Type A/B Arbitration suggestion

Corey · 09-23-2010, 01:18 AM

Personally I think arbitration on the Type A and B guys should be done before free agency opens. The way it is right now, a GM can basically just wait until a bid has already been posted and then say they agree to the arbitration.

That is like the GM saying "yes, I'd like a free draft pick".

By doing arbitration before free agency opens it makes the GM consider whether they actually want the player or not.

'PR' · 09-23-2010, 07:21 AM

I agree with this suggestion 100%

dejota · (This post was last modified: 09-23-2010, 10:49 AM by dejota.)

Well the intention wasn't for it to play out this way. i'm very close to preventing any team who didn't offer arby to get compensation. When will you guys grow up and quit making us have to come up w/ rules?

I mean because of this crap, we have to make a rule which then requires a post which some may or may not see. Which then leads to confusion/anger when GMs play the "I don't know how X works" card all, of which, could've been prevented by you guys using your heads and trying to play ball.

I mean Mstrpr you're one of the teams in question...

I shouldn't have to baby you guys, if you don't understand how something works ASK. I'm always more than happy to help anybody with anything. This playing the loopholes and calling it human nature crap isn't going to keep flying. Capiche?

ezpkns34 · 09-23-2010, 11:50 AM

Dad's mad

GoIrish · 09-23-2010, 11:53 AM

Here are my thoughts on the process. I really like what DJ is doing here with compensation, it makes sense. The whole deal behind compensation is to compensate teams that cannot keep a player because of financial contraints. It should not be a benefit to a team that does not want to resign X player because they can get a 1st or 2nd round pick when they could resign the player.

Here is what I propose in the future. In order to receive compensation you have to have an offer in on the player for fair market value (which most likely could be under what he is asking for in game) or if you are handcuffed financially it has to be for what you can afford. You cannot offer a 3 year min contract when you are millions under your budget.

I think something like that will make the process work as intended and give compensation when it truely is needed.

ezpkns34 · 09-23-2010, 11:55 AM

(09-23-2010, 11:53 AM)GoIrish Wrote: Here is what I propose in the future. In order to receive compensation you have to have an offer in on the player for fair market value (which most likely could be under what he is asking for in game) or if you are handcuffed financially it has to be for what you can afford. You cannot offer a 3 year min contract when you are millions under your budget.

That's what this "1 year arbitration via the Calculate Salaries Option" is supposed to be

***AndyP*** · 09-23-2010, 12:17 PM

I do agree that the arbitration decision should be done prior to FA. We should ask GMs to post it as part of their offseason resignings. "Release player X, but offering arbitration for the purposes of compensation" type thing.

That said - this system was rushed into place as well. People should ask if they're confused, but we should expect confusion when we don't have it firmly in place. It's easy to be pissed at lazy punks who don't read something that was posted for over a month, something posted a day or two before free agency is entirely different.

I don't want this to come off the wrong way either, but I think in general this league does a really shitty job clarifying changes. At any given point there may be three parts of the forum (suggestions, news, rules, and hell even the top banner) that communicate things that have changed or cements something as a new rule. In IFA we had Scotty's post saying one thing and DJ's another. People are constantly confused about who has an agent and how the compensatino works with agents because there are three different discussions happening at different parts of the forum on the same topic. At some point, when there is enough consistent confusion, you have to start looking at how it's being communicated too. Don't bite my head off....just sayin'

Scott · 09-23-2010, 12:48 PM

(09-23-2010, 10:48 AM)dejota Wrote: Well the intention wasn't for it to play out this way. i'm very close to preventing any team who didn't offer arby to get compensation. When will you guys grow up and quit making us have to come up w/ rules?

I mean because of this crap, we have to make a rule which then requires a post which some may or may not see. Which then leads to confusion/anger when GMs play the "I don't know how X works" card all, of which, could've been prevented by you guys using your heads and trying to play ball.

I mean Mstrpr you're one of the teams in question...

I shouldn't have to baby you guys, if you don't understand how something works ASK. I'm always more than happy to help anybody with anything. This playing the loopholes and calling it human nature crap isn't going to keep flying. Capiche?

I agree with this.

(09-23-2010, 12:17 PM)AndyP Wrote: I do agree that the arbitration decision should be done prior to FA. We should ask GMs to post it as part of their offseason resignings. "Release player X, but offering arbitration for the purposes of compensation" type thing.

But also agree with this. I think me and DJ would be fine doing it this way next year

dejota · 09-23-2010, 12:57 PM

That was the idea :) I'll update the massive rules post to reflect it more clearly so there's hopefully less confusion next offseason.

'PR' · (This post was last modified: 09-23-2010, 03:16 PM by 'PR'.)

Sorry....I don't understand what's going on after having GMs post arby before deals. Thought that with our new system it was a good idea. I thought posting arby before the players hit FA was the way the rule was suppose to be in the first place. If this is about Okajima, we noticed no one was picking up on him so we decided hell why don't we bring him back and see if by some miracle he has the same year next year.

Sorry if I'm annoying DJ