Post by ex-Pittsburgh Pirates on Dec 10, 2020 20:22:54 GMT -5
The complication flows down to the FA lists and the sheets. How do you track these guys?
Just seems unnecessary. So you get to keep a guy. But then there will always be another guy you wanted to keep. So why limit it to 1?
Then do we allow people to trade guys on their QO? That doesn't seem right because you'll have bottom barrel guys signing players on a QO just to trade for picks while eating part of the contract.
Post by Texas Rangers on Dec 10, 2020 22:50:41 GMT -5
Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t understand the “it’s complicated” argument. It’s an extremely small number of players that will really only effect one day out of the year. It’s one extra mark on the sheets and done. Now I do want to be careful because you add a lot of little things to the sheets and they add up, but this shouldn’t be a constant issue that needs addressing throughout the year.
As far as the sign and trade issue will it be any different than what happens now? I knew my team didn’t have much of a shot in 2020, but I signed trout for the purposes of flipping him. If anything I think it’ll have the opposite effect. For example on my team, let’s assume I’m a dumpster fire in 2021. I have Jose Ramirez with 1 year on his contract. Right now I’d be silly to not flip him at the deadline for the best prospect I can get. However if the QO rule is allowed I’d have to think long and hard about moving a guy that I could control for a whole additional year at a reasonable salary.
Idk feel free for someone to correct me if I’m missing the bigger picture here, but I’m not sure this is super complicated as much as it’s just new.
I’m in agreement with Texas on this one, I don’t see how it’s very complicated. Putting a QO next to their name on the sheet is the only tracking that needs to be done. Anytime someone views your roster they can clearly see which one of your players are on the qualifying offer for that year.
I don’t see the need to add multiple players for people to keep, that’s part of the strategy. You get to make a decision from your roster and choose one player, that seems simple enough.
It’s not like that in baseball, you don’t see teams offering multiple players qualifying offers. Typically it’s one of their best players that they want to possibly keep for another year. The whole point of this is not to be able to re-sign your entire roster, that would leave no free agents if people decided to keep the majority of their players. But giving each manager the option to extend one player per season I think is fair and given all the time and effort we put into the drafts, trades, and prospect monitoring that we do.
I’m not exactly sure how voting new rules into the league work, since I don’t know that I’ve been a part of one before. But it looks like it was voted in favor of overwhelmingly in majority.
I really wasn't a fan of the QO at first but I have opened up to the idea. I'm just not sure how I would like it to work. Rookies only, veterans, both and for how much. I do want it to cost a pretty penny. The reasons I would vote against is that it would take away from free agency and the league already has a bunch of moving parts.
I think it could be easy to track and keep the formula simple. Rookie contracts 1 year at $15 million. Vets 1 year at $20 million. Due date would be at final rosters.
Pittsburgh noted signing these guys with the thought of only trading. While we don't want anything like that so we could add a no trade clause for these players but it's hard enough to get rid of a high priced final year end of contract player anyways so I don't think that would come into play.
I'm not doing sheets or any of the leg work so it's easy for me. If its just additional unneccessary work for those involved I get it.
I was the only team not to vote so it's great to see all the league involved.
