Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 18:22:18 GMT -5
This seems like a very rare case for us. Thames started in the big leauges, went to Korea and now has an MLB contract. Do we consider him an IFA thus the winning bid is a signing bonus? Or do we just allow the normal contract bidding? I'm really torn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 19:23:20 GMT -5
It simple he went over 150 MLB AB's in 2011. He's a regular FA
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Feb 24, 2017 19:24:16 GMT -5
In another league I am in just used normal contract bidding. That is what I assumed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 19:28:29 GMT -5
I'm ok with whatever we decide, I would just prefer we decide on this prior to midnight
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Feb 24, 2017 19:29:42 GMT -5
Me too. Thanks for doing this Seth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Feb 24, 2017 22:15:49 GMT -5
The more I think about this I think he is subject to normal FA bidding. He started off as a MLB and I don't believe he was subject to a fee from his team of millions of dollars to be able to bid on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 23:03:00 GMT -5
I agree. Every single person except for one sent in a normal free agent bid. I'm going to go with that unless someone else has a reason why i shouldn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Feb 24, 2017 23:50:57 GMT -5
It should be a regular bid, I also think we should allow phillies to resend in a regular bid if that's who sent in SB. It is a confusing case. I'm not for costing people a guy over something confusing like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 23:53:19 GMT -5
The thing is...his offer was illegal to begin with. I explained it to him in detail in a pm.
His offer read like this:
Eric Thames
I offer a $5 million signing bonus, for a final contract of:
3 years + 1 year CO, $16M + $7.5M CO, AAS = $5.333...M if you don't count the CO, $5.875M if you count it.
2017: $5M
2018: $5M
2019: $6M
2020: $7.5M club option
A signing bonus plus contract information and a club option? I just don't see how I can allow that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Feb 24, 2017 23:57:25 GMT -5
That contract he put is Thames actual contract. He's saying after the SB he will then assume his real contract which is how we do guys like that. See Yasmany Tomas contract.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Feb 24, 2017 23:58:07 GMT -5
At least that's the way I see it. That's the exact contract for Thames on Cots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Feb 24, 2017 23:58:42 GMT -5
Except for2016, which is 5 mil because that's the SB he's offering which he will
Pay this year
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 0:04:13 GMT -5
He's offering him as a signing bonus but what we decided is since he already had 150 ABs he's a normal free agent. See the rest of the thread.
Regardless: if we go by higher offer or highest 1 year deal counting as a signing bonus, he still doesn't win Thames. Our bigger situation is with Gurriel which I will post in another topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Jared) on Feb 25, 2017 0:08:12 GMT -5
I gotcha. I just think he should be allowed to send in a legal bid on a confusing situation such as this. But if his bid is not winning either way, I guess it doesn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Feb 25, 2017 1:31:30 GMT -5
I agree that we should have him re-bid under the rules as we see them. But if his bid is not high enough to win a player just award it to the highest bidder. No need to post his bid. He can see that his bid is not as high as the winning bid. Emphasize the winning bid not the particulars of a lower bid. As for the SB of Gurriel, I know we have a re-bid rule, but I don't see his situation as submitting a re-bid, just trying to make sure that he gets a legal bid in. If any of his bids are legal use that one. If not explain to him why it's not. I don't have a problem offering him a one time bid under our guidelines if there is any question
about the situation. However, with this being said, Seth has taken on the responsibility to handle this function and it is not fair for him to be put into this situation. Seth volunteered to take on this function and he has put much thought into this. It is not an easy thing. Whatever he thinks is right I am good with.
Unless it can be shown that we are not following our own rules, regardless of true MLB rules and practices it is on us to follow our rules, in particular, assessing whether the bids meet our criteria or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 10:52:51 GMT -5
I think he should be treated like a normal free agent, but I can at least see how someone might construe the rules to mean he is an IFA.
Suggestion: Clarify status of how Thames should be bid upon to entire league, throw him back into the pot for next week for everyone to rebid upon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 11:00:34 GMT -5
As for the rules, we can amend the definition of IFA:
Current: "International free agent – A player from a non-U.S. baseball market that 1. is legally able to sign with any MLB team as a free agent or 2. was signed with an international team but was posted, and that team officially accepted the posting fee of an MLB team , which then successfully negotiated a contract with the player; the league acquisition of these types of players follows special rules (described later)"
New: "International free agent – A player from a non-U.S. baseball market who has never played on a U.S. Major League Baseball team prior and 1. is legally able to sign with any MLB team as a free agent or 2. was signed with an international team but was posted, and that team officially accepted the posting fee of an MLB team , which then successfully negotiated a contract with the player.(Eric Thames Rule: Players who have logged more than 150AB/50IP in MLB, played baseball internationally, and returned to MLB later are considered a major leaguer, not an IFA.) The league acquisition of these types of players international free agents follows special rules (described later).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 13:42:42 GMT -5
TRP input on this proposed change of IFA definition?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Larry) on Feb 25, 2017 15:03:39 GMT -5
As for the rules, we can amend the definition of IFA: Current: "International free agent – A player from a non-U.S. baseball market that 1. is legally able to sign with any MLB team as a free agent or 2. was signed with an international team but was posted, and that team officially accepted the posting fee of an MLB team , which then successfully negotiated a contract with the player; the league acquisition of these types of players follows special rules (described later)" New: "International free agent – A player from a non-U.S. baseball market who has never played on a U.S. Major League Baseball team prior and 1. is legally able to sign with any MLB team as a free agent or 2. was signed with an international team but was posted, and that team officially accepted the posting fee of an MLB team , which then successfully negotiated a contract with the player. (Eric Thames Rule: Players who have logged more than 150AB/50IP in MLB, played baseball internationally, and returned to MLB later are considered a major leaguer, not an IFA.) The league acquisition of these types of players international free agents follows special rules (described later). This looks good Shawn |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2017 16:35:45 GMT -5
I'm good with this
|
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Ron) on Feb 25, 2017 16:36:51 GMT -5
Looks good.
|
|
