RFA Question

[Deleted]

Tigers posted this:
"Tigers match on Zobrist and shorten to 2 years AAS 8M

2016-17:8M"

The winning bid for Zobrist was 3 Years, $24M. This isn't a legal restructure...right?

[Deleted]

Seems good to me

[Deleted]

We're aloud to change the years slightly we made that rule a few years ago

[Deleted]

I thought you were allowed to change the contract as long as you kept the total $ the same. He matched on $24M but then made the contract $16M.

[Deleted]

Lol oh I'm wrong then

[Angels GM (Jason)]

think he's good unless we changed them again.

fullcountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/9/8-restricted-fas

[Deleted]

"Since the bidding is for a RFA, then pursuant to Rule 12, the GM who held the restricted player has 48 hours to match the winning bid, and may restructure that bid for a total contract amount no less and a term no longer than that of the "winning" bid. If the restricting GM chooses not to match the offer, then the winning bidder is obligated to sign the player to the exact terms of the winning bid - there is NO option to remove or reneg on any bid placed."

Wouldn't that mean he can't pay less than $24M

[Deleted]

I think it means for the AAS

[Angels GM (Jason)]

Anton, That's the way I read it too.

[Deleted]

I would think that "total contract amount" means the total amount of money offered in the contract rather than "average salary amount" which would mean AAS.

[Rangers GM (Jared)]

I think that Seth is right in the way it reads. But I also believe we've always interpreted it as AAS. I'm pretty sure we've always allowed that. We probably should change the way the rule is written.

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2016 12:16:46 GMT -5 Rangers GM (Jared) said:

I think that Seth is right in the way it reads. But I also believe we've always interpreted it as AAS. I'm pretty sure we've always allowed that. We probably should change the way the rule is written.

Yea, the way it's currently enforced just doesn't seem right. We definitely should change that for future years.

I like the way it is sine it favors the smaller market teams who have more tags to use.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

After bidding is complete

At the end of the contract offering period, the winning offer will be revealed, and the franchise that restricted the player will have 48 hours to match the winning offer.

If a franchise chooses to match the winning contract offer, then they will be allowed to restructure the winning contract so that it best fits the needs of the franchise and then re-sign the player. The restructured contract must still have the same average annual salary (AAS) of the winning contract. However, the years can be renegotiated as follows:

• If the AAS <= $3M, the contract may be restructured to range from one to six years. The exception: if the AAS was between $0.4M and $0.749M, you can only sign the player to a maximum of three years at this salary. However, in this unique case, you have the option to raise the AAS to $0.75M and keep the player as long as six years.

• If the AAS > $3M, the contract may be restructured to range from two to six years.
• If the AAS > $6M, the contract may be restructured to range from two to six years.
• If the AAS > $9M, the contract may be restructured to range from three to six years.
• If the AAS > $12M, the contract may be restructured to range from three to six years.
• If the AAS > $15M, the contract may be restructured to range from four to six years.

If no one offers a bid on an RFA, the franchise that tagged the player can keep that player one to three years on a $0.4 million salary, four to six years on a $0.75 million salary, or simply choose not to sign the player.

If the franchise that restricted the player fails to respond or chooses not to match the best contract offer made to their player, then the auctioned player will be required to sign with the franchise that made the winning bid. That franchise must use the exact winning contract offered and cannot restructure it after the fact.

If the franchise that restricted the player loses him, the losing franchise is compensated based on the AAS contracted to the lost player by the winning franchise:

• $0.4M to $5M: The franchise that lost the player gains a sandwich pick between the 4th and 5th round.
• $5M+ to $8M: The franchise that lost the player gains the winning franchise's 3rd round pick and a sandwich pick between the 3rd and 4th round.
• $8M+ to $14M: The franchise that lost the player gains the winning franchise's 2nd round pick and a sandwich pick between the 2nd and 3rd round.
• $14M+: The franchise that lost the player gains the winning franchise's 1st round pick and a sandwich pick between the 1st and 2nd round.

If a franchise gives up multiple same round picks as compensation (for example, the Reds win two separate RFA players at AAS $10M, suggesting the loss of two 2nd-round picks), the first franchise that declined to match will receive the winning franchise's pick, and subsequent franchises will receive two compensatory sandwich picks in the same round.

[Deleted]

I just don't understand the rule. When a team offers $48M and you match the contract, you shouldn't be able to get off the hook for another $16M by lowering it to $32M. That just doesn't seem right.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

It may be because the salary structure (tiers) for a RFA and a FA player.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

48 hours have passed and several teams have failed to match RFA winning bids. Under our rules the teams with the winning bids have the players. However, we have an inactive team in the O's who have Miggy who was won by my team and have not responded. I have sent him an email while he was on and no response. I would like the TRP to decide for the O's on the RFA matter and we need to replace him because he only seems interested in trolling the league.

Color me wrong. He did respond to my email.

[Deleted]

RFA matching period is longer than 48 hours. The offseason schedule has it at February 3-7.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

The rules as posted above says otherwise. I believe the posted schedule was basically copied from last year. I think it needs to be changed going forward to reflect the current rules not the way things were done in the past. It makes it easier on me to keep everyone's spreadsheet up to date and keep things moving. We have a tendency to err on the side of the less active owners rather than those fully engaged. I can take or leave whether I get Miggy or not. I just don't like sitting in limbo when I could have used the 1st FYPD from 2017 as a possible way to move up in 2016.

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Yes, off season schedule was copied & pasted from last year. Once we get started the season we as LO members need to revamp the schedule for next year. Don't think we need 5 or 6 days to decide on matching RFA's. 72 hours should be more than enough time.

[Angels GM (Jason)]

Not just the o's but the nats have players too. We need to decide on both teams. I mean we did post the nats players as wel

[Deleted]

The Orioles owner actually made a decision so I don't think we have to worry about them but yea...we'll deal with the Nationals soon

[Deleted]

Bill of the Astros is also still active and trying to solicit offers for David Robertson before he makes a decision.

As for all of this rules talk, I just want to point out that all I did was take the existing rules and try to make them clearer. I never changed anything without asking questions, and even then, I tried to faithfully document any changes I made so it was crystal clear.

There seems to have been a few cases where league practice diverged from what was put in the league constitution. With these time limits, etc. that are different from the rules, I'm not too worried, though the most important point is whatever you decide 1. notify everyone of what is expected of them, 2. be consistent, and 3. be willing to enforce.

If I need to amend the time limits for RFA matching and making picks in the rules, so be it. If you all choose to do something else, that's fine too, as long as the above three guidelines are followed. Just my take on all this chatter.

[Deleted]

Well you were the one who wrote the rules changes so we would appreciate if you could help explain what you wrote when these discussions come up. We need your help Shawn!

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2016 12:26:56 GMT -5 Angels GM (Jason) said:

Not just the o's but the nats have players too. We need to decide on both teams. I mean we did post the nats players as wel

If the Nats were my team, I'd probably match on Pedroia and decline on Gallardo. Actually, if LAA didn't have the winning bid on both, I'd probably decline on both players to be honest.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2016 12:44:29 GMT -5 @seth said:

Well you were the one who wrote the rules changes so we would appreciate if you could help explain what you wrote when these discussions come up. We need your help Shawn!

I'm at a loss at what there is for me to explain. What did I say? I took the rules and just made them clearer, and I didn't change anything unless otherwise indicated. If the rules say "At the end of the contract offering period, the winning offer will be revealed, and the franchise that restricted the player will have 48 hours to match the winning offer," it's because it's been codified in the rules from the beginning but the league has been running things differently.

[Deleted]

I think I would reject both. Pedroia hasn't been able to stay on the field.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2016 12:56:04 GMT -5 @seth said:

I think I would reject both. Pedroia hasn't been able to stay on the field.

I just remembered that if both are declined, the Nats would still receive two compensatory sandwich picks between the second and third. Yeah, I could see that.

[Deleted]

Jan 30, 2016 12:55:26 GMT -5 @lostraven said:

Jan 30, 2016 12:44:29 GMT -5 @seth said:

Well you were the one who wrote the rules changes so we would appreciate if you could help explain what you wrote when these discussions come up. We need your help Shawn!

I'm at a loss at what there is for me to explain. What did I say? I took the rules and just made them clearer, and I didn't change anything unless otherwise indicated. If the rules say "At the end of the contract offering period, the winning offer will be revealed, and the franchise that restricted the player will have 48 hours to match the winning offer," it's because it's been codified in the rules from the beginning but the league has been running things differently.

Well I think a large problem as I brought up a few days ago is before both the draft and restricted free agency, we weren't fully clear on all of the rules (and as you mentioned, we didn't include the rule changes). We need someone going forward who is willing to be the person who posts the rules in the league news section right before an event (next one will be free agency) and someone with a great knowledge of the rules who is willing to make sure they are enforced.

[Deleted]

I don't mind doing that, when I'm available to lend a hand. I've been out for a few days because I started taking a new medication, and the side-effects were rough. And I have an upswing in work right now. (In fact, I need to work this afternoon; I freelance, btw.) But I'll do what I can.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

Shawn has done a great job in sifting out the rules. This had to be extremely time consuming. But Seth has a good idea that maybe before starting something big like the draft or Free Agency we highlight the applicable rules somewhere they are easy to find. (As the fist entry)