|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Jan 17, 2020 20:04:00 GMT -5
Tbh I kinda like the hard cap. Question, who would win a bid if two or more teams bid the exact same years and amounts? That would be the only issue with a cap because we would have these kind of “max contracts” right? I thought the the tie breaker was time submitted, or at least someone won a tie break like that in that situation in RFA. edit: I also like the hard cap because it limits front loading a massive contract as well, and I also apologize for causing this backloading issue.
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM (barnstormers) on Jan 17, 2020 21:52:55 GMT -5
Hey Twinkie
No need to apologize. The Cole contract was well within the rules. You already front loaded Renden. Can't give up Cole for a supplemental pick. Just be around in 2025.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 17, 2020 21:55:44 GMT -5
Let me just say now we are not ever going to legislate how people use their money.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 17, 2020 21:58:17 GMT -5
There is no issue, we aren't putting in restrictive rules about contracts. We have our % restrictions. They work. These are massive contracts, no matter how they were loaded they weren't going to be great lol.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (jfleming) on Jan 17, 2020 23:17:03 GMT -5
I would strongly be against removing 2 of the SP tags. I agree with Nats, its part of the construct. You can still use 6 RP. SP is still a different position than RP, and there are more than enough SP around to fill it.
|
|
|
Post by White Sox GM (alligatorchris) on Jan 17, 2020 23:37:35 GMT -5
Yeah, talk all ya want, rules aren’t changing
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Jan 17, 2020 23:52:09 GMT -5
Rules can change, but not the money one being discussed here.
|
|
|
Post by Giants GM (Adkins) on Jan 18, 2020 12:56:35 GMT -5
|
|