|
|
Post by drakebulldogsbball on Feb 6, 2009 23:42:06 GMT -5
Does anybody else feel that we should have the option to assign more 4 and 5 year minor league contracts? The way it is set up now, I'm assuming most people are going to use the 4 and 5 year contracts on their first few picks.
Without having the option to sign other prospects to longer-term deals, many prospects (especially those who just got their first taste of professional baseball last season) will become free agents before they ever reach the majors.
I don't know about you guys, but to me, that just defeats the purpose of having a minor league roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by primetyme1978 on Feb 6, 2009 23:53:42 GMT -5
I am unsure if I really like the way the contracts are set up for both majors and minors. But that is my opinion.
|
|
bigboy86
Junior Member
Lets Go Mets Go
Posts: 99
|
Post by bigboy86 on Feb 7, 2009 9:09:50 GMT -5
I agree with Minnesota. We won't be able to keep our prospects that we picked up late in the draft because they are all free agents
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Feb 7, 2009 12:06:05 GMT -5
First off I just want to say that Mr. Met scares the hell out of me. Now that, that's out of the way I'd be interested in hearing in what the rest of league has to say concerning minor league contracts.
|
|
|
|
Post by beatla25 on Feb 7, 2009 15:04:22 GMT -5
i definitely agree, there are a lot of really good prospects in single a, short season, etc, that you simply can't draft because they'll be fa in this league by the time they make it to the majors.
|
|
|
|
Post by primetyme1978 on Feb 7, 2009 15:39:11 GMT -5
Why dont we just wait until they make the big club, and then give them contracts from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom (Saskatchewan Sluggers) on Feb 7, 2009 16:13:37 GMT -5
I personally have no problem with the way things are set up now. I certainly understand the argument and do agree with it to an extent, however, I think changing the rules now would only cause unnecessary problems.
I would like to point out the fact that we've already begun drafting under the rules as they currently are. I don't know how much changing the rules would've effected others, but it would've changed my draft strategy a great deal. Two incredibly young players who have already been drafted that I am very high on, but passed up on drafting because of said contract problems, were Michael Inoa and Daniel Duffy. Both of them have all-world talent, but I passed on them because they're 17 or 18 years old and a good four to five years away from major league time. I instead opted for players who may make an impact sooner, such as Daniel Schlereth who could see major league action as early as 2009 (he's also a huge injury risk, but that's another matter). I think changing the rules now is not the wisest thing to do as the current rules may have effected how some people draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaolin Swagger on Feb 7, 2009 17:07:53 GMT -5
Maybe we could do something like mlb where the team who drafted the player has rights to that player for the first 3-4 years of mlb service time. There everyone has their milb roster and can sign the players to to extensions or go 1 yr deals once the player gets called up to the majors (in real life).
|
|
|
|
Post by drakebulldogsbball on Feb 7, 2009 19:53:49 GMT -5
I personally have no problem with the way things are set up now. I certainly understand the argument and do agree with it to an extent, however, I think changing the rules now would only cause unnecessary problems. I would like to point out the fact that we've already begun drafting under the rules as they currently are. I don't know how much changing the rules would've effected others, but it would've changed my draft strategy a great deal. Two incredibly young players who have already been drafted that I am very high on, but passed up on drafting because of said contract problems, were Michael Inoa and Daniel Duffy. Both of them have all-world talent, but I passed on them because they're 17 or 18 years old and a good four to five years away from major league time. I instead opted for players who may make an impact sooner, such as Daniel Schlereth who could see major league action as early as 2009 (he's also a huge injury risk, but that's another matter). I think changing the rules now is not the wisest thing to do as the current rules may have effected how some people draft. I see where you're coming from. Hmm... What if we compromise and make it so it is possible to extend a few minor league contracts once they're due to expire (maybe 2 a year)? We could use some sort of franchise tag type thing. I'm not really sure where this would go, I'm just thinking out loud here... |
|
|
|
Post by Tom (Saskatchewan Sluggers) on Feb 7, 2009 23:49:18 GMT -5
To be blunt (when am I not), I don't really see the need to compromise. I'm not the one in charge of changing the rules so I don't have any power in this situation. I don't see anything wrong or unfair about the current system, so whether or not it's the best system out there I don't see the need to change it when we're already half way through the draft.
I will admit I do enjoy complaining, but I will follow the rules as long as I feel they maintain fairness and integrity. I leave it up to Tyler to decide what is best. He is the voice of power and that's why in this situation I believe if the rule is to be changed, it should be done with him using an iron fist. I don't believe majority rules is a good method to use in a situation that can impact so many teams for so many years as each owner may have their own agenda (myself included).
|
|
|
|
Post by drakebulldogsbball on Feb 7, 2009 23:51:10 GMT -5
If you read the other league members' comments, it appears they wouldn't mind a change (everybody but you).  |
|
|
|
Post by Tom (Saskatchewan Sluggers) on Feb 7, 2009 23:55:51 GMT -5
If we include you, Tyler, and myself there have been a total of seven owners commenting on this thread. That is not nearly enough input to make an educated guess on how the majority of the league feels, especially since Tyler doesn't have an opinion either way and is just collecting information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Feb 8, 2009 3:21:26 GMT -5
I'm going to wait until my head's a little bit more clear before I decide anything but the fact that out of 15 owners, not counting myself, only 5 have spoken up tells me that everyone else is good with the way we have it? If not I'd wish they would speak up because like Tom said Im just trying to collect as much information and as many opinions on the situation as I can right now
|
|
|
|
Post by Bobby's Braves on Feb 8, 2009 10:44:39 GMT -5
I agree that we should keep the rules we have, then maybe set up some rules for the players who do not enter mlb during the current contract. Just so we have some type of advantage over the players we drafted, but I agree that changing the system is not a good thing to do. Heck, I traded my picks because the guys I wanted are so young. Off the subject, is tazawa eligible for milb draft. I haven't been on in while, just wasn't sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bullets on Feb 8, 2009 11:12:00 GMT -5
I agree that we should keep the rules we have, then maybe set up some rules for the players who do not enter mlb during the current contract. Just so we have some type of advantage over the players we drafted, but I agree that changing the system is not a good thing to do. Heck, I traded my picks because the guys I wanted are so young. Off the subject, is tazawa eligible for milb draft. I haven't been on in while, just wasn't sure. I'f fine with the system as is (maybe just add a few more long term contracts) and yes Braves Tawaza is available for MILB draft. I asked Tyler back when the whole International Players scandal came up. |
|
|
|
Post by Bobby's Braves on Feb 8, 2009 11:47:22 GMT -5
cool, yeah I see they signed him to a minor league deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Feb 8, 2009 12:12:17 GMT -5
All of the info I could find on Tawaza has shown that he never pitched any major league innings in Japan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaolin Swagger on Feb 8, 2009 14:06:29 GMT -5
yeah, I dont know if my comment was clear but I would be in favor of at least adding a couple long term deals but I would rather just being able to renew say 2 milb contracts a year like drake had said.
|
|
|
|
Post by drakebulldogsbball on Feb 8, 2009 20:52:48 GMT -5
The last thing I'm going to add to this discussion is this...
I understand Tom's point, but if we don't make at least a minor change making it possible to retain a couple minor leaguers a year after their contracts run up, this league isn't going to be a true dynasty league (which I thought it was intended to be). As is, the only minor leaguers that are going to have any value are the players with 3 year or longer contracts. That's fine, but where's the fun in only having the biggest names on minor league rosters? My grandma can figure out that players like Wieters, Rasmus, and Maybin have a pretty good chance at becoming solid, every-day players. But, once you get outside the top 100, some real knowledge is needed.
And, for the record, why would anybody ever sign a prospect to a 1 year deal?
*Sorry for my rant here. But, like I said, I wanted to make my feelings heard one last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyflyfisher on Feb 8, 2009 21:35:18 GMT -5
That's a good point Twinks. What do you do with the player in the June draft? If you draft the #1 choice from the '09 amateur draft you can't sign him for more than 1 year?
I see that it wouldn't be fair to change drastically at this point in the draft. Maybe add a few more 2 or 3 year contracts now and escalate as we go along?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Feb 9, 2009 0:45:32 GMT -5
I really struggled with making a decision on this subject. I do believe the system is flawed to an extent and really wish that we would have had this conversation before the draft started. I can see both sides of the discussion that's why I would like to strike some sort of fair solution to this problem. Here is what I purpose. We add one more available contract to each slot (three 5 year deals, three 4 year deals and five 3 year deals.) and give the owner of a minor leaguer the first crack of signing the player to a major league contract when their minor league deal expires. They would do this by agreeing to pay $4 in addition to the amount of the players minor league contract. Example: Ky drafted David Price in round one ($3). Once Price's minor league deal is up, Ky could sign him to a $7 major league deal before anyone else has a chance to get him. I don't think I'll be able to make everyone happy with this solution, but my hope is that this will be what's best for the league in the long run. There were some great posts on this topic by both sides and I ask that if anyone sees anything that they feel is just unacceptable with this plan to post their issues so we can explore the possibility of modifying it. This paragraph probably wasn't needed because we are a lot of things in this league, but shy is not one of them. I would also like to add something onto the July draft in terms of contracts teams could give those rookies, but we can discuss this once this issue settled. EDIT: Spelling |
|
|
|
Post by beatla25 on Feb 9, 2009 0:56:15 GMT -5
tyler's idea works for me, i feel like that's pretty fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by kyflyfisher on Feb 9, 2009 10:29:20 GMT -5
Something else we may be able to phase-in over time is that your prospects are your property until they become arbitration eligible in MLB. That way you have a chance to see which prospects are going to pan-out without a chance of losing them.
It doesn't solve the problem for those who had concerns about contracts prior to the draft but it may be something to think about before the July draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston Bullets on Feb 9, 2009 17:37:20 GMT -5
I really struggled with making a decision on this subject. I do believe the system is flawed to an extent and really wish that we would have had this conversation before the draft started. I can see both sides of the discussion that's why I would like to strike some sort of fair solution to this problem. Here is what I purpose. We add one more available contract to each slot (three 5 year deals, three 4 year deals and five 3 year deals.) and give the owner of a minor leaguer the first crack of signing the player to a major league contract when their minor league deal expires. They would do this by agreeing to pay $4 in addition to the amount of the players minor league contract. Example: Ky drafted David Price in round one ($3). Once Price's minor league deal is up, Ky could sign him to a $7 major league deal before anyone else has a chance to get him. I don't think I'll be able to make everyone happy with this solution, but my hope is that this will be what's best for the league in the long run. There were some great posts on this topic by both sides and I ask that if anyone sees anything that they feel is just unacceptable with this plan to post their issues so we can explore the possibility of modifying it. This paragraph probably wasn't needed because we are a lot of things in this league, but shy is not one of them. I would also like to add something onto the July draft in terms of contracts teams could give those rookies, but we can discuss this once this issue settled. EDIT: Spelling I like this idea as well but $7 seems a little high. Maybe something like $5? Just saying $7 is close to an A-rod type salary. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom (Saskatchewan Sluggers) on Feb 9, 2009 18:26:45 GMT -5
I've never been in a league quite like this before so I can't speak from experience, but I believe this league will have significant salary inflation. There are many teams with $20 and even $30 in cap room.
In a hypothetical situation, there may be a very good team who feels they are one or two pieces away from being a championship contender. Out comes an upper-echelon free agent who this team feels can put them over the top. They own several $1 contracts so they have significant cap space and can afford to outbid everyone in the league. Eventually the bidding takes that player up to a salary in excess of $10 as multiple teams covet this star player. This team ends up winning the bid at $12 and it is no big deal because that's only about half of their current salary cap space. They can then choose to give this star player only a one or two year contract to ensure that the risk is minimal (that they don't get stuck with his huge contract for four or five years) and that the reward is significant (a championship).
I anticipate such a scenario happening many times. That would make retaining a prized prospect turned young stud at $7 not nearly as significant as one would think. And of course one has the option to not retain him at that price if they feel they may be able to get him cheaper out in the free agent bidding market. It will all come down to making good GM decisions and sprinkling in a little luck as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Mo's Hitdogs on Feb 9, 2009 22:19:19 GMT -5
I too think the contracts end too quickly for MiLB players, I would prefer not starting the clock on MiLB players until they are no longer considered a prospect 130/AB or 50/IP, After prospect status is removed then start their clock towards FA 3-4 years from that time. By having MiLB contracts expire so quickly it punishes GM's who know the MiLB players better and allows others to bid on players at the time of their arrival at the MLB level while some other GM carried them through the minors. The system as it stands now is kinda bunk and I would support some amendments to the original rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by drakebulldogsbball on Feb 9, 2009 23:13:48 GMT -5
I've never been in a league quite like this before so I can't speak from experience, but I believe this league will have significant salary inflation. There are many teams with $20 and even $30 in cap room. In a hypothetical situation, there may be a very good team who feels they are one or two pieces away from being a championship contender. Out comes an upper-echelon free agent who this team feels can put them over the top. They own several $1 contracts so they have significant cap space and can afford to outbid everyone in the league. Eventually the bidding takes that player up to a salary in excess of $10 as multiple teams covet this star player. This team ends up winning the bid at $12 and it is no big deal because that's only about half of their current salary cap space. They can then choose to give this star player only a one or two year contract to ensure that the risk is minimal (that they don't get stuck with his huge contract for four or five years) and that the reward is significant (a championship). I anticipate such a scenario happening many times. That would make retaining a prized prospect turned young stud at $7 not nearly as significant as one would think. And of course one has the option to not retain him at that price if they feel they may be able to get him cheaper out in the free agent bidding market. It will all come down to making good GM decisions and sprinkling in a little luck as well. There will be a huge amount of inflation. I for one have over $30 in cap space and that's with ARod's salary ($8 per year). Assuming this league stays together for the next 2,3, or 4 years, I wouldn't be suprised to see contracts reaching the $15 mark (or even higher). Retaining a prospect for $7 does seem expensive, but realistically there's not going to be a lot of prospects that are going to demand that kind of money (most should go cheaper in free agency). All in all, I like Tyler's solution and think we should accept it as an ammendment to the league rules. |
|
|
|
Post by primetyme1978 on Feb 9, 2009 23:29:42 GMT -5
This is why I feel that we should not give contracts to our players at all. We should go by their current contract in real life. Then oce that contract ends the current owner has the chance to resign him at the new contract he recieves from his current team or what he gets through free agency. That contract could go up or down depending on his value at the time. If the owner does not choose to reatain him then he goes into a free agent pool and the bidding begins. To do the bidding we get FA cash which would be a set amount to try and out bid other owners with. If you have enough and there is not much interest for some players you could get a couple of players, but if there is an A-Rod type player that two owners are seeking the serivces of it could take all of their FA cash. When a player is won then the only thing that goes against the cap room is what the ral contract amount is. I know this all sound very confusing, but it is acctually very easy to do and will make it easier to keep track of in the end. If anyone really cares to know more about this you can private Message me. If tyler wants help doing this idea or wants to talk about it to can shoot me a message. Now my fingers are tired and I have to make a pick and have know clue who to take.
Take it easy all,
Dale
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Mo's Hitdogs on Feb 10, 2009 14:12:52 GMT -5
I understand and agree somewhat with Dale. but it still evens thing out too much for my taste. Drafting good young players that have upside then when they reach that upside everyone has an equal chance to get those players once they've developed seems a little flawed. It should at least be easier for the team who drafted him to retain him at a discount, with either franchise tags or restricted free agent tags.
I still say wait until a prospect has exhausted his MLB rookie status before having the contract start. There is already going to be a lot of turnover in the MLB from year to year. In order to keep some stability a GM needs to be able to count on MiLB players being under control and cheap to supplement higher priced MLB FA's from year to year. We already seem to agree that the bidding on MLB could get very pricey with the system in place. I say after the MiLB draft in complete GM's have a week or two to decide on the length of the contract they wish to give every player, but the clock doesn't begin until said player has exhausted his rookie status. So say Wieters gets a 5 year contract and eclipses 130 Ab's this year his clock would start from 2010-2014 before hitting FA. Or say Halman get's a 5 year deal but doesn't reach exhaust his rookie status till 2011 his clock would run till 2016. But as we get further into the draft younger and younger players are going to have to be drafted as the higher level players with MLB potential dwindle, with 10 contracts having to be 3 years or shorter many of those players will still be in the minors or just getting to the majors. Now as someone who has a large knowledge of the MiLB when I draft a 19 year old in A ball that most have not heard of, but realistically I have to give him either a 2 or 3 year contract he could be a big time star in the making right about the time his contract runs out allowing other GM's who 2-3 years prior have never heard of said player to evenly bid on said player.
That was quite a rant and I need to hit the bong now.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
Post by Shaolin Swagger on Feb 10, 2009 15:14:31 GMT -5
I understand and agree somewhat with Dale. but it still evens thing out too much for my taste. Drafting good young players that have upside then when they reach that upside everyone has an equal chance to get those players once they've developed seems a little flawed. It should at least be easier for the team who drafted him to retain him at a discount, with either franchise tags or restricted free agent tags. I still say wait until a prospect has exhausted his MLB rookie status before having the contract start. There is already going to be a lot of turnover in the MLB from year to year. In order to keep some stability a GM needs to be able to count on MiLB players being under control and cheap to supplement higher priced MLB FA's from year to year. We already seem to agree that the bidding on MLB could get very pricey with the system in place. I say after the MiLB draft in complete GM's have a week or two to decide on the length of the contract they wish to give every player, but the clock doesn't begin until said player has exhausted his rookie status. So say Wieters gets a 5 year contract and eclipses 130 Ab's this year his clock would start from 2010-2014 before hitting FA. Or say Halman get's a 5 year deal but doesn't reach exhaust his rookie status till 2011 his clock would run till 2016. But as we get further into the draft younger and younger players are going to have to be drafted as the higher level players with MLB potential dwindle, with 10 contracts having to be 3 years or shorter many of those players will still be in the minors or just getting to the majors. Now as someone who has a large knowledge of the MiLB when I draft a 19 year old in A ball that most have not heard of, but realistically I have to give him either a 2 or 3 year contract he could be a big time star in the making right about the time his contract runs out allowing other GM's who 2-3 years prior have never heard of said player to evenly bid on said player. That was quite a rant and I need to hit the bong now. Matthew This is my favorite idea, so far. |
|
