12-10-2017, 03:26 PM
(12-10-2017, 03:00 PM)mattynokes Wrote:(12-09-2017, 08:44 PM)texas_tornado Wrote:(12-09-2017, 08:27 PM)mattynokes Wrote: While I prefer what I originally posted, I'm not opposed to doing away with A/B designations. I do still like the thresholds. Whatever we raise the Fallback to, I think people will still have those "Ah, fuck it" bids in the 11th hour simply because they have the payroll space. So, I would say...
Fallback: 10Mx2
Type B Pick = 25M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+
If a player signs for 20M-24.9M, it's treated like a normal FA signing. No one gains a pick, no one loses a pick.
This is the format I like best atm. Even good with going higher with:
Fallback: 12.5Mx2
Type B Pick = 30M-49.9M
Type A Pick = 50M+
After thinking about it, I still like the format where there's a threshold the best. I think we should either leave Fallback at 8Mx2 or if we're going to change it, only raise it to 10Mx2.
I like the degree of uncertainty and risk that the threshold brings. It's much like the risk on choosing Type A or B. I do not like raising Fallback to 12.5Mx2, I think that will cause GMs to not give up players to FA.
Fallback: $8Mx2 or $10Mx2
Type B Pick: $25M-$49.9M
Type A Pick: $50M+
No Pick: $16M-$24.9M or $20M-$24.9M
I didn't really take into account the idea of raising the fallback too high causing GM's to simply re-sign their guys rather than send them to FA, so I'd agree that keeping the fallback at 2/8M and letting the total contract decide compensation is probably better overall for FA.
Houston GM
2060 - present
Playoffs: 20 (Division '68 - '73, '78, '81 -'86, '88, '05-'10)
ALDS Wins: 11 ('68, '70 - '73, '83, '94, '06 - '09)
ALCS Wins: 6 ('71, '73, '83, '06, '08, '09)
2073 WS Champs
2060 - present
Playoffs: 20 (Division '68 - '73, '78, '81 -'86, '88, '05-'10)
ALDS Wins: 11 ('68, '70 - '73, '83, '94, '06 - '09)
ALCS Wins: 6 ('71, '73, '83, '06, '08, '09)
2073 WS Champs