Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 0:37:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lajoiesghost on Nov 4, 2021 8:22:58 GMT -5
The service clock manipulation thing is crazy. Like both sides didn't know what would happen when they first agreed to that? For the players to complain about teams taking advantage of that is just admitting they were stupid and naive. It's like putting a bunch of toys and candy on a table with a 5 year old and hoping the kid won't touch them when you leave the room. Players gave the teams an opportunity to keep a guy an extra year. It would be irresponsible of teams NOT to do that.
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on Nov 4, 2021 11:04:18 GMT -5
Maybe have restricted free agency for players that have service clock manipulation? So pretty much if a players is called up after the first few weeks into the season through the rest of the year then he can be eligible for restricted free agency in the final year? So in Bryant for example, he would of been a restricted free agent after 2020 season so he can seek free agency and accept an offer from another team but Cubs can either match that offer from another team and if they choose not to, then the new team has to provide compensation to the Cubs in some form to release the rights on Bryant to the new team. Now if Cubs don't match and cannot work out the compensation then Cubs would still have Bryant for the final year, BUT will have to pay the AAV rate on the contract Bryant accepted with the other team for the final year.
This will hurt small market teams, so to make to make it fair since they cannot match and large market teams know small market teams cannot afford the $30 million AAV for one season, maybe you can do some revenue sharing type situation, like if Wander Franco becomes a restricted free agent, and he accepts a 10/$300 million deal with the Yankees which the Rays cannot match and also cannot afford to pay him $30 million in the final year, so Yankees have to work out some compensation in a trade with the Rays and if not, they Yankees then would have to pay something like 33% of Franco's Salary to the Rays in the final year, so pretty much the Yankees have to give the Rays $10 million for not able to work out a trade to the Rays liking, kind of like a posting fee like they do with Japanese players. Rays get $10 million and keep Franco for the final year and the Rays can still shop him around to other teams even if they cannot afford Franco still after receiving $10 million from the Yankees.
This will not happen, but avoiding work again.
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on Nov 5, 2021 6:47:43 GMT -5
Maybe have restricted free agency for players that have service clock manipulation? So pretty much if a players is called up after the first few weeks into the season through the rest of the year then he can be eligible for restricted free agency in the final year? So in Bryant for example, he would of been a restricted free agent after 2020 season so he can seek free agency and accept an offer from another team but Cubs can either match that offer from another team and if they choose not to, then the new team has to provide compensation to the Cubs in some form to release the rights on Bryant to the new team. Now if Cubs don't match and cannot work out the compensation then Cubs would still have Bryant for the final year, BUT will have to pay the AAV rate on the contract Bryant accepted with the other team for the final year. This will hurt small market teams, so to make to make it fair since they cannot match and large market teams know small market teams cannot afford the $30 million AAV for one season, maybe you can do some revenue sharing type situation, like if Wander Franco becomes a restricted free agent, and he accepts a 10/$300 million deal with the Yankees which the Rays cannot match and also cannot afford to pay him $30 million in the final year, so Yankees have to work out some compensation in a trade with the Rays and if not, they Yankees then would have to pay something like 33% of Franco's Salary to the Rays in the final year, so pretty much the Yankees have to give the Rays $10 million for not able to work out a trade to the Rays liking, kind of like a posting fee like they do with Japanese players. Rays get $10 million and keep Franco for the final year and the Rays can still shop him around to other teams even if they cannot afford Franco still after receiving $10 million from the Yankees. This will not happen, but avoiding work again. I've always been in favor of the restricted free agency over the qualifying offer.
People always say, "it will hurt teams like the Rays" which really isn't all that accurate. The Rays typically hold their top prospects longer than to "just secure an extra year of control". They keep them down to keep them out of super two status as well. So technically, having something like restricted free agency wouldn't hurt the Rays as much as it would the bigger market teams who, yes, have a higher probably of retaining their star player but they also risk losing him a year early.
Contrarily, it actually may benefit smaller market teams if a fringe player elects to stay and becomes unrestricted the following year. They might be able to get into the mid tier mix more readily... it's one of scenarios that would have to play out.
Personally, I do not like teams having to give up a prospect in the draft when signing a player who was issued a QO. I think that needs to change some how. Move their pick back perhaps or if you must take away a pick, allow teams to retain their slot money for the pick. The problem i have now is that teams are punished for spending money and fielding the most competitive team they can.
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on Nov 5, 2021 11:36:30 GMT -5
Maybe have restricted free agency for players that have service clock manipulation? So pretty much if a players is called up after the first few weeks into the season through the rest of the year then he can be eligible for restricted free agency in the final year? So in Bryant for example, he would of been a restricted free agent after 2020 season so he can seek free agency and accept an offer from another team but Cubs can either match that offer from another team and if they choose not to, then the new team has to provide compensation to the Cubs in some form to release the rights on Bryant to the new team. Now if Cubs don't match and cannot work out the compensation then Cubs would still have Bryant for the final year, BUT will have to pay the AAV rate on the contract Bryant accepted with the other team for the final year. This will hurt small market teams, so to make to make it fair since they cannot match and large market teams know small market teams cannot afford the $30 million AAV for one season, maybe you can do some revenue sharing type situation, like if Wander Franco becomes a restricted free agent, and he accepts a 10/$300 million deal with the Yankees which the Rays cannot match and also cannot afford to pay him $30 million in the final year, so Yankees have to work out some compensation in a trade with the Rays and if not, they Yankees then would have to pay something like 33% of Franco's Salary to the Rays in the final year, so pretty much the Yankees have to give the Rays $10 million for not able to work out a trade to the Rays liking, kind of like a posting fee like they do with Japanese players. Rays get $10 million and keep Franco for the final year and the Rays can still shop him around to other teams even if they cannot afford Franco still after receiving $10 million from the Yankees. This will not happen, but avoiding work again. I've always been in favor of the restricted free agency over the qualifying offer.
People always say, "it will hurt teams like the Rays" which really isn't all that accurate. The Rays typically hold their top prospects longer than to "just secure an extra year of control". They keep them down to keep them out of super two status as well. So technically, having something like restricted free agency wouldn't hurt the Rays as much as it would the bigger market teams who, yes, have a higher probably of retaining their star player but they also risk losing him a year early.
Contrarily, it actually may benefit smaller market teams if a fringe player elects to stay and becomes unrestricted the following year. They might be able to get into the mid tier mix more readily... it's one of scenarios that would have to play out.
Personally, I do not like teams having to give up a prospect in the draft when signing a player who was issued a QO. I think that needs to change some how. Move their pick back perhaps or if you must take away a pick, allow teams to retain their slot money for the pick. The problem i have now is that teams are punished for spending money and fielding the most competitive team they can.
Restricted free agency seems to solve few a problems for both sides and you can build the system that gives small market team the competitive edge as well but just adding a posting fee type system like Japan does. If the Rays post Franco and the Yankees want to pay the Rays $15 million to have exclusive right to discuss a long term deal with Franco then let them after 5 years service time, the catch is that the Rays MUST use use the posting fee money on payroll only within 12 months or lose the money. Overall restricted free agency seems to be a middle ground logical choice for both sides can compromise on and they can build it in a way that both sides feel like they won., Now with MLBPA concerns about tanking, the only real solution is expanded playoffs so that part will get worked out. More teams that have a chance the less teams trying to tank, it is not a perfect system but there is no such thing as a perfect system and never will be one, NBA, NFL and NHL have tried but teams find a way around it and always will. Last, MLB and union need to remove any penalty that hurts any team in losing bonus slot money in the draft and international free agency, penalizing teams trying to contend is very counteractive to try to get more teams competitive. Losing picks is fine, but the bonus money needs to remain the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2021 23:58:24 GMT -5
CBA talks are headed to the crapper methinks. Owners are delusional. Changing title.
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on Nov 12, 2021 6:43:37 GMT -5
CBA talks are headed to the crapper methinks. Owners are delusional. Changing title. Sometimes I wonder who is even coming up with these ideas because each one seems more ridiculous than the last.
|
|
|
Post by bryzzobrist on Nov 17, 2021 18:21:44 GMT -5
Curious, those who still feel like the Cubs screwed KB with the greivance stuff. Do you think teams that offer QO's to players who will obviously not be accepting it are also manipulating and screwing over players?
|
|
|
Post by TheChico on Nov 18, 2021 11:34:55 GMT -5
Curious, those who still feel like the Cubs screwed KB with the greivance stuff. Do you think teams that offer QO's to players who will obviously not be accepting it are also manipulating and screwing over players? It is not screwing over when the union agreed to it in the past CBA. You can always debate the KB service time issue, but at the end of the day the Cubs did not violate the CBA and arbitrator backs that up
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Nov 18, 2021 12:07:15 GMT -5
Curious, those who still feel like the Cubs screwed KB with the greivance stuff. Do you think teams that offer QO's to players who will obviously not be accepting it are also manipulating and screwing over players? No , a team should be more concerned with themselves and what is best for them , not a player. The QO makes a difference in a team getting a top 50 draft pick or not , so why should they care more about making it a bit easier for an outgoing soon to be ex team player getting a new contract over what is best for their future ? I don't think it's done out of spite. They either are willing to keep that player at the QO price extending their time with them for another year or they want the draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on Nov 18, 2021 13:14:11 GMT -5
Curious, those who still feel like the Cubs screwed KB with the greivance stuff. Do you think teams that offer QO's to players who will obviously not be accepting it are also manipulating and screwing over players? No , a team should be more concerned with themselves and what is best for them , not a player. The QO makes a difference in a team getting a top 50 draft pick or not , so why should they care more about making it a bit easier for an outgoing soon to be ex team player getting a new contract over what is best for their future ? I don't think it's done out of spite. They either are willing to keep that player at the QO price extending their time with them for another year or they want the draft pick. That is the absolute #1 reason that they put the QO clause in the last CBA & it helps the smaller market teams more simply because they don't always have the luxury (or open checkbook) that the larger spending teams do to replace an important piece of their team. Having the QO put on a player does affect their "signability" but the better or more sought after they are the less impact it has. And for the medium to lower ranked free agents have less impact because per the current CBA if they sign a deal worth less than 50 mil over the life of the deal then the signing team only loses a 3rd. round pick which hurts much less - and there are other rules that kick in to lower the pick if the team signing them are "poor" or receive luxury tax money..
|
|
|
Post by bryzzobrist on Nov 18, 2021 14:20:53 GMT -5
The question was intended for those who DO feel that way about the greivance issue (im not one of them). Just seeing if the method of thought still rings true for the QO situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2021 23:12:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on Nov 19, 2021 9:34:03 GMT -5
No , a team should be more concerned with themselves and what is best for them , not a player. The QO makes a difference in a team getting a top 50 draft pick or not , so why should they care more about making it a bit easier for an outgoing soon to be ex team player getting a new contract over what is best for their future ? I don't think it's done out of spite. They either are willing to keep that player at the QO price extending their time with them for another year or they want the draft pick. That is the absolute #1 reason that they put the QO clause in the last CBA & it helps the smaller market teams more simply because they don't always have the luxury (or open checkbook) that the larger spending teams do to replace an important piece of their team. Having the QO put on a player does affect their "signability" but the better or more sought after they are the less impact it has. And for the medium to lower ranked free agents have less impact because per the current CBA if they sign a deal worth less than 50 mil over the life of the deal then the signing team only loses a 3rd. round pick which hurts much less - and there are other rules that kick in to lower the pick if the team signing them are "poor" or receive luxury tax money.. That isn't quite true, the Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B free agents.
If a team signed a Type A free agent, the signing team still had to give up their first round pick to the team who lost the Type A.
The Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B to prevent teams from taking advantage of Type B free agents. A Type B free agent was offered and extra year of arbitration and if they declined, the team received a supplemental pick. Several players made handshake agreements with teams to decline arbitration so the releasing team received a supplemental pick.
|
|
|
Post by fine09 on Nov 19, 2021 13:12:01 GMT -5
That is the absolute #1 reason that they put the QO clause in the last CBA & it helps the smaller market teams more simply because they don't always have the luxury (or open checkbook) that the larger spending teams do to replace an important piece of their team. Having the QO put on a player does affect their "signability" but the better or more sought after they are the less impact it has. And for the medium to lower ranked free agents have less impact because per the current CBA if they sign a deal worth less than 50 mil over the life of the deal then the signing team only loses a 3rd. round pick which hurts much less - and there are other rules that kick in to lower the pick if the team signing them are "poor" or receive luxury tax money.. That isn't quite true, the Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B free agents.
If a team signed a Type A free agent, the signing team still had to give up their first round pick to the team who lost the Type A.
The Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B to prevent teams from taking advantage of Type B free agents. A Type B free agent was offered and extra year of arbitration and if they declined, the team received a supplemental pick. Several players made handshake agreements with teams to decline arbitration so the releasing team received a supplemental pick.
I did not realize that but it does/did make sense.. I mainly meant the whole concept of the QO and the compensating of the team losing their top free agents but it sounds like a mechanism was in place before the QO system with the type A & B situation that you told me about. I do believe there does have to be something in place to compensate the team losing a top tier player & it would be nice not to overly penalize the signing team because that could potentially keep teams from trying to compete due to money reasons which is a big concern for many as well. Sadly there are no easy answers to the CBA which is one of the main reasons that I think this will be a long drawn out fiasco. Well that & the fact that nobody seems to be able to negotiate with anyone else nowadays. Par for the course..
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Nov 19, 2021 13:55:14 GMT -5
That isn't quite true, the Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B free agents.
If a team signed a Type A free agent, the signing team still had to give up their first round pick to the team who lost the Type A.
The Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B to prevent teams from taking advantage of Type B free agents. A Type B free agent was offered and extra year of arbitration and if they declined, the team received a supplemental pick. Several players made handshake agreements with teams to decline arbitration so the releasing team received a supplemental pick.
I did not realize that but it does/did make sense.. I mainly meant the whole concept of the QO and the compensating of the team losing their top free agents but it sounds like a mechanism was in place before the QO system with the type A & B situation that you told me about. I do believe there does have to be something in place to compensate the team losing a top tier player & it would be nice not to overly penalize the signing team because that could potentially keep teams from trying to compete due to money reasons which is a big concern for many as well. Sadly there are no easy answers to the CBA which is one of the main reasons that I think this will be a long drawn out fiasco. Well that & the fact that nobody seems to be able to negotiate with anyone else nowadays. Par for the course.. I don't think there is a need to compensate a team for losing a player in free agency. Can't or don't want to keep him , too bad. Why be rewarded for that? One of the ways Theo maninpulated the system when he was in Boston was letting a lot of free agents go he was getting comp picks for in the old system of compensation rules. For years Boston and the Yankees seemingly signed a good pct of the free agents and would also be constantly getting comp picks too because they's let a lot go. I understand most of the compensation thing was to have teams like the Yankees and Boston who used to sign all bigtime free agents in the old system be more reluctant because they will lose a pick. But why reward a team for not keeping a guy? I get the small market teams have trouble keeping would be free agents, but then do what the Rays do , trade them off before it happens . And the competetive balance pick stuff helps that situation a bit. There were years in the old system a team like STL had 5 , that's FIVE first round picks on 1991 , 1999, 2003 , 2010 they had 3 first rounders
|
|
|
Post by happtobehere on Nov 19, 2021 16:40:00 GMT -5
That isn't quite true, the Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B free agents.
If a team signed a Type A free agent, the signing team still had to give up their first round pick to the team who lost the Type A.
The Qualifying Offer replaced Type A and Type B to prevent teams from taking advantage of Type B free agents. A Type B free agent was offered and extra year of arbitration and if they declined, the team received a supplemental pick. Several players made handshake agreements with teams to decline arbitration so the releasing team received a supplemental pick.
I did not realize that but it does/did make sense.. I mainly meant the whole concept of the QO and the compensating of the team losing their top free agents but it sounds like a mechanism was in place before the QO system with the type A & B situation that you told me about. I do believe there does have to be something in place to compensate the team losing a top tier player & it would be nice not to overly penalize the signing team because that could potentially keep teams from trying to compete due to money reasons which is a big concern for many as well. Sadly there are no easy answers to the CBA which is one of the main reasons that I think this will be a long drawn out fiasco. Well that & the fact that nobody seems to be able to negotiate with anyone else nowadays. Par for the course.. I believe it should simply switch to a restricted free agency, allowing players to opt into free agency a year early and get an offer sheet, giving the current team a chance to match or if they refuse, they get draft pick compensation.
IMO, this would be the best scenario for baseball simply because it would help teams and players, baseball should also allow sign and trades as a result.
I would do that and I would push back the service time cut off to 82 games. Anything equal to or over 50% of a season constitutes 1 year service time.
|
|
|
Post by batman66 on Nov 19, 2021 16:54:45 GMT -5
Kind of un related , but does anybody remember when free agency first started in baseball ?.
IF I remember right , teams would put in a claim on players and players would only be able to negotiate with those teams that put in a claim and the info was made public.
I remember making my own charts of who claimed who as a kid and was so excited when the Cubs claimed Dave Kingman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2021 15:00:29 GMT -5
Still no mention of any progress. It seems the MLBPA is going all out to get major consessions from MLB owners. This could last a while but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by lajoiesghost on Nov 29, 2021 11:21:16 GMT -5
Each side will slice their own throat if this affects the 2022 season. And I'm afraid both sides are stubborn/greedy enough to do it.
|
|