I agree with Chicago about it being a higher rate. 2x players last year salary, cause the whole league is gonna extend a rookie or cheaper player. There should be a penalty for keeping a player longer than their assigned contract term. 2x even seems cheap.
I agree with 1 per team / year. Then back into the FA auction.
I agree the rookie contracts are an issue, I would be hesitant to go too high on a multiplier though because you get to a point where it only makes sense to extend rookie deals. Plus as cheap as rookie deals are you can do 5x a players salary and still come away with a steal for most worth keeping. I know one of the perks I’m hoping this rule would accomplish is to avoid some of the 1 year player sign/dumps, as well as reward owners who find hidden gems in FA. I’d much rather a rule reward those moves instead of just being able to extend a guy who’s already been on your roster for 5 years.
I’m just not sure how you have a universal rules that makes sense for a wide range of players unless you have a separate rate for rookie contracts, which I know some are against due to this becoming more complex.
Post by LA Dodgers on Dec 16, 2020 10:14:55 GMT -5
I vote Yes, As long as whatever play you extend a QO offer too is for only 1 yr and has to go in the FA pool the following yr. And only 1 player per team per yr.
Post by Minnesota Twins on Dec 16, 2020 10:23:57 GMT -5
By my count we have a majority in favor. If you are opposed I guess you can post your final statement to try to get someone to change their mind otherwise when we submit final rosters at the end of this year I think we can choose 1 player to extend a 150% qualifying offer. Keep in mind we can always try it and modify it or remove it if there are unintended consequences or it isn't working for the league.
Extending a rookie contract 150% doesn't seem enough for players like Acuna, Soto, Tatis or Bregman. This league is based on minor league drafts, salary cap and free agency. Also there are teams that have traded away future money that could prevent them from signing a player coming off a rookie contract in free agency.
This is the reason my initial thought was to do a sliding scale. Doesn’t seem fair rookie contracts would cost nothing to extend.
I just don’t see a need to add this “QO” if the rules favor rookie contracts. You can have a player for 10 years (5 years in the minors, 5 years in the majors). Why make it 11? If this is gonna happen, needs to be a bigger “penalty” for adding the year.
Post by Minnesota Twins on Dec 18, 2020 8:44:14 GMT -5
Actually it does. You Donald Trump in real life? You led the charge for discussion and it looked like most people centered around these vote parameters. It seems people want a six yr rookie deal
For the record, I am for any governing rules that the majority of the league agrees on. However, IMHO we rushed this decision a little bit.
Yes, most of us (a larger majority of owners) is in favor of adopting some form of QO option. I include myself in this majority as I feel it offers something new to this league which keeps it fresh, and doesn’t drastically change the league.
Yes, it is 1 more year of control of some players. Any way we do this, it would target mostly players who we are all excited about. Won’t hide it, my player will most likely be Aaron Judge, as I am a Yankee fan and he can be an impact fantasy player if he stays healthy an entire season. Yeah, I’m a little excited this idea gets traction. But, I would also want to see what is the best for Cashmans as a whole, for the best interest of keeping some competitive balance and some parity.
I also firmly believe this QO adoption should be extended to all contracted players and shouldn’t exclude anyone. It should be up to each manager to make that financial decision for their team.
I also believe that there should be some sort of “penalty” for exercising this QO option. 150% of a $720,000 contract is next to NO increase in salary. This is not a penalty. This is merely extending a rookie contract to 6 years from 5. Teams wouldn’t be exercising good judgement if they extended a 20 or 30M player. I would believe the league managers would look for the cheapest expiring contract from the most impactful player. It’s a NO BRAINER I would extend Judge for a 6th year if it only costs me 360k more.
As a league, we must do what is best for the league as a whole. I do not feel that this version of a rule change is impactful enough and we might as well discuss making a 6 year rookie contract instead. I don’t like this is a good idea, and I think most of us are not trying to go this route.
I also believe that if we adopt a new QO rule, it HAS to be some sort of sliding scale. It’s the only way to make it impactful enough to be a penalty. I want to keep it simple, and I think NYY suggestion is a good manipulation of a sliding scale that enforces enough penalty for ALL players, without bankrupting teams.
I think WE should think long and hard about adopting this version of a change. I think some managers were getting tired of the discussion and voted yes for this rule without really thinking it thru.
Post by Minnesota Twins on Dec 18, 2020 16:25:58 GMT -5
You are right. I get sick of discussing and discussing and then people get tired of it and don't vote and a few boo birds vote no for everything and nothing ever changes unless it is put in place with an executive order by the commish. We had polls showing what the majority were interested in and that is what I put in the proposal. I'm open to raising amounts or putting in different scales or whatever, but as far as I'm concerned we have a Qualifying Offer Rule now. When we discussed before calling it a franchise tag we talked about a avg of the top 5 salaries at the position. Or flat fee of 5 or 10 or 15 or whatever is fine. We can modify it if we want, but people want to be able to hold onto their guys it is clear.
