06-03-2014, 05:23 PM
(06-03-2014, 04:18 PM)mike Wrote: I fail to see how the risk is changed. If all guys are getting 2 year deals anyway THERE IS NO ADDED RISK. It's the same result. Changing it to 2 years simply does nothing. Now if you wanna move it to 3 or 4 you might have an argument. The evidence is right in front of you. If everyone gets a 2 year deal anyway then why would it somehow be more risky to let a guy go knowing he now has to get a 2 year deal?
Again, it's potentially being stuck with a guy for two years that will move some of the borderline guys down to Type B. Being stuck with an expensive guy that you may not need for two years as opposed to one year is a big deal. With a one year fallback, you can just throw him right back in to FA the following year and try for comp again.
Really it's as simple as 32 > 16. Right now people are thinking, "If I'm wrong and no one bids, I'm only stuck with him for one year. Then I can just release him to FA outright, try my luck with the lesser Type B, or if he has a great year maybe people would buy on him as a Type A now."
At two years it's, "If I'm wrong and no one bids, I'm stuck with him for two years. I can't just wipe my hands clean after a year. I can't just drop him down to Type B. Now I'm hoping he holds up and is still productive, so that I can maybe get Type B two years down the road."
Cleveland Record: 5631-4946 (.532) [2054-2071, 2083-2104, 2110-2135]
AL Post: 16 (ALC), 11 (WC) - ALDS Win: 12 - ALCS Champ: 7 - WS Champ: 4
ALW: Mariners + Angels Record: 1072-864 (.554) [2042-2048, 2105-2110]
AL Post: 3 (ALW), 4 (WC) - ALDS Win: 3 - ALCS Champ: 1 - WS Champ: 1
NLW: Rockies + Padres Record: 3230-2753 (.540) [2017-2042, 2072-2082]
NL Post: 18 (NLW), 4 (WC) - NLDS Win: 7 - NLCS Champ: 4 - WS Champ: 0