New Developing player rule

[Diamondbacks GM (Jason)]

My original rant: well, straily was bid on for $50 Million not 10M. There is a HUGE difference between bidding 50M over 5 yrs and just paying for him in 1 year 10M then him becoming a regular spec. I understand the rule, but it was started with mccarthy. There should be no way that we can go backwards and change things that have already happened. If people knew straily was being bid on like this I am guaranteeing that people would have bid more than 10M on him if they new they only had to pay once price for him and only pay that one price in 12. If straily is going to be under this rule he should just be rebid on. If he is not going to be open for every to rebid then straily's salary should be the 5 yr 10M that was originally given to him by rays.

[Diamondbacks GM (Jason)]

I understand that the commish is here to make and enforce rules. I also feel like if there is a problem with one of those rules we should be able to run this league more like a democracy as well, while MIKE and ALEX have control. This is a rule that is really detrimental to the league, not because of what it does, but because of the precedent that it sets. To me in any league like this you can not go back in time and change things that are done, unless there has been a mistake (Starling Marte)

To me there are a few ways to run a team. I know i said this before, but its because it's important. Some people have money left over for this year. 2012 money is pretty much worthless at this point to anyone, that does change a little with the new rule. So if people knew that they only had to spend 2012 money to win these guys teams could have went much higher and prolly would have. We cannot just assume that what a team paid for 1 year of a players contract now gets that player. If you paid 10M for a player and did it for 5 years you offered him 50M not 10M. To me that a major difference and this rule may not only change the winner but could change the people that actually bid. I use straily as an example only because he was a recent big ticket player. I tried get straily a few weeks ago, but he was taken down because he didnt pitch in the majors yet (the was the rule, it made sense) Then he came up and was up for bid again, I Liked him a lot, but when he went over 5M for 5yrs I knew i was out. I say this not because I want straily and I am a not being a baby, but because IF i only had to bid on him with 2012 money I would have went much higher, it was the 5 yr contract that I didnt want to compete with.

I really think if nothing else this should be something the league votes on
1) changing the contracts of all player that were one in 2012 is crazy to me. (It's like changing the points of categories in the middle of a live draft)

2) Draw a line in the sand, the rule was mentioned with brandon mccarthy, he is the first player affected by this rule and so will every player thereafter.

3) We wait until next season or the off season to begin this rule.

[Tigers GM (Alex)]

I was not involved at all in the decision making of this rule, I didn't even hear about it until I saw the trade thread. That said, I don't really care which direction it goes in.

I do believe the option 2 is the best one though. Going back and bidding on all signed DP's this year would be ridiculous, and I agree that it's unfair to change their contracts after they've been signed. To start the rule with McCarthy makes the most sense.

[Deleted]

IMO the way it was is the way it should stay when mike first came up with this rule it made alot of sense to give relief to people who were stuck with those stupid contracts myself included i get that its going to be a bit unfair to a few owners for this year to allow the people who already have them to just keep them and lower it but i think its popular consensus a re-bid would be absolutely ridiculous and leaving it as is is almost worst to be honest when everyone can agree that the rule as it was wasnt working. i think people should be a little more compassionate for that fact then oh its unfair because maybe i could've had him when it serves a better overall purpose to give relief to everyone who ever signed a DP to get them off these stupid contracts and just throw them on the scale like a nomal spect and if the lump sum rule isnt how were going to go permantly moving forward we have the offseaso to take care of that but for this season and this season alone and all previous we should just get this stupid rule out of the system and stop forcing people to continue to be punished by if nothing else procrasination because this rule should've never been like that and i said that before i ever even bid on straily treating them like normal FA doesnt make sense bidding a set amount on them and then they become normal young players does. i dont think this sets a precedent moving forward i think it says that were willing to fix something thats broken and be reasonable about doing it.

I get for 2012 it may be unfair to a few owners who might have had a shot but i also think its alot more fair to allow the people stuck with DPs on any contract big or small to just finish paying it in 2012 and allow them to be on the scale in the year their in for 2013.i think it only further hurts this league to force everyone to pay for the mistakes of the rules not being changed any sooner i also think that if were not gonna allow people to change the contract then we shouldnt allow the rule to change at all cuz now people have years of being stuck with that when clearly its a stupid rule and moving forward were deffinately going to change it to some effect.its not like theres 1-2 owners who benefit from this rule change and everyone else is gettin screwed otherwise i wouldnt like changing it either but it helps a majority of the league who have signed DPs leading up to this there should be no question of bias here i think i probaly have the least to gain from this situation as I can afford it either way and always put the interest of the league as my first priority maybe im crazy but i agreed with mike the first time around on this i agree with mike still and im gonng agree with mike on this for the rest of the time being

[Marlins GM (Kevin)]

Yes but for someone who had the money to bid on straily bidding 1yr 11M to outbid you is way easier for them to do than 5yr 55M. There is no arguing this and if I had had the money and I knew it was a 1 year thing I woulda bid way more than 11M. And as for being stuck with a huge and stupid contract I am sorry but that is your own damn fault for going that high. If you don't wanna pay someone don't sign them. And on a side note I personally think all FA should be bid on blindly.

[Marlins GM (Kevin)]

An option could be to allow people to decide if they want their guy to be rebid upon so long as that guy hasn't been traded. I signed Feldman but I could careless if he hits scale or sticks to the contract I gave him.

[Deleted]

kevin i dont care about the contract its the principle of the matter here i could careless about paying him 10M a season or 100M a season i have the money to do it its not that first of all i dealt him yesterday and i cleared this up with mike 1000 times to make sure it was ok so this kindve issue didnt arise second of all i truely believe that every single DP should be put on the scale seeing as there young usually unproven players that are huge risks and not normal FA not to mention i think anyone would agree that the way the system was setup was completely stupid so were gonna leave the system as is for every person who had to deal with it? fine if thats how the league wants to handle it but i personally think thats a stupid idea instead of allowing people to just place these guys in the year there suppose to be in

not to mention what diffrence does it make at this point? the season is over were fixing this moving forward and that would be the best quickest most fail safe plan to fix this retarded rule
if were gonna leave the contracts previous to the rule unchanged then the rule stays the same and oh well cuz noone wants to let go of the fact that a few players are cheaper now and the owners arent stuck manuevering those contracts but if im paying straily 10M for 5 years and getting screwed on a deal i waited 3 days to go through then russ is paying the 43M for 4 years he bid on mccarthy everyone else is staying the same and the rule shouldnt be touched moving forward cuz its not fair to me and people who have DPs to switch the rule now and leave those guys alone when clearly it wasnt a good way to handle them

but like i said before i agree with what mike did the first time and im gonna agree with whatever is decided but i think this is just a stupid way to fix a stupid rule to just leave the contracts effected by this rule alone and fix it for other people why some of us have to deal with the stupid rule moving forward for years


and again i dont care if pay straily for 20 years 10M a season i have it to do it thats why i bid it but i dont think it was a good system to start i dont think its a good system now just leaving it be and i think its a dumb way to handle this issue instead of doing the logical thing and fixing the problem caused by the rule and then fixing the actual rule itself

im done speaking on this topic and i think mike had it down pact the first time around which he made pretty clear already so i agree with that

[Marlins GM (Kevin)]

I agree on the scale thing but I don't agree with going back and fixing things that previously happened due to the fact that the bidding could have easily ended up different with someone else put bidding you if they knew it was only for 1 year. The new rule was made after the fact so we should technically go back to the beginning and fix others too and that is where I agree with royals. The rule was made after you signed Straily therefore it shouldn't count for straily.

[White Sox GM (Michael)]

Okay, my new idea:

The main reason for doing the rule was the fact that DPs are a nice, clean rule that should apply to all players.

In 2013, for those DPs, there will be a fee of whatever his scheduled contract will be, in addition to the regular player scale. If the player is traded, only the player scale salary will go with him.

[Deleted]

see i knew mike could come up with a reasonable solution rather then just say

"ohh welll too bad for the guys before"

Mike once again i agree with your decision before i agree with your idea now and i hope this can just bring a quick and easy solution to this problem

[Diamondbacks GM (Jason)]

I still don't think this is much different then the other rule. Straily again is used because he was a high money player, and it is where there will be the biggest difference. To me this new rule is the same thing especially since straily is already being traded.

This is a case of "too bad for the guys before" all owners new they were bidding, and they have to live with those choices. I made some bad contracts in FA and was able to move some of them, but there should not be a way for me to just remove those contracts completely. All DPs up to mccarthy should still keep their current contracts.

I feel this creates a slippery slope, as whenever there is a rule change in midseason we will have to go back and retroactively change all the other players or teams that were affected by the new rule. To me i feel like i am being objective, as either way I didn't have enough money to bid on straily. It just sets a bad precedent to change things that have already been done.

If this is becoming a nuisance maybe just mike and alex could discuss it together and come to a final decision.

[White Sox GM (Michael)]

I have to say, the constant back-and-forth in the ruling is getting tiring, probably to everyone. I appreciate your concern, and I will talk with Tigers.

About Straily being dealt, his fee isn't going with him. It's only the player scale that Giants would receive, not the extra $10m.

[Deleted]

I am a little behind here, just seeing this thread, but I have to say something. I was always under the assumption that free agency was to place bids on players----- and pay whatever salary you bid and for how long you wanted to pay him.

The ONLY players, in my opinion, that should have a bid fee for their services is international free agents.

DP players, like in Straily's case, that is unowned by any team but on a major league roster, should have been placed in a special thread called " Claimed DPs". The thread should be left open for 5 days in which any team can make a claim, and then a team who didn't put a claim would pick a number between 1-50, and teams would send that team a number, and with whoever has gotten closest to the number wins that player. The 1st team that put the claim in would only have to pick a number between 1-25.

I am only saying this because, a lot of teams, myself included, doesn't have 10m in cap space to throw away on a DP player- even I was under the assumption that free agency was just that- a place where you bid a certain amount of money and for however long you wanted to pay, and you paid it.