FA Idea

[Deleted]

Instead of the current system, where you can win an FA for say $75, then the next year, use the salary conversion chart to determine his salary, I say we adopt a system where you have to pay half of what you won the FA for the follwing season, and again until he reaches his real MLB salary and can be converted. For instance, take Moncada for example. If we adopt this, Moncada's winner would owe him the winning bid this season, say 45 next season, 22.5 the second year after winning (3rd season), etcetra until Moncada is down to his real MLB salry and his salary can be converted. This would make owners think twice before blowing a huge amount on 1 FA and seeing the same cap space next season. It also makes the FA process more fair as the same teams won't always have the highest FA caps. This is merely a suggestion, and would like to hear other opinions. Otherwise we'll be in the same boat with Cubs having 100 in FA, Mets around 90 in cap, Marlins likely around 90 as well. Essentially all the high rollers this season will be high ollers next season in FA leaving the 2nd and 3rd tier FAs for the not so rich teams.

[Dan(Jays)]

Preach(that means i agree for all the academics out there)

[JBach(Brewers)]

Well this is the issue you run into using converted salaries

[JBach(Brewers)]

My problem is teams aren't even attempting to field the league minimum mlb team. That's what bothers me the most

[Joshua(Cubs)]

First, this would not be for this year.

Second, if you would prefer to trade places with my bottom dwelling team to "blow your wad" on one FA, I would doubt that but you're always welcome to sell offal your expensive pieces and try.

Third, I understand some of the motivation here but let's not overstate the problem. Bottom dwelling teams have a shot at buying one, maybe two of the best free agents. That's a long payoff that most, outside of myself, would be unwilling to undertake.

So, yeah I get that you guys don't get to bid on Moncada, but that's not in a vacuum.

[Joshua(Cubs)]

I will field the minimum and have ever since I joined.

[Deleted]

Feb 27, 2015 17:10:11 GMT -5 Joshua(Cubs) said:

First, this would not be for this year.

Second, if you would prefer to trade places with my bottom dwelling team to "blow your wad" on one FA, I would doubt that but you're always welcome to sell offal your expensive pieces and try.

Third, I understand some of the motivation here but let's not overstate the problem. Bottom dwelling teams have a shot at buying one, maybe two of the best free agents. That's a long payoff that most, outside of myself, would be unwilling to undertake.

So, yeah I get that you guys don't get to bid on Moncada, but that's not in a vacuum.

Not trying to attack anyone, I'm just not for the idea of winning an FA at say 75 then only paying him 5 the next season.

[Joshua(Cubs)]

I don't feel attacked man. I agree in part to what you are saying. But I still think it's overstating a problem just a touch. The only reason I will have a huge budget next year again is because I'm rolling the dice on an unproven kid. If I bought 3 cliff lee's or josh hamiltons then it's a different story.

[JBach(Brewers)]

That's the whole point though Ben hire people made there teams. Marlins traded guys git alot of cap and can spend it. Duck and I went through and found 16 teams started last year with illegal rosters.

[Joshua(Cubs)]

People should maintain their roster requirements, buts that's mostly a different issue

[Danny(Padres)]

couldnt agree more on that joshua, i think you have gone about it superbly. Last year you signed tons of international prospects and signed around 15 free agent mlb starters for a couple bucks here and there, that played 75% of their team games, and if i remember you signed about 4 4th and 5th starters from mlb teams to fill out, nothing wrong with that in my mind. As to bes complaints, I agree, but not completely, this is why a penalty for releasing players would be a big addition. The mauers and cj wilsons of the world would still count on the teams that just released thems slate, making who you trade for, and who you sign more important. Then, you can release to make room, but you will not recover all that cap.

[JBach(Brewers)]

Have to agree there needs to be a penalty fir just dropping guys starting next year

[Kyle(Mets)]

I agree with Josh. It's a trade off. He is spending almost his entire cap on Moncada( maybe, it's not over yet), but a)Moncada is no sure thing and b) that basically means he will be one of the worst teams in the league this year. If moncada ends up a bust he pushed back his window another year. Eventually as he goes along he will spend more as he tries to compete. Basically he is the real life Astros right now. Nothing wrong with that IMO. If you do as suggested and pay a premium into the future years you will keep salaries down a bit, but also really limit trading, which is a bad thing IMO

[Kyle(Mets)]

And I agree some kind of dropping penalty would be a better solution.

[Donald(Rangers)]

I agree with Kyle's first point of a gradual decrease in salary for signing these FA at $50 or more. It would require teams to think twice before investing so heavily on 1 or 2 FA each season.