Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2008 16:43:26 GMT -5
dayman!
and yeah, franchising a guy gets you his current, real life contract in length and dollars. be it one year, seven years, whatever. if you end up franchising a guy you had signed in here to a deal, and he's in the middle of a real life contract, you take on the remaining terms of that deal.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 12, 2008 16:44:29 GMT -5
Fighter of the Nightman.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 13, 2008 16:39:24 GMT -5
Do you want us to group our FA bids into 1 message, or at least try to? Or should we send a PM for each FA?
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 13, 2008 16:45:21 GMT -5
Also I just want to confirm that this bid criteria is only for Restricted FA and does not apply for the upcoming FA period, correct?
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 13, 2008 19:09:16 GMT -5
Also I just want to confirm that this bid criteria is only for Restricted FA and does not apply for the upcoming FA period, correct? Right. Restricted Free Agent bidding is completely different from the unrestricted free agent period that we're about to get into.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 13, 2008 19:13:46 GMT -5
Do you want us to group our FA bids into 1 message, or at least try to? Or should we send a PM for each FA? No, each individual player bid should be sent in its own PM. However, I recommend sending a separate PM which sets out your priority list. You will probably be bidding on more guys than you actually want, so you should send a list that tells me the order in which you want players assuming you win everyone you bid on.
|
|
|
Post by alexortiz21 on Mar 13, 2008 23:44:49 GMT -5
I was just looking over the rules and it seems like it says if you restrict a FA you can take on that player for multiple years. So if you franchise a player, you are can only have that player for 1 year, i know you can franchise him the next year too, but if you restrict him there is a possibility of keeping him long term? If that is not the case and you can only keep that restricted player for 1 year, how is that 1 years salary determined? Would it be the AAS of the top bid on that player or would it be the first year's salary of the winning bid? It's my understanding that if you franchise him, you can keep him at the new real-life MLB contract that he signs. But if you restrict him, it is bidding for him among owners in this league, and then you have the option of matching the highest bid. It is my understanding that if you Franchise a player you get to keep him one more year at the last salary you had him for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2008 23:49:12 GMT -5
and yeah, franchising a guy gets you his current, real life contract in length and dollars. be it one year, seven years, whatever. if you end up franchising a guy you had signed in here to a deal, and he's in the middle of a real life contract, you take on the remaining terms of that deal.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 14, 2008 0:04:43 GMT -5
To clear up the franchise tag confusion: when you use a tag, you must use it at the conclusion of a contract in our league (this CAN apply to the end of any year under protection since prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts.) When you use a franchise tag, you will take on the terms of that players real life contract. Say a player's Chin Music contract runs out at the end of the year, but in real life, he's still got 2 years left on his deal. Using a franchise tag on this player next offseason will allow you to pick up the remaining 2 years of his real life deal. Likewise, if a player does not have a deal going into the offseason, you may use a franchise tag on him, but then you must take whatever the terms of the contract that he eventually signs. This is all a bit premature seeing as how you won't need to declare franchised and restricted players until next December, but it is important to have a grasp on it. Let me know if I need to clarify anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 0:12:00 GMT -5
After numerous questions about free agency, I feel it's necessary for me to clarify a few things that I neglected to mention in my previous post about free agency. Mind you, this is all in the rules, explicitly or otherwise. According to rule 7, the longest you can sign a guy to league min is 2 years, the longest you can sign a guy to a deal worth between 400K and 750K is 3 years, the longest you can sign anyone to a deal is 6 years. The other hot topic in the questions I've received is about prospect protection after the conclusion of free agent contracts. To address this we've decided that you cannot acquire prospect protection via a franchise tag. This should not come as a shock because prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts. It has been suggested to me that there should be a contract amount under which you would be able to tag a player and get his prospect protection...I'm not opposed to this, however I think it should be fairly low- say 600K (1.5 times league minimum.) If the league has a problem with this addition or exception to the rules, however you look at it, then it certainly will not stand, however I am very much set on disallowing prospect protection to be obtained via a tag in certain situations. The main thing that I'm trying to avoid is someone offering Joe Schmoe (a fantastic prospect that the Red Sox stupidly forgot to protect) a 1 year deal worth $25M and then thinking that the winning team can then acquire him for the duration of his prospect protection with the use of 1 franchise tag. This is obviously a ludicrous example, however I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in our league. If you planned on capitalizing on a loophole that you thought existed by offering Joe Schmoe a ridiculous 1 year deal with the hope of being able to tag him, please let me know and you may rescind your bid. However, that will not go on in this league. Anyone with a problem may certainly share it, but that's not happening. I would like to hear what people think about the arbitrary amount under which you can still acquire protection- good idea or not? I'm happy either way, just looking for some feedback. Thanks and happy bidding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2008 0:36:06 GMT -5
that sounds like a great idea. 600k is more than reasonable, only 50% above the league minimum and well w/in the idea of a minor league contract. good, forward thinking by the league office to address an issue that i hadn't thought of, but now that it's mentioned sounds absurdly exploitable. glad to see that won't be the case.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:12:59 GMT -5
After numerous questions about free agency, I feel it's necessary for me to clarify a few things that I neglected to mention in my previous post about free agency. Mind you, this is all in the rules, explicitly or otherwise. According to rule 7, the longest you can sign a guy to league min is 2 years, the longest you can sign a guy to a deal worth between 400K and 750K is 3 years, the longest you can sign anyone to a deal is 6 years. The other hot topic in the questions I've received is about prospect protection after the conclusion of free agent contracts. To address this we've decided that you cannot acquire prospect protection via a franchise tag. This should not come as a shock because prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts. It has been suggested to me that there should be a contract amount under which you would be able to tag a player and get his prospect protection...I'm not opposed to this, however I think it should be fairly low- say 600K (1.5 times league minimum.) If the league has a problem with this addition or exception to the rules, however you look at it, then it certainly will not stand, however I am very much set on disallowing prospect protection to be obtained via a tag in certain situations. The main thing that I'm trying to avoid is someone offering Joe Schmoe (a fantastic prospect that the Red Sox stupidly forgot to protect) a 1 year deal worth $25M and then thinking that the winning team can then acquire him for the duration of his prospect protection with the use of 1 franchise tag. This is obviously a ludicrous example, however I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in our league. If you planned on capitalizing on a loophole that you thought existed by offering Joe Schmoe a ridiculous 1 year deal with the hope of being able to tag him, please let me know and you may rescind your bid. However, that will not go on in this league. Anyone with a problem may certainly share it, but that's not happening. I would like to hear what people think about the arbitrary amount under which you can still acquire protection- good idea or not? I'm happy either way, just looking for some feedback. Thanks and happy bidding. I did in fact read it in the rules before I made my FA bids, so it is nobodies fault but my own. But I for sure made some bids longer than two years on league min and some others that will be invalid. Just let me make sure........... but a bid of 6 years.3.3 mil for a prospect is illegal? That is an AAS of .55. But a bid of 6 years/6 mil for a prospect is legal? Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:15:09 GMT -5
Also, all the players that have been added to the FA block the last two days, those players won't close on WED with round one, will they?
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 11:15:48 GMT -5
After numerous questions about free agency, I feel it's necessary for me to clarify a few things that I neglected to mention in my previous post about free agency. Mind you, this is all in the rules, explicitly or otherwise. According to rule 7, the longest you can sign a guy to league min is 2 years, the longest you can sign a guy to a deal worth between 400K and 750K is 3 years, the longest you can sign anyone to a deal is 6 years. The other hot topic in the questions I've received is about prospect protection after the conclusion of free agent contracts. To address this we've decided that you cannot acquire prospect protection via a franchise tag. This should not come as a shock because prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts. It has been suggested to me that there should be a contract amount under which you would be able to tag a player and get his prospect protection...I'm not opposed to this, however I think it should be fairly low- say 600K (1.5 times league minimum.) If the league has a problem with this addition or exception to the rules, however you look at it, then it certainly will not stand, however I am very much set on disallowing prospect protection to be obtained via a tag in certain situations. The main thing that I'm trying to avoid is someone offering Joe Schmoe (a fantastic prospect that the Red Sox stupidly forgot to protect) a 1 year deal worth $25M and then thinking that the winning team can then acquire him for the duration of his prospect protection with the use of 1 franchise tag. This is obviously a ludicrous example, however I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in our league. If you planned on capitalizing on a loophole that you thought existed by offering Joe Schmoe a ridiculous 1 year deal with the hope of being able to tag him, please let me know and you may rescind your bid. However, that will not go on in this league. Anyone with a problem may certainly share it, but that's not happening. I would like to hear what people think about the arbitrary amount under which you can still acquire protection- good idea or not? I'm happy either way, just looking for some feedback. Thanks and happy bidding. I did in fact read it in the rules before I made my FA bids, so it is nobodies fault but my own. But I for sure made some bids longer than two years on league min and some others that will be invalid. Just let me make sure........... but a bid of 6 years.3.3 mil for a prospect is illegal? That is an AAS of .55. But a bid of 6 years/6 mil for a prospect is legal? Thanks for your time. That is correct.
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Mar 18, 2008 11:19:04 GMT -5
Also, all the players that have been added to the FA block the last two days, those players won't close on WED with round one, will they? as far as i understand any player added up until the bidding closes on Wed is allowed to be bid on. so that means all those players added will be included in this round of bidding.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 11:23:19 GMT -5
I posted a few days ago that the FA Posting for the first period will close Tuesday night (tonight)- more specifically 11:59PM EST. Anybody posted for bid before this time may be bid on in the first period. Anybody posted after that will be removed from the list but may be put up for bid in the next FA period.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:24:38 GMT -5
I posted a few days ago that the FA Posting for the first period will close Tuesday night (tonight)- more specifically 11:59PM EST. Anybody posted for bid before this time may be bid on in the first period. Anybody posted after that will be removed from the list but may be put up for bid in the next FA period. Great. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:25:44 GMT -5
THere is probably 75 or more players that have been put up for bid in period one. Is it normal for this many players to be put up for FA bidding in one week? I'm guessing during the season, we'll maybe have five per week?
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 18, 2008 11:27:13 GMT -5
I sent in a few invalid bids on players. When I realized they were invalid I revised them. Will the revised bids be accepted or no?
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:27:44 GMT -5
dayman! and yeah, franchising a guy gets you his current, real life contract in length and dollars. be it one year, seven years, whatever. if you end up franchising a guy you had signed in here to a deal, and he's in the middle of a real life contract, you take on the remaining terms of that deal. If you franchise a player, and then he signs a contract that puts your team over the cap, or he signs a contract that you just don't like, are you forced to keep this player, or can he be cut into the FA market? If you restrict a player, and nobody bids on him, it is my right ot keep him at his real life contract. But am I forced to keep him, or can he be cut if I don't want him after he signs his new real life contract? Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 11:28:31 GMT -5
People are frantic to fill out their rosters, so I expect this period to be probably 10 times more busy than any that we'll have during the season.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 18, 2008 11:29:30 GMT -5
My understanding is that if you franchise a player you HAVE to take his real life contract, but restricting a player gives you a choice as to whether or not you want to match the top bid.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 11:31:51 GMT -5
I sent in a few invalid bids on players. When I realized they were invalid I revised them. Will the revised bids be accepted or no? For the first period, yes. I'm not going to be too much of a dick about it here to start, but in the future only one bid per player will be accepted.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 11:38:32 GMT -5
I'm not going to be too much of a dick about it. That'll be a nice change ;D Seriously, you've probably been too nice about things. I don't think I could have kept my cool as well as you did in a couple of the drama classes we've had on here.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 11:51:06 GMT -5
I'm not going to be too much of a dick about it. That'll be a nice change ;D Seriously, you've probably been too nice about things. I don't think I could have kept my cool as well as you did in a couple of the drama classes we've had on here. Maybe so, but I feel like people are more conducive to going with your decisions if you're reasonable and level-headed than if you're a hotheaded tyrant. It's definitely been a challenge at times, but I'm happy with where we're at.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 15:03:50 GMT -5
After numerous questions about free agency, I feel it's necessary for me to clarify a few things that I neglected to mention in my previous post about free agency. Mind you, this is all in the rules, explicitly or otherwise. According to rule 7, the longest you can sign a guy to league min is 2 years, the longest you can sign a guy to a deal worth between 400K and 750K is 3 years, the longest you can sign anyone to a deal is 6 years. The other hot topic in the questions I've received is about prospect protection after the conclusion of free agent contracts. To address this we've decided that you cannot acquire prospect protection via a franchise tag. This should not come as a shock because prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts. It has been suggested to me that there should be a contract amount under which you would be able to tag a player and get his prospect protection...I'm not opposed to this, however I think it should be fairly low- say 600K (1.5 times league minimum.) If the league has a problem with this addition or exception to the rules, however you look at it, then it certainly will not stand, however I am very much set on disallowing prospect protection to be obtained via a tag in certain situations. The main thing that I'm trying to avoid is someone offering Joe Schmoe (a fantastic prospect that the Red Sox stupidly forgot to protect) a 1 year deal worth $25M and then thinking that the winning team can then acquire him for the duration of his prospect protection with the use of 1 franchise tag. This is obviously a ludicrous example, however I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in our league. If you planned on capitalizing on a loophole that you thought existed by offering Joe Schmoe a ridiculous 1 year deal with the hope of being able to tag him, please let me know and you may rescind your bid. However, that will not go on in this league. Anyone with a problem may certainly share it, but that's not happening. I would like to hear what people think about the arbitrary amount under which you can still acquire protection- good idea or not? I'm happy either way, just looking for some feedback. Thanks and happy bidding. How are we going to keep track of which players were picked up through FA and which were not? If I sign a minor on a .400 contract for two years, how are you going to know the difference between him and the rest of my minors who are .400? Two years from now, are you going to remember which players on my minors were picked up as FA and which I already had?
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Mar 18, 2008 15:13:42 GMT -5
Shhhh. I was thinking the same thing. One way to tell would be by looking at the original keepers and then whoever is given to us in the amateur draft.
|
|
|
Post by clegend33 on Mar 18, 2008 15:24:50 GMT -5
Shhhh. I was thinking the same thing. One way to tell would be by looking at the original keepers and then whoever is given to us in the amateur draft. Seems like a lot of work for the commish. I believe in the end, we'll have a lot more problems from this rule than we would have without it. I think it's safe to say, not all owners in this league will be good enough GM's to keep up with this stuff for their own team. And as we bring new owners into the league in future years, they'll not know which players are which. For example, if I sign Joe B. Schneider for .400 for one year and win the bid......... I just stick him into my minors, where every player is on a one-year .400 contract....... and all of a sudden, he is lost. There is no way to distriguish that he was won through free agency. We need a way to show these players as FA signings.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 15:27:25 GMT -5
You will be responsible for recording the contracts that you win on your transaction log and posting them after the players name on your team page. I will also be posting all the bids, and those posts will not be deleted. Ideally, everybody would keep track of their own stuff, but the league office will definitely keep proof of what all the bids actually were.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Mar 18, 2008 22:38:01 GMT -5
I'm just reposting this because I'm betting that there are several people that didn't get a chance to read it and I think that it's very important. If you have not yet read this, please do so because it may affect your FA bidding and if you need to make any changes, please notify me.
Re: FA Process « Reply #39 Today at 12:12am » After numerous questions about free agency, I feel it's necessary for me to clarify a few things that I neglected to mention in my previous post about free agency. Mind you, this is all in the rules, explicitly or otherwise. According to rule 7, the longest you can sign a guy to league min is 2 years, the longest you can sign a guy to a deal worth between 400K and 750K is 3 years, the longest you can sign anyone to a deal is 6 years. The other hot topic in the questions I've received is about prospect protection after the conclusion of free agent contracts. To address this we've decided that you cannot acquire prospect protection via a franchise tag. This should not come as a shock because prospect protection is a series of 1 year contracts. It has been suggested to me that there should be a contract amount under which you would be able to tag a player and get his prospect protection...I'm not opposed to this, however I think it should be fairly low- say 600K (1.5 times league minimum.) If the league has a problem with this addition or exception to the rules, however you look at it, then it certainly will not stand, however I am very much set on disallowing prospect protection to be obtained via a tag in certain situations. The main thing that I'm trying to avoid is someone offering Joe Schmoe (a fantastic prospect that the Red Sox stupidly forgot to protect) a 1 year deal worth $25M and then thinking that the winning team can then acquire him for the duration of his prospect protection with the use of 1 franchise tag. This is obviously a ludicrous example, however I wouldn't be surprised if something similar happens in our league. If you planned on capitalizing on a loophole that you thought existed by offering Joe Schmoe a ridiculous 1 year deal with the hope of being able to tag him, please let me know and you may rescind your bid. However, that will not go on in this league. Anyone with a problem may certainly share it, but that's not happening. I would like to hear what people think about the arbitrary amount under which you can still acquire protection- good idea or not? I'm happy either way, just looking for some feedback. Thanks and happy bidding.
|
|