Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 0:25:15 GMT -5
I'm a little confused about something.
Rule 12 says:
Rule 8 says:
In both sections there's no mention of reducing the years of the original contract; it's not made clear at all, actually. It just says no additional years, and the AAS has to match.
I was under the impression matching meant you had to sign for the same number of years offered in the winning bid. However, the rules don't explicitly say that I suppose. In the matched offers, Russel Martin was offered three years, but the Cubs signed him for only two. Tulo was offered six and Ortiz three, but the Pirates signed them to four and two years respectively. I assume that's OK? If it is, today I learned!
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Jan 23, 2015 9:25:00 GMT -5
They're within guidlines by changing lengths of contracts. I've tried several ways to copy and paste the guidelines but my phone won't let me. In the league news thread click on last year's rfa thread and it lays out the guidelines.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 11:52:29 GMT -5
OK. I see it now. We sorely need to create a complete, updated set of rules. In the meantime, can someone please append the matching terms to the rules on items 8 and 12? Thanks! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 12:55:31 GMT -5
Oh wow, I 'll admit I was not aware of this wrinkle either.
My gut reaction, I haven't completely thought this through, is that I'm not a fan of this rule. Please know that I'm not throwing a hissy fit or asking for an immediate change in the rule, but here are my initial thoughts:
It's unfair that a bidding team, for example, is required to offer a 6 year contract on a bid above $15m AAS while the matching team has the opportunity to reduce the number of years.
If a bidding team places a responsible bid, but a bid that extends into a player's declining period, the RFA holder can then lower the years and not keep a player in the player's declining years. This places the RFA holder at a competitive advantage.
By allowing the RFA holder to reduce years and thereby minimize risk of keeping a player at a higher salary during a player's declining period, the bidding team is then put on notice that the only way they can win a player is to bid an AAS outside the matching team's comfort zone. The larger the AAS bid, the longer the contract. The slippery slope argument becomes that this encourages bad contracts that can lead to league turnover.
I reserve the right to change my opinion when my team becomes kick ass and I'm the beneficiary of this rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 14:45:30 GMT -5
Oh wow, I 'll admit I was not aware of this wrinkle either. My gut reaction, I haven't completely thought this through, is that I'm not a fan of this rule. Please know that I'm not throwing a hissy fit or asking for an immediate change in the rule, but here are my initial thoughts: It's unfair that a bidding team, for example, is required to offer a 6 year contract on a bid above $15m AAS while the matching team has the opportunity to reduce the number of years. If a bidding team places a responsible bid, but a bid that extends into a player's declining period, the RFA holder can then lower the years and not keep a player in the player's declining years. This places the RFA holder at a competitive advantage.By allowing the RFA holder to reduce years and thereby minimize risk of keeping a player at a higher salary during a player's declining period, the bidding team is then put on notice that the only way they can win a player is to bid an AAS outside the matching team's comfort zone. The larger the AAS bid, the longer the contract. The slippery slope argument becomes that this encourages bad contracts that can lead to league turnover. I reserve the right to change my opinion when my team becomes kick ass and I'm the beneficiary of this rule. IMO that's the reason the rule is there. It's designed to give the team with the tag a better chance of keeping them. Tags are designed to help teams retain free agents rather than encourage others to get them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 16:05:46 GMT -5
Matt, I totally respect your opinion and I couldn't agree with you more. This rule is definitely designed to help the RFA holder retain players.
I guess what I was trying to say is that it does such a good job of assisting RFA holders that my thought is it creates an unfair competitive advantage (the bidding team on a >15M AAS must offer 6 years, while the matching team does not). We all know that 6 year contracts are incredibly risky and being able to reduce the amount of risk is a huge benefit. My fear is that this creates a marketplace where the only way to overcome the advantage given to RFA holders is to offer AAS bids that are so large that the RFA holder even with reduced risk cannot accept the terms.
I honestly have no idea how long we've operated with this rule. Could be that my fears are overblown and in the grand scheme of things the benefits to RFA holders outweigh any potential negative impact. Could be that nobody worries about the RFA holder's benefit at the time bids are submitted.
Since I'm planning to be a part of this league for years to come, I just thought I saw something that could have an overall negative effect and thought I'd share my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Jason) on Jan 23, 2015 16:14:14 GMT -5
I could be wrong but this might be the third year with this rule. This rule was designed to assist the smaller market teams keep their talent or assist in compensating if they loose players. This rule and the comp rules go hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by jughead on Jan 25, 2015 14:27:01 GMT -5
what 3 teams are thee to replace? I'm wanting to join. jughead1118@msn.com. do you guys have an espn home page chat board?
|
|
