Designation of per decade franchise players

[leecemark]

--We have already approved the motion of allowing each team to designate one franchise player drafted each decade. The next franchise opportunity will be for players drafted between 1970-79. This poll will decide when that designation must be made. The options are to require a player to be designated and assigned the 12M salary immediately upon being drafted or allow the desination to be made (and salary assigned) when they reach arbitration eligibility after their third season.
--The immediate desigation was our policy to the orginal set of franchise players and would also be in affect for the 1969 franchise teams (they would have only a single opportunity to designate a 60s player from the 1969 draft). The deferred option would allow a little budgeting flexibilty and also make it a little less likely you'll suffer buyers remorse from desiganting a good player only to have a great one fall into your lap in the next draft (or two).
--I'm going to hold off on my own vote and encourage some further discussion on this subject. Poll closes in 7 days so please share your ideas and cast your vote in that window.

[Erik Bedard]

It just seems to me like teams shouldn't have to pay 12M for a player's not-so-great seasons. For example, say Jeremy Guthrie of the O's goes on to put up a fantastic career and makes the Hall of Fame. When we get to 2004, somebody will probably take him, and possibly make him their FP. Even though his first decent season was in 2007, he would still have to be paid 12M for the three seasons where he did nothing of use under the current rule. However, if the rule were changed, he would only be paid 12M for the first season where he's eligible for a call-up, as well as the start of his great years.

[leecemark]

--Basically you would be overpaying early in exchange for; a) getting him at below market value later and b) never having to risk him on the market in the first place. It certainly possible that you could go a whole decade without ever being in a position where you draft a guy worth overpaying 6 years to keep at 12M for as long as you want him. If you are successfull enough (or recklessly trade away enough draft choices:noidea ) you might not even get a guy worth overpaying for 3 years.

[catcher24]

Just a note to be notified of replies. I personally don't care for the rule at all, so I'll let the others vote and then live with the decision.

However, the one option I would actually vote for isn't listed - at any time prior to free agency. It would make perfect sense for a team to offer a player a long term (franchise type) contract to keep them from leaving as a free agent.

[leecemark]

--Poll closes tomorrow with only 5 votes cast to this point.

[catcher24]

Mark - Would it be worth running the poll again, with the third option of anytime prior to free agency? As I indicated, that would be my vote, and others might feel the same. Or maybe they just didn't see it.

[J W]

Looks like the vote is tied through half the owners' votes. Mark wanted only two options here; that's why we whittled it down from last time.

I guess if we don't get any more votes, I'll change mine so we can get this over and done with. It can work either way IMO.

[leecemark]

--I offered that as one of the options, but wanted to narrow it to 2 choices before posting the poll to ensure one option would get a majority - and nobody indicated that was their choice (I know you were on vacation and had limited opportunity to comment). Hasn't exactly worked out the way I hoped though. Majority support seems unlikely, but if we can't have that our original position of immediate designation is at least leading for the moment.
--I agree that before hitting free agency most closely mirrors real life, but being able to delay it that long and still be guarenteed to have that player locked up at below market value is a pretty big discount to offer. If you wait that long I think you ought to have to go the home town discount route and pay something close to market value.

[leecemark]

--I don't feel especially good about this measure passing 4-3, but so be it. The rule on future franchise players is; a) each team may designate one such player per decade at a salary of 12M per season for as long as they wish to retain them and b) that designation must be made following the players third season. The first opportunity to use this new rule will be for players drafted 1970-79 (then 80-89, etc). The franchise designation may only be placed on a player you drafted and retained. A player acquired in trade may not be a franchise player and the franchise designation can not be transferred (i.e. a franchise player traded would be subject to annual raises and free agency following his 6th season).
--One final issue we haven't addressed is what to do about a franchise player traded after what would have been his free agent year. I propose that a player in that situation traded mid-season would be a free agent at the close of the season (i.e. a rent-a-player). I think the trading of a franchise player after his free agent year be prohibited during the offseason. If you don't want him at 12M he would have to be non-tendered. The only other reasonable option would be to allow them to be traded and granted free agency after one season with their new team. Just having them forever off the free agent market once their franchise tag is lost does not seem reasonable to me. Other thoughts on this?

[catcher24]

If we were trying to mirror reality, I'd go with your first suggestion of the player being a FA at the end of the season (rent-a-player). Since we are not trying to mirror reality, and we certainly don't want the new team to have the player for many years at 12M, I'd suggest a compromise: a team trading for another team's franchise player can sign him to a 12M contract for 3 to 5 years (same as a FA signed for 8M+) at which point the player becomes a free agent and enters the market, or lets him become a FA at the end of the current season. I have to believe a team trading for another team's franchise player is giving up something of value, and having the player for only the rest of the season doesn't seem fair.

[leecemark]

--Well they know they are (well would be if this became policy) only getting a rent a player so they shouldn't be giving up too much value. If one of the original franchise players was traded they were at risk of being a free agent after only one season. I spent 25M for one year of Gene Oliver as insurance against losing former Redbirds FP Billy Williams. The intent of the franchise player rule is to keep them not make them a more valuable trading chip.

[leecemark]

--Unfortunately discussion on this has been pretty limited. This is the proposed rule for traded franchise players; a) players would be designated as FP following their 3rd season and signed to a 3 year 12M a year deal at that point, b) the original team would be able to renew that 12M deal one season at a time for as long as they wished, C) if traded in that original 3 year deal the new team would assume it and the player would be a free agent at the end of the deal like any other 6 year player, D) if traded after their free agent year (7th season or beyond) the receiving team would have the option of signing that player to a multi-year deal beginning with their first full season, E) the value of that contract would be based on it length with 1M added (above the current 12M) for each year of the deal - a 1 year extension would be at 13M, a 2 year deal at 14, 3 at 15, 4 at 16 with a max 5 year deal at 17M, F) The traded player would be a free agent of that contract.
--Comments still encouraged as this is a tenative rule at this point. Lack of comment will be interpreted as agrrement with the proposal.

[catcher24]

Mark - I like the way you did it. A couple small additions from what we discussed, but I think useful and necessary ones. I wrote up a proposed section for our league bylaws and have copied it here for all to review and comment on. One thing I added that we didn't discuss and your tentative rule didn't mention was a trade made during the season. I figured the player's one year contract at 12M would have to go with him, and the acquiring team would pick up the 12M. Then, they could give a contract during the off season, based on the contract structure you outlined above.

Please review this proposed section, and make any comments or suggestions you wish.


5. FRANCHISE PLAYERS
Beginning with the 1970 Rookie Draft, each team may designate one player as a Franchise Player per decade (1970 to 1979; 1980 to 1989; 1990 to 1999; 2000 to 2010). Rules concerning Franchise Players are:
A. The player must be one that was originally drafted as a rookie and retained by the designating team.
B. The designation of Franchise Player shall be made after the player’s third season, where the salary doubling would normally occur. Once the Franchise Player designation is given a player, he is automatically given a three year contract at 12M per year. Once this original three year contract expires, the designating team may continue to sign the Franchise Player to one year contracts, each at 12M per year.
D. The Franchise Player remains with the designating team for as long as the team owner desires, at the 12M per year salary. The player does not become a free agent after his sixth season.
E. A Franchise Player who is traded by his original team loses the Franchise Player tag and is treated as follows:
1. If the player is traded during his three year contract period (player years 4 thru 6), the contract remains in effect for it’s duration, and the player becomes a free agent when the contract expires (end of player year six).
2. If the player is traded once he on a one year contract at 12M (past the sixth player year):
a. If traded during the season, his current contract for 12M will be valid through the end of the season. The team trading for the player has the option of signing the player to a contract extension, based on the salary structure outlined in section b below.
b. If traded during the off season, the acquiring team must sign the player to a contract. The amount of the contract will depend on the number of years the player is signed for: one year contract, 13M per year; two year contract, 14M per year; three year contract, 15M per year; four year contract, 16M per year; and five year contract, 17M per year. The player may not be signed to a contract for more than five years. When the contract expires, the player becomes a free agent.

[leecemark]

--Last chance to comment on this. This will be added to the league rules as written above barring objections between now and the draft start up tomorrow night. Please check the expansion discussion also. I'd like to have the details of that ironed out in the next week.

[catcher24]

Mark - Looks like we have a rule, unless there is a lot of opposition today. If not, I'll try to get the rules on the website updated ASAP, and send along a copy to JW, who I think is editing them for this thread.

[J W]

The rules are certainly close to what I envisioned. The only wrinkle would be increase in salary the larger the contract extension (once traded). I assume the new team gets exclusive rights?

That's fine... I'll post it on the rules thread whenever I get the ok.

[leecemark]

--Post away JW. yes, the new team would have exclusive rights to the one contract.