Franchise tags (something like the NFL)

[Deleted]

in that case i want the degrom/verlander trades voided or im out
ask kc if he would have traded posey if he knew he could extend him one more year

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

good question, chicago. i dont know.

[Deleted]

I don't think I would have. That being said I still think this would be an interesting addition to the league.

[New York Yankees]

I say to be totally fair, we don't implement new rule until start of New Cashman's Year, so that the 1st time u could actually "tag" a player, would not be before the 2019 season. That way EVERYONE is prepared and knows ahead a time the value of trades and FA's!

That'll also give us plenty of time to figure out the BEST plan to implement!!

[Minnesota Twins]

Good thing we can never change any rules so chi doesn't have to leave!

[Deleted]

play nice minny. apparently im not the only manager who
doesnt like this change. r u saying we should leave?

i am encouraged by the discussion. plenty of managers enjoy
playing cashman, but thru all our years we 'decided' that
player movement is most important. all teams have a
chance for trout, kershaw, etc. plus, we try to keep
it simple. i really dont want possibly 14 players taken
out of the fa pool because of extensions. why? for another
year of control? bid an extra year on the contract.

[Minnesota Twins]

My preference is actually for the graduated contracts where yrs go up with amount automatically rather than franchise tags, but it has failed time and again. The biggest impact is where people get to pick up an extra yr after rookie deal IMO, so signing them to an extra yr isn't an option.

I'm in minority it seems but I like the idea of trying to simulate real baseball where we can. Player movement isn't my biggest concern, but I'm only one man even if I am the defending CHAMPION holla!

[Minnesota Twins]

Also I'm not saying anyone should leave I love cashman so much i dropped all other leagues, so don't confuse my desire to improve w a dissatisfaction w the league. I got nothing but love for all of ya

[[e-mail]]

That's it. Hug it out, guys. Hug it out.

[torontobluejays]

While I am not in favor of the change, I would think only 5 or 6 players would be effected each year. Based upon Pitts original plan, only contending teams would attempt to use the rule because you cannot trade the player or cut his salary. Anyone rebuilding would not want to tie up cap room on a player that they cannot trade or cut for cap room.

[Minnesota Twins]

I doubt that I would actually use it. Twins don't give no trade clauses.

[ex-Pittsburgh Pirates]

TO be honest, the only ones affected by the change would be the players who are getting those massive $30m for 1 year deals who then get traded halfway through the next season minus the salary.

And that's what I like best about the idea.

What I don't like is that it's a big change and I'm not sure we need a big change.

[Detroit]

Here's my suggestion. Formally write up a proposal to implement a franchise tag rule for the league and bring it for a vote. The idea is intriguing, but there have been so many good arguments and little additions to the initial thought that it's a little convoluted to me.

I say bring clarity to the idea, write up the full proposal and let's vote on it. IMO, you need 2/3rds of the league to agree to the change in order to implement it. The thought of half the league in favor and half against doesn't seem like grounds to implement a change.

Just my opinion.

[Detroit]

Just my thoughts, I love the idea. I would need to see the full proposal, all terms and stipulations, but I think I would be in favor of this. Not until 2018 though. It's not fair to those teams who have already made move with players this year who could have benefitted from this addition.

[Detroit]

And, perhaps if this does get implemented, just omit the players who were traded recently so that the team who acquired a DeGrom or Posey can't benefit from this new rule. Just a thought