+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: FA Changes? (/showthread.php?tid=23192)
Pages:
1
2
RE: FA Changes? - AndyP - 01-06-2014
What, exactly, does this NTC stuff gain us?
FA is messy, unrealistic, and impossible to facilitate in a way that makes everyone happy. This solves nothing but adds one more thing to signing FA deals. If you want to raise minimums, fine.
RE: FA Changes? - warpriest - 01-06-2014
Well, Admittedly I am not certain about Ellsbury. But the very first thing I read on Cano specifially connected with the Mariners, the numbers had him at 10/YRS 260MM, and the final contract agreement was 10 and 240m. You suggest a GM would be laughed at if he took this position and we'll have to agree to disagree. The vast majority of NTC's benefit the player; not the team and I feel it is reasonable to affix a monetary value on that.
That all said, I do like the increased minimum bids and the posssible of nixing options altogether. Those two are good ideas.
RE: FA Changes? - mattynokes - 01-06-2014
(01-06-2014, 04:35 PM)AndyP Wrote: What, exactly, does this NTC stuff gain us?
FA is messy, unrealistic, and impossible to facilitate in a way that makes everyone happy. This solves nothing but adds one more thing to signing FA deals. If you want to raise minimums, fine.
The NTC part isn't a deal braker. I just feel it keeps people more honest in their bids instead of knowing they can freely trade the player if it doesn't work out after a year or two.
RE: FA Changes? - Steal Third - 01-06-2014
still think the FA tool is cleaner and easier....