POLL #4- Should option years be permitted? (Read 818 times)

[Deleted]

Would need additional vote to agree on specifics. On table is an option year, for 1-2 players at $15-25 + base salary for one time only. Player would be RFA with no option next season

[Deleted]

I like the "franchise tag" or "qualifying offer" idea. If someone signs a prospect 5 years ago and he finally pans out in the 5th year...it would be nice that the owner that originally signed him would get to enjoy him for one more year before he goes up to $50+.

[Bobby]

Is this for all RFAs? end of a 1 yr contract? end of a 5yr contract? That were prospects when originally signed?

[Deleted]

This is for expired contracts only, would need to decide between 1 or 2, and cost of it. Would only allow once and following year player is an RFA

[Yankees]

So this is kinda like a qualifying franchise tag for two dudes then they hit the market!!

[Deleted]

still needs votes here from Giants, Rockies, A's

[lewjo]

By itself, I like the idea

Given the complexity of the RFA.UFA rules in this league, I am leaning to voting no.

Will this help non-playoff teams get better faster, or help the great teams stay great?

[lewjo]

Using Mike and the ex-Marlins as an example:

- He starts the year with less superstars (or more roster holes) than other teams (a mess he inherited).

If he is able to protect either one or two of Cole and Edwin, he can aggressively pursue other RFA's without retribution to those protected guys, and with more cap space than under the current rules.

Now I am leaning to a yes vote.

Does anyone see a disadvantage to a non-playoff team?

[lewjo]

The more I thought about it, the more I like it. It takes some players off the RFA board, which means there likely won't be as many bargains slipping through the cracks.

At what point do you determine your franchise players?

Using 2015 rosters as an example, if I traded RFA rights for Harper and Rizzo to the new Mets prior to RFA bidding on Feb 8, would Mets be able to designate these as his franchise player(s)?

(I would think so)

[Deleted]

We will need to decide on 1-2, but can only be done once and then following year player is RFA

[Bobby]

Perhaps we help the non playoff teams with 2 and the playoff teams limited to one.

[lewjo]

Feb 22, 2016 10:18:36 GMT -8 @gododgers said:

We will need to decide on 1-2, but can only be done once and then following year player is RFA

So no matter who or when (or if) that franchise player is traded to, they will be an RFA the following season.

I like Bobby's idea of 2 per non-playoff team, one per playoff team.

[Yankees]

The way I've read it if you franchise tag someone for the one year the next you lose rights and they are UFA. That's the price of one year the rights to match. I think it's an intriguing change. You have to decide to roll the dice see if you can match for another multi year or keep for a year and lose rights.

[Deleted]

Lots of angles to decide here, and we need to see if this is approved regardless. We will need to see a couple of votes minimum

[Deleted]

Measure for options has passed with 8 votes for, 5 votes against, 1 non-vote
additional polls to come to decide specifics