Arbitration Discussion

[Rays GM 北海道日(Will)]

I've been thinking about adjust the whole arbitration process. Some proposals.

1)Doing arbitration amounts by just fantrax ranking. 

It makes it easier to calculate, and speeds up the process. So if a player fell in the top 10 of their category, they would be assigned a salary for that category. 

2)Disallowing salaries to regress based on prior year performance.

Players on scale shouldn't have a smaller salary then the year before. For instance, a 2 who earned $5 million should not earn less than $5 million as a 3. Even if they fell into a performance category that paid below $5 million, they would still earn that amount.

3) Higher Salaries for first year players

I dunno about this, but I feel .3 is a bit too light. .5 is better.

4)Just make IFA signing year round whenever, but waivers can only be done during the regular season, and after turnover.

I mean, who cares if someone signs some random left over 16 year old. This isn't a huge deal. The limitation on waivers makes more sense.

[Pirates GM (Caleb)]

I think #2 is bad for trading even if cap is reworked. Like everything else.

[The LA Angels of Anaheim GM]

Agree with 4

[Jays GM (Sanders)]

for 3 I dont think we need to make rookies cost .5 its only for 1 year of their service time before theyre .5 anyway

and for 4, waivers and ifa will still be closed from end of our regular season until turnover

[Yankees GM (Justin)]

I like #1 but Fantrax rating does all those calcs for us already. Why categorize and assign values ourselves?

[Mets GM (Jack)]

All pointless, current rules are fine regarding all of these

[Brewers GM (Marty)]

1. using a % discount based on service time then a fantrax ranking would work best. it's likely a more accurate way to compute salary than what we use. we'd just need to figure out a proper range of salaries. Likely not something we can do this year. so basically assign a $$$ value for a range, then use the % discounts that we already use for performance on players with year 4-6 service time. on top of that, it would make changeover much simpler and take less time.

2. players cannot make less money from year to year in arbitration no matter what happens, why do it here? our salary cap is already higher than the average spending on a per-team basis than MLB and they have this rule. and no I do not really believe that anyone plans out more than 1-2 years and can't deal with those ramifications. honestly, do you ever plan on a totally lost season from any of your players? b/c that's how your guys drop in salary already.

3. This one is also closer to more realistic, but i also don't think it really matters. .5/.7/1M then 2M base for years 4-6.

4. wait until after the changeover and salaries are calculated. that's the real reason waivers can't be done, and if you can't sign a FA for more than your available cash, why should you be able to sign an IFA without knowing what your available cash is? Are we going to invalidate any signing that takes you over after the fact and award that player to the next highest bidder?