|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 4, 2017 22:13:56 GMT -5
One rule I would like to discuss possible changing for next offseason is in order to give a qualifying offer the player must play with the team for the entire season.
I would also like to discuss the same rule for the 20% discount for FA's. In order to receive the 20% discount that player must play on the same team the entire season in the player's last season of his contract.
I think by doing this it would increase trading, because teams will be more likely to trade the player they could receive a discount on knowing they will not have to compete against the discount if they trade the player.
Thoughts on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 23:16:34 GMT -5
Maybe I'm confused on this but in one statement you say we must keep the player the entire season of his last yr on his contract to receive the 20% discount but then you say this would increase trading. I don't understand this. Just to take this one step further, in the following off season after the regular season is completed would a team be allowed to trade a player who has a 20% discount? For example, say SP Joe Blow's expiring contract now has a 20% discount can the original owning team trade the player and his discount to another team who may want the discount?
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 12, 2017 19:54:15 GMT -5
Maybe I'm confused on this but in one statement you say we must keep the player the entire season of his last yr on his contract to receive the 20% discount but then you say this would increase trading. I don't understand this. Just to take this one step further, in the following off season after the regular season is completed would a team be allowed to trade a player who has a 20% discount? For example, say SP Joe Blow's expiring contract now has a 20% discount can the original owning team trade the player and his discount to another team who may want the discount? The answer to your first question is people will be more inclined to trade player to a team if that team does not receive a 20% discount because NOW, if they traded that player to a team they would have to compete against that team in free agency knowing they have 20% discount. I'm suggesting, say a rebuilding team could trade a player and still bid on them in free agency not having to compete against the 20% discount. The answer to your 2nd question is no, Once the season is over players without a contract file for free agency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:09:39 GMT -5
Agree
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:21:58 GMT -5
I think I would prefer acquiring a player knowing I was getting a 20% discount on signing him rather than not
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 12, 2017 20:28:47 GMT -5
I think I would prefer acquiring a player knowing I was getting a 20% discount on signing him rather than not That person would probably be less likely to trade the player to you though and the price for the player would certainly be higher.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2017 6:26:47 GMT -5
Wouldn't that figure into negotiations? You knowing your getting a player 20% cheaper you pay a little more in talent. It benefits you from a $$$ aspect and the other owner from a talent aspect.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Sept 15, 2017 0:14:15 GMT -5
I'm torn on this because I feel like it could decrease the likelihood of trading a player in his final year, beacause the original owner would want to hang onto him to possibly resign them with the discount. I could see it both ways though because the offseason before all these final years of player's contracts I would foresee a lot of trading, but I would think it would cut down on mid-season trading. I think my stance would be in favor of only being able to extend a QO to an impending FA if you owned them all season, but the 20% discount being offered to whichever owner ends the season with the player because I think that could be a fun selling point during trade talks. My two cents.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 8:55:54 GMT -5
I disagree with the argument being made about teams being hesitant to trade players in the last year of their contracts to have that 20% discount in FA. I was able to trade for 3 guys on the last year of their deal this season alone: Souza, Harrison and Fowler. I think it's a wash because some owners would be willing to pay more for a guy in a trade because they know they will be able to get the advantage on resigning them that offseason.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 9:20:03 GMT -5
I really think this would help rebuilding teams most of all be more competitive in free Agency. Instead of good teams continuing to resign players. I think this helps competitive balance
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2017 9:21:09 GMT -5
I am all for improving competitive balance. It's the only thing that cuts down on finding new owners every year. Who wants to take over a bad team when there's little hope for improvement?
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Oct 1, 2017 20:11:07 GMT -5
I would like everyone to really consider and think through this idea, this is about competitive balancing. I know people see these Qualifying offer and 20% Discount as an opportunity to potentially save money and I completely understand that. But from a commissioner standpoint I have to consider what's best for the league and this is going to help rebuilding teams while also helping teams make a postseason run.
Consider the Yankees last year trading Aroldis Chapman last year in real life. They moved Chapman for top prospects knowing they would have the ability to resign Chapman in the offseason. So the rebuilding or retooling Yankees acquired some good prospects and then signed Chapman in the offseason. While the Cubs got there Closer in 2016 that helped them when the World Series.
Now would the Yankees have traded Chapman had they know they didn't have a shot at resigning him? Competing against the Cubs with a 20%...Maybe they would have but consider the Cubs (Champs) resigning Chapman with there 20% discount helping them continue to improve. While the Yankees the rebuilding team lose out on Chapman because of the discount. Chapman's performance this year is besides the point because he was one of the best closers in the game at the time all this happened. Just understand the ramifications of how this could effect the league if we continue with this structure. I think by changing this its a win-win by allowing playoff teams win championships like the Cubs and allowing rebuilding teams like the Yankees turn around a team quickly to a playoff team.
|
|