serve as the opening bid.
There are going to be a lot more than ten (or twelve or whatever we do nowadays, I don't remember), and then we blow through all the top free agents first.
There's an easy enough solution to that: Start Free Agency by opening the players who were tendered qualifying offers and the offer should serve as the opening bid.
There are going to be a lot more than ten (or twelve or whatever we do nowadays, I don't remember), and then we blow through all the top free agents first.
We always start with a selection from among the top free agents anyway. Now we can make that starting population (and the subsequent replacements) be from among the group of qualified FA. I don't really think it's a bad thing to open the top FA first.
We always start with a selection from among the top free agents anyway. Now we can make that starting population (and the subsequent replacements) be from among the group of qualified FA. I don't really think it's a bad thing to open the top FA first.
It's still an issue though. If I put a QO on Player X and he's not one of the starting ten, it handcuffs me from bidding on ten of the best free agents out there. Without hard caps that's fine, but with them it's just too big a disadvantage.
And the teams that get hurt by it the most are the ones who have long term contracts already on the books (and therefore have less money to play with) and have multiple needs to address, while the teams who have fewer needs, or a stronger cost-controlled core, can offer QOs without worrying as much.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 1, 2016 20:16:26 GMT -5
I think you would absolutely have to open them first. Remember under my plan if you QO someone your willing to pay them the QO offer. You may not have too if either they are bid under (you can choose to accept the QO bid or let them leave for less) or over and you lose them anyway with compensation. Your only stuck with the bid if you choose to take the QO because the player was bid under that offer and you still want them. The top guys who will most likely be bid over the QO will still be available every year and open at the start of regular FA.
It would give a team that's close to winning a chance to keep one average to above average guy that they may have only had the cap room to sign anyway. Based on the available cap space posted already in the official rosters, most teams could afford to QO one guy.
I think you would absolutely have to open them first. Remember under my plan if you QO someone your willing to pay them the QO offer. You may not have too if either they are bid under (you can choose to accept the QO bid or let them leave for less) or over and you lose them anyway with compensation. Your only stuck with the bid if you choose to take the QO because the player was bid under that offer and you still want them. The top guys who will most likely be bid over the QO will still be available every year and open at the start of regular FA.
It would give a team that's close to winning a chance to keep one average to above average guy that they may have only had the cap room to sign anyway. Based on the available cap space posted already in the official rosters, most teams could afford to QO one guy.
Wait though, why would you choose to go with a qualifying offer that's over the current bid instead of just bidding regularly?
Round 1 Round 2 Compensation Round A - 4 Years/At Or Over 20 percent of projected salary cap Round 3 Compensation Round B - 3 Years/At Or Over 15 percent of projected salary cap Round 4 Compensation Round C - 2 Years/At Or Over 10 percent of projected salary cap Round 5 Compensation Round D - 1 Year/At Or Over 8 percent of projected salary cap Round 6 Round 7 Competitive Balancing Round Round 8
***
This is my suggestion Make the litmus be about a percentage of the projected cap, that way the "rule" can be flexible with changes for the future. A 15 million hard number might not be applicable X number of years in the future.
So in this case, if you lose a free agent, in order to be in Comp A, you need to lose him to a 4 year deal and he needs to clock 25 million or over AAV. Anyone who gets a 4 year deal UNDER this AAV threshold ( but above the 15 percent threshold) immediately goes to the front of the line in Comp B.
And on and on and on.
The reason I picked the placement after the 2nd round is because in the NFL, their compensation pick system ensures no team can get higher than a 3rd round pick in any scenario (I think it was for Albert Haynesworth, where the highest ever comp pick was issued)
To me, spreading out the Comp picks offers a balance that does not incentive owners to basically pump and dump free agent signings immediately into trades, creating the possibility of heavy future cap charges that can essentially kill a competitive future year for a team.
The "Competitive Balancing Round" picks would only operate on very specific conditions
- You must finish in the bottom 8-10 of the end of season, post playoff standings - You must use at minimum 1 post draft addition from your "home team" to your roster the previous season - You must use your Rule 5 pick or trade it for a player or other tangible asset the previous season - You must conduct at least 3 trades in the previous calendar year - You must post a trade wants/haves/interest list in the Trade Block at least twice during the Preseason/Season of play previously - You must not have any salary cap violations or be subject to any other kind of league discipline within the last calendar year - You must not "time out" more than once in the previous league amateur draft
I'd like to see a mechanism to reward teams that are putting out the effort to make their teams better but bad luck or injuries marred them. I also think it would incentivize more activity. The CBR could be placed anywhere in the draft order, I just put after the 7th above as a placeholder.
The "Competitive Balancing Round" picks would only operate on very specific conditions
- You must finish in the bottom 8-10 of the end of season, post playoff standings - You must use at minimum 1 post draft addition from your "home team" to your roster the previous season - You must use your Rule 5 pick or trade it for a player or other tangible asset the previous season - You must conduct at least 3 trades in the previous calendar year - You must post a trade wants/haves/interest list in the Trade Block at least twice during the Preseason/Season of play previously - You must not have any salary cap violations or be subject to any other kind of league discipline within the last calendar year - You must not "time out" more than once in the previous league amateur draft
I'd like to see a mechanism to reward teams that are putting out the effort to make their teams better but bad luck or injuries marred them. I also think it would incentivize more activity. The CBR could be placed anywhere in the draft order, I just put after the 7th above as a placeholder.
I really like some of these stipulations; very creative barometer for determining which GMs are active and which are not. I'm not sure I like the idea of a CBR per se, but I definitely want to remember this list for sometime in the future when/if we decide we want to find a way to reward more active GMs. Or it could be tied into an existing rule (redshirt, for example).
Good ideas here, and I appreciate the detail you put into it, but I'm just not sure I like how many rounds it results in. I think it complicates the draft more than necessary, and I think we can accomplish the same thing just by setting hard numbers and then re-evaluating them every few years. I also think we should still have Comp Round A after the first round, like MLB does it. MLB is doing a round after the first and a round after the second, and I think we should do the same, and determine who earns it in a similar way.
With that said, Jon and I worked out an idea last night over chat that we both like a lot, so I'll propose it in another post.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 2, 2016 9:52:46 GMT -5
Jon and I worked something out last night that I think works really well. It implements an actual Qualifying Offer system, making comp picks a bit tougher to get, but it doesn't handcuff teams to offers and it doesn't require those free agents being opened up first.
What we propose:
You can offer as many qualifying offers as you like to your departing free agents. You must offer a qualifying offer in order to earn compensation, but you won't necessarily earn it (see below), nor are you necessarily bound to the offer.
The qualifying offer amount is one year, $15 million. If I make a QO, I am committing to staying out of the bidding until it reaches $15 million. I am not allowed to bid on the player I made the QO on for less than $15 million.
If the bidding stops below $15 million annually (and below $50 million total, see below), I can either a) choose to sign the player to the QO myself: one year, $15 million (this is a flat amount, no discounts, no penalties) or b) let him go to the winning bidder with NO COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Once the bidding reaches $15 million, my QO is no longer on the table, but I'm now able to earn compensation. If I want to bid on the player I can proceed with bidding like normal - discounts and penalties apply. If I don't re-sign the player, I earn a compensation pick in Compensation Round B, after Round 2 of the draft.
If the total value of the contract exceeds $50 million (before discounts), however, instead of a Comp B pick, I would earn a Comp A pick, after the first round, provided I don't re-sign the player. It is possible for a contract to exceed $50 million total even without crossing the $15 million threshold - for example, a four year, $13 million offer would be $52 million. In this event, I could still earn the Comp A pick, or I could choose to have the player accept my QO and keep him myself (remember, after discounts that four year, $13 million offer is going to be $10.4 million per year at most, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that a player might choose a one year, $15 million contract instead).
The amounts for the $15 million QO and the $50 million threshold would be re-evaluated every few years for realism and balance
There's one thing we haven't quite decided. I don't want to speak for Jon but I think we both could go either way with this, although I get the sense that he's leaning one way and I'm leaning the other, however. Here it is:
Let's say Jon and I are both bidding on a player that Brian has offered a QO to. Let's say the bidding gets to three years, $12 million, with Jon having the leading bid. I decide I'm done bidding, but let's say Jon thinks he's getting a real bargain and he would have easily paid a few million more per year. He's thrilled with his signing...
...But then, Brian goes ahead and claims the player on the QO.
The question is, should Jon have another chance to bid, or is that it?
Option 1 would be that the bidding now continues, but with ONLY Brian and Jon allowed to bid. Maybe Jon makes one more bid, wins the player, and Brian stops bidding because he's glad that he now gets his comp pick (having made the gamble that Jon would bid again - if Jon hadn't bid, Brian would be stuck paying the player). Or maybe Brian wants to keep bidding, and now he gets the chance to sign said player to a multi-year deal.
Option 2 would be that once Brian claims the player on the QO, that's it. If Jon didn't want to risk losing the player to the QO, then he should have offered more money (effectively outbidding himself).
I'm leaning towards option 1, but both options would present some intriguing scenarios, and each has a lot of nuances that need to be considered.
Last Edit: Dec 2, 2016 9:54:37 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 2, 2016 9:57:49 GMT -5
I couldn't of said it better myself Ben. A lot of work and back and forth but I think we nailed it. And your right with the end, I'm leaning towards option 2. But I am open to any and all suggestions or opinions.
I also think we should still have Comp Round A after the first round, like MLB does it. MLB is doing a round after the first and a round after the second, and I think we should do the same, and determine who earns it in a similar way.
If the bidding stops below $15 million annually (and below $50 million total, see below), I can either a) choose to sign the player to the QO myself: one year, $15 million (this is a flat amount, no discounts, no penalties) or b) let him go to the winning bidder with NO COMPENSATION AWARDED.
****
The base issue I see is that our actual draft functions much more like the NFL current model than the actual MLB model, which is why I bring up the NFL model quite a bit. The problem of how I see the proposed qualifying offer within the context of this league is it effectively functions much like the NFL Franchise Player Rule. In the NFL, the player cannot turn down the franchise offer and become a free agent. He can choose not to sign it and try to leverage a hold out, or he can negotiate a long term deal with his drafting franchise, but he has no ability to actually opt out ( i.e. sign with another team).
In real MLB, historically, until last year, every single player who got a MLB qualifying offer turned it down.
"Since the inception of the new system in 2012, 64 qualifying offers have been made by teams, with only five accepted. This year Neil Walker of the Mets and Jeremy Hellickson of the Phillies accepted. The other eight players offered this year did not, aware of their worth on the open market. Yoenis Cespedes, for example, rejected the Mets' qualifying offer, knowing full well some team will likely commit to him for more than one year; in turn, the Mets will receive a draft pick from whatever team signs him."
Several guys ( Kendry Morales and Stephen Drew) actually ended up sitting out half a season each because if the impasse. A few players did sign it last year, and a few more this year, but even our league constitution points out, real life players seek the longest contract possible. Given the current proposal, players have no say in the matter, and would operate against their own natural interests ( i.e the consideration of taking a lower AAV but for a longer contract for more security). If part of the format is to model after MLB as much as possible, it starts to, no offense, become contradictory.
"One line of sentiment says that some players over-value themselves by rejecting the QO. (No player has yet accepted one.) Even if the offer is an arguably fair price for one year of a certain player's services, however, that does not end the matter. It is quite difficult to reach free agency through service time, let alone to do so at an optimal point in time. Players that do naturally seek to maximize their overall guarantee, often choosing a longer contract with a lower average annual value to avoid the risks inherent in suiting up for another season before securing a future commitment. As Ubaldo Jimenez recently explained it: "I knew that I would have a better offer than the qualifying offer. Or at the very least, I wasn't as much worried about the annual salary, I was more concerned with having the long-term security.""
We aren't functionally doing it like MLB does it.
Other QO issues along the lines of real MLB not covered-
"The value of the qualifying offer, which is determined annually by averaging the top 125 player salaries from the previous year.... Teams have until five days after the World Series to make qualifying offers. At that point the players have seven days to accept. Once a team makes a qualifying offer, the player has two choices: he can accept the one-year deal or decline in search of other offers. If he declines the offer and signs elsewhere, his new team will have to surrender a top draft pick (see more on this below). No player has ever taken a qualifying offer ( This has changed obviously in the last year and half), but if one does, he cannot be traded (absent consent) until June 15 of the following season (i.e., 2016), as Steve Kinsella of Sports Talk Florida recently noted and MLBTR has confirmed. Even if a player grants such consent, only $50K in cash can be exchanged as part of the trade. Only players who have been with their clubs for the entire previous season are eligible for compensation. Thus, players traded mid-season are not eligible to receive a qualifying offer."
If following MLB, then I'd argue any use of a QO would need to go hand in hand with more restrictive trade limitation on that specific player, the player can only receive a QO if they are truly "home grown" and developed, i.e. not a player picked up in a trade in his 6th year the previous year, the money has to be aligned with the top average of his specific position ( which is again more in line with the NFL structure but simpler than taking the top 125 contracts in our league) and money can't be traded with the player, if he's able to be traded at all in that one year contract.
To me, if the "player" has no real choice, unlike real MLB, then the signing team here should have no choice. You put up a QO, no one outbids it, you are stuck with the dude at that price no matter what the lower bids were, you have to make the offer right after the World Series, you eat the one year penalties ( but you get your hometown discount, like everyone else) and you can't trade the dude. You are stuck with him the entire year. If he blows out his ACL in real life three hours after you make the QO, you are stuck with the dude. If it blows up your cap situation, then you are stuck with him and have to cut farmers or make other adjustments to fit your cap.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see the old system with some tweaks, if the concern is number of comp picks period or that they might be too easy to earn. If the current proposal made a few posts up on QO went up today, I'd vote against it.
As for complaints, obviously I'm not privy to private complaints to Staff, but I only saw one public complaint about the current Comp system, from a team, to my best understanding, passed on their Rule 5 pick, didn't use their Post Draft Adds, consistently put in non compliant FA bids, doesn't really trade or post trade lists and has been previous sanctioned for how they set their lineups to basically tank. I don't see them in the discussion here now. If the complaint is the "Rich Get Richer" the the base response IMHO should be you make your own opportunities. You want more assets? Work harder. A lot of fantasy, any fantasy, and all of us are fantasy veterans here, comes down to putting a nose to the grindstone and just putting in the effort. Everyone can have an opinion, everyone can voice an opinion, but respect, like in any 100 percent male environment, is earned. If someone wants their complaints to carry weight, then conduct yourself as a player, by your actions, who carries weight.
Just my take on it. I respect everyone's right here to have and share their opinion.
Merry Xmas to everyone here, glad to be in this league with you all.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 3, 2016 17:30:38 GMT -5
I guess I'm thinking that the change that Jon and I are proposing doesn't really change that much from the way we currently do it, it's actually a pretty minor change:
You still get the comp pick for the same threshold ($15 million), although we're adding the second $50 million threshold to match MLB's change.
Having the player accept your QO isn't really that different from how we currently do it either - if a guy is at four years, $13 million or whatever and I was the previous owner of that player and I want to bid one year $15 million, I can, with or without this rule change.
All it really changes is makes teams have to think about the decision to make QOs or not, which just adds an additional aspect of realism to the game at an otherwise fairly uneventful time of the year.
As far as limiting QOs to players who have been on the team for at least a season (the mercenary rule), and making it so players can only receive QOs once in their careers, I'd be fine with those options.
All it really changes is makes teams have to think about the decision to make QOs or not, which just adds an additional aspect of realism to the game
****
Our current system IMHO is realistic. If a player can get a 1 year at 5 million dollar deal, or a 2 year at 5 million per year deal, he picks the longer contract. If he has the choice between two contracts of the same multi year length, he takes the one with the higher AAV.
In this proposal, the imaginary player has zero right to refuse, unlike real MLB, and would take a 1 year 15 million dollar deal instead of a 2 year at 13 million per year deal. In real life, a player has to consider his number of prime years. Many of these long term contracts in real life (Pujols, Miggy Cabrera) the teams are accepting a certain number of prime years in exchange for what are likely to be some ugly years on the back end. It's a strategic consideration.
The QO option proposed IMHO does not push strategic consideration hard enough. It allows a franchise owner to sit back and decide how to best not losing a fringe FA for no compensation, working against fewer strategic trade offs than in real MLB itself.
It is the NFL's Franchise Player Rule in effect, eating up a year of a players potential prime, without incurring the risk of a back end decline in a longer term deal.
This is not about compensation, it's about overall league balance. In a balanced system, finding an edge means looking for market inefficiencies, in a non balanced system, it means just looking for unintentional loopholes in place ( If a proposal is essentially an option to avoid the 1 year contract league tax on contracts above 10 million, it IMHO becomes more of a loophole than an inefficiency since only 1 owner can use it). Also I take the perspective that the Qualifying Offer system as proposed will function as a tax against free agency here in general. This proposal is going to eliminate some of the strategic consideration in trading off a players decline ( more pronounced in the fringe guys this rule will mostly impact) for his shorter term "Win Now" value.
To me, more critical is where the Comp round picks are placed in terms of between which rounds. Our draft works nothing like the real MLB draft. We have far less talent absorption and we don't have to account for slotting/bonus rules which can allow more talented upside guys to fall. Best talent, given the time and place, moves on that merit alone, which again, more models the NFL system.
I'm not opposed to a QO system period, but I am opposed to one that leans one way IMHO too far to the benefit of the preexisting franchise owner, without the needed tradeoffs to balance out it's effect of being a tax on free agency itself for the entire league.
I'm only 1 of 30 here, but under the current proposal, I'll vote against it and I'll lobby others to vote against it.
As always, I'd like to hear what the other 25+ owners feel on this. It is a long offseason and maybe this is a good starting point to generate a wider discussion on the issue, including perspectives that both you and I might not have seen or covered yet. Thanks.
Our current system IMHO is realistic. If a player can get a 1 year at 5 million dollar deal, or a 2 year at 5 million per year deal, he picks the longer contract. If he has the choice between two contracts of the same multi year length, he takes the one with the higher AAV.
In this proposal, the imaginary player has zero right to refuse, unlike real MLB, and would take a 1 year 15 million dollar deal instead of a 2 year at 13 million per year deal. In real life, a player has to consider his number of prime years. Many of these long term contracts in real life (Pujols, Miggy Cabrera) the teams are accepting a certain number of prime years in exchange for what are likely to be some ugly years on the back end. It's a strategic consideration.
In the current system a one year $15 million offer does trump a two year, $13 million offer. If you offer two years, $13 million in regular bidding, and I offer one year, $15 million, my bid is the leading bid. The player isn't going to take your offer unless you make a better one.
In the proposed qualifying offer system it works the same way - if you're offering two years, $13 million my qualifying offer trumps it, so either I can make the offer or I can let him go to you and not get the draft pick. If you offer two years, $15 million, my qualifying offer no longer trumps it, so the player will take your deal and I'll get the comp pick, unless I want to outbid you. The player is only going to take the qualifying offer if it's the best offer out there.
Although there still remains the issue of the tax, which is a limiter on a franchise trying to avoid more years, i.e. more assumed risk of decline.
"In real life, premium free agents typically sign multi-year deals. It's difficult to sign a premium free agent to a one or two year deal. In our league, we simulate this difficulty by applying penalties on expensive short contracts. Basically, in order to sign a premium free agent to a short contract, it's going to cost you a extra. On one-year contracts that exceed $10 million, 50% of the amount by which the offer exceeds $10 million will be added to the offer after the completion of the bidding.
A one year, $11 million offer becomes $11.5 million ($11 million exceeds $10 million by $1 million, 50% of $1 million = $0.5 million). A one year, $15 million offer becomes $17.5 million ($2.5 million penalty, which is 50% of $5 million) A one year, $20 million offer becomes $25 million ($5 million penalty, which is 50% of $10 million)
This penalty is added after the bidding is complete but before other discounts are calculated and applied - to beat this bid, another GM need only beat the offered raw annual value, not the amount after the penalty is added."
In order to trump a 1 year, 15 million locked in QO with no discounts and penalties to the PRE EXISTING FRANCHISE, lets call them Team A ( there is no discussion yet of other franchises and how the penalty provision applies) , another team, lets call them Team B, has to bid 16 million for 1 year, to trump the 15 million bid and which is given the tax and there is no guarantee said team has a discount that offseason, is a 3 million dollar hit, which comes to 19 million to acquire the player. Someone could say, well Team B could offer a 2 year deal to avoid the tax. In that case, the "tax" is assuming another year of risk and reduced cap flexibility not incurred by Team A ( i.e. there's likely a reason that Team A isn't offering a 2 year deal themselves)
Negating the tax for one team, but not the other, whether it's a direct cap hit or assumed risk, essentially removes the reason for the tax in the first place, which is to create a strategic trade off for avoiding the risk of a longer contract and the natural curve of a players decline/production with age.
It's also much simpler to move an expiring contract, if said team realizes they are out of the race, and since they have the cap to sign him in the first place, they can offer salary coverage to the next team. Unlike real MLB, this league allows far more salary coverage in trades ( And even the real life QO provisions further restrict the already limited amount of money that can go into a trade without league approval and also extends the limitations on an operational trading window for said player) Again, on top of this, the current proposal allows the pre existing owner to wait and make the decision at the last minute, unlike real MLB where there is more assumed risk.
This all still, to my perspective, leans in favor of one franchise owner, at the detriment to the other 29 owners and operates as a limiter on free agency in general.
A league with balance = Market inefficiencies in place that any team can use A league without balance = Loopholes that benefit one specific team at the cost of opportunity for 29 other teams
I don't see any functional trade offs for the preexisting team.
Again, I'd like to hear from the other 25+ owners on all of this.
Although there still remains the issue of the tax, which is a limiter on a franchise trying to avoid more years, i.e. more assumed risk of decline.
"In real life, premium free agents typically sign multi-year deals. It's difficult to sign a premium free agent to a one or two year deal. In our league, we simulate this difficulty by applying penalties on expensive short contracts. Basically, in order to sign a premium free agent to a short contract, it's going to cost you a extra. On one-year contracts that exceed $10 million, 50% of the amount by which the offer exceeds $10 million will be added to the offer after the completion of the bidding.
A one year, $11 million offer becomes $11.5 million ($11 million exceeds $10 million by $1 million, 50% of $1 million = $0.5 million). A one year, $15 million offer becomes $17.5 million ($2.5 million penalty, which is 50% of $5 million) A one year, $20 million offer becomes $25 million ($5 million penalty, which is 50% of $10 million)
This penalty is added after the bidding is complete but before other discounts are calculated and applied - to beat this bid, another GM need only beat the offered raw annual value, not the amount after the penalty is added."
In order to trump a 1 year, 15 million locked in QO with no discounts and penalties to the PRE EXISTING FRANCHISE, lets call them Team A ( there is no discussion yet of other franchises and how the penalty provision applies) , another team, lets call them Team B, has to bid 16 million for 1 year, to trump the 15 million bid and which is given the tax and there is no guarantee said team has a discount that offseason, is a 3 million dollar hit, which comes to 19 million to acquire the player. Someone could say, well Team B could offer a 2 year deal to avoid the tax. In that case, the "tax" is assuming another year of risk and reduced cap flexibility not incurred by Team A ( i.e. there's likely a reason that Team A isn't offering a 2 year deal themselves)
Negating the tax for one team, but not the other, whether it's a direct cap hit or assumed risk, essentially removes the reason for the tax in the first place, which is to create a strategic trade off for avoiding the risk of a longer contract and the natural curve of a players decline/production with age.
It's also much simpler to move an expiring contract, if said team realizes they are out of the race, and since they have the cap to sign him in the first place, they can offer salary coverage to the next team. Unlike real MLB, this league allows far more salary coverage in trades ( And even the real life QO provisions further restrict the already limited amount of money that can go into a trade without league approval and also extends the limitations on an operational trading window for said player) Again, on top of this, the current proposal allows the pre existing owner to wait and make the decision at the last minute, unlike real MLB where there is more assumed risk.
This all still, to my perspective, leans in favor of one franchise owner, at the detriment to the other 29 owners and operates as a limiter on free agency in general.
A league with balance = Market inefficiencies in place that any team can use A league without balance = Loopholes that benefit one specific team at the cost of opportunity for 29 other teams
I don't see any functional trade offs for the preexisting team.
Again, I'd like to hear from the other 25+ owners on all of this.
But don't forget the hometown discount. A one year, $15 million offer with tax becomes $17.5 million, but with hometown discount, which Team A would have, is reduced to 15.7 million. We're talking about a difference of just .7 million here. Considering the team can't join the bidding under the QO rule for anything less than $15 million, odds are much greater that the QO results in them paying more than they otherwise would have, since the only circumstance in which the QO results in a $0.7 million savings is if the bidding ended at $14 million per year.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 5, 2016 9:06:11 GMT -5
Also, as much as we try to mimic the real MLB our league does have its differences. We have kicked around the idea for years of some sort of QO or tag system where a team would keep someone. This is the first time, to my knowledge, we have actually put together a plan that seems to make sense.
I understand where your coming from David, but I feel and Ben too, that our comp pick system needs fixing and this seems like a way to kill two birds with one stone. Give a team an opportunity to hold onto a player one extra season and/or ensure only the elite players get comp picks.
Your not going to QO everyone of your FA. Only the ones you either want to keep or expect to get a comp pick for. So some strategy goes into the process.
Ben, sorry if I put any words in your mouth. Send me a PM through FB messenger when you get a chance.
I don't see any functional trade offs for the preexisting team.
Again, I'd like to hear from the other 25+ owners on all of this.
But don't forget the hometown discount. A one year, $15 million offer with tax becomes $17.5 million, but with hometown discount, which Team A would have, is reduced to 15.7 million. We're talking about a difference of just .7 million here.
RP Jeanmar Gomez, signed for 0.6 the past free agency, produced 3 wins, 37 saves, 47 strikeouts and 68+ innings pitched
****
While I recognize there were also a ton of inexpensive signings at 0.7 or less that did not pan out, every single dollar counts, every single roster space counts. At minimum, that's one more farm prospect a team can hold instead having to cut given a series of decisions based on possible tradeoffs.
You can do a lot with 0.7 in cap space. You can do a lot with just one more roster spot. You can do a lot with just one more draft pick.
If it's just 0.7, then my take on it is pay the tax like everyone else.
Base problem still exists here, if the proposal discussed above gives the team with preexisting rights to said free agent the final ability to win a player based on a last minute QO bid of 15 million, then how exactly is that helping free agency in general?
If you are not a team with preexisting rights, you are competing with 28 other teams for said player, only if you outbid the team with preexisting rights at 16 million ( the bid must be 1 million more at minimum at this point) do you actually compete with that team for said free agency. And what is the final cost? As far as the discussion goes, the tax applies to the non rights holding team bidding, and there is no guaranteed said team has any kind of discount. A 16 million bid with tax turns into 19 million. Should it cost one team FOUR MILLION MORE for the same player to compete against the team with the right to use a qualifying offer?
Let's consider the international signing situation, which is the only case IIRC where the tax threshold does not apply. Let's use retired players for example. You could sign Ichiro Suzuki or Hideki "The Fat Toad" Irabu to a 2 year, 26 million per year contract. Normally there would be a tax on the 6 million above the 20 million mark, but there is not. Whats the upside to the owner? If they sign an All Star like Suzuki ( and he wasn't a solid lock to be anything like he was overseas when he was first coming over) they can get the back end cost controlled four years at half the AAV if they want if the player ends up a blue chip player since he has no actual MLB service time. What's the risk? It could be Irabu, a bust, who chews up a large cap hit ( about 1/5th of the current cap total) for two years and that dead weight will cause issues with flexibility. Risk vs Reward. There's a risk, but there is upside.
Given the QO proposal above, what is the drawback/risk factor for the team with preexisting rights?
I see a ton of benefits for that team, but what are the practical trade offs? If the player is valuable, they can use them and not have to trade off for future years where there might be a decline. They can trade them before the trade deadline ( since there is no discussion of expanding trade restrictions) to dump the contract by covering salary, or in part, or not at all. They can let the contract expire whether the player is valuable or not. They can REPEAT the process the next year since there is no prohibition against such discuss ( there is no discussion of multiple uses of the QO on the same player in consecutive years, even the NFL Franchise Player Rule covers this issue, no offense, your proposal does not) It's a restriction on free agency ( Are we going to have to go over the 15 V 19 million issue again? ) without any real restrictions on the team with preexisting rights.
31 Kansas City Royals (For Giancarlo Stanton) - Joey Wentz, P, Atlanta Braves 32 San Francisco Giants (For Madison Bumgarner) - Nolan Jones, SS, Cleveland Indians 33 Houston Astros (For Miguel Cabrera) - Kyle Muller, P, Atlanta Braves 34 Detroit Tigers (For Jake Arrieta) - Junior Guerra, P, Milwaukee Brewers 35 Toronto Blue Jays (For Felix Hernandez) - Jorge Ona, OF, San Diego Padres 36 Atlanta Braves (For Jason Heyward) - Alec Hansen, P, Chicago White Sox 37 San Francisco Giants (For Jose Bautista) - Will Benson, OF, Cleveland Indians 38 Cleveland Indians (For Jon Lester) - Carter Kieboom, SS, Washington Nationals 39 San Francisco Giants (For Cole Hamels) - Taylor Trammell, OF, Cincinnati Reda 40 Toronto Blue Jays (For Anderson Espinoza) - Luis Almanzar, SS, San Diego Padres 41 Toronto Blue Jays (For Edwin Encarnacion) - Brandon Woodruff, P, Milwaukee Brewers 42 Colorado Rockies (For Jonathan Lucroy) - Dane Dunning, P, Washington Nationals 43 Colorado Rockies (For Adrian Gonzalez) - Heath Quinn, OF, San Francisco Giants 44 Houston Astros (For Mike Leake) - Bo Bichette, SS, Toronto Blue Jays 45 San Francisco Giants (For Jeff Samardzija) - Eddy Julio Martinez, OF Chicago Cubs 46 Pittsburgh Pirates (For Ian Kennedy) - Lazarito Armenteros, OF, Oakland Athletics 47 Toronto Blue Jays (For James Shields) - Dustin Fowler, OF, New York Yankees 48 Tampa Bay Rays (For Scott Kazmir) - Ryan Schimpf, 2B, San Diego Padres 49 Los Angeles Angels (For Curtis Granderson) - Victor Garcia, OF, St Louis Cardinals 50 Kansas City Royals (For Matt Wieters) - Yusniel Diaz, OF, Los Angeles Dodgers 51 San Diego Padres (For Ian Kinsler) - Mitchell White, P, Los Angeles Dodgers 52 Toronto Blue Jays (For Brett Gardner) - Max Schrock, 2B, Washington Nationals 53 Cincinnati Reds (For Hanley Ramirez) - Josh Ockimey, 1B, Boston Red Sox 54 San Francisco Giants (For Danny Valencia) - Kevin Gowdy, P, Philadelphia Phillies 55 San Francisco Giants (For Albert Pujols) - Jesus Luzardo, SP, Washington Nationals 56 Houston Astros (For Ian Desmond) - Logan Shore, P, Oakland Athletics 57 Cleveland Indians (For Jon Niese) - AJ Puckett, P, Kansas City Royals 58 Houston Astros (For Carlos Santana) - Anfernee Grier, OF, Arizona Diamondbacks 59 Tampa Bay Rays (For Wade Davis) - Lucas Erceg, 3B, Milwaukee Brewers 60 Miami Marlins (For David Ortiz) - Sheldon Neuse, 3B, Washington Nationals 61 Cincinnati Reds (For Neil Walker) - Zack Burdi, P, Chicago White Sox 62 Toronto Blue Jays (For Shin-Soo Choo) - Luis Alexander Basabe, OF, Boston Red Sox 63 San Francisco Giants (For Ervin Santana) - Adam Frazier, 2B, Pittsburgh Pirates 64 Philadelphia Phillies (For Jose Reyes) - Franklin Perez, P, Houston Astros
Let's look at the actual comp round and take a look at the big pink elephant in the room - Pitching scarcity. Pitching is volatile. Tommy John can turn into a two year injury and there is a high degree of risk with pitcher, many of whom only help you once every fifth day.
Address the issue of pitching scarcity against the backdrop of a 30 team league, IMHO, will change the dynamics of how pitching is valued, thus impacting how it's bid on, how far the market value goes, and will reduce the size of the comp round naturally. When a No#4 or No#5 starter eats up a 4 year contract whose AAV ends up 1/6th of someone's total cap and there were several team fighting said player, is the issue a lack of a QO system or a logistical issue of how pitching operates here? This is not a criticism pointing directly at you, any fantasy is hard to balance, most of us have been Commishes somewhere in the past, but it's not just enough to ask IMHO if there needs to be a higher threshold for a comp pick, but why certain positional value situations have a spiked AAV.
No offense, but maybe there is a functional reason why the QO idea has been kicked around for years instead of actually implemented.
Base question that I feel are worth addressing here, assuming there is some kind of QO system in place, in the aspect of the other 25+ owners also having input into the process here.
- What time table should the QO be placed? I.E. should a team with preexisting rights get the right to not have to decide until actual free agency and until after everyone else has bid? What's the time table in that case? 24 hours after a team "wins" but then then any point in that 24 hours the team with preexisting rights can drop a 15 million nuke and take the player if the other bids are under 15 million?
- How long should a team own said future free agent on their roster the previous season to qualify for a QO status? I.E. if you trade for Player X one day before the league trade deadline, should you have the right to QO the player the following FA? Should this only apply to a player you drafted? Or that you held for X number of seasons?
- Should a team with a winning bid under 15 million get a chance to bid after a QO has been made? In this case, should the one year tax apply, and if so, why should he pay the tax if the preexisting rights team does not? ( does anyone think a 4 million difference in cost of the same player is the best way to be equitable here?)
- Can a player be given a QO in consecutive years by the same franchise? More than 2 years? Will there be a cost accelerator like in the NFL Franchise Player Rule in a 2nd, 3rd, 4th year, etc. i.e. a Walter Jones with Seahawks situation? It's allowing an owner to chew up a players prime without the back end risk of decline in a longer term contract.
- Should there be expanded trade limitations on said Player X if he is signed to a QO ( i.e. a trade off where a team can't create a greater restriction on FA in general for the 29 other teams without some kind of trade off)
- Should a team with preexisting rights to said Free Agent X be tax exempt given a one year contract QO ( i.e a one year deal more than 10 million )? If there is a tax, should said tax be EVEN MORE PUNITIVE than that which exists in standard free agency? Should be it be less punitive?
Bigger question in general - If the COMP system needs some type of overhaul, does it need to be this specific proposal, as presented, versus nothing at all? That seems to be the tone here. I'm bringing up issues, with context, that no offense, I don't feel are actually being addressed.
Am I completely opposed, as 1 owner out of 30, to a QO system? I'm opposed, no offense, to the one presented. I respect other owners feel differently about it and respect their right to feel differently. Given the current proposal as shown in posts above, will vote against it, will lobby against it even if I have to PM every single other owner personally to do it, if it's passed, will lobby against it in every season afterwards.
While I recognize there were also a ton of inexpensive signings at 0.7 or less that did not pan out, every single dollar counts, every single roster space counts. At minimum, that's one more farm prospect a team can hold instead having to cut given a series of decisions based on possible tradeoffs.
You can do a lot with 0.7 in cap space. You can do a lot with just one more roster spot. You can do a lot with just one more draft pick.
If it's just 0.7, then my take on it is pay the tax like everyone else.
Well, unless the bidding is at $14 million prior to the QO, the team ends up paying more than the offer would have otherwise been (i.e. if you have a $13 million bid, and I'm the team debating the QO, the only way I can keep him is with the $15 million QO, in which case I end up paying $0.6 million more than I otherwise would have with a simple $14 million bid (which ends up at $14.4 million after tax and discount.
We could just say keep the tax and keep the discounts on the QO. Just make it so by offering a QO, the team can't get involved in the bidding until it reaches that $15 million minimum, but otherwise bidding proceeds as usual at that and every other amount. I would be okay with this solution, but it does have one key issue: playoff discounts.
If we don't go with a simple hard QO number, then it becomes less burdensome for teams with playoff discounts to offer QOs, giving them an advantage when it comes to acquiring comp picks. This is not the effect we want to have. But it's a minor effect, only about 0.9 million, so if that's the league's preference, I'm fine with it.
Base problem still exists here, if the proposal discussed above gives the team with preexisting rights to said free agent the final ability to win a player based on a last minute QO bid of 15 million, then how exactly is that helping free agency in general?
I don't think it should be final for the very reason you state. Jon and I differ on this point. It's worthy of further discussion.
If you are not a team with preexisting rights, you are competing with 28 other teams for said player, only if you outbid the team with preexisting rights at 16 million ( the bid must be 1 million more at minimum at this point) do you actually compete with that team for said free agency. And what is the final cost? As far as the discussion goes, the tax applies to the non rights holding team bidding, and there is no guaranteed said team has any kind of discount. A 16 million bid with tax turns into 19 million. Should it cost one team FOUR MILLION MORE for the same player to compete against the team with the right to use a qualifying offer?
They don't have to outbid $15 million, just reach it. The difference is only $2.5 million, and only at this one very specific number.
Given the QO proposal above, what is the drawback/risk factor for the team with preexisting rights?
I see a ton of benefits for that team, but what are the practical trade offs?
Drawback: I can't bid on the player for any amount below the QO. Current system: last year I wanted a comp pick for Wade Davis, so I worked him up toward the necessary amount figuring worst case scenario I end up keeping him at a very reasonable discounted contract. He ended up going just over the threshold so I stopped bidding. New system: I can't influence the bidding to try to get my player's contract up. If you have the leading bid at $11 million per year, I can't say "well, he's cheap, might as well take him at $12 million!" or outbid you at $12 million in the hopes that you might go $13, I go $14, and you go $15 to get me my offer. I have to make the decision at the start of the offseason whether I think it's a worthwhile decision. With someone like Davis, I'd be giving up the chance of maybe signing him cheaply in order to get my QO. It's one or the other, not both.
I see a ton of benefits for that team, but what are the practical trade offs? If the player is valuable, they can use them and not have to trade off for future years where there might be a decline. They can trade them before the trade deadline ( since there is no discussion of expanding trade restrictions) to dump the contract by covering salary, or in part, or not at all. They can let the contract expire whether the player is valuable or not. They can REPEAT the process the next year since there is no prohibition against such discuss ( there is no discussion of multiple uses of the QO on the same player in consecutive years, even the NFL Franchise Player Rule covers this issue, no offense, your proposal does not) It's a restriction on free agency ( Are we going to have to go over the 15 V 19 million issue again? ) without any real restrictions on the team with preexisting rights.
As far as limiting QOs to players who have been on the team for at least a season (the mercenary rule), and making it so players can only receive QOs once in their careers, I'd be fine with those options.
But Jon and I were discussing this very thing Monday night as a potential remedy to the issues you bring up. The option we think would be best would be that a player can receive QOs multiple times in their career, but can't be offered a QO the year after accepting one. So if I win a player through my QO, I can't offer him one next year - the ship has sailed on my earning a comp pick for this player this year or next.
We also discussed making it so that the player can't be traded if accepting a QO, or allowing him to be traded but not having salary be allowed to be covered, but I think these are too prohibitive. However, I definitely think we should implement a mercenary rule so that you can't QO a player who wasn't on your team on opening day, which would also help put an end to those ridiculous deadline deals of 6th year players for peanuts that we see every year because the 6th year player is worth so much more to the acquiring team than the selling, non-contending team. Now the player would have value to the non-contending team (a comp pick) that wouldn't carry over to the buyer.
Let's look at the actual comp round and take a look at the big pink elephant in the room - Pitching scarcity.
Completely agree. I've wanted to reduce our pitching staff to 4 SP, 4 RP, and 1 P for years now but nobody else gets on board with it. It's a huge problem that for teams to be competitive in our league they need to field 6 SPs, meaning a total of 180 SPs on rosters at a given time, but MLB teams only have 5 SPs, meaning there are only 150 SPs out there at a given time. Easily the biggest issue with this league, but nobody else seems to want to consider it. I was hoping to bring it up later in this CBA process, but first we need to figure out QOs.
No offense, but maybe there is a functional reason why the QO idea has been kicked around for years instead of actually implemented.
The reason is because, in a league with hard caps where free agency is done in fixed stages rather than a free for all, it is impractical and problematic for teams to be held to binding minimum contract offers. Jon's proposal is the first where that would not be an issue.
- What time table should the QO be placed? I.E. should a team with preexisting rights get the right to not have to decide until actual free agency and until after everyone else has bid? What's the time table in that case? 24 hours after a team "wins" but then then any point in that 24 hours the team with preexisting rights can drop a 15 million nuke and take the player if the other bids are under 15 million?
- Should a team with a winning bid under 15 million get a chance to bid after a QO has been made? In this case, should the one year tax apply, and if so, why should he pay the tax if the preexisting rights team does not? ( does anyone think a 4 million difference in cost of the same player is the best way to be equitable here?)
The QO would have to be offered at the start of the offseason, before bidding begins. I'm opposed to the "15 million nuke" idea. The way I'd like to see this run is to have bidding proceed as normal, the QO team can enter the bidding at any time but MUST make their first bid one year, $15 million, after which bidding continues to proceed as normal. The team offering the QO would have to pay tax in any other situation, just not on the QO itself. Yes, I do think a $4 million difference in cost is equitable, because a) it's already a difference of $3.3 million under the current rules. b) it's not $4 million, because it doesn't make sense to compare a $15 million and $16 million offer. We should be comparing my $15 million offer to your 1$5 million offer. If you really want to prevent that situation then YOU bid $15 million, pay $17.5 million, and the difference is just $2.5 million and c) nothing is stopping you from making a multi-year offer and avoiding the tax altogether. If you offer two years, $15 million, you get the player for $13.5 million per season, the only way I can come back over you with a one year offer at $16 million is if I'm willing to pay $17.1 million, which is what it would work out to after my tax and hometown discount. The situation where this becomes problematic is a very unique one.
- How long should a team own said future free agent on their roster the previous season to qualify for a QO status? I.E. if you trade for Player X one day before the league trade deadline, should you have the right to QO the player the following FA? Should this only apply to a player you drafted? Or that you held for X number of seasons?
- Can a player be given a QO in consecutive years by the same franchise? More than 2 years? Will there be a cost accelerator like in the NFL Franchise Player Rule in a 2nd, 3rd, 4th year, etc. i.e. a Walter Jones with Seahawks situation? It's allowing an owner to chew up a players prime without the back end risk of decline in a longer term contract.
I say no. See above. But even if we did allow this, it would only work out that way in the very unique situation that the league decided the player was worth exactly $15 million each of those seasons (and teams can already do this by offering one year contracts if they want).
- Should there be expanded trade limitations on said Player X if he is signed to a QO ( i.e. a trade off where a team can't create a greater restriction on FA in general for the 29 other teams without some kind of trade off)
I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I think the mercenary rule is sufficient.
Should a team with preexisting rights to said Free Agent X be tax exempt given a one year contract QO ( i.e a one year deal more than 10 million )? If there is a tax, should said tax be EVEN MORE PUNITIVE than that which exists in standard free agency? Should be it be less punitive?
Bigger question in general - If the COMP system needs some type of overhaul, does it need to be this specific proposal, as presented, versus nothing at all? That seems to be the tone here. I'm bringing up issues, with context, that no offense, I don't feel are actually being addressed.
Am I completely opposed, as 1 owner out of 30, to a QO system? I'm opposed, no offense, to the one presented. I respect other owners feel differently about it and respect their right to feel differently. Given the current proposal as shown in posts above, will vote against it, will lobby against it even if I have to PM every single other owner personally to do it, if it's passed, will lobby against it in every season afterwards.
Hopefully I've done a better job addressing them all here. If you want to propose an alternative to this then that can be considered as well, but since no other alternative has been proposed to this point, yeah, it's this or nothing, how could it be anything else? (with the understanding that anytime we implement a new rule we work out the specifics together, as a league).
If you have an alternative proposal I would love to see it, but otherwise I think a league vote would be in order on this one, especially since nobody else seems to be chiming in at this point (given that, I have a feeling this proposal will probably fail). The vote would look something like this:
Option A: Implement a QO system, as proposed. This could be EITHER the "$15 million nuke" option, or the bidding could continue after the QO is made.
Option B: Keep the current system, with the possibility of tweaking it to add the mercenary rule and the two separate thresholds ($15 million / $50 million) to be discussed in the event this option wins.
Last Edit: Dec 7, 2016 9:33:39 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Micah (White Sox GM) on Dec 7, 2016 19:23:04 GMT -5
I'd like to comment on this, but this is a lot of reading and I can't seem to get through it all without my head spinning.
Anyhow, here are some thoughts. Sorry if it just re-states something that's already been discussed.
I like the idea of a QO, but I don't really think the proposed idea changes much of anything, except complicates the end of the bidding process. If we can't be held to a QO, then it isn't really a QO, or am I missing something?
My idea for a QO process would be for all of the QO free agents to be eligible for bids at the beginning of free agency, maybe staggered a few per day. Then hold these free agents open for a week or so, not have the bidding expire within 24 hours like we do currently. That gives everyone a chance to see where the market is at on each of the high-priced free agents and which of them they want to pursue, and gives them some opportunity to go back and forth. If a team has too many QO-eligible players, more than he is comfortable paying under the cap, he must either trade them or make some decisions between them. I'm sure you all will find a lot wrong with this system that I haven't thought of.
I like the idea of a tiered system as well, maybe only the top 10 get picks after the 1st round, the next 20 after the 2nd round, and the rest after the 3rd. I would also be in favor of the signing team losing a pick.
I'm ok with the rule that a player doesn't earn a comp pick more than once, unless the team signing the player loses a pick. I don't think a rule limiting trading the player is necessary, we always work it in as part of the trade value.
I am definitely not in favor of any kind of competitive balance picks.
I like the idea of a QO, but I don't really think the proposed idea changes much of anything, except complicates the end of the bidding process. If we can't be held to a QO, then it isn't really a QO, or am I missing something?
I'm starting to agree with you here. I mean, I always sort of felt like this was a fairly minor change (it really doesn't change the current function much, just adds a layer) that might be fun, but it's starting to feel more complicated and more trouble than it's worth.
My issue with binding qualifying offers is it's just going to change the way free agency works fundamentally. Basically every good free agent is going to go right at the beginning, and either we do it all at once, and it's a mad scramble, or we stick to the 10-12 at a time (I honestly don't remember which we do at this point) and then it's luck of the draw which ones go first, and people whose players didn't go first are left out because they have binding offers on somebody else. It's not that it couldn't work, I just don't really like it that much.
I'm starting to lean towards just keeping it simple, sticking with the $15 million threshold but having those players go to comp round B (after the second round) unless they exceed $50 million, in which case they go in Comp A (after the first). And implement the mercenary rule while we're at it (gotta be on the opening day roster to earn your team a comp pick. Midseason trade = no pick).
Unless we start to hear some actual excitement about the QO proposal from other GMs, it'll just end up being an unwanted nuisance to people.
Last Edit: Dec 7, 2016 21:56:47 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
If you have an alternative proposal I would love to see it, but otherwise I think a league vote would be in order on this one, especially since nobody else seems to be chiming in at this point (given that, I have a feeling this proposal will probably fail). The vote would look something like this:
Option A: Implement a QO system, as proposed. This could be EITHER the "$15 million nuke" option, or the bidding could continue after the QO is made.
Option B: Keep the current system, with the possibility of tweaking it to add the mercenary rule and the two separate thresholds ($15 million / $50 million) to be discussed in the event this option wins.
Several things to cover
First, thank you for responding to my concerns by list regarding the QO in detail. Whether we agree or disagree on few or many points, I appreciate the prompt replies and dialogue.
Second, I believe it would be helpful to the entire league if the Options you wish them to vote on is constructed in a very formalized way into one post, with all details in it, in contrast to this thread, where a lot of things are spread around. Also Examples, such as how you broke down FA bidding before the FA period, so people can see the machinery at work in theoretical application. I also think a vote structure should operate on a Yes or No basis, not a Yes or No but we'll hammer out some of the details later, etc.
Third, as you've asked for alternate proposals, I have two, and will cover immediately below.
Fourth, will cover some of the points you bring up in the previous reply, but first want to submit my alternate proposals immediately. I'm open, as always, to have them discussed by the other owners her at large, but am asking they also be put up for actual vote ( with all due respect that further details might need to be hammered out/addressed and the resubmitted here in public view. ) versus the Options A and B presented.
Proposal A **********
The Framework model below shows that earning a compensation pick for a lost free agent is broken down on a contract length and AAV schedule, based on a PERCENTAGE against the current salary cap ( Set to 125 million this season) A percentage system allows the numbers to change over time organically as the cap grows with it instead of changing a fixed number. The 15 million threshold still applies as per last season in terms of a baseline for compensation. Except the calculation will consider ACTUAL CAP PAID OUT by the franchise, not the bid value before discounts of any kind. If your discount(s) brings you below the threshold limits below, you don't get a pick. Any penalties ( i.e. a one year deal above 10 million) counts towards actual cap paid out for said player.
If your AAV number is too low for threshold for a higher compensation level, but above the one in the next tier, you will move to the front of the line for said next tier. Tiebreakers start with contract length within the same compensation round ( longer contracts involve more risk), then if contract lengths are the same, higher AAV is the tiebreaker. If two teams have comp picks that have same contract length and same AAV, then team with the worst record for the previous season picks first.
The comp rounds, unlike the previous version used (status quo) is staggered between rounds. This should address concerns that a team with too many comp picks can dominate the top portion of the draft. The shorter the contract length, the less the risk, the less the value of the comp pick. Also team trying to rebuild will have the first two rounds to try to rearm and amass talent before the comp round picks become a consideration.
The Application Model shows how the 34 picks in the past years compensation round would have been broken down in this new proposal. The value of the comp picks for the top players moving would be the value of a late 2nd/early 3rd round pick. Only 4 players total meet the years/AAV threshold. The tiering breaks down a clear difference between the likely value of said free agent to said team in a relative sense. ( i.e a comp pick for Curtis Granderson is not 10 picks away from a top shelf franchise bat) Any situations like the Anderson Episnoza comp pick ( i.e. a commissioner decision I'm guessing to arbitrate another issue) moves the very back of the line from ALL comp picks, if there multiple, again that would move in order of worst record from previous season to best.
The Net Effect Model shows only a small handful of picks in each round, not slowing down the draft process for a long comp round, nor absorbing a ton of top draft talent in any one area of the draft. 18 total compensation picks period with 16 former compensation picks no longer eligible. This addresses concerns about too many compensation picks period. This also changes the dynamic, as discussed above and before, regarding the spiked value of pitching, particularly starting pitching, in the league. The TOP PITCHERS are still going to get paid, get long contracts and get comp picks for their former teams. However more fringe type pitchers will no longer get comp picks in the late first or early 2nd category, they shift to late 5th/early 6th, or no pick at all.
To my perspective, with all due respect to all the owners here and other proposals, I find this proposal to the best overall balance in terms of
1) Reducing the number of compensation picks period 2) Ensuring only the top Free Agents moving garner compensation picks 3) Allow rebuilding teams to gain better access to top rated draft talent ( stronger teams can still simply draft better with the picks they do have) to make the league more competitive 4) Spread out the comp rounds so that picks are more widely dispersed in general, which keeps everyone on their toes and hopefully spurs interest and activity. 5) Addresses concerns of the impact of pitching scarcity on free agency, AAV spiking and how they garner compensation picks formerly 6) Reflecting risk incurred toward compensation ( longer contracts are just riskier) while still considering total money spent against the entire contract issued 7) It provides a "model" that can be applied to future years, without need for readjustment or revoting ( with the exception of a raise in possible percentages of projected cap by tier)
I am asking this proposal to be put for open vote versus the Qualifying Offer proposals and urge all owners to strongly consider this and vote for it as I truly believe this is in the best interests of competitive balance for the entire league. Thanks for reading, I'm glad to be in the league with all of you.
David/Angels
FRAMEWORK MODEL
Round 1 Round 2 Compensation Round A - 4 Years/At Or Over 20 percent of projected salary cap/25 million or over Round 3 Compensation Round B - 3 Years/At Or Over 16 percent of projected salary cap/20 million or over Round 4 Compensation Round C - 2 Years/At Or Over 14 percent of projected salary cap/17.5 million or over Round 5 Compensation Round D - 1 Year/At Or Over 12 percent of projected salary cap/ 15 million or over Round 6 Round 7 Round 8
APPLICATION MODEL (2016 Season)
Round 1 Round 2
Compensation Round A - 4 Years/At Or Over 20 percent of projected salary cap/25 million or over OF Giancarlo Stanton 32.2 million (2016-2019) SP Madison Bumgarner 29.2 million (2016-2019) SP Felix Hernandez 26.4 million (2016-2019) SP Jake Arrieta 25.5 million (2016-2019)
Round 3
Compensation Round B - 3 Years/At Or Over 16 percent of projected salary cap/20 million or over DH Jason Heyward 24.0 million (2016-2019) SP Jon Lester 20.0 million (2016-2019) SP Cole Hamels 20.0 million (2016-2019) 1B Miguel Cabrera 28.0 million (2016-2018)
Round 4
Compensation Round C - 2 Years/At Or Over 14 percent of projected salary cap/17.5 million or over C Jonathon Lucroy 17.6 million (2016-2019) 1B Edwin Encarnacion 24.7 million (2016-2017) DH Jose Bautista 24.6 million (2016-2017) 1B Adrian Gonzalez 20.7 million (2016-2017)
Round 5
Compensation Round D - 1 Year/At Or Over 12 percent of projected salary cap/ 15 million or over SP Mike Leake 16.0 million (2016-2019) SP Jeff Samardzija 16.0 million (2016-2019) SP Scott Kazmir 16.2 million (2016-2017) OF Curtis Granderson 15.3 million (2016-2017) SP Ian Kennedy 23.5 million (2016) 40 Toronto Blue Jays (For Anderson Espinoza) - Luis Almanzar, SS, San Diego Padres
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8
Removed From Compensation SP James Shields 13.5 million (2016-2019) DH Matt Wieters 12.0 million (2016-2019) 2B Ian Kinsler 12.0 million (2016-2019) SP Jon Niese 10.4 million (2016-2019) SS Ian Desmond 9.7 million (2016-2019) OF Hanley Ramirez 11.9 million (2016-2018) 1B Carlos Santana 11.0 million (2016-2018) OF Brett Gardner 13.5 million (2016-2017) OF Danny Valencia 12.6 million (2016-2017) 1B Albert Pujols 11.9 million (2016-2017) DH Neil Walker 10.2 million (2016-2018) RP Wade Davis 11.7 million (2016-2017) OF Shin-Soo Choo 10.8 million (2016-2017) DH David Ortiz 13.7 million (2016) SS Jose Reyes 13.0 million (2016) SP Ervin Santana 12.4 million (2016)
NET EFFECT MODEL (2016 Season)
Round 1 Round 2
Compensation Round A - 4 Years/At Or Over 20 percent of projected salary cap/25 million or over 4 picks
Round 3 Compensation Round B - 3 Years/At Or Over 16 percent of projected salary cap/20 million or over 4 picks
Round 4 Compensation Round C - 2 Years/At Or Over 14 percent of projected salary cap/17.5 million or over 4 picks
Round 5 Compensation Round D - 1 Year/At Or Over 12 percent of projected salary cap/ 15 million or over 6 picks
Round 6 Round 7 Round 8
18 total compensation picks/16 picks removed
Proposal B *********
Option C to the Qualifying Offer Proposal
1) A player can only be extended a qualifying offer under these conditions
- The offer must be made within 72 hours after the end of the World Series of the preceding season.
- The offer cannot be withdrawn period. In the case where a player could possibly fabricate their name/age/identity, and that is discovered post offer ( i.e. Fausto Carmona siutation) the QO is still binding. He has no rights, you have no rights.
- The player must be rostered by the team extending the QO for 365 days ( a full calendar year) before the QO is made. Inseason and deadline trade acquisitions are not eligible
- If the player is injured FOR THE ENTIRE SEASON WITHOUT DOUBT post offer but before the start of free agency, the franchise making the offer signs said player to a 1 year 15 million contract, with no further penalties and no discounts. This applies 24 hours before the official start of free agency. Player must stay on the 40 man roster until the next QO period of the next year, the player cannot be cut, nor waived, nor released. If the player has the potential to return at any point that season, no matter how slight, the standard QO protocol as described in this specific proposal applies.
- The player cannot be traded PERIOD if extended a QO and signed to QO for that entire season. ( If the imaginary player has no choice to walk away, neither should the team with the secured offer)
- The signing team MUST pay a dollar for dollar tax for every dollar spent above the 1 year/10 million threshold. The QO minimum must be for one year/15 million but they can elect to submit an initial QO dollar amount more than that, according to bidding rules, to any amount they desire. ( i.e. 1 year at 15 million becomes a 1 year 20 million contract, 15 million for the player, 5 in tax as each dollar over 10 million is taxed at 1/1) But whatever the amount submitted initially as the QO, the 1/1 tax applies. ( i.e. if the QO is 16 million, it doesn't turn into a 1 year 19 millon contract with 16 as salary and 3 million as standard penalty, i.e. half of the 6 above the 10) A 16 million QO with the penalty is a 22 million 1 year contract.
- The signing team who made the offer receives NO DISCOUNTS PERIOD OF ANY KIND, even if the player is signed to a longer contract and the QO is null and void without usage. The "offer" itself triggers the zero discount policy.
- A team owner and/or franchise can only QO a specific player ONCE ever. You cannot extend a QO in two consecutive years. If an owner leaves the league and returns to a new team, if he previously signed a player to QO, he can no longer do so, even with a new franchise. This relates to the "offer", even if the offer is never exercised, that has no bearing that the formal offer was made and now is no longer an option moving forward.
- Assuming a QO at the minimum threshold of 15 million for 1 year, the team extending the QO will have the right to sign said player to said QO, within 24 hours of other teams ending their bidding UNDER but NOT AT the 15 million threshold without any other team being able to submit a new bid. Assuming a QO at the minimum threshold of 15 million for 1 year, the team extending the QO cannot bid under the 15 million threshold at any point, though they may place a bid ONLY ABOVE IT at any point in the process. If the ending bid is at 15 million for 1 year specifically for a team without QO rights, the team with the QO can exercise their QO at 15 million and win the "tiebreak", but the dollar for dollar tax still applies ( i.e. 20 million for 1 year with the QO tax versus the 17.5 for 1 year for a 15 million offer with standard tax) . Assuming a QO at the minimum threshold of 15 million for 1 year, at 16 million AAV and above for a 1 year or more contracts, all normal tax protocols applies and the QO shall be seen as null and void completely except for the other penalties described in this proposal.
- Any team extending a player a QO, even if said team decides to sign said player to long term high AAV contract, thus nulling the QO, is completely ineligible for a compensation pick for said player in the next applicable season when said FA would have normally been eligible to get a comp pick.
- Any team extending a player a QO, even if said team decides to sign said player to long term high AAV contract, thus nulling the QO, is completely ineligible for future injury relief/ future salary relief of any kind for said player for the duration of the entire contract.
- Any team extending a player a QO, even if said team decides to sign said player to long term high AAV contract, thus nulling the QO, and said player retires mid contract, if the retirement happens in the offseason, the franchise must pay 100 percent of his listed salary for the next year plus a 50 percent tax on top of it. If the retirement happens midseason, the franchise must pay 50 percent of his listed salary for the next year, only then can any future years be shed.
- Any team extending a QO to a player, in which the QO is not exercised, but signs said player anyway to a contract of 2 years or more in length, CANNOT TRADE said player for 365 days within the first year of said contract.
I see the Qualifying Offer in general as a tax on free agency. I don't see it as materially changing how the comp picks and round works. That being said, if others want to keep pushing for it, above is my proposal for an effective trade off that balances out the needs of the other 29 teams without QO rights based on how I perceive the rule would actually be used. I urge every owner to generally vote against any QO proposal, but if one has to be chosen, then I urge all to vote on Option C as listed.
If you are not a team with preexisting rights, you are competing with 28 other teams for said player, only if you outbid the team with preexisting rights at 16 million ( the bid must be 1 million more at minimum at this point) do you actually compete with that team for said free agency. And what is the final cost? As far as the discussion goes, the tax applies to the non rights holding team bidding, and there is no guaranteed said team has any kind of discount. A 16 million bid with tax turns into 19 million. Should it cost one team FOUR MILLION MORE for the same player to compete against the team with the right to use a qualifying offer?
They don't have to outbid $15 million, just reach it. The difference is only $2.5 million, and only at this one very specific number.
Given the QO proposal above, what is the drawback/risk factor for the team with preexisting rights?
I see a ton of benefits for that team, but what are the practical trade offs?
Drawback: I can't bid on the player for any amount below the QO. Current system: last year I wanted a comp pick for Wade Davis, so I worked him up toward the necessary amount figuring worst case scenario I end up keeping him at a very reasonable discounted contract. He ended up going just over the threshold so I stopped bidding. New system: I can't influence the bidding to try to get my player's contract up. If you have the leading bid at $11 million per year, I can't say "well, he's cheap, might as well take him at $12 million!" or outbid you at $12 million in the hopes that you might go $13, I go $14, and you go $15 to get me my offer. I have to make the decision at the start of the offseason whether I think it's a worthwhile decision. With someone like Davis, I'd be giving up the chance of maybe signing him cheaply in order to get my QO. It's one or the other, not both.
I see a ton of benefits for that team, but what are the practical trade offs? If the player is valuable, they can use them and not have to trade off for future years where there might be a decline. They can trade them before the trade deadline ( since there is no discussion of expanding trade restrictions) to dump the contract by covering salary, or in part, or not at all. They can let the contract expire whether the player is valuable or not. They can REPEAT the process the next year since there is no prohibition against such discuss ( there is no discussion of multiple uses of the QO on the same player in consecutive years, even the NFL Franchise Player Rule covers this issue, no offense, your proposal does not) It's a restriction on free agency ( Are we going to have to go over the 15 V 19 million issue again? ) without any real restrictions on the team with preexisting rights.
- Should a team with a winning bid under 15 million get a chance to bid after a QO has been made? In this case, should the one year tax apply, and if so, why should he pay the tax if the preexisting rights team does not? ( does anyone think a 4 million difference in cost of the same player is the best way to be equitable here?)
I'm opposed to the "15 million nuke" idea. The way I'd like to see this run is to have bidding proceed as normal, the QO team can enter the bidding at any time but MUST make their first bid one year, $15 million, after which bidding continues to proceed as normal. The team offering the QO would have to pay tax in any other situation, just not on the QO itself. Yes, I do think a $4 million difference in cost is equitable, because a) it's already a difference of $3.3 million under the current rules. b) it's not $4 million, because it doesn't make sense to compare a $15 million and $16 million offer. We should be comparing my $15 million offer to your 1$5 million offer. If you really want to prevent that situation then YOU bid $15 million, pay $17.5 million, and the difference is just $2.5 million and c) nothing is stopping you from making a multi-year offer and avoiding the tax altogether. If you offer two years, $15 million, you get the player for $13.5 million per season, the only way I can come back over you with a one year offer at $16 million is if I'm willing to pay $17.1 million, which is what it would work out to after my tax and hometown discount. The situation where this becomes problematic is a very unique one.
Wanted to address some of your replies from before, outside of my proposals, didn't want to mix the two.
Several times, you say the "difference is just 2.5 million"
As stated above, a team could have signed Sam Dyson, Ariel Miranda, Jeanmar Gomez and Sean Rodriguez for UNDER that 2.5 million. While not all players at that contract level pan out as such, their total numbers include
10 starts, 8 wins, 142 strikeouts, nearly 200 innings pitched, 75 saves, 18 home runs, 300 at bats, a 270 average and 56 RBI.
I'm going to appeal to every other owner in the league here. No one is promised those numbers above, but the QO proposal presented REMOVES YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE NUMBERS
Anyone here could have used 140+ strikeouts last year? 200 more innings pitched? 75 saves? 18 homers?
This is not about just two owners fighting over one player. Every dollar one team spends is another dollar he's not spending to compete for another free agent, which has a ripple effect on ALL OF FREE AGENCY PERIOD. That extra couple of million might give an owner flexibility to drive up the price on another free agent, which reduces the total pool of money, which means other owners might have less opportunity with their limited cap on a FA that's going to be listed a few days later.
10 starts, 8 wins, 142 strikeouts, nearly 200 innings pitched, 75 saves, 18 home runs, 300 at bats, a 270 average and 56 RBI.
The above cost 2.3 million last season. That's the difference for many teams in making the playoffs or not, getting a discount or not, their draft position, moving towards the championship game or even winning said championship game.
****
"nothing is stopping you from making a multi-year offer"
Except in the case where the player is still productive, aging and likely to retire. I.E. a player like David Ortiz, where if the QO proposal was in place last year, this would have given a disproportionate advantage to the team retaining his QO rights. How it would actually be applied is for team owners to avoid future risk with an already shortage of starting pitchers on the fringe and aging quality bats who still offer elite numbers but lack even two year upside.
So that Team A can essentially almost lock in some kind of compensation period for a player, Teams B through Z have to eat an entire extra year of contract or millions more in salary to sign the same player?
I fail to see how this helps balance or is equitable. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here.
****
"Drawback: I can't bid on the player for any amount below the QO."
But you still have the option to never place a QO in the first place, keeping your bidding rights for a player you used to own but is now a general free agent. Team owners will have some gauge of where a players market will land in most cases. Based on age, production, contract left, positional value, aging trends, specific needs of his current team, etc, etc. In a case like David Ortiz, where the player is likely to get a 1 year contract over 10 million ( if we are factoring in lasts year FA, I recognize he's retired now) , the QO offer decision becomes really simple. Enjoy the benefit of getting the player back, nearly totally ensuring some kind of compensation or getting him back as a general FA if you think the bidding will fall below 10 million. While not every FA situation is predictive, most owners are going to have an idea of a range. The "drawback" has a clear workaround, that's likely to operate in a situation that can be predicated, that still offer the owner with preexisting QO rights the most number of benefits.
A Qualifying Offer, in any sport, IS A TAX ON FREE AGENCY. I only see one listed drawback, and frankly, I don't see it as much of a drawback at all. Again, we may simply agree to disagree here and I understand that's ok as well. I respect everyone's right here to their opinion.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 13, 2016 13:52:44 GMT -5
Honestly, given that nobody else seems to be getting involved in discussions, I think we should just table the QO option for now. I don't think any of these proposals would get far in a poll, and I think we're too far apart in ideas to consolidate them into a package that we would all find agreeable. I do think we should add the $50 million threshold for a 1st round comp pick though, with $15 million moving to a 2nd round comp pick. I also think we should implement a mercenary rule. I'm going to put those two options into a poll.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 19, 2016 11:03:52 GMT -5
Alright, so let's move on to the next topic I'd like to discuss. The poll for changing the comp pick thresholds is pretty decisive in favor of going with the dual thresholds (15/50) but still split on whether or not we add the mercenary rule, so that poll will remain open.
In the meantime, something I want to propose is raising the amounts for all cost controlled salaries. CBAs seem like a reasonable time to talk about league-wide raises.
Micah messaged me last night with some really great points, and excellent research involving specific numbers. To summarize, he pointed out that at the start of the league, cost controlled salaries ranged from 0.4 million to 2 million, with a salary cap of $100 million. Now that we have a salary cap of $125 million, those same cost controlled salaries make up a far smaller portion of an average team's payroll.
This is significant, because the most successful teams tend to have far more cost controlled starters than the least successful. Micah pointed out that on average, the top teams have about 15 cost controlled players who would be reasonable options to occupy a position on Yahoo per team (call them "starters" and use the following numbers: 300 AB for hitters, 100 IP for SPs, 35 IP for RPs). Teams in the middle have around 10. Teams at the bottom have around 5.
At around $1 million per player, that means teams at the top have $110 million to spend to fill the rest of their roster... and they only need 5 more starters. Sure, they're probably spending another $30 million or so between minors and bench players, but that's $80 million left to spend on free agents to fill those last 5 spots, $16 million per player.
Teams at the bottom, however, have a just little bit more money to spend ($120 million) due to having fewer of these cost controlled players, but they have 15 holes to fill instead of just 5. Factoring in the same $30 million for minors and bench, They have $90 million to spend on 15 spots, for just $6 million per player.
Now, of course, teams that are successful should be rewarded for their success. But this is extreme. And it's become more extreme each year that we've raised the cap without raising the cost control structure. - cost controlled players have gone from being a small percentage of a team's payroll to an even smaller one, and the teams that have benefited most are the teams with more of these cost controlled assets. The rich getting richer.
The best way to fix it, then, is to raise the cost control salary structure, so that the top teams take a larger cap hit for holding more cost controlled players.
I propose the following:
Starting with the 2018 season, we raise cost controlled salaries to the following:
minors/1st year: $0.5 million (this is closer to the current MLB minimum salary - our current $0.4 million is outdated). 2nd year: $1 million 3rd year: $1.5 million 4th year: $2 million 5th year: $3 million 6th year: $4 million
This ups the average cost controlled salary from $1 million to $2 million. Since some teams have as many as 15 cost controlled starters, however, we'd also need to raise the cap. I'm thinking $140 million. These top teams would have the same amount of free salary as they do now - but bottom teams would basically get an extra $10 million to spend, since they'd also get bumped to $140 million but their current payroll wouldn't increase as much.
The official rules do give the commissioner license to increase the salary schedule as needed, but I'd like some input on this one if anyone has thoughts they want to share.
Last Edit: Dec 19, 2016 11:08:17 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
