Rule Discussion - Franchise Tag

[Former Rockies GM (Peter)]

It has been proposed that teams be permitted to apply the Franchise tag to any player regardless of contract status.

[Astros GM (Kris)]

I'm not a huge fan of this, but not totally against it either.

[Admin]

i feel that a player can only be tagged once a FA.

[BK Dodgers GM (Man)]

IIRC, I think the idea was to only apply to players w/out MKIA contracts, but I'm not sure -- it wouldn't make sense to allow it for players already signed to MKIA contracts unless doing so would actually increase salaries *and* contract length (or else it becomes a loophole to escape a bad contract).

Anyway, it's not a big deal to me either way provided it does not open up some sort of loophole (like the one I just pointed out). And if we do adopt something like this, it might make more sense to put it in place a full year after we agree to do it so everyone is prepared for it.

[kevin]

what if we make this rule only apply to protected players

[indiansgm]

Bad idea that will cause too many problems, scrap it.

[indiansgm]

I thought on this a little and do see some value to it after all, but as you say, it can be applied to a player under mlb contract only - not MKIA contract.

The situations I was considering is:
A) in the case of a player originally a prospect on your team, the player signs a long term contract with his MLB club before his MKIA protection expires - with no better alternatives to use the tag on or because there are other pending FA's which will require the tag the following year, the MKIA GM chooses to franchise into that MLB contract before the player's MKIA protection is up.

B) A player under MLB contract signs an extension with his MLB team and for reasons listed above the MKIA GM wishes to lock in that contract before the old MLB contract expires.

Of course in both cases, making tags tradable does address this to an extent. So either way I am ok with this suggestion so far as it effects players under MLB salaries only and MKIA originated contracts cannot be circumvented as a result.

[kevin]

indiansgm said:

I thought on this a little and do see some value to it after all, but as you say, it can be applied to a player under mlb contract only - not MKIA contract.

The situations I was considering is:
A) in the case of a player originally a prospect on your team, the player signs a long term contract with his MLB club before his MKIA protection expires - with no better alternatives to use the tag on or because there are other pending FA's which will require the tag the following year, the MKIA GM chooses to franchise into that MLB contract before the player's MKIA protection is up.

B) A player under MLB contract signs an extension with his MLB team and for reasons listed above the MKIA GM wishes to lock in that contract before the old MLB contract expires.

Of course in both cases, making tags tradable does address this to an extent. So either way I am ok with this suggestion so far as it effects players under MLB salaries only and MKIA originated contracts cannot be circumvented as a result.

agreed

[Reds GM (Graham)]

I...uhm...agree with Grid. There, I said it.

[Admin]

The consensus of the league is that a Franchise tag can be used on any player regardless if a FA or not under the circumstances that the player is already under a current MLB contract and not a MKIA contract.

if anyone is opposed to this post here.

[Astros GM (Kris)]

Does this ruling extend to the Restricted tags as well?

[Former Rockies GM (Peter)]

khenry0105 said:

Does this ruling extend to the Restricted tags as well?

No - it is meant to only apply to FAs.