Post by Cleveland Indians GM on Feb 19, 2009 13:47:48 GMT -5
FA Bid Suggestion
I see the current FA bid rules are highest salary wins the player. That doesn't make sense to me. That's saying a player would rather a $5M for 1 Year contract over a $4M for 2 Year deal. What is the player falls flat on his face after that one year? With accepting the first offer he many never get an offer again. With the second offer he's at least guaranteed to make some money for another season.
I think total contract value should determine who wins the player, but we have to be careful and certain situations. Here's my overall write-up for the rules:
1. Base Salary x Base Years = Value #1
2. Team Options and NTC's add no additional value to the offer. This is because a GM could essentially jack up the TO to increase the value of his bid and simply decline the TO. It's real hard to suggest how much additional value a NTC brings the player, so I'd say both items are simply up to the GM to add if they so choose.
3. Player Options do add value to the offer and act as simply another year to the overall value. Why would POs be added in the value, but not TOs? It's simple, it's totally up to the player to accept the PO and the GM can't abuse how it would add value to the offer. The GM is putting himself out on a line if he offers a crazy PO.
4. GMs are required to list what their offer value is on multi-year offers. Not listing the offer value will result in an invalid bid. This is simply to make it easier to know who has the highest bid.
5. If a Player Option is offered the only way a player can be released is if the GM agrees to pay the full amount of the player's Player Option (comes out of team cash).
EXAMPLES
$5M for 2 Years with a Player Option of $5.5M for 1 Year = $15.5M Value
$3.75M for 4 Years with a Team Option of $5M for 1 Year = $15M Value
$3M for 3 Years with a Player Option of $4M for 2 Years = $17M Value
If these were offers on the same player, bid #3 wins. While overall the player potentially can earn more with bid #2, the Team Option isn't guaranteed for the player while he has the chance to accept the Player Option in bid #3. With bid #1 he does make the most money up front. But like I eluded to earlier - What happens if he falls flat on his face? In the long run he's projected to make more money with the other offers.
Now if the team with bid #3 wishes to release the player before he has a chance to accept or decline the Player Option they'd have to pay him $8M out of their team cash.
There can definitely be amendments made. I think what I have suggested is simple enough to use. Charting who's offered Player Options may be the one thing that requires some outside work. We could simply post a thread in the Release forum in which the Commishes update to who has these Player Option from Free Agency.
I see the current FA bid rules are highest salary wins the player. That doesn't make sense to me. That's saying a player would rather a $5M for 1 Year contract over a $4M for 2 Year deal. What is the player falls flat on his face after that one year? With accepting the first offer he many never get an offer again. With the second offer he's at least guaranteed to make some money for another season.
I think total contract value should determine who wins the player, but we have to be careful and certain situations. Here's my overall write-up for the rules:
1. Base Salary x Base Years = Value #1
2. Team Options and NTC's add no additional value to the offer. This is because a GM could essentially jack up the TO to increase the value of his bid and simply decline the TO. It's real hard to suggest how much additional value a NTC brings the player, so I'd say both items are simply up to the GM to add if they so choose.
3. Player Options do add value to the offer and act as simply another year to the overall value. Why would POs be added in the value, but not TOs? It's simple, it's totally up to the player to accept the PO and the GM can't abuse how it would add value to the offer. The GM is putting himself out on a line if he offers a crazy PO.
4. GMs are required to list what their offer value is on multi-year offers. Not listing the offer value will result in an invalid bid. This is simply to make it easier to know who has the highest bid.
5. If a Player Option is offered the only way a player can be released is if the GM agrees to pay the full amount of the player's Player Option (comes out of team cash).
EXAMPLES
$5M for 2 Years with a Player Option of $5.5M for 1 Year = $15.5M Value
$3.75M for 4 Years with a Team Option of $5M for 1 Year = $15M Value
$3M for 3 Years with a Player Option of $4M for 2 Years = $17M Value
If these were offers on the same player, bid #3 wins. While overall the player potentially can earn more with bid #2, the Team Option isn't guaranteed for the player while he has the chance to accept the Player Option in bid #3. With bid #1 he does make the most money up front. But like I eluded to earlier - What happens if he falls flat on his face? In the long run he's projected to make more money with the other offers.
Now if the team with bid #3 wishes to release the player before he has a chance to accept or decline the Player Option they'd have to pay him $8M out of their team cash.
There can definitely be amendments made. I think what I have suggested is simple enough to use. Charting who's offered Player Options may be the one thing that requires some outside work. We could simply post a thread in the Release forum in which the Commishes update to who has these Player Option from Free Agency.