|
Post by Senators GM on Jan 18, 2008 20:07:16 GMT -5
I brought this up earlier, but I didn't want to get too into it early on when people were getting their heads around the basic league rules, but I feel strongly that we should have an better way of dropping rookie/minor league contracts, and maybe have the option of not ever calling up a player. A lot of the guys we draft will never really pan out. A major league club might be willing to use the player as a backup one year, then never use him again. If that happens fairly early in someone's contract and the player gets to the minimum AB/IP requirements, owners in this league will be on the hook for up to 4.5M by the last year of the contract...that is looking like a pretty good player in this league (it will be up to 7M for prospects drafted after this year unless that changes).
In my opinion, there shouldn't be any penalty for drafting a so-so player that isn't really deserving of a contract in this league. Even a good prospect, like Eric Hurley, might very well end up being a long reliever with no value to me, or a 5th starter that goes 6-10 with a 5.00+ ERA for a couple straight years.
In other leagues I am in, we have the right to outright drop minor league contracts. In one of my leagues, we have an opportunity to do this only once a year before each season starts. In others, we can drop them whenever.
Anyone have other thoughts on this? I know it isn't urgent at all, but it is something we should be looking at before any problems come up.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM on Jan 18, 2008 20:52:38 GMT -5
I like the idea of being able to drop a rookie player before the new season starts without any penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Jan 21, 2008 9:08:05 GMT -5
Thats is true, we should be able to drop rookie contracts without a penalty at somepoint, or any point
|
|
|
Post by Commish (SEA) on Jan 22, 2008 1:58:53 GMT -5
As it stands a contract may be dropped at any time for a minor leaguer without penalty, as they do not have contracts at that point.
But I do see your point of afterword, when a prospect can become the next Willie Bloomquist and appear to be the next great 2B and end up a super-sub. I'll look into an alternate way for prospect contracts, and any suggestions are welcome, it just has to be practicle as well. Right now I'm thinking of some basic way of arbitration, but I'll keep looking for a solution.
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Jan 22, 2008 12:15:04 GMT -5
As it stands a contract may be dropped at any time for a minor leaguer without penalty, as they do not have contracts at that point. But I do see your point of afterword, when a prospect can become the next Willie Bloomquist and appear to be the next great 2B and end up a super-sub. I'll look into an alternate way for prospect contracts, and any suggestions are welcome, it just has to be practicle as well. Right now I'm thinking of some basic way of arbitration, but I'll keep looking for a solution. I think that if a prospect turns out great, well you get him cheap. That is fine. That is the purpose. It is only the bad rookie contract that clog up our team that I think needs to be addressed.
|
|
Montreal Expos
Major Leaguer
Excuse me while I Expos myself
Posts: 305
|
Post by Montreal Expos on Jan 23, 2008 13:01:18 GMT -5
Right now the minor league contracts look like this. Year 1 being the first year following loss of rookie eligibility. I know there is a different schedule for those drafted this year. Year 1 = $1.00 Year 2 = $2.00 Year 3 = $3.50 Year 4 = $5.00 Year 5 = $7.00
I'd like to suggest this...
In the off-season following the year in which a player loses rookie eligiblity the owner has 3 options:
1. Drop the player at no cost to their budget.
2. Sign the player to the full rookie contract.
3. Sign the player to a short term (1 or 2 year) rookie contract. The short term rookie contract would be something like 2 years w/ $2M in year 1 and $3M in year 2. At the end of the short term rookie contract they have the option of extending the contract to be in accordance with the normal terms of the full rookie contract. So in year 3 the contrat would be $3.5M, then $5M, then $7M.
Does any of this make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Jan 23, 2008 13:38:03 GMT -5
that is an interesting idea. but i think you are mistaken on the structure of rookie contracts. maybe i am mistaken though...
you pay $1M in the first year that follows the loss of his rookie eligibility. but his contract is a 5 year contract no matter when he crosses the rookie threshold. so if a player crosses the rookie threshold in year 3, then year 4 will be $1M, year 5 will be $2M, and there will be no year 6.
so most rookie contracts will only be a couple years long. the thing is, if you do draft a guy closer to being ML ready and he crosses the rookie threshold early, and ends up a stinker, it would be nice to not have to pay that player 5 or 7M.
|
|
|
Post by Florida Marlins GM on Jan 23, 2008 14:20:43 GMT -5
Kinda Like me if Soto Stinks then I would be in trouble is that what U mean??
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Jan 23, 2008 16:31:03 GMT -5
yes. but at least soto is considered to be a pretty promising prospect. there could be a late round equivalent to soto as well, and there shouldn't be a disincentive to keeping any prospect.
|
|
|
Post by Florida Marlins GM on Jan 23, 2008 18:58:17 GMT -5
Yeah I know he's prommising but I was just trying to point it out if he doesn't pan out
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Jan 23, 2008 21:51:12 GMT -5
well, he isn't supposed to start this year.. he's on the decline
|
|
|
Post by Cincinnati Reds on Jan 23, 2008 21:51:27 GMT -5
jay bruce is the house!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Florida Marlins GM on Jan 23, 2008 22:43:33 GMT -5
So ur saying Soto isn't goint to start?? then who is??? he is the Starting Catcher for the Cubs
|
|
|
Post by Senators GM on Jan 24, 2008 10:29:45 GMT -5
well, he isn't supposed to start this year.. he's on the decline i think this is a joke. i wouldn't worry marlins.
|
|
Montreal Expos
Major Leaguer
Excuse me while I Expos myself
Posts: 305
|
Post by Montreal Expos on Jan 24, 2008 12:01:08 GMT -5
that is an interesting idea. but i think you are mistaken on the structure of rookie contracts. maybe i am mistaken though... you pay $1M in the first year that follows the loss of his rookie eligibility. but his contract is a 5 year contract no matter when he crosses the rookie threshold. so if a player crosses the rookie threshold in year 3, then year 4 will be $1M, year 5 will be $2M, and there will be no year 6. so most rookie contracts will only be a couple years long. the thing is, if you do draft a guy closer to being ML ready and he crosses the rookie threshold early, and ends up a stinker, it would be nice to not have to pay that player 5 or 7M. I understand how the contracts work. Although I do see how I typed it out and how that does appear wrong. That was just an example of how the system might work with someone losing eligibility right away. You make a good point that most players will be a couple years into their contract. So maybe a 1 year short term contract would work best at $2M. If you want to keep them after that 1 year then you'd follow the rest of the normal contract. If we wanted to keep the 2 year short term contract idea maybe we can reduce the salaries to $1.5 for year 1 and $2.5 for year 2. I think the short term deals still have to be more than the regular contract. Or we could put both the 1 year and 2 year ideas into practice. If the player loses rookie eligibility in years 1 or 2 of the contract you can sign him to a 2 year short term deal like the one above and if they are in years 3 or 4 you can use the 1 year short term deal. Under both circumstance you still have the option of dropping the player before they go on your payroll or taking the full normal minor league contract in addition to choosing the short term deal. And at the end of the short term contract you have the option of dropping them or picking up the rest of the normal minor league contract.
|
|