|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2010 14:48:48 GMT -5
After much review, I have decided that RFA tags will have more incentive than just being able to match a deal. From this point forward if you choose to match the RFA bid, you will get a 15% discount off the AAS.
for example.
if the AAS is 10m, the discount will be 1.5m and be 8.5m for the matching GM. This will hopefully be incentive enough for a GM facing the possibility of losing a player.
There is also a discussion about compensation for not being able to match a bid, like compensation MiLB draft picks
EDIT: Updated the thread title for clarity. _Man_
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Nationals GM (Alan) on Jan 9, 2010 11:35:45 GMT -5
maybe i am just missing it, but where is the break down for years and dollar minimums. I see guys posting years with their RFA and I am just curious as to why that is done and what the exact dollar figures involved are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Jan 9, 2010 13:58:04 GMT -5
After much review, I have decided that RFA tags will have more incentive than just being able to match a deal. From this point forward if you choose to match the RFA bid, you will get a 15% discount off the AAS. for example. if the AAS is 10m, the discount will be 1.5m and be 8.5m for the matching GM. This will hopefully be incentive enough for a GM facing the possibility of losing a player. There is also a discussion about compensation for not being able to match a bid, like compensation MiLB draft picks I like the idea but shouldn't be implemented next year? |
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Jan 9, 2010 14:38:16 GMT -5
maybe i am just missing it, but where is the break down for years and dollar minimums. I see guys posting years with their RFA and I am just curious as to why that is done and what the exact dollar figures involved are. Rule 8.3.i: |
|
|
|
Post by airweino on Jan 9, 2010 18:16:14 GMT -5
After much review, I have decided that RFA tags will have more incentive than just being able to match a deal. From this point forward if you choose to match the RFA bid, you will get a 15% discount off the AAS. for example. if the AAS is 10m, the discount will be 1.5m and be 8.5m for the matching GM. This will hopefully be incentive enough for a GM facing the possibility of losing a player. There is also a discussion about compensation for not being able to match a bid, like compensation MiLB draft picks I like the idea but shouldn't be implemented next year? Why next year and not now? There is plenty of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 9, 2010 18:28:24 GMT -5
The decision was made to spark a fire in all of us getting back in the swing of things. It is a great idea and there was only 1 team that traded a RFA tag and that trade was made a while ago. GM's need positive incentives for keeping their players.
for next year though, it will be discussed about possibly getting an extra MiLB draft pick if you do not choose to match a RFA contract. it could somehow be a sandwich pick or at the end of the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by airweino on Jan 9, 2010 23:46:54 GMT -5
FWIW, I love this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Royals GM (Shawn) on Jan 10, 2010 0:45:23 GMT -5
maybe i am just missing it, but where is the break down for years and dollar minimums. I see guys posting years with their RFA and I am just curious as to why that is done and what the exact dollar figures involved are. Rule 8.3.i: To me, it doesn't answer why people are assigning dollar amounts to RFA players. No one has even bid on the players yet. The rule only states that a min number of years is required. I don't remember seeing any of this dollar amount stuff last year. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 10, 2010 0:59:26 GMT -5
shawn, it might be a case of too many leagues to follow. we dont assign dollars, just min years.
|
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Jan 10, 2010 5:02:20 GMT -5
To me, it doesn't answer why people are assigning dollar amounts to RFA players. No one has even bid on the players yet. The rule only states that a min number of years is required. I don't remember seeing any of this dollar amount stuff last year. My apologies for neglecting to directly respond to the dollar amount part of the question, but I checked before (and again now) and did *NOT* actually see anyone put up dollar amounts for their RFA posts. And because nobody actually posted dollar amounts AFAIK, I just figured Gideon threw in the dollar amount part as an extension to his main question about the minimum years, and thought just quoting the rule may be enough. To clarify, as you know and pointed out (from last year), actual dollar amounts are not involved until the (closed/silent) bidding takes place. And no actual annual salary breakdowns are needed until contracts are to be finalized by either the restricting team for a match or the high bidder, if the restricting team will not match. Hope that helps... |
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Jan 10, 2010 5:10:42 GMT -5
The decision was made to spark a fire in all of us getting back in the swing of things. It is a great idea and there was only 1 team that traded a RFA tag and that trade was made a while ago. GM's need positive incentives for keeping their players. For the record, I'm the one who dealt away an RFA tag (that I acquired from the Rays about a year back) during this current offseason. And I'm fine enough w/ the moderate rule change for my particular situation despite that -- I don't think it would've impacted my decision much, if at all, in this particular case. However, if the rest of you feel strongly about it either way, you're welcome to voice your opinions of course. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Nationals GM (Alan) on Jan 11, 2010 13:39:54 GMT -5
shawn, it might be a case of too many leagues to follow. we dont assign dollars, just min years. This is my problem. I am in 4 leagues now and I know there is usually a minimum dollar amount per year offered which threw me off. Thanks for the follow up guys, I appreciate it. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Giants GM (Andrew) on Jan 11, 2010 14:59:36 GMT -5
The decision was made to spark a fire in all of us getting back in the swing of things. It is a great idea and there was only 1 team that traded a RFA tag and that trade was made a while ago. GM's need positive incentives for keeping their players. for next year though, it will be discussed about possibly getting an extra MiLB draft pick if you do not choose to match a RFA contract. it could somehow be a sandwich pick or at the end of the draft. Hey Pizz, Just for clarity, I actually traded for two RFA tags... one from the Dodgers and one from the Reds. Details are in my transaction log. I figure this isn't a big deal but I wanted to throw this out there anyway. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Jan 11, 2010 15:53:47 GMT -5
The decision was made to spark a fire in all of us getting back in the swing of things. It is a great idea and there was only 1 team that traded a RFA tag and that trade was made a while ago. GM's need positive incentives for keeping their players. For the record, I'm the one who dealt away an RFA tag (that I acquired from the Rays about a year back) during this current offseason. And I'm fine enough w/ the moderate rule change for my particular situation despite that -- I don't think it would've impacted my decision much, if at all, in this particular case. However, if the rest of you feel strongly about it either way, you're welcome to voice your opinions of course. I also traded a tag. I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I'm in the same boat as man, I probably still would have traded the tag, though it does increase the valueof said tag, albeit minimally. I like the rule change, just seemed like it was contradictory to the precedent of rule changes taking effect in the next off-season. But if everyone is okay with it, I don't mind. |
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Jan 11, 2010 17:23:41 GMT -5
For the record, I'm the one who dealt away an RFA tag (that I acquired from the Rays about a year back) during this current offseason. And I'm fine enough w/ the moderate rule change for my particular situation despite that -- I don't think it would've impacted my decision much, if at all, in this particular case. However, if the rest of you feel strongly about it either way, you're welcome to voice your opinions of course. I also traded a tag. I don't feel particularly strongly about it. I'm in the same boat as man, I probably still would have traded the tag, though it does increase the valueof said tag, albeit minimally. I like the rule change, just seemed like it was contradictory to the precedent of rule changes taking effect in the next off-season. But if everyone is okay with it, I don't mind. Generally, I'd also much prefer to see plenty of lead-time before a rule change takes effect, especially for anything that yields a very significant impact. This change seems minimal enough for the most part near as I can tell. Otherwise, I would've pushed for it to take effect next year instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Jan 11, 2010 23:43:52 GMT -5
yeah i agree. not a big deal.
|
|
