|
Post by GM Phillies on Jul 18, 2015 20:41:42 GMT -6
Have a question here for the Cubs about the "Players on rookie contact ($300,000)" topic.
Does this tie into the posts about teams tanking here? Just wondered if the main end result would be for teams to not lose their non-called up players to waivers but ensure to they were being used on that team. Was that the intended goal?
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Cubs GM on Jul 21, 2015 6:20:30 GMT -6
It’s not really a tanking issue to me; rather more about general competitiveness and paying attention. I’ve noticed plenty of serviceable players in the Fantrax stats section that could be viable starters or reserves. My feeling is most of the players in this category are sitting there because of general ambivalence rather than purposefully ignoring talent or tanking.
I should add that I don’t see a $300K roster commitment as anything difficult to budget. It would be nice if these players were “officially recognized” by their owners, it might lead to more trading and league activity.
|
|
|
Post by rushmore (LAA) on Jul 21, 2015 7:07:34 GMT -6
This rule would be a logistical nightmare IMO
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Joey) on Jul 21, 2015 12:54:19 GMT -6
I would rather figure out who owns those players and PM them or add them to fantrax then force anyone to pay anyone for any reason other than they want to.
|
|
|
Post by GM Phillies on Jul 22, 2015 18:11:33 GMT -6
I'd be fine in the offseason making a list of these uncontracted players. (The TAB has actually done this in the past at various times.) I'd also e fine with PM'ing or posting the results of it all.
However, wanted to point this out: More than likely, the most active and committed teams would probably have the fewest, if any, players on the list. The least active teams would have the most. The end result would be the least active owners getting a boost. The TAB would then be researching players that those teams didn't want to take the time to do.
Good point that the Cubs brought up. Obviously he sees these players are listed as free agents on Fantrax. If he can see them there, any owner here can go there and do the same. Shouldn't it be up to them to make the effort and take the time to do so?
|
|
|
Post by Ex-Cubs GM on Sept 3, 2015 11:15:20 GMT -6
You guys might be right, it might be more work than it is worth. The pool is really the Jeff Manships and Sam Fulds of the world. It was just a thought.
BYW, I just read that "Responses" thread. Whoa. I had similar experiences as the Angels GM. I hope "they" get help before "they" hurt someone or themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM on Feb 5, 2016 6:02:55 GMT -6
More of a procedure idea than a rule idea, but…. An owner may place an offer to resign a player once they have posted all of their free agents in the “Free Agents (with intentions)” thread.
|
|
|
Post by GM Phillies on Feb 5, 2016 21:58:00 GMT -6
More of a procedure idea than a rule idea, but…. An owner may place an offer to resign a player once they have posted all of their free agents in the “Free Agents (with intentions)” thread. Nice suggestion. Looks like we're still missing 6 teams there. Will sent a PM to them.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM on Feb 5, 2016 22:23:44 GMT -6
yeah i was waiting until after my resigns to post
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco GM (G-funk) on Feb 4, 2018 8:24:57 GMT -6
Alright, so it seems like you guys keep referencing new resign rules that are going to come soon but refrain from providing further detail. If you have some idea of the framework, I think it's fair to share so you don't have a competive advantage due to insider info on future changes
|
|
|
Post by metsgm on Feb 4, 2018 8:55:23 GMT -6
Mainly there have been discussions about bringing over the resign rule that has been discussed in the sister league that shares a lot of GMs. There's no competitive advantage it's just that the idea isn't fully baked. Basically no one is 100% satisfied with the current process.
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Joey) on Feb 4, 2018 9:31:27 GMT -6
Alright, so it seems like you guys keep referencing new resign rules that are going to come soon but refrain from providing further detail. If you have some idea of the framework, I think it's fair to share so you don't have a competive advantage due to insider info on future changes We arent going to present any half idea that isn't close to being done if it was close to being done to be discussed it would be posted. Maybe it doesn't get past the discussion phase then all we have done is present crap that teams go off and that is far worse. The basic premise of the re-sign change would be getting rid of teams making offers and putting TAB in a bad spot. It would lay out salaries in a way that we would not have to discuss them but simply have teams make a few minors decisions. But again there is many things we have yet to work out as it pertains to any potential change and until we do we will not present any version of it to make sure that whatever we post is what we want to use move forward for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco GM (G-funk) on Feb 4, 2018 11:02:03 GMT -6
Didn't mean to come off accusatory. If it's half baked, sure, no need to share. Just seeing more and more reference to it in the resign thread and wanted to be kept in the loop where possible. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Marlins GM (Joey) on Feb 4, 2018 11:04:17 GMT -6
Didn't mean to come off accusatory. If it's half baked, sure, no need to share. Just seeing more and more reference to it in the resign thread and wanted to be kept in the loop where possible. Thanks. Understood. There is plans in the work to make things easier but as of now "half baked" is best way to describe it.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Joe Phillips) on Feb 11, 2018 19:39:34 GMT -6
Same
|
|