(09-04-2010, 08:40 PM)psbaseballfan27 Wrote: "Resignings for Players Without An Agent

NEW INFO

Any player 89 or below must be re-signed in game AND have a minimum of 5 year major league service time in order to encourage more realistic contracts and free agency classes.

You may not resign a nonarbitration player with the intent of trading him. If you do this the player will be released and your team will be fined. Sign and trades do not happen in baseball because there's no incentive for the player to agree to one."

As a general concept I have no problem with this rule execept for the two reasons:1. Gm's may have made trades thinking they were getting affordable players for a few years now have to pony up a lot more cash and thus gives a major market team more of an advantage. 2. Gm's thinking that could sign players through arby at a much more reasonable rate went after free agents thinking they have more cap room. However with this new rule teams with some players instead of having to pay lets 3/21 may end up paying an extra 15-20 mil for a good arby player. Again I have no problem with this rule if applied starting next season with teams being given proper notice. Having said that I strongly object with this rule being placed with no notice and no time for teams to adjust.

(09-04-2010, 09:28 PM)dejota Wrote: This was discussed for a long time before being decided and implemented so I don't feel this is out of blue. I don't agree with the approach of targeting players specifically b/c they're 89 w/ really good vitals, it just furthers unreality and can often times lead to a player who should be starting for a small market team riding the pine for a larger market team to the tune of 1 or 2M per season...just because of what? Good timing?

Where-as a useful but ever increasing player is a catalyst for change IRL. He's either nontendered or shipped out to a team that can use him. That either helps small market teams acquire useful talent for cheaper or infuses a generally weak free agent class and the deeper the class the better it is for small market teams. So while short term, yes it's hard to argue that it helps small market teams, but in the big picture I don't think this is a rule that should wait. I'm already forced into that position myself w/ Bourbon and Bourgeious (although I'm getting no interest for some reason that's beyond me...) when in reality I would have to chose between an expensive ass bench that could potentially prevent me from re-signing one of my big boys or nontending and/or trading them.