Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 13:02:25 GMT -5
(Discussion of how to bid on prospects with major league experience while still under the Innings/ABs limit. - Jordan)
I think anyone that has an AB or IP has to be offered a MLB contract: I know Matthew signed Cord Phelps to such a contract long before he recorded his full 150 ABs
|
|
|
Post by thehitdog on Mar 24, 2012 17:11:41 GMT -5
can I just say how ugly that rule is once again, 2 IP and can't be signed to a PP contract, yuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 17:35:08 GMT -5
agrred, I would be a fan of signing bonuses instead of mlb contracts/high PP calues that alot of these prospects have
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 18:39:17 GMT -5
I also agree that it's ugly. I'm hoping in the offseason we can discuss changing the rule. Get rid of "prospect" status and simply have two tiers: minor leaguers (signed players from 0–50IP or 0–150AB) and major leaguers (anyone who has more than 50IP or 150AB in their career). Once an owned minor leaguer crosses the IP/AB threshold, then he is on a four-year PP contract, starting the year after the threshold was crossed. Anyone acquired through free agency is assigned an MiLB contract or an MLB contract, based upon their career IP/AB numbers.
Not sure how popular of an idea that would be. We can discuss it in the offseason.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 19:50:52 GMT -5
Discuss it now. And enforce next offseason. Would also make players with MLB experience eligible for the draft if less then the limit.
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Mar 24, 2012 20:36:16 GMT -5
I have been promoting signing bonuses for specs for a year or so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 20:56:27 GMT -5
Im a fan of it, I just think there needs to be a way to make previous bid specs follow the same principle if signing bonuses are implemented, but im totally for it. not so much for mlb players in the draft though
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Mar 24, 2012 22:40:12 GMT -5
I am ok with anyone under 150Ab/50Inn eligible for the draft
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 11:58:27 GMT -5
Discuss it now. And enforce next offseason. Would also make players with MLB experience eligible for the draft if less then the limit. I am ok with anyone under 150Ab/50Inn eligible for the draft I only got a few hours of sleep last night, and maybe I'm a little dense to boot. I assume you're both talking about the MiLB draft? If so, then yes, that would be the idea. Anyone above that limit (lifetime) would be reserved for the MLB portion of free agency. I have been promoting signing bonuses for specs for a year or so. Jason: I've never been in a league that utilizes signing bonuses as part of the dynamic. In your opinion, what value / benefit to the league format would signing bonuses provide?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 12:04:53 GMT -5
I think Jason is agreeing with you Shawn, as do I. He's saying that rather than paying MiLB guys per year as prospects, we take your "Minor Leaguers" (less than 150/50) and instead of the yearly salary, to acquire them in FA you bid a one-time signing bonus rather than a yearly salary offer. The signing bonus goes for that one year, and they remain in your system. When they eclipse 150/50, they'd have PP protection for 4 years just as you outlined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 12:11:56 GMT -5
Huh. I could see that. So instead of a $0.4M/year or whatever salary as a minor leaguer, it's a flat one-time fee for MiLB talent acquired in FA? What of MiLB players acquired in the draft? Would they still receive a base yearly salary?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 14:02:23 GMT -5
I think he means to get him in free agency it'd be 1.2 for that year you sign him and then .4M, like every other spect all the way until the final year of PP. We have discussed that before but the biggest flaw in that scenario is teams with a crap ton of cap space can just spend out their ass every single year. Because they keep getting the money back after the first year, it could be an unlimited loop and I don't like that part of the equation.
Any unowned prospect I think is fine for the draft, no matter the IP/ABs as long as it's under 50/150...no issue there. But I see huge flaws with the signing bonus idea, and if we were to implement it next year it'd need to be heavily regulated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 15:00:27 GMT -5
I think he means to get him in free agency it'd be 1.2 for that year you sign him and then .4M, like every other spect all the way until the final year of PP. We have discussed that before but the biggest flaw in that scenario is teams with a crap ton of cap space can just spend out their ass every single year. Because they keep getting the money back after the first year, it could be an unlimited loop and I don't like that part of the equation. Any unowned prospect I think is fine for the draft, no matter the IP/ABs as long as it's under 50/150...no issue there. But I see huge flaws with the signing bonus idea, and if we were to implement it next year it'd need to be heavily regulated. Thats how I am interpreting (and in favor of) what Jason is saying. Theres no reason guys like Alonso and Parker should cost 11m/yr for the first 4-5 years of their careers. even guys that cost 2-3-4m arent really worth it and come with even more risk because their cost is so high. I would nominate it as the first week of every month there is prospect bidding (bonuses), and that would go against your cap for the current season. The following seasons that prospect would be 400k until his 4 year PP service time has been fulfilled
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 17:48:44 GMT -5
Did you read my post lol? I addressed the main issue there...teams with cap space can easily take advantage of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 18:50:22 GMT -5
If teams have millions upon millions to throw at guys, they typically are bottom feeders who are rebuilding anyways. If anything it would bring parity along with it. Teams looking to compete aren't going to bid outlandish things on one prospect per year, and if so, have fun with that. I'd rather have 2-3 major league solid players for the insane one year cost than a prospect who could help me 3 years from now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 18:54:01 GMT -5
But in some cases that isn't true...anton always seems to have a lot of cap space and if he was able to get solid prospects every single year because he had the cap space and then used those prospects to make his team even better...it wouldn't be that far...would it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 20:13:22 GMT -5
If a manager has maneuvered his team to have all PP guys and he wants to spend 30M to make sure he gets one prospect he loves, I'm all for that. Props to him for managing his team's finances so well while being able to compete. I tend to think that's the exception, not the rule. I'm good either way, but this is the only league that an 19 year old can make 11M a year without a single AB in the MLB. All the other leagues haven't had a problem with the signing bonus idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 21:00:08 GMT -5
eventually those teams with cap space will have an issue somewhere. 1) There young guys will need to be paid, so if they are competitive and they want to keep them they will have to pay them. 2) If they aren't competitive they will most likely take a step back and have to trade said player, and so it may be part of a rebuild process. I understand what your getting at Seth, but I dont think that is a major issue, as the law of competition will have to take over at some point. But like Matt said above, if you can continuously manuever your team to hold PP guys and leave 30-40 mil in cap space, cudos to you
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 22:08:47 GMT -5
I asked what the benefit is to implementing a signing bonus is. For now, I still don't see a clear benefit to the game format. That's not to entirely dismiss the idea. However, I just don't get it.
(I'm generally from the school of "why make something more complicated than it needs to be" though, so don't mind me.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2012 22:16:33 GMT -5
Im trying to think back to the reasoning we initially made the rule that prospects after they had an AB or IP were no longer allowed to be offered PP contracts. If I remember, I think it was because we didn't want someone that got called up and played really well getting a PP contract when they are already in the majors. Like a Garrett Jones for example. And then if we switched to the Signing bonus system, I wouldn't like that even more. Getting a guy playing NOW on a PP contract with just a signing bonus. That is not really the point of PP
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2012 12:05:20 GMT -5
Yeah, I can see how that would defeat PP's purpose, Jordan.
-----
In another league I'm in, the only PP contracts that exist are the ones automatically given to a minor leaguer who exceeds the threshold. In that league it is:
a total of >=54 games played or >=150 ABs for batters and >=10 starts for a SP and >=50 IP for a RP/SP
At the end of the year, ANY prospect player that no longer meets the prospect status criteria specified above must be moved to the MLB roster (for protection) by the start of the Winter Meetings deadline or be released to free agency otherwise.
At that time, the player receives an annually renewed 1-year contract for up to three years at either his real life MLB base salary *or* his original minor league signing salary, whichever is greater. This is more or less equivalent to PP contracts here. (By the way, first-round MiLBers receive a $0.5M base contract; second through fifth a $0.3M contract; MiLB free agency players receive an MiLB contact based on highest bid.)
In that league, PP contacts are not something you can give; they just occur after an MiLB player goes over the threshold.
To simplify, the only contracts that exist are:
MiLB draft pick/free agent contract: a flat per-year rate based on round selection or winning free agency bid (eligible players based on criteria stated earlier)
PP contract: a contract automatically given to a kept MiLB player who crossed the threshold, at MLB salary or previous MiLB salary, whichever is greater, for up to three years
MLB contract: a flexible AAS contract given only to free agents who are over the S/IP/GP/AB threshold during pre-season free agency or regular season free agency; such players can never be given a PP contract
-----
Definitely not saying it's how it should be here. However, by keeping clear lines on who can receive what contracts, things go smoothly in that league.
If I were to make one small change here (other than the current discussion about MiLB status) it'd be to go down from four years to three years of protection after losing minor league status.
In theory, such a move will eventually put a few more available free agents into the pool every offseason. Just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 21:04:19 GMT -5
The thing about the Alonso and Parker contracts is those were from the start of the league when initial teams didn't keep them. Those types of players would only be eligible in the draft so that doesn't really apply. Personally apart from those contracts I think the system has worked fine. I don't like changing things that aren't broke but as always if enough wanted to change I would be open to it. My main point for this discussion was whether or not to allow people who have major league experience to be bid on as prospects if below the limit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 21:07:46 GMT -5
Discussion of how to bid on prospects with major league experience while still under the Innings/ABs limit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 21:39:12 GMT -5
I agree with Jordan...I have no problem allowing any unowned prospect under the 150/50 to be drafted but I like the PP status the way it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2012 15:10:01 GMT -5
So after re-reading this a few months later, it seems:
* While some people like Matthew and I dislike how someone with more than one AB/IP can't be offered a PP contract, others seem to like this.
* The one AB/IP rule may have originally been implemented because some thought the idea of picking up a free agent with fewer than 150AB/50IP and signing him to a PP contract is unfair. I disagree with this assessment, but would begrudgingly live with it if no compromise could be found.
* Most people seem to be ok with the idea of allowing unowned minor leaguers with fewer than 150AB/50IP to be draftable.
* Some talk was made of a one-year signing bonus, but many questions remain.
* I personally still would love to simplify this bad boy down to two classes of players: minor leaguers and MLBers, the dividing line being AB/IP. The 1 AB/IP rule for FA contracts complicates that idea, but it's certainly not crippling.
That's the "too long, didn't read" of all that I think. I still would love for this to get ironed out by next January or so.
|
|