Post by New York Yankees on Feb 28, 2017 14:24:16 GMT -5
Yes, some salaries would b ridiculously low, but that already exists w r rookie 5 yr contracts. As long as we restrict it to 1 Tag per team, it should b fair...each team receives 1 bargain!
Post by torontobluejays on Feb 28, 2017 15:55:47 GMT -5
In this case, this rule does have some possibilities. I think to use the franchise tag, the original contract should be 3 years or more. Also, the average salaries should be based upon all contracts and measured as of opening day of the season. Salaries can be dumped at the end of the season and reduce the average of the top contracts.
why now? gone 8 years without extensions. you want a certain player then you pay for him for multiple years. thats what fa is for. unnecessary. put these guys into fa so everybody has a chance to bid for them. you want them longer, then sign them for longer time frame.
Last Edit: Feb 28, 2017 15:57:04 GMT -5 by Deleted
Post by ex-Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 28, 2017 18:46:54 GMT -5
The main reason I can think to do it is to provide an incentive for people to bid multiple years in free agency. This would be a nice benefit for signing a guy to multiple years.
Here's another idea... you could even tie the franchise tag salary to the amount of years the guy's contract was for. So if he was on a 1 year deal, no franchise tag. 2 year deal, you have to match the highest contract or $25m. 3 year deal you have to match the average of the highest 3 contracts or $20m. 4 year deal has to match the average of the highest 5 contracts or $18m. 5 year deal average of highest 10 contracts or $15m.
Post by ex-Pittsburgh Pirates on Feb 28, 2017 18:48:17 GMT -5
And let me be clear... i'm not sure i even like the idea. I'm just tossing it out there and maybe it will grow on me or someone can come up with a tweak that makes it favorable to me.
hook planted in cheek. you say 'This would be a nice benefit for signing a guy to multiple years.' and i have said somewhat recently that instead of our current way of bidding we go to a 'total amount' of a contract. kershaw 29mil for 1 year then can become 10mil for 3 yrs or 6mil for 5 yrs or whatever is bid both 30mil beats the 29 mil.
why now? gone 8 years without extensions. you want a certain player then you pay for him for multiple years. thats what fa is for. unnecessary. put these guys into fa so everybody has a chance to bid for them. you want them longer, then sign them for longer time frame.
These numbers are too low IMO especially with top SS coming up like Correa, story, lindor, bogaerts, Corey seager... I'd be more in favor of a straight $20 mil like chi suggested than let people keep Machado for less than 8 mil for example next yr.
Bogaerts is a top shortstop? Where have(n't) I heard that before?
Post by Minnesota Twins on Feb 28, 2017 19:04:36 GMT -5
I like top 5 avg or $20 mil, whichever is higher, only on guys who had more than a 1 yr deal, and you can't trade them and contract is fully guaranteed
then you have possibly 14 free agents off the board when this league wants movement of players. hey its getting expensive for fa players. its the way it is. there are several ways to build a team. maybe if you can dig that horseshoe out of san diego/detroit's a$$ then you too can possibly get a bryant, correa...story, seager... cant compete this year, sell your assets(me: verlander, degrom) or pay for them
Post by ChrisMac777@aim.com on Mar 1, 2017 8:28:03 GMT -5
I gotta say. The idea that has intrigued me most is Chisox total contract as winner rather than X-million per year. What are the detractors of having a bidding system where total contract wins? Someone dissuade me.
