Free Agency Amendment Discussion

[Royals GM]

1) Team doesn't have to bid on their own free agent to receive compensation so long the amount does exceed the previous year's salary.
2) 2/3 rule is removed for it is you who signed the free agent to a contract not your real life counter part.
3) A minimum secondary bid does not have to increase by +.5 so long it follows the yearly porportion rules.
4) A Player who is not signed the previous year by any real life team will be considered a retired player and therefore his contract is to be shortened by one season even if no retirement is anounced.
5) The maximum amount for one position to be signed is to remain at three, but this number will not include any players that are resigning.
6) The maximum for pitchers will be as follows: 5 SP, 5 RP, SP+RP<9 (not equal to). This is not to include resignings either.

Discussion or a second?

[Mets GM]

i think i like most of these but i just have a question about rule 1:

does rule 1 mean that if a player makes more per year than he did before he hit free agency, that the team that lost him will not receive compensation?

[Royals GM]

No it means the opposite. IF he makes more, then the team gets comp even though they haven't bid.

[Mets GM]

gotcha. so if the player makes less in free agency than the team losing him doesnt receive comp, right?

[Phillies GM]

I agree with 1, 2, and 4.
Question about 5 and 6: is this the maximum number of these types of players you can have on your roster or the maximum number you can sign in a single offseason?
And 3 I'm just not sure about.

[Royals GM]

Correct (@ Mets)

For 5 and 6: That is the maximum that you can sign in one offseason.

For 3: We haven't followed it at all for IFA signings so I think it wouldn't matter if we remove it or not.

[Mets GM]

i dont understand the point of limiting the amount of players at 1 position a GM can sign. if someone wants to be stupid and sign 10 2nd basemen, why should we care? also, i think it could get a little hazy when it comes to enforcing it when you get to player who play multiple positions.

[Twins GM]

I think it so as an example, Royals only have 15 Million worth of players signed. They sign Low level players and all available 2B so then the Mets dont have a 2B and are held hostage in a sense. I think that it shouldnt be a problem.

Also I have something else i want to add. I think we should have another year of franchised players with one twist. You can not franchise the same player in back to back years. I have David Wright, i cant franchise him so he can hit the open market. What does everyone think?

[Royals GM]

That maximum is taken loosely when it is multiple positions players.

[Mets GM]

all right i can live with that. also i like twins idea of continuing the franchise tag.

[Dodgers GM]

Aug 4, 2010 23:34:34 GMT -5 Twins GM said:

Also I have something else i want to add. I think we should have another year of franchised players with one twist. You can not franchise the same player in back to back years. I have David Wright, i cant franchise him so he can hit the open market. What does everyone think?

I think you'll franchise Mauer.

But if we go down this route, I do have a question - I franchised Manny and then traded for 3 franchised guys - Dunn, Beckett, and ARod, so I wouldnt be able to tag Manny, but could I franchise Dunn, Beckett, or ARod?

Also, why just one mroe year of franchising, why not make it a permanent aspect of the salary structure?

[Royals GM]

I am not crazy about this franchise tag. There are ~90 free agents this offseason which could grow and many of them are very small named. If we don't keep the tag then this could be a good offseason. If we do than there will be no big names and and less than 80 free agents.