Off-Season FA bidding change

[Minnesota Twins]

Big NO for me on blind bidding offseason. If I want to plan for a open spot at first base and have tons of cash I like to say Ima get me a goldschmidt no matter the cost (or in my case this yr a kershaw...)

[torontobluejays]

Then bid LARGE!!!!!

[Minnesota Twins]

What about for entry draft we have order go 1st to worst, but Milb is still worst to 1st.

My reasoning is milb can still help right away w foreign players, entry were talking yrs usually anyway.

[Deleted]

I would vote for that. It does give some incentive for winning and competing, but also doesn't really hurt a team that was bad and not trying to tank. I say this knowing it does not stop teams from selling out, but at least it is a small reward for the teams that do stick it out and go for it.

[Minnesota Twins]

...too bad I already traded away like the next 5 yrs of entry picks, doh!

[Deleted]

All the more reason for people to vote for it. Vote yes to stick it to the Twins. Haha. That seems like the kind of platform that could get this to pass.

[LA Dodgers]

I like that idea of having the entry draft of 1st to worst and Milb worst to 1st. That would def help keep people in it longer. Or some kind of penalty for finishing with a total score lower then a set number that we u would still have to play your guys and couldnt Just tank so easy.

[[e-mail]]

One of my biggest gripes and chiding comes from teams including myself that throw it in when they think that they don't have the statistics to bring their team the crown. If there is an incentive that will make the last place team fight to get to the middle of the pack and so on and so forth...COUNT ME IN

[[e-mail]]

The other thing you guys are talking about. Free agency years over money. I'll go with the league's will. I like bidding one year on roster filler players. I understand where the Admin is coming from totally though also. Maybe meet halfway. Take the top 40 ORanks from Yahoo at end of year. Post it to Cashman. And we come up with a bidding scheme on those 40 players, those that are free agents. Just a thought.

[[e-mail]]

Im catching up on reading this epic post. Guys I gotta say something here.

Sounds like we are being consumed with trying to regulate exactly what makes this league FUN. Let's "cap" this or be "punitive" to that-type thinking.

We're given the onus as general managers to trade and negotiate to posture our salaries and build our teams to the vision that excites us individually. And along the way we might need to check and adjust said vision.  I would suggest we be very cautious on the direction we are going. At the end of the day, is it such a bad thing the one year contracts, where we still have an opportunity to bid high with years to beat said 1-year bidders? That's not to mention the idea of trading picks and cash that position us for that farm system and future cash. I'll vote on that post Pitts has. Please, let us not over litigate this league. Please.

In the interest of transparency, I put my vote for "No change".  At least not until we discuss this more.

[Admin]

took a stick to the hornets nest and got this. WOW! the passion isa flowin'
'stick it to the twins'. i laughed heartily.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

Just a response to the Brewers that I'm not trying to limit the fun parts of the league. I'm trying to limit teams blowing their budget on a 1 year superstar only to trade him in May in a salary dump. Teams tanking are decidedly the not fun part of the league. If Mike Stanton was on a 3 year contract, it wouldn't be so easy to trade him in a salary dump.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

I'm also not criticizing the owner who dumped Stanton. It was the sort of thing I would have done. I dont want to make rules limiting owner's options, i want to tweak rules to provide different incentives to acocmplish the goals.