+- 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: In addition to rocky's suggestion (/showthread.php?tid=25367)
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mattynokes - 05-23-2014
We still had questionable SPs signed and had questionable players signed the previous off-season. The issue is that a Type A pick will net you a pretty good prospect (usually around 88 peak). That's quite a good prospect to get for role players.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - rockybull - 05-24-2014
(05-23-2014, 07:03 PM)mike Wrote: I don't think we need 1. The whole panic was that those couple guys who clearly shouldn't be type a comps would get signed. Unless I'm mistaken they didn't so the teams got stuck with them. 5 I do like though. It's way too easy to fleece the AI as it is so shortening that a bit is always good in my eyes.
you are mistaken. atterman got signed, and haller got signed as well (i didn't originally mention him, only because the Orioles didn't have their resignings done at that time, but if they would have, i would have mentioned him along with atterman). i don't think neither one was worth type A at all. what i have noticed is some of the hitters won't get signed, but if you have a youngish SP (atterman) good chance he gets signed even as a type A as we saw. And some pitchers that pitched well recently (haller) but isn't that good vitals wise looks like they will get type A for them as well cause people seem to crave pitching in FA. these guys shouldn't be netting these teams 30's overall picks with minimum risk, and yes it's not a big risk for them to offer what they did. 2/16 is a much much bigger risk and we won't see near as much of this, i don't think.
i don't want to get in a big argument about this again, we all know where you stand, and we all know where i stand. there's no more arguments to be made, the admin team needs to probably talk it out and figure out if this would benefit the league or not.
i will say this, to me, if it doesn't change, that's fine because i'm a small market team and it would hurt me more for 2/16 (but i would prefer 2/16 because it's just more fair for the league), but if it stays same like it is right now, i'm taking advantage of this every single chance that i can in the future. if others will, i definitely will. because, 1/16 is just not a big risk to take if i have a decent starting pitcher, i'll take the risk even if i'm a small market team, because the risk is not that great at all, and having a chance to get a 30's overall pick is well worth the risk IMO. hitters, i would have to think twice on, but it's pretty clear that teams are targeting pitching a lot more in FA than type a or b hitters, and all it takes is one team to bid, as we saw with atterman and haller. and i guarantee you others are witnessing what's going on and will do same thing, but league can do what they want.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mike - 05-24-2014
The hitting side I can agree with. But with the pitchers your mentioning, Atterman got signed to a 2 year deal anyway so I don't see that changing at all. People always need pitching. Camp went for over 30mil in FA. So on Haller paying 16mil seems about right for what your going to pay in FA for a middle of the road pitcher.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - Vertigo - 05-24-2014
FWIW, I would've offered Atterman the fallback even at 2/16. Because I have more than enough payroll flexibility even for a 2 yr deal. So to take what I felt was a decent chance of someone needing pitching enough to sign him, was easily worth the risk.
It wasn't the amount/length of the fallback that deemed the risk worth taking as much as it is what my current financial situation is.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - rockybull - 05-24-2014
(05-24-2014, 11:33 AM)Vertigo Wrote: FWIW, I would've offered Atterman the fallback even at 2/16. Because I have more than enough payroll flexibility even for a 2 yr deal. So to take what I felt was a decent chance of someone needing pitching enough to sign him, was easily worth the risk.
It wasn't the amount/length of the fallback that deemed the risk worth taking as much as it is what my current financial situation is.
You were in a situation where you have sooo much money that maybe you would offer it anyway just for the hell of it, but a lot of teams aren't in same boat. I guarantee that 2/16 will make a lot of GM's think twice about it, in fear of the risk getting severely burned. I know for me going forward, the 2/16 will not allow me the chance to offer the Atterman's of the world Type A fallback, but as it currently stands, I'll offer it and not think twice about it, even if I'm around my budget or a little over, because it's not a huge enough risk for me, when I could potentially get a 30's overall pick. The reward greatly outweighs the low risk. I don't know if Orioles would have offered it, and not sure if anyone would have went 2 years on haller, and again maybe someone would have, it's hard to tell. We would just be speculating at this point.
Maybe the 2/16 doesn't solve all the problems (nothing is ever going to solve everything) but I think it will greatly help, since not all the teams are in same shape that the Giants are. A lot of teams just couldn't offer 2/16 in that situation, unless the player was real good, maybe the Giants could have anyway, but you're always going to have some situations like this. Again, nothing will completely fix all of the problems.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - Cdawg - 05-24-2014
As I've already pointed out, since this system has gone into effect, no Type A player has been signed to less than a 2 year 16M deal. most initial offers on those borderline cats is for 2 years anyway(as it's a waste to give them just the 1 year.)
The only thing making us do 1 does it make the Team the player is leaving, think if it's worth a 16M deal, and we already deem it ok in the first place, it's just adding that extra year. I just feel as tho this is a rule to make a rule.
This is the first year since we started the new system that I think a Type A hasn't been signed. And thats more a product of the budget cut than people not really wanting his talent.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - Vertigo - 05-24-2014
Yeah, I agree Rocky. It would make the decision tougher if I wasn't in such good shape financially. I'm still probably taking the chance either way because Atterman's age makes it less risky imo, but it wouldn't have been the no-brainer risk that it was as a 1-year commitment.
I mean, he's really just entering the prime of his career. He's also pitching pretty well for Colorado thus far.
A whole lot of factors went into me offering the fallback.
1 The chance that somebody signed him at that price only having to give up a 5th round pick. I thought were pretty good ... Quite frankly, I would've done it.
2 If he wasn't signed, could I afford and be willing to pay him that much. Absolutely.
3 His age. 28 years old. There's a good chance, at a 2 year deal, you could be getting his best years.
4 His vitals are pretty decent, his health is good
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - mattynokes - 05-24-2014
(05-24-2014, 12:15 PM)Cdawg Wrote: As I've already pointed out, since this system has gone into effect, no Type A player has been signed to less than a 2 year 16M deal. most initial offers on those borderline cats is for 2 years anyway(as it's a waste to give them just the 1 year.)
The only thing making us do 1 does it make the Team the player is leaving, think if it's worth a 16M deal, and we already deem it ok in the first place, it's just adding that extra year. I just feel as tho this is a rule to make a rule.
This is the first year since we started the new system that I think a Type A hasn't been signed. And thats more a product of the budget cut than people not really wanting his talent.
That is extremely incorrect. We've had four Type A players sign to the only offer given. None of them would've beaten out a $16M/2 fallback.
SP Attermann ($14.5M/2) [Would've Needed $16M/2] - Seeing how Cadmus initially thought total offer beats out fallback, the extra $1.5M per year might have been more to add in than it seems. Speaking of "seems". While it seems Attermann has done well in Colorado so far, he's been wildly inconsistent since his first three starts (4.45 ERA in his past nine starts).
SP Haller ($16M/1) [Would've Needed $16M/2] - The fact that a Type A only got a one year offer from one person speaks volumes. I don't blame gmoney, I might've done the same, since the system's current risk-rewards favors the releasing team.
1B McCoy ($12.8M/3) [Would've Needed $14.4M/3] - I was surprised McCoy only got one, minimum valid offer. However, right or wrong, no one else in the league saw it as a good decision.
RP Pym ($9.8M/4) [Would've Needed $11.2M/4] - He was a large part of why Type A fallback went from $14M to $16M. Pym was largely scrutinized on the podcast and by others in the chat. He's been average so far and I don't see a miracle happening to a regressing mid 70s.
Then there's two more that got very little interest.
CF Drinkard ($14M/2) [Would've Needed $14M/2] - Admittedly, for the fallback price at that time, he would've just made the cut for the prorated two year offer.
SP Lloyd ($13M/2) [Would've Needed $14M/2] - All things combined and I don't think he'd be offered on the $16M/2 fallback.
This is 6 of 16 Type A's signed that were questionable and only one offer would've been good if the Type A fallback at that time was two years.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - AndyP - 05-24-2014
Except what Cdawg said wasn't "extremely incorrect" and you strawmanned his position. His point was that virtually none of the Type A players were signed for only one year. The argument is that adding a second year would force team's hands, but most players are already getting 2 or more year offers. In fact, only 1 out of 16 have had that happen.
Your argument is that it would've taken a bit more cash each time or wouldn't have beaten those offers out, but the years are not the problem. As others are pointing out, most teams wouldn't have flinched at a bit more cash. In all likelihood all of those offers would've been beaten out because they are only mildly different than what would've been required.
You're arguing a counterfactual as if it's truth. Cdawgs point is actual truth - more than one year wasn't stopping anyone in the vast majority of cases.
RE: In addition to rocky's suggestion - Cdawg - 05-24-2014
You know what, I'm mistaken, I was looking at it from the perspective of the old systems. Still I think Haller and Atterman were by products of the budget cuts and Lloyd, Pym and Drinkard victims of the old system, and can't be held to the exact same standards.
Quote: i don't think neither one was worth type A at all.Also, just to get a barb in... can we really trust Rocky's judgment on talent after his recent trade????? :P