Suggestions for 2020

[Deleted]

whatever we set the league cap to isn't inportant. through FA players salaries will match the available cape space. IMO adjusting the cap by more than 1-2 mil per year will alter valuation of players in our league too much.

[White Sox GM (Tiago)]

For free agency players should only be up for bidding for 24 hours, at the end of the 24 hours the highest bidder wins, instead of having to have your bid stand for 24 hours in order to win the player.

[Pirates GM (Alex)]

Feb 8, 2019 1:06:24 GMT White Sox GM (Tiago) said:

For free agency players should only be up for bidding for 24 hours, at the end of the 24 hours the highest bidder wins, instead of having to have your bid stand for 24 hours in order to win the player.

Disagree.  Could really handicap some teams for a season if they are busy with life one day out of the year.  

[Marlins GM (Andrew)]

I think increasing the bid increment should help speed things up. Agree with Alex that 24 hours could severely limit people who just happen to be busy that day.

[Cubs GM (Heller)]

While I do agree on Marlins GM (Andrew)'s note, I would just like to point out the original League Rules did say a minimum increase of $0.1m, but after multi-year offers started coming in, people stopped following that, and Beckett and myself weren't enforcing it enough, so it was kind of lost in the rulebook. We were adding it back this offseason, but received pushback from some. If enough people want it upped to 0.1 instead of 0.05 BEFORE THE FIRST ROUND OF UFA BIDDING, I am certainly not opposed.

[Tigers GM (Ryan)]

I dont think .1 version .05 is a huge difference in the bidding process honestly. But yea, a firm 24 hour limit on a player would cause more issues.

I wouldnt be opposed to seeing the "win" timelimit be 12 hours of leading the bid. then you just have to check in once or twice a day for your player. 24 hours is a long time and there have been alot of 20-23.5 hour bids just in RFA, I expect that # to climb in FA. Any change would take adjustment, but we'd get use to a shorter win time.

[Cardinals GM (Chris)]

A 24 hour time limit on a player would result in a ton of sniping on a player. Seems like it'd be too much of a cluster F to be worth it, in addition to Alex's reasoning as well. While imperfect, having a bid stand for 24 hours is the better option of the two IMO.

[White Sox GM (Tiago)]

It wouldn't necessarily have to be 24 hours could be 48 hours, this bid standing for 24 hour business leads to guys being bid on for weeks.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2019 22:27:03 GMT White Sox GM (Tiago) said:

It wouldn't necessarily have to be 24 hours could be 48 hours, this bid standing for 24 hour business leads to guys being bid on for weeks.

Then bid more and stop increasing by $0.05

[White Sox GM (Tiago)]

My bids are never in increments of 0.05

[Rays GM (Duck)]

if you are so worried about long term contracts the one way to alleviate it is when the GM wants to waive him or release him the said GM is still charged the full amount of contract not just a partial amount of salary.

[Deleted]

Each team gets allowed 1 contract extension each offseason.

[Pirates GM (Alex)]

I would suggest for Free Agency implementing a point system. This reduces the value of long-term contracts. I would assign one point per one million dollars offered and one point per year offered. Easy to understand, and makes deals more realistic.

Example for Current System:

5 years @ $8m can only be topped with a 1 year offer of $40.5m.

Example with Point System:

5 years @ $8m can be topped with a 1 year offer of $12.5m.
5 years = 5 points + $8m = 8 points = total of 13 points.
1 year = 1 point + $12.5m = 12.5 points = 13.5 total points.

[Deleted]

I suggest keeping 8 year deals by changing the value of year with a cv multiplier as follows below:
1yr - x1
2yr - x1.1
3yr - x1.2
4yr - x1.3
5yr - x1.4
6yr - x1.5
7yr - x1.6
8yr - x1.7

This would give money more leverage over years and eliminate those who are trying to get a cheap deal by offering max years.
Example:
In our current system 8yr $4m would require a 1yr $32.05m deal to beat it.
With my idea 8yr $4m would have a cv of 6.8 (4x1.7) and would only require a 1yr $6.85m deal to beat it.

Additionally I suggest changing contracts buyouts to increase by 5% for every year being bought out:
1yr - 50%
2yr- 55%
3yr - 60%
4yr - 65%
5yr - 70%
6yr - 75%
7yr - 80%
8yr - 85%

This would further devalue handing out enormous long term deals to players and would eliminate many irrational contracts being given out. I haven’t decided whether I think that the percentage should be constant through every year or should increase with each year bought out:
Waive 8yr $30m
Penalty of 25.5 per season
Full buyout of $204m
Vs.
Penalty of
Year 1 - $15m
Year 2 - $16.5m
Year 3 - $18m
Year 4 - $19.5m
Year 5 - $21m
Year 6 - $22.5m
Year 7 - $24m
Year 8 - $25.5m
Full buyout of $162m

Any further suggestions are always appreciated.

[Deleted]

I like both solutions