|
|
Post by Halejon/Nationals GM on Apr 7, 2016 15:48:17 GMT -5
Thoughts on this idea for TPB bidding: Any unowned player eligible for a TPB bid can be bid on for a multiple year TPB bid. The deciding factor on who the highest bidder is the total $$ of his contract (Years x $$/per year) So you could essentially win a guy on less money per year, but you would own him for more years. This would be kind of interesting, but also a big change. There would have to be no more drops in the offseason without penalty or else every contract would be for whatever maximum number of years is decided on. I also think it would allow and maybe even encourage people to completely screw over their team in the future when going for it. My rule change would be non-permanent cap trading. It would allow teams to accelerate a rebuild in a way other than tanking, and keep around the flexibility and trade-balancing that is good about cap being tradeable without the long-term problems that have caused it to dry up. It would also be a bitch to keep track of. |
|
|
|
Post by WhiteSox on Apr 7, 2016 16:05:02 GMT -5
One change I think would be not as hard to track but be fun us making a 40 man roster for guys we want to call up/send down without penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds - Chris on Apr 7, 2016 16:44:30 GMT -5
I'm in agreement to keep the IFA things the same.
I have no interest to bid block an IFA from being claimed if he's gone unowned for more than a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on Apr 7, 2016 16:49:04 GMT -5
I'm in agreement to keep the IFA things the same. I have no interest to bid block an IFA from being claimed if he's gone unowned for more than a year. No the idea is that if the IFA has been signed for LESS than a year. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on Apr 7, 2016 17:31:01 GMT -5
I'd prefer to keep things as they are. The current rule rewards those prepared to do the homework and I like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 17:56:12 GMT -5
I also don't like Reds idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on Apr 9, 2016 8:51:48 GMT -5
I think that everyone was missing the point on Dan's idea. He was saying players under 1 year can be conditionally claimed unless someone else bids on them, then they're bid on. Players signed after 1 year would still be eligible to be claimed.
That said, I don't see an issue with the way things are. It also requires guys who want to get a jump on a guy no one else wants to bid on to keep a small amount of IFA rather than trading every cent of it away because they can't bid the min 100k without it.
|
|
