Some New, Some Old Suggestions

[mattynokes]

In-Season Re-Signings
As of now you have to offer a new salary larger than the player's current salary in order to re-sign in-season. This makes sense for younger players, but doesn't make sense for aging veterans.

It usually isn't even a problem with the younger players. Jose Rabena would currently want $26M/4. And since older players are usually the ones that are effected by this, that's how it should be approached.

An older player should be willing to take a little less if he's going to be guaranteed more money and more playing time in the long-run. I think it should be how we do the Compensation Player offers- 10% off the salary for each year up to 4 years.

Take for example a player with an expiring contract at the end of the season making $10M and we'll say we're still on Opening Day. If I feel like I could get him for around $7M/2 I would have no interest in signing him until after the season if I have to pay him more. However, if I can sign him to $8M/3 then maybe it makes sense. I save $2M on the current season and still get him for the same total amount for the three seasons. By not taking an offer like this the player risks having a random drop or having a very bad season. Both of which would drive his next contract price down, if he continued playing at all.

1 Year = 100%
2 Years = 90%
3 Years = 80%
4 Years = 70%

Minor League Contracts
Our FA policy is set up to NOT be a first come, first serve basis. Yet when it comes to draft day (or minor league) deals, it is first come, first serve. It shouldn't be that way.

First, let's get rid of the differences in offering a draft day or minor league contract. In the end they're the same. Once a player has 6 years of service time they will be eligible for free agency. So you could sign a guy with 10 years of service time to a draft day deal and he'll be FA eligible the next off-season. All we need is the draft day deal. If you sign a guy to the bottom base offer, you get him until he's FA eligible.

Every team should be able to offer these draft day deals. Like waivers the lowest record would prevail. So (using the 2026 standings) if COL, PIT, and HOU all put in draft day offers PIT would prevail and COL or HOU would have to then offer $500K or higher to be leading the bid.

This will help so whoever is lucky enough to post the player first doesn't get exclusive draft day offer rights. In theory the player should have the greatest chance to play for the team with the lowest record and would rather a contract with a team he could actually play for rather than being a career minor leaguer on a much better team.

Winterball Age Limit
Having an age limit acts like there's a benefit to sending an older player. Age is just a number and shouldn't really effect who you send. If you wanted to send a peaked 31 age 79 overall player, be my guest.

[AndyP]

There are only two parts of this that matter to me:

1) Contract payments: Frankly I think we should heavily frown upon these. We saw the problems with this in Attaway. PS got a discount deal on him and cash. Then tried to trade him for a good bounty and keep the cash. It's wildly unrealistic. If these are going to get posted, they need to be much more conditional.

2) Sign and trades - honor your contracts and this isn't an issue. Pretty simple to me

[mike]

I think these should stronlgy be considered and given much more attention than what they received. To add another suggestion in here similar to the veteran suggestion.

I think that anyone that was signed via FA making under 1mil should able to be re-signed using the 1.33 method. As it right now bench guys are asking like 3mil or more to re-signed. Which is crazy talk. They won`t ever get near that in FA anyway so why not take a small raise and stay with the same team rather than hit FA every year and worry if you will even get signed the next season? Take SS Omar Armenta for example. I put an offer on him every FA period so I can have an emergency defensive utility man. His bat sucks and I dont think he has never had an in game contract reach over a mil (the transactions page is messed up I assume due to eiditng the contract after signing him`) yet this guy wanted 3mil per year to re-sign. Obvioulsy he got released as even if I don`t win back and have him on my team a 9th straight year he won`t be making much more elsewhere.

[Corey]

In Season Re-signings:
Against, I just feel that there is too much of a chance of this being abused. I would not be against a change to the current 4 requirements for 50% release, but don't feel the need to change the rule for in-season re-signings.

Contract Payments:
I do feel it is overdue for the league to have set punishments for a team who makes a deal involving a cash payment and not being able to pay (either draft picks or a cash + future interest option where the team is forced to borrow the money with interest to pay the other team). When I dealt Skipworth to Arizona, I made sure that I always included my part of the contract towards my payroll and was able to make the payment. I also think it is important to stipulate any payments are null and void if the player is traded a second time UNLESS it is agreed upon by the team making the payment.

Sign & Trade:
I'm with Andy, honour your contracts

Waivers:
I'm fine with the changes

Minor League Contracts:
I like that idea, but at the same time I could see an aging player taking the chance to play for a contender over guaranteed time on a team that is guaranteed to be a cellar dweller.

1.33 contracts for bench players:
Good idea in theory and I'm not against it but I'd never use it.

[mattynokes]

Minor League Contracts:
I like that idea, but at the same time I could see an aging player taking the chance to play for a contender over guaranteed time on a team that is guaranteed to be a cellar dweller.

That's still banking on the contender being the first team to post the player's thread. I definitely see the point, but right now it's first come, first serve to offer draft day deals. Plus we could argue that $5.5M/2 from a contender would be more valuable than $4M/3 from a bottom feeder, but that's not how our FA system works.

For the record I like Mike's idea. I don't like it that unless an FA signing comes up for arbitration, you must sign him regularly (even if he has under 6 years of service). Realistically if you sign a guy with arbitration years remaining, you pick up those years of team control. Plus in addition to Mogul being horrible at assessing the top end players, it's also horrible at assessing bottom end players as well. It just doesn't make sense for a player to demand $2-3M when he'll easily return at or under $1M.

Also...

Winterball Age Requirement

An age requirement just doesn't make sense. It makes it seem that there's an advantage to sending an older player over a younger player. For all I care if you want to send a peaked 79 30 age player, go for it!

[Corey]

I agree with no Winterball age requirement in case of any late bloomers but I'd prefer it stay with only non-peaked players.