|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 8, 2009 23:13:59 GMT -5
Man and I had a brief discussion regarding restricted tags and he pointed out that we should bring to the people.
I was asking if restricted tags could be applied to a protected player prior to their protection years expiring. We can franchise a protection player before he becomes a free agent. I don't see why it would be different for a restricted tag. I liken it to a MLB team signing a player to a long-term contract before they are arbitration eligible. A franchise tag serves this purpose for our league if a MLB team actually signs the player long-term.
If we allow protected players to be restricted, it kind of allows us to initiate a similar type of long-term deal, as opposed to tendering one-year contracts through the 3 years of protection, then applying the restricted tag.
I don't think it really changes much, other than allowing a little more creative use of the tags. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to players already signed to MKIA or real-life contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Giants GM (Andrew) on Oct 8, 2009 23:19:06 GMT -5
I like this idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Angels GM (Eps) on Oct 9, 2009 0:02:30 GMT -5
I was not aware we could franchise a player prior to said player becoming a "free agent" (assuming you mean MKIA free agent).
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 9, 2009 0:10:52 GMT -5
My understanding is that you can franchise a "protected" player prior to said player reaching free agency, meaning you can franchise a player anytime during their 3 year protection. basically, I'm proposing this be extended to restricted tags as well.
I never meant to imply that players under MKIA or real-life contracts could be franchised or restricted. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Oct 9, 2009 12:00:54 GMT -5
Actually, it's not that clear to me either whether protected players can be franchised before they turn FA.
I know we discussed it back in late-2007, and there was a consensus agreement to allow that, but it's not actually written into the rules -- the thread is in our Commish Archive.
I also know that someone asked about the RFA tag for that, but there was no real discussion about that.
Personally, I'm fine w/ allowing *both*. If we can agree on it here, we can put it into the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Angels GM (Eps) on Oct 9, 2009 12:23:25 GMT -5
Maybe I've missed something, but I have always understood the use of fran tags, restrict tags and prospect protection tags is ONLY available after said player has become an MKIA free agent, not before that time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Rockies GM (Peter) on Oct 9, 2009 12:34:58 GMT -5
I think Eps is correct. I seem to remember asking whether the rules permitted me to franchise Tulowitzki during his protection period. I'm pretty sure I was told that a tag could be applied only when that period was over.
|
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Oct 9, 2009 13:31:40 GMT -5
FYI, here's the rule change discussion thread from late-2007 that I was refering to: mlbknowitalls.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=archive&action=display&thread=2513It's still in our Commish Archive, so not sure if y'all can actually read it. If you cannot read it, I'll move it back out here for y'all to see. FYI, let me again point out that although we seemed to reach a consensus on it back then, it was never *actually* written into the rules -- probably just an oversight on our part. I'm not saying it's already a rule in effect, but I am suggesting that we can probably simply officially/finally write it into the rules as originally intended *unless* there are some real objections to that. Also, if we do go thru w/ that change as intended back then, it would make sense to give due consideration for the same to apply to the RFA tag as well. Peter, I PMed you separately about the Tulo question. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Former Angels GM (Eps) on Oct 9, 2009 13:35:32 GMT -5
Permission not granted
|
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Oct 9, 2009 13:39:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Kris) on Oct 9, 2009 14:12:11 GMT -5
I'm was under the impression that we were allowed to franchise a player during the 3 years of protection as well. I have no problem with it either since you already had that player under control anyway. In fact, you could argue that the team is taking a substantial risk by doing so - in terms of contract length and flexibility to drop the player without penalty in the offseason.
In terms of restricted tags for those players under protection, I also feel the team takes enough of a risk to allow the change. From salary to contract length to outright loss of the player, the team takes a substantial enough risk to allow the benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 9, 2009 14:37:56 GMT -5
I don't see the harm in allowing GMs to sign "protected" players (ie players that GMs have the choice of annually tendering a contract) long-term with the use of either a franchise or restriction tag. Especially considering the unofficial decision about franchise tags made in January, why shouldn't the option be extended to restriction tags?
I can't see a problem and it follows with the intent of the league to mimic MLB front-office decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Angels GM (Eps) on Oct 9, 2009 14:38:05 GMT -5
LOL, I'll pick my battles...
Do what you wish with restrict and franchise tagging of players, FA or not
I'll just lobby to keep > 5 year terms for franchise tag players. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 9, 2009 14:48:56 GMT -5
LOL, I'll pick my battles... Do what you wish with restrict and franchise tagging of players, FA or not I'll just lobby to keep > 5 terms for franchise tag players. ;D I'm not sure what you mean by "5 terms". You are referring to the discussion over the length of contracts? As far as picking your battles, I'd like to hear the reasoning against allowing players in their protection years to be franchised/restricted? Never did I mean to implicate that players under MKIA contracts (or MLB contracts, for that matter) be included in this discussion. I'm talking purely about a prospect who passes MLB service time and a GM wants to lock said player into a contract before the 3 years of annually tendered contracts expires. It just doesn't seem unfair or far from what real GMs do. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Angels GM (Eps) on Oct 9, 2009 15:33:50 GMT -5
Typo .... 5 year terms Unless you have several such players whose protections all expire at the same time, I see little reason lock down a youngster long term before you have to. Imagine RFA-ing Garrett Atkins to $5M+ annually for 5 years after his 2006 or 2007 seasons.  Ergo, my reason for saying I'll choose my battles and let you all hammer out the pre-FA tagging. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 9, 2009 15:41:25 GMT -5
Typo .... 5 year terms Unless you have several such players whose protections all expire at the same time, I see little reason lock down a youngster long term before you have to. Imagine RFA-ing Garrett Atkins to $5M+ annually for 5 years after his 2006 or 2007 seasons. Ergo, my reason for saying I'll choose my battles and let you all hammer out the pre-FA tagging. I see. Well, it certainly wouldn't make sense to tag a player before their protection expires in most situations. But it would in certain circumstances. Where's the harm? If a GM wants to take a risk on a long-term contract, a la Atkins, let 'em. It's really up to the commish's office at this point. I've made my points and I can't really see a reason against it and no one seems to be speaking out against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Giants GM (Andrew) on Oct 9, 2009 15:51:44 GMT -5
To me, it seems like a well balanced risk-reward situation. I'm cool with this change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reds GM (Graham) on Oct 10, 2009 5:03:18 GMT -5
I thought one of the reasons we didn't/wouldn't allow this is that it prevents one team dominating the league (theoretically) for years. If you can only tag free agents, chances are that in certain years you'll have more FA than tags, and will thus lose some of your more talented players - which helps 'parity'.
Just a thought. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by BK Dodgers GM (Man) on Oct 10, 2009 23:03:07 GMT -5
I thought one of the reasons we didn't/wouldn't allow this is that it prevents one team dominating the league (theoretically) for years. If you can only tag free agents, chances are that in certain years you'll have more FA than tags, and will thus lose some of your more talented players - which helps 'parity'. Just a thought. ;D That's a good point although I seriously doubt that was the original rationale for it.  ;D Also, if we want *more* league activity, then allowing greater flexibility for the tags would be the opposite thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Former Reds GM (Patrick) on Oct 10, 2009 23:42:33 GMT -5
I guess might reduce league activity a little but we are only talking about protected players in their first two seasons of protection and only in regard to restricted tags. I can't imagine it will make much (if any) difference in league activity. Either way, it's not a big deal. It just seems like it's in the same vein as when MLB teams sign players long-term before they are arbitration eligible.
Ultimately, we should put it to a vote. Or the league office could just make a decision.
|
|
;D