Post by Minnesota Twins on Feb 22, 2021 14:06:13 GMT -5
I just put questions marks, didn't mean a sad face!
I put after 2022. I have been swayed by the argument that expiring deals may have been dealt that wouldn't have been. For example I had Trea Turner on last year of his deal and traded him, but if I could have extended him would I have traded him? After 2022 gives any player signed to more than 1 yr in Free Agency this year a chance at an extension.
My thought is similar to Pitts explanation. This QO should not allow any players that were signed before 2021 to qualify for this. It could also be said that players signed in 2021 are not valid either, even tho this was discussed prior to the completion of our FA process, but I wouldn't be offended if this season (2021) is also void for this QO.
I also think that this would be easy to track on the sheets as the year the contract was started already appears on our sheets. We simply would not allow any player, signed in 2020 or before to qualify for the QO. Must be signed in 2021 or after.
If this is the case, I see no reason it couldn't really be implemented in Cashmans 2022 season. If you signed someone to a 1 year contract and chose to extend them, then good for you. I doubt we would have 14 players in the first year of implementation, but who knows.
I voted for "other" as I think it could start in 2022. Doesn't have to be after 2022 (to be technical about it).
Last Edit: Feb 22, 2021 14:30:01 GMT -5 by Detroit
Post by Minnesota Twins on Feb 22, 2021 16:19:36 GMT -5
To be honest I feel like that is like when we talked about doing Lf,CF,RF positions and everyone was all you can't change the rules I have a 5 year plan all layed out. You can adapt your plan in a year or two IMO. The whole idea and reason people wanted it was to keep the guys they have not guys they will sign in the future. I mean I woulda drafted Wander Franco if I knew he could be extended so anyone drafted before the rule should also be ineligible
Post by Texas Rangers on Feb 22, 2021 19:37:48 GMT -5
I’m not married to either idea. Part of me feels if we want to do a QO let’s just do it, but let’s also not pretend that I don’t have a strong candidate for a QO on my roster right now so there may be an unconscious bias. Personally I don’t think it’s a huge change and it’s getting to the point of being more hassle than anything. We are talking about 1% of the FA pool that will be effected. Putting this off until 2022 just gives us another year to argue over the structure of it. I’d bet a decent amount of money as soon as we figure this issue out the debate of rookie contract eligibility will start.
The idea was we quit this debate and settled on the original poll to get it in place, try it out, and adjust after we see how it plays out. If we use the planning excuse to delay nothing will ever get done here. Instead every few months this is going to get revisited with a new dollar figure or why X players shouldn’t be included or be a higher price. Any way we spin this someone will be at an advantage and someone will be victim in the beginning. Either we do this or we don’t.
Minny, if we don’t implement it this season (at the end of 2021), then put it in place at the end of 2022, I would exclude players signed in 2021 and earlier. It levels the playing field for everyone to start this with a clean slate.
As this 2021 season starts, I have 4-5 players I want to promote from my minors right now. If they are not eligible to be extended if signed in 2021, would this influence my decision to sign them in season, or wait til the end of the season and sign them as their contract starts in 2022.
It simply removes people’s opinions on the matter because of who they have on their roster currently. Vote for the new rule because you want to be able to extend a guy like Acuna in the future, not Acuna himself...
The fact is that many of us have players who we want another year of control. But, that should not be the motivation here. It’s selfish. Not everyone has an Acuna or Judge. Remove feelings from it by eliminating everyone currently signed to a contract.
Post by Minnesota Twins on Feb 22, 2021 22:17:02 GMT -5
"Part of me feels if we want to do a QO let’s just do it" -Texas
Mostly how I feel at the moment. Just deal with it. Life isn't fair, etc.
Feels like playing fantasy baseball in congress. Law gets passed then nibbled away or warped into something different than intended in the implementation. People want to be able to keep a guy they have instead of losing him, not a potential guy, but a guy they have now that they don't want to lose. To keep that guy they are willing to let others have the same opportunity. I'm off the phase in, I say just do it after this year. Rip the bandaid off.
Post by ex-Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 22, 2021 22:32:29 GMT -5
People want to be able to keep a guy they have instead of losing him, not a potential guy, but a guy they have now that they don't want to lose. To keep that guy they are willing to let others have the same opportunity.
Minny is a smart and reasonable guy. But if he can't see why the statement above proves that we should push the rule change out at least a year or two, then truly I have lost the argument. It's like changing the rules of who is eligible for the draft right before the draft. Or increasing the salary cap right before FA bidding because a majority of owners are up against the cap and can't bid on who they want.
But I'm not in favor of endless debate. The league decided to try the rule and that's fine. I don't take my ball and go home when I lose a close call. I just want to try it in like 2023 or maybe 2022. Not 2021.
Post by Boston Red Sox on Feb 22, 2021 23:47:21 GMT -5
Detroit, I believe you should have voted after 2021 if you want it for 2022, not other.
As for the poll, I don’t see an option to scratch this whole idea.
As the one who proposed this idea....I feel this has gotten so out of hand. I had a simple idea which has not gotten so complicated I can’t even follow all the posts and opinions anymore.
I can honestly say that I will not be suggesting a rule Change any time soon.
It’s clear the old guard wants to stay status quo. And it seems their influence carry’s a lot of weight so why bother. 6 votes and its split. Clearly won’t be an overwhelming majority of unanimous as you guys want.
I’ll vote in the poll if I have to, but I’m fine with forgetting this idea all together.
Bosox, I really like the idea and concept of your suggestion. I don’t think that involving 14 DIFFERENT players every year upsets the competitive balance of the league. The idea....If you think you have a Mike Trout in your minors, you might not wanna trade him for a 5th rd pick.
I also see the other side too. Implement the rule. Let everyone start with a clean slate. This is FAIR. Yeah, you might lose out on the guy this year, but there will be others. That’s fantasy sports, every year it’s someone different.
Don’t stop throwing out ideas! Seriously. You got an idea, throw it out there. With 14 managers, we will rarely ever all agree to things unanimously. It might happen 1% of the time. I see most of this as good discussion and not arguing or fighting. Nobody has gotten in with name calling, or threats of quitting. We try to respect one another here. Don’t let a little debate dissuade you from voicing up. I am NOT a creative person. I don’t come up with clever ideas very often. We need each other.
In the end, the idea has the support to implement. So what you make a concession of abandoning current players. I see both sides. It’s not EXACTLY what you want, but it’s gonna work out for everyone eventually.
Post by Minnesota Twins on Feb 23, 2021 9:22:26 GMT -5
Fine. Lets not do it.
Are you happy Pitt and Philly? You killed something most of the league wanted. My feathers are ruffled. If the Yankees and Twins win too many times we get a hard cap radically altering the league w no voting, but if a new team proposes a change nd a majority of teams are in favor then hold on the old commish (who abdicated his throne) and his buddy come back to save the league. BS, but whatever
