|
Post by Cardinals GM (Travis) on Nov 4, 2011 10:05:44 GMT -5
Am I the only owner who thinks that doing away with extensions is a huge mistake? Is this a dynasty league or a re-draft league? What are we doing here? Why do we have contracts and a salary cap if we are just going to lose players at the end of their current contracts? I've been here for three years now and seen a lot of things change. Most of it for the better. The signing system that we put in place based on the top 300 was a good idea. It prevented people from going too cheap and gave us something concrete to work with. This new situation is entirely pointless and takes away our power. Further, it also screws the owners who have been here a while (ahem) and signed huge deals based on just being fair. Do you think I would have signed Pujols to a 10 year 250M dollar deal if I knew that no one else would be responsible to do the same? Obviously not. There are a lot of things that I don't like about this league but I have stuck around and put in a lot of work and now we're being drug around like little children. We can't handle extensions?? Seriously? This is the final straw for me Sam. Sorry to use my ability to leave as leverage but you make too many decisions based on poor logic and you do too many shady things. This is incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I have invested my valuable time only to see your friends cheat and get away with it and now us old owners are going to get shafted because you are making a unilateral decision without an explanation. This is a DYNASTY league, we are supposed to be controlling a roster for the rest of our lives and now we can't even re-sign players?
|
|
|
Post by linccainbumvogesan on Nov 4, 2011 10:23:04 GMT -5
Agree in principle we should keep extensions
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM (Chris) on Nov 4, 2011 12:51:17 GMT -5
I Agree with you I have been here since the start to.. Last year was the the point system we took away a lot of different scoring options and it was not even voting on... Then it was this trading of the salary .... And now it's this I agree I put in lot lot of time here to to help this league I saw a lot of owners leave and I saw a lot of new owners come .....
|
|
|
Post by Indians GM (Ed) on Nov 4, 2011 14:24:44 GMT -5
agree with everything except for "the rest of our lives part" lol
|
|
|
Post by Yankees GM (Donald) on Nov 4, 2011 15:00:34 GMT -5
I understand what Sam is trying to do but I agree with everyone else. Extensions need to be fair but I should be able to sign more than three players. Say for example as the Yankees, Cano, Granderson, Montero and say i had him CC contracts expire, i can only franchise one, pay the high dollar of what an out of control owner can for two and lose the fourth? That hurts the long time owners. I do agree with Sam that there has to be a better way and if anything we need cost control. Its ridiculous that certain players are getting paid what they are.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Sam/COMMISSIONER) on Nov 4, 2011 16:02:50 GMT -5
Even with the ranking extension system, teams would sign every player on their team for 7 years, and would never have any free agents. The point of this system is to bring more free agents, and not let teams hog players. We do not want one team dominating the rest. I will consider having more franchise tags and more restricted tags. I have seen this system in many leagues. I do not see how you guys can hate it. If you guys can contribute great ideas or systems, I will think about them. Right now, I see this as the best system, unless you have a lot of free agents. Another idea is depending on how many free agents you have, you get a certain amount of tags. If you do not like a rule, please offer a counter rule.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Travis) on Nov 4, 2011 16:46:49 GMT -5
I think the "cost control" issue came because of Free Agency last year. It's why I had to pay 20M for scott downs, 15M for Brad Hawpe, and 15M for Lance Berkman.
That has nothing to do with extensions. If anything, we need a better system for bidding on free agents, not anything having to do with extensions.
I wouldn't want to extend my whole team, but I would like to extend the players that I choose. No team dominates right now, and if they do, it's because we have made shitty trades. Rockies and Royals got all their guys through trades, not re-signing guys.
As you can see Sam, this isn't just one owner everybody agrees.
Let's keep extensions, and find a way to control the costs of Free Agency.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees GM (Donald) on Nov 4, 2011 17:06:33 GMT -5
I agree we do need to keep extensions but also need to be fair extensions. If i can sign a top player to a shitty deal, I have more money to throw around. That in turn diminishes the talent pool available and forces 20M for scott downs. I think they work together but extensions SHOULD NOT be eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Sam/COMMISSIONER) on Nov 4, 2011 17:14:54 GMT -5
Please give me time to think of a solution to this. I would like to have everyone happy and no one quitting, but I would also like fair rules. I have a lot to do for this league in the next few days, so don't expect everything to be quick. To help me, you guys could be very co-operative and PM me if you have questions that are reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinals GM (Travis) on Nov 4, 2011 17:18:31 GMT -5
I am heading into surgery right now, but I will be thinking of proactive solutions so that we can fix this.
I don't think we are far off from a great situation, but I think that doing away with extensions will take us a step back.
I will try to come up with a system in the next couple days.
|
|
|
Post by Yankees GM (Donald) on Nov 4, 2011 17:20:10 GMT -5
How about not super extensions. Like if a player is say 25-29 can only be signed to a maximum 4-year extension. That way if the player declines, u only have that deal for a specified number of years. 30-35 2 year extensions and 35+ 1 year. You cant sign your own players to more than 3 consecutive extensions.
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM (Chris) on Nov 4, 2011 17:21:56 GMT -5
Nice I like that
|
|
|
Post by Brewers GM (Sam/COMMISSIONER) on Nov 4, 2011 17:33:04 GMT -5
So right now, tags and options are on hold
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Nathan) on Nov 4, 2011 18:39:59 GMT -5
That's not so bad looking back. I drove the bidding to $30 mil for Oswalt and that pissed me off. If we can find some way to keep that silly stuff from happening it would be great.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Steve) on Nov 4, 2011 19:20:54 GMT -5
Salary cap at $200M is part of the problem.... no way anybody is spending $20M on Downs if the cap is $120 - $140 or something like that... changes the way people spend and extend
|
|