|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 2, 2020 17:34:10 GMT -5
It isnt the worst idea, but also it could lead to even more turnover and punting from teams. It will undoubtedly be a nightmare to keep track of for Scott and I, but that isnt a reason not to do it.
I'm not for or against it. I think its ok the way it is, esp since you can just draft and trade post draft very easily. But I'm curious what others besides 2/30 think on it. We are struggling to fill these terrible teams left on here already, anything that might make more of them would not be ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Jan 2, 2020 18:11:25 GMT -5
It's only pushing the time you can trade back about, 2 weeks or so. I don't think it will have a major effect either way.
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 2, 2020 18:49:44 GMT -5
I think with the turn around of being able to trade next year pick, It's fine the way it is? I don't see the need unless your trading multiple years into the future?
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals GM (Kevin) on Jan 2, 2020 21:07:24 GMT -5
It isnt the worst idea, but also it could lead to even more turnover and punting from teams. It will undoubtedly be a nightmare to keep track of for Scott and I, but that isnt a reason not to do it. I'm not for or against it. I think its ok the way it is, esp since you can just draft and trade post draft very easily. But I'm curious what others besides 2/30 think on it. We are struggling to fill these terrible teams left on here already, anything that might make more of them would not be ideal. How is this tons more work when we would just be moving up the date a couple weeks? You're going to keep track of next year's picks anyway. I'm not sure how this would increase or decrease teams here... if I have a 1st this year and can trade it for a 1st and 2nd next year wont my team be better off long term?
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 2, 2020 21:18:46 GMT -5
Keeping track of the traded picks is already remarkably difficult while the draft is happening. The spreadsheet, the draft topic post, the trade topic all need updating basically every hour or so constantly. Adding another sheet wouldn't help.
You're thinking of your one scenario. If I am a bad team and can ditch 2 years of draft for short term bad contracts because I dont get their value yet then odds of a dropout (since there is no real path forward without doing the work of trading/wire-ing) it wouldnt help.
The more chances you give to mortgage a future, the more people will do it.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Jan 3, 2020 9:19:42 GMT -5
Keeping track of the traded picks is already remarkably difficult while the draft is happening. The spreadsheet, the draft topic post, the trade topic all need updating basically every hour or so constantly. Adding another sheet wouldn't help. You're thinking of your one scenario. If I am a bad team and can ditch 2 years of draft for short term bad contracts because I dont get their value yet then odds of a dropout (since there is no real path forward without doing the work of trading/wire-ing) it wouldnt help. The more chances you give to mortgage a future, the more people will do it. I agree with that sentiment. It would be nice to trade future picks but I don't see it as a game changer for more than a few teams, including myself. The extra record keeping and increased chance of someone dropping out after mortgaging the future isn't worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Jan 3, 2020 9:28:55 GMT -5
It isnt the worst idea, but also it could lead to even more turnover and punting from teams. It will undoubtedly be a nightmare to keep track of for Scott and I, but that isnt a reason not to do it. I'm not for or against it. I think its ok the way it is, esp since you can just draft and trade post draft very easily. But I'm curious what others besides 2/30 think on it. We are struggling to fill these terrible teams left on here already, anything that might make more of them would not be ideal. How is this tons more work when we would just be moving up the date a couple weeks? You're going to keep track of next year's picks anyway. I'm not sure how this would increase or decrease teams here... if I have a 1st this year and can trade it for a 1st and 2nd next year wont my team be better off long term? Yes, your team would be better long term but, theoretically, the other team would be worse off long term with less incentive for someone to jump on that team if it comes open.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Jan 3, 2020 10:08:12 GMT -5
i would vote to approve the change. its more work but i think its worth it.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 3, 2020 10:39:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (alligatorchris) on Jan 3, 2020 17:08:32 GMT -5
Yeah I’d use this to mortgage the future and skate after taking on a team full of expiring players. That trade deadline jazz last year made my butt hurt more than I’m publicly discussing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2020 9:34:00 GMT -5
I like the idea of at least having the trade posted by the deadline....we are in different time zones and sometimes that plays in working out deals. But if the deal is worked out and posted, it should have, like a 24 hr period to confirm. Usually owners like to get that done quicker to get the players on board.
I like to keep the playoffs like they are. If you win a division, you should be in, whether you are in the top 12 or not. Otherwise, change the setup to we are all in one division and take the top 12. I think that sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Jan 4, 2020 13:14:16 GMT -5
I like the idea of at least having the trade posted by the deadline....we are in different time zones and sometimes that plays in working out deals. But if the deal is worked out and posted, it should have, like a 24 hr period to confirm. Post it a day before the deadline and then you have a 24hr period to confirm 😁
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (alligatorchris) on Jan 5, 2020 10:42:49 GMT -5
Every league and sport has increased action and talks right up to the deadline. Even this league had about 15 people online hours before the deadline. There is excitement about the deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Jan 5, 2020 13:19:24 GMT -5
Agreed but it’s still a deadline.
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 5, 2020 13:29:04 GMT -5
We all get life gets in the way, it does for everyone but I mean only 2 trades were made at the deadline and both pretty much before noon. I just think with how late the deadline goes into the season. I just think if you're waiting till the last minute be prepared to get burned if someone doesn't respond. I just think when it comes to those types of trades that just need confirming have them post it and then it falls on you to confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (alligatorchris) on Jan 5, 2020 13:36:44 GMT -5
Sounds great: Don’t change the playoffs either.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 13, 2020 10:14:26 GMT -5
For 2021 I would like to propose a change in Restricted free agency. I feel that teams should not be able to trade rfa's in the 3 day matching period. Either keep em or they are gone to the highest bidder. There are compensation rules set in place for losing a RFA, but most are traded away, usually to a team who did not win or even place a bid on the player. I could be alone on this, but I would like a vote in the off season to see.
|
|
|
Post by KC Royals GM (Kevin) on Jan 13, 2020 10:20:27 GMT -5
For 2021 I would like to propose a change in Restricted free agency. I feel that teams should not be able to trade rfa's in the 3 day matching period. Either keep em or they are gone to the highest bidder. There are compensation rules set in place for losing a RFA, but most are traded away, usually to a team who did not win or even place a bid on the player. I could be alone on this, but I would like a vote in the off season to see. But couldnt the team still just match the player then trade them a couple days later? Can work out the deal and ask what breakdown the other gm wants then just trade them after.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Jan 13, 2020 10:20:34 GMT -5
There would really be no difference. The original team will just trade the player after the 3 day period.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 13, 2020 10:44:30 GMT -5
they could, but i think it would lessen trades involving people who aren't even involved with the bidding. Or make it to where you accept the compensation set by the league or the player goes to the bidding winner only. No open trading of RFA's.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 13, 2020 11:26:42 GMT -5
Why would we want to lessen trades. Also, it wouldn't lessen trades, like the other two said they would just be handshake deals for 3 days for no reason.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 13, 2020 11:34:33 GMT -5
Why would we want to lessen trades. Also, it wouldn't lessen trades, like the other two said they would just be handshake deals for 3 days for no reason. Or make it to where you accept the compensation set by the league or the player goes to the bidding winner only. No open trading of RFA's.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Jan 13, 2020 11:54:47 GMT -5
Why would we want to lessen trades. Also, it wouldn't lessen trades, like the other two said they would just be handshake deals for 3 days for no reason. Or make it to where you accept the compensation set by the league or the player goes to the bidding winner only. No open trading of RFA's. Would players on RFA contracts never be allowed to be dealt by the matching team? What about the team that makes an offer that doesn't get matched- could they trade the player without restriction? I don't like it because it decreases the value of restricted tags, albeit slightly, and franchise tags are already incredibly devalued. I get the sentiment, but don't think this is something that warrants change.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 13, 2020 12:03:28 GMT -5
Yeah, this is dumb lol. Sorry Giants.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 13, 2020 12:22:49 GMT -5
I think its dumb that winning bidders have close to a 0 percent chance of winning a rfa without trading for it unless they offer >25m a year. It happens but not alot.
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 13, 2020 12:31:35 GMT -5
I think its dumb that winning bidders have close to a 0 percent chance of winning a rfa without trading for it unless they offer >25m a year. It happens but not alot. I get the sentiment behind it, but how do you prevent that from happening? The only thing I can think of is having tagged players restricted players on a no trade list til the season starts if they want to be tagged and kept. I think RFA is fine, I get it but if you really want them, trade for em. I think it’s more trading compensation for a different piece you like more.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 13, 2020 13:06:02 GMT -5
i would say that it would balance itself out. If a team couldn't trade in the 3 day window and be forced to either accept or let them go then options for restructuring contracts would limit the number of teams who could afford that player. Of course this could be all negotiated by teams but it would make it more difficult to move rfa's. Just look at the end of rfa in 2020, how many players were claimed by original teams or let go to highest bidder compared to the rfa's that were traded? Im not saying that i have all the answers to this, just that I feel it should be tweaked in some way to promote winning bids. Instead of just providing a pay scale for someone else to swoop in and trade for them. Ill just keep my dumb ideas to myself on rules from now on, was just trying to help out.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Jan 13, 2020 13:18:34 GMT -5
i would say that it would balance itself out. If a team couldn't trade in the 3 day window and be forced to either accept or let them go then options for restructuring contracts would limit the number of teams who could afford that player. Of course this could be all negotiated by teams but it would make it more difficult to move rfa's. Just look at the end of rfa in 2020, how many players were claimed by original teams or let go to highest bidder compared to the rfa's that were traded? Im not saying that i have all the answers to this, just that I feel it should be tweaked in some way to promote winning bids. Instead of just providing a pay scale for someone else to swoop in and trade for them. Ill just keep my dumb ideas to myself on rules from now on, was just trying to help out. I, for one, am not looking to stifle dialogue. Sharing ideas is what, in my view, has kept our league fresh and improving over time. I understand where you're coming from on this subject, but disagree on the need for change. Keep sharing!
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 13, 2020 13:31:40 GMT -5
i would say that it would balance itself out. If a team couldn't trade in the 3 day window and be forced to either accept or let them go then options for restructuring contracts would limit the number of teams who could afford that player. Of course this could be all negotiated by teams but it would make it more difficult to move rfa's. Just look at the end of rfa in 2020, how many players were claimed by original teams or let go to highest bidder compared to the rfa's that were traded? Im not saying that i have all the answers to this, just that I feel it should be tweaked in some way to promote winning bids. Instead of just providing a pay scale for someone else to swoop in and trade for them. Ill just keep my dumb ideas to myself on rules from now on, was just trying to help out. I think it could definitely use some tweaking, I agree but also just think it gets bypassed with teams negotiating and while it makes a smidge harder it doesn't solve it. I think some RFA players get traded due to value at that contract they received. I think some contracts are more likely to get traded versus others. On one side of its getting value for losing the player and getting different/better value to whoever wants to match the contract, maybe the compensation gets increased or the threshold to qualify for certain picks? I think there are more problems/issues that arise with that vs the current system.
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 13, 2020 13:37:52 GMT -5
Does Cardinals selection drop 10 selection since they were abandoned and over the Cap for most of the season?
|
|