Post by Silvio (Blue Jays) on May 11, 2014 23:46:37 GMT
I think we should be able to cut any FA signings at anytime; I don't see the point of waiting until May 1st. MLB teams sign guys to a bunch of minor league deals or contracts on the MLB minimum, and they release guys during or right at the end of ST. The team still pays the consequences of releasing them.
I understand trading, and I'd even align the day we are able to trade free agents with MLB's date which I believe is June 1st.
Also, it would be cool moving forward following the FA compensation system the MLB has in place. So for example teams that lose FA's get a compensation pick. I know it'd be tough to implement - just throwing a rough idea out there - but that would be cool. Teams with losing records would obviously have their compensation picks protected if they signed a top free agent. It might be too difficult to implement however.
I think we should be able to cut any FA signings at anytime; I don't see the point of waiting until May 1st. MLB teams sign guys to a bunch of minor league deals or contracts on the MLB minimum, and they release guys during or right at the end of ST. The team still pays the consequences of releasing them.
I understand trading, and I'd even align the day we are able to trade free agents with MLB's date which I believe is June 1st.
Also, it would be cool moving forward following the FA compensation system the MLB has in place. So for example teams that lose FA's get a compensation pick. I know it'd be tough to implement - just throwing a rough idea out there - but that would be cool. Teams with losing records would obviously have their compensation picks protected if they signed a top free agent. It might be too difficult to implement however.
Yes, definitely open to allowing FA's to be cut at any time with the 75% release fee.
The only problem with the compensation picks is, a lot of teams won't have any picks to forfiet if they sign a player, know what I mean? I would definelty entertain a system for compensation, if it was fool proof.
Post by Mike (Pinstrypes) on May 12, 2014 2:31:36 GMT
I know this going to go over like requiring real meat at a Chinese buffet (no stray cat or dog), no offense to my brethren of Chinese descent, but I would like to see some restraint over the number of draft picks held by any one team. Sorry Brandon love ya man. It skews the future competitive balance of the league. Just as not being allowed to spend over the cap it would also save owners from themselves myself included. I would propose no more than 3 picks/round. When the league was new owners needed to sell picks just to get their house in order but now everyone is cap sound. Also more reflective of irl MLB. Maybe implement in 2016.
Post by Brandon (Twins) (LM) on May 12, 2014 5:39:32 GMT
I disagree with the picks, obviously.
However, I agree with the comp. pick idea. Instead of the team signing the player being forced to lose a pick. How about the team losing the player gains an additional (extra) pick. Those picks could be placed either at the end of the round (1-5), or following the non-playoff teams. This would allow teams to garner some sort of return on losing valuable players. The value would need to be determined via some sort of implemented system, and thus, the more value a player has, the better comp pick the team would receive.
C Gary Sanchez
1B Dominic Smith
2B
3B Miguel Sano
SS Carlos Correa
OF Byron Buxton
OF Austin Meadows
OF
UT
I think there needs to be some sort of salary relief. I kind of like the Arb system, and using cots, however the arbitration system doesn't consider financial constraints, and there are too many teams with payrolls over our $100M. From my experience, it makes it very hard to trade here, which makes me not come as often. And, I realize I'm a little biased with a loaded team, but I feel like I got a lot of these guys for next to nothing when other teams were just trying to shed future cap, and that shouldn't be the case with superstars.
However, I agree with the comp. pick idea. Instead of the team signing the player being forced to lose a pick. How about the team losing the player gains an additional (extra) pick. Those picks could be placed either at the end of the round (1-5), or following the non-playoff teams. This would allow teams to garner some sort of return on losing valuable players. The value would need to be determined via some sort of implemented system, and thus, the more value a player has, the better comp pick the team would receive.
This is something that I would like to implement if given a a lot of support. We could give picks based on the ESPN player rater, or give picks based on the salary the player signed for.
I know this going to go over like requiring real meat at a Chinese buffet (no stray cat or dog), no offense to my brethren of Chinese descent, but I would like to see some restraint over the number of draft picks held by any one team. Sorry Brandon love ya man. It skews the future competitive balance of the league. Just as not being allowed to spend over the cap it would also save owners from themselves myself included. I would propose no more than 3 picks/round. When the league was new owners needed to sell picks just to get their house in order but now everyone is cap sound. Also more reflective of irl MLB. Maybe implement in 2016.
I agree to an extent, I wouldn't want to limit it that much, but I think Brandon has over 40-50 picks, and I think capping that number at 30ish could be beneficial for the league, and not sacrifice the ability for teams to rebuild thru the draft.
I think there needs to be some sort of salary relief. I kind of like the Arb system, and using cots, however the arbitration system doesn't consider financial constraints, and there are too many teams with payrolls over our $100M. From my experience, it makes it very hard to trade here, which makes me not come as often. And, I realize I'm a little biased with a loaded team, but I feel like I got a lot of these guys for next to nothing when other teams were just trying to shed future cap, and that shouldn't be the case with superstars.
Think you can try to explain this to me a little more, not sure I follow?
Post by Silvio (Blue Jays) on May 12, 2014 16:29:56 GMT
With players salaries going up, especially through arbitration, it makes it difficult to trade and keep a payroll below 100M. I mean, when players sign deals or are signed through arbitration, it's out of our control. It makes it tough to make transactions.
I think there should be a review every season of players salaries (in general) and if the level rises from the previous year, then a certain % is added to the cap space. Not sure how to specifically do that since I'm not a mathematician through just throwing the idea out there.
With players salaries going up, especially through arbitration, it makes it difficult to trade and keep a payroll below 100M. I mean, when players sign deals or are signed through arbitration, it's out of our control. It makes it tough to make transactions.
I think there should be a review every season of players salaries (in general) and if the level rises from the previous year, then a certain % is added to the cap space. Not sure how to specifically do that since I'm not a mathematician through just throwing the idea out there.
I agree with this. Since we have essentially no control over our 1-6 players, we can't appropriately budget for future seasons. Who knows if a guy making 750k right now could sign a 5 year 45M extension. This completely alters our ability to build a team from year to year.
We'd need further dialogue on an idea to amend this, but I certainly feel as though it's something that should be addressed
C Gary Sanchez
1B Dominic Smith
2B
3B Miguel Sano
SS Carlos Correa
OF Byron Buxton
OF Austin Meadows
OF
UT
With players salaries going up, especially through arbitration, it makes it difficult to trade and keep a payroll below 100M. I mean, when players sign deals or are signed through arbitration, it's out of our control. It makes it tough to make transactions.
I think there should be a review every season of players salaries (in general) and if the level rises from the previous year, then a certain % is added to the cap space. Not sure how to specifically do that since I'm not a mathematician through just throwing the idea out there.
I agree with this. Since we have essentially no control over our 1-6 players, we can't appropriately budget for future seasons. Who knows if a guy making 750k right now could sign a 5 year 45M extension. This completely alters our ability to build a team from year to year.
We'd need further dialogue on an idea to amend this, but I certainly feel as though it's something that should be addressed
This is the main reason as to why the option to take the year-year salary breakdown was added. You won't see that guy who's making .75M, jump exponentially. Teams structure contracts that slowly increase to mimic the actual arbitration process. In season extensions don't take effect until the offseason, so I don't see any way it will drastically effect teams ability to make transactions. I understand that these extension often come out of nowhere, but it's not going to change the outlook on your cap by much, if at all.
Look at guys like Marte, Teheran, Simmons, and every other ARB player that signed an extension.
With players salaries going up, especially through arbitration, it makes it difficult to trade and keep a payroll below 100M. I mean, when players sign deals or are signed through arbitration, it's out of our control. It makes it tough to make transactions.
I think there should be a review every season of players salaries (in general) and if the level rises from the previous year, then a certain % is added to the cap space. Not sure how to specifically do that since I'm not a mathematician through just throwing the idea out there.
Will most definitely review salaries every year, and amend the cap if we see fit. Big part of why the 2015 cap has already been raised to 105M.
