|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 25, 2018 21:06:56 GMT -5
If a player sells for 1 year, $50M, he should not be able to be Franchise Tagged for $15M the next year. We need to come up with a better system for Franchise Tag tiers based on previous salary.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Braves (Drew) on Feb 25, 2018 21:58:32 GMT -5
Agreed.
|
|
|
Post by Miami Rays (Michael) on Feb 25, 2018 22:12:00 GMT -5
Franchise tag should be higher, maybe $20M.
|
|
|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 0:29:35 GMT -5
Jon, yes - it's YOU! Now that we have that cat out of the bag...
I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with you bidding $50M for one player. You have the cap space, go for it. My problem is that if you win him, under the current rules you'd be able to Franchise Tag him for only $15M next year. That just doesn't seem right.
|
|
|
Post by Baltimore Pirates (Jason) on Feb 26, 2018 8:39:09 GMT -5
Can't change the rules now. That was a brilliant move by Jon.
|
|
|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 9:58:58 GMT -5
Why would that not seem right? Someone that wins a bid at $4m gets to do the same thing, or $10m, or $23m, or any other million something bid. Again, I am being penalized pure and simple for being able to build not only a team, but a semi competitive one and still be this much under the CAP? If you want to put in a rule like that then put in a rule that ANY free agent with a contract of an AAS of $15m or more then you cannot franchise them. See how THAT goes over with the rest of league, but to penalize one GM for how they built their team is kinda wrong. I didn't ask for any special rules for building my team, but now special rules are wanting to be made because of my team. Jon, YOU are not being penalized. I am voicing my concerns about the system. It's not fair the way I started the league and we should make some changes to improve it. If you win a player at $4M or $10M AAS, then sure, franchise tag the guy for $15M for future years. That's fair and makes sense. It's MORE than the original deal. But if you win a guy for $20M or $46M AAS, then how is it fair to only have to pay that same player only $15M in future seasons. I don't like that is all I'm saying. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 10:00:12 GMT -5
Can't change the rules now. That was a brilliant move by Jon. We can change the rules for the future. For 2019 and beyond. I'm not saying any rule change would be effective and relative to this J.D. Martinez signing. But of course anything would need at least 2/3 of league approval.
|
|
|
Post by Baltimore Pirates (Jason) on Feb 26, 2018 11:14:40 GMT -5
Can't change the rules now. That was a brilliant move by Jon. We can change the rules for the future. For 2019 and beyond. I'm not saying any rule change would be effective and relative to this J.D. Martinez signing. But of course anything would need at least 2/3 of league approval. I dont think any change is needed though. franchise tags are notoriously low. I mean $15m for a superstar while guys like Brandon Morrow and Addison Reed get $20m in FA is more of a problem in my mind. Jon used cap space to win a FA and now has the option of franchising him at a discount. Had I kept Machado and franchised him at $15m that would be an incredible discount as well but nobody would have blinked an eye.
|
|
|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 26, 2018 11:17:30 GMT -5
We can change the rules for the future. For 2019 and beyond. I'm not saying any rule change would be effective and relative to this J.D. Martinez signing. But of course anything would need at least 2/3 of league approval. I dont think any change is needed though. franchise tags are notoriously low. I mean $15m for a superstar while guys like Brandon Morrow and Addison Reed get $20m in FA is more of a problem in my mind. Jon used cap space to win a FA and now has the option of franchising him at a discount. Had I kept Machado and franchised him at $15m that would be an incredible discount as well but nobody would have blinked an eye. Good points Jason.
|
|
|
Post by Miami Rays (Michael) on Feb 26, 2018 13:25:01 GMT -5
The franchise tag salary is set at less than 10 percent of the total club payroll. I think it should be higher than that, set at $20M. I’ve thought that for awhile. This has nothing to do with Jon’s move. A club owner should be able to pay whatever salary he wants that fits within his cap.
|
|
|
Post by Miami Rays (Michael) on Feb 26, 2018 13:29:01 GMT -5
That said, I most question the AAS rule in deciding auctions. What if I offered JD Martinez $33M a year for 3 years? Jon’s $50M for one year wins because it’s a higher AAS but many fewer dollars. In MLB, the most dollars usually wins the player, though AAS does prevail sometimes if the dollars are close. But what player would sign a contract for half the money?
|
|
|
Post by Commish Emeritus (Scott) on Feb 27, 2018 9:28:50 GMT -5
Huge change is the basic structure of the league.
Put it up for vote. You're saying a 2 year, $55M (AAS $27.5M) offer is going to beat a 1 year, $50M offer?
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Braves (Drew) on Feb 27, 2018 14:40:51 GMT -5
I'd disagree. As long as you believe in yourself at all, you take the 1 year, 50M offer and prepare to get another contract the next year.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Braves (Drew) on Feb 27, 2018 16:53:14 GMT -5
Sure, definitely a possibility. But if the risk is 5M with the potential that I could make an extra 25-30M+ on another deal in year 2, most guys are going to take the risk on that.
|
|
|
Post by Cleveland Braves (Drew) on Feb 27, 2018 19:41:01 GMT -5
We've seen a huge trend recently of guys taking deals with opt out clauses. It essentially says that if I think I can get paid more down the line, I will walk away from guaranteed money in hopes of more.
|
|