We are knocking on the door of free agency again and it looks to be an exciting year. Presigns are in and the newest batch of Franchise Players have been tagged. But this year is a bit different. As we head into Free Agency, few teams have sufficient money to do what they would like to do. Teams are finding themselves with 9 open roster slots and $21, with a fairly big free agent to try and match. The fact is, there are more Free Agents this year and less money. This will create an interesting dynamic in the FA bidding. It could be a Bull market for the few teams who have money to spend, as there should be good players going for far less than they would in a typical year. Deflation has occurred this offseason in Habla. I think there are at least 3 main reasons why this has happened.
1. Good, deep draft class.
This is one of the better, deeper draft classes in a few years. What result does this have on cheaper free agents? More owners want to hold onto and use their picks, which creates less money for them to use on Free Agents. It it was a meager year for the draft, we would see less picks used and more revenue available for the Free Agents (by all means, not a complaint, just an observation).
2. Meager carry over from last year.
A quick read of the money carried over from last year shows how competitive and pricey last years offseason was. In a given year, a handful of teams generally carry over the maximum ($35) or close to it. This year, the most carried over was $24 and only 4 teams carried over $20 or more. A record 5 teams came into this year with a negative carry over. What is perhaps most astonishing, 17 teams carried over between $0 and $10. That is a very low carry over, which gives teams less money to work with this season.
3. More and Better Free Agents.
This isn't scientific, but doesn't it just feel like there are more free agents available this offseason? That there are so many that not all can get what they are worth? I think we are seeing the results of the good drafts we had 6-10 years ago. Those players are getting older and becoming free agents, and our economy is adjusting.
In conclusion, it looks to be a very exciting year. If you have money...bid away. You won't have much competition and will likely not get matched. If you are short on money...do your best to fill you roster and maintain those precious players you want to keep. We may see this happen again next year.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I think one important factor was overlooked and it is a concern I have mentioned. The $ situation in this league was great but there was one small change that in my opinion has caused a slow drain on the money. That was when the minium price of bidding went from $1 to $3. Before if you had 6 openings you could bid on roster fillers and replace them for $6. Now it cost you at least $18. No problem if you can find roster fills from another owner for lower then the $3 tag though. But, there is a need for roster fills every season so there is now a cycle of money drain that can't be stopped. I personally see the money situation needing a change of either raising the $50 a team gets or going back to the old rules. FA market is about to expand in my view as the influx of players that were added to league about 8 years ago hit the FA mark.
I'd rather that be a feeding frenzy then wishful thinking
Gary/Expos
Point is I'd rather pay $1 for a player that will never see the field and spend that extra $2 for FA bidding or matching for players that will.
I do not see a real problem you just have to plan ahead and really stay on your toes with finances. Also teams have to decide if they want to pursue older FAs or invest in the ammy draft. To me this is very realistic since most real life major league teams (not in the AL East ;)) have do this every season. The choice is do you go for FAs and try to win now or do you invest in the ammy and try to win in a few seasons. There were a boatload of 1st round picks availible in this years ammy draft as a few teams had as many as 4 picks in the first round!!!! Also several teams did not take advantage of signing players to INACT during the season. Jeff said over and over again during the season look at your team and your FA/cash situation and sign guys to INACT so you can fill spots at seasons end. Some teams took the wise advice and others did not. Are the days guys going for over $40 gone? Probably but a good GM with a little planning and foresight can still do what they want whether it be rebuild or go for it all. If you look at teams money after presigns most fall in the 30-50 dollar range which basically means you could sign a 1st rounder and probably match one FA off your team and fill the rest of the roster. Also this season several teams had a ton of FAs those GMs that planned ahead are not in that bad of a situation. I had 15 FAs this season which had to be highest amount or pretty close to the most. I also, unless someone makes a trade, will have the most money going into FA bidding. I also am down to needing only 7 or 8 spots to fill. I got to that lower number by having a presign, moved 5 guys from INACT (wish I had signed a few more during the season)and obtaining a few bodies in trades. Granted I did not have any ammy picks in the first round but I decided I wanted to focus on FAs not ammys. This system has been in use now for at least 5 seasons and by now most GMs should know how to handle it. I think Jeff realized the potenial for problems and that is why the whole INACT thing was started. Again if people choose to ignore the changes Jeff made to help teams at seasons end and/or plan ahead then those that do plan ahead should not be penalized. my 1/2 cent for what it is worth.
Felix-FLA
Signing Inactive players is the key. You get guys for $1 or really $2 which isn't too bad, particularly if you can trade them at the season's end to the team that needs to fill slots.
From the way it was used I think it will likely be given another full year as a pilot, with teams being able to have up to ten players on that status.
It also allows you to send your own guys to the Inactive if you want to get newer talent.
There are no waivers required from 9/1 through 5/1 calendar year, and this is the time, the draft and fa time when you can get stronger players and send your 'reserve' players down at no risk.
Furthermore, the ability to keep up to ten of these guys give any team the ability to come back from almost any scenario which involves retirments, FA woes or any other roster player.
I planned on using a few inactive players to play for me, and one may to give me depth at catcher, a position where I have a potential FA next year. Is he a great player, no, but if I bring him up I have another body I don't have to worry about for a few years. Also, I can send him back down at no penalty to my inactive system, wihch I view as an expanded minor league system.
Jeff
If a team receives money from a "Free Agent" signing, that player is not a free agent. Teams have to make decisions and manage rosters. Being a winner in this league, and in many other leagues is not just putting out the best nine this year. It is putting out the best nine over a number of years.
The monetary system adds a strategic layer to the game that in my opinion makes it far more interesting.
I know many people feel it should be "Kept Simple". However, I prefer my strategy games a bit more in depth than tic-tac-toe. What makes our league compelling is the career option, and the financial system that our league use is its bedrock. It is not overly complicate, but it is challenging, and allows for good strategists to fare well, maybe not every year, but to be able to produce winning teams on a consistent basis in periods.
Jeff
I totally agree Jeff :)
After reading this, I certainly agree with Gary. Minimum bids should only be $1. $3 is rediculous. It is such a struggle every year for teams to fill out rosters. This is not realistic. $1 is pleanty for, as Gary said, players who will never play.
When are we going back to $1?
I hope we never go back to the $1 FAs. It makes it to easy for the good teams to stay good. I think the INACT program Jeff thought up is brillent and just needs to be used more.
Felix-FLA
Want to curb free agency spending? Make the winning team give up a draft pick. If the winning team bids over $20, they have to give up a 1st round draft, and so on.
That will do 2 things: It will make teams think twice about bidding a ton of money on 1 player, and it will help out the team that loses the free agent.
Just a thought, but one that I think should be looked into.
Mark
GM-Cubs
$1 bids will never come back. Perhaps in the ammy draft a fifth rounder could go to $1, but don't expect to sign a player for $1.
If you want a cheap player, grab him for $1 and then pay $1 and activate him at the end of the season.
It's the SAME rules for everyone and making it too easy to retain your roster means one thing...good teams stay good without a challenge.
Everyone feels the pinch...deal with it.
IF $1 players were around the team with the best nine would have one or two reserve players, FP their best, presign their top players and save all thier money for matching the other players and then fill the roste with junk. The result would be that the strongest teams would never have the risk of losing a star player.
In all honesty, I have stated numerous times that Franchise Players and presigns are BAD for league balance, but the majority of the league does not want this, and I won't push too far. I know how to compromise. However, if you wanted a really exciting league that continuously had teams scratching to win get rid of the FP tag, don't allow presigns, and don't allow guaranteed matching. That would be in my honest opinion the BEST system as it would truly be a test of the ability to take a team over the long haul. Four year contracts are not overly common in MLB, and having all players locked in for four years inherently allows for a great deal of stability, which has benefits if you are good, but makes it much harder for teams that want to make a move.
Let me give you an example,and for a moment, PRETEND that my team was a contender.
Here's my FA situation for the next few years:
2031
C Turner - on the trade block
SS McDougald on the trade block
1b Pepitone traded pending approval
P Harren Presign
P Marshall teaded pending approval.
2031
OF Maldonado - will be traded
C Notel will likely resign for $3
3b Smith buh bye
2b Alfonzo will either trade or risk
1b Maybry buh bye
C Steinbach will trade if LoDuca fares well or take the risk
P Wegman buh bye
P Smiley presign
2033
P Hernandez trade for cash
P Bartosh trade
P McDowell presign
2034
OF Duncan FP
OF Lofton will trade
OF Swisher presign
SS Schroeder will trade
As you can see by being skillful in who to bring up and when they are brought up I lose nothing by letting some FA's go. However, assume that I can't presign anyone and not tag or match anyone. If I had a star studded team I would have some rough times ahead regardless of what action I took. I would need to develop solid prospects to replace a Haren. The current system does some good in encouraging a strategic long term view a la Connie Mack of the Philadelphia A's one of the greatest baseball minds of all time, but a NONRESTRICTED system would be a truer challenge of the skill you have as a GM. While I am not dissatisfied with our current system, going to $1 FA's would be a horrible move. Teams that are on the top would never go down.
Look at HABLA history for the first 15 seasons the league was DOMINATED by three or four teams and I was one of them. Had it NOT been for the radical changes this league made with BIdding for Free Agency I don't think my team, Seattle, San Francisco and perhaps LA would EVER have not been in the playoffs. As it was it took my team about five seasons to fall down from being a perrenial league power; I went over 20 years without going under .500 and won 16 titles in the NL East in a row. Want to know how many owners we lost in those years A LOT, why...they coldn't win.
Our current financial system should have changed to the full unrestricted model back then, but I was conservative, and I know how much people don't like change, that also is part of HABLA's appeal. We are VERY conservative and the changes we make are usually fully discussed, and are implemented typically after a pilot with a large amount of consensus. All I can say is even with this system the same paradigm pretty much exists. Look at the standings for the last few years and you will usually see the same faces. THe reason is they know the loopholes of the system, which is fair, but CLOSING LOOPHOLES is the correct function of leadership and in the long run, just as our original change, will make for parity for all, not just a select few.
Our first system in retrospect was an F. Our current model is a B-, it is good, but good is the enemy, and this is just opinion, of great.
Think of any objections to removing FP's PRESIGNS and Matching and behind it you will see it is based on always wanting to win, wihch of course is part of the reason we play, but balance that with the feeling of a team that is weak, but not awful. THe only way for a team to get better currently is to tank seasons and lose 100 games for five to ten years, and then try to make a run, but sadly, many of the more saavy owners then feed off the fish and secure the best stars by trading fading stars. Hey, we're all big boys here, but more than one champion team has been built by purposely ripping off owners on trades that on the face are fair, but an experienced GM knows he is getting away with highway robbery.
Unrestricted markets with reasonable regulation for the protection of all lead to real competition and over the long haul a level playing field.
I don't think teams should be punished for signing FA's and I don't think teams should be rewarded for losing them. You can always outbid your competitor.
Jeff
Two FA bids of over $10. Boggs for only $12 and Hodges $17.
SS Reyes only $5.
Wasn't that long ago they would of gotten at least double that.
Great players and in the end instead of a feeding frenzy we get
wishful thinking.
Where has the fun and money gone?
Last was by me.
Gary/Expos
Post a Comment