RFA

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Nats owner just left because he didn't like all he got was 2 supplemental picks at the end of the 1st round for losing Castro

This rule needs to be looked at. Angels did this last year. They have won 4 players now and only lost one 1st round pick. We should consider changing it to loss of 1st round picks obtained in trades or his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ect; We should put this up for league vote to start this for next year.

Any Idea's guys ?

[Deleted]

I think if something like this happens again. We can take away the next highest pick and give another supplemental pick I guess bc 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th aren't going to help much when looking a player for 14/15M

[Rangers GM (Jared)]

Yea, that's tough rule...Anton's idea isn't bad. Take away the next highest and give another supp pick after 1st. That's basically how real life works for MLB, right?

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

This is getting out of hand. Angels get 4 RFA and only lose one 1st round pick and now the Indians get 2 RFA and only lose one 2nd round pick.

We really need to take care of this before next year. Set up a poll and give league members some options to vote on.

[Deleted]

Well we need some ideas then

[Deleted]

I would be in favor of taking away their next highest draft pick, while the team losing the player gets an additional sandwich round draft pick of the appropriate round.

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

From Anton - I think if something like this happens again. We can take away the next highest pick and give another supplemental pick I guess bc 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th aren't going to help much when looking a player for 14/15M

From Jared - Yea, that's tough rule...Anton's idea isn't bad. Take away the next highest and give another supp pick after 1st. That's basically how real life works for MLB, right?

[Deleted]

The way they do it in the MLB is that they take away the tream signing a free agent first away and give the team loosing the free agent just one supplemental pick. Where we give the pick and the supplemental.

[Deleted]

Too tired to comment on this. Long day. I'll give thoughts Sunday.

[Deleted]

I think giving teams a 3rd supplemental pick is too much I think we should just continue taking picks away for every addition RFA signing.

[Deleted]

Well, I never thought negatively of the existing system, and I still think it works... until you have teams taking advantage of it, like the Angels. At some point, losing a third, fourth, or fifth isn't enough of a deterrent. Take away the next highest pick? Oh no, I lose my third, and I still get a useful player now! (This is why I think taking away the next highest pick really isn't much of a solution.)

And I suppose a hard team cap of X players in RFA would get too many gripes.

At this point, I'm not sure what to suggest. I'm actually annoyed at this "overbid on all the RFAs" tactic. The hard cap is all I have right now. I don't think taking away the next highest pick is a huge deterrent as you work further down.

Anyway, if we make a poll, I'd suggest adding a hard cap of two RFAs as an option, even though it may not be popular.

Edit: The first two RFAs (AL and NL combined) won, in the order the original owner declines; future declines go to next highest bidder.

Example:

Bob Smith - Declined by Indians at 4:30 p.m. Jan. 12, won by Angels
Aaron Taylor - Declined by Reds at 7:56 p.m. Jan. 12, won by Angels
Dong Long - Declined by Rockies at 4:35 a.m. Jan. 18, would have been won by Angels, but due to hard cap, goes to next highest bidder, Mariners

The more I think about it, the more I like the hard cap. Tell me what problems would arise from this potentially?

[Deleted]

Jason of the Royals: "What we do in another league for compensation, was all the the picks are just the sandwich picks, just seemed to be easier."

Another option to add to a poll.

[Giants GM (Ron)]

Jan 22, 2017 11:49:16 GMT -5 @lostraven said:

Jason of the Royals: "What we do in another league for compensation, was all the the picks are just the sandwich picks, just seemed to be easier."

Another option to add to a poll.

I actually like this a lot. Easier to deal with. No reason to try to "get around it" while still enabling teams to improve quickly. Perfect solution in my mind.

[Deleted]

Honestly I like the way it is and I really don't see a problem with what Jason did. I'd be ok with taking the next pick away. Royals option leaves us at the same spot bc we are in, this convo is happening bc a team got mad that he was get two sup picks. We should just determine who get the teams top pick on most money and if not hightest raited player by whatever site we choose. I don't think we should try to pentalized a team for trying to fill its roster with the cap room they have. It's not like a few years ago where everyone is getting 20+, 30+ and even 40M a year. While I think Jason overbid on a lot of players, he also kind of to bc that's the only way you can get someone in RFA. This is the first year I can remember having this much hoopla during RFA

[Deleted]

If I'm a bad team winning a RFA free agent and loosing a pick that might be high I'd rather it be eliminated and the team I'm getting the player from gets a late first. That would make me feel better about bidding but that may just be me

[Deleted]

I wouldn't have an issue with doing what the real life MLB does when a team signs a qualifying offer free agent: the draft pick of the team that signs the player is removed and I agree with Anton, we then determine via most money spent the order of sandwich picks. And it is only sandwich picks we give out.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2017 12:30:07 GMT -5 @seth said:

I wouldn't have an issue with doing what the real life MLB does when a team signs a qualifying offer free agent: the draft pick of the team that signs the player is removed and I agree with Anton, we then determine via most money spent the order of sandwich picks. And it is only sandwich picks we give out.

Could I please see an example of this, to better visualize the change? (See the example I used for the hard cap a few posts earlier; I tend to do better with an example.)

[Deleted]

The Reds have the 16th pick in the draft, the Rockies have the 17th pick, the Diamondbacks have the 18th. The Rockies sign RFA Player X to a contract worth $15.3M AAS. The Reds sign an RFA Player Y to a contract worth $14.5M AAS. The original Reds Pick and Rockies pick is removed from the draft; Diamondbacks pick moves up to pick 16. Since Player X was offered a higher AAS, team losing said player would get the higher sandwich pick than team losing Player Y.

Also something to think about: the MLB has had the rule where the bottom 10 teams can sign a QO free agent without having to give up their first round pick, instead they gave up their 2nd round pick. The new CBA is changing this stuff but I think this may be our best bet for our league.

[Deleted]

Re: Example - Interesting! Could be worth a shot.

Re: Second part - So how would we translate that to our league? If your team placed in the bottom 10 previous year AND you run into the situation you outlined in your example, the second-round pick is removed from the winning team, and the team losing the player receives ... what?

[Deleted]

That new rule your talking about is for all of baseball qualifying free agent no long cost a team first round picks starting next offseason

[Deleted]

I just really don't see how these changes actually make anything better. Nothing at all changes except teams only get supplemental pick. This talks started bc of the nats if we had these rules in place nats still quit and the Angles have a ton of free agents nothing really changes.

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Nothing changes here. I'm Freekin done with it. you guys do whatever you want. Let teams continue to exploit the rules. Angels have 5 1st rd picks and only lose one by signing 4 RFA at $15M

NY/Bal just made two separate trades with basically the same shit players involved except adding Solar & Descalfani. Go ahead pass them both I DON'T CARE anymore. O's owner is an Idiot

[Deleted]

Please Larry how would you change things if it was up to you?
You have been one of the most vocal about what happened and we are all looking for alterintives so please give us anything you have. If you don't have any idea gen you really have no way to be so pissed off bc we are trying.

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Yes,your right. I'm just very fustraded with it right now. Sorry

[Deleted]

No worries I think we all are

[Deleted]

Also we should give a pick to the white Sox for the lost of Ventura

[Brewers GM (Larry)]

Jan 22, 2017 15:53:39 GMT -5 @anton3986 said:

Also we should give a pick to the white Sox for the lost of Ventura

2ND Supplement?

[Deleted]

That seems fair to me we only have a first for Fernandez and Fernandez was way better

[Deleted]

I still think we should give him a first round comp. Ventura isn't a stud but he was still a productive young MLB SP. I think that's worthy of a 1st round comp. Didn't we give that for Adenhart?

[Deleted]

You maybe right Seth, if you guys want to make that kind of a standered thing I'm good with it.