1901 Off Season Thread

[catcher24]

The initial draft of 1901 players has contract length restrictions. They are posted in the rules thread

That brings up a good question. Will we be able to make them our Franchise Player? Actually, that's how the FP originally came into being. When the CKL formed, the first guy we picked in that draft we got to keep for the original 12M salary for as long as we wanted to keep them. I kept Ron Santo for a dozen seasons at 12M, then dropped him and resigned him as FA at a much lower salary to still let him retire as Legend.
Or will we be able to use the Restricted Free Agent rule when their initial contract is up? It would be good to know that before the draft starts.

I would like to see the option available to designate our first pick in the formation draft a 15M Franchise Player, as we did in the CKL. Barring that, I think they should at least qualify for RFA. One of the two options should be available, IMHO.

[catcher24]

tell you what lew ... i'm willing to swap you your number 1 pick for my spot in the stadium draft at #4 .... and a future 4th rounder

Soooooo close Rich. If you had just offered a future third instead of a fourth it could have been yours!

[buppers]

Ed, you can bet your life on it my friend without worry. I lucked into the #2 pick, and there's only one guy I would take over Fernando.

So you have #2 in 1980 (me 4th) and #1 in 1901 (me 2nd). Congrats !

[Wade8813]

No it isn't at all. When I draft I take whatever player I deem will help my team the most but if I have two players rated fairly even I will take the position player.

That's fine. It's not what you said though.

Regarding Wade's post, you're kind of mixing apples and oranges. If it wasn't for the fact that this is a league formation draft and not a rookie draft, and that there are two everyday players available who many still consider the best ever at their respective positions even though they played over 100 years ago, Mathewson would be an easy top pick. We have had a several rookie drafts in the CKL where the top player taken was a pitcher. It just depends on who else is available. With Wagner (frequently included in all time top 10 player lists) and Lajoie available for everyday play, they just nudge out Mathewson - and not by much, either. It's almost a coin flip.

If Walter Johnson was available as a rookie in 1901, I WOULD make him the top pick, even over Wagner and Lajoie. That's how highly I think of Walter. I guarantee you now, without looking at who else is even a rookie that year, that in 1907 Walter Johnson will go #1.

That's not me mixing things up - that was my entire point.

People say "I can't justify taking a pitcher with the #1 pick no matter how good he is", but if the pitcher was as good as Walter Johnson, you would take him.

[Erik Bedard]

If I have a really high pick and value a pitcher and a hitter close to evenly, I'll generally take the scarcer commodity (so see if you can figure out who's going #1 in the 1980 draft). In this one, though, there's a clear best pick and pitcher/position player shouldn't really factor into it.

[Wade8813]

That brings up a good question. Will we be able to make them our Franchise Player? Actually, that's how the FP originally came into being. When the CKL formed, the first guy we picked in that draft we got to keep for the original 12M salary for as long as we wanted to keep them. I kept Ron Santo for a dozen seasons at 12M, then dropped him and resigned him as FA at a much lower salary to still let him retire as Legend.
Or will we be able to use the Restricted Free Agent rule when their initial contract is up? It would be good to know that before the draft starts.

I would like to see the option available to designate our first pick in the formation draft a 15M Franchise Player, as we did in the CKL. Barring that, I think they should at least qualify for RFA. One of the two options should be available, IMHO.

It was already ruled that the Franchise Player tag is only applied to rookies. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them for 1901 with a penalty (such as your suggested $15 mil instead), but right now that's not what we have.

I'm pretty sure there's no rule against them being RFAs

[jaybird_1981]

That's fine. It's not what you said though.

I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. Remember that if we are ever in trade discussions.

[rmadachik]

The 1901 drafted players are not eligible for either the fanchise tag or the RFA tag. All players drafted in 1901 will be unrestricted free agents at the conclusion of their contracts.

[catcher24]

The 1901 drafted players are not eligible for either the fanchise tag or the RFA tag. All players drafted in 1901 will be unrestricted free agents at the conclusion of their contracts.

Ouch, that hurts, although I don't think it will make a difference as to my pick. I would really like to see some way to keep that first pick. Maybe increase the salary 500K or 1M per season after 1908? I mean, really, the first player we draft is the definition of a Franchise Player - who would you take if starting a new team? Input from anyone else is welcome - maybe we can change Rich's mind.

That does make it much easier to disregard Mathewson though, because in that case he falls out of the top three picks, IMHO. Five of his best seasons will come after he becomes a FA.

Okay, I want to make sure of where I'm at before we begin drafting. This will be the scenario as I see it. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
1. Any player drafted in 1901 who played prior to that season can only be kept as long as the contracts indicated for the formation draft, and become unrestricted free agents thereafter.
2. Any player drafted during the formation draft who was actually a rookie in 1901 CAN be made a franchise player and falls under the RFA rule.

I still wish you would reconsider your stand on the first player drafted. That guy really should be a franchise player somehow.

[rmadachik]

the 1901 draft is not a rookie draft. regardless of when the player actually began his career. I don't feel like every team starts with a level playing field if we have franchise players in the first draft. I would be willing to allow the first 2 rounds be eligible to be RFA's but I don't thing anything further than that.

I would suggest the following addendum to the 1901 redraft post .... any player drafted in the 1st 2 rounds may have a RFA eligible designation assigned to them. In order for this to happen the drafting team must announce their intention to designate that player at the time they are drafted, and that player would then be assigned a maximum 5 year contract, and would become a RFA after their 5th season.

How does that sound for a compromise?

[rmadachik]

I would suggest the following addendum to the 1901 redraft post .... any player drafted in the 1st 2 rounds may have a RFA eligible designation assigned to them. In order for this to happen the drafting team must announce their intention to designate that player at the time they are drafted, and that player would then be assigned a maximum 5 year contract, and would become a RFA after their 5th season.

How does that sound for a compromise?

[buppers]

I suggest keeping in line with rules as written we make it 7 years like future Rookie drafts. Also, make it your 1st round draft pick only.

My .02

[Erik Bedard]

Seconding Ed with 7 years. Definitely think that some players should be RFA eligible, because eight years down the road, they'll be the guys that defined our teams. Isn't that kind of the point of the franchise player rule?

[jaybird_1981]

Making this first draft franchise player eligible is pretty unfair since it was totally random who got those first picks.

[buppers]

Making this first draft franchise player eligible is pretty unfair since it was totally random who got those first picks.

You are right about randomness but I would like to point out that all 12 teams can name a franchise player.
A quick check shows 41 batters who played in 1901 had 2000+ PA's and an OPS+ > 100, 22 pitchers with 2000+ BF's and ERA+ > 100. Those numbers only include PA's and BF's from 1901 forward. Also, only include players who played after 1907 - when the Franchise tag would go into effect. That totals 63 players minimum that could easily qualify as above average players who could reasonably be Franchise players. That means less than 20% of these players would be franchise players. And if you are not happy with your 1st round pick you could wait for a future draft to name a franchise player.

[jaybird_1981]

You are right about randomness but I would like to point out that all 12 teams can name a franchise player.
A quick check shows 41 batters who played in 1901 had 2000+ PA's and an OPS+ > 100, 22 pitchers with 2000+ BF's and ERA+ > 100. Those numbers only include PA's and BF's from 1901 forward. Also, only include players who played after 1907 - when the Franchise tag would go into effect. That totals 63 players minimum that could easily qualify as above average players who could reasonably be Franchise players. That means less than 20% of these players would be franchise players. And if you are not happy with your 1st round pick you could wait for a future draft to name a franchise player.

The initial draft is from every player in MLB not just debuting in one year, which means you will get a huge advantage getting a franchise player from that draft. It wouldn't be fair to those who picked late.

[buppers]

It's no more of an advantage than later. What are odds of team drafting 12th in 1901 getting a franchise player with their 1st round pick? (Approx. 100% - See above) What are odds of a team picking 12th in 1902 and later? I don't think there will be 63 above average players with similar stats in any year after 1901. And, again, if you don't like your 1st rounder you can wait.

[jaybird_1981]

It's no more of an advantage than later. What are odds of team drafting 12th in 1901 getting a franchise player with their 1st round pick? (Approx. 100% - See above) What are odds of a team picking 12th in 1902 and later? I don't think there will be 63 above average players with similar stats in any year after 1901. And, again, if you don't like your 1st rounder you can wait.

The difference is the 1-3 picks in 1901 will be much better than any season in the future on average and it was totally random which makes it unfair.

[catcher24]

I didn't mean to create a big problem. The procedure of keeping the first player drafted at their draft salary for as long as you want was what we did when the CKL was created. The first three teams got Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, with a sizable drop off after that. And I will admit that those three teams did very well in the early going of the CKL. However, that also means they never got a very high draft pick in the rookie draft, so after a couple of years things even out. And they had absolutely no chance at guys like Joe Morgan, Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, etc. The same thing would happen here - whoever gets the top three guys will likely have a decent team for the first few years, meaning they will not get any high draft picks. They can absolutely forget about Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and that level of player. Also, when those guys hit the rookie draft, the worst four teams go into a lottery for them, so that will be randomly decided too, albeit to a lesser degree.

All that being said, at this point I would support Ed's alternative suggestion. Or just say the heck with it and go with Rich's original plan.

[jaybird_1981]

I didn't mean to create a big problem. The procedure of keeping the first player drafted at their draft salary for as long as you want was what we did when the CKL was created. The first three teams got Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, with a sizable drop off after that. And I will admit that those three teams did very well in the early going of the CKL. However, that also means they never got a very high draft pick in the rookie draft, so after a couple of years things even out. And they had absolutely no chance at guys like Joe Morgan, Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, etc. The same thing would happen here - whoever gets the top three guys will likely have a decent team for the first few years, meaning they will not get any high draft picks. They can absolutely forget about Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and that level of player. Also, when those guys hit the rookie draft, the worst four teams go into a lottery for them, so that will be randomly decided too, albeit to a lesser degree.

All that being said, at this point I would support Ed's alternative suggestion. Or just say the heck with it and go with Rich's original plan.

I hate the franchise player idea period honestly. The difference between the 1st round pick in various years is far to great. I have ran the Iron for over 10 years now in the CKL and the best option I have ever gotten for a FP is Pedro Guerrero. That is why I have decided to totally tank 1980 to perhaps get a difference maker for a change.

[Erik Bedard]

Ed and Lew make excellent points, and I agree with them. But even if we don't allow 1901 drafted players to be franchised, I'm strongly in favor of them being RFAs if they're still with their original team at the end of their first (max 7 year) contract. It's an advantage for some of the people drafting early, sure, but not nearly as much of one as the franchise player, plus it promotes some level of continuity.

[leecemark]

--I'd be in favor of allowing the startup draft players (or just the first pick or first 2 picks or whatever) to be eligible for RFA, especially with Rich's suggestion of them having fewer locked up in exchange for it. I wouldn't complain if 1901 draftees were eligible for beig franchise players either, although with RFA I'd be fine with doing away with the franchise player concept altogethertoo.

[rmadachik]

There will definately not be any franchise players from the 1901 redraft.

I suggested reducing the number of seasons to 5 before having 1901 players eligible for RFA in order to create more of a risk/reward for making that decision. The way I set up the original rule, all players in round 1-3 would be inrestricted free agents after a max of 8 years. I felt like it was reasonable for owners to want those players to be RFA but i feel like there should be a tradeoff for that. and that tradeoff is that owners risk losing those players earlier or at worst having their payroll go way up to keep them.

That makes the descision on whether to make a player an RFA in the hands of the owner, and they have to risk a little more in order to reap the added benefit of 5 additional seasons

For example - a first round pick can be signed for up to 8 seasons for 15M. You are guaranteed his service for only 8 years. if you declare him to be RFA eligible you are guaranteed 5 years and guaranteed salary matching rights for his career. A second round pick is an even easier choice. They are already only guaranteed 6 seasons. The risk is that you will have to deal with escalating salaries sooner, and that risk balances the reward of lifetime RFA rights.

Also, i would make it at least the first 2 rounds in order to even out a little of the benefit to teams that draft later in round 1

[rmadachik]

In light of this debate, and in looking at the reality of how the RFA Label helps retain players I think we should put up to a vote whether we keep the franchise player rule in place as written or get rid of the franchise player entirely. We will go with majority rule on this one.

[scubadan]

I want to make sure I understand the difference between a RFA and a FA. I have observed an old CKL FA thread and that's pretty straightforward; bidding continues until high bidder wins. But if I understand the RFA process correctly, there is only one round of blind bids. Once the high bid is revealed, the existing owner can match to keep the player. Is that right?

If I do understand the difference correctly, the RFA rule is a great way to retain a great player but doesn't give an owner any financial motivation to do so. If after X years Honus Wagner is a RFA, his owner may have to pay 20-25M to keep him.

I guess if we are going to keep the FP rule, I would think it should apply to the 1901 draftees as well as future draftees. Sure, someone else lucked into Honus Wagner in this draft but in the future someone else will luck into Johnson or Cobb. If the FP rule won't apply to 1901 draftees, it might as well not be there in future years either. One might argue that the 1st round pick this year was unlucky compared to the owner who has Johnson or Cobb fall in his lap. We've already heard one owner state that contract lengths and restrictions might change who the top ranked players are in this draft and that just doesn't seem right. The best players should be the first ones drafted. I think we've created a situation similar to the old MLB first year player draft where the best players (over their career) may not be drafted early due to contract concerns.

That being said, I think the FP rule might be a little too sweet. I think 15M per year might be more fair. If you assume a premier player to be worth something around 20M per year, this would be a 25% discount from market value compared the 40% discount that 12M respresents. Another owner mentioned tanking a season in the CKL to get a shot at a FP. I could see this happening in years when superstars are rookies and I don't think any rule should create such an advantage as to tank a season to get it.